Sitting of 19 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 on Thursday 16 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions have taken place on the introduction of identity cards.
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): We keep this issue under constant review. I fully appreciate the widespread support which exists for a national identity card scheme.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I suggest that Ministers stop trying to sell a national identity card scheme on the basis that it would be a tool to deal with social security fraud—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Conservative Members should wait. Despite the lobby that wants to insert an element of political correctness into the debate, is not the truth that a national identity card scheme could enhance civil liberties, be a major tool in tracking down crime, particularly tax fraud, and also be of immeasurable benefit to people needing emergency medical treatment?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has identified a number of advantages that an identity card could have. As he knows, there are considerable practical difficulties and we are trying to find ways to overcome them.
    Mr. Gale: Given that a properly designed identity card could be used as a travel document throughout the European Union, as a passport for pensions and social benefits and to carry medical and banking information, that people in the Press Gallery, hon. Members, servants of the House and many other people in many walks of life already carry identity cards, that the honest person has nothing to fear from carrying an identity card, and that the introduction of such a scheme has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation, will my right hon.
    940
    and learned Friend bring forward in the next Session of Parliament the measures necessary to introduce such a scheme?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an even more compelling case than the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). However, the practical difficulties still need to be overcome. My hon. Friend was not, perhaps, entirely accurate in his description of the organisations which support the introduction of an identity card, but I readily accept that there is widespread support for such a scheme.
    Mr. Spellar: Why does the Home Secretary not come clean and admit that the identity card is a political gimmick with a huge cost? His Department's figures show that a scheme would cost £475 million to set up and £50 million to £100 million per year to run. Will he reflect on the figures produced by his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, which show that council tax registers record a 34 per cent. turnover each year? Would that not result in enormous administrative problems? Those are the real practical difficulties and costs of the scheme.
    Mr. Howard: I do not conceal from the House that there are practical difficulties. However, the hon. Gentleman would have had a most effective answer to the points that he raised in the early part of his question had he been able to see the number of his hon. Friends shaking their heads as he spoke.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many organisations are now exploring different technologies for smart ID cards? If the Government act quickly they could co-ordinate that activity and produce a card that would have widespread application in the years ahead.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which I assure him is not lost on the Government.
    Mr. Allen: Before the Home Secretary is tempted to snatch at a panacea and cure-all for all the things that are wrong with society, will he heed those who have strong reservations in principle about identity cards, those who feel that they could be discriminatory and those who make the case that professional criminals could easily evade the use of such cards? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further, will he conduct some serious Home Office research? If he then intends to bring proposals before the House, will he ensure that it is on the basis of an all-party consensus?
    Mr. Howard: Given the difference of views expressed in the past two minutes, it would be difficult to strike a consensus that would satisfy everyone.
    Mr. Skinner: It would.
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). At the end of the day, we will have to make a decision on the matter, but I can certainly give an undertaking to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that we will listen to all the views that are expressed.

    Obscene Publications Branch
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the future of the obscene publications branch; and what view he expressed at that meeting.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): My right hon. and learned Friend discussed this matter with the Metropolitan police commissioner on 25 April at one of their periodic private meetings.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that speculation about the future of the obscene publications branch will be greeted with glee by the paedophiles and pornographers? Does he agree that the sooner a statement is made that that branch will continue to do the wonderful work that it has been doing and that it will not be broken up or divided, the better it will be for reducing pornography and other unfortunate things that happen in this country?
    Mr. Wardle: I shall seek to reassure my hon. Friend even now. There is no question of any relaxation in the fight by the Metropolitan police against pornography. The opposite is the case. The commissioner is examining the way in which all his special operations are organised to see whether there are more effective ways of doing the job. It has to be good management sense to see whether the police can crack down even more effectively on obscene publications and paedophilia.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce the growth of drug abuse.
    Mr. Howard: The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of, and the demand for, drugs. Key elements in the strategy include increasing the effectiveness of enforcement, developing prevention measures, publicity and education, and improving the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that clear answer. Has he seen the evidence from parts of the world where cannabis has been legalised? It has resulted in a rapid increase in the consumption of both hard and soft drugs, a massive increase in health costs and an escalation of crime out of all proportion to that which existed before. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will have none of the nonsense peddled by some Opposition Members that cannabis should be legalised in Britain? It sounds as though they have been taking it.
    Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance without equivocation. I entirely agree with the points that he has made.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Home Secretary aware of the specific dangers attributed to the continued use of so-called poppers? Is he further aware of the research done in the United States which clearly shows that the free use of so-called poppers reduces the effectiveness of the immune system? In the light of representations made, for example,
    942
    by Staffordshire county council and other authorities, what action does the Home Secretary envisage taking to ban the use of these dangerous substances?
    Mr. Howard: I am aware of some of the incidents which have occurred in Staffordshire and elsewhere involving the misuse of substances such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are considering carefully whether the action he suggests as appropriate should be taken.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in dealing with drugs, as with other crimes, it is not sufficient simply to talk about being tough on crime and the causes of crime, but it is necessary also to be tough on criminals?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is horrific that children, sometimes as young as 11, are gaining access to drugs even within the school gates? Does he accept, as the police say, that the problem is likely to get worse with the introduction of highly violent and organised crime rings from the former eastern Europe? Does he agree that if we do not put in place the proper strategy to fight drug abuse, the fight against crime will be hugely hindered?
    Mr. Howard: I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the instances of supply of drugs to young children are horrific. I also agree that we have to be on our guard to ensure that the problem is not aggravated by the influx of either drugs or weapons from eastern Europe. We have a strategy in place which adopts a comprehensive approach to the problems relating to drugs and we are examining it to see to what extent it can be improved.

    Secure Training Centres
    Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish details of the proposed secure training centres for young offenders.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I intend shortly to place in the Library of the House a copy of the operating specification for the new centres.
    Mr. Coe: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that people in my constituency, as in all other constituencies, are angry and tired of having their homes broken into, their cars stolen and often burnt out and their hard-earned property burgled. Does he recognise that the need for secure centres is more important than ever before and that the thrust of activity in those centres must concentrate on rehabilitation, education and training, but above all on counteracting offensive and offending behaviour?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the experts at the sharp end—the police—have given a complete and total welcome to our proposals that action can be taken against 12 to 14-year-olds who are currently outwith the law. My hon. Friend is also right that in the special centres for young persistent offenders we intend to concentrate on training, rehabilitation and addressing the offending behaviour. We can do that only if

    943
    we take the offenders away from the street corners and get them into specialist centres where specialists can give them the training that they need.
    Mr. Gunnell: As the professionals dealing with young people are generally opposed to the proposals, which will separate children from their families by great distances, and as the centres will not be able to offer the national curriculum, how does the Minister intend to overcome those defects? Does he accept that in the past other methods have proved much more effective than the Government's experiments to combat youth crime?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Nothing like this has been tried before. That is why it is wrong for certain people to give the impression that the centres are mini-prisons; they are not that at all. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest possible way, that I should, be more willing to listen to his point were it not for the complete inconsistency shown by the Opposition recently. In this Chamber, there was no all-out assault by the Opposition against the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill dealing with young offenders, but in another place, the whole Opposition Front Bench tried to remove entirely the clauses dealing with young offenders.

    Right to Silence
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he gives to reform of the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his plans to abolish the right to silence.
    Mr. Maclean: Current restrictions on drawing proper inferences from a suspect's silence are repugnant to common sense and open to exploitation by experienced criminals. I attach a high priority to our reforms of the so-called right to silence rules.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend think that our reform of right to silence is one of the measures that the chairman of the Police Federation had in mind when he said yesterday:
    "Our Home Secretary is more in tune with the Police Federation than any other Home Secretary for 30 years"?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, I am aware of that remark. I am sure that in the spirit of fairness the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) intended to make that quotation available to the House as well. In addition, the Police Federation has written to me about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill saying:
    "If the measures contained in this Bill are implemented, they will enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, successfully bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of society."
    That is the police view; it is the Government's view as well.
    Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend find it rather odd, as I do, that a person accused of serious fraud has to provide information under threat of a penalty while a person accused of a criminal offence can remain silent? Does he
    944
    agree that the guilty are the only people who are worried and frightened about the removal of the right to silence and is it not common sense to see it go?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but it is not merely the police who agree that those changes to the so-called right to silence are essential. The Lord Chief Justice confirmed that our proposals are absolutely right, saying:
    "I do not think the proposed measures are unfair. On the contrary I think they introduce an element of common sense and realism which has been sadly lacking hitherto."
    And so say all of us.
    Mr. Gerrard: How can the Minister justify his proposals to allow an adverse inference to be drawn if a person remains silent when questioned not by police officers but by people who may be completely untrained, such as private security officers or store detectives? Is that not guaranteed to lead to more miscarriages of justice?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Nor did the House accept it, as I seem to recall that on Third Reading the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill received a majority of 176 votes in this Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—I know that some of them voted against it, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others—and the Opposition Front Bench had thought that that part of the Bill was so reprehensible I am sure that they would have voted against it.
    Mr. Trimble: May I refer the Minister to the speech in another place by the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland? In relation to the Northern Ireland provisions on which the measure is based, he said that he had heard no complaints from the Bar in Northern Ireland about its operation? May I also refer the Minister to the report published this week which shows that the operation of the legislation in Northern Ireland has made very little impact on the system there, thus disproving the alarmist stories put about here and reinforcing our point that his proposals are modest? What should be done is seriously to address the right to silence, properly so called, to ensure that it is modified for certain persons in certain categories.
    Mr. Maclean: I do not entirely accept that the proposals are modest, but they are not so draconian or radical as some people who are trying to damage the Bill make out. A lot of crystal ball gazing has been going on about the so-called right to silence, which I find quite unnecessary because if one looks at the Northern Ireland experience one can read the book, and it is a book that has worked. We should be guided by what the Lord Chief Justice said, based on the experience in the courts there.

    Crime (Departmental Policy)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in implementing his 27 points to tackle crime.
    Mr. Howard: Nineteen of those 27 measures are being taken forward in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Five do not require legislation and are being implemented administratively. I hope to legislate on the remaining three as soon as a suitable opportunity is available.
    Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that record so far and add to the congratulations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on the remarks made by the chairman of the Police Federation. May we have a war on the thugs and criminals who attack our police officers and believe that they can get away scot free? May we also ensure that every police officer has adequate protection and offensive weapons to stop the attacks ever taking place, because thugs will know that the treatment that they receive will be much harsher than the treatment that they hand out to police officers?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am determined to ensure that our police officers, who face the gravest dangers and risks on our behalf, day in and day out and night in and night out, are properly equipped to face those risks. That was why I authorised the extra measures that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis announced on Monday and why at the Police Federation conference yesterday I made an announcement about the progress of our trials in relation to batons. I am determined to do what is necessary to ensure that our police officers are properly equipped.
    Mr. Simpson: If the Home Secretary is concerned about crime prevention, why does he insist on taking funding out of projects such as the Nottingham wheelbase project which, at a cost of less than £50 per young person per week, has a high success rate in deterring young people from crime? Why does he withdraw funding from preventive projects and divert it, leaving the community-based approach ill prepared and underfunded?
    Mr. Howard: We have always made it clear that the safer cities programmes would not be permanent in any particular place. We wanted to show what could be done in particular cities and then to move on and demonstrate that elsewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, given his concern for these matters, will be the first to congratulate the Government on the fact that spending on crime prevention increased to £240 million last year from £200 million the year before—an increase of no less than 20 per cent.—without taking into account any part of the £6 billion per year spent by the police on crime prevention.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the new stop and search powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill represent a major breakthrough after 10 years of argument as to how best the police can tackle the difficult problem of knives and sharp pointed weapons? Does he agree that it is a triumph for the whole House to have recognised that difficult problem and given the police the powers that they need to deal with it?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay particular tribute to the part that he played in drawing the need for extra legislation to the attention of the House. I am satisfied that the additional powers are needed and that they will prove an effective reinforcement of the powers already available to the police. If we are determined to make progress in the fight against crime, we must ensure that our police have the powers that they need. That is something that I am determined to provide.
    Mr. Hoon: Will the Home Secretary be bringing forward a list of the number of policy U-turns he has been forced to make since announcing his 27-point plan?
    Mr. Howard: The answer is none whatever. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go through the 27 points, he will find that there have been no changes in any of those 27 points save in one very minor respect relating to the right to silence.

    Pornography
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to combat the trade in computer-generated pornography; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: We are taking a number of steps in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to ensure that the legislation to control pornography can keep pace with changing technology.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend recognise the need to stay one jump ahead of criminals who seek to exploit technology for their own advantage? Will he confirm that the proposed measures will take into account the latest developments in computing?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes. I believe that the measures that we have taken in the Bill, many of them within days or weeks of the Select Committee on Home Affairs reporting, will deal with all aspects of computer pornography. We are still turning our attention to two issues: international transmission from foreign countries, and advertising. Apart from those two, however—and they are not germane to dealing with the main problems of computer technology —the measures in the Bill will deal with all aspects of computer pornography in whatever shape or form that vile trade takes now or in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: If the Minister is so anxious to quote the chairman of the Police Federation, why did he not accept the federation's proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to strengthen the laws on computer pornography? Does he accept that the comments made by the chairman of the Police Federation yesterday about the Home Secretary ended with a reference to what the chairman perceived as the greatest threat to policing in a generation in the current inquiry into the core functions of policing, which the general secretary of the federation said could lead to a reduction in the number of police officers from 126,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade if the Government get their way?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make bricks without straw, but I congratulate him on his courage in being the only Opposition Member to stand up and quote the police today. The Opposition have been quoting the police for the past 12 months, but since the chairman of the Police Federation said yesterday that the current Home Secretary is more in tune with the police than any Home Secretary in the past 30 years, I suspect that the Opposition will be dropping the idea of such quotations like hot bricks.
    I am confident that, before the Bill leaves the Palace of Westminster, all the concerns about computer pornography will be addressed and we shall have a comprehensive measure to deal with that vile trade.

    Cautioning Guidelines
    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has had to the new guidelines on cautioning; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: The new cautioning guidelines have been widely welcomed. The early indications are that they are already starting to have the intended effect.
    Mr. Sykes: Will the Home Secretary promise that his welcome statement marks an end to the scandalous string of cautions that have only encouraged crime? Is he aware of the widespread support for adopting some of the measures used in Singapore for successfully dealing with crime?
    Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the cautioning guidelines will have the effect to which my hon. Friend referred, but the measures taken in Singapore go somewhat further than the cautioning guidelines that I have so far authorised.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Home Secretary join me in reminding the House that the first caution has had a remarkable success rate, in that some 87 per cent. have not re-offended after a first cautioning? Will he also remind the House of the pressure from the Opposition for a reduction in the number of inappropriate second and subsequent cautions? Why has he not also accepted the constructive proposals that we have put forward to deal immediately with the causes of offending and nip things in the bud as soon as a second offence is committed?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the first caution has an important part to play, and nothing in my new guidance detracts from the first caution in appropriate cases. I confess that I do not recall being under great pressure from the Opposition to issue revised cautioning guidelines. Perhaps that appeared in the 10th footnote to page 103 of one of the hon. Gentleman's briefing notes. We must of course take the causes of crime seriously and take action to deal with them, but it is action, not slogans, which matter, and the Government are taking the necessary action.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his measures to review the guidelines for cautioning are welcome, as the public are sick of seeing hardened youngsters being cautioned again and again? Do not the courts also have a role in the cautioning of parents? Should not we remind the courts of the considerable powers that they have enjoyed for some time now lo bind over parents whose children persistently offend?
    Mr. Howard: The formal caution normally takes place in the presence of parents, so they see the extent to which their children are at risk if they continue to offend. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken a number of measures, including those in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, to increase the responsibility that parents must bear for the offences of their children, and which make them responsible in certain circumstances for the failure of their children to comply with the requirements of supervision orders.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of prisoners being held in police cells.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Refurbished accommodation at Manchester and Durham prisons has been brought back into use and other measures have been taken. Those have helped to reduce the number of prisoners in police cells from 540 in mid-March to 142 on 16 May.
    Mr. Bennett: Welcome though that reduction is, does the Minister accept that the use of police cells is totally inappropriate for remanding convicted prisoners and reduces the efficiency of the police force? Given that the past three Home Secretaries have promised that the practice would stop 12 months ago, is not it appalling that it is still going on?
    Mr. Wardle: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question without alluding to the fact that the problem arose in the north-west because of a prison riot in Manchester four years ago, when 1,600 places were destroyed. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will concentrate on the fact that Manchester prison's population is building up again, locked out prisoners are being taken in at the rate of 60 a week there and Doncaster prison will open next month with an extra 779 places. So the use of prison cells for that purpose should shortly be unnecessary.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend give the House the assurance that he will press ahead with the utmost vigour with the prison building programme? Without more spaces, we shall not be able to put behind bars people of the type that the British public want to see there.
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will not have eluded him that on a number of occasions in recent months my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made telling speeches in which he has said that prison works. At the same time, the prison population has been going up, and crime figures have been coming down a little.
    Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister admit that the peak figures he has given for the use of police cells—those for March—were occasioned by the fact that the Prison Service tried to meet the Home Secretary's target of 31 March for ending the practice of having three prisoners to a cell? Does he accept that the number of prisoners being doubled up in cells is rising relentlessly month after month and that prison officers are now expressing deep concern about the fact that current levels of overcrowding undermine the rehabilitation regime for prisoners and endanger the safety of prison officers?
    Mr. Wardle: It would no doubt have been helpful to the House if the hon. Lady had reminded us that in 1987,5,000 prisoners were held three to a cell, whereas none are now. Thus, progress is being made. The hon. Lady is right in that in some cases additional accommodation can be used—a further 3,700 places, I think—on the basis of operational maximum usage.
    Mr. Garnier: May I invite my hon. Friend to visit Gartree prison, which is in my constituency. There he will see that money is being well used to expand an

    949
    establishment where the prisoners are not overcrowded, where Prison Officers Association staff enjoy good working relations with the management and where many Opposition Members might have a happy stay.
    Mr. Wardle: I am sure that if I do not get an opportunity to take up my hon. Friend's kind invitation, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the prison building programme has worked, we have got rid of the problem of three in a cell, as we were advised to do, and the system is working far better than before.
    Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the Minister's optimism about the prison building programme, may I ask whether he is now prepared to sink his plan for prison ships?
    Mr. Wardle: That is no more than a contingency plan. There are contingency plans in any well-run organisation. I should have liked to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the plans for Fazakerley prison, a privately financed establishment that will be only the second prison in Merseyside. There are more in Kent. The House will be aware that Lord Woolf said a few years ago that it is better to accommodate prisoners not on prison ships but as near as possible to their families. That is what Fazakerley will be all about. It is a good illustration.

    Police, Cheshire
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit the Cheshire constabulary to discuss his current legislative proposals affecting the police; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I visited Blacon police station, in my hon. Friend's constituency on 9 May, where I had the opportunity to discuss a wide range of questions with the local police.
    Mr. Brandreth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit the fine community of Blacon and for taking time to talk to the police and members of the community about their concerns. Is he aware of the fact that in the city of Chester the crime rate is now down and the detection rate up? The police officers in Chester welcome every addition to their armoury in the fight against crime—a fight which they are waging with increasing success.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. The police officers I met in Blacon were keen to tell me about their progress in the fight against crime and of the high regard in which my hon. Friend is held.
    Mr. Miller: It is a pity that while the Home Secretary was visiting my constituency—he was launching the European campaign of the local candidate, who is likely to fail—he did not take the trouble to meet the chief constable. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman congratulate Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council on the work that it is doing, in conjunction with many local companies, to dissuade young people from getting involved in dangerous activities that take up the time of railway police and the fire brigade and inconvenience many businesses? Will he also congratulate the "Pioneer" newspaper on its work on drugs?
    Mr. Howard: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the occasion that took me to his constituency—the launch of the candidacy of David Senior, the excellent Conservative candidate for that Euro-seat—was extremely well attended. All those who were present will be campaigning vigorously for Mr. Senior as soon as the current truce is over.

    Crime Prevention Schemes
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to fund crime prevention schemes.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The Government already fund and support a significant number of programmes and projects linked to crime prevention. In line with the manifesto commitment, 10 new safer cities projects have been set up and a total of up to 40 are planned.
    Mr. Soley: Is not it time to adopt a coherent strategy on crime prevention and its funding? The White City estate in my area, for instance, reduced the burglary rate by 61 per cent. over two years by means of co-operation between the local police and the council, which was funded by the council and the estates action programme. However, urban funding—which provides much of the money—is being phased out, and programmes such as "keep safe" will be lost. When will the Home Office put its money where its mouth is and start protecting people from crime by providing a properly funded crime prevention programme?
    Mr. Wardle: It would have been nice if the hon. Gentleman had mentioned the Hammersmith and Fulham safer cities project, which funded 85 crime prevention schemes at a cost of £600,000. He will know that, to date, safer cities projects have incurred a cost of £21.5 million, of which £7 million has been spent by local authorities.
    We have a comprehensive crime prevention strategy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary talked earlier about the expenditure across Whitehall as a whole. That does not include the more than £6,000 million spent on the police, some of which goes towards crime prevention, as it is one of their primary statutory duties.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: This afternoon in the House, strong support has been expressed for the funding of a new crime prevention scheme—the introduction of identity cards. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that practical difficulties can be overcome, particularly as what worked perfectly well in the 1940s could also work in the 1990s?
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is why the matter is kept under review.

    Jurors
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his plan to prevent those on bail from serving on a jury.
    Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is currently receiving consideration in another place, provides that people on bail will be banned from jury service.
    Mr. Thomason: I welcome that answer. May I take it that my hon. Friend considers it unacceptable for a person to be in the dock one week and in the jury box the next?
    Mr. Maclean: Absolutely. That is the main reason why we have taken this sensible step. The Royal Commission on criminal justice also recommended that persons on bail should be disqualified from jury service, and I think that making that necessary change will enhance the status of the criminal justice system.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage change in crime and the increase in police officers in south Wales since 1979.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The number of offences recorded in south Wales increased by 132 per cent. between 1979 and 1993. At the end of February 1994, the actual number of police officers in post had increased by 188.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that some £40 million of the Home Office's allocation to South Wales police authority has been nicked by the Welsh Office on its way to the authority, which has been underfunded by that amount for the past six years? Does he realise that that is having a devastating impact on local policing? Crime has soared by 135 per cent. since 1979, when the Minister's Government came to power.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the financial difficulties faced by South Wales police authority emanate from inaccurate budgeting, which deprived the South Wales police force of £2 million last year. In addition, the chief constable had asked for an extra 8 per cent; he was given 2 per cent.
    Centrally funded grant provision for this year would have allowed a further 5.5 per cent. increase in spending. If the South Wales police authority had matched that amount, a further £5 million would have been available, at a cost of £800,000 to each of the three Glamorgan county councils, whose total aggregate spending is £900 million, but the authority did not do that—it provided 1.75 per cent.

    Youth Crime
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to deter youth crime.
    Mr. Maclean: A wide range of action is in hand at both national and local level, which is intended to prevent or deter juvenile crime.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are thoroughly fed up with the way in which a number of youngsters are making their lives a misery? May I assure him that, contrary to what some Labour Members might think, my constituents—indeed, all members of the general public—are delighted that the Government are taking measures to tackle the problem of bail bandits and to introduce the concept of secure units? Is he further aware that what my constituents really want is the introduction of corporal punishment?
    Mr. Maclean: The House will be aware that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, with strong
    952
    measures to deal with juvenile crime, received a majority of 176 in this House. That is a measure of the support in the House of Commons for it. I hope that those who are scrutinising that Bill will look carefully at the strong importance that the House has attached to dealing with persistent juvenile offenders, and reflect carefully before making any changes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 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. Hain: Did the Prime Minister personally obtain the permission of Her Majesty the Queen to privatise the Royal Mail?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about the Royal Mail shortly. I have no doubt that he will deal with all the matters that concern the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by the French Government that they propose to remove a part of their forces in Bosnia by the year end if there is not more rapid progress towards a political settlement and if other countries do not provide greater assistance. What is the British Government's response to that?
    The Prime Minister: What the French Government have said is not that they are going to withdraw all their troops from Bosnia at the end of the year but that they propose to reduce by 1,000 their troops in Croatia, and a small number of further troops—I think 1,500—from Bihac. Even when those reductions have been made, the French will still be the largest troop contributors to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom Government, of course, come second. We have no intention at the moment of removing our troops, although, of course, their safety at all times is paramount.
    Mrs. Beckett: When the Post Office was not even mentioned in the Conservative party election manifesto and the effects of privatisation are causing chaos on British Rail and pushing up gas prices for ordinary families, why are the Government now looking to privatise the Post Office?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a full statement to the House about the Government's proposals in just a few moments. The right hon. Lady would be well advised to wait for that statement. As to British Rail, I think that she will find that, when it is operating as a privatised concern, as with the other privatised concerns, the service will be infinitely better than it was under nationalised control.
    Mrs. Beckett: Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the experience of most of the British public, particularly in the case of British Rail and of water, is that the end result of privatisation has been higher charges and poorer service. Do the Government never learn?
    The Prime Minister: What we see in what the right hon. Lady had to say is the same old knee-jerk opposition to private ownership. It is interesting to see that the same old centralising tendency remains among those on the Opposition Front Bench, just as it always has. What privatisation has produced is better services, profits instead of losses, tax revenue instead of taxpayers' subsidy, and a better service for the consumer. That is because the private sector will run services better.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister realise that the Post Office successfully combines running a profitable business with providing a public service that is of fundamental value to the whole community and that no one can be confident that that service will survive undamaged, especially in rural areas? Is not it another privatisation that is unnecessary, unpopular and unworkable?
    The Prime Minister: Once again, in the way that they have done so frequently, right hon. Members make conclusions before they know what is to be proposed and how matters are to be dealt with. Time and again, they have been proven wrong and, on this occasion, they will see how wrong they are very speedily.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed new secure training orders for young offenders are a welcome step in protecting the public from persistent young offenders and will be welcomed by most people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I think that they will certainly combine an effective punishment with a decent education. What those new centres will offer is the opportunity for young criminals to break away from crime and give the public a break from their offending. I am delighted that that commonsense view is now generally but not, it seems, universally held.
    Mr. Ashdown: If, as I hope and believe, the Prime Minister is serious about wishing to use this opportunity permanently to improve the quality of debate in the House, would he be prepared to open discussions and take suggestions about how we might improve these 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time—only a few weeks ago, he described as "ritual confrontation"—in order to make them more informative and more in keeping with what most people want?
    The Prime Minister: I think that many people in the country believe that these 15 minutes would be used more effectively on policy matters if questions were asked specifically about matters that must concern the people who watch our proceedings on television or read about them subsequently. I certainly wish that to be the case, but it is a matter for the House and for those who question me rather than for me. I am here to respond to the questions that are asked. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The theory that this time is not always wisely used by the Opposition was most clearly illustrated just now.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of our constituents believe that the young American vandal
    954
    in Singapore got exactly what he deserved? Will my right hon. Friend consider the new clause that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, designed to prevent that vandal, and every other criminal, profiting from his crime by selling his story to the press?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we are seeking in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a whole series of changes to improve crime and punishment in this country. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will be very popular across the country, and I hope that they will have the full support of the people. I regret that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches still seem to be more concerned for the criminal than for the people against whom the criminal perpetrates his crimes.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful reply that he gave me some weeks ago when I asked a question about the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why then did he go on to direct, or at least condone, the sleekit and contemptible tactics used by a Minister to scupper the Bill? Has he no remorse for the disabled of this country? Does not he feel that he should allow the Bill to be passed so that disabled people can have basic civil rights?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House shares the broad aims of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but the reality is that the Bill, as has been shown in Committee and subsequently, is unworkable in a number of ways. It would impose immense costs and open up enormous scope for litigation. The people who understand and consider such matters carefully will appreciate that fact.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, for I have told the House on previous occasions, we intend to press ahead with our own proposals, with consultation on a range of measures about discrimination in order to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, provide access to goods and services, to financial services and to buildings and to establish an advisory body on disability. That is the right way to proceed in order to produce measures that genuinely will work and will help disabled people. That is the way that we have proceeded in the past and will proceed in the future.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burns: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for changing the subject, does he agree that the unemployment figures released yesterday and the steady fall in unemployment over the past 12 months is welcome news which shows that our economic recovery is steady and sustainable? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is somewhat strange that when the news is bad about unemployment no one questions the authenticity of the figures but when the news is good and people are getting

    955
    back into work some people seek bogusly to take away from that good news by questioning the authenticity of the figures?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a telling point with great clarity. The facts speak for themselves: unemployment is down by about 100,000 over the last three months and it has been down by more than 250,000 over the last year. What has been especially encouraging is that long-term unemployment has been falling as well. What is equally striking is that, while unemployment falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is still rising throughout much of Europe. That shows the extent to which our economy has recovered and is continuing to grow, in sharp contrast to most European economies.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister had time this week to read about the seven suicides reported to have been triggered by the actions of the Child Support Agency? An ever-growing number of fathers are giving up work because they cannot afford to pay what the Child Support Agency assesses them for, yet many single mothers are worse off as a result of the agency's activities. Will he now set aside his well-worn and repeated phrase about keeping the activities of the agency "under review" and institute immediate radical reform by bringing new legislation to the House?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we made a number of changes some time ago. It is clearly sensible to let those changes settle down and to get a little more experience of how they are working. The changes were widely welcomed and, in many cases, they reduced the amount of maintenance that absent parents were required to pay. There were a number of other changes that I think that most people would regard as the right way forward.
    The hon. Gentleman has now embarked upon the exercise of that useful quality—the wisdom of hindsight. The principle of the legislation is right. It was widely welcomed in the House. We are determined to examine what is happening and make sure that if changes are shown to be necessary, they can continue to be satisfactorily made.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the losses in excess of £2 billion that were announced by Lloyd's of London earlier this week bring its total losses to more than £8 billion for the past three years that accounts are available? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that has led to the suicides of 11 of Lloyd's investors? If it is correct, and it is correct, that there should be an official inquiry into the activities of Mr. Frederick West of 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right that there should be an official inquiry into the business practices of some professionals at Lloyd's, which have led to the deaths of its investors?
    The Prime Minister: As I think that my hon. Friend knows, a number of civil cases relating to Lloyd's are now before the commercial courts. It would be most unwise of me to comment on that issue while that is the case.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with the German Government about the statements of Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
    The Prime Minister: The Scottish prosecuting authorities and police have worked closely with their German counterparts in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Any discussion of evidence or information that may be relevant to the investigation would be a matter for the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to pursue with the relevant German authorities.
    Mr. Dalyell: So why has Bollier's written request to have a sight of his timers, so that he can determine whether they were in the batch that went to Libya or the batch that went to the Stasi, been turned down?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the recent press reports alleging that both Bollier and Lumpert have additional information on the supply of electric timers to the East German Stasi. The Lord Advocate has taken the view that the available evidence justifies the criminal charges that have been brought against the two Libyans. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that beyond that, I cannot comment on the detail of the available evidence while the criminal investigation is still proceeding.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Engagements
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: As we congratulate President Mandela on his recent inauguration, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for South Africa's future lies in economic growth and job creation, flowing from a free enterprise system? Does he further agree that policies such as deregulation, competition and privatisation form the best basis for economic success anywhere in the world?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is no surprise that the policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation are now being adopted in every part of the globe. They are certainly being imitated in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. As for South Africa, I wish President Mandela every success in building the strong and stable South Africa that we all wish to see. I am sure that if he pursues those policies, they will assist.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: 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.
Perhaps I should explain that we were especially anxious that Her Majesty's Opposition should have a proper opportunity to study the statement on the Post Office, and I therefore hope that it will be for the general convenience of the House if I make the business statement now, before the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
Motion on the Railways Pension Scheme order.
Motion on the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) order.
TUESDAY 24 MAY—Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 25 MAY—Motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order.
THURSDAY 26 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 25 May to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee A, document No. 4168/94 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 May relating to intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.
Committee B, unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 16 March relating to the discharge of the General Budget for 1992, document No. 6214/94 relating to the fight against fraud in 1993 and document No. 6214/94 ADD1 relating to the anti-fraud strategy and work programme for 1994.
[Wednesday 25 May:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 4168/94, Intra-Community Trade in Bovine Animals and Swine. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-x (1993–94) and HC 48-xviii (1993–94). European Standing Committee B —Relevant European Community documents: (a) Unnumbered, 1992 Budget Discharge; (b) 6214/94, The Fight against Fraud in 1993; 6214/94 ADD1, Anti-Fraud Strategy. Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 48-xiii (1993–94); (b) HC 48–xvii (1993–94) and HC 48–xviii (1993–94).]
Madam Speaker: Before hon. Members put questions to the Leader of the House on the business statement, they may find it helpful to know that, in view of the changed date for the rising of the House, Northern Ireland questions, which were to have been taken on Thursday 26 May, will now be taken on Thursday 16 June and that there
958
will be consequential alterations to the rota for subsequent Thursdays. A revised rota will be published as soon as possible.
Since those hon. Members who are interested in Northern Ireland questions will have had insufficient notice to table questions today for 16 June, arrangements have been made for questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be tabled next Tuesday 24 May, when there is Northern Ireland business. Questions to the Prime Minister for 16 June are unaffected and should be tabled today. Full details are available at the Table Office and hon. Members are advised to consult that office if they are in any doubt.
Secondly, I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 26 May, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
Mr. Brown: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your statement, and I thank the Lord President for his statement. May I especially thank him personally and the Government's business managers for rearranging the business for next Thursday and today? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be attending John Smith's funeral service, either in Edinburgh or in one of the regional centres, tomorrow. Would not it have been possible to have postponed business or scheduled tomorrow's business for some other occasion so that tomorrow would have been entirely free of business?
On a more controversial matter, may I raise with the Leader of the House a request for a statement from the Minister for the civil service, dealing with the use of civil service time to draft wrecking amendments for Conservative Back Benchers to table for private Members' Bills? If the Government are opposed to a private Member's Bill, for reasons that they no doubt regard as legitimate, surely they should stand up and say so and not use the civil service in such a hole-in-corner, blatant, party political manner.
The Leader of the House will have noticed the resonance in the House caused by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) at Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, as he will have noticed the resonance caused by the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) in the House today concerning the Child Support Agency. He will have seen today's comment from the Chairman of the Social Services Committee, who has described the Child Support Agency as "a spectacular failure". May we have a debate on the agency and a statement of the Government's plans for reforms?
Finally, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reconvene the previous meeting that was held to discuss the Jopling report with a view to achieving a consensus and making progress?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to resonance in the House. It is clear that his final remarks drew just such a resonance. He will know—I think that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will not mind me mentioning it—that I was due to have a meeting with her on Thursday, but for reasons that the

959
whole House will well understand it was not possible to have it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he hopes to be able to meet me and I, in turn, hope to arrange that for next week. Therefore, we are all keen—[Interruption.] Well, nearly all as I had better not speak for those below the Gangway—to make progress on those matters.
I do not think that I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about the Child Support Agency.
On the question of the drafting of amendments—the hon. Gentleman referred to the need for my right hon. Friend to say something—I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the letter that the head of the civil service recently wrote to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Opposition spokesman on those matters, making it clear that there was nothing improper in Ministers asking civil servants to assist in the preparation of Bills, or amendments to Bills, including private Members' Bills, whether they are to be tabled by the Government or handed to Back-Bench sponsors or, as was eventually decided in that case, to other Back Benchers.
Tomorrow's business is, of course, governed by Sessional Orders passed by the House some months ago.
Lastly, on perhaps a happier note, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about our response to the unhappy circumstances with which we have all been faced this week. I am glad that we have been able to make a number of helpful adjustments to Government business.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time next week to discuss planning? There is a particular worry in my constituency about unwanted planning applications from Tesco and Sainsbury for super-stores on the edge of communities, with the potential for ripping the heart out of those communities. A debate would be a good opportunity for me to vent my spleen about the behaviour of those two super-stores.
Mr. Newton: Although I cannot promise precisely that opportunity next week, I point out that there are a number of opportunities for many matters to be raised. I hesitate to encourage my hon. Friend to vent his spleen on me in the debate on the Spring Adjournment. Should he do so, I shall endeavour to ensure that I am armed with some kind of comment.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to the exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about procedure, what is to prevent the Leader of the House from introducing next week draft amendments to the Standing Orders of this place and inviting the House to vote on them on a free, unwhipped vote so that we can make the urgent changes to procedure for which, I am sure, there is widespread support throughout the House?
Mr. Newton: I know that that suggestion is intended to be helpful and I take it as a useful indication of the hon. Gentleman's strong support for reform. He will have heard my exchange with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). That is the sensible next step.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the calls that have been made from two major parties in the House for amendment to the way in which the Child Support Agency operates? Although we fully support the
960
objective that absent parents, whether fathers or mothers, should pay towards the cost of the upkeep of their children, the way in which the agency is operating is a disgrace and an abuse of the power that the House gave it. The Government must act, not next week but this week, to rectify the injustices currently being perpetrated by the agency.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like others, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has his attention drawn to his remarks. I know that Ministers are carefully considering the points made in the House.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the very important statement containing amplifications and clarifications of the Downing street declaration which we understand from the press is to be made by written answer will be dealt with in the House so that there will be an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that it will not simply be pushed away along with other matters that may be appropriate for a written answer? The matter is important not only here but all over the world. There is great interest in the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There will be an opportunity to refer to Northern Ireland matters next week, although whether precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind would be in order is not perhaps for me to say.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Although I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot give an undertaking on this, may I ask that, when he considers the business for Monday 13 June, he bears in mind the fact that the Lords v. Commons tug of war is to take place at 7.15 pm? It is expected to raise a substantial sum for the Macmillan cancer appeal.
Madam Speaker: That is perhaps a matter for advertisement in The House Magazine.
Mr. Newton: I can certainly undertake to my hon. Friend, whose vigorous support for this and a number of other causes is well known, that I shall bear the point in mind. I cannot go quite so far as to say that it will be the decisive factor.
Mr. Roger Berry: Will the Leader of the House please confirm that he will provide time next week for the completion of the remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, given that on 29 April the House, without any opposition from the Government, called for time to be made available? In addition, contrary to what the Prime Minister said today, the alleged deficiencies and certainly the cost implications were not debated in Committee because the cost compliance assessment was not provided by the Government for the Committee. The Government did not, in fact, oppose a single clause of the Bill in Committee. Should not we have time now to complete the remaining stages?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. My right

961
hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government's purpose is constructive but that they see the way forward as being slightly different from the way in which the hon. Gentleman sees it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the important decision of a Committee of the House to veto the Crossrail Bill? Crossrail is essential for west London, for my constituency and for other areas, with 60,000 jobs and general prosperity being created on both sides of London. Perhaps the debate could centre on early-day motion 1215.
[That this House expresses its dismay at the decision of the Committee on the Crossrail Bill; reaffirms its strong support for the Crossrail project which will provide better public transport and many thousands of new jobs for people in London and the South East and which will help provide London with the infrastructure it requires as one of the world's leading financial and commercial cities; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward urgently the necessary measures to ensure this project proceeds without delay.]
That motion is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether it will bring any comfort to my hon. Friend, but this is a matter of some concern in my Braintree constituency also.
The Government have consistently made clear their commitment to the project, and they share the disappointment about the action of the Committee. The commitment remains, and we are currently having discussions with the promoters of the Bill about how best to proceed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm what I think he said a few moments ago—that it was entirely legitimate for a Minister of the Crown to cause amendments under public money to be drafted by parliamentary counsel and then passed to private Members for a private Member's Bill? If he did—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman phrase his question in a different way so that it relates to business next week, as this is business questions?
Mr. Spearing: During a debate next week, will the Leader of the House confirm what he said earlier on the matter which I have just raised? Is not it against the traditions of the House for the Crown to spend public money on interfering and stifling the political and legislative initiative of private Members who are sent here by the public?
Mr. Newton: I simply quoted directly from a letter from the Secretary to the Cabinet to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who raised the matter with him.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a report on the parliamentary data and video network has been completed by the Information Committee, but that no debate has yet been arranged? The whole data network system in the House will come to a full stop until that is possible. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that steps will be taken so that hon. Members can chase up Ministers by electronic mail on behalf of their
962
constituents? That would greatly speed up the process, and would abolish the need for the enormous amounts of paper which are used, and stop trees being cut down.
Mr. Newton: I am always anxious to assist my hon. Friend in any way in the vigorous pursuit of his duties. I hope at an appropriate time to arrange a debate on the report, but some consideration is still being given to the matter by the appropriate committees, including the Finance and Services Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reverse the decision to have an extra day off next Friday in view of the fact that the Government say that there is not enough time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is not it a kick in the teeth for the disabled that the House is getting up a day early when we could have debated that Bill? The Government are under instructions to give that Bill extra time. Surely Friday would be a suitable occasion for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman revise what he said and give that Bill time so we can get it on the statute book to help 6.5 million disabled people, instead of kicking their crutches away?
Mr. Newton: If I may say so, I made no reference whatever to questions of time or shortage of time in responding to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry).
Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Britain has been in the forefront of Europe in introducing measures for casualty reduction on our roads. When the Department of Transport shortly publishes its report on introducing seat belts into minibuses and coaches, will my right hon. Friend try to find time to debate the issue so that Britain may be in the forefront on this issue too?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly give consideration to that matter. My hon. Friend is right to say that this country has been in the forefront of Europe, and one of the outstanding achievements of recent years has been the reduction of deaths on the roads.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate next week on the future of the civil service in view of reports this morning that the Government plan to place senior officials on fixed, short-term contracts? Before the civil service is further casualised and, I fear, politicised, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that the Government will listen to the views of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and to the views of the House as a whole, before they reach any further conclusions on the matter?
Mr. Newton: The Government always look very carefully at anything that any Select Committee says.
Mr. Simon Coombs: May I support the call of other hon. Members for a debate, at an early date, on the Child Support Agency? May I remind my right hon. Friend that about a year ago he was good enough to arrange a debate on the United Kingdom tourist industry during which the then Minister with responsibility for tourism —my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) —said that he very much hoped that it would become an

963
annual event. Does my right hon. Friend share our hon. Friend's hope, which is also my hope, and can he provide time for a debate on tourism before too long?
Mr. Newton: I share the hope, but I cannot yet say that it is necessarily an expectation.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it possible for the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to make a further statement next week, bearing in mind that information has now emerged that the amendments provided by parliamentary counsel for Tory Back Benchers to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill were prepared some 16 days before the Minister made a statement to the House saying that his Department had no knowledge of the matter?
Does not the Leader of the House understand the feeling of disgust throughout the country at the fact that the Government have used every underhand method to try to wreck 'a Bill that would help the disabled? The Minister should give an explanation and, in my view, he should resign.
Mr. Newton: The fact that the drafting of the amendments was set in hand shortly after the Bill emerged from Committee was clearly and straightforwardly stated in my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Yesterday's answer added nothing new in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
As for the rest, I simply say that my right hon. Friend, in a letter to the hon. Member for Workington, acknowledged an error and he made a personal statement and gave an unreserved apology to the House. In my judgment, the matter should be left there.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State consider providing time—if not next week, some time in the near future—for a debate on unemployment in the Northern region? The Secretary of State for Unemployment—[Interruption.] Employment—although I got it right the first time—has been in great voice this week about the drop in unemployment nationally, which the Prime Minister confirmed today, but there is a problem in the Northern region. In my constituency the figures for February-March show that male unemployment has risen by 540 while female unemployment has dropped by 49, most of it due to part-time work. Those figures reflect the position throughout Northumberland and, indeed, the Northern region. We deserve a debate on unemployment in the Northern region.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had considerable involvement with the Northern region over a long period and I certainly would not just dismiss his concern. However, I must express some pride at the amount of new manufacturing industry that has been brought to the north in recent years.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), will my right hon. Friend take time next week to discuss the matter with our hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), whose commitment to the disabled is second to none in this House, and who on the radio this morning said that he believed that the vendetta being
964
waged by some people against our right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People should be stopped forthwith?
Mr. Newton: I did not hear those remarks, but I certainly echo both the comments that my hon. Friend made about our hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and the remarks that he attributes to him. I would add one thing. While the tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter was entirely due, it would also be right to say that there are not many who have made a greater contribution to advancing the cause of the disabled than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
Mr. David Trimble: I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the debate proposed for Tuesday evening and ask him to reconsider it. The report of Mr. J. J. Rowe QC into the operation of the emergency provisions Act of 1993 was placed in the Library only late on Monday night and as of yesterday it was not available in the Vote Office. Nevertheless, there is to be a debate on Tuesday evening on that important matter, which should be properly considered by the House. There is plenty of time —the order does not have to be made until the end of June. Surely it would better enable the House to give fuller consideration to the report and to the debate if it was postponed.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to postpone the debate, but immediately I am able to do so I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the availability of documents.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that we have established from the letter of 13 May that we have just received from Robin Butler to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that Back Benchers can have drafting assistance from parliamentary counsel, could such assistance be put on a more solid basis? Could the service be advertised to Members and, in future, where clearly there are drafting problems with amendments tabled by Opposition Members, could we go to parliamentary counsel at public expense—[Interruption.] Perhaps we can have a statement on the matter next week, Madam Speaker. Could we go to parliamentary counsel at parliamentary expense to ensure that Ministers cannot knock our amendments down on the basis that they are badly drafted? Could such a service be put on a proper footing to help Opposition Back Benchers? Perhaps we could have a statement from the Dispatch Box on the matter next week.
Mr. Newton: I find myself slightly puzzled because the hon. Gentleman has been here a considerable time. It remains the case that parliamentary counsel draft on the authority of Ministers, but that help is often given on that authority to Back Benchers on both sides of the House. A whole set of Bills currently before the House or recently passed by the House were drafted by parliamentary counsel.
Dr. Tony Wright: As we are about to have a statement on the Post Office, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be more sensible if all Members received the written statement ahead of the oral statement? At present only some Members receive the

965
written statement in advance. Would not it be far more sensible to proceed in the other way? Will the Leader of the House inaugurate that practice from next week's business?
Mr. Newton: Consideration of that proposal would, in the first instance, be for the Procedure Committee. Obviously, we would consider carefully any recommendation. I can make no commitment. The existing convention, which is part of the usual channels, is that copies of the statement are made available a reasonable time in advance to the Opposition Front Bench. One reason for the fact that the business statement is being made now rather than when earlier advertised is to provide time for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to study the statement that he is now studying.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When a resolution of the House has been passed by due procedure, should not it be acted upon? A motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) was passed on 29 April. Should not we have a full debate? If the Government are against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, should not they have the guts to vote it down while the rest of us have an opportunity to support it?
Mr. Newton: The motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers was explicitly framed as an expression of opinion. It does not bind the Government any more than it overturns the Sessional Order of the House about the time for private Members' Bills. I cannot add to what I and, before me, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the Government's approach to the Bill and their desire to advance the cause of disabled people in constructive, workable and practical ways.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend next week read the report of the Procedure Committee which recommends, not that statements should be made available in advance, because statements are often altered at the last moment, but that all documents relating to a statement should be published not after the statement is made but 15 minutes before so that Members may have access to them? That is a recommendation of the Procedure Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it most fully.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend knows that I always consider as constructively as I can his Committee's proposals. I see some difficulties with the one to which he refers. It is different from the proposal that was put to me. If I remember rightly, the Procedure Committee's report explicitly did not cover written statements and said that the Committee did not believe that it was appropriate for them to be available in advance.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not all Bills that come before the House which are drafted by parliamentary counsel are perfect? Would not it be better for parliamentary counsel to be dislodged from their ivory tower to allow Members of Parliament to have more direct access to them?
Mr. Newton: I should be the last person to suggest that no Bill ever coming before the House that had been drafted by parliamentary counsel was perfect in every respect, but I am not sure that the conclusion that my hon. Friend seeks to draw would necessarily follow.

Post Office
3.59 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office.
On 29 July 1992, I announced that the Government would be considering the future structure and organisation of the Post Office. I made it clear then that we would consider a variety of options both in the public and private sectors. In March, the Trade and Industry Committee published a report on the future of the Post Office. We have considered that carefully.
The Government have now decided that they will shortly publish a Green Paper setting out the issues in full and outlining the options for change. In view of the intense speculation of the past two days, however, I thought it important that I should make this early report to the House.
The Post Office is an essential part of our national life. It provides at least one daily delivery of mail throughout the country at a uniform tariff, which is the same regardless of whether one lives in Westminster or the Western Isles. It handles some 60 million items of mail per day. Perhaps most important of all, it maintains a network of some 20,000 post offices which serve their local communities in a way that no other organisation can match.
The Government therefore made their consideration of the future of the Post Office subject to three vital and non-negotiable commitments, all of which we clearly set out in our manifesto. These are, first, the maintenance of a nationwide letter and parcel service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom; secondly, a uniform and affordable structure of prices; and, thirdly, a nationwide network of post offices. Under no circumstances would we put those commitments at risk.
There are three principal businesses of the Post Office: Post Office Counters, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce. The Green Paper will outline a number of options, but I can announce some firm decisions today.
Let me begin with the Counters business. Every Member of the House is well aware of the vital importance of the network of post offices, particularly in rural areas, but also in our towns and cities. The Government fully recognise the key role that they perform in our communities. That is why the maintenance of a nationwide network is non-negotiable.
The Counters business is essentially a partnership between the public and private sectors. The central core, which negotiates contracts and provides back-up services, is Government owned. But the vast majority of post offices —all but some 800 of the 20,000 outlets—are privately run sub-post offices operating under an agency agreement.
The Government can see no case for changing that structure. It works well. It ensures that the Government retain the necessary control over the maintenance of the nationwide network. It also allows for private sector initiative at local level where the local post office is at the heart of local communities.
During the review, however, the case has been put forcefully, particularly by the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, that the commercial prospects of the post office network need reinforcement. I understand and share that view. Most post offices are small shops, and the Government understand the pressures on such shops as a

967
result of social change. We therefore intend to proceed with two measures specifically designed to improve their position.
First, we will be giving Post Office Counters greater freedom in future to seek new clients from the private sector to supplement their existing client base, which consists largely of public sector bodies. The best way of maintaining the network is to give it freedom to compete for new business on fair terms, and thus increase the spread and scale of its activities. The Green Paper will set out our proposals.
Secondly, we propose to automate many of the clerical procedures that lie behind much of the business of the network. These procedures—particularly those related to the payment of benefits—have been unchanged for decades. Work is thus under way between the Counters business and the Benefits Agency to devise a method of automating the payment of social security benefits. That will provide not only an extremely cost-effective way of paying benefits, but an electronic platform in post offices enabling the business to provide enhanced services for all its clients, new and old.
Work on that project is at an early stage, but we are looking to extend the public/private sector partnership by the involvement of the private sector in the management and funding of the project.
I should like to comment on the relationship between Post Office Counters and the Royal Mail. The Royal Mail does not cross-subsidise post offices. Post Office Counters has been run as an independent business since 1986 and has been profitable throughout that period. Some post offices in rural areas do, of course, make a loss on a strict accounting basis. Post Office Counters has existing powers to support such post offices. Indeed, at the present time, 2,700, of which 1,800 are part time, are already supported by a flat fee, regardless of the business that they undertake.
Post Office Counters and its clients see the nationwide network not as a liability, but as an asset which enables it to provide a unique service to villages and hamlets throughout the land. It enables the Benefits Agency, for example, to provide a service for the millions of people who have no bank accounts and live in remote areas.
The business link with the Royal Mail is also important, although Members may be interested to know that only about 25 per cent. of Post Office Counters' turnover comes from the Royal Mail. In any proposals, however, the Government will require the Royal Mail to continue to use post offices, as they do at present.
I shall now turn to the Royal Mail, which accounts for more than 70 per cent. of Post Office turnover. It is the most efficient postal service in Europe. It is a modern, profitable business and it is looking to expand into what is rapidly becoming a European and even a world market for postal services. That is in itself only a part of a global communications market that is one of the most innovative industrial sectors of all.
The Post Office board wishes the Royal Mail to be free of many of its constraints. Indeed, the board has made it clear that the increasing competition in its marketplace is beginning to pose a real threat to its ability to maintain its current performance. In its recent report, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry accepted that argument. The Government also recognise the case for change.
The Green Paper will set out the options, showing the advantages and disadvantages and, in particular, the case for retaining a substantial minority shareholding in a newly
968
created public company. In addition, preferential share entitlements for the employees of the post office and sub-postmasters would ensure that a significant holding of shares would be in the hands of those people most immediately concerned with the future of the business.
The Green Paper will also set out an option for retaining the business in the public sector, but extending its commercial freedom as far as is consistent with continued public sector status.
Let me emphasise that none of those options would in any way reduce the social obligations placed on the Royal Mail. To ensure this, any legislation would set up a regulatory system to ensure that those obligations were properly defined and policed. The Government's commitments to universal delivery, six days a week to every household, with a uniform and affordable tariff remain non-negotiable and would be written on the face of the legislation.
Tariffs would be controlled through regulation. Experience has shown that social commitments can be delivered through strong regulation; for example, regulation requires BT to provide telephone boxes in rural areas. In the same way, it would be our intention to require the Royal Mail to maintain its letter services in rural areas.
I turn now to Parcelforce. I announced on 15 July 1992 the Government's intention to privatise Parcelforce, which already operates in a fully competitive market. Work has been going on since then on the best method and timing of the sale of Parcelforce. Of necessity, we have done so in the light of the Post Office review. It would be possible to continue with our original plans, but there are important synergies between Parcelforce and the Royal Mail. The Government have decided in include Parcelforce in their new proposals for the Royal Mail. We shall, of course, pay particular attention to the need to avoid any unfair cross-subsidy from the Royal Mail to Parcelforce.
Before concluding, may I reassure the House on three specific points? First, it has been suggested that any change of status would lead to VAT on stamps. That is simply wrong. I can assure the House that, under any proposals that we finally adopt, stamps will continue to be exempt from value added tax.
Secondly, I can assure the House that all existing pension rights will be preserved in any case.
Thirdly, the House will be aware that the Post Office, and in particular the Royal Mail, has long had important connections with the monarch. I am pleased to announce to the House that, after consultation, Her Majesty has agreed that, if a public sale option were to be pursued, Royal Mail would be given permission to use a depiction of Her Majesty's head on postage stamps, to use the royal emblems, the Crown and the Cypher and to be registered as Royal Mail plc at Companies House.
I will soon bring forward a Green Paper setting out the options and the Government's preferred proposals. It will allow an opportunity for a full public debate on this complex area.
We are committed to increasing the opportunities for the Post Office and Post Office network, and to ensure that the national standard of service is maintained. We will wish to ensure in any change that the interests of the consumer continue to be protected by effective regulation.
There is common accord that major change is needed if the Royal Mail is to meet the growing competitive threat that it faces.

969
The Government believe it important to allow the Royal Mail to build on the excellence of its reputation and to compete both at home and internationally where the quality of its achievements and the reputation it enjoys offer an exciting future. We hope to make rapid progress to enable this major British organisation to achieve its ambitions.
Mr. Robin Cook: The President will acknowledge that he has spent two years and £1 million on consultation over the future of the Post Office. He will also concede that his main announcement this afternoon is that he has reached the conclusion that he requires further consultation on the future of the Post Office.
Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard the chairman of the Post Office say that the delay is a millstone round the Post Office which needs to be removed if it is not to grind to a halt? That chairman and the management of the Post Office were entitled to more decisive action from the President, who purports to lead British industry, than the announcement of a Green Paper.
Just so that the House is clear that the President's heart is in the Green Paper, can he assure the House that he went to the Cabinet this morning to argue for permission to publish a Green Paper that he cannot print today?
I welcome the President's commitment to give commercial freedom within public ownership to Post Office Counters. I particularly welcome it, as it is the option that he told the Select Committee in January was not feasible. Now that he has decided that that option is feasible, why can he not agree to applying the same option to the Royal Mail? Does he not recognise that if he agreed to the same solution for the Royal Mail, he would have unanimous support throughout the House?
Mr. Keith Mans: No, he would not.
Mr. Cook: He would have unanimous support from everybody except those whose votes he will need if he wants to become leader—[Interruption.] I am happy to say that he is welcome to those votes.
If the President wants that solution, he does not need a Green Paper, as we could agree to it this afternoon. His only reason for wishing to present a Green Paper is to keep open the option of privatisation. Is not the real reason why he does not announce his decision today the fact that the Government are terrified of announcing the privatisation of the Post Office while the public still have a chance to vote on it at the forthcoming election?
I warn the President that he will never sell to the public the idea of privatising the Post Office. [Interruption.] I notice that Conservative Members did not try to sell it at the last general election, when they did not breathe a word of it in their manifesto. The President will not sell the idea to the public because the public know that privatisation would end the uniform tariff on postage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can the President tell us how the assurance that he has given the House today on the uniform tariff for postage differs from the assurance on the uniform tariff on gas when the Government privatised British Gas? Does he not know that, only last week, his Department gave the green light to British Gas to charge more to remote regions? For how many years after privatisation would it remain possible to post a letter at the same price from any part of Britain to any address in Britain?
970
The President will not succeed in selling privatisation to the public because the public know that privatisation would threaten their local post office branches—[Interruption.] Oh yes, oh yes. Does he really believe that a separate, privatised mail company will continue to collect and deliver mail at a loss from post office branches with a small turnover? If he does, is he prepared to guarantee that each of the 20,000 post offices would be involved in that collection?
The President rightly acknowledged that the Post Office is a public sector success story. It provides the best letter service in Europe at one of the cheapest prices. It does not need a penny subsidy from the Treasury, but for 20 years has subsidised the Treasury with profits. Why cannot the Government accept that the simple logic of that success is that the best place for the Post Office is in the public sector? If they cannot accept that, I warn them that we shall lead the national campaign to demand that the Post Office stays where it belongs—owned by the public, in the public sector and providing a service to the public.
Mr. Heseltine: I came here this afternoon intent on discussing the Post Office and its future. Suddenly, the issue of leadership has been raised. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to suggest a Green Paper on leadership. I understand the machinations of the political truce, which I thought the hon. Gentleman was only too keen to advocate in the House. The hon. Gentleman wants not a Green Paper but the reddest possible paper that he can lay his hands on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I came here to get on with it, but the hon. Member for Livingston apparently had his mind on a totally different constituency from the one in which we are interested. Having considered his ambitions and what he had to say, I must say with all my heart—and I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—that I wish him the very best of luck. I would go even further: he may launch a campaign in the country; I shall launch one in the country to help him achieve what he is so obviously trying to achieve.
It is incumbent upon us in the House to take—[Interruption.] I am sorry that there is so much turmoil among Opposition Members. I thought that they were genuinely interested in the success of this great industry. The industry is entitled to the most serious consideration of the House.
May I answer the first question put to me by the hon. Member for Livingston which was relevant to the subject under consideration? Yes, this morning I asked the Cabinet for support for a Green Paper and I am delighted that Cabinet members were prepared to go along with my proposals. It is important that the widest range of issues and opportunities involved be explored and that the public understand what is going on. We must listen to people's ideas and take account of the strengths and disadvantages of those ideas.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which conducted a most thorough investigation into the matter. The House must realise that there is no option called the status quo. If we try to preserve the status quo, the erosion of the Post Office's market share will be continued by the private sector, which is now providing an increasing number of ever-more sophisticated services. Thus, it is eating into the ability of the Post Office.
One of the options available to us is a move to the private sector, while another apparently gives more

971
discretion within the public sector. But any public sector option would involve the borrowing of money on the back of Treasury guarantees and would, therefore, produce a particular dilemma for all those private sector companies that have to raise money in their own names and compete fairly in the marketplace. One of the most powerful arguments advanced by the management of the Post Office is based on its desire to become a world-class player in a world which will increasingly see a shrinking number of major companies competing.
I should like to mention the matter in respect of which I part company most profoundly with the hon. Gentleman. He points, quite rightly, to the remarkable success achieved by the management of the Post Office within the domestic framework of Britain in providing a service that is much admired. But the management of the Post Office is looking for enhanced freedoms, including the ability to go out into the marketplace and win for Britain. Classically, the Labour party finds every conceivable reason for preventing just that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The initial exchanges have taken more than 20 minutes. I am now looking for brisk questions and very brisk answers.
Sir Cranley Onslow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on dealing so effectively with the leadership nonsense that came from the Opposition.
How long does my right hon. Friend think the consultation process is likely to take, bearing in mind the fact that he, like the Select Committee, evidently recognises the urgency of enabling the Post Office to compete in the world market in which it must operate?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as he played a significant role in the Select Committee's deliberations, is aware of the urgency of this matter. We shall produce the Green Paper as quickly as possible—within not many weeks—and shall urgently reach the conclusions that flow from it. We understand the need to make up our minds.
Mr. Alex Carlile: With his usual eloquence, the right hon. Gentleman ensured that the first five pages of his statement were a eulogy of the Post Office's services. Before selling the depiction of Her Majesty's head to the highest bidder, will he explain how he proposes to guarantee the integrity of the delivery service in rural areas? Does he propose that there should be a privatised monopoly? Does he propose that there should be a regionalised monopoly? Does he propose that there should be competition within localities? If there is to be competition within localities, how on earth will the regulator be able to ensure a daily delivery by a postman or a postwoman for people living in remote rural areas?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at present many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses work long hours for nothing for Post Office Counters? Will he see that the regulator ensures proper contractual arm's-length negotiation?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a number of important issues. I assure him that we shall not be prepared to make the changes that we might, after consultation, be prepared to consider unless we are able, by contract and under statute, to ensure the universal
972
delivery of services. There will be a tough regulatory process to ensure that, if the single-company option is adopted, the company will be statutorily charged with responsibility for delivering services.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Monopoly.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Member says that that would be a monopoly. I wonder where he has been. The dilemma that we face is that an increasing range of services in every part of the country are competing with the Post Office. We see it every day—different services, international services, overseas companies. It is very important that, whatever we decide to do, the public should be assured, from the very beginning, of the absolute sine qua non: there will be a regular six-day-a-week delivery at a uniform tariff across the country.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will consider his proposals to be rather like the curate's egg—good in parts? They will be much encouraged by the proposals for rural sub-post offices: the extension of their services will enable them to play a greater part in the local community. My constituents will also be encouraged by the fact that postmen and women employed by the Royal Mail will have an opportunity to buy a stake in their own business. They would be even more reassured, however, if the Government said that they would retain their shareholding, to ensure an excellent arrangement between the public and private sectors.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her constructive analysis, with which I agree. The Government have made it clear that one of the options that we shall present involves a very large minority shareholding; furthermore, if we adopted that option, it would also give employees of the business a substantial opportunity to gain a shareholding. The combination of those opportunities would mean that, overall, the interests of those immediately concerned would have an important influence on the future of the organisation.
Mr. Richard Caborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for announcing the Green Paper, for two reasons. First, it will at least move the arguments on, and—we hope—bring about an early decision. Secondly, it suggests that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced a fairly substantial change of mind: when he spoke to the Select Committee, he was clearly in favour of privatisation and had ruled out commercialisation.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he consider keeping the whole of the Post Office together if that option emerges from consultation on the Green Paper? There is a strong industrial logic for keeping the three component parts together. Secondly, in considering commercialisation, will the Government refer to models such as Nuclear Electric, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the BBC and BP Burmah—models that can work effectively without going into the private sector?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that BT, which he mentioned, is now in the private sector and is very successful.
Mr. Caborn: I mentioned BP.
Mr. Heseltine: BP is also in the private sector. BP and BT are both in the private sector, which means that a large number of British citizens own shares in those companies. The hon. Gentleman happened to choose two companies that—in the name of this country—are world class, trading internationally to the immense benefit of the country. Let me add—as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter—that, since its privatisation, BT has provided a range of services at a lower price than people would have believed possible at the time of that privatisation.
Of course, when a Government publish a Green Paper they are inviting consultation; but, in the course of the Green Paper debate, the Government are likely to present their own ideas about what they think the future should be. I understand the hon. Gentleman's view—he has studied the matter carefully—and I shall consider to what extent the Green Paper should reasonably reflect an option that, on the surface, is not immediately attractive.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people living in peripheral regions of the United Kingdom are becoming increasingly apprehensive about the effects of privatisation —or part-privatisation—following the introduction of regional differential pricing for electricity and gas? Does he accept that relieving the existing Treasury constraints on the Post Office is the most satisfactory way of achieving the objectives that we all seek for the organisation?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he has taken a particular interest in the matter. I can give him a categorical assurance that there will be no regional differential in the charges relating to the universal delivery on which I have given the House an assurance.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the President of the Board of Trade reconsider those last words? His predecessors in other Departments have given precisely the same reassurance, and it has proved unfounded in many instances. Will the right hon. Gentleman also think very carefully about what he is doing in announcing the Green Paper? All that the Post Office really needed was access to a bit more commercial freedom, and access to funds without the external financing limit. A system of bonds that did not give any shareholders' rights—which was proposed before—could have provided that, but it was ruled out in the case of BT simply because the Treasury did not like it, not because it was not efficient.
Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the implication that flows from borrowing that apparently has the Government's guarantee behind it. I do not believe that there would be an argument for assuming that we can just allow the Post Office to raise bonds, and therefore produce money, in some way that would carry a Government guarantee with which it would then be able to compete with the private sector, which has no such privilege.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many old-fashioned Tories, of whom I am proud to be one, view the prospect of Royal Mail plc about as favourably as they would his old regiment at Buckingham palace being replaced by Group 4?
Mr. Heseltine: For once in his life, my hon. Friend has not understood the immensely close relationship between my old relationship and many of the employees of Group 4 Security.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that, for 334 years since 1660, the Royal Mail has been a public service, not only through the counters until quite recently, but through the people who called at everybody's house every day, and were a form of contact; that there is no justification for privatisation for commercial freedom, because, over the years, as he will know, the Post Office has developed, as with the giro, a completely new bank from within which was so successful that the Government sold it off; that the consequences of privatisation will be higher salaries for the management, which is why they want it, and poorer services and redundancies?
With great respect, after I heard the President give assurances about the pits 18 months ago, nothing that he says is believed, because he did not honour the assurances that he gave in 1992. Many people, and I am one of them, think that the sale of this asset to Tory businesses that funded the Conservatives' campaign will have a sniff of corruption about it from the very outset.
Mr. Heseltine: The great value of a Green Paper debate is that we shall have the opportunity of listening to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, which, in my view, have hardly changed through any of the 300 years to which he drew the House's attention.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must be obvious to almost everybody in the country, perhaps with the exception of the socialists opposite, that if the Royal Mail is to remain competitive, and become even more so in the future, it must be given commercial freedom and freedom to invest; that if the Government fail to do that, they will be failing in their duty as the current owner of that business; and that the best way of achieving that is to privatise the Royal Mail and give it that freedom?
May I ask a question on local post offices? Would not it help them in their hour of need—as he has said, they are going through a difficult phase—if they were given priority access to the lottery terminals when the lottery comes into action, as that would help them a lot?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend realises that the issue of the allocation of the lottery contract has already been determined by the House, although the results have not yet been finalised. My hon. Friend made the point about setting the Post Office into a world in which it can expand and create a more competitive system. That is precisely why we have been conducting the review. I will certainly listen carefully to what he has to say.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We on this Bench strongly favour the status quo for sub-post offices, and I welcome the assurances given by the President on them. We will study the Green Paper very carefully. When we have done so, we will make our views known. If we require any—may I use the word?—"clarification", perhaps we could seek a meeting with the President.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is most courteous and of course he can be assured that, although I will not indulge in clarification, any other form of consultation is readily available to him and his hon. Friends.
Sir Giles Shaw: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on proceeding with this idea but on doing so through a Green Paper, a lesson from which many of his colleagues might learn in the complicated legislation that has recently been passed? Will he give an assurance that Post Office Counters and small sub-post offices will not have to wait for the results of the Green Paper to be reassured about pension transmission and other activities, which they sorely need at the present time?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is most kind. We realise that there is considerable pressure on us to move the decision-making process forward and there was, of course, a temptation just to come up with a scheme, as sometimes happens in government, and move on from there. However, after wide consultation, we took the view that some issues were perhaps separate from the strict economic imperatives and called for a rather more timely and cautious way of proceeding.
Ms Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be a clear option in the Green Paper, which will satisfy 90 per cent. of the public and everyone—including management—who works for the Post Office, for the Post Office to remain as one integral unit and have more commercial freedom? Will that be a simple option in the Green Paper?
Mr. Heseltine: The Green Paper will try to cover the horizon of options, as the hon. Lady requires. However, it is fair to say that if we were going to consider something along the lines of what she suggests, the opportunities for the Post Office would be so constrained as to make the exercise hardly worth while.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement about Counters will be a great relief to every sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress because it will resurrect the possibility of their staying in business, which is essential for country districts?
Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Green Paper points out the ways in which the interests of the tens of thousands of ordinary postmen who work in country areas will be protected, because they are also a great part of the country's structure and have a considerable role to play beyond that provided by the Post Office, as they deliver milk and do the various other little things that keep country districts operating smoothly?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, especially for his remarks about Counters, which are merited by my statement today. I think that postmen and postwomen will take into account the fact that the service that they are delivering—a universal service at a universal tariff—will be enshrined by statute in the new arrangements. Those men and women will, therefore, be needed to carry out tomorrow the work that they are carrying out today; but we shall put before them another option: instead of doing so just as paid employees of the Post Office, they might do so as paid employees of the Post Office but owning parts of the business for which they work.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that most Opposition Members hope that the result of this Green
976
Paper exercise is the same as that of the first that he carried out on the poll tax, which effectively rubbished it completely?
Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's well-deserved reputation for bringing modern management to government in the past decade or more, does he accept that the big defect of his statement is that he has been unable to provide a date for publication of the Green Paper? He said that it could be in a few weeks, but we should like to know whether it will before the House rises for the summer recess. More important, he has been unable ' to establish a reasonable period for the consultation process —five or six weeks would be wholly inadequate. Does he accept that regional meetings will be required so that the general public feel that they have been genuinely consulted?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand that consultation periods are never long enough, but I have been through this process often enough to know that the views that we have heard expressed today will not change whether the consultation process takes a day, a week or a year. It is important to balance the interests of reaching a decision with a reasonable consultation period.
Mr. Rooker: How long?
Mr. Heseltine: To be straight with the hon. Gentleman, in the normal course of events, I should have wished to come to the House with specific answers to the sort of questions that he is putting to me. However, faced with the fact—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the whole of the Cabinet.
Mr. Heseltine: No, not the Cabinet at all in that context. The fact is that somebody, in the growing convention of the day, leaked the information to the newspapers. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has few expectations about the system in which he works. I believe that it would be much better to do these things in an orderly way without leaks. Nevertheless, given that there had been a leak, it seemed to me to be courteous to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity—if for no other reason than to stop the mischief making of people such the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
Mr. John Butterfill: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the attention that he has given to the views expressed by the Select Committee. What he has said today is very welcome, in particular his recognition that the world is moving forward very rapidly and that the development of new technology—electronic mail, faxes and everything else—means that the Post Office will have to make considerable capital investments in order to compete in the future.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that capital can be raised only through the private sector and that it would be quite unreasonable to expect commercial freedom to allow the Post Office to raise that capital through the Treasury? It would be unreasonable for its competitors and a complete fudge. Will he resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) which amount to nothing less than cooking the books?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes some very important points. Every attempt that the Government have made to enhance the opportunities for British industry by

977
turning nationalised industries into trading companies has been resisted by the Opposition parties. They have been wrong on every single occasion.
The fact is that we have to wrestle with the difficulties and discuss them on a wider basis than the forum today allows. The idea that businesses can simply operate in the public sector pretending that they are private sector businesses is not realistic.
Mr. Peter Hain: Surely the President is aware that his favoured privatisation option will have a devastating impact on areas such as Wales because it will encourage the cherry picking of profitable traffic and the social dumping of remote areas.
The separation of the Post Office Counters business as a rump service in the public sector could be very dangerous for remote, rural sub-post offices which have been effectively subsidised by the Post Office and are currently institutionally supported by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have not."] Yes, they have from time to time. Will the President of the Board of Trade give a specific guarantee that all existing second deliveries in urban areas will be maintained and that existing collection and delivery arrangements in rural areas will be maintained so that we do not go down the New Zealand route? Is he maintaining the £1 limit on the letter monopoly?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has asked the sorts of questions which made it so necessary to make a statement to the House today. Although I have made it absolutely clear that his fears are utterly groundless, he still got up and asked his questions as though they involved new points that no one had heard about.
All over Wales today, post offices are subjected to increasing competition, whether in the form of fax machines, bike boys or international companies delivering the more expensive products. The fact is that the Post Office is now subject to that competition. The issue that we face is the extent to which we can free it to enable it to fight back, not only in this country but internationally where many competitors are based.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals concerning sub-post offices are particularly welcome in view of the enormously important role that they play in the community? It is absolutely absurd that they should have to haggle with the Treasury for months before they are allowed to sell even a fishing licence.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the all-party Select Committee on Trade and Industry—which included a Liberal-Democrat Member—noted, without objection or criticism, that one solution was privatisation and another was part-privatisation? Committee members raised no objection to that suggestion. That statesmanlike and sensible attitude contrasts remarkably with the ideological nonsense that we have heard from both Opposition parties today.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, who sat through the hearings of the Select Committee, makes a point that the House should take into account. When, in the Select Committee's long investigation, the arguments were
978
paraded clearly, rationally and calmly, the Committee formed very clear and unanimous views across all parties that progress had to be made.
I very much welcome what my hon. Friend said. However, I make one small qualification. I am delighted that Counters are able to sell fishing licences, but it would be wrong to suggest that it was Counters which had to spend many months haggling with the Treasury.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that the Royal Mail is the oldest and most successful postal service not just in Europe, but throughout the world? Does he agree that the 51 per cent. privatisation proposal will inevitably mean a reduction in service and an increase in unemployment?
With regard to the question about the Queen's head on stamps, if El Presidente is not calling "off with her head" at this stage, will only 49 per cent. of her head be left and will the next stage of his crazy privatisation programme involve selling off 51 per cent. of the Crown jewels?
Mr. Heseltine: What I find absolutely depressing about that sort of remark is that the hon. Gentleman stands up and says what an excellent organisation the Post Office is and then assumes that if it is given the freedom to expand it will get worse. I take exactly the opposite view. I think that if it is given the freedom to expand it will do an even better job than it is doing now.
Mr. Edward Leigh: It has been a long, careful road since we embarked on this process nearly two years ago. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will have a decision in time for the House to consider privatisation legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
Clearly, the Government have, rightly, made up their minds that the status quo proposal is a non-starter, as is commercial freedom in the public sector, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend. In short, I congratulate him and his right hon. Friends on having the courage at last to give the Post Office the freedom to invest in the private sector and on having the wisdom to reassure the public that a uniform tariff will be retained.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise, as do all my colleagues, that we must balance proper consultation with the need for a decision. My hon. Friend may take some satisfaction from the fact that the statement has been made this afternoon.
Mr. Alex Salmond: At a time when the Scottish Office is being forced away from the privatisation of water and steered away from the privatisation of forestry, can the President of the Board of Trade explain why he wanted to swing ahead and sell off bits of the Royal Mail before his proposal was overturned by his Cabinet colleagues?
Is not the real explanation for today's bungled statement that the President wanted to put on a macho display of political virility for the electorate and the Tory Back Benchers? In view of his climb-down, will he in future take the advice of another blond, Zsa Zsa Gabor, who said that, in her extensive experience, "Macho men ain't mucho"?
Mr. Heseltine: That was a rather pathetic intervention when we first heard it from other Opposition Members, and it got no better when repeated by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I am a Conservative Member who is deeply unhappy about the fragmentation and privatisation of the Post Office—which could be a privatisation too far—I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the fact that he has decided to publish a Green Paper.
Will my right hon. Friend give me two assurances in that regard? First, will he assure me that he will listen to the comments that are made about the Green Paper and that, if those comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposals, he will drop them? Secondly, will he give me a cast-iron assurance this afternoon that the 49 per cent. that he intends the Government to hold under one of his proposals will be held by the Government ad infinitum?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is, as he says, a Conservative, and so am I. One of the responsibilities of being a Conservative and being in government—a responsibility not shared by the parties opposite—is that every so often one has to take decisions. Sometimes they are lonely, but they can often be right. It is important to show a degree of leadership when one can see the way that the world is going, perhaps even in advance of public opinion and understanding.
It is important to have regard to the overall health of the industry and the national interests that are deeply ingrained in the future potential of the industry. We will listen very carefully to the consultation that will take place. We will certainly look at what commitments may be necessary and for how long in respect of whatever level of Government shareholding there may be.
My hon. Friend generously said that he welcomed the Green Paper and the consultation process. He will know that, throughout the process, we have listened to his views, as well as those of many of my colleagues. That is one of the reasons why today we have provided what is not essentially an economic answer, but a wide political, social and economic answer.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Lord—I was going to call the right hon. Gentleman the "Lord President"; we shall soon be putting his head on the stamps. Will the President of the Board of Trade comment on the fact that we have a Green Paper rather than a White Paper only because of the Euro-elections, and that all the safeguards that we have been given on sub-post offices and all the rest will fade away after 9 June?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is diametrically wrong. I had not intended to publish any sort of paper at this stage, because, as the House will see, there are questions that I am not yet in a position to answer. I am making the statement as a response to a leak, which I regard as a discourtesy to the House, and which I am trying to put right.
Mr. Barry Porter: As my right hon. Friend has been handed a Macclesfield black spot, may I offer him a Wirral green spot, and congratulate him on his proposal? As a member of the Select Committee who has listened to all the arguments, I consider my right hon. Friend's idea a most sensible way of approaching the matter. We have reached no decisions, except that we cannot leave things as they are. All that I can do now is to offer my congratulations to the President, and I trust that
980
Macclesfield will go back to where it wants to go, sit in its own little village and think, perhaps, that this might be the best way in which to proceed.
Mr. Heseltine: I would not wish to intrude in any way in what sounds like something of an internecine war between my two parliamentary colleagues, so I simply welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said. However, I regard what he described as a Macclesfield black spot as one of the most encouraging green spots that I have ever heard delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the President praised the Royal Mail in his statement, and implied that we could not keep the status quo simply because of the inevitable rising tide of competition, can he tell us why the House itself should not, through some legislative form, ensure that the magnificent letter service remains broadly as it is today?
Mr. Heseltine: Because the people charged with the responsibility of managing the service do not believe that that can happen, and because an all-party Select Committee, with a Chairman drawn from the hon. Gentleman's party, has advised the Government and the House that the status quo is not an option.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee first floated the idea of the BP solution—a part-privatisation—because the Committee could not see how any Treasury under any Government could provide the huge sums of investment necessary not only for the Post Office to compete abroad, but to stop the deterioration of services here at home?
That is why the sort of solution that my right hon. Friend suggests, which would enable the Post Office to raise funds outside the public sector borrowing requirement—no Treasury would ever agree to that—seems to fit the bill.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government stake would be no more than 49 per cent., and that the workers' stake in the operation would be at least, say, 10 per cent?
Mr. Heseltine: I have not given a figure for the Government stake today, although percentage figures can be considered in the Green Paper. Certainly one option that the House will want to have in mind, which I have mentioned before, is for the Government to have a large minority stake—suppose it were 49 per cent. The work people and the sub-postmasters might have a significant stake in addition to that. That is not quite the BP solution —I recognise that at once—but it is a variant of that solution, and I believe that it would give much reassurance to a wide body of opinion outside as well as inside the House. The Government will parade that and other options.
Ms Estelle Morris: If the President is concerned about the Post Office's lack of freedom to compete, does he agree that that calls for immediate action, not for further delay? He said that making the Post Office competitive in the public sector would cost the nation money, but does not he accept that privatisation of the Post Office would also lead to a loss to the nation's economy—for example, of the contribution of

981
£750 million that has been made over the past 10 years? That has been the steady contribution of the Post Office to the economic health of the nation.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady takes a narrow view of the way in which one has to judge such matters. Nobody suggests moving the Post Office abroad. The issue is where the ownership lies, and to what disciplines it is to be subjected. The profit would be distributed within this country one way or another. The question is whether it should continue to go directly to the Treasury by way of a dividend, which means that the Post Office is denied the opportunity to invest in itself.
One of the Post Office's major complaints is that it is not allowed to keep back the amount of retained profit that it would control in the private sector, because the Treasury earns a larger receipt than would be paid in the private sector. If the House says that therefore we should not take so much from the Post Office, it is really saying that that would have an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's finances. The money cannot go both ways.
There are issues that we have to face. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to take decisions quickly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
4.55 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You asked me to leave with you overnight a written parliamentary reply informing me yesterday that on 20 April 1994 the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People authorised his officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to draft the 80 amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tabled by five hon. Members. I also gave you other and related papers, and I know that you have been considering them in the context of a ruling you gave in the House last week. Is there anything you can now tell me about the outcome of your consideration?
Madam Speaker: I am aware, of course, of the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and I remind him and the House that I have no direct responsibility for ministerial answers. The answer that he mentioned appears to give a date relevant to a sequence of events described in the letter from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott)—the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 9 May. It does not open up any new area for examination by me regarding an incident which I told the House on 11 May was closed so far as I was concerned. Hon. Members must find other ways of pursuing the matter that do not involve the Chair.
Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The statement to which the privilege complaint referred was that by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 6 May that he had:
"No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments"—
to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—
982
"and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department had been involved in the drafting"—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's intensity of feeling on the issue, but I have now dealt daily—indeed, several times a day—with it. Of course I must deal with points of order made to the Chair, but what are now being raised are matters of debate, for which I have no responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for the Chair, perhaps he will come to it and I shall try to deal with it.
Mr. Berry: Is it not in order for you to review your ruling, Madam Speaker, because the implication of the written answer received last night is that we are being asked to believe that the Minister forgot an instruction that he had given a mere 16 days—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Berry: A mere 16 days before—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman appears to be challenging what I have said in the House on a number of occasions. I have just said that what has happened does not open up any new area for examination by me. I cannot make it clearer than that. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging my statement? If he is, perhaps he is not aware of our procedures. I want to deal with him as gently as I can, but if he is challenging my statement he must put a substantive motion on the Order Paper so that it can be debated. I cannot speak any more clearly. We have a very precise language. I said that what has happened does not open up any new area of examination for me. I cannot take the matter further than that.
Mr. Berry: I am not challenging your statement, Madam Speaker, and I am most grateful for your tolerance towards me. I was asking whether, given the information that we now have, it is in order that we are being asked to believe that the Minister forgot an instruction that he gave only 16 days beforehand. Would it be in order for you to review your—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason for me to review my ruling. I saw last night the answer that was given, and I am giving the hon. Gentleman my ruling. I am very sympathetic to hon. Members who entered the House at the general election and are keen and anxious to get their Bills through. However, I have to carry out the procedures and Standing Orders given to me by the House. The hon. Gentleman understands that.
Mr. Berry indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: I have enormous sympathy with the work that the hon. Gentleman has put in, but I cannot bend the rules and procedures of the House to meet the demands of one Member, or even of a handful of Members.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It does not relate to the same matter, of course, does it?
Mr. Austin-Walker: It is a completely separate point of order. I wish to raise it in the presence of the Lord President of the Council.
Madam Speaker: Points of order are not for any other Member of the House; only for me.
Mr. Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you any responsibility for the procedure for the guidance of Ministers? In the light of the new information given in the written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), is not there a case for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement?
Madam Speaker: I have nothing to do with guidance for Ministers. I have enough responsibility in the House without guiding Ministers. I have not had any information from any Minister, certainly not from No. 10, that the Prime Minister is seeking to make a statement. However, motion No. 1 very much concerns me.

SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence tomorrow, Friday 20th May, to attend the funeral of the Right honourable John Smith, formerly Member for Monklands, East.—[Mr. Newton.]

Coal Industry
5.1 pm
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
The House will be aware that British Coal has on the table with the unions a package which includes a lump sum payment of £6,000, the contractualisation of British Coal's basic generous redundancy terms, existing pay rates and the introduction of flexible working arrangements. That is a generous offer to British Coal employees which helps to provide some certainty for the future. While the great bulk of redundancy payments are, of course, financed by restructuring grants, that package is a matter for British Coal and the unions.
The draft order laid before the House is the eighth annual order under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987 and has three main purposes. First, it specifies the kinds of expenditure in the present financial year for which grant may be paid. These are set out in the schedule to the order and are unchanged from those specified last year. Secondly, the order sets the maximum percentage of relevant expenditure which may be met by grant. The Government have decided that the maximum rate for 1994–95 should remain at 90 per cent. Thirdly, the order increases the cumulative ceiling for payments of restructuring grant from £2,500 million to £3,000 million, as permitted under the Coal Industry Act 1992.
I will explain the third purpose in more detail. The 1987 Act, as amended by the Coal Industry Act 1992, limits the cumulative provision for restructuring grant to £2,500 million, increasable by order up to £3,000 million. At the end of 1992–93, cumulative restructuring grant paid to British Coal was some £1,900 million. During 1993–94, British Coal made claims for restructuring grant amounting to more than £740 million. If all those claims had been met, the cumulative total paid since 1987 would have been £2,640 million. Due to the current ceiling of £2,500 million, grant claims of £140 million for 1993–94 remain unpaid, the expenditures involved having been funded temporarily by voted loans to the corporation. Further claims for some £110 to 120 million are expected in relation to 1993–94 costs. Those expenditures, already incurred in 1993–94, would imply the need for an increase in the cumulative ceiling to over £2,750 million.
As hon. Members will be aware, the provision for restructuring grant in this year's supply estimates is £425 million. A major part of that provision will be taken up by the £250 million or more of expenditure incurred by British Coal last year, for which grant will be paid this year if the House approves the current order. It is too early to say what further eligible expenditure may be incurred in the current financial year, although we have already received a claim for £6 million in respect of job losses in April.
I hope that that explanation will assist the House and I look forward to listening to the debate. I commend the order to the House.
5.3 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: As you would imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to divide the House on the order, although it would be wrong to assume that the Opposition necessarily give it an unalloyed welcome.
As ever these days, we speak about the coal industry against the background of a further decline in numbers to about 14 pits and 10,000 men working in them. There are also prospects of further reductions, although we do not know how many or what form they will take. If there have to be further redundancies between now and any privatisation date, we would hope that those redundancies would be treated in a similar manner to those that have already occurred. However, we know that the redundancy proposals have been withdrawn in their present form.
One of the main concerns—to which the Minister referred—is the package currently being offered to miners. One of the hallmarks of industrial relations since the miners' strike has been the understandable reluctance of the National Union of Mineworkers to participate in talks with British Coal. For miners who are members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, discussions have continued and a number of settlements have been reached, although in many instances those who did not participate felt that they could have done far better had they been given a proper opportunity.
The package to which the Minister alluded does not even satisfy the Union of Democratic Mineworkers: in a ballot of its members, the agreement was rejected by some 93 per cent. of those who participated in the negotiations. That ballot was significant because it showed that not even members of the UDM were prepared to accept that package which was designed, if I may use the euphemism, "to promote flexible working". What is on offer is a sum of £6,000, subject to taxation, if the men are prepared to sign undertakings that they will change the nature of the working arrangements, which will mean abandonment of agreed working hours and the possibility of having to work up to 13 hours a day as a consequence of accepting the agreement.
There are grave misgivings on the part of a number of those involved in the mining industry. I need go no further than the opinion of the general secretary of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, Peter McNestry, who has repeatedly made the point about the inherent dangers of additional working hours, not just in terms of the possibility of exhaustion causing mistakes and lack of care, but because of the very fast cutting equipment at the coal face and the greater exposure to industrial dust and other pollutants down there. Exposure is increased and the danger to men increases as a consequence. However, we are led to believe that if the £6,000 is accepted all those other considerations will be set aside.
Opposition Members feel that such a move is designed more to make the coal industry attractive to potential purchasers than to make it safe and healthy for the men currently employed in it. We therefore have grave misgivings about the proposal and we understand only too well why the men who have had the opportunity to vote on it have rejected it and why others are in no way sympathetic to it.
It is perhaps a sign of the despair of British Coal in such matters that a recent edition of Coal News, the official
986
organ of British Coal, said that the colliery managers union had come out in favour of the proposal. The significant factor is that the colliery managers are not subject to any constraints on the number of hours that they work anyway, so it is almost academic to ask them. Anybody who is offered £6,000, even if he has to pay tax on it, will not turn it down if it involves no sacrifice on his part. However, the numbers concerned and the people concerned are not really relevant to discussion of the proposal today.
We are led to believe that there are some assurances in the package in relation to redundancy payments. However, as I understand it from legal advice received by some of the unions, there are grave misgivings about whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 provisions extend beyond 12 weeks after a change of ownership of an undertaking. We are conscious that within the financial provisions of the order there is money available to finance part of the package, but we find the package to be wanting in a number of respects and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will return to the matter in due course.
It is worth putting on record that an agreement on pensions has been reached between the trustees and the Government, and that many of the problems that we debated during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill appear to have been resolved. What is at stake here is the funding of the interim arrangements for men who have had to leave the industry and whose pension payments are not yet covered by the pension fund proper. We express our relief that an agreement has been reached which is to the satisfaction of the pensioners, the prospective pensioners and the trustees of the pension scheme.
Perhaps the Minister, who was helpful in his introduction, will spell out exactly how much of the sums involved will be accounted for this year. Perhaps he will tell us a little more about how much money will be made available to British Coal Enterprise. Although many of us have been somewhat less than fulsome in our praise for British Coal Enterprise, we recognise that when the coalfield communities are in a state of economic depression, any assistance available to communities and to individuals for retraining or for help in starting their own businesses will be welcomed.
We want to know two things: how much will the sums be, and will there be any new money? We know that a fair amount of the funding of British Coal Enterprise is now accounted for by the repayment of loans and the recycling of moneys. How much will the retraining budget be? If any area of British Coal Enterprise activities needs to be looked at, it is retraining. We are very conscious that some of the areas in which colliery closures have taken place are now denuded of virtually any economic activity. The important and valuable skills that were won at the coal face and underground are, sadly, not marketable in the changed environment. We hope that there will be sufficient funds to support retraining in those areas and we should like to know the sums involved.
We are concerned that there is great uncertainty about the future of British Coal Enterprise. The Minister was unable to give us assurances about that when we debated the Coal Industry Bill in Committee. I repeatedly have to tell councillors in my area, where there are a number of unemployed mineworkers, that British Coal Enterprise is still in business. During the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, there was a feeling that British Coal Enterprise would be finished shortly afterwards. We recognise that it may

987
not have a life in perpetuity, but we are very conscious of the need for information about how long it will continue, what its future funding is likely to be and the possibility of new money. There is considerable anxiety about those matters and a great need for more resources to be made available.
This is one of the last—perhaps the last—coal restructuring orders if privatisation goes through. In some respects, it is a reflection on the sad state of the industry that we have to talk in terms of the significance of measures to try to mop up unemployment and of softening up the labour force before privatisation with the removal of the struts that have supported the coal industry and industrial relations within it for so long.
It is a matter of considerable regret that British Coal is trying, apparently with Government support, to buy back from the men many of the important concessions that have been won over the years. Those concessions cannot be measured against the price that the board and the Government seem to place on them. It is not wise to encourage men to work longer hours underground; that is a profoundly dangerous road to take. In other countries, it has resulted in a dramatic increase in industrial injuries. When those longer hours are combined with the change in the health and safety arrangements, and the change that is likely as a consequence of the ending of deputies and the ending of regular independent assessment of the safety provisions within colleries, one becomes extremely suspicious and worried about the future of the industry. Although it employs only 10,000 people, for many communities it is still one of the few sources of employment of a standard that we want to defend, not necessarily to the death, but certainly to the hilt.
We do not intend to vote against the order, although we have a number of misgivings about its contents, and we regret that it will be one of the last of its kind. We hope that the points that my hon. Friends will make, along with mine, will go some way towards persuading British Coal and the Government to think again about a package that we consider to be dangerous and unhelpful to the industry and more likely to poison the well in advance of privatisation. We have a number of misgivings about privatisation. We do not believe that it is necessary and we do not wish it well, but we do not want the hands of the workers to be tied in any way before privatisation. The order and the package to which the Minister has alluded are likely to result in a deterioration in conditions and in the protection that the workers currently enjoy. That deterioration is regrettable and objectionable; as other financial provisions are contained in the order, however, we shall not oppose it. Nevertheless, I make it clear to the Minister that we do not offer our approval for what he is offering today.
5.18 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: The order is called the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order, but many of us from coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire and across the country feel that the coal industry has had enough restructuring recently. I remind the Minister that in Nottinghamshire there were 40,000 miners in 1980; there are fewer than 4,000 now.
The morale in the coal industry and in the coalfield communities has never been lower, and the order reaffirms the problems. The Minister told the House that the package
988
on the table for discussion with the unions came specifically from British Coal. I wish to challenge him on two points.
First, the package is no longer on the table with the unions. British Coal is blackmailing individual miners to sign by this time tomorrow or lose any financial rights. Those are the tactics which are going on, and there are letters in Nottinghamshire pits today telling miners in clear terms that if they do not sign on the dotted line they will lose tremendous amounts of money. Miners have been told that this is a once and final offer, and that British Coal is not in a position to make a better offer because the real offer is coming from the Government.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us today whether he has had discussions about the redundancy package, and whether he received advice from British Coal. Perhaps he will tell us what specific advice he had from British Coal, because there is a strong view within the coal industry that the managers of British Coal want to do better for the work force than the offer that is on the table, but they have been denied the resources by the Government. Yet the order provides money to the Government to give to British Coal. Clearly, if there was a will, there would be a way to make more money available for miners.
The package on offer to miners is bad in many, many ways. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, it demands longer hours. The package demands 12 to 13-hour shifts, which cannot be right in a modern society with high unemployment and, in particular, immense unemployment among ex-miners. We ought to be reducing the hours worked underground. It is also unfair in the sense that miners have to give up their two years' pay claim. The £6,000 lump sum will be taxed and they will take home about £3,400. That is perhaps the equivalent of the two years' pay claim, but it is not the generous settlement to which the Minister referred today.
We are told that the package will last beyond privatisation. Perhaps the Minister will be specific tonight and say what the situation will be for miners if a private company goes bankrupt. Will that offer still stand? Will miners still get the money? The answer seems to be no, but perhaps the Minister will tell us, because we need to know, and the men and their families need to know. What about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations? If the package is agreed, how long will the TUPE regulations and the force of law last beyond the privatisation of British Coal? Will not the new mine owners in fact be able to renegotiate the package quickly, perhaps within a year of the privatisation of the pits?
Those are the difficulties involved in the package. The real difficulty is that it has taken the guts out of the mining industry, and it has taken the morale of the men away. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that. In Nottinghamshire up to now, productivity in the pits has constantly gone up. However, the men feel that they are not getting a fair deal and are being treated like dogs and, because of that, productivity is now going down. Clearly, that will cast a blight on privatisation.
The package has been resoundingly thrown out by ordinary miners in Nottinghamshire. They say very strongly that they are not getting a fair deal. I will give the House the example of Stephen Tuck, who works at Bilsthorpe colliery. His father Bert worked there before him, and set up the National Union of Mineworkers at Bilsthorpe colliery. His sons have followed in the family tradition. Stephen Tuck does roof bolting at Bilsthorpe

989
colliery—something the Minister knows about. He works in a team with contractors and, in fact, is the supervisor of three contractors. He is a British Coal man, but the men he works with are contractors. They used to work for British Coal and received redundancy payments of £40,000, yet they are still working in the industry alongside Stephen Tuck. He says, quite rightly, that he wants to leave British Coal, and he has been asking for his redundancy for some time, but the corporation will not let him go. Yet the lads whom he is supervising have received £40,000.
There are all kinds of stories like that from people who want to set up their own businesses. Adrian Button wants to come out of the industry. He has set up on a part-time basis a small business which is becoming successful drilling and looking after the roadway in Bilsthorpe colliery. He wants to come out, but the pit manager at British Coal will not let him. It is not surprising that people are saying that they have been locked into a new kind of slavery.
The package currently on the table is a new, modern slavery, and it is keeping men in the industry who want to come out. It is unfair and inequitable because the miners' colleagues and comrades, who had a better chance just a few weeks ago, have had far better offers. The Minister really ought to think again, because the money contained in the order would allow other ways of dealing with the men. There has been a strong voice from Nottinghamshire, which I know that the Minister has heard, in the run-up to privatisation. In all decency, the Minister ought to treat all the men the same. The day before the industry becomes privatised, he ought to pay the men off under the old terms. There are currently 10,000 men in the industry. I do not know whether there will be 10,000 men in the industry at the point of privatisation, but I know that the average redundancy pay-out under the old scheme was £25,000. That would mean £25 million in total, so there is enough money in the order to meet the aspirations of people in the coalfields in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere.
The men and their families have had a tough time. Many of them have given their lives to British Coal, to their coalfield and to their community, and they are not getting a fair deal. I remind the Minister that promises were made, particularly to the miners in Nottinghamshire. There is a strong feeling that they have been betrayed, and that the Minister has turned his back on them and walked away. They want a new and fairer future. The Minister must think again about the redundancy package, give the men a fair chance and move towards bringing new industry, new employment and a new future to the coalfield communities.
That is why the questions that the Minister is being asked about the future of British Coal Enterprise are so important. Will the Minister tell the House today whether British Coal Enterprise will last, not just for a little time beyond the privatisation but into the future? The devastation in the coalfield communities means that we need measures to tackle problems which could last for five, 10 or 15 years. The industry has been there for a long time, and men have given their lives to it for a long time: now is the time for the Minister to play fair with them.
5.28 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: It gives me very little satisfaction that so many of my constituents should have to be the beneficiaries of the enhanced redundancy payments for which the order provides, but they are in that position because of the tragic closure of Ellington colliery. The closure came after those involved had been led to expect that, with a Government subsidy, they had a 15-month breathing space in which to prepare for privatisation.
The hope is still kept alive that the colliery will reopen following privatisation, and I expect the Minister to continue to mount every possible effort to see that that can be successfully carried through. I believe that the pit has a future, but tonight we must consider the position of those who are involved in the redundancy package. I must underline to the Minister that a number of people did not benefit from the enhanced redundancy package. When so much public money is involved, as there is in the order, it is incumbent on the Minister not to stand completely back from the way in which British Coal handles that public money.
I have had occasion to put to the Minister the position of some of those people who were put on to contract, in my view under a degree of duress, and who therefore became employees of contractors shortly before the closure of Ellington colliery. As a result, they did not get the enhanced redundancy package available to those employed at the colliery on the day of closure. The Minister wrote to me saying that the detailed arrangements were a matter for British Coal. However, when what appears to be a significant injustice involving public money has occurred, the Minister should take a closer interest than that shown in his letter.
Stories abound of people put under pressure to cease to be British Coal employees and to become contract employees. I want to quote a letter from someone who was affected in that way, but first I want to quote a letter from Mr. Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal. On 4 March he wrote to me saying:
"I cannot accept that any employee at Ellington was pressured or coerced to accept redundancy where their jobs were identified as surplus to requirements. All such employees were counselled in the usual way and, in every case, were offered either alternative employment at the mine or the opportunity to accept redundancy on the terms available at the time."
That is not what happened. Mr. Clarke persists in describing something very different from what is happening in the real world. He went on to say:
"Those accepting redundancy were certainly not 'transferred' to mining contracting companies by British Coal. I understand that a number applied to the companies concerned and were offered jobs following interviews."
That is not a fair description of the position when people who work for British Coal one day find themselves the next day doing the same job in the same location in the same pit as an employee of a contractor, in a number of cases very much against their will.
One factor in the position of those workers was their belief that their pit had the future to which I referred earlier as a result of the Alcan contract and the subsidy for that contract. Once the men knew that the contract had 12 months to run and would be supplied with Ellington coal, there was a reasonable expectation that there would not be an immediate closure of the colliery. Everyone knows that

991
when a closure happens extra redundancy payments are made. No one with the knowledge that a pit would close within a few weeks would voluntarily transfer to contract.
Many people thought that the pit had at least another 12 months' future. They feel that the Minister's statement at the time was not only misleading but damaging because it led them to take a decision different from that which they would have otherwise have taken. Of course, they would have had considerable difficulty taking any other decision because of the pressure that they were put under.
I want to quote from a letter sent to me on behalf of two men. It states:
"After initially saying we would be able to remain in our own jobs with British Coal, management then changed their minds and said we were required to sign over to the new contractor. The next 9 weeks were a catalogue of threats, pressure and coercion by British Coal, from our supervisor through to senior management. We were told to accept the conditions or be sent down the pit with a shovel … Men from a nearby, recently closed colliery were to be offered our jobs if we didn't quickly accept terms (or so we were told!) An ex-shaftman who left the industry over five years ago was approached by management to come back to work for the contractor (as our replacements). Two underground joiners who are good friends of ours refused an offer to take over our positions"—
these were positions in a different trade.
"We were told by our supervisor that the contractor had been told to fulfil his obligation immediately. This was later found to be untrue".
The letter mentions a number of other points, but then goes on to say:
"We approached the personnel manager to let us know where we would be sent if we stayed with British Coal. 'This had not been fully explored', was his reply. We asked him to look into alternative jobs with British Coal for us and he agreed to do so. Two weeks later when we saw him again, he could not give us an alternative offer of work. However, he told us that if we didn't sign over, the contractors would be told to fulfil their contractual obligations immediately. We had no alternative at this stage, so very reluctantly, we signed over to contract . . To rub salt into our wounds, the announcement to close Ellington Colliery was made 2 weeks after we were forced out."
A significant number of men were forced on to contracts by threats and duress. They were told that there would not be a job for them or that no job could be specified. I sent some details of that to the Minister and I must ask him to consider whether that was a reasonable way for British Coal to behave. It was not. It is not a reasonable way to dispose of public money to operate a scheme in so partial a way. The partiality arises because, far from men having voluntarily accepted transfer, they were coerced into that shortly before a closure was announced. Had they not transferred, they would have been significantly better provided for by the redundancy package.
To add further insult to injury, many of those men have subsequently been made redundant by the contractors to whom they signed over. They now find that they are not eligible for unemployment insurance on their mortgage. People who took out mortgage insurance policies are now told that they are not eligible for payment because they changed their jobs. I know that that has been said to someone who worked in the same job in the same pit but was simply transferred by British Coal to contract employment. It is a further injustice that I ask the Minister to consider.
As has already been mentioned, there were those at Ellington, as there were at other pits, who wanted to take redundancy but could not do so because their position was in demand. They may have wanted to set up their own businesses, but could not get a date for redundancy. There
992
are many injustices. The redundancy payments are about the only thing that stand between the local economic conditions of having the pit open and the disaster of it being closed. For a short time there is still a good deal of money around in the community, going into the shops and so on, but once the redundancy money has gone the real deprivation starts.
That is why the reference to British Coal Enterprise is significant, although it plays only a small part in what needs to be done for those areas. Nevertheless, we want its role to be adequately fulfilled. The only recipe to deal with the concerns that I have expressed tonight is that particular injustices should be corrected—as, I understand, they have been at the Wearmouth colliery, for example. British Coal Enterprise should be given every encouragement to work in areas where there are closures.
Every effort should be made to secure the future of Ellington pit, even though it would have a reduced work force. Further steps should be taken by all the relevant Government agencies to bring work to the area. A very serious position now faces south-east Northumberland, as with other former coalfield areas. Once again, I draw that to the Minister's attention.
5.37 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: Reference has already been made to the fact that this may be the last coal restructuring debate. That may be so, but the Minister must accept that it certainly will not be the last coal debate because the problems that will remain after the privatisation measure goes through, if it does, will be so enormous that the House will have to return to the subject with the same frequency with which it has turned to the subject of coal over the past 15 years.
I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), all of whom have taken part in or diligently attended coal debates throughout the years. We have heard and seen the Government change their position quite dramatically. For example, in the mid-1970s it was customary for some Conservative Back Benchers to take part in coal debates. They used to castigate the Labour Government if a colliery closed. In those days, they drew attention to colliery closures, yet we lost only about 1.5 per cent. of the pits.
In general, collieries were closed with the agreement and acceptance of the men who worked there. They were prepared to accept that a colliery should close when it was exhausted or if the men were working up to their waists or worse in water. If the circumstances in an individual pit were barbaric, the colliery closed. Now, we are not talking about men having to work up to their waists in water or about barbaric conditions. We are concerned about a system, which will govern our coal industry, which is in itself barbaric.
The Minister will probably say that the changes are an example of flexibility. Yet men have been compelled to accept a bribe to be enchained and to lose whatever capacity they had to decide for themselves the nature of their employment, whether they wished to work excessive hours, and whether they wished to question the erosion of the pattern and culture of safety which would be an inevitable consequence of the changes made by the Government.

993
The Minister has heard me make the point about safety before. He has refused to accept it throughout. The fact remains that the men responsible for safety underground believe that the changes that the Minister introduced are bound to erode the culture of safety, cause accidents and increase the proportion of men in the industry who are maimed or killed. The Minister has heard me say—I said it in his office as well as in the Chamber—that when, under the changes and the erosion of the safety culture, men are maimed and killed, he will have firmly on his conscience a substantial responsibility for those tragedies.
It is tragic that in the 1970s Conservative Members clamoured for the Labour Government to maintain the commitment to the Plan for Coal and investment in the industry. When we hear in coal debates about the astronomical sums that have been spent on the coal industry over the years, we have to understand that a substantial part of that expenditure was investment of historic importance. It meant that by the time we reached 1990, or the latter part of the 1980s, we had such a successful coal industry in Britain that it made other European coal industries look like incompetent failures. We had the highest rate of industrial success and increased productivity not merely in Britain or in the coal industry but in any industry in Britain or Europe in the past decade.
The consequence of that success has been record achievement, huge improvements in productivity and the provision for British industry of a significant base for industrial production and exports. The consequence has been the creation of a home market for engineering and all the other technological activities associated with successful deep mining. All that opportunity is being thrown away.
The taxpayers, or the politicians representing the taxpayers, were persuaded to approve the investment which secured the astonishing rates of improved productivity in the British mining industry. The Minister cannot deny that those rates of productivity were regarded as impossible at one time. The Minister nods his head, suggesting that he agrees with the point that I make. It is a pity that his superior, the President of the Board of Trade, still has not fully comprehended the scale of that achievement.
The fact remains that the thin-seam pits in the older part of our coalfields closed. There was investment in heavy duty equipment, which was put on to the coal face so that the coal could pour out on a scale and at a pace that could not have been imagined 20 years ago. Having achieved all that, we have now seen the industry virtually scrapped. Why? It has been scrapped because of the strange and foolish perversion of the electricity privatisation. The structure that was established made it inevitable that the coal industry would be disfigured. The outrageous nuclear payment to the French electricity generating industry has been maintained. British money pours across the channel to sustain highly subsidised French nuclear generation. That money could well have been used here in Britain.
The British industry has been cast aside while the German and Spanish industries have costs per tonne which are three times ours, but have Governments who are not so daft as to make the very short-sighted calculation that dominates the Minister's approach.
994
What is worse, as we have seen liberty in the mines eroded and the safety culture cast aside in the name of support for privatisation, we have seen damage to the employment prospects of many parts of our country. I have told the House before—it is a serious matter—that just a few weeks ago I met a group of 15-year-old boys from my area. They were decent, normal boys. We are talking not about boys with academic potential or boys who would be high-flyers, but about boys who would be ordinary, decent citizens. They see no prospect for them; they see no challenge; they see no hope.
What are we doing as a society to make 15-year-old young people see no prospect of economic viability or social success? It is inevitable that at least some of those boys will become crime statistics. The very nature and character of societies in the British coalfields have been disfigured and corroded in recent times. Bills to provide temporary dollops of money to assist the restructuring that should never have been necessary will not provide the Government with any political satisfaction.
I accept that if men are to change jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said, we ought to have a fair and equitable system. We do not have such a system. The Minister should understand that, while it is fair to pay men who have been forced into redundancy, it is also essential to sustain the communities. Even with the provision of city grant, which is of some assistance, the spending capacity of the Deanne valley area has been reduced. Therefore, it is vital that the Government not only accept that European aid must go into the coalfields but recognise that coalfield areas have substantial needs when they distribute grants to local authorities to reward councils such as Westminster and Wandsworth, which enjoy a far greater affluence than the areas in which pits are being closed.
The Government must also recognise that we shall have to have another coal debate soon, not necessarily about the financial restructuring, but to resolve the serious problems that, at least so far, have been ignored in the privatisation arrangements. Those problems are as yet unresolved. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the recent case in south Wales and the effect of the cessation of pumping at abandoned mines. The environmental consequences could be catastrophic.
Perhaps the Minister would also consider that the environmental consideration to which I have referred can be matched by our deep anxiety about the future of greenfield sites which are subject to the risk of opencast mining by private business, given the power of compulsory purchase by a Government who are supposed to be fundamentally opposed to such disfigurements and who seem predisposed to give planning permission where the local community would not wish it to be granted. The House will have to return to those issues and others.
Although I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan was right to advise us not to vote against the measure, I hope that when the debate is over the Minister will be under no illusion that he enjoys massive support for his policies. He has no support among Opposition Members for a policy which has destroyed jobs, made Britain likely to enter energy dependence at a very early stage and has brought a great deal of ruin, hopelessness and blight to areas which deserved a great deal better, not least in view of the massive and magnificent improvements in productivity, which are unmatched in other areas of British or European industry.
5.49 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: The order covers the British Coal financial year from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. I note that, in paragraph 6, there is an increase from £2.5 billion to £3 billion. The items listed under headings 1, 2 and 5 in the schedule to the order are included in paragraph 5(2)(b), but I note that the item listed under heading 6 is not. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is significant.
I raise that matter because, although British Coal Enterprise has not created many lasting jobs in my constituency, its endeavours have overall been helpful. The organisation has the potential to create jobs—and every little helps. The Coal Industry Bill, which is now in another place, does not have a great deal to say on the matter, and I hope that the omissions from paragraph 5(2)(b) are not an indication that the Government intend to wind up British Coal Enterprise or to cut it adrift from funding.
There is still a great deal to be done to assist miners who are made redundant, and their communities. The last colliery to close in Barnsley was Grimethorpe. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). Recently, research was carried out in the village of Grimethorpe by The Guardian. It was found that only 44 per cent. of men who had been made redundant had found other employment, and those miners who had managed to find employment were in low-paid jobs. Of course, that has dramatically affected the standard of living of miners and their families.
Through the provision of grants, the Government also make resources available under the new pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. That no-faults liability scheme was introduced into the coal industry in 1974. Since its introduction, it has been widened to cover asbestosis, and in some cases it includes payments for men suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I should add that payments for the latter disease are made only in special circumstances, and I shall refer to them in a moment.
My concern is that the order does not provide more resources for the scheme so that the Minister can include in it the general disease of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The pneumoconiosis scheme provides for the payment of a lump sum based on the assessed degree of disability and the age of the miner at the determined date of development. If the miner has attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema and the medical authority contends that it has worsened as a result of pneumoconiosis, an additional award is made. That additional award will trigger off a further payment under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme—and that is only right and proper.
The House will be aware that in September 1993 the Secretary of State for Social Security prescribed chronic bronchitis and emphysema as an industrial disease for coal miners. His decision to prescribe the disease was based on a report that he received in August 1992 from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which clearly accepted that there was a connection between the disease and the inhalation of coal dust. The indication is that coal miners are subjected to precisely the same risk of contracting chronic bronchitis and emphysema as they are of contracting pneumoconiosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that he is prepared, under the order, to make money available to the pneumoconiosis
996
scheme to cover chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is essential that that is done while the industry is still in the public sector, and before privatisation.
Another omission from the order is grants to clean up pollution from abandoned mine workings. I raise that issue in the light of the assurance given in the House of Lords by Lord Strathclyde as reported in the Official Report of 26 April at column 539. He said that the prevention of pollution from abandoned mine workings must be a top priority. That assurance is relevant to the order because Lord Morris suggested, at column 1064 of the Official Report of 3 May, that pumping operations that had ceased since October 1992 should, where there were signs of pollution, be resumed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the order makes provision to cover such circumstances?
Furthermore, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what action he intends to take to avert an environmental disaster building up at Worsborough reservoir in my constituency? That has been brought about by a decision taken by British Coal in October 1993 to cease water pumping at nearby abandoned mine workings, thereby substantially reducing the flow of water to the reservoir. That is creating a threat to the wildlife—the flora and fauna—around the river that runs towards the reservoir, as well as to the fish life in the reservoir.
As the Minister said, British Coal is seeking to buy out the terms and conditions of the remaining mineworkers for £6,000. That is a cynical ploy—and the Minister must be aware of it—to strip mineworkers of the protection that they have under current legislation, and to render them vulnerable to any terms and conditions that successor private owners may wish to impose. A much more honourable way of tackling the situation would have been to offer the remaining mineworkers a redundancy payment before the industry is privatised. Perhaps even at this late stage the Minister will consider doing that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) suggested. The miners have been given until tomorrow to make up their minds on the issue. I can see nothing whatever in the order to cover such payments.
It would be an enormous boost if the Minister could tell the House that he is prepared to make redundancy payments available to the remaining mineworkers before privatisation. The number of mineworkers in the industry who have not received redundancy payments cannot be more than between 7,000 and 8,000. If the Minister were prepared to make that announcement today, it would give an enormous boost to mineworkers and their families.
5.58 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) spoke of miners claiming for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I asked various hon. Members who represent coalfield constituencies, but cannot find anyone who has won his case. I can see one or two of my hon. Friends nodding. There seems to have been a bit of Government trickery to prevent those miners from getting any payments.
One thing will emerge from this short debate. If it is not in the Minister's domain, I hope that he will impress on the various Government Departments and the Minister responsible—I do not know whether the matter cuts across

997
social security—that the examinations are not being carried out properly and that miners cannot get through the net.
British Coal Enterprise is another aspect of this package of recommendations that I must mention. We debated the matter during the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill. We all know that British Coal Enterprise is one of the organisations with administrators roaming the coalfields purporting to provide jobs. They actually say "job opportunities" and that is how they get away with it—they are not real jobs.
It is high time that the Government understood what we are dealing with. People in pit villages in some coalfields did not fully appreciate what mass unemployment was all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred to that. He comes from a coalfield where people did not appreciate the scale of unemployment in the Scottish and Welsh coalfields and in parts of the Yorkshire coalfields for many years. In Nottinghamshire and the bordering parts of Derbyshire, the pits were closed suddenly, all at once. In a string of villages along that coalfield, including some in Bolsover, unemployment is more than 50 per cent.
Instead of giving the money to British Coal Enterprise, allowing whiz kids to roam about in flash cars, posh suits and Italian shoes and spend God knows how much on carpeting their floors, it is time that the money was used to get jobs back to those coalfield areas. I can think of no better way to do so than by telling local authorities to use that money to repair roads and schools and start building houses. They could get some of those miners back to work, instead of paying them on average £9,000 a year to keep idle. We are spending £30 billion a year so that mass unemployment can continue under this Government.
Some of the pit villages are like bombs waiting to explode. That is the truth. People talk about the social fabric breaking down in Britain and we have only to look at some of those pit villages where thousands of people have suddenly been chucked out of work to understand that.
That brings me to the question of the contract and the £6,000. It is true that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has thrown the proposal out by a 93 per cent vote. Frankly, I was amazed that its members voted in those numbers. Why do the Government and British Coal not understand? If 93 per cent. vote in a ballot against something, one would think that those in power would wake up to the idea that they do not want it, but they have blindly ignored the ballot and gone ahead.
What should be done about contracts and about unemployment in the coalfields and everywhere else? We should be talking about a four-day week—not for Parliament, but for the people in general. There will be no better opportunity; we should start it now, while we have mass unemployment.
I was looking at the contract the other week. Based on the number of hours that miners work now—the few that are left—they would have to work 51.5 weeks in the year under that contract, which means that they would have two or three days holiday instead of the normal holiday weeks and bank holidays. For surface workers, it would be 55 weeks, based on the hours that they work now. Imagine telling that to Members of Parliament. They have already
998
gone. Members of Parliament and Ministers will finish next Wednesday or Thursday for another fortnight. They have met for about seven months in the past year, yet they are telling miners that under the contract they will have to work the equivalent of 51.5 weeks underground. What a scandal.
Frankly, a lot of the things in this order want chucking out. We all know that a sum of money has to be paid to miners through various schemes and pensions and we know that that is necessary, otherwise we would vote against the order because of the parts about British Coal Enterprise, the contract and the £6,000.
Another thing that is not included, but ought to have been because we said it long and often enough during the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill, and doubtless in the Standing Committee as well, is the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—CISWO. Instead of giving the money to British Coal Enterprise, why was CISWO not given a sum equivalent to the amount that it fell short of when earlier measures were introduced?
For all those reasons we are faced with a list of measures that none of us can stomach, yet the order also provides for the sum of money to fund pensions and other necessary entitlements. Just before the privatisation of the coal industry we are engaged in a mopping up operation that will make the lives of people in pit communities even worse than they were before.
The real problem that the Government will have to face —a Labour Government—is how we can best get people back to work in those communities. The order will not provide that work.
6.5 pm
Mr. Eggar: We have had a good and useful debate and I am sure that Opposition Members will not blame me for saying that at least some of the themes were familiar—some of the speeches were quite familiar too.
Mr. Skinner: The hon Gentleman's is familiar—he is always kicking people in the teeth.
Mr. Eggar: I am listening with my normal courtesy to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary contribution—if that is what it is. I much admire the anticipatory nature of his interventions.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was kind enough to draw our attention to the very satisfactory conclusion that has been reached with regard to the agreement with trustees on the pensions issue. I appreciated the constructive way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House handled the issue. Perhaps all of us could learn a lesson from the way in which the House can assist a genuine discussion and negotiation, rather than hinder it, and the debate is a good example.
Some hon. Members referred to the transfer package. As I made clear at the beginning of the debate, the order does not relate directly to the package because it and the lump sum—£6,000 was mentioned—are a matter for British Coal, subject to the overall authorisation of its external financing requirements.
British Coal's offer is generous and amounts to a cost of £100 million for the lump sum payments. I must inform the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that 10,000 times 25,000 is not 25 million, but 250 million. I understand that he enjoys the freedom of the Back Benches, but an error amounting to a multiple of 10 seems

999
slightly cavalier, even from an Opposition Back-Bencher. I am delighted to see a glint in the eye of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I shall resist the temptation to retaliate in kind.
I listened with care to the points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is enjoying his conversation with the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is a matter for British Coal, but I shall make sure that the Hansard extract of his speech is brought to the attention of the chairman of British Coal because I am sure that the chairman would not want there to be any misunderstanding and will doubtless want to consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. O'Neill: The Minister spoke about the generosity of the package. Is it really as generous as he claims? It is £6,000, less tax which takes it down to a maximum of about £4,000. It involves two years without any pay rises and changes in working hours which will result in a reduction in the amount of money available from working overtime. Over four years the miners will be getting about £1,000 a year. Even making a generous estimate, £4,000 over two years is £48 a week. That is very little for changing their working hours, giving up the prospect of pay rises and losing overtime. It is not a generous offer by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Eggar: I assume that the hon. Member for Clackmannan has checked out his remarks with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who presumably will agree that £100 million of additional public expenditure is not adequate, thereby committing the Labour party in opposition to going way beyond that.
It is easy for Opposition Members to spend money like confetti and to make all kinds of commitments, but it is highly irresponsible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not make those observations if he were sitting on this side of the House.
Mr. Skinner: The Minister ought to understand that my hon. Friend is not asking for any more money. He is trying to tell the Minister that under a Labour Government there would not be such a package. We would not call upon miners to be blackmailed to the tune of less than £6,000 less tax and the rest of it in return for having to work longer hours and getting killed in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), "I have just taken part in a debate in which I have saved you £100 million.". We would use the money to build some council houses or to provide work in another fashion. That is what he is saying.
Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Clackmannan is as grateful as the rest of the House for that contribution from the hon. Member for Bolsover. I always enjoy his efforts at riding to the rescue of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, but that one does not wash.
At the end of the day, what would those men be doing? They would be producing coal which would be stockpiled because there is no market for it. What would the hon. Gentleman do with the stockpiles? How would he finance them?
Mr. Skinner: Stop imports.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman really is tempting me to go way beyond the terms of the order, but he has not
1000
done his research. He should know perfectly well that steam coal imports that are suitable for electric generation have fallen by 25 per cent. this year on last year and that the bulk of imports into Britain comprise coking coal and other specialist coals, the bulk of which are not and, sadly, cannot be produced in this country.
The hon. Gentleman should also know that one of the major aims of the private sector mining companies is to increase as far as possible anthracite production and other specialist coal production for niche markets. Sadly, he has not welcomed that, but he should do so.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) caused me a certain amount of consternation. Normally, such matters are dealt with by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), but the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken over that mantle. He did some analysis of the order and compared paragraph 5(2)(b) with paragraph 6. The order is drafted in that way because if BCE were to make redundancies among its own employees, unless that drafting were followed it could benefit from the grant twice over, once under head 1 and once under head 6.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the funding for BCE. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover, there is a general welcome for the work that BCE has done. The Government greatly value that work. We shall need to consider its longer-term future in the light of the overall employment position in the coalfields, and in the meantime the order would enable the funding of BCE to continue for a further year. In fact, we have received some suggestions from British Coal as to the future structure of BCE, which we are considering.
Mr. Clapham: I raised the possibility of chronic bronchitis and emphysema being included in the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The Minister will be aware that chronic bronchitis and emphysema is now prescribed and clearly accepted to be dust-related. There is, therefore, no difference in the risk of pneumoconiosis and chronic bronchitis and emphysema and it is only right and proper that it should be included in the scheme so that a man suffering from the disease can be compensated. Is there provision under the grant to include chronic bronchitis and emphysema sufferers within the scheme?
Mr. Eggar: There is no such provision. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his determination to raise the issue on every possible occasion, as he is fully entitled to do, but we cannot cover that particular area, which is why I did not pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Hardy: It is a simple but serious question. The Minister appeared to be suggesting before he gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that there was a reasonable amount of time and that the measure took us into 1995 —the next financial year. There are only 10 months of this year left and the wheels of Government sometimes grind extremely slowly. There is currently a lot of anxiety about BCE. Without wishing to twist his arm excessively, will he consider that that anxiety deserves to be recognised and if he can reach a conclusion before March 1995, he should do so? The House would be grateful for an early decision on the matter, which is of considerable significance to many people in the coalfield.
Mr. Skinner: Snap his arm off.
Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention and the way that he put it. He did not hear the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover suggesting that the hon. Gentleman should have snapped my arm off. Sometimes gentle persuasion is more effective. I listened carefully to what he said.
I understand both the valuable work that BCE does and the inevitable uncertainty that exists at the moment and I shall certainly be considering the advice that we have received from British Coal as soon as I reasonably can, but I would not want to be constrained to any timetable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

Value Added Tax (Education)
6.19 pm
The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1188), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
The order will replace the existing VAT exemption for supplies of education, training and research. It will leave existing VAT liabilities largely unchanged but I hope that, in line with the Government's commitment to deregulation, it will greatly improve the clarity and consistency of VAT treatment in that sector.
The key change is that profitability and the subject matter of individual courses will no longer be factors in determining eligibility to VAT exemption in most cases. Applying such criteria has been at the root of many of the disputes and inconsistencies in that area in cases that have gone before VAT tribunals.
The proposal is that exemptions will depend predominantly on the type of provider. If the supplier is an eligible body as defined in the order, its educational and training courses will be exempt from VAT. Schools, universities and further education colleges will continue to enjoy VAT exemption but the exemption has been extended in some respects.
First, sporting and recreational courses are no longer excluded. There was a contentious area of overlap between taxable recreational courses and exempt vocational training. One man or woman's recreational course is another's vocational course. A favourite example was that of flower arranging, which could be learnt for recreational purposes but also to become a florist.
Secondly, a specific VAT exemption has been introduced for examinations, assessments and similar activities. The new exemption covers a broad range of suppliers of such services and should facilitate the developing of national vocational qualifications.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome what the Paymaster General says about the exemption of courses that fell on the borderline between education and recreation, such as Women's Institute courses. But exactly where does the order make it clear that courses of that nature will be exempt from liability to VAT?
Sir John Cope: The whole order makes that clear. The new group 6 category says that the provision by an eligible body of education or vocational training will be brought into the exemption. It goes on to define "eligible body", and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the education branch of the Women's Institute to which he refers—he has written to me about that—is such an eligible body and therefore falls within the terms of the exemption provided in the order.
Thirdly, the exemption for private tuition has been broadened and will ensure that very few private tutors will be caught in the VAT net. It was previously limited to one-to-one tuition. I doubt whether many individuals will be affected because there is a £45,000 turnover limit to VAT, which excluded most such people from the VAT net and will continue to do so. Lastly, local authority adult education classes that are currently taxable will be brought within the exemption.

1003
Although the order is technical in nature, it is the result of a considerable consultation process. The House will know that the issues were discussed last year, with private notice questions in the House and correspondence, in the course of an internal review by Customs and Excise. That resulted in a consultation document being published last December, with press releases and so on. Although the issue was not front page material, its existence appeared in public print. In all, some 500 copies of the document were sent out, some to people whom we knew were interested and others to people who had seen the press release and were concerned about its ramifications, so had requested copies. Comments were invited by 28 February and those were carefully considered, as can be seen by the changes to the order between the December draft and the order before the House today.
When the order was tabled, it received a certain amount of support from those who had made representations during the consultation period. However, in the past week there has been a flurry of representations from people who teach English as a foreign language and had not seen the order before. Some of them are concerned about the proposals because the order extends exemption to organisations that are accredited under the British Council recognition scheme for English language schools. But that does not cover everybody who teaches English as a second language in a commercial environment. Those who are not covered by the British Council scheme will, under the order, continue to pay VAT and they have complained that it discriminates against them by exempting some of those whom they regard as competitors.
I have given no undertaking in response to those recent representations but have said that we shall consider them carefully and decide whether we should modify the arrangements in the order. It concerns a small part of the scheme of the order and I did not think that it would be right to hold up the whole order for that reason. It would, however, be right to give those who missed the earlier consultation process an opportunity to make proper representations. We may be able to achieve equitable operation leaving the order as it stands, with co-operation between the British Council and other representative organisations. The British Council has assured me that it will consider that. Alternatively, a brief amending order might be required. I am willing to consider representations from Members of the House in the course of this debate, which is part of the consultation process, and from others.
I believe that we should be justifiably proud of the English language. It is no longer ours alone but has become a world language, which is a great advantage to this nation and our daughter nations that also have English as their first language. I admit that I am not particularly good at foreign languages and take the view that, if foreigners could agree among themselves on one language, I would be prepared to make a greater effort to learn it. I have observed that when many foreigners from different countries wish to communicate with one another, they often use English. That is a great advantage to this country as well as to others who speak English as their first language. In those circumstances, I shall look favourably on the teaching of English as a foreign language. I am glad to be able to propose that favourable treatment be given to it in the order and will consider the further representations that may be made. At the same time, I recognise that, wherever we fix the boundaries, difficulties will arise.
1004
The order makes the application of VAT much clearer in the whole field of education and training, and I am happy to commend it to the House.
6.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: As the Paymaster General says, the order seeks to resolve the long-standing confusion, ambiguity and contradiction that have bedevilled the operation of the imposition of VAT on the education-recreation divide, which had become increasingly difficult to police.
The Labour party has campaigned long and hard for that to be sorted out. I welcome the fact that consultation took place. I shall point out later in my remarks where I feel that consultation was not wide enough. I also welcome the fact that the Government now appear to accept our argument that the benefits in terms of education and personal development, for example, of evening classes as a bridge to further education and training opportunities, are such that VAT should not be imposed on those courses. As the Paymaster General said, the progress of the campaign—with many millions of people throughout the country affected, directly or indirectly, and many making representations—has resulted in the welcome fact that VAT will not now be imposed. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has praised the campaign in that regard.
Lest the Paymaster General be tempted to relax under the weight of plaudits, I have some questions to ask and some important reservations to express. First, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm once again that the order does what we think it does. He referred to flower arranging. Other courses that often come up are those in cake decoration that do not lead to a qualification, as well as those in assertiveness, self-defence and other areas of adult education previously categorised as recreational. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that these will not be liable to VAT.
Secondly, I want to press the Paymaster General on whether the Government are convinced that it is consistent with good taxation principles to mix—as the order does —liability to tax, as defined by the nature of the supplying institution, with the nature of the supply. Is it not more generally the case that, with the exception of public bodies, the nature of the supply defines liability for VAT, for reasons of consistency but also in the interests of fair competition? As the Paymaster General has explained, the problem arises most acutely, in relation to the order, in the case of schools teaching English as a foreign language. In choosing to extend exemption to British Council-recognised schools, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the Government are making provision for 250 accredited institutions. But these are a minority of the estimated 1,200 schools—a fact that understandably gives rise to enormous concern among those to whom the exemption is not extended.
It seems to me that there is something of an inconsistency between the Government's treatment of language schools for taxation purposes and their categorisation of those schools for educational purposes. Liability to VAT is being tied to a particular voluntary accreditation scheme in a sector where the Government have refused to acknowledge, for educational purposes, the need for any official distinction, in a regulatory framework, between schools. I have advocated a common registration

1005
system. The British Council system, good though it is—as many in the industry will have pointed out to the Paymaster General—does not provide such comprehensive oversight of the industry.
I should like to know what the Government say to the Association of British Language Schools when it points out that the order confronts its members with unfair discrimination. The discrimination is referred to in the association's briefing:
"We are the only accrediting body for all types of EFL service, whereas the British Council is more restrictive in the types of school or college it will inspect. Our inspections are yearly, not three yearly, employ a highly qualified inspectorate, and are part of a Trade Association which is rapidly gaining respect for realism as well as reasonable costs. British Council charges are far beyond the means of many schools….
If the order does go through as it is, the legislation will be seen as flawed from the outset and will have a divisive and distorting effect upon the market."
As I have said, there is a good argument for regulation. It can be argued that the contents of the order provide a form of regulation, the need for which many non-British Council schools acknowledge. But this is regulation on the hoof. It is discriminatory and has been brought in without adequate consultation with those whom it affects.
I understand that the English language division of the British Council did not know anything about the order until April, when the customs authorities asked it about the finer points of drafting. The Oxford Language Forum was not consulted, nor was the Cambridge Language Forum, the Association of British Language Schools or the language schools information service. The Paymaster General says that he is willing to listen to further representations and, if necessary, produce an amending order. Fairness and natural justice demand that this process be taken very seriously in the interests of providers.
The order will raise serious issues for the British Council itself. The council has said that it supports the principle and will try to help in its implementation—for example, by accommodating providers of distance learning and of one-to-one home tuition who are not currently eligible for accreditation. However, this will cost money and will take time, yet the order is due to come into effect within a couple of months.
I understand that the British Council currently inspects about one in four centres run by an organisation. That is the sample that it believes is necessary for the assessment of quality. Clearly, this will present problems in the case of distance learning or lots of individual tutors, where there will have to be individual rather than sample inspections. Thus, there will be resource implications for the British Council if the order is to be workable.
At the moment the financial year accreditation fees are £620 for members of the Association of Recognised English Language Services and £704 for non-ARELS schools. Reinspection costs another £800 to £900 every three years. These fees are supposed to cover the costs of assessment, monitoring and inspection, but in the past the British Council has ended up subsidising the process. It has been trying to phase out the subsidy, and future schemes will be expected to pay for themselves. This may well have implications for membership and accreditation fees. In the light of the extra responsibility being imposed by the Government, the British Council will have to review its own operations, and this will possibly have resource
1006
implications. Clearly, it is very important that accreditation criteria be made as objective and defensible as possible. Bearing in mind the significant amounts of business that are at stake and the substantial sums of money that are involved, it is not fanciful to imagine that litigation will arise if a school which believes that it is entitled to accreditation and, therefore, to exemption from VAT is not accredited and has to damage its prospects by passing on the cost of the taxation.
In a number of respects the order indicates insufficient understanding and insufficient consultation with the industry. Currently, a school that operates throughout the year must have been established for two years before it can apply for British Council accreditation, and a seasonal school must have been established for three years. Am I right in thinking that, by implication, a newly established school will have to operate for two or three years, charging VAT, before receiving the accreditation that is the passport to exemption? That is an extraordinary proposal, given that it would hit new schools at precisely the time when they are trying to build up their custom. Surely it ought to be regarded as a massive and unfair barrier to entry to this sector of education services.
What is more, the differential liability to VAT may well be very damaging to many reputable schools, which will suddenly find themselves having to explain why they have to levy VAT when their competitors do not. We can all imagine the problems that will arise.
As I said earlier, I think that the timing of the order's implementation also betrays some ignorance of the education sector involved. I understand that the Customs explanatory leaflet is due to go out in June, and that the order is due to take effect in August—bang in the middle of the peak EFL season. Could not a more satisfactory arrangement be considered even at this late stage?
I think it likely that the cost to the Exchequer will exceed the Customs estimate of £10 million. Obviously that will become clear in due course, but we should take into account the hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds that are charged in fees for many courses.
The differing treatment of different sorts of institution that are similar in other respects gives rise to issues of hy bridity in the order. It is an affirmative instrument; if it went to the House of Lords, whether it was in fact hybrid would have to be considered. If it were found to be so, it would be subject to the petitioning procedure. I mention that in the light of a Customs and Excise news release issued on 28 April, which stated in its notes to editors:
"The Treasury Order is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure and will be debated in both Houses of Parliament."
I understand that the Government now say that that was a mistake. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would explain the position: if it was a mistake, how did that mistake come about?
I have a further question to ask in connection with language schools. It relates to the position of universities. The exemption that Customs intends to extend to EFL seems—certainly in the case of universities—to be dictated by the need to realign United Kingdom interpretations of VAT law with the European Commission's interpretation of the sixth directive, which exempts education provided by a body governed by public law.
The Customs consultation paper to which the Paymaster General referred concedes as much in paragraph 3.2, which states:

1007
"However, if EFL is accepted as 'education' (and the European Commission has argued strongly that it is), then it must be exempt when provided by bodies entitled to mandatory relief under Article 13 A 1 (i), eg we should not exclude EFL from the exemption when provided by a UK university."
That raises the question of the previous supply of EFL tuition by universities. If such courses should not have been taxed and, in effect, were taxed incorrectly, are universities now entitled to ask for a refund of the VAT that was levied on them?
At the bottom of the first page, the brief on the order states:
"There will be some changes at the margins from exemption to taxation and vice versa. Whether or not these changes are welcome will depend on the trading circumstances of individual providers."
Can the Paymaster General clarify the reference to
"some changes at the margins"?
How many providers does he expect to be caught in that way, and what kind of providers will they be?
My next question bears some relation to that last point. It relates to the word "any" in note (1)(f)(ii) of the order, which provides that a body that does not fall within the other categories for exemption—as the Paymaster General said, schools, colleges and universities fall into those categories—will be exempt if it is non-profit-making and
"applies any profits made from the supplies of a description within this Group to the continuance or improvement of such supplies."
Where that provision applies, does "any" mean any part of the profit, or all of it?
Let me give an example. What will be the position of a charity that sells some expertise—perhaps a course in public speaking—to the business sector, and then ploughs the profits back into a different area of its charitable work? Will all that supply still be exempt? Many charities will consider the question important.
I can give a converse example. What will be the position of a management college that provides tuition for corporate clients who can simply recover any VAT that they pay? Such a college might well prefer to charge VAT on its supply to reclaim the VAT on the input costs of such courses. Could it opt to do so under the order?
We welcome the clarification of the position of evening classes, adult education and so forth, because we campaigned hard for their exemption from VAT. Nevertheless—as I hope I have made clear—I think that the operation of the order will pose serious problems, especially in relation to English language schools. We all want the position of adult education classes to be sorted out as a matter of urgency, and there is no reason why that cannot be done on the basis of the order, which in that respect has our full support; but would it not have been better for the Paymaster General to withdraw the order this evening, and return it later minus the reference to EFL? He could have consulted before bringing back a revised order that reflected proper consultation and thorough consideration—which clearly has not gone into the part of the policy that we are now discussing.
We do not oppose the motion, but we shall pay close attention to the consultation with EFL providers and the conclusions—and, I hope, amendments—to which it gives rise.
6.46 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I am pleased to be able to speak in what I consider a very important debate.
I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) will not think me churlish when I say that many people feel that their campaigning was what led to the remission of VAT on adult education. Admittedly, the hon. Gentleman did not say that the campaigning of the Labour party alone had produced that result. The all-party Committee dealing with adult education, which I chair, has campaigned hard and I also pay tribute to the good work of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, its director Alan Tucket and others associated with it.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I did praise the campaign mounted by people up and down the country. I meant that to include the all-party group, whose contribution I acknowledge; I also mentioned NIACE.
Mr. Greenway: In that case, there is no difference between us. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Although I taught in schools for 23 years, for 12 of those years I also lectured in adult education, in which I have a great interest. I believe that I am almost the longest-serving member of the council of the Open university; I constantly examine distance learning on a university basis, and that includes adult education. The organisation is very interested in this important order and we are glad that it is to be introduced as early as 1 August.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East concentrated on the teaching of English as a foreign language, which is indeed an important subject. Every night, 1 billion people throughout the world sit down and study English as a foreign language. If there were more resources, that figure could rise to 5 billion. The demand is almost insatiable. Arising from that demand and flowing from that work is the enormous flow to this country of people who wish to learn English. They come to language schools, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and that brings money into the country. It brings employment. It is most valuable.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that some of those institutions are an unashamed and
disgraceful rip off to those who come to this country honestly and pay their money for a course in English language and English literature and do not get a fair deal. I feel sure that the exemption in the order will—perhaps fortuitously, but it will—lead to regulation of that situation, which is greatly needed.
There is no reason why language schools should not pay for the accreditation and inspections which have been referred to and which are urgently required. Some, of course, are quite marvellous, but some do not do an honourable and honest job.
There needs to be a thorough inspection system across the country. I have no doubt that it could be self financing; language schools charge enough in their fees. The hon. Gentleman might well agree, because he said that they might well have to resort to law if they thought that they were not getting a fair deal. If they thought about doing that, and some of them certainly would, it would not be just a few hundred pounds; legal action might mean hundreds of thousands of pounds. Some would be prepared to contemplate that, because their interest in holding their position is so strong. I ask my right hon. Friend to address himself to that important point.

1009
I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend tonight, or in the near future, that there will be a system to ensure that the schools that teach English as a foreign language do an honourable and thorough job, in which the progress of those who come to learn English as a foreign language can be properly measured, as all learning and teaching can and must be. That is what testing is for. Part of the national debate on education at present is about just that. If that means that, to measure progress, those schools have to make some initial assessment of those who come into them—I am not saying that they might refuse people on substandard qualifications—so be it. At least they would be seen to be doing an honest job.
Young people and people of mature age come here and are keen and set to learn English as a foreign language, and our culture. They do not get a fair deal, and go back to their country feeling that they have been ripped off. That area of our public and academic life discredits our country more than it should. It is shameful and must cease. That can be achieved through the order, and I hope and believe that it will be.
Vocational courses in adult education to enhance careers were mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He spoke of non-vocational qualifications. I warmly welcome the emphasis on the vocational and adult education that we currently have, but do not want to see adult education revert exclusively to the vocational. It is because it has had such high value over many years in non-vocational terms that we must encourage it. I believe that the relaxation of VAT will help that.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the value of flower arranging and pointed out that such courses can lead to people becoming florists, or working in that area. And so it can, and does. But many people want to learn to arrange flowers nicely for its own sake and for the sheer beauty of seeing beautifully arranged flowers. That is so valid.
Not so many years ago, in an educational establishment with which I was associated, a Lord Chief Justice of this land was following a course in basket making. He was never absent or late. I presume that he rushed from his court to be there. He loved it and needed it. A man or woman with a highly concentrated job gets so much out of such non-vocational courses, which are highly creative and highly valuable. If anything, there is a slight slippage in that area at present with all the pressure for vocational adult education.
I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who is doing such an excellent job, is here. He addressed the launch of the adult learners' week a few days ago, with great aplomb and to the thrill of all present, with his interest and knowledge of the area. I want to encourage him and pay tribute to him for what he is doing.
Similarly, physical education, including dance, is valuable to all. Is it covered by the measure? Let us be sure. Swimming is valuable to people of all ages. Perhaps they are people who just qualify in terms of age for adult education. Perhaps they are people of 90 who are going off to learn to swim. That is happening, as it should and must. Are they covered by the order? Does my right hon. Friend accept the enormous value in such courses being covered?
I speak for all those involved in adult education. I do not like to lose the term "night school", which is part of it.
1010
People continue to talk of night school. Let us import that into the term "adult education". All those people will welcome the Government's proposals to clarify exemption from VAT on adult education, including voluntary bodies such as the Women's Institute, and the simplification of the situation in local education authorities where, as we have heard, the Treasury is said to be forgoing £10 million in revenue. It is money well spent. It will all come back, as I will show. It is particularly welcome at a time when many local authority adult services are under financial pressure.
There are strong feelings that the imposition of VAT would represent a tax on learning. It is especially welcome that the Government propose not only to restate the principle that where LEAs subsidise courses they are non-business activities and, therefore, outside the scope of VAT, but to extend the exemption to LEA classes that do not attract subsidy. It is important that this be said. It will be particularly helpful for LEA adult services contracting with the Further Education Funding Council to provide schedule 2 courses—this might be part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman—which lead to qualifications and contribute to the national targets.
It is important to note the value of all forms of adult education. There is widespread agreement that adults as well as young people need to be encouraged to gain skills and qualifications. The lifetime learning targets are recognised to be necessary for our economic well-being, though they do not look like being achieved unless they receive added impetus in some areas.
However, many adults use adult education for a variety of purposes. For example, they may wish to pursue an interest or to re-establish contact with the outside world after an illness or a bereavement. In such cases, adult education is important and precious. They may wish to keep up with a child's enthusiasm or to keep fit in retirement. If these inexpensive services are cut, there is a danger that additional costs may fall on doctors' surgeries —I say that advisedly—or on local social services. Such cuts could also lead to the loss of the crucial sense of dignity without which people cannot live happy and integrated lives.
The Government recognised all these factors when they preserved the local education authorities' duty to secure the adequate provision of general adult education under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That was very welcome, but there is no doubt that a number of authorities, in London and elsewhere, have been struggling to maintain their budgets. It is not easy for them—we all know that.
The National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education believes that there is a need for "adequacy" to be defined to make clear LEAs' statutory duties. In that context, the first Government consultative paper on VAT and adult education, which omitted any mention of LEAs, aroused anxiety among professionals and students. A number of members of the all-party parliamentary group on adult education wrote to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to express their concern. They did not want the Government to be seen to be taxing learning when we are all trying to stimulate learning among adults. In my role as chairman of that all-party parliamentary group, I especially welcome the proposed measure and congratulate the Government on it.
7.1 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I, too, welcome the measures that we are discussing. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments again, because they have been excellently dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I certainly could not speak with the eloquence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about basket making and flower arranging, my knowledge of which could not possibly compete with his.
I wish to draw the Paymaster General's attention to another way in which value added tax is being paid out of the education budget. The relevant proposal does not go far enough. Had the Paymaster General considered it more fully, he would have realised that he should have brought other matters before the House tonight. I want him to share with us his thoughts on some of the issues to which I refer briefly.
The Paymaster General will be aware of the fact that, despite the proposals, grant-maintained schools are still liable for VAT on the services that they buy in, unlike local education authority schools, which are exempt and can claim back the VAT that they may be charged. Grant-maintained schools have to pay VAT on building and maintenance, perhaps on computers and even on legal services. The Department for Education recognises that there is an additional burden on grant-maintained schools. It does so through the special purposes grant VAT which is set at 2.5 per cent. of the annual maintenance grant that is paid to those schools. It is a considerable sum.
On 29 October last year, a reply to my written question revealed that the grant-maintained school in my constituency—one of the very few in the south-west—received £40,700 in 1993–94 towards its liability for VAT. At the moment, there are about 960 grant-maintained schools. Let us do some simple arithmetic. If there were 1,000 grant-maintained schools each receiving £1 million in grant—that is a low figure because most secondary schools receive considerably more than that but let us take it as a notional sum—it would cost £1,000 million, so the special purposes grant for VAT would be in the region of £25 million. Of course, that figure does not include their liability for VAT on fuel which, I estimate, comes to at least another £7 million a year at the rate of 8 per cent. and would be about £15 million to £16 million a year when the rate increased to 17.5 per cent.
The Paymaster General might be interested to know that I have worked out a little prognosis for him of what is perhaps an unlikely scenario, but it is one that has been wished on us by the team at the Department for Education. In that scenario, more and more schools opt for grant-maintained status instead of being run by local education authorities. If all 24,000 schools across the country became grant maintained—I recall Conservative Members saying that that was their ultimate desire—the total VAT bill, for all services, including VAT on fuel at the higher rate, would be in the region of £585 million a year. Where is that money going to come from?
It is disturbing that there is no accurate information available. Also in October last year, I asked how much fuel grant-maintained schools were using, so that I could calculate how much VAT they were paying. I was told:
"This information is available only at disproportionate cost."
More learned heads tell me that that is a polite way of saying that the Department does not know. I also asked
1012
about the total VAT bill paid by grant-maintained schools. I wonder whether that information is held by the Treasury. However, I asked the Department for Education and was told:
"This information is not collected centrally."—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c.448]
That is another way of saying that the Department does not know. If we do not know how much fuel grant-maintained schools are using, and therefore how much VAT they are liable to pay, how can we accurately assess how much grant will be required in future? Is an open cheque to be made available to those schools?
My chief concern is that the imposition of VAT on grant-maintained schools must be a considerable burden on the education budget. I should like the Paymaster General to tell us whether the Government are giving the Department for Education sufficient funds to pass on directly to grant-maintained schools. I have scrutinised the budgets carefully and I have asked questions, but I cannot get an answer. If we are ultimately expecting all £585 million to be spent on VAT, the Paymaster General should provide an answer. The £25 million which is being spent at the moment would buy an enormous number of books. It would buy more than 2 million books at £10 each, and £585 million would buy nearly 58 million books at £10 each. I suggest that he consider that proposition for a moment.
Other budgets are having to take account of VAT on educational services. The Department for Education is spending in the region of £93 million a year on the assisted places scheme. In other words, it is buying in education at private and independent schools on behalf of the taxpayer. I will not exercise the arguments for and against that practice because it is inappropriate to do so in this debate. But I point out to the Paymaster General that, in most cases, private and independent schools will be liable to pay value added tax on many of their services.
If we work on the notional 2.5 per cent. figure that the Department for Education has come up with for grant-maintained schools, we must assume that 2.5 per cent. of the £93 million is being used to pay VAT. Can we, therefore, assume that, in this case, more than £2 million from the budget for the assisted places scheme is being ploughed back directly into the Treasury and is not buying any extra education, not helping a single child, buying a single book or adding to children's knowledge in any way?
I also direct the Paymaster General's attention to the Ministry of Defence. In the last financial year, it paid out more than £130 million through the services boarding scheme. That involved buying education from private independent schools, most of whom are liable to pay VAT. Therefore, we assume that about £3 million to £4 million is being spent from the Ministry of Defence budget which goes through the education system and back to the Treasury as VAT. That is not an inconsiderable sum.
I ask the Paymaster General to address the other side of the equation. We have heard tonight about the very sensible measures to exempt from VAT those services sold by educational establishments. But what will the Paymaster General do about the VAT that education establishments are having to pay from their finite budgets? If he does not give us a satisfactory answer tonight, we can only assume that the Government have found a very clever way of cutting the defence or education budgets by charging VAT, in a circular route, on the education services that the departments buy.
7.11 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) in the debate. Last year, when I served with him on the Standing Committee considering the education legislation, his concern for grant-maintained schools was not precisely the one he expressed tonight.
I want to return to the terms of the order and, particularly, to welcome the exemption that has been extended to English language schools. I do so for two reasons. First, I have a constituency interest. Like many south coast towns, Hastings has a very large English as a foreign language schools sector. In fact, many people maintain that if it were not for these schools, our economy would be in an even worse state than it is at the moment. My second, broader reason is a concern about high standards in that sector.
English as a foreign language was originally a great British idea. It has since been exported throughout the world and now every country whose people speak English in one form or another—we have to recognise the barrier of the common language—is competing very hard in the marketplace. We need to ensure that, as far as possible, British schools remain competitive with others throughout the world. That means that they must be able to offer rates that are competitive with schools in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America and, probably very soon, South Africa.
Therefore, we gratefully recognise that we are not disadvantaging the private sector in competition with colleges and charities in allowing recognised schools exemption from value added tax. I feel a certain disquiet about the impact of the order because, in essence, it uses the taxation system to improve standards. There are perhaps better ways of achieving that than using the taxation system.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that there is a need to ensure that in this competitive world we offer only the highest possible standards of teaching and pastoral care. In the past, schools have been used as visa factories. There is the well-known example, which has gone into mythology, of the school in London which had 5,000 names on its books but only one classroom.
The Oxford Language Forum recently discovered students living five to a room. As I travel through my constituency and to towns along the south coast, my constituents and other members of the public draw to my attention the abuses perpetrated by such schools over the years. They must be rooted out. We have to ensure that we offer high standards to students who come to study in this country.
The accusation is often made that British Council recognition is just for posh, expensive schools. Those who are involved in the sector and have British Council recognition will confirm that some schools that are members of the Association of Recognised English Language Schools charge students £50 per week for 15 hours tuition in large classes. Those schools can also charge up to £1,000 per week for a one-to-one, total immersion course designed more for business men and those who need to learn the English language very quickly. This shows the range of courses offered by the recognised schools and colleges with ARELS membership.
1014
In my constituency, a typical school charges £171.63 for 15 hours instruction per week, including accommodation. It charges £945 per month for full-time tuition—25 hours a week—including accommodation. That gives us some idea of the range of fees charged by schools which are already recognised by the British Council. It is not an exclusive regime. If schools wish to compete internationally and know that they have high educational standards, recognition by the British Council is probably the best way to go. That is one of the reasons why the taxation system will improve standards and, I hope, root out some of the schools with poor standards that are a disgrace to the industry.
I am grateful that the order will reassure not only constituents who have expressed concerns to me about the non-recognised sector, but people from other countries who wish to study here or to send their children to this country to receive English language tuition of a high standard. The English language is our major export and we must ensure that it is taught to the best possible standard. I have great pleasure in supporting the order.
7.17 pm
Sir John Cope: I am grateful for the welcome that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have given to the main part of the order—although obviously they raised individual points. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked about the coverage of non-vocational courses. The hon. Member for Oxford, East talked about cake decorating and other such courses. Those courses will be exempt from value added tax so long as they are provided by an eligible body. I believe that the courses that he had in mind are provided by such bodies.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the order for dealing with both the nature of the institution and the nature of the supply. He is quite right: usually VAT depends on the nature of the supply. But sometimes it depends on the type of institution—or, for that matter, the type of goods—involved in the transaction. There are all sorts of special arrangements in the calculation of VAT. I have only to mention cars, for example, and the hon. Gentleman—who knows a good deal about the subject—will know what I mean. VAT takes into account the type of supply as well as the type of body providing a service or buying and selling goods.
In defence of the order, I must say that we are sorting out to a considerable extent the mixture between the nature of the institution and the nature of the supply being made. It was all much more mixed up before, under the old order; clarifying it is a large part of what we have done in the new order.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked about the timing of the order. As the House knows, it does not apply solely to institutions teaching English as a foreign language, but I realise that for some of those, the date of 1 August may be considered inappropriate, although it has been welcomed by others. However, the beginning of the academic year, to which the vast bulk of the order applies —or even before the beginning of it—is an appropriate time for its provisions to take effect.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the relationship between the order—and its predecessor—and the European Community agreements that govern some of our activities in connection with VAT. He asked whether

1015
universities might be able to recover some of the VAT that they had paid in the past. Although the hon. Gentleman represents such a distinguished university city, I have to disappoint him. Apart from anything else, the apparent contradiction concerning the EC agreements has not been firmly established. In any case, if any refund were due, the university would not benefit. It would have to be refunded under the unjust enrichment rules, and would go to the students who had paid it. Such retrospection would be extremely difficult for the university to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman asked several other questions, one of which concerned note (1)(f)(ii), which refers to charities or youth clubs ploughing back any profits made into their activities. Yes, that means that any surplus should be ploughed back, not necessarily into the specific courses that gave rise to the surplus, but into such activities as would otherwise qualify as an exempt supply within this group.
The main interest in the debate has centred on the teaching of English as a foreign language. I do not agree that it would have been right to put the order on hold. As I said in my opening remarks, it is right to go ahead with it, but I am prepared to consider carefully the representations that have been made in the past few days.
I am not complaining about the fact that the Association of British Language Schools did not respond to the consultation before Christmas or in the first couple of months of this year. It is a new body, which has not existed much longer than the consultation document. It is a self-inspecting body, which was set up last autumn. I am certainly prepared to consider the representations made by that body, as well as by hon. Members and others.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) drew attention to some of the difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that some of the institutions were a rip-off, and spoke eloquently about the problems that they have caused. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye described some institutions as "visa factories". Those are all reasons for exercising caution in extending the tax relief. That is why we acted as we did, and why we drafted the order in its present form. We shall consider the arguments advanced both in the debate and by the various bodies that have been mentioned.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want either what he has said or the way in which the order is couched to give the impression that simply because a language school does not enjoy British Council accreditation—under the existing scheme some are not eligible—it is more likely to be a cowboy operator. I agree that cowboy operators would not fall within the present British Council accreditation scheme, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that for many reputable schools that do a good job, the requirement for British Council accreditation gives rise to problems. Consultation needs to take place on that matter.
Sir John Cope: Absolutely. I am undertaking to consult on that. I do not wish, and I am sure that my hon. Friends
1016
do not wish, to tar with the same brush any institution that does not happen to have British Council recognition at present. In any case, British Council recognition, including the way in which it is awarded, is and will remain one of the matters that we discuss with the British Council.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) opened the debate beyond the order when he referred to grant-maintained schools, and so on. In a way, he was drawing attention to the difference between exemptions from VAT and a zero-rate for VAT. If an institution is registered for VAT, but the supplies that it makes are zero rated, it can collect back the input tax —the VAT that it has had to pay. But if the supplies that an institution makes are exempt, it cannot reclaim the input tax. Here we are talking about exemptions, not about zero-rating.
The position of local authorities is governed by section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983. The VAT that they pay is refunded. The equivalent of that is the grant to which the hon. Member for Devonport referred in connection with grant-maintained schools. He was looking forward, if that is the appropriate word, to the possibility that all schools may one day be grant-maintained.
Mr. Jamieson indicated dissent.
Sir John Cope: I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman was looking forward to that day in the sense of welcoming it, but he did say that all schools might be grant-maintained. That, of course, would free up the money now used for section 20 grants, which would balance to a considerable degree, if not perfectly, the grant that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I cannot answer off the cuff the detailed questions about the various figures, but I shall read in Hansard what the hon. Gentleman said, and write to him. The question does not arise out of the order.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Paymaster General put my mind, and the minds of other hon. Members, at rest? The Department for Education currently makes substantial sums available through the special purposes grant to grant-maintained schools for VAT purposes. My worry is that that money is coming from the Department's budget, and that it should and could be spent on education in other ways. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that money is being provided over and above any other funding that the Department would receive, so that it can pay the grant-maintained schools?
Sir John Cope: I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer an accurate answer to an answer off the cuff. Although the question does not arise out of the order, I shall include an answer to it in the letter that I promised to write to him about the other matters that he raised.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have welcomed the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1188), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker shall—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 23rd May, notwithstanding the Order [13th May] and the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 and the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been made;

(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 24th May—

(a) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill not later than three hours after their commencement; and

(b) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994 not later than three hours after it has been made; and

(3) at the sitting on Wednesday 25th May, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made:

and the above business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacKay.]
7.39 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I have some questions about the motion and some brief comments on it. Next Monday, we shall be discussing the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is liable to take considerable time as there is great concern among Opposition Members about its implications. We also have to consider two orders. Under the motion, we shall have an hour and a half on the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994. That order is a matter of great concern, but it is liable to be dealt with in the early hours.
I am a former railway clerk and my pension may be one of those being discussed, although it has long since disappeared into other provisions. I know that there is a great deal of interest and concern in the House about what is happening to railway pensions. There is great concern among of a number of my constituents, many of whom worked in railway workshops and other places.
Much more serious than that is the business for Tuesday, which includes provision for a three-hour Third Reading on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. If that is a three-hour debate, it is an advance, to some extent, on time given recently for such debates in the House. The Coal Industry Bill had a very short Third Reading debate. Indeed, on some other quite important matters, we have not bothered about Third Readings at all and have moved straight from Report to a final decision. We should have separate and proper debates in the House on Third Reading, so that, after Report, there could be a reprinting of the Bill at that stage, especially if there have been serious alterations on Report. We would then be in a position to have a fully fledged debate on Third Reading.
What is the position on local government for England and Wales? At least for Scotland, we are able to discuss such matters, but in England and Wales we are faced with a series of orders, which, like other orders, are unamendable and are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Indeed, we do not know when the tabling of such orders will end.
1018
Even more seriously, Tuesday's business allows three hours for the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994. I know that that is an annual provision and that those three hours will allow the comments that have always been made to be made again, but it covers a developing situation. I do not know what has developed today, but an answer to the points put forward by Sinn Fein and the IRA through Sinn Fein that required clarification of the Downing street declaration has been mentioned today. Such answers seem to be relevant to the approach that hon. Members will have to the order.
We may have an opportunity, subject to the decisions of the Chair, to discuss subjects slightly wider than those contained in the order, although the order itself is wide enough to facilitate quite full discussion about such matters. I am not quite sure what has occurred over the Government's intention to provide an answer to Sinn Fein. A question of mine appears on tomorrow's Order Paper and that should be an opportunity, if no other answer is given, for one to be provided.
Wednesday's business moves to the spring Adjournment motion and, according to the motion before us, a debate on the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994. Six hon. Members represent Sheffield. Two are former leaders of the council and one is a former leader of the opposition on the council. Given that that order is liable to relate to areas surrounding Sheffield, such as north-east Derbyshire, which I represent, although it looks easy to deal with, it may require the provision of more time.
With regard to the final day before the recess, Thursday 26 May, would the Leader of the House explain the situation liable to occur at 11 o'clock, when the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are straying to the next motion.
Mr. Barnes: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inadvertently strayed on to motion No. 5. As I wish to raise some points on that motion, it might be appropriate for me to try to catch your eye then.
7.36 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised a number of questions about the motion and I shall respond. However, perhaps I ought to preface my brief remarks by saying that, of course, the motions have been tabled following discussion—obviously I do not want to enter into those in any detail as it would be improper to do so—through the usual channels. I do not know whether this will influence the hon. Gentleman, but the motions reflect some of the knock-on effects, if I may put it like that, of our efforts, acknowledged by his Chief Whip and by the shadow Leader of the House, to be as helpful as possible in accommodating the wishes of the Opposition, which included—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Newton: May I finish the sentence as it has specific relevance to the railway motions? Those orders were originally announced on Monday or Tuesday for debate

1019
today. At the request of the official Opposition, they were moved from today to Monday, on the understanding that we would expect to have them governed by a motion of the sort before us.
Mr. Barnes: I recognise that there has been a careful response to the wishes of the Opposition, which has taken matters into account, that we have a different timetable for this week from that which would otherwise have taken place. It is just that I am not part of the usual channels and the avenue through which I may air points, without raising great objections to the channels being used, is on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Newton: I totally understand that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have taken my remarks amiss. I was delicately trying to imply two things. First, that the basic background to the motion is the efforts that the Government have made this week to be helpful to the Opposition. Secondly, it is not easy for me to go much further than that without entering into details about discussions through the usual channels, which would not be either proper or helpful.
In many ways, the same applies to the other parts of the motion, although the hon. Gentleman did make a specific point on the railway order. The only other comment that I can sensibly make is in relation to the Northern Ireland business on Tuesday. Of course, it is not for me to say what would or would not be in order on such an occasion, as I said to Madam Speaker when a similar question was asked during business questions this afternoon. However, it certainly seems that there would be possibilities for the hon. Gentleman to raise points about his concerns on that occasion, subject to the guidance of the Chair. However, I can tell him that, in response to his implicit question—I know that his question will be answered tomorrow—I believe that the Government's response to the Sinn Fein questions was published at 6 o'clock, when copies were placed in the Library of the House and made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office.
Question put and agreed to.

Sittings of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) this House do meet on Thursday 26th May at half-past Nine o'clock;

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and

(3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses. —[Mr. MacKay.]

7.38 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall now make my points to the correct motion. The motion seems to be more important than the one that I covered previously, although there were matters that needed prodding. The second part of the motion says:
1020
"the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business," statements,"
I presume that that day will be divided into a series of 45-minute Adjournment debates. It is normally the case that an Adjournment debate starts at 11 am or just before. That time is also the normal time for points of order to be raised and for a statement, if required, to take place. I know that it is unlikely that we shall have statements and points of order running one after the other, but someone could be unfortunate in terms of his or her Adjournment debate. I declare an interest because I, among many others, have put in my name for such a debate. If there are statements or points of order, will time be equitably chopped off other Adjournment debates?
It is unlikely that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will complete its remaining stages. I raised the point in business questions and referred to the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) at the end of April. I felt that if the House had expressed a view, the Leader of the House should take that view seriously and should make arrangements so that there was an opportunity to discuss the Bill. If the Bill does not complete its remaining stages by 26 May, there will be an end of any feasible opportunity to pursue it.
I was unhappy with the response from the Leader of the House. He said that the House had only expressed an opinion. I believe that the opinion of the House of Commons, which was expressed not glibly—it was not a matter of only two or three people being around and someone not noticing the procedures—but clearly and firmly, with strong feelings involved, should be taken on board.
The Government seem to be maintaining their opinion that the principles of the Bill are okay, but the details create many difficulties. Some of us do not believe that. We should be given the opportunity to go through the Bill properly and the Government would then have to vote against it and face the flak. The opinion of the House is that we should like the Bill to be given the opportunity to complete its remaining stages. I hope that even at this late stage—there is still time for further statements by the Leader of the House—that opportunity will be given to us.
7.42 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I shall respond first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about proceedings on Thursday, 26 May. The matters that he has raised are, strictly, matters for the Chair. It is for Madam Speaker to choose how to organise the debates on such a day. In my experience, she normally takes into account the possibility that there could be an interruption of business at 11 am. It is for precisely that reason that a number of debates are scheduled to last three quarters of an hour rather than half an hour. There is scope to adjust without anyone being squeezed out if there is an interruption of business. It is not for me to say how Madam Speaker will choose to arrange business today week, but I venture the thought that she will certainly take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said in making her decisions on that occasion.
It is no part of my purpose to prevent the hon. Gentleman from having an Adjournment debate that day if he is so fortunate—tiresome as it may be, knowing the hon.

1021
Gentleman, when we discover the subject that he wishes to raise. I should be the last person to wish to deprive him of the opportunity to be tiresome.
Although I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his latter point, I cannot add sensibly to what I said, which he has reasonably accurately reported, in my exchange with him this afternoon in business questions. The only thing that I will say is that I do not believe, and I would not expect Hansard to show, that I said "only" the opinion of the House. I merely made the factual point that the motion was framed as, and undoubtedly has the effect of, an expression of opinion by the House. I do not mean in any way to demean or diminish the motion by making that point, but it needs to be taken into account. The motion cannot change the Sessional Order—this is the point I made this afternoon—that the House has passed, which governs the amount of time available for private Members' Bills.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of Government time being given. On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government think that the right way now in which to proceed is for them to introduce proposals for consultation with a view to assisting in the drafting of legislation that they feel would achieve workable and practical progress in the cause of advancing the rights of disabled people. That is the right way in which to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

  USE CLASSES ORDERS
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: I present a petition on behalf of more than 300 of my constituents who are resident in Talbot Park. Their concern is to achieve an amendment of the law relating to town and country planning and, in particular, to the use classes orders. They are concerned that under class 2 of the use classes orders, no consent is required for a change of use for premises that may be elderly persons' rest homes, homes for the mentally infirm, children's homes or youth homes. In some cases, a fundamental change of character may arise from a change of use.
  They are especially concerned that a change of use from an elderly persons' rest home to a home for young people who have been in trouble with the law may occur without any consent being required. Such a home would be fundamentally in conflict with the nature of the locality. Such a change should, therefore, require planning consent.
  This is similar to the issue that the Government recently addressed in relation to changes of use from hotels to hostels. An amendment to the use classes orders is required. My constituents also ask that rigorous standards should be laid down regarding location, staff qualifications and adherence to standards and that regular checks are made on such property.
  To lie upon the Table.

Ambleside Bus Station
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
7.47 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful to have the opportunity tonight to address the House on a matter that is causing immense anxiety and concern to my constituents in Ambleside in the Lake district—the proposals made over the past five years to develop the former bus station. I am especially grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for being here to answer the debate. I know that it is his 15th wedding anniversary and I hope that the debate will not delay him too long from taking his wife to dinner.
I am also especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). The first knows Ambleside very well and has long connections with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is a constituent of mine and also knows the Lake district very well.
I suppose that many of my colleagues in the House have visited Ambleside, that small, historic, idyllic market town in the centre of the Lake district. It is a place that is one of the glories of England, and lies at the hub of several valleys and roads, all of which reflect the great heritage of that part of the world.
One road goes to Grasmere and to Wordsworth's various homes; a second goes to Great Langdale and the mountains; a third goes to Hawkshead and Coniston, with memories of Beatrix Potter, Ruskin and perhaps Donald Campbell; a fourth goes to Windermere, the home of Arthur Ransome's "Swallows and Amazons"; and finally there is the steep struggle up Kirkstone pass over to Ullswater, where Wordsworth's daffodils are now ending their annual delight.
The story which I want to draw to the attention of the House began in May 1989, when the former bus station in the centre of Ambleside was closed. The bus station was an important asset to the town. It allowed buses to unload the thousands of local people and tourists who continually throng the streets of Ambleside in a way which did not disrupt the already serious traffic congestion through the town, which is a consequence of all those historic roads to which I referred earlier.
The site came into the hands of developers who, in the past five years, have made no fewer than 16 planning applications to develop the site into shops and offices. During those five years, there have been two appeals. The former Secretary of State, Chris Patten, reserved his powers and threw out the first appeal, and, a little later, the second planning appeal was thrown out by the inspector himself.
In June, there is to be yet another appeal—the third—on two current applications which have been rejected by the Lake District special planning board. I understand that the Minister tonight cannot and must not comment on the merits of the scheme. I think all of us, including my two hon. Friends, understand that, and it may be that we will be fortunate enough to hear what they have to say if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the Secretary of State being in the position of judge and jury, everyone will understand if the Minister refuses to comment on the merits.

1023
Suffice it to say that I have opposed all the various applications during those five years, and I remain totally opposed to the current proposals. All of them have involved, in my view, top-heavy development to that small but precious community. The proposal which is the focus of the appeal which will be heard during the next few weeks will involve the construction of either 17 or 21 new shops or offices. I have been informed that, if the proposal went ahead, it would increase the retail and commercial floor space in Ambleside by up to a maximum of 25 per cent. That must be top-heavy development.
Traffic through Ambleside is already congested, especially during the tourist season. Car parking space is inadequate, as it would be even with the few extra parking spaces which are included in the current proposals.
We cannot ignore public opinion in a case of this kind. Public opinion has throughout been passionately opposed to the great series of planning proposals. Massive opposition has been mounted, and will undoubtedly manifest itself at the forthcoming inquiry. I hope to be able to present a petition to the House after the Whitsun recess. It is not yet complete, but I hope that the petition will be signed by almost 8,000 people. I shall refer to the petition later.
I know that my constituents will be presenting similar petitions to the Prime Minister's office, the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Heritage during the Whitsun recess. The latest figures, which I received this afternoon, are important and so far there are 7,774 signatures on the petition. Of that figure, 2,564 live in the Lakes parish, which is the area immediately around Ambleside. The total electorate of the Lakes parish is 4,856. Therefore, local signatures constitute well over half the number on the electoral roll. I have had an estimate from the organiser of the petition that three quarters of the residents of Ambleside have signed it.
What ought to be done with the site? I believe strongly that there is a need for more car parking, and also a need for bus station facilities on the site. It is an area which has high rainfall and at the moment buses stop in the open street. That is highly inconvenient, and there ought to be some facilities to deal with people who have buses to catch and to use.
My view is that much the best proposal—planning permission for it on the site has already been granted—is that of the local Herd-Lawson trust for a scheme for open car park space. Sadly, the developers have refused to sell to the trust for that purpose.
That leads me to the basic purpose of this debate, which is to protest at the way in which the current planning laws can allow a small and relatively defenceless community —such as the one in my constituency in Ambleside—to find themselves under almost continuous siege for a period of five years, with no prospect of ending that siege at the site in the future. It really cannot be right or fair for a Goliath of a developer to keep up a continual drip-drip of semi-repetitive planning applications which would destroy the timeless magic of this small town. But—I say this with confidence—my constituents are veritable Davids, and will battle on to preserve their heritage.
I can sum up their attitude by quoting from a letter written by Elizabeth Braithwaite, who is a passionate opponent of the developments. She is chairman of both the Lakes parish council and the South Lakeland district council. She says:
1024
"We are unable to stand aside and watch our traditional Lakeland town being ripped apart and millions of visitors from across the globe would never forgive us if we did nothing."
That is a most passionate objection to the scheme, regardless of the seemingly never-ending nature of the proposals.
In addition, there is a new and what I regard as serious matter which was drawn to my attention only today. As background, at an early stage of the saga, an official of the Lake District planning board—impertinently, in my view —announced that the board ought not to reject what he knew was already a highly controversial proposal. In spite of that official's comment, the board put him firmly in his place when it considered the matter, and it rejected the proposal for the third time. Its members did as they have done bravely and consistently throughout this saga.
Today I have received evidence that the board's officials have used their independent highways consultants in ways that I find preposterous. First, they have used those consultants to prepare plans for the developer. The members of the board are opposed to those plans. Secondly, this has been done at public expense. I understand that they are prepared to pay the fees of the independent consultant for preparing plans for the developer. Thirdly, members of the board have not been informed of that. Indeed, the papers have been kept in separate files.
I have no idea whether the practice that I have described is illegal, but I find it outrageous, given that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the board and its servants in a matter of clear sensitivity. Furthermore, it is clear from a letter which I have in my hand dated 17 May from the independent highways consultant addressed to Mr. David Brockbank, who is the chairman of the development control committee of the Lake District planning board and who will conduct the board's case at the forthcoming inquiry. The letter says:
"The scheme still offends the fundamental design principle of segregating traffic and pedestrians, but this cannot be reasonably challenged on the historical evidence made available to me."
As I understand it, that means that as a result of previous appeal decisions the independent consultant was so boxed in that he was forced to put his name to a scheme which is fundamentally flawed. How can that possibly be right? Surely each appeal ought to stand on its own under our planning law. I particularly want my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that tonight.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to us his view about the unfair arrangements which seem to be inherent in our planning law. I should like to ask him to reconsider our planning law. Of course we understand that he may not be able to respond to all our points tonight, but I hope that he will take them into consideration and will write to me as soon as possible and comment on the various matters that I have raised which cause great concern to me and thousands of my constituents.
8.2 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on bringing this matter to the attention of the House this evening. The very name of his constituency evokes strong emotions in people all over the world who know and love the Lake district. He referred most eloquently, but also realistically, to the kind of town that Ambleside is. As he described the roads which enter and leave that little town, each one was clearly in my mind.

1025
The development of a top-heavy shopping centre in the middle of the town would have a horrendous effect not only on the town but on the traffic pressures with which Ambleside already has considerable difficulty.
In mentioning my wish to participate in the debate, my right hon. Friend said that I had had a connection with Ambleside and the Lake district for many years. That is so. For more than 30 years I have known the place and been hugely fond of it. My first married home was there. I am a trustee of Brathay hall, a training centre which offers development training for young people and for managers. Large numbers come each year to the centre and benefit from it. Through my trusteeship I have a continuing interest not only in Ambleside but in the national park which is the Lake district. The work of Brathay hall is possible only because of the unique environment that the Lake district provides. I speak from a constituency at the other end of England. As my right hon. Friend spoke for his constituents, perhaps I speak for all the hundreds and thousands of off-comers who go to the Lake district because of the uniqueness that it offers and who go to Ambleside because it, too, is unique.
However inadequate our planning laws may be in dealing with the problem, we have to call a halt to unsympathetic and out-of-scale development in small places such as Ambleside. Otherwise, those who follow afterwards, as the eloquent letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Braithwaite demonstrated, will never forgive those directly responsible for such applications, Ministers who review them or Members of Parliament who have an opportunity to speak and act against such development.
The number of people throughout Britain who know the Lake district and Ambleside is great. Only a few minutes before the debate I had a meeting with an individual who lives in Kent and is a senior member of the Southern regional health authority. When I mentioned the debate to him, he immediately expressed his horror, knowing Ambleside as he did. That is just one example of what the public will feel about the development.
I heard only tonight from my right hon. Friend some of the detail of the planning application behind the appalling action taken by the officers. All planning authorities face difficulties from time to time when officials, following the exact planning regulations, feel compelled to recommend acceptance of a planning application even though the elected members are against it. I am delighted that the elected members have had the sense to turn down all the applications, and quite properly too.
The additional information that we have received about how the officers of the planning board have used public money is appalling if it is correct; that cannot be right and it must clearly be investigated.
I hope that all that I have said today will add to the pressure—for that is what there must be—ultimately to see the planning application firmly turned down on appeal and action taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment to find some way of preventing communities such as Ambleside being put under siege year after year because developers will never take no for an answer. It is unfair that any group of people, let alone that particular town, when there is wide interest throughout the country in maintaining it as an active and viable community as it is now, which is not a problem, should run the risk of being overwhelmed
1026
by unsuitable development. Clearly, action must be taken, if necessary by reviewing the current planning laws on this issue.
8.9 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) not only on his success in gaining the Adjournment debate but on the eloquent and moving way in which he spoke and put the arguments and concerns of so many of the local residents. As my right hon. Friend said, I speak as a constituent of his, as a lover of the Lake district and as a close neighbour of David Brockbank. I have known David Brockbank for many years and have much respect for him. He gives his time to work as chairman of the development committee.
I have supported development in areas of high unemployment in this country, but Ambleside certainly would not fall into that category. I have followed the saga in the pages of the Westmorland Gazette for some time now. In fact, I received a fax today containing some of its recent entries. Today, I have been extremely concerned to hear from David Brockbank, and now from my right hon. Friend, about the actions of the officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, this case is extraordinary. Members are giving up their time to represent the interests of residents, and officers are apparently taking matters into their own hands and spending public money in the way they have decided that they want to spend it, but not in the way the members have said; the officers have not consulted anyone. I find it extraordinary that the matter has not been discussed with either the present chairman or the former chairman of the committee.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the whole question of whether the officers have acted ultra vires. If they have acted improperly, presumably the district auditor should examine what has happened. I imagine that if the officers have acted improperly, they will have to pay the fees out of their own pockets because they took it into their heads to spend public money without consultation. It seems that they have not even had the courtesy to discuss the matter informally with the chairman of the development committee, let alone put it formally to the committee that they would spend money in that way.
I have not followed all the ins and outs of the fight that has been going on for five years, but the feelings of the residents are clear. As someone who loves the Lake district, it is clear to me that the members should be supported in their view and I welcome the opportunity for my right hon. Friend to bring the matter to the attention of the House today. I also welcome the support that he has received from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and I add my support to the request expressed today that the whole matter should be examined properly. If there has been any wrongdoing, it should be followed up with full effect.
8.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I begin my thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) for his kind comments at the outset of his remarks. For the reasons to which he alluded, I am grateful for the early hour at which this debate has come

1027
before the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care with which he has raised, on behalf of his constituents, the question of possible future uses for the former bus station site in the centre of Ambleside. He has explained clearly the concerns of a great number of his constituents—which I know he shares—about proposals for the redevelopment of the site. He has taken up those concerns with Ministers on a number of occasions over the past six years or so.
As the presence and comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) make clear and symbolise, this issue is of concern to a much wider area than simply Ambleside. That is not surprising for a town of such character in the heart of the Lake district.
As my right hon. Friend explained, Ribble Motor Services operated the Ambleside bus station and depot for many years. After carrying out a review of its overheads, the company found that it was not economic to maintain and retain the station, so in 1987 it decided that the station should be closed. That decision took effect in May 1989. Alternative facilities were provided elsewhere in the town by way of bus-stops for passengers wishing to use the bus services which the company continued to operate to and from the town. Subsequently, Ribble Motor Services sold its interests in the site.
Since then, a number of planning applications have been made to the Lake District special planning board with regard to the site. Some of these have been by other parties seeking to establish the principle of development for what might be described as social uses. However, the applications which have caused most concern have been those made first by Gainsborough Properties and subsequently by Dimples Estates—the company which I understand now owns the site. They are keen to obtain planning permission for shopping development, which they see as the best use for the site and, obviously, the development which they consider as developers to be in their best commercial interests.
I know from the letters which my right hon. Friend and a number of his constituents have sent to us that these planning applications have aroused a great deal of opposition from local people. They have opposed all the planning applications made to the board.
I appreciate the objections made by local people about the proposals, which include concern about the adverse effect which new, additional shops in the town might have on the livelihood of existing shopkeepers; concern about the design of the new buildings proposed and the possibility that they would obscure much valued views of the surrounding hills; concern that additional shops might attract more traffic and congestion to Ambleside; and concern that redevelopment of the site should be resisted so that the site can partly be used again one day as a bus station. My right hon. Friend made those concerns clear, as have many of his constituents in letters to us.
I make clear straight away that the latter option of returning the site perhaps to a bus station is not a matter which I have power to influence. It is entirely for Dimples Estates to consider whether it might seek to reopen the site as a bus station and try to attract bus operators to use it again, or whether it wishes to redevelop the site for some other purpose, subject of course to obtaining planning permission for its proposals.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the company has again exercised its statutory right of appeal to the
1028
Secretary of State against decisions made last year by the planning board to refuse permission for shopping and other development on the bus station site. Arrangements have been made for a planning inspector to hold a public inquiry, which is scheduled to open on 7 June, to hear the views of all interested parties about those particular proposals and to decide, in the light of all the evidence presented to him, whether the appeals should be allowed and planning permission granted or refused.
My right hon. Friend will also be aware that in the past two months or so the planning board has refused two further applications for amended development proposals for the site.
The thrust of my right hon. Friend's comments this evening was as much about the planning system generally. The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the use and development of land in the public interest. Of course, different people and different interest groups have different views about how an area should develop. I am sure that the House will be aware that every local planning authority, including the Lake District special planning board, must prepare a development plan. It is intended that the whole of the country should be covered by development plans by 1996.
Development plans have a key role to play in reconciling the different demands. They set the framework within which individual planning decisions are taken. The Lake District special planning board is no different from any other local planning authority in that respect. It has responsibility for drawing up the development plan for its area and for deciding planning applications in accordance with that plan, unless there are good reasons why it should not. Any applicant who proposes a development which is clearly in conflict with the plan would need to produce convincing reasons to demonstrate why permission should be given. However, applications which conform to a plan's requirements should generally be allowed unless they would cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
Of course, the development plan is not totally prescriptive. There is always scope for other considerations. Sometimes a departure from the development plan may be justified. If a plan proves not to be relevant in a particular case, the application will be decided on its merits. The plan is intended, however, to give a measure of certainty about the kind of development that will be permitted. It must provide a firm basis for consistent planning decisions and that is in the interests of all concerned.
In short, if an application is in accord with the plan it will generally be allowed. If it is not in accord with the adopted plan it will be refused and that refusal would be reflected in an appeal.
Everyone who has an interest in an area has a part to play in drawing up the development plan for that area; that means local people and conservation and amenity groups, as well as business and developer interests. Local planning authorities must consult all of those groups and give everyone concerned a chance to have their say. In that way, local people have a chance to influence the future pattern of development by making their views known as the overall framework is put in place.
I mention all those details about development plans because they are important as regards this issue. The Lake District special planning board placed its local plan on deposit on 17 March. The plan does contain a policy which

1029
provides that within defined central shopping areas shopping development will be permitted, subject to certain criteria being met.
The bus station site is shown as being within the central shopping area of Ambleside. It follows that the Lake District special planning board intends, in its local development plan, that shopping development would be permitted within that area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and local residents would have taken note of that.
The formal objection period ended only on 29 April, so the planning board has not yet completed a full analysis of the objections and representations it has received on the planned proposals. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend and others will have noted carefully those proposals.
There are circumstances in which people feel that their concerns and interests are not being taken into account when a decision is made on an application. It is understandable that they turn to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible for planning and press us to intervene. Parliament has given the Secretary of State the power to call in a planning application for his own decision if he feels it necessary to do so. In calling in a planning application, however, the Secretary of State is effectively taking the decision away from those who represent the interests of local people.
Planning is essentially a local matter and the planning Acts provide for applications to be dealt with by local planning authorities. We believe that it is wrong to interfere with that local decision-making process, unless such intervention is absolutely necessary. Our policy on calling in planning applications is therefore very selective. Each case must, of course, be considered on its merits. We will in general only call in applications if they raise planning issues of more than local importance. To put that into context, last year we called in only 101 applications out of a total of nearly half a million. To put that into perspective, it represents less than one fortieth of 1 per cent. of all planning applications.
Of course, where proposals are turned down by the local planning authority—or are not decided within a certain time—applicants have a statutory right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Although all planning appeals are decided in the Secretary of State's name, most of them are adjudicated on and decided by independent inspectors working for the Planning Inspectorate Agency.
Only about 200 of the 200,000 or so appeals received each year are decided by Ministers. Those are usually appeals that are large in scale or especially controversial. The precise criteria were published in the Government's response to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Environment. They include proposals for residential developments of 150 or more houses, proposals that raise important or novel issues of development control and those against which another Government Department has raised major objections.
In line with that policy on the recovery of appeals, arrangements have been made for a planning inspector to hold a public inquiry into the appeals made by Dimples Estates against the planning board's decision to refuse permission for shopping and other development on the bus station site. As my right hon. Friend fairly acknowledged, to all intents the matter is now sub judice because an appeal
1030
is pending. As he made clear, he and other hon. Members appreciated that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposals that are the subject of the two appeals as it would not be right for me to make any comments that might be seen to prejudice the decision on them. Nor would it be right for me to comment on the proposals which the planning board refused recently and which may yet come before the Secretary of State for determination on appeal.
I am nevertheless confident that the inspector appointed to hold the inquiry will be well aware that we are keen to ensure the highest quality for our built environment and for existing town centres, which are of key importance to urban quality. Government policy on the subject is set out in two planning policy guidance notes, which have recently been published and widely welcomed: PPG6 on town centres and retail developments and PPG13 on transport.
Our planning guidance seeks to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of existing town centres in both urban and rural areas through polices that strengthen existing centres, avoid both the sporadic siting of shopping units and large retail developments in out-of-town centres, and promote development at locations readily accessible by means other than the private car. Translated, the latter means existing town centres, which are also accessible by good transport.
My hon. Friend raised a number of matters. He asked whether anything can be done to prevent developers from making repetitive planning applications merely to wear down the resistance of the responsible local planning authority and local residents, such as those in Ambleside, who have campaigned hard against development proposals that they do not like. The answer, as I shall explain in a minute, is yes.
There is no limit to the number of applications for the same or different developments which an applicant can make. One might feel it unlikely that a local planning authority would reverse a decision made recently in respect of a similar development proposed for the same site. The applicant may be able, however—perhaps after informal discussions with the authority's officers and others—to adjust the scheme to take into account previous criticisms, or even to provide further information or arguments that might lead to a different decision on the same scheme. In any event, an applicant is entitled to apply again and to have any new application considered by the authority.
The law contains protection from repetitive planning applications for local communities, however. As the House may recall, in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 we added—for the reasons that my right hon. and hon. Friends raised this evening—powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine certain types of repetitive planning applications. The circular that we issued at the time made it clear that our intention in introducing those powers was, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, to allow authorities to prevent repetitive applications from being used to wear down the resistance of local communities.
I entirely agree with him. No local community should feel that it is under siege from repetitive planning applications and the law gives them protection. Those powers can be used when the same, or substantially the same, proposal has been rejected by the Secretary of State on appeal, or following call-in within two years prior to the date of the application and when there have been no significant changes in the development plan or other relevant considerations.

1031
We made it clear that authorities should use those powers only where they believe that the application in question is intended to exert pressure by submitting repeated similar applications. If an application has been revised in a genuine attempt to take account of objections to earlier proposals, it should not be regarded as a repetitive application for the purposes of those powers and the applicant should be given the benefit of any doubt.
It is for the Lake District special planning board to decide whether or not those powers apply to any of the Ambleside bus station applications. I understand that the special planning board has considered that question in relation to the applications, but reached the view that none of the bus station site applications is repetitive. That is a decision that they are entitled to make. I have no power to direct them or even to take a view.
The Lake District special planning board, having reached the view that the applications made so far by Dimples Estates are not ones to which those special provisions apply, must proceed to determine them in accordance with normal procedures; that is, the board must publicise the applications and carry out necessary consultations on the applications.
The relevant development control committee then decides the applications, having regard to the requirements set out in section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It will be guided by the report prepared by its officers setting out details of the development proposed of the responses received as a result of the publicity and consultation exercise of how the proposed development accords or otherwise with relevant development plan policies and of its officers' recornmendation on whether planning permission should be given.
It is right that the board should have a full appraisal of the applications with a clear recommendation from its professional officers, but of course the final decision is and must be entirely a matter for the board and it makes the final decision and gives the reasons for that decision.
1032
My right hon. Friend is understandably concerned at the way in which officers of the planning board—if what he says is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it—appear to have employed at public expense their highway experts to act for and on behalf of the developers in preparing the application.
Clearly, from the information that my right hon. Friend has been able to give the House this evening, I am not in a position to judge the wisdom of such a course, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so without having seen the full facts, but clearly if there are matters of concern as to whether those officers have been acting within their powers, or have been acting properly, my right hon. Friend may well wish to refer them to the district auditor.
One of the most important features of the planning system is that local people generally should have confidence in the integrity of the system. If there is anything which in any way undermines the integrity of the planning system, it is right that any suspicion or concern be addressed to the appropriate body—in this case the district auditor.
In the circumstances, I am sure my right hon. Friend will again appreciate that it would not be right for me to comment more generally upon this particular case. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his constituents will continue to keep the planning board aware of their views and, of course, will make appropriate representations to the inspector during the appeal inquiry which will be held shortly so that their views can be taken into account in the determination of the applications coming before the board or the appeal coming before the inspector.
I know that my right hon. Friend will keep me informed of his and his constituents' views in any cases which may come before the Secretary of State for decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Nine o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps he has taken to implement the proposals for developing judicial appointments procedures which were announced by the Lord Chancellor in his speech to Her Majesty's judges on 7 July 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has today published a consultation paper, "Developments in Judicial Appointments Procedures". The paper outlines the proposed arrangements for openly advertised competitions which he intends to hold later this year to fill vacancies arising in 1995–96 for circuit and district judges. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Lord Chancellor invites comments on the proposals which he has put forward in the consultation paper, further copies of which may be obtained from his Department.

  The closing date for responses is 30 June 1994.

TREASURY

  Multilateral Debt
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the creation of special drawing rights at the international financial institutions as a means of lessening the multilateral debt problems of the world's poorest countries.

  Sir John Cope
  The articles of the IMF prescribe that allocations of special drawing rights should be made to address global liquidity shortages. No such shortages exist at present and, in the Government's view, the case for a general allocation has not therefore been made.

  The world's poorest countries are eligible for and receive financial assistance on concessional terms from the international financial institutions, particularly through the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility and the World Bank's International Development Agency's credits. The agency's fifth dimension facility also assists the poorest countries with loan repayments. Net financial flows from the institutions to the poorest countries remain substantially positive.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals in regard to the cost of environmental protection he put to the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund during its discussions on the new World Trade Organisation at its meeting in 528
  Washington DC on 25 April; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom submission to the interim committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A number of different issues, including the World Trade Organisation, were covered by those who spoke at the interim committee on 25 April. In my speech to the committee I warned against protectionist trading practices establishing themselves under the guise of legitimate environmental concerns.

  Full texts of my speeches to the interim committee and development committee have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals received tax relief on private medical insurance premiums paid by employers on behalf of employees whose earned income including benefit is less than £8,500 a year for each of the past five years in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; and what was the value of tax relief on private medical insurance premiums paid by employers on behalf of employees whose earned income, including the value of benefits is less than £8,500 a year for each of the past five years in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 8 March 1994,Official Report, column 99, this information is not available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) of 15 March,Official Report, columns 571–72, what was the expected revenue yield from premium tax in 1994–95 and 1995–96 on private medical insurance.

  Sir John Cope
  The expected revenue yield from insurance premium tax on private medical insurance is estimated to be approximately £10 million in 1994–95 and £50 million in 1995–96. This includes both insurance paid for by households, included in "Medical and other" in the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and insurance paid for by companies, included in "Other business" in that answer.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the expenditure on management and financial consultants by his Department in 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  The Treasury's computer systems do not distinguish between management and financial consultants.

  The Treasury's expenditure on consultants for 1992–93 was £2,430,405 exclusive of VAT.

  VAT (Education) Order
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individuals and bodies consulted(a) before the drafting and (b) during the drafting of the VAT (Education) Order 1994; and what response was received.

  Sir John Cope
  The VAT (Education) Order was initiated by an internal review of the current VAT
  529
  exemption by Customs and Excise. At that stage consultation was limited mainly to officials within that Department and the Department for Education. The first draft of the order was published as part of the public consultation document issued by Customs last December and publicised by a press release. About 500 copies of the consultation document were issued to a variety of bodies with interests in the educational sector including local authorities, trade and professional associations, accountancy firms, charities and individual education and training providers.

  Most of the responses supported the need for change, but many expressed concerns and made proposals for extending the new exemption better to preserve the status quo. The final draft of the order was modified to reflect a great many of these useful comments.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to monitor the time being taken to(a) inspect properties where householders have submitted council tax appeals and (b) schedule appeals for hearings.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I am keeping under close review the progress being made by the Valuation Office Agency and the valuation tribunals in the settlement of council tax appeals and we expect 80 per cent. of cases to be cleared by the end of 1994.

  Monthly returns of clearance are received in order to monitor progress, but there are no plans to monitor the time taken to inspect properties and to schedule appeals for hearings during the clearance process.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total rent income received by registered housing associations and the proportion of total rental income of registered housing associations which is met by payments of full and partial housing benefit, for the year to 31 March 1993 and for any subsequent period for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The total rental income, including service charges, for housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation for 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 was £1.621 billion.

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Barking and Dagenham

  60.194

  36.828

  15.376

  12.592

  14.672

  11.886

  Barnet

  41.812

  38.854

  11.535

  20.390

  17.384

  24.249

  Bexley

  16.847

  22.223

  10.490

  7.362

  8.663

  15.130

  Brent

  34.148

  36.392

  25.553

  11.045

  8.084

  17.250

  Bromley

  103.656

  34.676

  12.288

  15.147

  137.915

  9.652

  Camden

  35.690

  75.147

  32.586

  14.425

  33.384

  45.417

  City of London

  21.167

  19.776

  8.729

  10.232

  5.159

  9.612

  Croydon

  72.064

  57.690

  36.207

  26.470

  15.469

  11.877

  Ealing

  n/a

  38.978

  19.860

  24.652

  13.873

  19.887

  Enfield

  40.122

  49.042

  20.970

  22.521

  18.774

  11.300

  Greenwich

  27.178

  34.805

  19.549

  13.656

  13.446

  19.096

  Hackney

  18.544

  36.292

  25.421

  16.532

  9.119

  20.511

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  n/a

  10.719

  15.899

  9.605

  7.046

  6.579

  530
  Information on the proportion of total rental income met by housing benefit is not available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the cost to local authorities of collecting the council tax in each London borough;

  (2) what is the cost of collection of council tax in each local authority;

  (3) what was the amount collected in 1993 by each London borough and local authority through the council tax.

  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy regarding the use of twin-wall plastic piping products for sewerage use.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the sewerage undertakers.

  Fire Safety, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many premises were inspected for compliance with fire safety regulations by staff of the Harrogate borough council in each of the last three years.

  (2) how many inspectors are employed by Harrogate borough council to check on fire standards.

  Mr. Baldry
  The responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the fire safety regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 rests with fire authorities, in this case North Yorkshire county fire authority. Building control and environmental health officers employed by Harrogate borough council will, however, be involved in inspections with regard to fire safety matters under other legislation. the number of such officers is a matter for the council, and figures are not collected centrally. Likewise the number of premises inspected by these officers is not collected centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the revenue from capital receipts, by London borough, for each financial year from 1988–89 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Curry
  Total capital receipts were as follows:
  531

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Haringey

  n/a

  19.664

  20.947

  17.643

  15.896

  16.300

  Harrow

  19.558

  30.452

  21.986

  9.459

  5.403

  10.597

  Havering

  26.293

  22.610

  14.207

  12.452

  8.863

  41.003

  Hillingdon

  42.414

  33.447

  21.355

  23.785

  47.303

  35.733

  Hounslow

  46.689

  31.103

  20.906

  13.876

  12.230

  26.667

  Islington

  28.214

  40.803

  30.725

  19.945

  12.651

  16.044

  Kensington and Chelsea

  11.702

  13.272

  10.251

  6.233

  7.056

  5.317

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11.667

  29.313

  4.726

  4.741

  3.420

  9.940

  Lambeth

  n/a

  n/a

  36.882

  23.091

  12.280

  9.912

  Lewisham

  14.395

  64.482

  33.596

  21.956

  15.409

  29.100

  Merton

  24.099

  20.294

  23.384

  10.038

  17.806

  23.396

  Newham

  26.943

  39.117

  21.726

  13.221

  9.105

  12.863

  Redbridge

  30.281

  25.313

  13.048

  10.052

  13.862

  13.650

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  22.499

  14.432

  10.541

  9.663

  6.462

  12.500

  Southwark

  n/a

  n/a

  38.573

  16.526

  17.524

  30.976

  Sutton

  15.407

  18.459

  12.871

  6.618

  8.599

  25.920

  Tower Hamlets

  45.560

  94.112

  45.111

  20.039

  14.879

  23.834

  Waltham Forest

  28.211

  28.352

  15.668

  7.076

  6.841

  20.100

  Wandsworth

  77.210

  81.101

  46.763

  35.052

  27.824

  32.308

  Westminster

  54.225

  77.459

  28.682

  17.183

  18.395

  29.000

  Source:

  Local authority capital outturn returns. 1993–94 figures from local authority third quarter forecasts.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount of gross capital expenditure by all local authorities in each year since 1980–81 at(a) cash prices and (b) constant prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Local authority gross capital expenditure: England

  £ million

  At current prices

  At 1992–93 prices

  1981–82

  5,417

  8,286

  1982–83

  5,692

  9,747

  1983–84

  6,014

  9,842

  1984–85

  6,188

  9,643

  1985–86

  5,740

  8,474

  1986–87

  5,991

  8,593

  1987–88

  6,472

  8,814

  1988–89

  7,518

  9,594

  1989–90

  10,083

  12,031

  1990–91

  6,922

  7,643

  1991–92

  6,593

  6,846

  1992–93

  6,460

  16,460

  1993–94

  7,300

  27,070

  1Provisional

  Estimate

  Notes: Figures before 1985–86 are not strictly comparable due to changes in the definition of gross capital expenditure; figures shown are an indication of trend only. Comparable figures for 1980–81 are not readily available.

  Gross capital expenditure includes mortgage lending to former tenants in respect of dwelling sales which reached a peak of £750 million in 1982–83.

  1992–93 prices calculated using GDP deflator.

  Local Government, Cleveland
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 170, what are the particular circumstances in Cleveland which permit a change in the structure of local government to precede local elections.

  Mr. Curry
  In announcing his decisions on the future structure of local government in Cleveland on 18 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 532
  Environment made clear his intention to consult the majority and minority groups on each of the four district councils and the county council about whether or not elections should be held in May 1994 with the intention of establishing the four new unitary authorities in April 1995. However, because of the judicial review case brought by Cleveland county council, it proved impossible for us to lay an order providing, inter alia, for elections to be held in May this year.

  Therefore we again sought the views of the majority and minority groups on the relevant local authorities and, in the light of their comments, we decided that the most practicable arrangement would be for the new unitary authorities to be established in April 1995 followed by elections in May 1995.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Environment Commissioner concerning the effect of the exclusion of the Lappel Bank mud flats from the Medway estuary special protection area on the negotiations with him in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage proposal and its legal status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Ivory
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning any resumption of trade in ivory.

  Mr. Atkinas
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of letters on this issue. The present ban on trade in ivory was introduced following the seventh conference of the parties of the convention on international trade in endangered species in Lausanne in 1989. We have made it clear that the United Kingdom would not be prepared to consider supporting any relaxation of the ban without first being satisfied that this could be done without undermining the conservation status of the African elephant.

  We are aware of a South African Government proposal to seek agreement to the resumption of a limited trade in meat and hides only, in relation to the elephant population

  533
  in their country, with the possibility of extending this to ivory at some point in the future. Before any such a proposal can be considered by the CITES conference of the parties it will have to be examined by a CITES panel of experts whose conclusions we would also take into account, together with the views of African elephant range states and other parties. We understand that the relevant CITES procedures are being put in hand. We shall certainly wish to examine the proposal and its implications with great care.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects prospects for water bills to be after the announcement by the Director General of Water Services on water pricing policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  At present average annual charges for water are around £200 per household—about 55p a day to provide high quality drinking water in unlimited amounts and to treat our sewage. The Director General of Water Services is currently reaching a view on new limits on the extent to which the companies may increase their prices over the next 10 years. He is to announce these on 28 July. He has said that he hopes that nationally it may be possible to limit overall price increases on average to between 0 and 2 per cent. above the rate of inflation. This will supersede the current average ceiling of 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation. In setting price limits he intend to assume that improvements in service are generally financed from efficiency gains, that companies will be able to deliver existing services at lower prices and that companies can both increase the efficiency of their capital programmes and finance them at a lower return on capital. This will have a significant impact on the increases in bills required to finance new obligations. In this way my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have sought to secure best protection of the environment in a cost-effective way.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if radioactive waste management policy will be considered as part of the nuclear review.

  Mr. Gummer
  In parallel with the nuclear review, details of which were announced today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, my Department will be heading a separate but complementary review of radioactive waste management policy.

  The radioactive waste management review will examine current policy in the light of changes which have taken place since the Department published its national strategy in 1984. It will range wider than the nuclear industry—covering radioactive waste management as a whole. It will not address the suitability of specific sites, this being a matter for the planning and regulatory process, or the merits of the operation of existing nuclear power stations or those in the pipeline.

  The Department proposes to publish its preliminary conclusions later in the summer, as a basis for consultation.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will also be issuing for consultation a revision of the Department's 1994 publication "Disposal facilities on land for low and intermediate level Radioactive Wastes: principles for the protection of the human environment".
  534
  In parallell with this latter exercise, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, together with the Advisory Committee on Safety at Nuclear Installations, will be asked to consider the approach to site selection for disposal facilities and the criteria for ensuring the protection of human health. Further details will be announced later.

  Security Facilities Executive Agency
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets he has set the Security Facilities executive agency for 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  For 1994–95, the following targets have been set for the agency. All of them require the agency to make further improvements in its performance.

  Category

  Measure

  Target

  Financial

  Outturn on the Vote

  A surplus of £1.86 million

  Outturn on Net Running Costs

  Break even

  Cost Recovery in Accruals Terms

  100 per cent. cost recovery including 6 per cent, return on capital

  Sales

  Sales Turnover

  A sales turnover of £42 million

  Efficiency

  Unit Costs

  0.5 per cent reduction in real terms

  Quality of Service

  Regular Customer Surveys

  80 per cent. rating of customer responses in good or higher categories

  Environment

  Vehicle Fuel Efficiency

  Annual average of 24.5 mpg for the GCS and IDS fleets

  Traffic Growth
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for traffic growth of location of(a) companies and (b) retail outlets on sites adjacent to the M25; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has made no detailed assessment in the form suggested.

  Planning policy guidance notes 4—Industrial and Commercial Development—6—Town Centres and Retail Developments—and 13—Transport—are all relevant. They seek to encourage new development in locations which minimuse the length and number of trips by vehicles, and protect and enhance the viability and vitality of existing centres—in both urban and rural areas—by offering a range of everyday community, shopping and employment opportunities.

  PPG13 also asks local planning authorities to ensure that trunk roads and other through routes, including bypasses, serve their purpose as corridors of movement and do not have their national and strategic role undermined by development which encourages their use for short local trips. The Secretary of State for Transport has the power to direct local planning authorities to refuse applications for planning permission, or to apply specified conditions, and takes the policy in PPG13 into account in deciding whether to do so.

WALES

  Water Pricing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what agreements his office made during 1989 on the pricing structure of(a) Welsh Water plc and (b) Severn Trent Water plc in relation to an accrual of money for infrastructure purposes; what accrual is estimated to have occurred since then; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The agreements reached at privatisation between the Government and all water companies are published in the pathfinder prospectus—a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  This matter has since become the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services.

  Tuberculosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total number of notifications of tuberculosis in each year between 1987 and 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Notification of Tuberculosis in Wales

  Year

  Number

  1987

  232

  1988

  201

  1989

  209

  1990

  194

  1991

  166

  1992

  201

  11993

  202

  1 Provisional.

  Source:

  Communicable disease statistics (Series MB2) Registrar General's Weekly Return (Series WR) Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of deaths from tuberculosis in each year between 1988 and 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths of Welsh residents from tuberculosis in each year are shown in the table:

  Tuberculosis (all forms) excluding late effects (ICD 010-018)

  Late effects of tuberculosis (ICD137)

  1988

  35

  19

  1989

  26

  16

  1990

  30

  14

  1991

  29

  12

  1992

  36

  13

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a=Not available

  Source: International Classification of Diseases.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of measures taken to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors in each year since 1991–92.
  536
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Central funds provided for the reduction in junior doctors' hours in Wales have amounted to the following:

  £ million

  1991–92

  0.250

  1992–93

  0.600

  1993–94

  1.000

  Details of the costs which health authorities and trusts have incurred in addition to the above are not available.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he gave to using the recommendations of the Curriculum Council for Wales as the basis for the new National Curriculum for English Order; for what reason the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council for England were selected; what representations he has received regarding the order; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  On 31 March the Curriculum Council for Wales submitted revised proposals for English and suggested two amendments to reflect, firstly, the distinctive literary heritage of Wales and, secondly, the diverse linguistic backgrounds of pupils in Wales. My right hon. Friend considered the recommendations carefully and responded on 14 April, asking the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority—ACAC, which replaced the Curriculum Council for Wales on 1 April—to proceed to consultations. A copy of the correspondence is contained in the proposals for English issued for consultation by the authority: this is available in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend has asked the authority to report to him on the outcome of the consultation in Wales and to make final recommendations in the light of that consultation by 30 September. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully the authority's further report and recommendations in the autumn with a view to making a new order for English jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Health Service Administration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of total health expenditure in Wales was spent on(a) managerial, (b) administrative and (c) clerical costs in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The percentages of total health expenditure in Wales spent on managerial, administrative and clerical costs in 1991–92 and 1992–93 were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Managerial

  1.0

  1.0

  Administrative and Clerical

  4.8

  4.6

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts/Financial Returns. Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Financial Returns.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to make disability living allowance more accessible for those with learning difficulties;

  (2) what proposals he has to make access to disability living allowance more equitable for those with a mental illness.

  Mr. Scott
  None. Entitlement to disability living allowance depends on the care and mobility needs arising from a particular condition, rather than on the condition itself. Access to DLA is available to all disabled people through the claiming process. The Benefits Agency provides support services to assist people in making a claim.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the length of time that those seeking review of refusal of disability living allowance have to wait before a hearing at a tribunal.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Reviews of entitlement to disability living allowance are not dealt with at a tribunal hearing.

  People who are dissatisfied with the decision given on their claim for benefit may ask for it to be reviewed by an independent adjudication officer. Following this review, if they remain dissatisfied, they can then appeal to an independent appeal tribunal.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licences
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will meet members of the Retired Members Association of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss the cost of television licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I do not think a meeting would serve any useful purpose. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written to the hon. Gentleman to explain why the Government are not prepared to introduce free or concessionary television licences for retirement pensioners, as called for by the association at its recent conference.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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; how many were referred on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the period November 1992 to March 1993 411 questions were tabled to my Department. Of these, two questions were answered that the information was not held centrally and four were referred to agency chief executives.
  538
  Each of these figures represent less than 1 per cent. of replies given in the same period.

  Royal Parks
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a breakdown of his Department's estimated £23.8 million expenditure for 1994–95 on the Royal Parks Agency.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 13 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question about estimated expenditure of the Agency in 1994–95. Details of the Department's Voted provision are published in the Supply Estimates 1994–95, Class XI, and may be obtained from the Library of the House. The breakdown of the provision for the Royal Parks Agency is shown on Vote 6, Section C of Class XI (pages 34 and 35).

  Identification Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the use of identification cards at sporting events.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the outcome of the informal EU Council of Ministers tourism meeting on 13 April:

  (2) who represented the United Kingdom at the informal EU Council of Ministers tourism meeting on 13 April:

  Mr. Sproat
  The United Kingdom was represented by the head of my Department's tourism division and the United Kingdom tourism representative from Brussels. Meetings of this kind offer an opportunity for a purely informal exchange of views on matters of common interest. They have no powers to make decisions and the Council guidelines stipulate that such meetings should not reach formal conclusions. There were wide-ranging and useful discussions on subjects which included the future direction of European Union tourism policy, the tourism action plan and tourism statistics.

  Library Services
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names and terms of reference of the consultancies he has commissioned to inquire into the operation of library services.

  Mr. Sproat
  Set out is a list of consultancies currently in progress, together with their respective terms of reference:

  The Aslib Consultancy.
  Review of public library service in England and Wales.
  To assess the scope and value of public library services currently provided by local authorities in England and Wales; to draw up guidelines and a framework for local choice for what should constitute a "comprehensive and efficient service" provided by a modern public library service; to consider the desirability of any

  539
  changes in the requirements of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964; and to identify key developments requiring national attention.

  Broadvision Communications Limited.
  Evaluation of Library and Information Plans (LIPs).
  To provide an independent evaluation of the concept and process of Library and Information Plans, their planning, funding, development, implementation and impact on the library and information sector.

  Coopers and Lybrand.
  Review of schools library services.
  To carry out a review of the schools library service in the light of the growing trend towards the delegation of the funding for the service to schools. The review will examine three sets of issues: resource allocation and delegation; the marketing of the services; and structural and internal management.

  Brenda White Associates Limited.
  Provision of secretariat and support services for the Libraries and Information Services Council (England) working party on library services for children and young people.
  The Council has established the working party to:

  (i) examine the library needs of children and young people and the extent to which they are being met by existing services and levels of staffing;

  (ii) examine the way in which library services for children and young people are provided through the public library service, school and further education libraries, and the school library service;

  (iii) review recent research and development work into library services for children and young people, and assess its effectiveness and impact on services;

  (iv) examine the effect of external change on the library needs of children and young people and on library services for them;

  (v) recommend improvements, and how to bring them about, in library services for children and young people.

  KPMG Peat Marwick in association with Capital Planning Information Limited.
  Investigation into the scope for contracting out in public libraries. The Department of National Heritage, in conjunction with five pilot projects established by library authorities in England, is examining the scope for contracting out the direct delivery of all or some elements of the public library service. The consultants are assisting by developing the overall framework of the investigation and evaluating the lessons to be learnt from the pilot projects, which remain under the direction of the authorities concerned. After consulting widely on the lessons that emerge from the pilot projects and ensuring that all public library authorities are kept in touch with the exercise, the consultants will prepare a report showing whether all or parts of the public library service can be contracted out; and the advantages and disadvantages of so doing, including best options, costings and potential savings.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Royal Mail, Barnsley
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many full-time and part-time employees Royal Mail intends to employ at the Barnsley depot in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The intended number of employees at Royal Mail depots is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of full-time and part-time employees at the Barnsley Royal Mail depot in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94.
  540
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of full-time and part-time employees at the Barnsley Royal Mail depot were:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1991–92

  137

  62

  199

  1992–93

  126

  71

  197

  1993–94

  119

  80

  199

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Royal Mail intends to continue with two foot deliveries of mail per day in the Barnsley area for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that it has no plans to change the mail service specification in the Barnsley area for the foreseeable future.

  Appropriation Accounts
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the 14 companies which went into receivership or liquidation in 1992–93 and caused £5,096,000 to be written off in the appropriation accounts 1992–93, class IV, vote 1.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the 1992–93 appropriation accounts class IV, vote 1, the losses of £5,096,000 under regional development grants and regional selective assistance schemes involved 14 cases and 12 companies. A list of the 12 companies follows:

  Winchmore Knitting Factory Ltd.

  Blue Ridge Care Ltd.

  Northern Power Electronics Ltd.

  Thermostar (UK) Ltd.

  Great Northern Knitwear

  Tolag Products and Company Ltd.

  Swilynn Magnetic Industries Ltd.

  City Vehicle Engineering

  CBS Batteries Ltd.

  Danum Windows Ltd.

  Briquette Technology Ltd.

  Unibit (Holdings) plc

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will break down the miscellaneous expenditure listed under section I, international trade in class IV, vote 2, of the appropriation accounts 1992–93.

  Mr. Needham
  A breakdown of the miscellaneous international trade expenditure listed under class IV, vote 2, section I of the 1992–93 appropriation accounts follows:

  £000

  Overseas project fund expenditure to assist companies with the costs of pursuing major projects overseas

  4,990

  Assistance to overseas marketing research

  1,181

  The single European market campaign 2,918 International exhibitions: British participation at the Universal Exposition held in 1992 in Seville and the exposition in 1993 in Taejon, South Korea

  7,131

  Publicity and promotions for the British Overseas Trade Board's (BOTB) range of overseas trade services and other export promotion activities

  3,598

  Assistance to BOTB area-advisory groups and other non-official trade associations.

  2,563

  Other expenditure

  2,773

  Class IV, vote 2, section I total

  25,154

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the company included in the losses
  541
  statement in class IV, vote 2, of the 1992–93 appropriation accounts where his Department paid off the debit incurred by the Expo '92 concessionaire.

  Mr. Needham
  The company is Lionheart Catering Ltd., which was struck off the register by the Registrar of Companies on 5 January 1993 and dissolved by notice in the London Gazette dated 12 January 1993.

  Spirit Measures
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce regulations permitting the use of a 35 ml spirit measure; if he will explain the reason for the delay in the introduction of the regulation; and to what extent such a delay is reconcilable with the Government's deregulation drive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 10 May 1994,Official Report, columns 76–77.

  Underwater Pipelines
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the interconnector working party; when it is likely to report; what are the expected volumes; and to what extent the Government remain committed to open access and published tariffs as the basis of the interconnector project.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom-continent gas interconnector is a private sector project being developed by a group of seven oil and gas companies to build a pipeline linking the United Kingdom and Belgian gas grids. The Government welcome the widespread interest from potential users in participating in this strategic link and the progress being made towards a commitment this year to go ahead. The development of the commercial arrangements for the interconnector is a matter for the companies involved.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to seek a resolution of the issue of jurisdiction before agreeing any new treaty relating to a cross-median sub-sea pipeline; what effect he expects the pending ratification of the law of the sea convention to have on these matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government believe it is important to resolve the application of jurisdiction to submarine pipelines crossing the continental shelf boundary between the United Kingdom and Norway if such projects are to be considered. The Government have taken no decision about accession to the United Nations law of the sea convention.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is considering seeking arbitration at the International Court of Justice to clarify the position with regard to jurisdiction over sub-sea pipelines crossing the United Kingdom-Norwegian line.

  Mr. Eggar
  I can confirm that we are considering the option of seeking arbitration to clarify the application of jurisdiction to submarine pipelines crossing the continental shelf boundary between the United Kingdom and Norway.

  Frigg Treaty
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made towards re-negotiation of the Frigg treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Progress has been made in a number of the areas under discussion with the Norwegian Government. The negotiations to revise the Frigg treaty are complex, however, and raise difficult issues for both Governments which it will not be easy to resolve.

  I do not as a result envisage that it will be possible to complete negotiations with the Norwegian Government within the foreseeable future.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of responses and entries to the 1994 SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—competition.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 1994 small firms merit award for research and technology competition generated 6,360 responses and a record 1,494 entries.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish a White Paper on the conclusions of the GATT Uruguay round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government have today published a White Paper "The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 1986–94". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and will be available in the Vote Office.

  The Government warmly welcome the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. It is something for which we have worked tirelessly over many years.

  Liberalisation of international trade has always been one of the most effective means of boosting world growth. An OECD/World bank study has cautiously estimated that world annual output will be boosted by over US$270 billion after 10 years as a result of the agreement.

  The results should offer great benefits to British business and consumers. As the fifth largest exporter in the world of goods and commercial services, the United Kingdom stands to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in trade barriers world wide.

  Major reductions in tariffs will provide substantial benefits to exporters through improved access to overseas markets. For example, in the sectors where tariff barriers are to be eliminated by the EC, Japan, the United States and Canada, the United Kingdom is well placed to make gains in those markets.

  Cuts in the EC's own tariffs should lead to lower prices and wider choice for consumers. Consumers and taxpayers will also benefit from the reductions in farm subsidies and agricultural trade barriers which the round will bring. These represent an important basis for further liberalisation in future.

  Inclusion of services and trade related intellectual property rights for the first time within the multilateral trade rules is particularly important. The Government pressed for these subjects to be included in the preparations for the round in the mid 1980s. Services already account

  543
  for 23 per cent. of United Kingdom trade, and trade in services is growing faster than trade in goods. The general agreement on trade in services will provide a more secure basis for the future growth of this trade to the benefit of United Kingdom service providers and the economy more widely.

  The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—is also a major achievement which will provide better international protection for innovative products from the United Kingdom and help to reduce tensions over trade in counterfeit goods. Stronger trade rules in areas such as subsidies, safeguards and anti-dumping will increase the stability and effectiveness of the multilateral trade system.

  Creation of the World Trade Organisation itself puts the system on a permanent institutional basis. The new dispute settlement system should help ease trade tensions and reduce the scope for unilateral trade sanctions.

  Trade liberalisation is a continuous process and no trade agreement can settle every trade dispute. But the completion of the Uruguay round represents an enormous achievement in which the world has chosen trade liberalisation rather than protectionism. The conclusions of the round provide a secure basis for future expansion of world trade and the growth and prosperity which go with it.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the terms of reference for the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am now in a position to announce the terms of reference, timing and format of the nuclear review. This answer has been agreed with my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for the nuclear power generating industry in Scotland.

  The Government believe that the future role of nuclear power in the United Kingdom's electricity supply will depend on it proving itself competitive while maintaining rigorous standards of safety and environmental protection.

  The coal review established that there is a sound economic basis for continuing to operate existing nuclear stations. The nuclear review will not consider whether Sizewell B should be brought on stream. Sizewell B is on course to start operating this year, subject to the receipt by Nuclear Electric of such consents as are required by law. Decisions on these consents are matters for the appropriate Ministers and authorities and are not matters for the review. The review will, however, take into account the decisions made on Sizewell B, whether the consents are granted or refused.

  The nuclear review will focus on the future prospects for nuclear power. It will examine the economic and commercial viability of new nuclear stations in the United Kingdom, against the background of the Government's energy policy as set out in the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", Cm. 2235.

  The Government have asked the nuclear generating industry to make the commercial case for new nuclear generating capacity and to make that case publicly available. Whether any new nuclear station could be built with private sector finance will be a key test of that case. The Government would welcome comments on the industry's case, which will be published shortly.
  544
  The Government also invite submissions from interested parties on whether new nuclear power stations offer particular diversity, security of supply and environmental benefits or disadvantages.

  The review will examine possible options for introducing private sector finance into the nuclear industry. As part of this, the Government are prepared to consider without commitment representations on whether privatesation would in principle be feasible, and what a practical timescale might be. The review will address the question of how best to manage the substantial nuclear waste and decommissioning liabilities which are currently the responsibility of the public sector, so as to secure value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring necessary safety and environmental standards are met.

  The review will also assess the existing arrangements to enable the full costs of nuclear power in the United Kingdom to be met, taking account of the Trade and Industry Committee's recommendations on the fossil fuel levy in its report, "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal," HC 236.

  Submissions on these issues should be made in writing both to my Department and the Scottish Office, to be received by 30 September. All substantive submissions received by the Government will be made publicly available. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of this House and of the House of Lords. Commercially confidential information in submissions received by the Government, internal papers and advice and reports internal to Government, and advice from external advisers will not be made publicly available in this way.

  The review will be undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office Industry Department, in consultation with other Government Departments as appropriate. The Government may appoint consultants to advise it on matters relevant to the review as the need arises.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is announcing today a separate review of radioactive waste management policy, to be conducted in parallel with the nuclear review.

  Wind Turbine, Orkney
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals have been put forward for the decommissioning of the 3MW wind turbine at Burgar hill, Orkney; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1994]: No arrangements have been made for decommissioning as the future of the turbine is still being considered.

EDUCATION

  Disabled People
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions have been included in the national curriculum to enable pupils with disabilities to participate in team games on an equal basis with their able-bodied counterparts; what representations he has received on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The current national curriculum for physical education, which includes games, was drafted so that specific interpretation or modification is required for
  545
  as few pupils with special educational needs as possible. The aim was to ensure that all children should have the opportunity to take part in national curriculum physical education.

  When reviewing the national curriculum, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority appointed a special needs advisory group specifically to ensure that the requirements of pupils with special educational needs were taken fully into account. The revised proposals for physical education, published for consultation earlier this month, include elements of the programmes of study which can be taught to all pupils in ways appropriate to their abilities. Where necessary, pupils with special educational needs will be able to gain experience of team games through activities such as wheelchair basketball, rounders and table tennis.

  Educational Psychology Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what considerations underlay his decision to revise guidelines for staffing levels in special schools and not for educational psychology services;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce guidelines for the staffing levels for educational psychology services following the increase in their statutory role and functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has not revised the guidance on staffing levels for pupils with special educational needs. This remains as set out in circular 11/90, "Staffing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs". There are no plans to revise it or to introduce guidelines for the staffing levels of educational psychology services. It is for each local education authority to determine such staffing levels based on local needs and priorities.

  Students' Meals
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what element of funding for the Further Education Funding Council is designed to cover the cost of students' meals.

  Mr. Boswell
  Further education funding is not separately earmarked for students' meals. Colleges have discretion if they wish to use part of their FEFC recurrent funding to support catering services for students.

  Teachers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the figures for January 1994 for teacher numbers and vacancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's annual survey of teacher numbers and vacancies in maintained schools including grant-maintained schools shows that full-time equivalent teacher numbers in England rose by nearly 1,900 between January 1993 and January 1994. The vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent. equals last year's lowest-ever recorded rate. The numbers involved equate to one vacancy for every 16 schools, a four-fold improvement on the position in 1990.

  Provisional teacher numbers in LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools and self-governing
  546
  state schools rose by 0.5 per cent. from 389,100 full-time equivalent teachers in January 1993 to nearly 391,000. The estimated overall pupil to teacher ratio was 18.04:1.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  African Development Bank
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what shareholding he has in the African development bank; how Britain's influence is exercised in the policymaking of the bank; and what are the size of other countries' financial contributions to the bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 31 December 1993 Britain had a 1.478 per cent. shareholding in the African development bank. Our pledge to the sixth replenishment of the African development fund, which covered commitments for the period 1991–93, was 4 per cent. of the total.

  We exercise influence over bank policies through our director in the bank, shared with Germany, Holland and Portugal; through bilateral contacts; and in negotiations to replenish the resources of the bank group.

  Details of shareholdings of other members of the bank and of contributions to the fund are contained in the bank's annual report, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attitude he has taken to the replenishment of the African development bank's funding.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have taken an active part in negotiations for the seventh replenishment of the African development fund, which lends on concessional terms to the poorest countries in the region. Progress was made in Nairobi, in the margins of the annual meeting of the African development bank, but a number of issues remain to be agreed relating to the way the bank's resources as a whole should be allocated. We hope the negotiations can be concluded soon.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Knox report on the operations of the African development bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We consider the report of the task force on project Quality headed by Mr. David Knox, a former vice-president of the World bank, to be a sound analysis of the operational and organisational weaknesses of the African development bank.

  We have urged management to prepare an action plan and to implement the recommendations in the report as a matter of urgency.

TRANSPORT

  A64
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received in relation to the viability of the A64 upgrading.

  Mr. Key
  The recent review of the national roads programme assessed all schemes against economic,
  547
  strategy and environmental criteria. Because of their lower priority compared with other schemes nationally, the A64 York to Malton and Malton to Seamer schemes have been categorised "longer term". They will be placed temporarily in abeyance until schemes with a higher priority have been delivered.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the air traffic control separation monitoring function at(a) Leeds-Bradford and (b) Humberside air traffic control centres can respond to aircraft final approach separation applied by controllers at the Leeds-Bradford and Humberside approach radar facility; what plans there are to re-programme the separation monitoring function; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The air traffic control separation monitoring function is a facility developed and operated by the national air traffic services for use at locations where they provide the air traffic services. It is used to detect and investigate any occurrence which involves loss of aircraft separation. As Leeds-Bradford and Humberside air traffic services are provided by the airports, the NATS SMF is not available at those locations. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact Leeds-Bradford and Humberside airports direct about their arrangements for monitoring aircraft separations.

  Night Flying, Coventry
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place restrictions on night flying at Coventry airport;

  (2) if he will investigate night flying operations at Coventry airport.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Coventry airport is not designated under section 80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in respect of noise control, nor have we received any requests for the airport to be so designated. Currently, only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are so designated.

  Private Detection Agencies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the names of the private detective agencies employed by his Department since April 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  A40/M50 Road Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date of preparation of plans for the A40/M50 road scheme from Longford to Gorsley, now abandoned, since the proposals were first introduced in 1989.

  Mr. Key
  The question is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 16 May 1994:
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Transport, for the
  548
  cost to date of preparation of plans for the A40/M50 road scheme from Longford to Gorsley, now withdrawn, since the proposals were first introduced in 1989. I have been asked to reply.
  The total cost has been approximately £51/2 million which includes consultants fees, detailed surveying and hydraulic modelling and VAT.

  Cenargo
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the European Commission with regard to the case of the ferry company Cenargo following the most recent meeting of the Maritime Council working group.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the Commission has decided to open infraction proceedings against Spain under article 169 of the treaty of Rome in this case.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 April, Official Report, column 42, if he will make it his policy to employ only those private detective agencies which are members of the Association of British Investigators.

  Mr. Key
  It is the Secretary of State's policy to financially approve and technically assess all suppliers and contractors employed by the Department. The membership of professional associations would be a factor for consideration in such evaluation, but non-membership would not rule them out.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he received from the trade unions regarding the future structure of the Transport Research Laboratory; when he met them prior to his announcement on 30 March regarding privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory; and what consideration he has given to the proposals received.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend and I met the trade unions on 22 March having previously received representations from them about the plans for privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory. The representations included a proposal that the Laboratory should remain in the public sector, but with its non-Government work separately accounted for in a commercial subsidiary. We gave careful consideration to the proposal before concluding that it was not practicable or in the best interests of the laboratory's future.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the representations his Department has received on the subject of privatising the Transport Research Laboratory(a) in the three years before the announcement in May 1992 of his wish to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory and (b) since that date; and if he will give the number in categories (a) and (b) which (i) oppose privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory, (ii) express worries about privatisation and (iii) support privatisation.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend and I have, since the announcement in May 1993 that the Transport Research Laboratory could, in principle, be privatised, received 28 representations on this subject from organisations and individuals representing the motor transport industry,
  549
  academic institutions, staff and other groups. We have also received correspondence from 50 right hon. and hon. Members. No representations were received on this subject prior to the announcement in May 1993.

  The representations received do not lend themselves to the categorisation requested by the hon. Member. A variety of views were expressed for and against privatisation. The majority of representations came from those who have concerns about aspects of the proposed sale of the laboratory.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what written communication from his Department was sent to the departmental trade union side during the three months prior to the setting up of the Transport Research Laboratory Agency regarding the drafting of the framework document; what reference was made to decisions by Ministers regarding the privatisation of the laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department wrote to the trade unions about various aspects of the Transport Research Laboratory framework document, including consultation arrangements with the trade unions, equal opportunites, health and safety and procurement. The Department also reported on my right hon. Friend's consideration of the option of privatisation and the conclusion then reached that the laboratory should be retained as an agency subject to the future re-examination of all options.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the expenditure on management and financial consultants by his Department in 1992–93.

  Mr. Norris
  The amount spent by the Department of Transport and its agencies in 1992–93 on management and financial consultants was £19.65 million.

  North Wales Coast Line
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that undertakings made by him and his fellow Ministers, at the time of the passage of legislation to privatise British Rail, will be fulfilled with regard to maintaining the quality of services along the north Wales coast.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued objectives, instructions and guidance to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising on 22 March. Delivery of those objectives should secure an overall improvement in the quality of railway passenger services on the north Wales coast, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the security of the channel tunnel and its users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State for Transport has, under the terms of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, directed the concessionaires—Eurotunnel—and other channel tunnel users to take appropriate security measures to protect the tunnel system, the trains and associated facilities, people and property against acts of violence.
  550
  The Secretary of State has also authorised officials from the Department of Transport's transport security division to inspect the security arrangements in place to ensure that the required security standards are, and continue to be, met.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what authorisations for commercial operations have been given to Eurotunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom/French Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission has, on the advice of the United Kingdom/French Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and the maitre d'oeuvre for the project, authorised Eurotunnel to bring the channel tunnel into operation for through freight trains and heavy goods vehicle shuttles. I am placing copies of Eurotunnel's application and the authorisation in the Library.

  Traffic Signs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider relaxing his Department's policy that traffic signs should not normally be provided to direct vehicles to named commercial premises.

  Mr. Key
  I am seeking views from the local authority associations and other interested organisations on proposals that highway authorities should have greater flexibility to provide signs appropriate to local needs. Any relaxation of the existing policy would be accompanied by Department of Transport guidance on the management of signing to ensure safety, clarity and continuity of signing and to prevent sign clutter.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Inheritance Tax
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average age of purchaser-operators of working farms in the year preceding and each year since the passing of the Finance Act 1992 giving qualification to inheritance tax relief at 100 per cent. on agricultural land.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Forestry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what day the Government will publish their preferred options on the future of forestry in England; what form the subsequent consultations will take and over what time scale; and which organisations will be invited to take part in the consultation process.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland plans to make an announcement during the summer about our conclusions from the forestry review, and to publish a document which will form the basis of consultation on our preferred options. The form and timing of the consultation will depend on the conclusions that Ministers reach.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of day visits made to the Thetford forest park last year.
  551
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the year to 31 March 1994, an estimated 1.5 million people made day visits to Thetford forest park.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account the Government will take, in selecting their preferred options for the future of forestry in England, of the submissions received by the forestry review group from commentators opposing privatisation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The representations made to the forestry review group are being taken into account as we consider options following the review.

  Cereal Production
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her most recent estimate of the yield factor per hectare for cereal production.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department's most recent estimate of the average yields per hectare for the 1993 United Kingdom cereals harvest is as follows:

  Tonnes per hectare (standardised to 14.5 per cent. moisture content

  Tonnes

  Wheat

  7.25

  Barley

  5.16

  Oats

  5.19

  Other cereals

  4.70

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response she has received to paragraph 3.57 of the Government's paper Cm. 2428, "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan" concerning overgrazing; and if she will now consider introducing new measures to reduce the effect on moorland and upland habitats of over grazing of sheep.

  Mr. Jack
  We have not received any response to paragraph 3.57 as such. However, we have already introduced upland environmentally sensitive areas and environmental restrictions under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, both of which contribute in different ways to discouraging the overgrazing of moorland and upland habitats. We have also carried out consultations on proposals to introduce a moorland scheme and to attach environmental protection conditions to payments unde the sheep annual premium scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rights of citizens are specified in the treaties of the European Communities and the European Union; and what measures have been adopted to give effect to these rights.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty on European Union, confers a number of rights on citizens of the European Union. These, and the measures adopted to give them effect, include:552
  —the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty (essentially governed by Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the Treaty of Rome and a number of Regulations and Directives, including Council Regulation 1612–68 and Council Directives 90/364 EEC, 90/365 EEC and 93/96 EEC);
  —the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which the citizen resides (measures were adopted in Council Directive 93/109 EC. These were implemented in the United Kingdom by the European Parliamentary Elections (changes to the Franchise and Qualifications and Representatives) Regulations 1994);
  —the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State in which the citizen resides (implementation of these rights is still under discussion);
  —the right to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities and another Member State in foreign countries where the Member State of which the citizen is a national is not represented (subject to the Guidelines for the Protection of Unrepresented EC Nationals by EC Missions in Third Countries, which took effect on 1 July 1993);
  —the right to petition the European Parliament (as set out in Article 138d of the Treaty. This right has long been accepted by the Parliament and was reflected in the Parliament's rules of procedure long before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union);
  —the right to apply to the European Ombudsman to investigate allegations of maladministration by the Community institutions (as set out in Article 138e of the Treaty and the Decision adopted by the European Parliament in September 1993 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties, subsequently approved by the Council in its decision on February 1994).

  Azerbaijan and Armenia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to use the United Kingdom's membership of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe to encourage the Minsk group to assume the leading role in seeking a resolution of the conflict which respects the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to support the CSCE's plans to convene a conference in Minsk to achieve a political settlement of the dispute. We keep in close contact with the Swedish chairman of the Minsk group and have offered a Russian-speaking British diplomat to assist his team.

  Council of Ministers (Documents)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to the decision of the European Parliament on 26 April in respect of the release by the Council of Ministers of documents discussed at meetings of the Council.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have noted the recommendation by the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament that the Parliament should support the Dutch Government's legal challenge of the treaty base under which the code of conduct on access to information was adopted. We consider that the code was adopted under the correct treaty base, and fully support its objective of greater openness and transparency.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to raise the issue of Rwanda in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We supported the proposal for a special session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to discuss Rwanda. The session will take place on 24 and 25 May.

  United Nations (Military Equipment)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent proposals he has considered relating to improving the cost-effectiveness of the United Nations military procurement system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Current measures being pursued by the United Nations to improve the cost-effectiveness of United Nations procurement procedures include the development of appropriate standards and specifications for incorporation into contracts, and establishing standby contracts for the supply of common user items, material and services. An improved system for handling air transport contracts is also being introduced. These measures are based on the need to achieve a timely response while ensuring cost-effectiveness and compliance with United Nations financial regulations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the quantity and quality of military equipment that has been stockpiled by the United Nations at its depot in Pisa, Italy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations maintains a depot at Pisa, which comprises serviceable items from completed missions. As part of its efforts to improve its ability to mount new peacekeeping missions the United Nations is planning to use the depot as a logistics base where "start-up kits" will be held and maintained at readiness for deployment. The current plans call for up to five such kits which might be deployed either singly or in combination.

  United Nations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration his Department has given to policy relating to the financing of United Nations peacekeeping operations; what discussions he has had with his United Nations counterparts on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The costs of United Nations peackeeping operations are shared among member states according to the United Nations peacekeeping scale of assessments. The United Kingdom pays 6.373 per cent. of costs on the scale. The United Nations peacekeeping scale of assessment is in need of reform, as the 1992 report by the high level expert group—Volcker/Ogata—made clear. Some limited changes were agreed at last year's general assembly. We are now working with other like-minded states to try and identify a more general solution to the problems of the scale.
  554
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the United Nations study on a proposed International Satellite Monitoring Agency contained in United Nations document A/AC. 206.14.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations study on a proposed international satellite monitoring agency was considered by the 38th general assembly in 1983. The proposal was not adopted.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration he has given to article 24 of the United Nations charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The changed situation of the world following the ending of the cold war has enabled the Security Council to carry out its duties more effectively than before. The council has already made arrangements to make its annual report to the general assembly more timely and readable.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Estimated expenditure on studies carried out since 1987 for the Overseas Development Administration on the future status of the Crown agents for overseas Governments and administrations, and future ownership options for the Natural Resources Institute, is £208,000, net of VAT. Figures for any expenditure in earlier years are not available. The British aid programme has also paid for consultancy studies related to the privatisation programmers being pursued by overseas governments. An estimate of expenditure on these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Octav Botnar
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further efforts his Department will make to secure the return to the United Kingdom of Octav Botnar.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The offences for which Mr. Botnar is wanted in the United Kingdom are offences against tax legislation. Because of that, they are not extraditable from Switzerland, where Mr. Botnar now is. Switzerland is one of several countries which will not extradite for such "fiscal" offences. Mr. Botnar has on several occasions indicated that he will return to this country voluntarily and I hope that he will do so.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her plans for major awards for health districts which are remodelling their mental health services; and if she will make a statement.
  555
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department, in conjunction with the mental health task force, is contributing £319,000 over three years to an initiative organised and administered by the Sainsbury centre for mental health. The centre will award grants of between £100,000 and £250,000 to between five and eight district health authorities to help them develop their mental health services. Initial awards will be announced this autumn. The selected projects will be evaluated and the results widely disseminated.

  Drugs
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the savings to the NHS budget if NHS doctors were under an obligation to prescribe, and pharmacists to dispense, the cheaper available forms of the compound they considered most clinically appropriate for their patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such estimate has been made by the Department. General practitioners are encouraged to prescribe cost-effectively and to be discriminating about the use of more expensive preparations where there is no significant clinical benefit.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many youngsters aged under 18 years have attended hospitals in the north Yorkshire area for treatment for drug abuse over the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Monitoring substance misuse by young people in the North Yorkshire area is a matter for the North Yorkshire district health authority, to which I refer my hon. Friend.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the progress of the negotiations with the medical profession on general practitioners' out-of-hours services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am announcing today—after nine months of negotiation—agreement between the British Medical Association and the Government on changes to general practitioners' terms of service.

  The patients charter confirmed the 24-hour nature of the GP service and both the BMA and I confirmed that again today. Patients will continue to receive emergency treatment when and where they need it—including a home visit if necessary—at any hour of the day or night.

  What we have agreed is a sensible clarification and modernisation of the GPs' terms of service which:
  make clear that all patients will continue to be able to speak directly to a doctor out of hours and that they will still receive promptly the emergency care they need;
  make it possible for GPs and practices to work on a more co-operative basis, spending less time on call, but working more intensively when they are on call;
  clarify the GP's responsibility for deciding whether an individual needs to be seen immediately at home and, if not, when and where treatment can most appropriately be given;
  support the development of an additional new way for family doctors to provide out of hours emergency care—the primary care centre.

  A press release, including comments from Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA, will be issued and copies placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Harlow Wood Hospital
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters she has received concerning the proposed closure of Harlow Wood hospital, Nottinghamshire; what proportion of these letters were for and against closure; if she will place copies of the correspondence in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Changes in the provision of orthopaedic services and the proposed closure of Harlow Wood orthopaedic hospital were the subject of public consultation between 1 December 1993 and 2 March 1994. Letters about this consultation were for the district health authority to take into account when considering the way ahead. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Alan Tolhurst, chairman of North Nottinghamshire health authority, for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of the employment of chairmen and directors of NHS trusts in 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Audited accounts containing this information for 1993–94 will not be available until the end of 1994. The codes of conduct and accountability which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued on 28 April require national health service boards to establish remuneration and terms of service committees and to publish details of board members' remuneration in an annual report.

  Foetuses (Research)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the Research Defence Society about research involving the human foetus.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Research involving the use of foetuses and foetal material is covered by the code of practice drawn up by the Polkinghorne committee and published in 1989 in its report entitled "Review of the Guidance on the Research Use of Fetuses and Fetal Material". Copies are available in the Library.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers in the employment of the health service have been(a) assaulted and (b) murdered in the course, or in consequence, of their work in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 27 January at column 373.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many work-related(a) assaults and (b) murders of social workers occurred in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Children's Hospital Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 160, how much time has been set aside for the validation, aggregation and analysis of the survey results; and if she will estimate a date for the publication of those results.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Analysis of the returns is under way. An announcement will be made when it is complete.

  Heart Bypass Surgery
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence her Department has concerning the number of people dying while waiting for heart bypass surgery;

  (2) how many people died while waiting for heart bypass surgery in each region in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is collected on removals from waiting lists but does not differentiate between the various reasons, which include death. Patients may die from a wide range of causes, in common with the rest of the population, while waiting for treatment. Emergencies are always treated immediately and patients who need urgent treatment are given priority.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average length of time a person waits for a heart bypass operation in each region;

  (2) how many patients, according to latest figures, have waited for heart bypass surgery for more than 12 months, in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such information as is available is given in "Hospital Episode Statistics, Volume 2". The latest year for which information has so far been published is 1990–91. Copies are available in the Library.

  NHS (Private Capital)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many schemes using private sector capital in the NHS were refused approval by her Department and the Treasury(a) before April 1993 and (b) since April 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since April 1993 two schemes using private sector capital in the national health service have been formally refused approval. These were:a proposal from North Tyne Health Alliance (Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authorities and Newcastle and North Tyneside Family Health Services Authorities) to lease office accommodation.
  a proposal from South Western Regional Health Authority to provide residential accommodation at Glenside for students attending Avon and Gloucestershire College of Health.
  The Department issued guidance on "Use of private sector capital in the NHS" (EL(89)MB142) in 1989. Between then and April 1993 no schemes that were formally submitted were refused approval. Information is not available on schemes abandoned at a draft stage as a result of advice received from the Department in response to informal inquiries. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by her Department to ensure that a strategic approach is secured across Government 558
  Departments on issues related to HIV and AIDS; and what plans she has to introduce a formal national strategy in respect of HIV and AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper sets out the strategic direction for HIV/AIDS and sexual health to be followed by all relevant Departments. This is supported by a Government strategy paper issued in 1993 which reiterated the continuing commitment to HIV/AIDS in the light of recent research into prevalance of HIV infection in this country.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been undertaken by her Department of the efficacy of needle exchange schemes in reducing levels of transmission of the HIV virus among intravenous drug users; and what plans she has to introduce such a scheme on a nationwide basis.

  Mr. Bowis
  Monitoring and evaluation of needle and syringe exchange schemes since 1987 has shown that they contribute towards the adoption of safer injecting behaviour among those who continue to inject drugs. It is too soon to judge their success in reducing the levels of transmission of HIV among intravenous drug users.

  Specific funding has been given to health authorities towards the costs of expanding the range of drug misuse services available, including the development of needle exchange schemes. This funding totals £25–238 million in 1994–95 of which £2.778 million is available for the expansion of needle exchange schemes within pharmacies.

  It is the responsibility of health and local authorities to assess the needs of drug misusers for services, including needle exchange schemes, and to contract for services to meet those needs.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of ambulance staff in England employed by the NHS in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, using whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Ambulance staff in national health service employing authorities and trusts

  Number

  1990

  18,130

  1991

  17,630

  1992

  17,840

  Figures fell between 1990 and 1991 due largely to a number of ambulance officers taking up separate senior manager terms and a fall in the demand for Patient Transport Services in the London Ambulance Service.

  Sources:

  For 1990: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  For 1991 and 1992: Department of Health form KM 49.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are at 30 September and are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. All figures include ambulance men and women, ambulance officers and control assistants.

  3. The figure shown for 1992 is a corrected one from previously published figures.

  4. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of control assistants, using whole-time equivalents, for each ambulance service in each year since 1990.
  559
  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. Separate figures for control assistants are not centrally available.

  Control Assistants and Ambulance Officers at 30 September (Whole time equivalents by region)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England total

  2,780

  2,340

  2,420

  Northern Region

  180

  170

  180

  Yorkshire Region

  240

  220

  220

  Trent Region

  290

  280

  270

  East Anglian Region

  130

  130

  120

  North West Thames Region

  80

  40

  80

  North East Thames Region

  70

  70

  70

  South East Thames Region

  80

  120

  120

  South West Thames Region

  100

  100

  100

  Wessex Region

  140

  140

  140

  Oxford Region

  130

  130

  130

  South Western Region

  220

  220

  220

  West Midlands Region

  340

  260

  320

  Mersey Region

  120

  90

  90

  North Western Region

  240

  200

  170

  London Ambulance Service

  410

  170

  210

  Notes:

  1. Figures for individual ambulance services are not available centrally.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. The England total and North West Thames Region figures shown for 1992 are corrected ones from previously published figures.

  Source:

  For 1990: the Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  For 1991 and 1992: the Department of Health form KM49.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of ambulances in each service in England responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on ambulance service response times in 1993–94 will be published shortly.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations have submitted proposals on the reform of the NHS whether written or orally in presentations to her or her ministerial colleagues in the last year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers routinely have meetings on various subjects with many organisations. Detailed records are not kept of all the subjects discussed.

  GPs (Deprivation Payments)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total number of general practitioners and the whole-time equivalent and (b) the total number of, and amounts paid to, general practitioners receiving deprivation payments in each of the low, medium and high categories for 1993–94; and what are the comparable figures in each case for fundholding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In April 1993, the total number of general practitioners in England was 26,116 amounting to a whole-time equivalent of 25,231.

  Of the 26,116 GPs, the following numbers received deprivation payments:

  Low level

  10,392

  Medium level

  6,430

  High level

  4,611

  560
  Note: A GP may receive deprivation payments at more than one level.

  The amounts of deprivation payments made to general practitioners in England, in 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available, were:

  Low level

  £14,846,862

  Medium level

  £9,764,321

  High level

  £8,496,343

  Financial data on deprivation payments specifically made to fundholding general practitioners are not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 6 May,Official Report, column 651, what was the cost to his Department of the drafting of the amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 12 May,Official Report, column 213.

  State Ceremonial Occasions
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which Government Departments or Offices other than the Department of National Heritage fund state ceremonial occasions.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to my own Department the following Government Departments meet some of the costs of state ceremonial occasions:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Ministry of Defence

  Home Office

  Department of Transport

  Scottish Office

  Welsh Office

  HM Treasury

  The Parliamentary Works Directorate meets the costs of certain ceremonial events in the Palace of Westminster.

SCOTLAND

  Entertainment Venues
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to strengthening the arrangements for the licensing and supervision of entertainment venues, with particular reference to the elimination of drug dealing; what consideration he has given to introducing legislation on the licensing of stewards at such venues; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  District and islands councils have powers to license places of public entertainment under section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The maximum penalty for holding an unlicensed public entertainment in circumstances where a licence under this provision is required was increased to £20,000 and/or six months' imprisonment by the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990.
  561
  Authorities take account of the views of the police and local authority departments such as environmental services and building control on such applications and may attach a wide range of conditions designed to improve control at entertainment venues. Such conditions may include a requirement that stewards be employed.

  Entertainment venues may also be licensed under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 where a licensing board considers that premises are suitable for the sale of alcoholic liquor. Again the board may attach conditions to such a licence and may require the presence of door stewards.

  Stewards may search persons who attend such functions with the person's consent. If consent is withheld, the person can be refused admission. In cases where suspect substances are found the person can be refused entry and police assistance summoned. There are no plans at present to introduce legislation on the licensing of stewards employed at entertainment venues. General guidelines on stewarding are contained in the "Guide to Health, Safety and Welfare at Pop Concerts and Similar Events" published by the Health and Safety Commission, the Home Office and the Scottish Office in October 1993.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of changes to the community charge register in Scotland in the latest available year; and what was the estimate of the level of under registration for the community charge.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of measures designed to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Stewart
  A total of £1.88 million was allocated to health boards for additional posts to help reduce juniors' hours in 1991–92, and £1.87 million was allocated to health boards and trusts in 1992–93 and £4.25 million in 1993–94, making a total of £8 million. In addition £1.2 million is available for allocation in 1994–95.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that funds made available to training providers in the course of the youth training and employment training schemes are used solely for training purposes.

  Mr. Lang
  The chief executives of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are answerable for the way in which the public funds provided to their respective bodies are spent. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many training providers have ceased commercial activities in each local enterprise company; and how much public money had been given to those companies in the two years prior to them ceasing commercial activities.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not held centrally. This is primarily an operational matter best taken up direct with the local enterprise companies.

  Education Department (Promotional Material)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much expenditure has been incurred by the Scottish Office Education Department for the production and distribution of all promotional materials, including leaflets and video tapes, for each year since 1979 both in actual and real terms; and if he will set out in table form a list of each item of promotional material issued by the Scottish Education Office Department since June 1987 together with the total cost for each item.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on construction of trunk road schemes during 1993–94, and those schemes the Government propose to start in Scotland in the next three financial years.

  Mr. Lang
  Excellent progress is being maintained in the development of a safe, high-quality trunk road network providing benefits to the whole of Scotland. The schemes I am announcing today continue our policy towards the upgrading of those key routes on our core network of major economic importance to Scotland's future. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to keep up the momentum of our plans to dual the Al. The emphasis of major projects is directed towards achieving progress on:

  (1) the upgrading of the A74 to motorway;

  (2) the completion of the Central Scotland motorway/near motorway network; and

  (3) the upgrading of the A l.

  Projects are currently being prepared to permit in the medium term:

  (1) completion of the M77/A77 motorway and near motorway link between Glasgow and Ayrshire;

  (2) completion of the M80 Glasgow—Stirling motorway;

  (3) completion of the M8 Edinburgh—Glasgow motorway;

  (4) completion of the M6 Carlisle—Glasgow motorway;

  (5) completion of the A 1 Edinburgh—Dunbar to near motorway standard and dualling schemes between Dunbar and the Border.

  Feasibility and other studies are also being conducted on an M6–M8 fastlink and on complementary roads and transport provision around the firth of Forth.

  This is an ambitious programme requiring substantial levels of investment. The Government see an increasing role for private sector finance and management skills and a number of projects are now at construction, being developed, or explored in line with the private finance initiative.

  Significant progress has already been made. Seven major schemes, with a total value in excess of £100 million, were completed in 1993–94. The opening of the Brechin bypass in March this year completed the dualling of the strategically important A30 Edinburgh-PerthAberdeen route. The M8 St. James interchange, completed in August 1993, is the largest single "design and build" project to be built to date within the United Kingdom.

  The schemes completed in 1993–94 were as follows:

  Cost £ million

  A74(M) Nether Abington and Elvanfoot

  41

  M8 St. James Interchange

  17

  A9 Broomhill to Logie Easter

  7

  563

  Cost £ million

  A90 Brechin Bypass

  12

  A90 Tarbrax to Forfar

  13

  A92 Bankhead Interchange

  4

  A96 Bucksburn Diversion

  7

  In the course of 1993–94, 17 schemes with a cost of more than £3 million were either under way or started. These schemes represent an investment in excess of £370 million. The projects include eight schemes valued at more than £240 million to upgrade the A74 to motorway. About two thirds of the A74 upgrading will be open to traffic by spring 1995. Construction of the M8 NewbridgeEdinburgh city bypass scheme has also started. This will provide important relief to the network west of Edinburgh once the scheme is completed in 1995. Progress continues on the construction of the privately financed Skye bridge, scheduled to open in 1995.

  I am now able to announce those major schemes with an estimated cost of over £3 million each which are expected to start between April 1994 and March 1997, as follows:

  Route

  1994–95

  A74(M)

  Paddy's Rickle Bridge to Beattock (advance works)

  A1

  Tranent to Haddington

  M77

  Ayr road route

  A74(M)

  Ecclefechan to Eaglesfield phase II

  1995–96 and 1996–97

  A74(M)

  Paddy's Rickle Bridge to Beattock (main works)

  A74(M)

  Beattock to Cleuchbrae

  M8

  Baillieston to Newhouse phase I

  M77

  Fenwick to B764 (Floak)

  A68

  Dalkeith advance works

  A1

  Haddington to Dunbar

  A96

  Kintore Bypass

  A9

  Logie Easter to Garrick Bridge

  A830

  Loch Nan Uamh to Polnish Bridge

  A828

  Creagan Bridge

  These schemes have a total value of more than £300 million.

  Our plans are, of course, subject to schemes satisfying the usual value for money criteria together with satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the necessary preparatory work.

  In addition to the major starts, funding for route action plans, road safety and other schemes is being maintained throughout the trunk road network. This will enable work improvements to be taken forward on the A76 Kilmarnock-Dumfries route and the A9 Perth-Thurso route and further good progress on the route action plans for the Al between Edinburgh and Newcastle; the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness; the A90 between Perth and Dundee; and the A7 from Hawick southwards.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) of 28 April,Official Report, column 372, by what means citizens of the United Kingdom benefit from educational and other activities in the Irish Republic; what are those other
  564
  activities; what sums were expended by his Department on United Kingdom citizens being educated in the Republic for the current and each of the last two years; what is his estimate of the sums of public money expended by the Republic on those students; and what were the sums expended on the other activities. referred to by (a) his Department and (b) the Irish Republic authorities.

  Sir John Wheeler
  United Kingdom citizens are free to choose to study in the Republic of Ireland or any other country of the European Community. In the current year 1,124 students from Northern Ireland are benefiting from higher education provision in the Republic of Ireland; the latest statistics available indicate that some 378 students from other parts of the United Kingdom attended full-time higher education courses there in 1991–92.

  A number of children with hearing impairments, from Northern Ireland, are receiving special education at a special school in the Republic of Ireland.

  Other educational activities include a range of collaborative ventures between the universities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which bring mutual benefits.

  Some patients are referred to hospitals in the Republic of Ireland specifically for treatments which are not available in Northern Ireland.

  The sums to be expended by the Northern Ireland Departments on Northern Ireland students and pupils educated in the Republic of Ireland are not yet available for the current financial year. However, the following figures are available for the last two years:

  Year

  £

  1992–93

  2,232,524

  1993–94

  3,486,347

  Figures for the sums expended on students from other parts of the United Kingdom are not the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Departments.

  Sums expended on the other educational activities are usually borne by the education institutions themselves but sometimes with the assistance of European funding. The Department of Health in Great Britain has responsibility for the financial aspects of referral of patients to hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.

  The sums expended by the Government of the Republic of Ireland on educational and other activities is a matter for the Irish authorities.

  University Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from(a) Germany and (b) the Republic of Ireland are currently enrolled at each university in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Available information relates to full-time undergraduate students and is as follows:

  1993–94

  Germany

  Queen's University, Belfast

  23

  University of Ulster

  113

  Republic of Ireland

  Queen's University, Belfast

  519

  University of Ulster

  1,556

  Mount Oriel Clinic, Belfast
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when planning permission was issued to the south and east Belfast unit of management of the Eastern area health board to develop a car park at Mount Oriel clinic, Saintfields road; if work commenced on site prior to planning permission being issued; if the planning application was supported by(a) Castlereagh borough council and (b) the roads service of the Department of the Environment; upon how many persons neighbour notices were served; how many objections were received; and if he will make a statement about traffic conditions on the roadway leading to this car park.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Planning permission was granted on 29 March 1994 in relation to a retrospective application for development which had already commenced. Castlereagh borough council and the Department of the Environment's roads service raised no objections to the application. Eighteen neighbour notification notices were served. Subsequently 54 letters of objection were received from a total of 28 residences in the locality. As the road leading from the Saintfield road to the car park is not adopted into the public road network, it would not be appropriate for the Department to comment about the traffic conditions on it.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union Anti-Discrimination Law
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the competence of the European Union in regard to the adoption of European law against discrimination whether on the basis of sex, race, age or disablement following the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  The entry into force of the treaty on European Union has not altered the European Community's competence to legislate in respect of the principles under article 119 of the treaty of Rome against discrimination on the basis of sex, or its lack of specific competence to legislate against discrimination on the basis of race, age or disablement.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

  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.

  Civil Servants (Disability)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants are employed in his Department; and how many of them are registered disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  There are 107 civil servants employed in No. 10 Downing street, none of whom is 566
  registered disabled. For recruitment purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. There are 16 registered disabled civil servants employed in the Cabinet Office, out of a total of 1,386. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill between 6 and 12 May; what replies he has sent or will be sending; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations, to which replies are being sent.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the Government's plans for combating discrimination against disabled people during the debate on Report stage of the Bill on 6 May, Official Report, column 996, and gave further details in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on 10 May, Official Report, column 136.

  My right hon. Friend is currently working on the detail of the consultation he announced on 6 May. The full proposals will be issued as soon as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Green Amanita
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and the costs and outcome of, the civil emergency exercise Green Amanita conducted recently.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Exercise Green Amanita was conducted to test the lead Department concept detailed in the Home Office guidance booklet "Dealing with Disaster".

  The costs of setting up, organising and carrying out the exercise totalled £35,728. This figure does not include the participants' travelling costs or the cost of their time while at the exercise.

  I understand that the exercise has resulted in a better understanding of how the lead Department concept works in practice and will make a significant contribution to the rewriting of the relevant section of the "Dealing with Disaster" booklet.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to ensure that British workers compete on a level playing field for jobs in the offshore oil and gas industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Although both British and foreign workers have open access to jobs offshore, British workers succeed in securing over 90 per cent. of the jobs available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what United Kingdom employee costs are not paid by offshore oil and gas companies if they employ foreign nationals.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.
  567
  For national insurance contribution purposes, employment of United Kingdom or foreign nationals in an area of the continental shelf outside United Kingdom territorial waters, which the United Kingdom has the right to explore and exploit, is treated as employment in Great Britain. In common with other employers who have a place of business in Great Britain, offshore oil and gas companies have to pay the employer's share of national insurance contributions in respect of United Kingdom and foreign employees, except in certain limited circumstances where the employer is liable to pay contributions to the Norwegian state insurance scheme instead. If the employer has no place of business in Great Britian, it is not liable to pay the employer's share of the contribution in respect of any employees, whether United Kingdom or foreign.

  Catering Industry
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the number of people employed in(a) the hotel industry and (b) the catering industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In December 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 285,000 employees in employment in the hotel industry and other tourist or short-stay accommodation industry—standard industrial classification 665 and 667—and 882,000 in the catering industry—standard industrial classification 661–664—in Great Britain.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Fees paid to date to legal and professional advisers necessary for the conduct of the privatisations, total £2,450,261.

  Hound Point Terminal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Exexcutive over the investigation by the HSE into safety at the Hound Point terminal in the Linlithgow constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 May 1994]: The Health and Safety Executive has kept me informed of the inspection arrangements at the new Hound Point marine 2 terminal. Particular concerns about the safety of the design and construction of the hydraulically operated, swivelling loading arms which are used to load crude oil into tankers and the possibility of spillage have been carefully considered. I gave the hon. Member details of this and HSE's continuing inspection plans in my response to his recent letter.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the legislation dealing with terrorism.
  568
  Mr. Howard
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, Parliament recently renewed the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains new police stop and search powers, creates two new offences and improves the legislation relating to the investigation of terrorism.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to maximise the use of new technology in crime prevention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Recent initiatives by the Home Office in this area include a number of studies on CCTV as a crime control measure, and close co-operation with the vehicle manufacturers to promote the use of effective car immobiliser systems.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to establish a coherent national crime prevention strategy.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government have developed a comprehensive crime prevention strategy. The Police and Magistrates Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with offenders and lay the foundations for a new partnership between the police, the Government and the public to fight crime. We have also set up the National Board for Crime Prevention to disseminate best practice and we are expanding our successful safer cities programme.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the introduction of corporal punishment for crimes of violence.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The reintroduction of corporal punishment would contravene the European convention on human rights.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Bill has been widely welcomed inside and outside Parliament. It responds to a range of concerns which I know are deeply felt.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in drawing up plans for the new secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).

  Sentencing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last had a meeting with the Attorney-General to discuss the policy of appealing against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.
  569
  Mr. Maclean
  I meet my right hon. and learned Friend frequently. We discuss a wide range of matters of common interest. We share the same view of the importance of the power contained in section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Prison Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Wednesday 18 May 1994, there were 48,447 prisoners in Prison Service accommodation and 146 prisoners in police cells, giving a total of 48,593 prisoners in custody.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from right hon. and hon. Members concerning the future of the obscene publications branch of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 16 May at column 341.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to combat the spread of drug and alcohol abuse by teenagers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department will continue to work closely with other Government Departments to ensure that the law and the wide range of policies for tackling the misuse of drugs and alcohol, particularly by young people, are effective.

  HM Prison, Gartree
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to pay an official visit to HM Prison, Gartree.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the present time my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to make an official visit to Gartree prison.

  Residence Arrangements
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to clarify the arrangements whereby persons of independent means are admitted to reside in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are planning to lay consolidated immigration rules before the House, which will create a new category of investor, designed to attract investment into the country without weakening immigration control. The category of persons of independent means will continue, but with a minimum age of 60.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements the British Government have stipulated as conditions for their support for application to asylum policy of article K9 of the treaty on European Union.
  570
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Nothing has occurred to cause the Government to change their view that asylum policy issues are appropriately dealt with under title VI of the treaty on European Union.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers of the desirability and practicality of introducing either compulsory or voluntary identity cards.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In June 1993 the Association of Chief Police Officers sent us a copy of its report "National Identity Card Scheme" which favoured the introduction of a voluntary identity card scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend met Sir John Smith, president of ACPO, on 17 November 1993 to discuss the report.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the effect on crime levels of reducing the use of custodial sentences.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on 3 March, columns 823–24.

  Operation Elgar
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who authorised Operation Elgar on Wednesday 27 April.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operation Elgar was authorised by the director of enforcement in the Immigration Service, with the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself.

  Immigration Detection Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the lastest date for which figures are available by Her Majesty's detention centre and by Her Majesty's prison the number of persons held in respect of alleged immigration irregularities; and if he will show the port where each of the individuals was originally apprehended.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The following is the information available as at 11 May 1994.

  Place of detention

  Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action

  On entry port cases

  1 Port of arrival

  Belfast Prison

  1

  Belmarsh Prison

  1

  Birmingham Prison

  28

  7

  Heathrow 4

  Birmingham 2

  Portsmouth 1

  Blakenhurst Prison

  19

  Brinsford YOI

  5

  Bristol Prison

  4

  Brixton Prison

  8

  Camp Hill Prison

  1

  571

  Place of detention

  Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action

  On entry port cases

  1 Port of arrival

  Campsfield House Immigration

  Detention Centre

  104

  94

  Heathrow 64

  Gatwick 17

  Manchester 3

  Harwich 3

  Newhaven 2

  Stansted 2

  Birmingham 1

  Dover 1

  Ramsgate 1

  Canterbury Prison

  7

  13

  Dover 9

  Ramsgate 3

  Folkestone 1

  Cardiff Prison

  3

  Chelmsford Prison

  1

  Stansted 1

  Cookham Wood Prison

  2

  Dorchester Prison

  2

  Dover YOI

  8

  16

  Dover 8

  Heathrow 4

  Ramsgate 2

  Gatwick 1

  Portsmouth 1

  Dover Harbour Police

  9

  Ramsgate 5

  Dover 3

  Folkestone 1

  Durham Prison

  2

  Edinburgh Prison

  1

  Elmley Prison

  3

  Ramsgate 2

  Dover 1

  Exeter Prison

  6

  Feltham YOI

  4

  1

  Heathrow 1

  Gatwick Airport

  2

  12

  Gatwick 11

  Heathrow 1

  Glenparva YOI

  2

  Gloucester Prison

  3

  Greenock Prison

  12

  1

  Glasgow 1

  Harmondsworth Immigration

  Detention Centre

  43

  55

  Heathrow 35

  Gatwick 14

  Dover 3

  Ramsgate 2

  Stansted 1

  Haslar Holding Centre

  56

  59

  Heathrow 42

  Gatwick 5

  Stansted 5

  Harwich 3

  Portsmouth 2

  Manchester 1

  Ramsgate 1

  Highdown Prison

  15

  3

  Heathrow 3

  Holloway Prison

  5

  3

  Gatwick 3

  Holme House Prison

  2

  Teesports 2

  Hull Prison

  3

  Hull 3

  Leeds Prison

  4

  Leicester Prison

  1

  Lewes Prison

  3

  Lincoln Prison

  1

  Liverpool Prison

  3

  Manchester Airport

  2

  Manchester Prison

  7

  Newhaven

  2

  Heathrow 1

  Gatwick 1

  Norwich Prison

  3

  2

  Felixstowe 2

  Pentonville Prison

  23

  Queens Building Heathrow

  19

  Heathrow 19

  Reading Remand Centre

  3

  Risley Prison

  1

  Leeds/Bradford Airport 1

  Shrewsbury Prison

  1

  Stansted Airport

  11

  Stansted 4

  Heathrow 7

  Stoke Heath Prison

  1

  Swansea Prison

  3

  1

  Swansea 1

  Wandsworth Prison

  6

  1

  Gatwick 1

  Wellingborough Prison

  1

  572

  Place of detention

  Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action

  On entry port cases

  1 Port of arrival

  Winchester Prison

  3

  Wolds Remand Prison

  1

  Hull 1

  Wormwood Scrubs Prison

  3

  1

  Heathrow 1

  TOTAL

  411

  321

  1 Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are not normally apprehended at ports.

DEFENCE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 850, whether the United Kingdom Polar Medal Assessment Committee deals with sensitive issues; on what date he first sought to establish whether the members of the committee would be content for their names to be published; from how many members of the committee he has heard; how many have not replied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 18 May at columns 502–4.

  Dockyard Projects
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current cost of dockyard projects; when the estimated cost last increased; and when he made the decision to award this work to Devonport royal dockyard.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department spends around £420 million per annum on ship refitting and works projects, most of which is undertaken at the royal dockyards. Individual projects are rigorously controlled and monitored.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced last year that we shall, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals. The project is proceeding satisfactorily to time and cost.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange a meeting with the mines advisory group to discuss the recent reports by the group and by Oxfam on the effects of land mines.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have no plans to arrange such a meeting but my Department welcomes initiatives aimed at increasing public awareness of this problem.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards exist to ensure that civil plutonium separated in THORP will not be diverted into a military programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The measures which the Government apply to civil reprocessed plutonium to prevent its theft,
  573
  sabotage or diversion are set out in the statement of Government policy on reprocessing and the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which was made public on 4 August 1993. A copy of the statement is available in the Library of the House.

  Recruitment
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the type of vetting his Department uses in respect of higher executive officers on the graduate recruitment scheme; and what account is taken of their party political and other high-profile activities prior to their employment in his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Higher executive officers on the graduate recruitment scheme are vetted to positive vetting (secret) level and will be subject to higher levels of vetting appropriate to the nature of work upon which they are employed. They are expected to perform their duties as civil servants with complete political impartiality, regardless of any previous political associations or activities.

  "Front Line First"
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of man-hours involved in the formulation and implementation of his "Front Line First" exercise in the case of(a) officials, (b) military personnel and (c) management consultations; and what is the respective cost to the Exchequer of the hours expended.

  Mr. Aitken
  No estimate has been made of the total number of man hours so far expended on the defence costs study or of its future implementations.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when discussions began with the Government of South Africa about the possibility of agreeing a memorandum of understanding on defence sales; when he expects such a memorandum to be entered into; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Arms Testing Centre, Pendine
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the NATO small arms testing and proofing facility will remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for collective decision by the NATO authorities.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the NATO small arms testing and proofing facility will continue to be based at the Pendine regional test centre.

  Mr. Aitken
  The proof and experimental establishment at Pendine is, in common with all such test and evaluation facilities, subject to a review by the director general of test and evaluation. Options arising from this are still being considered, but I hope that an announcement can be made in the not too distant future. This will be followed by a period of consultation with interested parties.

  United Nations Operations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standard operating procedures are made available by United Nations staff to British military forces prior to their deployment on United Nations operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations secretariat issues guidelines to troop contributing states for each United Nations operation. These cover the administrative and logistic procedures for the operation in question.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the United Nations military staff committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations military staff committee played a useful role in the Gulf crisis as a forum for the exchange of information. We do not envisage its reactivation in current circumstances.

  Dr David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements currently exist to provide headquarters support for the deployment of British forces on United Nations operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Depending on the scale and complexity of the British military contribution to a UN operation, appropriate support is provided either direct from the MOD headquarters or from a designated joint headquarters.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the establishment of a section within his Department to deal specifically with United Nations operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  MOD responsibility for the conduct of UN operations already lies with that part of the defence staff under the charge of the deputy chief of the defence staff (commitments).

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department's press office gives to the British United Nations information centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's press office provides no assistance to the British United Nations information centre.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of British forces on United Nations duties to adjust to changing circumstances and demands in the course of an operation.

  Mr. Hanley
  British forces are highly adaptable and have a thorough professional grounding in military skills. Nevertheless, the Government monitor closely the changing circumstances of all UN operations to which British forces are committed to ensure that the British contingents' capabilities match the demands placed upon them.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons he has learnt from the recent changes to the mission of United Nations forces in Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the Sarajevo ceasefire of February the role and responsibilities of UNPROFOR in
  575
  the Sarajevo area have expanded to include tasks such as monitoring and control of heavy weapons, the manning of observation posts and checkpoints and patrolling confrontation lines. UNPROFOR has also had to take on similar tasks in relation to the Bosnian-Croat ceasefire in central Bosnia. Experience in carrying out these tasks has confirmed lessons already learned during UNPROFOR's deployment in Bosnia, including the importance of having sufficient troops and suitable equipment for the job.

  Armed Forces (Operational Capability)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 131, if he will make a statement on the senior levels of the chain of command that are involved in making central assessments of operational capability and to what extent those elements of the chain of command involved in making central assessments of operational capability include (a) civilians and (b) Ministers.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central assessments of operational capability in MOD are informed by reports rendered up the chain of command; including reports by senior officers who hold higher level and top level budgets—TLBs. Service TLB holders, including the front-line commanders in chief, sit on the predominantly military service executive committees whose own performance reports from the major contributions on operational capability, to the periodic central assessments reported to Ministers.

  Service Musicians
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent considerations he has given to altering the role of, service musicians as stretcher bearers during conflicts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. My Department has no plans to change the operational role of service musicians.
  576
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the current impact of service music and musicians on(a) operational capability, (b) service morale and (c) service recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Service bands play an important part in service life and as such make an important contribution to morale and recruitment. Bands personnel also play an important operational role as medical orderlies and guards in times of conflict.

  Sanctions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role British forces have played in the implementation of United Nations resolutions relating to economic sanctions against(a) Iraq and (b) Libya.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Armilla patrol has been operating to implement the United Nations arms and trade embargo against Iraq in the Gulf, and on occasions has also participated in the multinational interception force in the northern Red sea to relieve ships from other nations.

  British forces have played no active role in enforcing economic sanctions against Libya.

  Service Chaplains
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the current impact of service chaplains on(a) operational capability and (b) service morale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department fully recognises the significant contribution made by service chaplains to the operational effectiveness and morale of the armed forces through the spiritual and pastoral care they provide for service personnel and their dependants.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Sewage Treatment
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many more years it will take to treat the 102 coastal discharges and the 151 estuarial discharges of sewage so that the people of the United Kingdom will no longer be polluting the surrounding sea or the estuaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran):
My Lords, under the urban waste water treatment directive, all significant discharges of sewage will be treated before they are discharged either to inland, estuarial or coastal waters. The directive requires treatment to be phased in by the year 2005. However, 84 per cent. of our population already benefit from sewage treatment. In addition, a £2 billion programme to bring our bathing waters up to the relevant EC standards will be largely completed by the end of 1995.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partly encouraging Answer. Is it understood by the Government that bathing on sewage-free beaches around our coasts is not only a pleasure and a social advantage but an economic advantage? It enables better trade to be done by the places around our coasts which provide for visitors from this country and from abroad. Is there any hope that the programme can be speeded up?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. Equally, he will appreciate that this is a very lengthy, complex and costly exercise. Already 96 per cent. of the population are connected to sewers and 80 per cent. of our waters are up to EC standards. We are under an EC directive and the Government are spending, and will continue to spend, a considerable amount of money on securing what my noble friend proposes.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it the case that the European directives do not apply to sewage treatment works below a certain size? If that is right, will the Minister assure us that the same standards will be applied by the British Government so that we do not allow pollution from those smaller works?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are doing our very best to secure the standards required under the European directive, as is requested.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, has there been any study of the recycling of sewage into methane, which is a possibility, and into fertiliser for forestry?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a certain amount of sewage sludge is spread on to agricultural land and is used in forestry.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Is it right that the European directive does not apply to small sewage treatment works? If that is right, will the standards be applied to those works?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the European directive states that whatever the size of the sewage work we must bring it up to the required standard. If I am not correct I will let the noble Baroness know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recall that it is almost two years since the Earth Summit in Rio, when many pledges and promises were made about action against environmental pollution of one kind or another? Does he believe that a sense of urgency has been missing from the Government's response to this and other issues which relate to our fulfilment of the pledges that we made at Rio?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no, in no way do I deny that there is a sense of urgency about this matter. We realise how serious it is. There is a great sense of urgency and we are under several European directives. The urban waste water treatment directive must be phased in in stages by the year 2005. We are under these directives and we fully intend to comply with them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance because we have been in some doubt about the Government's view. Is he aware that at Question Time on 1st March the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, emphasised that,
"the Government are fully committed to implementing the Community directives on bathing water and drinking water"? —[Official Report, 1/3/94; col. 931.]
Is he further aware that in another place on 13th December the Prime Minister said:
'The drinking water directive and the bathing water directive both need to be completely overhauled. They are over-prescriptive and outdated scientifically"?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/93; col. 696]
Which view do the Government take?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are looking carefully at the urban waste water treatment directive with our European counterparts. It is complicated and costly. Member states are also beginning to realise that it is complicated and costly. We are all trying to reach a decision about when phasing in will be completed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but I did not refer to the urban waste water treatment directive. I referred to the drinking water directive and to the bathing water directive. Will the Minister answer my question in respect of those two directives?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the bathing water directive, we have said that we shall comply as much as we can in respect of nearly all beaches by the year 1995.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, under the heading "treatment", does the Minister include masceration? Does he count the masceration of sewage as being treatment or does treatment involve the bacterial digestion of sewage?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not a technician on this matter but obviously the noble Viscount is. The point is that the matter should be seriously treated so that it gives no cause for anxiety.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate that a good deal of public money must be spent to achieve this necessary objective. Will my noble friend bear in mind that the constructive suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Gisborough would enable a good part of the cost to be met? Is my noble friend aware that the undertaking of such work would create employment in areas where that is necessary?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I fully take that into account. I repeat that a considerable amount of sewage sludge is spread on to agricultural land. I am informed that it is just about as good as the normal fertilisers which go on to agricultural land.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to vary their contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the effect of the reduction of approximately £1 million in our contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for this year will be to cut the surplus carried forward from last year's operations. The commission itself has stated that the current year's level of funding will have no adverse effect on its ability to perform to its usual high standard.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that I visited a number of these cemeteries in France and Belgium and was most impressed by the work done there? Will he assure me that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is satisfied with the way that it is financed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for raising this Question which has caused a great deal of anxiety as a result of what I believe to be misrepresentation in the public press. Like my noble friend, everybody is enormously impressed by the magnificent job which the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does. It would be horrific if sufficient funds were not provided under the current arrangements to enable that work to continue to the existing high standard. As I said, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for providing me
348
with this opportunity to be able to confirm that the Government will do nothing to inhibit the work which the commission does.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that the War Graves Commission is an excellent body for consolidating the work of the Commonwealth? The Government should do everything possible to see that the commission has adequate funds to carry out that work.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has a long-standing interest in this matter. I am happy to give him the assurance which he seeks and also to endorse the encomium which he pronounced in the first part of his question. I emphasise that, through no fault of its own, the commission has a record of carrying forward a higher surplus from year to year than that for which it has budgeted. That is in the nature of its work. This is not the first time that the grant has been cut to take account of that higher than budgeted surplus.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, while I admire the plans for the commemoration of the end of the European War, may I respectfully remind the noble Viscount that the war did not end until VJ Day? Can he state that there will be no impediment to the maintenance of the high standard of care for the war graves of those who died in South-East Asia?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount knows that I am at one with him in regard to the importance attached to the deeds of the 14th Army and those who fought in the Far East. It is essential that next year the nation recognises their contribution. The nation should not be given the impression that the war ended on VE Day. I certainly agree with the noble Viscount that any suggestion that the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the Far East, particularly in relation to those who fell with the 14th Army and South-East Asian operations, should be cut would be a very poor reward indeed for the sacrifices which the noble Viscount's associates made.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his current answer is satisfactory, but with regard to the future there is an element of doubt? Having served for 16 years on the War Graves Commission, I recognise in full the dedication and service rendered by the staff of the commission.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to echo the tribute that he has just paid, which is richly deserved. I remind the noble Lord that the financial memorandum between the Ministry of Defence and the commission provides that the commission should notify my department at the earliest opportunity of any prospective overspend of the grant-in-aid which produces a requirement for additional funding. Should such a requirement for additional funds be agreed, funds would be provided without implications necessarily for the following year, particularly where the requirement is due to circumstances beyond the commission's control.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether other Commonwealth countries which make a contribution to the War Graves Commission do so on a pro rata basis to Her Majesty's Government's contribution? If so, will there be enough money available for the commission if the other countries also cut their contributions?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes an important point. I am sure that he knows that the answer to the first part of his question is yes. The United Kingdom's contribution to the commission is something under 80 per cent. of the total funds required. I can confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that the other participating Commonwealth countries have agreed that their pro rata contributions will continue. They are content that the "strictures" which I have been able to make this afternoon to your Lordships accord with their wishes. Their own graves will continue to be protected in the same way as UK graves.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Royal British Legion is greatly interested in this matter? It will certainly be encouraged by his replies this afternoon. If there are to be any significant changes, will he please seek the views of the Royal British Legion?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's connection with the Royal British Legion is well known in your Lordships' House and much appreciated. I am well aware that the Royal British Legion has expressed anxiety about this matter. I hope that it is satisfied by the answers that I have given this afternoon. My department endeavours to keep in close contact with the Royal British Legion. The noble Lord will be aware that, apart from keeping the nation informed, because the nation is quite rightly concerned about this, the detailed negotiations must be a matter for the commission and the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I too echo my noble friend's tribute to the work of the War Graves Commission? Is he aware further that I had the privilege of attending yesterday a meeting of the all-party D-Day commemoration committee which was held in this Palace? During the course of an exchange with a Member of the other place, Mr. Iain Sproat, of the Department of National Heritage, said that he would use his best efforts—and I do not believe that I am misquoting him—to reinstate the full grant to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Will the Minister confirm that those best efforts will be met?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I make it clear to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that if it is at all necessary to provide additional funding to the commission under the memorandum of understanding to which I referred earlier, those funds will be forthcoming. I hope that the noble Lord and, indeed, the House have been reassured. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for providing me with this
350
opportunity to reassure people who were rightly worried by a number of the newspaper reports that we have all read.

Parents with Care: Support
3.18 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is impossible for parents with care and receiving maintenance under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 to be worse off than if they are receiving benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, parents with care who come off income support will no longer qualify automatically for certain benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and help with NHS charges. However, they will still be eligible to apply for those benefits, on low income grounds, which will generally mean they are better off overall.
It is possible that a small number of parents with care may be worse off overall, in particular where loss of entitlement to free school meals outweighs any increase in income. However, the receipt of maintenance will be of long-term benefit to parents with care by providing a stepping stone to full-time work, and family credit rates incorporate an element of support for school meal costs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very careful Answer. When he says that a small number of people may be worse off, does he speak with statistical knowledge or from conjecture? Will he take note of a case found by a citizens advice bureau on Merseyside where a woman whose maintenance had brought her 82 pence above income support levels as a result lost access to the Social Fund, direct payments of household bills, free prescription charges, free dental charges, free eye test charges, free legal advice and, one should now add, VAT on fuel? Will the Minister concede that that woman is probably worse off? Will he concede that she may not have been untypical?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said earlier, there will be cases where parents with care may be worse off but one should remember that in 96 per cent. of the cases taken on so far, a parent with care and her children have been living at state benefit levels, while in most cases the absent parents have enjoyed a much higher standard of living. The Child Support Act is seeking to redress that balance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that the Child Support Act has done nothing of the kind; it has not redressed the balance in any sense. In fact, children are no better off and, indeed, in many cases are worse off than they were previously. In that respect, the Child Support Act has failed as has the Child Support Agency. Can the Government not see that what is required is a very wide-ranging and sympathetic review of the Act and its implementation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the old system was not

351
effective. It resulted in widely varying levels of maintenance, a priority to expenses other than child support and generally low levels of rewards. It was not working for children. We looked at the scheme and recognised that some adjustments were needed. We introduced in February of this year a balanced package of measures which take account of the interests of children, parents with care, absent parents and the taxpayer. Of course, time is needed to see the impact of those changes. However, we are keeping the scheme under close review.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a basic fact of politics that those who gain from a change in a system never comment but that those who lose are very vociferous in their objections? Given that fact, can my noble friend the Minister tell us how many complaints the department has received compared to the total number of clients served by the Child Support Agency?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. However, I cannot tell him about the number of complaints; but perhaps it would help your Lordships if I quoted an extract from a letter from Gingerbread, which is an association for all lone parents and their children. It reads:
"We generally welcomed the changes made in February this year in order to ease the burden on some absent parents who are experiencing genuine hardship in making their payments. But we have been dismayed that the loud voices of well-organised fathers who have the resources to fund a campaign have drowned out the quieter voices of mothers who have no access to such resources".
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that that carefully selected quotation is not universally accepted? What is accepted is that the CSA is a disaster. It has caused much more hardship than the Minister is able to accept at present. Would it not be much better for the Government to reconsider their recent policy of concentrating fringe benefits and other benefits on income support people and concentrate instead on all people with low incomes?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I really should point out to the noble Lord that it is estimated, for example, that in 60 per cent. of the cases dealt with in the first year there will have been no regular maintenance payment. Children were suffering. The Child Support Act helps those children. It is always difficult to bring in a new scheme. We made some changes, but we do indeed listen to any criticisms of the way that the CSA is run. As I said, we shall keep the situation under review.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, but there have already been many cases—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the main purpose of the Act was to ensure that parents who have the means to do so should maintain their children rather than passing that burden on to the taxpayer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. I believe that the principles of the scheme are strongly supported. Those principles
352
state that, although parents can divorce or separate, both parents remain responsible for their children. In other words, parents can divorce each other but they cannot divorce themselves from responsibility for their children.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no one takes objection to the last statement by the Minister about the principles of the Act. Our concern is with its implementation and the way that it works. Did not the Minister say that some first-family parents—those on income support and family credit—are actually worse off? On Tuesday, the Minister in another place said that he did not know how many first-family parents are better off. Therefore, will the Minister accept that in such ignorance the situation is an utter shambles; that the Government have potentially another poll tax fiasco on their hands; and that the sooner they recognise that a thorough overhaul must take place, the better it will be for all people, especially for children?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the thorough overhaul that the noble Baroness would like would not help the children. As I said, there may be parents with care who could lose out; for example, those on family credit. However, with regard to family credit, they have done much better. Indeed, some families will still be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. Moreover, they can recover up to 85 per cent. of their losses through increased housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Viscount admitted that some mothers are worse off. However, on 27th April, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, admitted that some fathers may perceive themselves to be worse off than if they were on benefit. Therefore, is anyone better off, except the Treasury?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords; the children.

Rwanda: UN Response
3.25 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the Security Council of the United Nations and elsewhere to ensure the protection and care of refugees from the genocide in Rwanda.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, on 16th May the Security Council adopted Resolution 918 which authorises an increase in the UNAMIR force to 5,500 troops with a mandate to support efforts to achieve a cease-fire, to monitor developments and contribute to the security and protection of displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while the whole House will welcome that sadly belated decision taken by the Security Council, but not before between 200,000 and 500,000 men, women and children have been brutally slaughtered, does the Minister agree that it is essential

353
that the 5,500 troops should be sent to Rwanda as soon as possible? Can the Minister also assure the House that the Government will give the fullest support to the Secretary-General in mobilising the troops and logistic support? Further, does the Minister agree that it will not be enough to provide protection for civilians in the border areas and Kigali and that there is also a desperate need to provide protection in internal areas like Cyangugu, Gitarama, Kabgayi and Gisenye? Will the Government do everything possible to strengthen the UN presence in neighbouring Burundi so that there is no danger of a repetition of the nightmare that has taken place in Rwanda in that country as well?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House are appalled by the terrible bloodshed that has taken place in the bitter friction in Rwanda. It is indeed true that many hundreds of thousands of people have probably been killed. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary-General will send troops as soon as possible. Indeed, he has already approached a number of African heads of state for troops. He has also approached the West for logistic support—a request we are ourselves considering at present. The Secretary-General is well aware that it is not simply the border areas that need attention: it is internally in Rwanda. He is also aware of the very tenuous situation in Burundi.
I shall be taking up such matters with the Secretary-General next week. In the meantime, an ODA mission which is leaving London tonight will be going to both the border areas and into Rwanda. Therefore, in about 10 days' time we shall be very much better informed. We shall then be able to provide even more help than the £3.3 million that we have already contributed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say which African countries have already signalled a readiness to help?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a number are examining the balance of the forces available for Rwanda in the light of the forces they already provide for the conflict in Liberia, while some still have forces in Somalia. I cannot give my noble friend the exact figures because we are still at a tentative stage. However, when I have that information I shall send it to him.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister accept the need for forces to be earmarked and available to the United Nations? In such a situation, people are dying in their thousands every day. Meanwhile, the United Nations is scraping around trying to collect the troops it requires. Does the Minister accept that that is an urgent requirement in the organisation of the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that the United Nations is looking at ways in which it can use the preventive presence of troops in a number of potentially troublesome areas. But there are no means whereby one can have large numbers of troops earmarked or standing in readiness when the resources
354
of the United Nations are already under enormous pressure, given the number of conflicts that exist at the present time. I believe that the discussions that are going on within the UN about how to deal with so many conflicts simultaneously will give us a better indication of how they can be dealt with more quickly in the future.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that Resolution 918 included explicit reference to the appalling breaches of human rights in the massive killing of people that has occurred, will Her Majesty's Government raise the matter at the human rights commission later this month and have they particularly thought of appointing human rights monitors so that those aspects can be dealt with as well as the matter of relief?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, these matters will indeed be raised at the next commission meeting. The appointment of human rights monitors in the current situation is difficult, given that we shall have to think hard about how even the troops going to Rwanda to try to make and keep the peace can operate. Human rights monitors would be obvious targets for the killing gangs still marauding throughout Rwanda. However, I take careful note of what the noble Lord says because it is of great concern to us that there are so many groups literally mad with killing fever in that country still.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Post Office.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD CHANCELLOR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 68 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the following amendment:
Page 58, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 45 and insert—
("22. In sections 158(2B) and 168(5)(d) and (5A)(d) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,")
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to make a small correction on page 58 line 42 of the Bill due to the draftsman having noticed an infelicity in the drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I take this opportunity to say just a few words not necessarily on this amendment but—
Noble Lords: Order! You must speak to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Insolvency Bill
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Insolvency Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 2 [Incapacity benefit: rate]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 8, after ("ill",) insert ("or, if he is in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to restore benefit entitlement to the long-term rate at 196 days for people receiving the disability living allowance higher rate care component who will not be required to pass the functional element of the all-work test to be eligible for long-term incapacity benefit. A similar, although rather wider, amendment was moved during the Committee stage on 19th April. This time, in the light of the Minister's comments during that debate, the focus has been narrowed to concentrate exclusively on the people with the most severe disabilities who will be exempt from the test.
The Government intend to fast track through the assessment process claimants who are terminally ill or receiving the disability living allowance (DLA) higher rate care component and those whose conditions are featured on the list the Secretary of State read to the
356
House of Commons during its Second Reading debate. People receiving the higher rate care component of DLA are likely to be the most severely disabled of all incapacity benefit applicants and they are, by definition, going to be the most seriously disadvantaged financially. There is ample evidence that the daily costs of living as a disabled person increase with the severity of disability. This is not to suggest that incapacity benefit should be viewed as a benefit to help meet the extra costs of disability. It is, of course, an income maintenance benefit. But the reality is that it can be put under great strain to help meet some of the unavoidable costs of disability because other resources are not available.
Short changed by disability, which was researched and written by the Disablement Income Group in 1990 in response to the Government's own survey of disabled people conducted by the OPCS, revealed that the most severely disabled people in the sample interviewed were spending £87 a week on the extra costs of disability, excluding personal care costs. That exceeded by more than £27 a week the then higher rate of attendance allowance and mobility allowance combined. DIG observed that severely disabled people were using their income maintenance benefit in order to meet their particular needs as disabled people. With incapacity benefit they will be even further adrift during the first year of incapacity because they will have to wait the full 364 days before moving on to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit.
Since the Government have already decided on special treatment for the group of claimants covered by this amendment in the context of assessment with the explicit assumption that such people will not be expected to work again, it is logical to allow them to progress swiftly to the long-term rate, otherwise the consequence for this vulnerable group may well be that severe financial hardship will threaten their early efforts to come to terms with life as disabled people.
The Government conceded that terminally ill people should be able to move on to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit at 196 days. People with a terminal illness had featured in an amendment on this subject both in this House and in another place, so the concession was most welcome. The amendment debated in Committee also included provision for fast-tracking people on the prescribed list. My noble friend the Minister said on that occasion that he was not convinced by the arguments. He said that there would be many people just as severely disabled as someone in the exempt category but not automatically exempt from the test. He said that they might be more severely disabled than someone in the exempt group and that it was difficult to see why they should receive a lower rate of benefit than someone who was exempt from the test.
If my noble friend is arguing on the grounds of equity between people on the prescribed list of conditions and those who are not, there may be some merit in what he says. That is why the present amendment focuses exclusively on people receiving the higher rate care component of disability living allowance.
People on the higher rate cannot really be compared with anyone outside this specific group. Therefore, there

357
is no resulting disadvantage to anyone else. It is the consequence of the disability that is the crucial factor, not the cause. These people are the most severely disabled of all likely claimants. They need personal care during the day and the night. They would have no problem with the test of incapacity even if they were to undergo it.
The justification for the amendment is that delaying the long-term rate for a year for such severely disabled people will cause financial difficulty. The cost of the amendment to the Government is unlikely to be high. Based on the Minister's reply to similar amendments in Standing Committee E in another place on 8th February, I understand that the costs are unlikely to exceed £5 million. Perhaps my noble friend will tell the House what the exact cost will be and how much less than £5 million. That is well within the area of error in calculating the large sum involved in this Bill.
Oh the other hand, the benefits of the amendment in human terms to the individual claimants and their families would be immense, far outweighing the small amounts of public money involved. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment most warmly. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put a strong argument and expressed it very clearly. He said that the amendment applies only to the most severely disabled people. Those are the individuals who would be most seriously disadvantaged. The noble Lord mentioned the Disablement Income Group survey of 1990 which pointed out that this group of people were using their income maintenance benefit to meet their extra daily living costs. Therefore, they will be further disadvantaged if, during the first year, they are on the lower rate of incapacity benefit.
As the noble Lord said, the Government have already decided that special treatment should be given to this group in the context of assessment with the explicit assumption that such people will not be expected to work again. I should like to quote from a letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, wrote to me on 6th May following up an amendment I moved in Committee in relation to exempting further categories of people from the medical tests. In the letter the Minister makes it crystal clear that the Government view the group of people referred to in the amendment as a distinct group. The Minister said:
'A person in receipt of this element of benefit is so severely disabled that they require help from another person 24 hours a day. Such a person is bound to pass the incapacity test, irrespective of the cause of disability".
If someone is in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of DLA and is, in the eyes of the Government, bound to pass the incapacity test, is it not logical and right that they should not have to wait a full year before moving on to the higher rate of incapacity benefit? The government amendment to pay the higher rate from six months to people with a terminal illness is extremely welcome. I hope very much that the Minister will agree to do the same for those who are, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—who I see is in her place—bound to pass the incapacity test.
358
Accepting the amendment would achieve that. It would greatly ease the financial strain on people with the most severe disabilities and far outweighs the cost involved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on these Benches very much support this all-party amendment. People who are so severely disabled that they receive the higher rate of disability living allowance will not, under the Bill, have to take the tough new medical test at 28 weeks. Such is the extent of their disability that they are rightly and automatically regarded as being incapable of any work, for the foreseeable future. That is sensible. Therefore, whereas the less severely disabled have their capacity to work tested at 28 weeks and thereafter regularly reviewed, those on the highest rate of disability living allowance are exempt from such tests. What we are trying to achieve with the amendment, should your Lordships accept it, is to provide that at the point when it is recognised that people are so severely disabled that they need not take any further medical test they should receive the full higher rate of benefit.
We are talking, for example, about the person involved in a hideous car accident which may have left him tetraplegic with a spinal injury such that he may have no movement below the neck and is unable to move his arms or legs. Such a man clearly needs continuous attention, day and night. He may need to be turned during the night, for example. Therefore, he rightly qualifies for the highest rate of disability living allowance. He is therefore rightly excused any medical test of eligibility for the new incapacity benefit.
At present, after six months such a person would immediately go on to the full rate of benefit. Unless your Lordships are minded to accept the amendment, in future such a tetraplegic would not go on to the fullest rate of benefit at six months but would have to wait another six months—12 months in all. The amendment would allow him to move directly on to the highest rate at six months.
No one doubts that person's medical situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, few can doubt his financial situation. Only a third of men in this country who are disabled have occupational pensions, whereas two-thirds of non-disabled people have such pensions. Half the number of disabled people have savings of less than £1,000, yet the increase in daily living costs are huge if such people are to remain out of nursing care and in the community, as they and we wish them to be if that is their choice. That has been recognised by paying them the highest rate of DLA. I hope that, if your Lordships agree, we can also ensure that the basic incapacity benefit follows likewise.
The costs are not high. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—they will be about £5 million. The Government expect to make savings of £1.5 billion on the Bill. If my calculations are right, £5 million would represent less than one-third of 1 percent. of savings. It is margin of error stuff to the Treasury; it is very real and significant to the families.
If noble Lords were to accept the amendment today, it would mean that those who were so severely disabled

359
that they are on the highest rate of DLA, and therefore do not need a medical test, would immediately move on to the full rate of benefit. But if your Lordships were to reject it, we should be saying that those who are so severely disabled, such as tetraplegics, that they need no further medical test nonetheless have to wait a full year to receive full benefit.
We believe that your Lordships want such people to receive their benefit at six months rather than 12 months. That is the thrust of the amendment. I very much hope that your Lordships will support it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that these are people most of whom cannot be expected ever to work again. If there is any logic —and I say "if—in the Government's position of delaying the long-term rate of benefit, it must be on the assumption that for the first few months the benefit is to be treated like sickness pay, which is temporary, rather than a disability benefit, which is permanent. I cannot think what other logic there can be in the Government's insistence on a lower rate for the first six months.
However, that principle, which is the only possible intelligent principle that could underlie the Government's position, is completely inapplicable to this group of people. I cannot see what possible logical justification there can be for paying them a lower rate of benefit, especially during the early period of disability which is when all the expenses of getting used to a new way of life —with need for new equipment, new facilities, or for new guiderails—are at their highest. At the time of the highest expense, the benefit is lowest. It does not make sense.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend's amendment. We have heard from various speakers that the cost will probably not be in excess of £5 million. No doubt the Minister will verify that figure. I believe that there is an argument that the money will be well spent. We know how difficult it is for the family when the breadwinner unexpectedly becomes severely disabled. The stress is enormous. We heard during Report stage of families breaking up under the strain. That can lead to demands of the state elsewhere. Let us not impose further financial strains if we can possibly avoid it. I urge the Government to accept this modest amendment.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I do so as one who did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, when we discussed it in Committee. On that occasion I shared the doubts of those who have been worried by the enormous escalation of expenditure under this provision and the doubt about whether, in marginal cases, there is an extensive range of what amounts to abuse.
As has been pointed out today in regard to the cases covered by the amendment, there is no question of misunderstanding or of abuse in marginal cases. We are dealing with a situation that is absolutely clear. In Committee we discussed the general case and it seemed to many of us that there were no means of dealing with
360
the contingent problem of abuse in marginal cases without damaging the interests of those whom one would be very sorry to damage. The amendment meets that problem. It makes the necessary exceptions. I very much hope that the Minister will consider it.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will feel able to accept the amendment. It provides for specific exceptions. Therefore, it would be rather nice if the Government felt that it would not break them to accept it. If there is to be the saving that has been referred to, and if this provision were to cost only £5 million, it should be feasible for the amendment to be accepted.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I support the amendment. The worst time for the very severely disabled is the first few months after they suddenly find how dreadfully disabled they are. I hope the Government will feel that they can give the disabled a start towards obtaining extra equipment to get them rehabilitated as soon as possible.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen explained, the amendment would bring forward the highest rate of long-term incapacity benefit for people who receive the highest care component of disability living allowance to the 29th week of incapacity for work. I can confirm to my noble friend that the cost of the amendment would be £5 million or less; but I do not know the exact cost.
During the previous stages of the Bill I explained why the Government believe that 52 weeks is a more reasonable measure of long-term incapacity—indeed, your Lordships accepted those arguments—and the point at which the highest rate of benefit should be paid. I recognise that by seeking to bring forward the long-term benefit in some cases my noble friend is trying to safeguard the position of the most severely disabled claimants. We have listened to the arguments both in this House and in another place very carefully and sympathetically. We have moved a long way towards addressing your Lordships' concerns by bringing forward the highest rate for claimants who are terminally ill. However, we do not think it would be right to go further than that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), suggested that payment of the higher care rate of DLA was an indication of severe disablement. I agree with the noble Baroness on that point. However, it cannot in all cases be seen as a direct measure of the severity of disability. Not all claimants who are severely disabled receive the highest care component. Some may be equally disabled but receive the middle rate care component because they require a lower level of care. For example, many people with learning difficulties require continuing supervision throughout the day but sleep perfectly well at night. For others, sleep is disturbed giving rise to day and night needs. Therefore, it would be inequitable to award the claims mentioned in the amendment at the higher rate of benefit while denying it to other equally disabled claimants.
The terminally ill are a special case. Because of the nature of their illness, a 52-week limit is not fair. Having

361
paid national insurance contributions, they would never have the opportunity to benefit from the higher rate. It is only fair that this group should benefit. However, those in receipt of DLA would get the higher rate of benefit after 52 weeks.
The highest rate of DLA encompasses a wide range of disabilities since eligibility for the benefit is based on needs and not on any particular disability. This wide range extends from tetraplegics to much less severe disabilities such as the effects of diabetes which require the same frequency of care or supervision.
I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that logic suggests that short-term rates of benefit should be higher than the long-term rate. With the short-term rate, most claimants have other resources to draw on.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Viscount indicate to me when I said that short-term rates should be higher than long-term rates?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what the noble Earl said was that long-term rates should be paid instead of short-term rates. I am sorry if I did not put it as clearly as perhaps I ought. As I have explained, for those who do not have resources it is important that they can claim on income support, which is available.
My noble friend has argued that people who receive the highest rate of the care component of DLA have extra needs associated with their disability and should therefore receive the highest rate of that benefit. I do not dispute that disability can incur specific costs, but I have two slight difficulties with my noble friend's argument. First, incapacity benefit, like sickness benefit and IVB, is not designed to meet extra costs associated with disability. It is designed instead to provide a basic -income to those who cannot work. DLA is the benefit designed to help with extra costs. It is not taxed or means tested and it can be worth up to £45.70 a week.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, payment at the highest rate of the care component of DLA cannot in all cases be seen as a direct measure of the severity of disability. Not all claimants who are severely disabled receive the highest care component. Some may be equally disabled but receive the middle rate care component because they require a lower level of care. For example, many people with learning difficulties require continual supervision throughout the day but sleep perfectly well at night. With others, sleep is disturbed, giving rise to day and night needs.
We have identified receipt of the highest rate of the care component solely for the purposes of exempting as many severely disabled people as possible from the medical test. Nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that there will always be some severely disabled people who will be subject to the medical test because they do not fall into an exempt group. For those claimants, we can be certain that, like those who are exempt from the test, they will continue to be treated as incapable of work. But if your Lordships accept the amendments, some severely disabled claimants would receive a higher rate of benefit early but at the same time other equally disabled claimants would continue to wait 52 weeks before they received the highest rate.
362
We have looked carefully at this and we do not think that the amendment could be reasonably justified. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he explain to the House the priorities behind causing so much hardship for a saving as small as £5 million?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not think that that is a valid argument. I have explained quite clearly how the amendment would affect different groups. It would make it unfair for some people. We should not argue about the cost of the amendment. We should argue about its validity.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish to thank all those who supported me on the amendment. The figure of £5 million or less, which my noble friend confirmed, is well within the margin of error on the total cost or total savings that the Bill is intended to create. When those in the Treasury use their individual digits to calculate the sums that they need to, this amount uses only a few fingers, not even four fingers and a thumb. The amount is infinitesimal. The suggestion that those who need to can claim on income support rather than using this allowance is, I believe, quite unjustified because it merely means paying out of one pocket rather than another. My noble friend's argument has not convinced me in any way at all. I believe that if I were not to press the amendment I should be morally failing disabled people. I therefore commend the amendment to your Lordships.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Annan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Atholl, D.

Donoughue, L.

Attlee, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Ennals, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bonham-Catter, L.

Ezra,L.

Borthwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brightman, L.

Geraint, L.

Brookes, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Butterfleld, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grantchester, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Croham, L.

Holderness, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B. [Teller]

Hollick, L.

363

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Richardson, L.

Hylton, L.

Rix, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ilchester, E.

Rochester, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

Judd, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kagan, L.

Serota, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lytton, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Tebbit, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thurlow, L.

Milverton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Varley, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wharton, B.

Nathan, L.

White, B.

Nelson, E.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wise, L.

Peston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

The Post Office
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it may now be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the President of the Board of Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Post Office. I announced on 29th July 1992 that the Government would be considering the future structure and organisation of the Post Office. I made clear then that we would consider a variety of options both in the public and in the private sector. In March, the Trade and Industry Committee published a report on the future of the Post Office. We have considered this carefully.
"The Government have now decided that they will shortly publish a Green Paper setting out the issues in full and outlining the options for change. In view of the intense speculation of the last two days, however, I thought it important that I should make this early report to the House.
"The Post Office is an essential part of our national life. It provides at least one daily delivery of mail throughout the country at a uniform tariff, which is the same regardless of whether you live in Westminster or the Western Isles. It handles some 60 million items of mail per day. Perhaps most importantly of all, it maintains a network of some 20,000 post offices which serve their local communities in a way which no other organisation can match.
"The Government therefore made their consideration of the Post Office's future subject to three vital and non-negotiable commitments, all of which we clearly set out in our manifesto. These are: first, the maintenance of a nationwide letter service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom; secondly, a uniform and affordable structure of prices; and thirdly, a nationwide network of post offices. Under no circumstances would we put these commitments at risk.

365
"There are three principal businesses of the Post Office, namely Post Office Counters, the Royal Mail and Parcel Force. The Green Paper will outline a number of options but I can announce some firm decisions today.
"Let me begin with the counters business. Every Member of this House is well aware of the vital importance of the network of post offices, particularly in rural areas but also in our towns and cities. The Government fully recognise the key role which they perform in our communities. That is why the maintenance of a nationwide network is non-negotiable.
"The counters business is essentially a partnership between the public and private sectors. The central core, which negotiates contracts and provides back-up services, is government owned. But the vast majority of post offices—all but some 800 of the 20,000 outlets—are privately run sub-post offices operating under an agency agreement.
"The Government can see no case for changing this structure. It works well. It ensures that the Government retain the necessary control over the maintenance of the nationwide network. It allows for private sector initiative at local level where the local post office is at the heart of local communities.
"During the course of the review, however, the case has been put forcefully, particularly by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, that the commercial prospects of the post office network need reinforcement. I understand and share that view. Most post offices are small shops and the Government understand the pressures on such shops as a result of social change. We are therefore intending to proceed with two measures specifically designed to improve their position.
"First, we will be giving Post Office Counters greater freedom in future to seek new clients from the private sector to supplement its existing client base, which consists largely of public sector bodies. The best way of maintaining the network is to give it freedom to compete, on fair terms, for new business and thus increase the spread and scale of its activities. The Green Paper will set out our proposals.
"Secondly, we propose to automate many of the clerical procedures which lie behind much of the business of the network. These procedures—par-ticularly those related to the payment of benefits— have been unchanged for decades. Work is thus under way between the counters business and the Benefits Agency to devise a method of automating the payment of social security benefits. This will not only provide an extremely cost-effective way of paying benefits but will also provide an electronic platform in post offices enabling the business to provide enhanced services for all its clients, new and old. Work on this project is at an early stage but we are looking to extend the public/private sector partnership by the involvement of the private sector in the management and funding of this project.
"I would like to comment on the relationship between counters and Royal Mail. Royal Mail does not cross-subsidise post offices. Post Office Counters
366
has been run as an independent business since 1986 and has been profitable throughout that period. Some individual post offices in rural areas do, of course, make a loss on a strict accounting basis. Counters has the existing powers to support such post offices. Indeed, at the present time 2,700, of which 1,800 are part-time, are already supported by a flat fee regardless of the business they undertake. Post Office Counters and their clients see the nationwide network not as a liability but as an asset which enables counters to provide a unique service to villages and hamlets throughout the land. It enables the Benefits Agency, for example, to provide a service for the millions of people who have no bank accounts and live in remote areas.
"The business link with Royal Mail is, of course, also important, though Members may be interested to know that only about 25 per cent. of counters' turnover comes from the Royal Mail. However, in any proposals the Government will require the Royal Mail in future to continue to use post offices, as they do at present.
"Let me now turn to Royal Mail, which accounts for over 70 per cent. of Post Office turnover. It is the most efficient postal service in Europe. It is a modern, profitable business. It is looking to expand into what is rapidly becoming a European and even a world market for postal services. This is itself only a part of a global communications market which is one of the most innovative industrial sectors of all. "The Post Office board wishes Royal Mail to be free of many of its constraints. Indeed, the board has; made clear that increasing competition in the market place is beginning to pose a real threat to its ability to maintain its current performance. The Trade and Industry Select Committee in its recent report accepted that argument. The Government also recognise the case for change.
"The Green Paper will set out the options showing the advantages and disadvantages and in particular the case for retaining a substantial minority shareholding in a newly created public company. In addition, preferential share entitlements for the employees of the Post Office and the sub-postmasters would ensure that a significant holding of shares would be in the hands of those people most immediately concerned with the future of the business. The Green Paper will also set out an option for retaining the business in the public sector but extending its commercial freedom as far as is consistent with continued public sector status.
"Let me emphasise that none of these options would in any way reduce the social obligations placed on Royal Mail. To ensure this, any legislation would set up a regulatory system to ensure that these are properly defined and policed. The Government's commitments to universal delivery —six days a week to every household—with a uniform and affordable tariff remain non-negotiable and would be written on the face of the legislation. Tariffs would be controlled through regulation. Experience has shown that social commitments can be delivered through strong regulation; for example, regulation requires

367
BT to provide telephone boxes in rural areas. In the same way it would be our intention to require Royal Mail to maintain its letter services in rural areas.
"I turn now to Parcel Force. I announced on 15th July 1992 the Government's intention to privatise Parcel Force, which already operates in a fully competitive market. Work has been going on since then on the best method and timing of the sale of Parcel Force. Of necessity, we have done so in the light of the Post Office review. It would be possible to continue with our original plans. But there are important synergies which exist between Parcel Force and Royal Mail. The Government have decided to include Parcel Force in their new proposals for Royal Mail. We will, of course, pay particular attention to the need to avoid any unfair cross-subsidy from Royal Mail to Parcel Force.
"Before concluding, can I reassure the House on three specific points. First, it has been suggested that any change of status would lead to VAT on stamps. That is simply wrong. I can assure the House that under any proposals we finally adopt stamps will continue to be exempt from value added tax. The second is pensions. I can assure the House that all existing pension rights will be preserved in any case.
"Thirdly, the House will be aware that the Post Office, and in particular the Royal Mail, has long had important connections with the monarch. I am pleased to announce to the House that after consultation Her Majesty has agreed that, if a public sale option were to be pursued, Royal Mail would be given permission to use a depiction of Her Majesty's head on postage stamps; to use the Royal emblems, the crown and the cypher; and to be registered as Royal Mail plc at Companies House.
"I will soon be bringing forward a Green Paper setting out the options and the Government's preferred proposals. That will allow an opportunity for a full public debate of this complex area.
"We are committed to increasing the opportunities for the Post Office and post office network and to ensure that the national standard of service is maintained. We will wish to ensure in any change that the interests of the consumer continue to be protected by effective regulation. There is common accord that major change is needed if the Royal Mail is to meet the growing competitive threat that it faces.
"The Government believe it important to allow the Royal Mail to build on the excellence of its reputation and to compete both at home and internationally where the quality of its achievements and the reputation it enjoys offer an exciting future. We hope to make rapid progress to enable this major British organisation to achieve its ambitions". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, I find it somewhat bizarre and have great difficulty understanding what the House is being told. We have the oldest Post Office in the world. Judged by world standards, we have a Post
368
Office which is profitable, which is efficient and which can be relied upon. Of course it could be better. But doing better is precisely what the Post Office has been demonstrating. It has been doing a good job and has shown that it can proceed to do a better one. Indeed, in my judgment the only thing holding back the Post Office is the Government. The best thing that the Government can do is to stop interfering with that public agency and let it demonstrate what it can do. The evidence is that in this case the public sector and public service can do a first-class job. But that is precisely what the Government seem to be afraid of.
Let me quote the Government themselves. Essentially, the noble Lord said that we have the most efficient postal service in Europe—a modern, profitable business. For goodness sake, why are the Government proposing to mess about with it in any way whatever? Put at its mildest, it is daft.
The Government use the word "non-negotiable". Will the Minister say what "non-negotiable" means? Whenever I hear that word, warning signals sound immediately, telling me that the real meaning is "negotiable". Why go to all that trouble?
Can the Minister say whether the word "uniform" used in reference to prices means "equal"? Does it mean that we all pay the same price for delivery wherever delivery takes place? In my judgment, "uniform" does not mean "equal". But is that the Government's intention?
What does "affordable" mean? Does "affordable" mean "cheap"? That is the kind of problem I have with the Statement. It is said that a nationwide network is non-negotiable. The words are "a nationwide network"; not "the nationwide network". Am I right in thinking that the Government in fact mean "the" and not "a"? The whole Statement is fraught with problems.
The main problem relates to the actual wording that the noble Lord used in relation to the Green Paper. I was convinced, until the noble Lord spoke, that there must be a serious misprint in the Statement. We see the sentence,
"The Green Paper will set out the options showing the advantages and disadvantages",
and so forth. At no point does it say that it will set out what the options are and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the points we are considering. Indeed, the word "privatisation" does not appear. Can the noble Lord say whether one of the options is privatisation? One of the options appears to be continued "public sector status". The least we need to be told is whether or not the Government are actually proposing to privatise.
There are statements of Government commitments. The expression appears that certain matters will be,
"written on the face of the legislation".
But I must warn noble Lords, though this will not come to us for a fortnight or so, that nothing of that sort will mean anything any more if we pass the deregulation Bill. Once that Bill is passed there is nothing to stop Ministers deciding that, by order, they will remove this or that on the grounds that it is too costly for their friends in the private sector. I raise that point now. I shall raise it again in more detail in two weeks' time. It

369
is one of the reasons we must be careful when considering remarks like "we are committed" and "this is non-negotiable".
I now propose to ask about a matter of some delicacy. I was concerned about the depiction of Her Majesty's head by an enterprise which will be in the private sector. I was deeply concerned about that before this matter was raised. However, the noble Lord told us that Her Majesty herself is not concerned about it and I am therefore unable to pursue it. I felt that I should say that some of us were worried about that before the Statement was made. I can say no more on that at this time.
The question that puzzles me, since there seems to be conflict of fact, relates to what is happening in other countries. According to my information, other countries —notably France and Germany-—are not thinking of privatising their mail delivery services. Can the noble Lord say anything about that? There is talk of competition from abroad. Again, there is evidence and argument that competition from abroad is not possible; it would infringe the universal postal union agreement. Can the noble Lord give us some clarification on the question of competition from abroad?
Finally—I am sorry, not quite finally—I must raise the question of sub-post offices. The Government are essentially saying that sub-post offices are safe; that that is one of the non-negotiable areas. My judgment is that I do not see how their safety can be guaranteed if we eventually move in the direction of privatisation. Certainly if I were a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress I would feel extremely threatened by the Government's proposals and particularly by their ideology. I would be most fearful for my future.
In that connection I am somewhat mystified—that is why I say it is not quite finally—by the reference to the fact that post offices are not subsidised, yet the remaining sentences in that paragraph seem to suggest that some rural post offices make losses on a strictly accounting basis. If they survive, that is what subsidisation means. If they receive a flat fee regardless of the business they undertake, then according to my understanding of economics, that is cross-subsidisation. They are being given, quite rightly, special treatment.
I am most perturbed by the Statement and by its rather ad hoc nature. Of course I shall wait for the Green Paper and perhaps one day a White Paper. I should like to know whether the Government have any cogent arguments. I doubt that they will be able to put forward any powerful arguments in support of privatisation. For the moment the best thing I can do is keep my powder dry but warn the Minister that if we eventually join battle on this field we shall fight as vigorously as we can to defeat the privatisation proposals.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I welcome this Statement for two reasons. First, it was right for the Government to come up promptly with the Statement after all the press speculation. Secondly, many will be relieved at the three firm commitments that the Government made: namely, to maintain a nationwide letter service; to provide a uniform and affordable structure of prices; and to sustain a nationwide network of post offices. That is all very positive.
370
However, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in asking a number of questions about the implications of what comes afterwards. Like him, I was somewhat puzzled, hearing the positive and proper way in which the Government paid tribute to the success of our postal service—which has changed beyond recognition in recent years and become a highly profitable and efficient organisation—as to why at this time we are thinking of introducing changes.
Before the noble Lord thinks of his reply to that, I am sure he will say that there is competition and technological change. That is so. But why cannot those matters be taken on board by a properly run public enterprise? As someone who has been in public enterprise for many years, I believe that one of the reasons for the alleged failure of public enterprise was the constant intervention of government and particularly the peculiar financial controls. Whether or not the enterprise was profitable, the financial controls were such as to make it impossible for it to be run on a rational basis.
For example, in relation to the Post Office, the Government apply a form of negative cash limit. That means that it must contribute to the Treasury what the Financial Times this morning estimated to be twice the amount that, if it had been declaring a dividend on its results, would be declared as dividend. There are many questions being asked these days about the relatively high dividends being paid in the private sector and why there is not more reinvestment. Therefore, why are the Government charging the successful Post Office twice the amount that any private sector company in a similar position would be paying out by way of dividend? In other words, why is it being deprived from ploughing back a lot of its well-earned profit into making itself more efficient in the future?
I hope, therefore, that when we are given the various options the issue of whether or not the postal service in general—the Royal Mail as well as Post Office Counters —should remain in public ownership but with much greater commercial freedom and freed of that peculiar financial constraint, will be fully explored. The Government will earn a lot of commendation if they are able to show against all past experience that it is possible, in the public interest, to own a major enterprise which is successful in the operation of its business and regulated in such a way that it can build on its success.
The Statement read out by the noble Lord ended by saying that the intention of the Government was to enable the Post Office to build on its success. I believe that that would be one way of enabling it to do so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he was perturbed about the Statement. What perturbed me was the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was so welcoming of it. He congratulated the Government on making the three firm commitments to protect the various interest groups that rely on the future of the Post Office. Indeed, I was grateful for the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he says that the Post Office is doing a good job. Of course it is. The noble Lord went on to say that we should stop

371
interfering. But that is one of the problems. When governments own organisations there is a temptation to interfere, to control and be involved. It is one of the natural reactions of being in politics and having a Civil Service and a Treasury. That is why we are investigating a number of options—to see what possible changes can be made.
Both noble Lords asked specific questions which I should like to answer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, as I said earlier, when we talk about things being non-negotiable we like the phrase to mean exactly what it says. So we will preserve the important aspects of the workings of the Post Office which are recognised by people all over the country as being important to their life styles. That goes for uniformity, which means we shall provide for equal pricing and for equal sale of the product right across the country.
When it comes to looking at the options, the Statement makes clear—I recognise that it was a lengthy Statement—that we see no case for changing the current structure of Post Office Counters as it works well. So one of the options is not to privatise Post Office Counters. However, we should like to take a more radical look at whether the Royal Mail could find an appropriate place within the private sector, though naturally well supported with a substantial ownership by government and indeed by the people who work within the Royal Mail. We know that the world business structure is changing. We understand the case for the Royal Mail to look to expand and develop in order to capture a share of the new markets, particularly international markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked what is happening in other European countries. I understand that in the Netherlands the Dutch Post Office is already heading down the path of partial privatisation. In Germany there are initial plans for splitting up its posts and telecommunications network and for progressively selling it off. I have no information on the situation in France. But what this demonstrates is an increasing awareness internationally that Post Offices could compete with each other, and the British Royal Mail should not be held back from its desire to compete as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the cross-subsidy. There is a cross-subsidy of Post Office Counters with some rural post offices, which are now unable on a strict accounting basis to make a profit. They are paid an agency fee by the central organisation, but it is that central organisation whose structure we have declared ourselves most satisfied with.
As for the deregulation Bill, that is a matter which will be exercising our minds during the hot summer months in the near future. I do not think we need to be overly concerned about how the deregulation Bill could affect the future of the Post Office.
This Statement is not a negative Statement. It is an extremely positive Statement, making sure that the Post Office network can provide the very best service to its customers in the United Kingdom and can compete effectively abroad at the same time.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House as a whole is very grateful to him for making this Statement, that it will be even more grateful when the Green Paper appears and that it will be even more grateful still, seeing the Leader of the House present, when it is given the opportunity, which it will very much want, to debate the Green Paper. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House is making a mental note of that at this stage.
There are two aspects of the Statement which I was very glad to hear. One is the intention to extend the scope of the Royal Mail. I am sure that very considerable extension is possible, that it will be profitable and that it will be very helpful. Perhaps my noble friend can add a word or two of further detail on the matter.
Secondly, I was very much relieved to hear that Post Office Counters is to be left intact. It is a vital part particularly of our rural economy. If the Government were to be tempted to interfere drastically with it, it would be a pity. On the other hand, if the Government can find further scope for Post Office Counters, in particular by making sure that it is allowed to be profitable through extending the scope of its business, that would be extremely helpful, not only to the Post Office but to the rural community as a whole. Perhaps my noble friend will comment on that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House made a mental note of my noble friend's recommendation that there should be a debate on the Green Paper. No doubt in the fullness of time he will come to a view as to whether that is the way forward.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for making a positive noise about the Statement. It provides the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters with a substantial opportunity. There are many services which cannot currently be provided by the Royal Mail—some for reasons of public sector finance and some for other reasons. But if the option was adopted to go down the private sector route there would be the opportunity to provide a variety of services; for instance, a single service to provide printing, sorting, enveloping and, ultimately, delivery services for a whole variety of organisations that need such services.
My noble friend is also right about extending the scope of Post Office Counters. One factor that has held up the development of Post Office Counters has been its inability to sell certain items or indeed to operate for third parties; for instance, banks and mail order organisations. That is the kind of information that we wish to receive from our consultation on the Green Paper. We wish to see exactly what kind of scope exists for extending those opportunities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is an outrageous Statement, but the noble Lord will be relieved to hear that I shall save my outrage for another day. I should like to ask a few questions instead. First, the noble Lord said that there would be a guaranteed

373
six-day service. Will that be first and second delivery? Will the Government guarantee the second delivery as well as the first?
Secondly, he gave an assurance that there would be no VAT on postage stamps. We all remember that during the general election the Government said that there would be no extension of the scope of VAT. Yet a year after they won the election VAT of 17.5 per cent. was imposed on domestic fuel. Will it be written into any Bill that there will be no VAT on stamps? Can we have an answer to that question?
Thirdly, my noble friend on the Front Bench raised the issue of equality of treatment. When the Gas Bill was going through the House we were assured that there would be standard rates throughout the country. We were told that those would be guaranteed. We now hear that under new provisions people in the South West may be paying more for their gas than people in East Anglia. Can"we have an assurance that there will be a guarantee of standard prices for all time throughout the country? How many jobs will be lost?
Finally, if the public reject, and firmly reject, the Green Paper, does that mean that the Government will drop their proposals?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, describes the Statement as outrageous. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that he has not had enough time to think about the delicacy of the consideration we have given to this issue and about the important safeguards set out in the Statement. They are important and precisely the kind of safeguards I know the noble Lord would wish to see; namely, the three commitments that were so welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The noble Lord asks specifically whether there will be first and second deliveries on the six days. In some parts of the country there is not a second delivery. So in those parts of the country we would not be guaranteeing a service because there is not one. We hope that if we were to take the privatisation option, that, as has been true in so many other privatisations, would improve the quality of service. We would have more collections and deliveries throughout the country.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not accept my words or those of the Government when it comes to making a statement on VAT. But I can assure him that we have no intention and no desire—and we are not obliged by European Community regulations in which I know he has a great interest—to introduce VAT.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that each time the Government have tried to transfer businesses from the public sector to the private sector the Opposition have always objected? Does he further agree that despite that objection, our privatisation programme has been extremely successful and has been copied throughout the world by competing countries? Does my noble friend also agree that as regards the Royal Mail, the very fact that the employees will be able to become shareholders is a step in the right direction? That gives an impetus to the wider share ownership and the creation and distribution of wealth
374
which this Government have carried on since coming to office. Finally, does my noble friend agree that the fact that the local post office system is going to remain intact is something which will endear itself to the public?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I would expect my noble friend to be supportive. He has used his particular wisdom and experience to be doubly so. My noble friend is absolutely right. Time and time again the Opposition have chastised us over government policy and time and time again they have been proved wrong. The wisdom of the Opposition is clearly in great doubt, not just on this matter but on so many others.
My noble friend spotted something which is very important and which should be at the heart of the Opposition's policy; that is to say, the creation and distribution of wealth. We distribute wealth by giving people the opportunity to do the best for themselves. That is why one of the central planks of any potential future privatisation will be employee ownership schemes to make sure that the people who are most affected by these changes will also be the greatest beneficiaries.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in all the other privatisations; where preferential share ownership was granted to employees 84 per cent. of the shares were sold, some within six weeks of allocation? In only one case, where a two-year limitation was built in as regards the privatisation of British Gas, were the employee shareholdings held for any length of time. As regards today's Statement, is the Minister aware that there is not a country in the world that has its post office system in the private sector? Nor is there a country that has its counter service separated from its letters and parcels service. All have an integrated postal service.
The Netherlands—although the situation may change because of the election recently of an albeit minority Labour government—has gone down the road of experimenting with market forces, and the number of deliveries, for example, in Amsterdam, has been reduced to five compared with 11 deliveries in London, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Even in the Netherlands, if the decision were taken to privatise the service, it would still be in the public sector because the government are under a legal obligation not to sell more than 49 per cent. of the shares held in the Netherlands post office. In New Zealand—another to have experimented with market forces—tariffs have gone up by 116 per cent. So there is no evidence throughout the world to justify what the Minister and his right honourable friend in another place have been saying in the Statement today.
My final question to the Minister is this: will he check his facts as regards British Telecom? He said that it is under a statutory obligation to place telephone kiosks in rural areas. The 1984 legislation as regards British Telecom is quite clear. British Telecom is under an obligation to place telephone kiosks in rural areas only—and these words are very important indeed— where they are economically viable. That is what the Act says. It does not say that British Telecom is under an obligation to place kiosks in rural areas. Indeed, the local government legislation was altered to enable local

375
authorities to make a contribution to maintain a telephone kiosk in a rural area when British Telecom was going to remove it because it was uneconomic. The Minister will go one privatisation too far if this Government dare to attempt to privatise the Post Office.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would be delighted if it did turn out to be one privatisation too far. But we have not yet made a decision about whether privatisation is the correct route. The Statement is about publishing a Green Paper in order to have a broadly based discussion about what the future structure of the Post Office should be. We have made various commitments which are non-negotiable and we have looked ahead at what kind of proposals could be suitable for the Royal Mail.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, began with a comment on ěmployee share ownership. We will look at past privatisations to study the experience of those measures. There are a number of potential schemes which could be brought to bear. All I am making clear is our commitment to involve employees in ownership of their own company, which I believe is important.
The noble Lord said that no other country has tried this. All that shows is that yet again the United Kingdom is in the vanguard in looking at state ownership and privatisation in a radical way and offering real opportunities. I can assure noble Lords opposite that where we go other countries will follow soon enough. Perhaps I may briefly answer the question about British Telecom and rural phone boxes. I understand that although the 1984 Act is, as the noble Lord remembers, under the licence obligations—in other words, under the regulatory system—there is an obligation to keep existing phone boxes open. That is why today throughout the British countryside we still see phone boxes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may I be forgiven if I ask a slightly inquisitive question? I was greatly heartened by a great deal of what my noble friend said in answer to the last question. I am greatly heartened by the fact that the paper is green and not white. Perhaps my noble friend and the Leader of the House will agree with me that it is obvious that we really cannot tackle this problem until the Green Paper is seen and read. Therefore there must be some limit to what I can press my noble friend about.
I have spent most of my life in the Conservative Party. I have the feeling that the party itself is not united about this matter. If I understood my noble friend correctly, I am greatly heartened that in the Green Paper one of the options which is being considered, among others, is the retention of the Post Office as a nationally-owned enterprise. I am not asking my noble friend to go down every avenue and leave no stone unturned. Some of us are proud of our Post Office and I expect that the Government are too. We do not want radical changes. I understand that this is consistent with what my noble friend said; namely, that one of the options which should still be open is that which was put
376
by Lord Melbourne to the bright ideas boys in his government many years ago. He said, "Why not leave it alone?"
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted that there is no disagreement between my noble and learned friend and myself or the Government on this issue. The Statement we have made today is an announcement of the publication of a Green Paper. Ideally, we perhaps would not have wished to make the Statement today, but in the light of intense press speculation over the past couple of days it would have been unfair to allow people to believe that the Post Office was under a substantial threat when we knew that we wished to maintain enormous protections so as to provide a valuable Post Office service for the future. Of course, one of the options will be to look carefully at the current regime, but we are faced with changing circumstances in terms of technology and international competition, and it must be right that we should at least look radically at various alternatives.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be pleased to know that the President of the Board of Trade has not lost his political touch in the sense of leaking a proposal and then making a Statement to Parliament to get it onto the record. A number of noble Lords have alluded to the fact that the national postal service is almost a consequence of the nation state itself. The Minister said that the Green Paper will pose a number of different options. Following the experience of the United States, which has a federal postal system, has the option of a European postal system, answerable to the European Parliament, been considered?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should be surprised if such a suggestion were to creep into the Green Paper. I cannot go into any details of the Green Paper because some decisions still have to be made. I believe that when it is published noble Lords from all around the House will be encouraged by its breadth and wisdom, and no doubt it will take carefully into account some of the suggestions that have been made by noble Lords today.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend two questions about rural post offices which are such a vital part of village life. First, what will be the relationship between the Royal Mail and post offices? Will the Royal Mail be obliged to continue to use post offices? Secondly, my noble friend mentioned the possibility of new clients for sub-post offices. Can he give the House any indication of who those new clients might be, and whether the Government can give post offices any assistance in obtaining new clients?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to reassure my noble friend about the role of rural post offices. They clearly provide a tremendous social benefit to the people who use them, which is why we believe that the Post Office Counters network should be retained by the state. If we were to go down the road of any form of privatisation—splitting roles between the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters—we should make it an obligation upon the Royal Mail to use Post Office

377
Counters and therefore to maintain that link. As to the question of new clients for Post Office Counters, there is a whole range of potential clients who would like to use the confidential and safe service of Post Office Counters; for instance, banks and other people transferring cash. Earlier I mentioned earlier mail order networks. A whole range of services could be provided for local communities which Post Office Counters is currently debarred from operating.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that 20 minutes have elapsed and that we should continue with the Third Reading of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
5.4 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 2.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, leave out line 9 and insert:

(" "(b) short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate or where the beneficiary is over pensionable age;

(c) long-term incapacity benefit; and",").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 4. On Report, your Lordships were kind enough to agree on a Division to an amendment in my name (Amendment No. 6). My noble friend Lord Astor was kind enough to point out that that amendment is technically flawed because it would provide for child dependants' increases to become payable after the 28th week of incapacity in all cases. However, for people over pensionable age receiving short-term incapacity benefit the intention has always been to make the payment of those increases from the start of the claim. As drafted, the amendment that was agreed on Report would prevent that. That was never my intention.
Amendment No. 2 is therefore needed to allow child dependants' increases to become payable after 28 weeks of incapacity for people under pensionable age, and from the start of the period of incapacity for those over pensionable age.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon Amendment No. 2 and inserts into the Bill the rate of child dependants' increases for claimants who are under pension age and receiving the higher rate of short-term incapacity benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert ("payable at the lower rate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5. The purpose of the two amendments is to allow for increases of benefit for adult dependants after 28 weeks, as is the present position with invalidity benefit. As the Bill changes the definition of short-term incapacity from 28 weeks to 52 weeks, additions normally payable at the long-term stage are not triggered until the end of the first year of incapacity. Although, on Report, the House voted to reinstate the additions for children at 28 weeks, families on incapacity benefit will still be worse off compared with their invalidity benefit entitlement.
The amendment does not seek to reintroduce all of the additions, but is limited to increases of benefit for the spouse of a disabled person, restoring the present position of payment at 28 weeks. It would go some way towards restoring the benefit position of families with children where the breadwinner is unable to work as a result of sickness or disability.
That emphasis on family need was clearly at the forefront of government thinking when invalidity benefit was introduced on Second Reading of a national insurance Bill in May 1981 when the Secretary of State for Social Services, the then Sir Keith Joseph, stated that the Government were seeking deliberately to help those chronically sick households where the wife of a chronic sick person was struggling to help the household income.
Not everyone with a spouse can claim the increase. No allowance is payable in respect of a working spouse earning more than £45.45 a week. Neither is the allowance payable where the spouse receives a benefit in his or her own right, such as invalid care allowance, maternity allowance or incapacity benefit, Because of those rules, although three-quarters of claimants have a spouse only one-third receive an increase in benefit.
Delaying entitlement to 52 weeks means that only a reduced level of benefit will be payable instead of the full £34.50 allowance. Only £26.90 will be payable for 24 weeks—a reduction of £7.60 a week, or, by the end of the first year of incapacity some £182.40. As well as delaying full entitlement, there is a proposal to remove the payment of additions to people with a non-working spouse who is below the age of 60 where there are no dependent children in the household. This would be a loss of £34.50 per week. Official figures suggest that only 170,000 claimants of invalidity benefit receive an allowance for a spouse who is under 60 and not looking after children. That has been estimated to save approximately £15 million in 1995–96.
As a dependant's increase may be the only source of income for some groups of people whose spouses are not entitled to other benefits, a wife caring for her husband on incapacity benefit may not qualify for invalid care allowance in her own right. In order to receive the invalid care allowance, the disabled person must be receiving either the higher or the middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance and the carer must be providing care for at least 35 hours per week.
People who lose out are those who provide care which is undertaken for less than 35 hours per week or where the disabled person receives only the lower rate of the care component, as no invalid care allowance is payable. Nevertheless, a spouse may provide consider-able assistance to the claimant or be unable to consider taking up employment without additional cost to the family or to the social services department.
The Department of Social Security in its report No. 19 indicated that many spouses were preparing for care, especially where the health of the disabled person was perceived to be deteriorating. One-fifth of working spouses had changed their pattern of work mainly by reducing their hours and often because of the claimant's health.
Savings to the Government arising from delaying entitlement to adult dependency increases to 52 weeks have been estimated at £15 million per year. That was recorded at col. 189 of House of Commons Hansard of 25th January 1994. However, the net savings derived from extending long-term benefit overall have been estimated at £110 million in 1995–96 and £150 million in 1996–97. Together with the reinstatement of child dependency additions, if the amendment were accepted the Government would still save more than £90 million during 1995–96 and £135 million in 1996–97 on reducing benefit levels alone.
In Committee the amendment was tabled and withdrawn. We did not deal with it on Report. My noble friend began by arguing that no hardship would be caused by delaying full entitlement to 52 weeks. He said that many families will have additional sources of income on which to draw between weeks 28 and 52. He added that increases of benefit for dependants would not present a sensible use of available resources. That appears at col. 128 of the Official Report for 19th April.
The Government have consistently argued that occupational pensions are available to people as an alternative to invalidity benefit. However, a study made by the Disability Alliance and by the Disablement Income Group shows overwhelmingly that many people, especially those who are most vulnerable to long-term sickness and disability, do not have access to private or occupational cover. Official figures indicate that one-third of those who become disabled before the age of 50 have never belonged to an occupational pension scheme. People excluded from cover also include those with a short length of service with their current employer, self-employed people, manual workers and people with a disability which pre-dates their employment.
Adult dependants are generally not covered by occupational schemes. However, according to the department's own research, only one in 10 employees in hazardous industries has cover for dependants. Many of those provide payment only on the death of the claimant. A minority of invalidity benefit claimants have payments from an employer. Official figures, including the department's own research, confirm that two-thirds of invalidity benefit recipients do not receive an occupational pension. Even in groups most likely to have occupational cover—that is, men and older women —less than one in four have occupational pensions. Only one in three women in receipt of invalidity benefit have occupational pensions.
Despite suggestions that people have occupational pensions during the 28 to 52-week stage, a reply to a Parliamentary Question given by Mr. Alan Howarth revealed that no information about that period is available. That is recorded at col. 1021 of the Official Report of the other place of 1st March 1994.
My noble friend also stated that the invalidity benefit review offered an opportunity to look at the concept of dependency and to review arrangements in the light of social change. In particular, he stated:
"when it was introduced, few married women worked but today over 70 per cent. of married women under 60 who do not have dependent children do so".—[Official Report, 19/4/94; col. 129.]
It is true, of course, that more women are working. Indeed, according to the Independent Policy Studies Institute, that accounts for some of the increase in numbers claiming invalidity benefit, but this does not necessarily mean that dependency additions are poorly targeted. The regulations do not allow for the increase to be paid for a working spouse whose earnings exceed £45.45. Indeed, most people with a spouse do not claim this increase. Of the three-quarters of claimants with a spouse, more than half of the spouses were in work; one-third were looking after children and one-third had retired. Only one-third of claimants actually receive a dependant's increase. Almost 50 per cent. of people receiving an addition do so for a partner over the age of 60.
The amendment would complete the progress of targeting vulnerable families which started with the reinstatement of the children's allowances at 28 weeks. The cost would be small and it would not significantly reduce the overall savings from the Bill; yet it would represent significant weekly sums to disabled people and their families. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment, which was so clearly and comprehen-sively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is logical because on Report we voted to reinstate additions for children at 28 weeks. The amendment will ensure payment at the same stage of the spouse or partner of the claimant, who may also be a mother.
On Report we heard the quotations of Keith Joseph and Alf Morris about the strain that dependency puts on the whole family. I wish to expand a little more on the position of dependent spouses and partners, who are so often women. An older spouse or partner of someone receiving incapacity benefit may well be a woman who has spent a number of years caring for children and is faced with caring for a partner in the years ahead, yet she may not be eligible for invalid care allowance in her own right until her partner receives the middle or higher rate of disability living allowance.
In a recent survey of carers, one-quarter of disabled people not receiving these payments were nonetheless regarded by their carers as very severely disabled. Therefore, an increase in the partner's benefit is crucial to the family income. Likewise, if she falls ill she may not have enough national insurance contributions to get on to incapacity benefit but may well not receive severe disablement allowance either. Therefore, she may have no alternative to her spouse's or partner's incapacity benefit.
I believe that, without consideration of conditions of entitlement to other benefits, the removal and reduction of dependency conditions will compound the hardship created by reduced incapacity levels and will do little to promote the independence of women. I hope that your Lordships will look kindly on this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side support the amendment moved by the noble Lord,

381
Lord Swinfen, and supported by the noble Baroness. When a person becomes disabled the entire family suffers. Costs rise precisely at the point when income falls. To the distress of discomfort and pain is added the problem of poverty. If your Lordships were minded to accept the amendment, it would somewhat alleviate that additional stress caused by poverty.
If accepted, it would mean that when a disabled person has been assessed as disabled by the new tough medical test, he would receive a benefit not only for himself as though he were a single person but also, if he has one, for a dependent non-working wife. If we do not amend the Bill, it means that a disabled couple would receive the same level of benefit as a single man. If the amendment is refused, a disabled couple will have just —52.50 per week from incapacity benefit on which to live. If the amendment is passed, a disabled couple would receive something like the —92 per week which they now receive from invalidity benefit. I remind your Lordships that income support for a disabled couple with a disability premium is —72, plus a disability premium of —28.
Who are we talking about? Just over half of the spouses of disabled people are in full or part-time work or are self-employed. As they are not dependent, they would not be eligible now or in the future for the dependent spouse premium. Other spouses are disabled in their own right and receive invalidity or incapacity benefit. Therefore, they would not qualify. A further 200,000 spouses are full-time carers, caring for more than 35 hours per week. Therefore, they receive the invalid care allowance and they would not qualify.
Therefore, who are we talking about? We are talking about a couple, perhaps in their fifties, whose children have grown up. The husband is suffering from a disability rather than a sickness; for example, rheumatism, a spinal injury, asthma, arthritis or a fluctuating condition like ME. He does not need constant care but his spouse cannot leave him for more than an hour or two at a time. He certainly needs help with dressing, getting up, feeding and other forms of care.
We are not talking about the full-time carer. Nevertheless, we are talking about a part-time carer who may well have given up work to ensure that her partner can remain at home and enjoy a better quality of life than he would have living in residential care.
Those part-time carers are usually women. In consequence of caring, their own health is often rather poor. They are rather isolated. They are the non-working wives or, more accurately, the unwaged working wives of dependent husbands. Such a woman is for six months in terms of benefit invisible unless your Lordships are minded to recognise her existence, her contribution in caring for her partner by retaining the premium which currently exists under invalidity benefit and by transferring it on to the new incapacity benefit.
Is it reasonable that, if her husband were well but on income support, he would receive a benefit for her but if he is sick and on incapacity benefit he will not receive a benefit for her? If the husband needs his wife as a
382
part-time carer, is it reasonable that that should not be reflected in his benefit? Morally and ethically that must be perverse.
We are talking about 170,000 people, mostly women, who are part-time carers; and yet unless your Lordships accept the amendment this evening they will have no premium and no financial recognition of their existence. The cost is not very great. It will be —10 million to —15 million, or less than 1 per cent. of the savings which the Government expect to extract from disabled people through this Bill. The Minister may tell us that such couples can go on to income support. But is it reasonable that we should ask couples suffering from such family distress and worry to go from one benefit system to another in order to obtain what your Lordships can offer them this evening; that is, a benefit which recognises the role of women who are part-time carers of their spouses? I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not believe; that we always recognise quite how much the state owes to the partners of disabled people. They cany a vast burden. When one uses the word "burden" one may sometimes be speaking literally. However, here we are talking about care day and night, restriction on mobility, restriction on concentration on anything else, constant anxiety and constant juggling of the pieces to make them to fit together. That is a very severe load.
When I say that the state does not always realise how much it owes them, I speak literally. Not everybody is able and willing to shoulder such a burden. It would make a very great difference to the state if they did not do so. The Social Security Select Committee in another place in 1990 calculated the amount which carers were saving the Exchequer to be —24 billion per year, which is approximately 12p on income tax.
If those carers should become too discouraged and give up carrying that burden, the costs would fall on the state. Does the noble Viscount recognise a pistol when he sees it?
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, from time to time I boast of the quality of life in these islands and how privileged we are to live in a country where the dignity of the individual is taken for granted. Our heritage here is that there is not an unimportant person in the realm. But there are poor people in the realm and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded us that we are concerned here with just 170,000 families.
If we belong to one of those families, we should realise what a burden is involved in asking them to go from one place to another to supplement their benefit. That is what is involved here, as I understand the argument. I say to the Minister that the amount that is being saved, with all due respect, is pettifogging, We give more in subsidy every week to every family in Ireland and through our payment to Europe, to people in Greece and in Portugal. We are merely asking for a fair deal for the weakest members of our society.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. There is a tremendous amount of stress involved for families with disabled people. They have to

383
adapt to the disability and they often have to contend with extra expenditure arising from the disability itself. Surely delaying full benefit at an early stage is likely to compound those problems for families with a disabled person.
A survey carried out by the Disablement Income Group has shown that many disabled people are facing debt. It found that on average 13 per cent. of disabled adults had debts; 29 per cent. of people who were married with children were permanently in debt; a further 28 per cent. of disabled families were getting into difficulties; and over two-thirds of couples with children had fallen behind with regular payments. Restoring full payment of the increase would amount to about £7.60 a week for such families. That is not a great deal of money; indeed, many of us may spend £7.60 on just having lunch at the Long Table in the Dining Room. However, it can make a substantial difference to the income of a household. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look favourably upon my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if people have to go to different places to collect their benefits, would not the amendment save on administration?
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the question of the level of support that ought to be provided between the 29th and the 52nd week of incapacity has proved perhaps to be one of the most difficult issues we have had to consider in the course of debates on the Bill. I have sought to persuade your Lordships that it is reasonable to pay the highest rate of incapacity benefit after 52 weeks of incapacity. I have not tried to disguise the fact that that means that people will receive less benefit between the 29th and 52nd week than they would under the current rules. I have explained that the Government believe that 52 weeks is a more realistic and reasonable definition of long-term incapacity than the current 28 weeks. I have also pointed to the availability of income-related benefits as a safeguard against financial hardship, while asking your Lordships to recognise that such hardship is in any case less likely to arise during the first year of incapacity because in many instances people will have additional resources they can draw on such as savings and income from their employers.
I think it is fair to say that my arguments have failed to convince my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who has consistently —and, if I may say so, most ably—argued for the continued payment of the highest rate of benefit from the 29th week. I suspect that there is little I can say today which will wholly remove the difference that exists between us on that point. I appreciate that my noble friend is genuinely concerned about the fact that the new benefit will be less generous than the existing benefit. I have no doubt that he will continue to have some misgivings.
However, I shall attempt to persuade your Lordships why we believe our arguments are right and why the amendment would create anomalies in the system. It is important to make clear that by this amendment adult
384
dependency increases would be payable from day one of incapacity, unlike child dependency increases, which without the previous amendment would not be payable at all until after 52 weeks. The amendment would mean that the higher rate of adult dependency increases would be payable after 28 weeks.
Adult dependency increases are payable at the start of a claim. The amendment does not change the groups who will qualify. Adult dependency increases do not exist to meet the needs of disabled people. There are specific benefits which are designed to meet the needs of that group. I should remind your Lordships that since taking office we have more than trebled spending on benefits for the disabled in real terms. Invalid care allowance is payable to people who have significant caring responsibilities. In other cases it will often be possible to combine the provision of care with some employment. At any rate, the provision of care would not automatically imply financial dependency.
As regards talking about moving to income support, entitlement to both benefits is calculated by officials in my department who are often working in the same office, using the same systems which can communicate with each other. Apart from filling in the application form, there is no extra burden. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that there is no question of having to move from one place to another.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the complications. As I said, the benefits are usually paid together on one order book, for example, in one post office. Although in theory it might be possible to introduce provisions to ensure that adult dependency increases are paid only to those who are actually financially dependent, that would involve very detailed rules which could in effect duplicate the rules for income-related benefits. Such rules would make the system very difficult to operate. I believe that there are grounds of principle for asking whether it is right to pay a contributory benefit for someone as a dependent who does not satisfy any of the conditions for receiving benefit in his or her own right. Again, the reason why we do so is currently bound up with the outdated assumption that women are inevitably dependent on their husbands. In answer to the noble Baroness, the amendment would produce a complication in the system and be difficult to administer.
I believe that I should put two important points to your Lordships regarding the amendment. First, there is no right level of benefit for people between the 29th and the 52nd week of incapacity. Just because benefits have been paid at a particular level in the past, it does not follow that they should continue at that level in the future or that the amount of past payments is in any sense a measure of need. The amendments would raise the rate of adult dependency increases from £26.90 to £34.50—that is a difference of £7.60 a week for a maximum of 24 weeks—without any justification other than precedent. As the new rate would apply only to new claimants, we ought not to be bound by past practice in that way.
Secondly, I do not believe that anyone would question the fact that the enormous increase in expenditure on incapacity benefits over recent years

385
makes it essential for us to take measures to restrain future growth. In my view, we should concentrate on those who are in most need. That has been the purpose of the Bill from the beginning. We have three rates so that we can concentrate upon those in most need. Therefore, people who are suffering from long-term incapacity receive the greatest amount of money.
There is no objective justification for making such an additional provision. In the Government's view, it would be ill targeted and would not be the most sensible use of scarce resources. The amendment does not follow the principles that have guided us during the Bill's passage thus far. It will produce an anomaly in the system. I urge your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: he has not convinced me. However, I do not think that he expected me to say anything else. Indeed, we have been at odds with each other-I hope in a friendly way-since the Bill began its passage. My noble friend spoke as though the amendment which seeks to reinstate benefit from day one was a new idea. But he did not explain that the Bill will not give benefit until the end of the first six months. All I am asking for is the status quo.
My noble friend said that the Bill was an effort to stem the increase in incapacity benefit. I understand that. But that should not be done by taking the benefit away from those who need it most but by ensuring that the medical tests and the examinations to make certain that people get the benefit are correct. We shall be dealing with that subject later. As I said, my noble friend has not convinced me. I must test the opinion of the House.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Annan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Atholl, D.

Donoughue, L.

Attlee, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Ennals, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bonham-Catter, L.

Ezra,L.

Borthwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brightman, L.

Geraint, L.

Brookes, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Butterfleld, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grantchester, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Croham, L.

Holderness, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B. [Teller]

Hollick, L.

363

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Richardson, L.

Hylton, L.

Rix, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ilchester, E.

Rochester, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

Judd, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kagan, L.

Serota, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lytton, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Tebbit, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thurlow, L.

Milverton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Varley, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wharton, B.

Nathan, L.

White, B.

Nelson, E.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wise, L.

Peston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Dudley, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Dundonald, E.

Aldington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Annaly, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Finsberg, L.

Balfour, E.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Goschen, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Cadman, L.

Hacking, L.

Caithness, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carver, L.

Hemphill, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Henley, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hives, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hood, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Howe, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ironside, L.

Ironside, L.

Joseph, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Courtown, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon,E.

Cranbome, V.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Dean of Harptree, L.

Chancellor.]

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Marlesford, L.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

364

Morris, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

[Teller]

Oxfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Pender, L.

Swinton, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pike, B.

Trumpington, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Reay, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rodney, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sandys, L.

Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale,L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Addington, L.

Ennals, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkland, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Foot, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beloff, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brightman, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brookes, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Holderness, L.

Carter, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton, L.

Crook, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jay, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Desai, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Judd, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

386

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rix, L.

Longford, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rochester, L.

Lytton, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Russell, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McCarthy, L.

Seear, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shannon, E.

Meston, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.)

Mulley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Nathan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nelson, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Wharton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

White, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wise, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Aldington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Astor, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Atholl, D.

Hood, V.

Balfour, E.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boardman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bolton, L.

Leigh, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Bumham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Caithness, E.

Chancellor]

Caldecote, V.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Perry of South wark, B.

Downshire, M.

Perth, E.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Prior, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Finsberg, L.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hacking, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Tebbit, L.

Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

Trumpington, B.

5.47 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 26, second column, insert ("£11.00").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Test of incapacity for work]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert:
("(1A) A person shall be treated as incapable of work by reference to the point at which his ability to undertake work related activity is significantly impaired, not the point where work becomes impossible.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has two objectives: first, to place a definition of the extent of incapacity on the face of the Bill; and, secondly, to use a definition of incapacity similar to guidance which has been put to the expert panel considering details of the new test, in particular a threshold of incapacity by reference to the extent of incapacity rather than a point where work becomes impossible. A similar amendment based on the definition incorporated in guidance sent to the panel members concerning the point at which a person's capacity was substantially reduced was moved on Report and withdrawn. Can my noble friend give assurances that this matter will at least be placed in guidance to adjudication officers which will be publicly available? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who is not in his place, for sending me a copy of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the discussion of this amendment that we had in a meeting. I also thank him for the care that he took in handling that meeting. However, I am not satisfied at all with the replies that we are receiving on this.
What we are trying to do in this amendment is simply to put onto the face of the Bill a definition to which we understand the panel is working already. In fact, the noble Viscount says that there is nothing between us on the principle of it. Therefore, I simply do not understand why the Government do not accept the amendment. They maintain that it is unnecessary. Once again they have only two types of amendment-the unnecessary and the wrecking. It is a change.
The Minister relies on Section 171C(2) of the Bill. The key words are:
"defining the all work test by reference to the extent of a person's
incapacity".
The Minister argues that that is sufficient proof that the incapacity does not have to be total for a person to be rendered incapable of work. That reading seems to me to be very far from clear. I admit that the word "extent"
388
argues a scale of measurement, but my first reading of it was that the scale of measurement meant that the extent of the incapacity was so great as to render him totally incapable of all work. Therefore, my reading of those words was not the Minister's. I do not know who is right, but that seems to me to be sufficient proof that the wording is ambiguous, which is all that we, in supporting the amendment, need to establish.
The Minister argues that the amendment, by purchasing on the own occupation test, would make that test more stringent. I cannot see any reason for that assertion. It makes no sense to me.
The Minister also argues in his letter:
"The threshold for benefit will provide a clear line between capacity and incapacity".
He argues that the phrase "significantly impaired" in the amendment is imprecise. Yes, it is imprecise. That is because it is in the real world. There is not a single objective line, as there is between one number and another, which absolutely and quantifiably distinguishes capacity from incapacity. As with every watershed, it is in an area where you sometimes cannot tell which side you are on.
It is because the test does not recognise that element of imprecision which is essential to anything in the real world that the test is so misguided. By putting up that objection to the amendment the Minister has only illustrated to me quite how necessary it is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the amendment is very similar to one that we discussed at the Report stage of the Bill. Since then my noble friend Lord Astor and I have met my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, together with their advisers to discuss the issue further. I found that a very helpful discussion.
I stress that there is no difference whatsoever between what my noble friend seeks to achieve with his amendment and what the Government seek to do in the new medical test of incapacity. My noble friend wants to ensure that the point at which a person is treated as incapable of work for the purposes of incapacity benefit is the point at which his ability to work is significantly impaired, not the point where work becomes impossible. As I tried to explain at the Report stage, that is exactly what we are trying to do in designing the new test of incapacity. I said then that the principle on which we are operating is that the threshold in each category of functional limitation and the overall threshold will be set at the point at which a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced. I also pointed out that we have instructed the expert assessment panel which is helping us to design the new test on these issues. We want the new test to operate on that basis. It would not be right to design a system which would award benefit only to those people who can do no work at all.
However, I am afraid that we do disagree on what we need to do to achieve the desired result. My noble friend considers that we need to put a definition of incapacity on the face of the Bill. We have considered the amendment very carefully, but I am afraid that we are not able to accept it. We have also considered very

389
carefully whether it would be possible to bring forward an amendment of our own. We have concluded that it is not. I should like to explain why.
My noble friend seeks to amend Section 171A of the Bill. This means that the amendment would affect both the own-occupation test and the all-work test. Those tests are defined in Sections 171B and 171C of the Bill respectively. Because no consequential amendments have been brought forward to those sections, what in effect the amendment would do is to add another test of incapacity to the two existing tests. Perhaps I may explain how this would operate in practice.
First, the own-occupation test, which assesses whether a person can do his own job does not need an additional criterion to define whether or not the person's ability to do his own job is significantly impaired. That test is defined on the face of the Bill and it does not require any further definition.
The new, more complex, all-work test is different. This is defined in Section 171C(2) (a) of the Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. I explained during the passage of the Bill the steps that we are taking to develop the test and I shall not repeat those details here. Our aim is to establish an objective test, the details of which are set out clearly in regulations. Those regulations will specify the areas of function that are involved, the levels of severity in each area, the scores for each level and the thresholds, both in each individual area and the overall threshold for benefit. Everyone will be able to see how the test is constructed.
The effect of my noble friend's amendment is again to introduce another element into the consideration of incapacity. What would happen is that when the adjudication officer had applied the all-work test and considered the issue of whether the person was capable or incapable of work he would then have to consider whether the person's ability to work was significantly impaired. That would mean a two-stage process, which would be complicated and confusing to administer and to explain to the claimant.
Against what criteria would that consideration of significant impairment be made? They would not be the same criteria as those specified in regulations for the all-work test, because that test has already been applied. Would it be necessary to compare the person's ability to work before his incapacity with his ability to work now that he is sick? I am not sure how we could do that. It would not be possible to gather evidence of a person's previous physical or mental condition. Even if it were, it would introduce a subjective element into the assessment which could lead to the kind of decisions which have been criticised as unfair in the current system.
Another problem is deciding what "significantly impaired" means. The amendment does not explain that phrase, nor does it provide a power to make regulations in which the phrase could be defined. This would leave it open to the courts and the Social Security Commissioners to define the phrase. It is possible that this could result in a harsher test than either my noble friend or the Government want. The whole purpose of
390
the test that we are devising, with its descriptors, scores and thresholds, is to define clearly what we mean by significantly impaired.
The Bill has been drafted on the basis that incapacity for work is not to be equated with the point where all work becomes impossible. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, Section 171C(2) (a) defines the all-work test:
"by reference to the extent of a person's incapacity by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement to perform such activities as may be prescribed".
I draw your Lordships' attention in particular to the phrase:
"to the extent of a person's incapacity".
That implies that there is some capacity there. In other words, the person is capable of doing something. Work is not impossible for that person.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should be very grateful for clarification. My understanding was that an extent could be total. Is that not grammatically correct?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the definition in the Bill, it means that the "extent" could be total but it could also be variable. The extent is a place on a continuum.
Perhaps this will explain the point. As I said, we are designing the new test on the basis that the threshold for benefit will be set at the point where the ability to work becomes substantially reduced, not where work becomes impossible. The regulations which will set out the test in detail will be drawn up under the power I have just quoted. If we propose in those regulations to set the threshold for benefit at the point where work will become impossible then it is likely that the regulations would be ultra vires.
We have carefully considered whether it would be possible to bring forward an amendment of our own which would meet the point raised by my noble friend. I have to say that we have concluded that it is not possible to do so. The Bill has been prepared on the basis that the all-work test, and hence the definition of incapacity, will be defined in regulations. To attempt to introduce at this stage a specific definition of incapacity on the face of the Bill could change the nature of the test adversely. I know that my noble friend does not wish to do that.
I say again that there is no difference between my noble friend and myself about what we want to do. Our difference is on how to do it. I have considered my noble friend's amendment very carefully but I cannot accept it. In the light of the explanation I have given, and the fact that guidance to adjudication officers will cover his points, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that explanation which, I must admit, I found somewhat difficult to follow. However, as I said when moving the amendment, I sought an assurance that there would be proper guidance given to the adjudication

391
officers; and that I am pleased to learn. It is important that that assurance is in the Official Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 12, at end insert:
("(5) No regulations shall be made under section 171A(2), (3) or (4) of this Act unless both Houses of Parliament have come to a resolution that the regulations shall be made in the form of a draft laid under section 6(3) of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to provide that the regulations introducing the new medical test cannot come into force until they have been approved in the form of a draft laid before both Houses of Parliament. The purport of the amendment is strictly constitutional. It was not moved at Report. At Report, we debated a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on which the Minister said that he would have taken a more sympathetic view of the amendment had it not also contained a series of specific criticisms of the test.
Amendment No. 7 has no medical content. It has only the constitutional content. Therefore, that distinction encourages me to bring forward the provision again. At some stage there must be a right for this House to give or withhold approval of a test which, as proposed, is to go into law in the name of both Houses of Parliament. It must be possible for us to say yes or no.
It cannot have escaped the Government's notice that I and many others find the tests as they stand absolutely and completely unacceptable. The subjective element, of which the noble Baroness complained in her last reply, as I see it, cannot possibly be absent from any system of tests because it is people whom we are testing. Therefore, any attempt to exclude subjectivity totally will result only in self-delusion.
I should be left with the option of attempting to strike out the regulation-making power, Clause 5 of the Bill. The reason I am not doing so is because those tests are not in their final form. Consultation is going forward. We are told that there will be many changes and many improvements. I have heard that, and I welcome it. I believe that it would be contrary to the spirit of this House to strike out a regulation-making power for fear that it may be badly used when there is still negotiation in progress about how it will be used.
I believe, therefore, that we have to leave the power in place as it stands. But that means that the only way in which we can take on board a power to resist what is done if we disapprove of it when it comes before us —at a time well into the future—is by some such device as this amendment proposes. I know that there are other devices by which one may attempt to check what is in regulations. However, the proposed device is acceptable to every quarter of the House; and that is important.
It may be said, rightly, that the problem of how this House can give or withhold approval of what is in regulations is a general problem which needs a general solution. I hope that that general solution will come. But the Bill is not waiting on that general solution. The Bill
392
is here now. We have to reach some solution for the purposes solely of the Bill. I cannot see how to do that except in the way proposed.
Yesterday, I spoke to a branch of the Network against the Child Support Agency. We, on this side of the House, sometimes flatter ourselves by thinking that the odium of that Act has rubbed off only on the Government. That is not so. It has rubbed off on Parliament as a whole. Parliament, as that body sees it, I think rightly, has failed to exercise sufficient scrutiny and control. If this legislation goes ahead in the form in which the Government propose, it will diminish the reputation of Parliament just as it will that of the Government. In order to see whether it is as bad as we expect, we need this procedure. Now is the only time that I can move the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. As the House will know, we have made a number of attempts in the course of the Bill to deal with this unusual situation where the Government are taking the regulation-making powers without the Government, the House or anyone else having the first idea of what will be in the regulations. The assessment period is not over until August; and it may take longer. The Government have resisted all attempts to place any criteria for the regulations in the Bill, as we sought at various stages. All attempts to produce criteria have been resisted.
As the noble Earl said, we have sought hard throughout the Bill to involve Parliament in the discussion of these important regulations. At a previous stage of the Bill, I suggested that a code of practice would have been helpful. However, the House resisted that idea because the amendment I drafted put into the code of practice certain matters which the Government did not wish to have in them. At this stage of the Bill, I was hoping to suggest a code of practice, with the Government deciding entirely what was in the code. However, because of the defeat at Report stage, I am unable to do that. When the Minister replies, it will be helpful if he can tell the House in terms the degree of consultation that will take place. All the organisations and those involved are concerned about the nature of the medical test, how it will be applied, and so on.
We know that there will be guidance notes. There always are on regulations. Those will be continually updated and amended. They are outside the control of Parliament, and I am quite certain from the discussions that we have had on the medical tests that shoals of anomalies will arise when tests start to be put into practice. I assume that the guidance notes will be continually updated.
It is important that Parliament should be able to produce arguments, debate them and, if necessary, convince Government that the regulations should be drafted in a certain way. It is a useful approach which the noble Earl suggests. It summarises all that we have sought to do throughout the course of the Bill. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment would require a resolution from both Houses of Parliament

393
before regulations could be made under Section 171A of the Act. That would be in addition to the normal resolution required to approve the affirmative regulations.
Regulations will be made under the section setting out the information and evidence to be provided so that a determination can be made as to capacity for work. Regulations will also be made under the section setting out the requirement to attend medical examinations and -subject to guarantees regarding good cause-where information or attendance at a medical examination is not forthcoming, the regulations will provide that the person is treated as capable for work. Finally, regulations will be made setting out what constitutes good cause.
We already have regulations which deal with the requirement to furnish evidence of incapacity. Regulations made under subsection (2) of Section 171A will be similar to Regulation 2 of the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976. Similarly, Regulation 17 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983 makes provision for the disqualification from benefit in cases where claimants refuse to attend a medical examination. We will bring forward regulations, under subsection (3) which treat claimants in these circumstances as capable for work.
Setting out what constitutes "good cause" under subsection (4) in regulations is new but there is a large body of case law which we will use as a guide when drafting the regulations. There is also a precedent in Regulation 12E of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983 which sets out what constitutes "good cause" with regard to availability for work.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said-and I stand to be corrected if I misheard him-that the only way we can resist regulations is by this amendment. Of course, that is not the case because these are affirmative regulations. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise them closely and, if persuaded, vote on them. They may accept or reject the regulations. There is a right to say yes or no, in the words of the noble Earl. He gave us the analogy of the Child Support Act, but that Act highlights the difficulty of what should be in primary and what should be in secondary legislation rather than debates on secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made an important point about the code of practice and whether we should have consultations. He made an important point about consultation, and I assure noble Lords that we shall have full consultation. We have already promised to publish a report in August this year which will summarise the findings on the development of the all-work tests. The report will also set out the proposed test and contain details of proposed procedures on the administration and adjudication of the new benefit. The report will be freely available and we shall seek views on the details of the new test and the proposed procedures. I shall, of course, arrange for all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill and other noble Lords who may be interested to receive a copy of the report. I can give an assurance to
394
the House that we will take account of any comments that we receive in deciding the final details of the test and the procedures that will be set out in the regulations.
It is important that the new test is seen to be comprehensive and to have acceptance by many of the interested bodies involved. We want as many people as possible to look at it. We shall take account of representations. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, knows of the work that we are doing at the moment and we have discussed it in earlier debates.
I do not think that the noble Earl's amendment is helpful to your Lordships. There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations when they come before the House and the House has the opportunity to scrutinise them closely and accept or reject them. I do not think that the noble Earl has made the case for his amendment this afternoon.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him for one point of clarification? I heard what he said about it being proper for the House to vote on and accept or reject regulations. I am grateful for that. But can he give an assurance that, should I attempt to propose that, the Government would not advise the House that it would be improper of me to do so?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had debates on the merits of voting on regulations and the Procedure Committee has looked into the matter. We discussed it and the noble Earl put a paper to the committee on it. The Government make no secret of the fact that they would discourage noble Lords from abusing the powers that they have on regulations. However, it is up to noble Lords to decide whether they wish to vote to accept or reject regulations. It is for the whole House to decide and make that decision.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, he made an important statement today: namely, that the House can not only debate the regulations but can also reject them. He merely said that that power should not be abused. Will he say what he regards as abuse of a power that your Lordships might-his concession-enjoy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what I said was that it was up to the whole House to decide on how it wishes to treat regulations that come before your Lordships. That is the point I made. I accept the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, makes. At earlier stages of the Bill, at Committee and Report stages, we debated how many times in recent years regulations have been either voted on or voted against in your Lordships' House. However, when regulations come before your Lordships' House, it is for the House to decide how to deal with them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps he could help the House. If the situation arose where the Government used their majority in the other place to force regulations through and to make sure that they were accepted, because regulations have to receive: the assent of both Houses, if

395
the other place decided on a vote and the Government used their majority to accept regulations, does the noble Viscount feel that this House would be abusing its power if it decided to reject them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord asks an interesting hypothetical question. If such a case arose, I am sure that the Government would have a view, but not until it happens.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to get it quite clear. Is the noble Viscount really saying that the power of this House to deal with affirmative regulations is neither more nor less than its power to deal with ordinary Bills passing through the House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was pointing out that there are conventions in your Lordships' House, but I believe that they are conventions rather than rules. I refer the noble Baroness to a debate that I quoted at an earlier stage of the Bill which your Lordships had last year on the procedure of this House and how we should deal with regulations that come before the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have been brought right to the edge of a clarification, but not quite to it. What I really needed to hear the noble Viscount say is that, although it is for the House to decide whether to vote on regulations, the Government would not advise the House that it was improper to do so. The noble Viscount has come right to the edge of that undertaking. If he could come all the way to it, then I should be able to withdraw my amendment. If he wishes to rise, I am happy to give way to him.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe I said that it was up to your Lordships to decide. Of course, this House treats regulations by convention, and I made that point. I think that noble Lords will have to consider carefully before they try to change any conventions that we have in the House. I do not think that it is for me at the Dispatch Box today to attempt in any way either to change a convention or to influence the changing of any convention. I am purely attempting to explain as best I can-and I fully accept that I might not have done so as clearly as other noble Lords could-what the conventions of your Lordships' House are at the moment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for trying so hard to reach agreement. I accept that he cannot change a convention on his own. He has the same right to influence that convention as every other Member of your Lordships' House. Had he exercised that right and expressed his view that this convention needed to change, I would have withdrawn the amendment. He has taken me right to the brink of it and he has not done so. Scrutiny is not enough. Scrutiny can be interesting, but scrutiny cannot force the Government to change their mind. Scrutiny can only achieve its full effect if it is backed by the power to vote. The only way to get a power to vote which will not give rise to these very fine and fascinating, but not conclusive, discussions is to pass this amendment. I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bamett, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Crook, L.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea,L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rix, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

[Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Jay, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Denham, L.

Aldington, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annaly, L.

Downshire, M.

Arran, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Atholl, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Balfour, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Finsberg, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Flather, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brentford, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Burnham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Byron, L.

Goschen, V.

Cadman, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hacking, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanson, L.

Carnock, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Henley, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colwyn, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Howe, E.

Cranborne, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Kitchener, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

397

Lauderdale, E.

Quinton, L.

Leigh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Reay, L.

Long, V.

Rodney, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Selborne, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Sharpies, B.

Chancellor.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skidelsky, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mersey, V.

St. Davids, V.

Milverton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Mountevans, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Munster, E.

[Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinton, E.

Nome, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northbrook, L.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Vinson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vivian, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 8, after ("provide") insert ("-(a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9.
These amendments are designed to clarify the application of the own-occupation test. As I have explained to the House before, in the majority of cases for the first 28 weeks a person's incapacity will be measured against their own occupation. Section 171B(1) defines "own occupation" for these purposes as being remunerative work for more than eight weeks in the 21 weeks immediately preceding the spell of incapacity.
We want as many people as possible to undergo the own-occupation test at the start of their period of sickness. We have always intended that people who were on training courses, whether they were paid or unpaid, and who would return to their previous job or employer would be covered by this provision.
Amendment No. 9 is designed to ensure that we have such powers. Amendment No. 8 is a small technical amendment which is required for the paragraph proposed by Amendment No. 9 to be inserted. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, Clause 3 allows for periods of training to be classified as periods of incapacity for work, allowing people to requalify for incapacity benefit if they again become unable to work after the period on a training course. Can my noble friend explain how training can be treated as work under Clause 5 but as incapacity under Clause 3? Can he explain precisely how these regulations will operate and for whom they are intended?
In addition, is this provision designed to catch people whose jobs are kept open but who are on a training course from their employer? In that case they may say
398
that the own-occupation test is inappropriate. If so, does that call into question the way in which the own-occupation test has been drafted? At the moment under the test someone could be on disability leave from his employer for up to one year. I understand that the Midland Bank, Barclay's Bank, McDonald's and Bristol City Council are seriously considering giving leave for up to a year in cases of incapacity-it need not be for training courses-yet those people will be assessed after 196 days against their ability to do "all work", even though their own job may be held open for them. Are there any plans to consider other circumstances in which the own-occupation test is to be extended in that way?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, most people are sick for only a short period and then they go back to work. Therefore we want as many people as possible to have their incapacity measured against their own occupation when they first fall sick. The provision will include all those who have worked for more than eight weeks in the 21-week period before their illness, all people on paid leave and those on training courses who intend to return to their previous job or employer. In addition, people who do more than one job or more than one job at any one time will also be included.
The intention is that as many people as possible shall undergo the own-occupation test at the onset of their incapacity. As I said, the test will apply to people in work or on paid leave or unpaid training from their employer when the person involved intends to return to his employer or job. People with more than one job in the 21-week period and people who do more than one job will also be covered.
The amendment addresses the own-occupation test and how it is applied but nothing else. We are still considering the detailed application of the test and the regulations that will be required.
With regard to the point about training under Clauses 3 and 5, they are entirely different provisions. The own-occupation test is designed to establish a job against which a person can be assessed. The training linking rule is to ensure that people with a continued disability can get back on to benefit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 10, at end insert ("; and
(b) for training of any prescribed description to be treated
as if it were remunerative work.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 8.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 12, line 33, after ("satisfied") insert ("which shall include a requirement to take account of any statement made by the person's general practitioner indicating the nature of the disease or disablement and any additional medical factors he considers relevant to a determination of capacity or incapacity for all work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that general practitioners retain the option of commenting on the client's medical condition and the way in which it may affect his capacity for work.
It will allow GPs who wish to give their opinion of their patient's capacity for work the opportunity to do so after the first 28 weeks of incapacity.
This is an enabling amendment. Under the new system, GPs are to continue to assess people during the first 28 weeks of a claim. But at this stage the Benefits Agency will take on an enhanced role. The patient will then fill in a questionnaire, the GP will give a diagnosis and the case will go the Benefits Agency. The DSS may ask the GP for further clarification but the GP will not be asked to comment on the claimant's self-assessment and not give his opinion of his ability to undertake any kind of work.
It should be borne in mind that the DSS doctor will probably see the patient for only a very short length of time, whereas the GP will have seen him over weeks, if not months or possibly years. Moreover, many people, when seeing a strange doctor, will straighten their back and march in trying to look as fit and healthy as possible, sometimes at considerable discomfort to themselves.
These changes do not take into account the disturbing number of cases reported by citizens advice bureaux throughout the United Kingdom of inappropriate withdrawals of benefit following examination and assessment by the Benefits Agency. Many report an increase in the number of appeals against the withdrawal of invalidity benefit that have been won. A CAB in Wales reported a success rate of 80 per cent.
Many GPs are concerned that the increased role of Benefits Agency doctors under the new system, combined with the proposed narrow definition of incapacity and the stringency of the new tests, will deprive many disabled people of benefits to which they should be entitled. Given that some GPs welcome the changes while others are keen to retain a more extensive role, it is important to give all GPs a choice with regard to the level of their involvement in assessment of their patients' capacity for work.
I understand that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux believes that the new system would operate more effectively if GPs were able to comment on the medical factors relevant to their patients' capacity for work. Their statement would be separate from the questionnaire that the client is required to fill out after 28 weeks of a claim. That addresses concern about the reluctance of some GPs to express a view that their patients are fit for work in the knowledge that it may be contrary to their patients' view and upset their relationship with them. It could also mean that the GP could advise the DSS doctors that, although the patient thinks that he is a great deal fitter than he is, in fact he is much sicker and more incapacitated than he believes and the GP has not told him for the sake of his morale.
At Report stage in this House an amendment was tabled which called for Benefits Agency doctors to be given relevant training in carrying out medical examinations in relation to claims for incapacity benefit in response to concern about the quality of Benefits Agency examinations. During that debate the importance of a partnership developed between Benefits Agency doctors and GPs was emphasised, and specifically the importance of the Benefits Agency
400
doctors consulting GPs. Several citizens advice bureaux report cases in which GPs have stopped signing medical certificates following pressure from the DSS. Input from GPs at an earlier stage would help avert conflicts of that kind which cannot be in the interests of disabled people.
The CAB service is concerned about the functional approach both to the new medical test and to other elements of the assessment of capacity for work. At Report stage my noble friend the Minister said that Benefits Agency doctors would be equipped:
"both with knowledge of the new [incapacity] benefit and the place in it of the clinical assessment of function and its relevance to the new more objective medical test".-[Official Report, 10/5/94; col. 1495.]
Benefits Agency doctors must be encouraged to take a broad view of the client's medical condition, enabling them to make fair and sensible judgments. Appeals are costly both for the client and the taxpayer and it is important that all relevant medical factors are taken into account early in the assessment.
Giving GPs the choice of commenting on their patients' capacity for work after 28 weeks of incapacity would give the Benefits Agency a wider picture of the client's medical condition at the examination than would otherwise be apparent. That would help allay patients' fears that their medical history will be ignored and it will alleviate the problem that some clients feel intimidated when they visit a doctor whom they have never met before and do not reveal to them the full extent of their disability. Without input by the GP, medical factors which are relevant to capacity for work may not always emerge during the course of the examination, especially as the doctor is likely to be seeing the person for the first time and may carry out only a brief examination.
Citizens advice bureaux evidence indicates that in some cases the difficulties outlined are leading to insensitive suggestions for alternative work or inappropriate withdrawals of benefit. I received a number of reports from CABs throughout the country that are typical. An example in the eastern region is that of a 53 year-old client, a former engineer, who suffers from chronic and continual back pain. He cannot sit or stand for more than 10 minutes at a time. He is unable to walk more than 150 yards, drive or use public transport. He needs bed rest for one hour at least twice daily. His doctor and the consultant say that he is incapable of any work. The DSS say that he could be a repetitive assembler, packer or light factory worker.
I could give many more examples, but owing to the lateness of the hour I shall not do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment which will ensure that if a GP feels that it would be helpful to contribute to the assessment of a person's capacity for work he will be able to do so. It is a mild amendment. It does not compel GPs to participate if they do not wish to do so; it merely enables them to take part if they want to. If a patient is difficult or aggressive, they need not take part. Indeed, the patient can be removed from the doctor's list.
There has been considerable debate in both Houses on the importance of the role of general practitioners. It is widely recognised that the GP has a unique

401
knowledge of a person's disability or ill health, with the implications that may have on the patient's ability to work. It is not in the interests of disabled people to deny doctors an important role in the assessment procedure. I believe that that should be written on the face of the Bill, otherwise general practitioners will not feel that they have a part to play.
A statement from a person's general practitioner could be critical to the accurate assessment of that person's capacity to work. There are also circumstances where someone has a rare disability or disease that the generality of doctors would not fully understand. In that situation a person's general practitioner is likely to possess important and unique knowledge that should be made available to the assessing doctor so that account can be taken of it. The doctor will also be able to take an accurate view of how the illness will affect a patient's capacity to work.
The amendment is important to ensure that decision making is as fair and well-informed as possible from everyone's point of view. It is important also for the smooth running of the whole system, from initial assessment to appeal. Input along the lines suggested in the amendment cannot but be helpful to the Benefits Agency doctors. We spoke of this matter during Report stage. But it is worth re-emphasising the point that it is the inaccurate and seemingly unfair decisions that will lead to an increase in appeals which may overburden the system. That is an inefficient use of taxpayers' money and very distressing for the disabled person concerned.
We should do all we can to ensure that such a situation does not arise. Disability, because it is so varied, can be extremely difficult to assess accurately in some cases. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side support the amendment and emphasise yet again that it is a modest but useful amendment. At the moment GPs assess people for invalidity benefit; half of their decisions are reviewed and in eight cases out of nine the GP's recommendation is upheld on appeal. The ninth case is often a mental health case, which is notoriously difficult to determine.
In future, once the Bill is enacted, the GP will determine sickness and eligibility for benefit for the first 28 weeks. Thereafter, his role will be dramatically narrowed and confined primarily to diagnosing the illness or disability. Any further consideration of the implication that the sickness or disability may lead to incapacity to work will be made by the BAMS doctor; that is, the Benefits Agency Medical Services doctor.
We have no doubt that BAMS doctors are being trained; they are experienced and will exercise their professional judgment as best they can. But last Tuesday in Norwich I spoke to a BAMS doctor assessor. He said that he usually had 20 minutes, or at best half an hour, with a prospective claimant. Obviously illness or disability with a well known medical profile like MS is easy to determine and relatively straightforward. But where he now faces difficulties is with illnesses where the medical history is more idiosyncratic, such as ME,
402
where it is important to know about the person's well-being. He also said that interaction with the patient's family was significant; for example, in cases of asthma and moderate learning difficulties, which he picked out as being particularly difficult to assess.
In a diagnosis of ME he would need to know more about the family background, the personal history of the patient and the relationship of the patient with the family. The BAMS doctor I spoke to was a GP before he took early retirement to join BAMS. Indeed, he was my GP. He is a good, kindly, experienced, able man; a former Conservative councillor; a committed Christian who, despite his politics, delivered my babies healthily. We discussed the Bill and I discussed the amendment with him. I asked whether he, as a BAMS assessor, would welcome more input from the GP as reflected in the amendment. I asked whether he would support the amendment. He said that he did, very strongly, I asked whether I could quote him. Indeed I could, he said.
The doctor said that in the short time available for an interview he simply could not learn enough about the whole person and their medical profile. He would feel much more confident about the appropriateness of his recommendations were he to have the information which he believed only a GP was likely to be able to give. He said also-this had not struck me at all before my conversation with him on Tuesday -that he expected many more cases in future to go to appeal. As a BAMS panel doctor he said that he would feel much more confident that his recommendations would stick if he knew that he had taken into account the GP's view. If he and the GP were at one, then that recommendation was likely to prove much more robust. In other words, a GP turned BAMS doctor, "strongly" supports the amendment.
The amendment adds to the information that he as a BAMS doctor would have to draw on. That is the professional judgment of a GP trained to assess, as part of his clinical training, the whole person. More information from a reputable source must surely be better than less information when determining future benefits for sick and disabled people.
I repeat, it is a modest amendment which costs nothing in cash. It is entirely voluntary in that it would allow the GP to offer his professional clinical judgment if he thought it was relevant and useful, but he need not do so if he did not. It can be made to be entirely confidential so that no pressure from the patient need come into play to strong-arm the GP into making an assessment against his better judgment. As a result, if your Lordships were minded to accept the amendment today it would produce fairer judgments for the claimant, better informed recommendations by the BAMS doctor, and more robust decisions by the panel. The BMA has no objection to this amendment. If my former GP, a BAMS doctor, is anything to go by, the BAMS doctors would welcome the amendment. May we hope that the Government will do so as; well.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell, I want strongly to support the amendment. It is one of the amendments on the

403
Marshalled List which I find particularly important. It has already been mentioned that doctors at the Benefits Agency have a very limited time to examine their patients. They may have the self-assessment and what has been said by the patients themselves, but they have too limited a time. The importance of the GP being able to make a statement is enormous. Not only in most cases does he know the patient and may have known him for years beforehand, but he also knows, on the whole, the background, the family surroundings and everything that is relevant to that applicant for a benefit. It would be a great step forward if the Government could accept that a statement made by a GP should be relevant to the granting of a benefit.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment perhaps I may seek clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in referring to her doctor, used the term "moderate learning difficulty". That is the second time I have heard the expression used in your Lordships' House today. If the reference by her GP to moderate learning difficulty was used, it is not in the context of this Bill. That applies to the Department for Education and not to the Departments of Social Security and of Health. I presume that the expression was intended to be "moderate learning disability", not "moderate learning difficulty".
Lord Wise: My Lords, I support the amendment. It ensures that the general practitioner retains the option of commenting on the client's medical condition and the way in which it may affect his ability to work. It does not put the onus back on the GP but allows him to provide further information if he wishes so to do. Many GPs want to be involved in the process, and it is surely accepted that GPs have an intimate knowledge and understanding of the patient's condition. In those circumstances it would surely be appropriate for them to have an input as indicated by the amendment.
My noble friend the Minister gave an assurance at Report stage that Benefits Agency doctors would be thoroughly trained to consider a client's medical history and that emphasis would be placed on the importance of fluctuation, variability and relapse in those medical conditions whmse nature is characteristically one of instability or variability. The amendment builds on that assurance-and we are grateful for it-by enabling doctors to have a specific input at an early stage in the process of the Benefits Agency's assessment of capacity for work. I hope my noble friend the Minister will feel inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the views of the British Medical Association. The association has serious concerns about the amendment, and I share those concerns. The amendment could easily result in patients putting pressure on their GPs to provide them with written comments which may not always support the case their patients wish to make. That is the kind of situation which GPs wish to avoid. GPs are already under far too much pressure.
404
I understand that the adjudication officer who makes the ultimate decision would always have access to any information provided by the GP. There is nothing to stop GPs writing if they wish. In addition, the procedures will allow for the Benefits Agency Medical Service to contact GPs for any additional opinion or information which relates to the patient's condition. It is preferable that such information should be provided on a doctor to doctor basis in confidence. I would therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and unwelcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, given that he directly challenged an assertion I made about the BMA, I think it may perhaps be helpful if I repeat what I said. I said that the BMA did not object to the amendment. I was quoting from a letter of 16th May 1994 to the Disability Alliance. I quote:
"Although it would be necessary to discuss your proposals formally with elected members of the BMA's General Medical Services Committee (the GPs' committee), my view"-
that is, of the head of private practice and professional fees-
"is that, were you to propose amendments to the Incapacity Bill along these lines they should, I feel, not meet with opposition from the medical profession".
That is what I said and that is, I hope, accepted by the noble Lord as confirming the point I made that the BMA do not object to the amendments as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. Her letter is dated 16th May. I have a letter before me dated 17th May which confirms that we believe that a further amendment to Clause 5 is unnecessary. The letter is signed by Sue Marks, and I confirmed that in a telephone conversation two hours ago.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in the Government's view this amendment is not necessary and I shall explain to the House why. There are two elements to the amendment: first, that a claimant's GP should have the opportunity to make a statement about his patient's medical condition and any other medical factors that he considers relevant; and, secondly, that this statement shall be taken into account in determining capacity for work. However, I can assure your Lordships that our proposals for assessment include both those elements. They will be set out in regulations made under this clause, the proposed Section 171C(2).
On the first point, we shall in every case require the GP to state the claimant's diagnoses and disabling conditions. If the GP wishes to write a fuller report, that would be extremely welcome. The more medical evidence the department has, the easier it will be to make an accurate assessment. There is no question of refusing evidence. As noble Lords are aware, in the majority of cases the Benefits Agency will send the claimant a questionnaire to complete. There will be space on the questionnaire to allow the claimant to express any information which he believes is relevant to

405
his claim. That questionnaire is the first step in the gathering of evidence and emphasises our wish that claimants should be involved.
The next stage is that the claimant's GP will write a medical statement of diagnoses and disabling con-ditions. That medical evidence is a necessary part of gaining all relevant information and is crucial to the assessment. The difference between the new system and the current one is that the GP's statement will not be an opinion to refrain from work, and the GP will not have to provide repeated sick certificates. The statement on the questionnaire will normally be all that is required.
I can only reiterate that the more information the GP supplies, the easier it is for departmental doctors to give advice and for adjudication officers to make decisions. We would welcome, for example, a statement by a GP which said that, in the GP's opinion, if the claimant returned to work his condition would worsen considerably.
The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that any statement made by a GP will be taken into account in determining capacity for work. Again, I can assure your Lordships-and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis-that that is precisely what our proposals are designed to do in assessing claimants. When all the information has been gathered from the GP and the claimant, the case may be referred to a BAMS doctor for further medical advice. The doctor will consider all the evidence collected so far. The doctor will look at the claimant's medical history and the information submitted by the claimant and his GP. He will examine the claimant when necessary and will produce a report giving his opinion on the extent of the claimant's functional limitations. If the GP has chosen to write more than the statement of diagnosis and disabling conditions, then this further information will also be taken into account.
The BAMS doctors will be thoroughly trained. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other Members of the House who mentioned the undertakings I gave at Report stage. The BAMS doctors will be thoroughly trained in the workings of the new assessment procedure and will have the help of written guidance. The guidance will stipulate that all relevant information must be taken into account in formulating the medical advice.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen again said that he felt it was essential that doctors had sufficient training. All relevant factors will be taken into account by the BAMS doctors who will also liaise very closely with the GPs. That partnership is crucial. We want to see it working well. But in the final stage of the process there will be adjudication on the claim. An adjudication officer will weigh all the available evidence in reaching a decision on the claimant's level of functional limitation. He will then apply the scores and thresholds laid down in regulations and determine the claimant's entitlement to benefit.
The new medical test is designed to be an improvement on the current system. It does not, in any way, restrict the consideration of relevant medical
406
evidence. The new test creates a clearer and more defined test for establishing incapacity for work than currently exists.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned about inappropriate withdrawals under the current scheme. We believe that under the new scheme that will be much less likely. The test will be more objective and decisions more soundly based and understandable to claimants. They will no longer be decisions based on ability to do bizarre jobs which has been a major criticism of the current scheme and a matter frequently raised in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis, and Lady Robson, expressed anxiety about the time spent by BAMS doctors with individual patients. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, cited the opinion of an individual GP. In no way do I want to underrate an individual opinion, but when one looks at the matter statistically it is interesting that the general medical practitioners' workload survey of 1992-93 shows that the average length of surgery consultation per patient was 8.4 minutes. That compares with an estimated average of 35 minutes which will be devoted to the examination by the BAMS doctor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was concerned about idiosyncratic histories. In those circumstances BAMS doctors will seek as much information as possible from the patient's GP. That is an integral part of the procedures we hope to introduce. The BAMS doctor mentioned by the noble Baroness will no doubt welcome the freedom he will be given in working in close collaboration with GPs in future.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl who expressed the concerns of the BMA. I suspect that he is the only person in the Chamber tonight who is a member of that association. His views are ones which we have heard and they have been shown in the survey and in the medical press. Under the new assessment we shall be seeking a statement from GPs. We will not ignore any additional evidence that GPs may give. Given those reassurances I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is not necessary.
7 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask her a question. With so much care in the community now being done by the social services, general practitioners may well believe that it is not their duty to do what is suggested in the amendment unless it is written into the Bill. There is now confusion over who does what because of care in the community. What happens if a GP does not give the information asked for by the assessing doctor?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot believe that that situation will arise. In my experience GPs are conscientious. They recognise that they have respon-sibility for their patients and are very closely involved with care in the community. All the measures which we have introduced seek to involve GPs. There is no evidence at all that they are not closely involved.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in listening to the exchange between my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, it is quite obvious that when there are two doctors there are three opinions. There seems to be different information coming from the BMA to both sides of the House, or a different interpretation. It may be that a different question is being asked.
My noble friend is a greatly respected consultant to whom patients are referred. He would not expect to have a patient referred to him without a report from his GP. Why should the BAMS doctor have someone referred to him without a report from his GP? A diagnosis does not give the full story. I know that the amendment does not make it compulsory that there should be a full report, but it does give the GP the opportunity to make one. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that the BAMS doctor would probably see an individual for about 30 minutes. I believe that she mentioned 8.4 minutes as the period of consultation with the GP. But that is 8.4 minutes after 8.4 minutes after 8.4 minutes going on for weeks, months and possibly years with the GP getting to know the individual. Therefore, the two situations are not comparable.
My noble friend said that the assessment team would accept further information but not invite it. That is all the more reason for writing into the Bill the fact that the doctor has the opportunity to offer that information. It is absolutely essential. If I were in that position I doubt very much whether I would want an assessment for capacity for work to be made in only 30 minutes and outside. I doubt very much whether my noble friend would want that. I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may make one point clear. The regulations will require GPs to give the necessary information. I believe that was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. A great deal of evidence will come from GPs. There is no reason to believe that they will not want to do their very best for their patients, as they do in other circumstances.
7.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Thoniton-le-Fylde, B.

Airedale, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brentford, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carter, L.

Haskel, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hylton, L.

408

Jay of Paddington, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Rochester, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lawrence, L.

Seear, B.

Leigh, L.

Serota, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Shannon, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monkswell, L.

Wharton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rix, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hesketh, L.

Annaly, L.

Hood, V.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Atholl, D.

Kitchener, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Morris, L.

Burnham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byron, L.

Munster, E.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbrook, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Orkney, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Courtown, E.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Perth, E.

Cranborne, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Downshire, M.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

St. Davids, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elton, L.

[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Trumpington, B.

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hacking, L.

Vivian, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Harmsworth, L.

Young, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.16 p.m.
Clause 6 [Test of incapacity for work: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15, line 40, after ("(6)") insert (", (7)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this small technical amendment. It ensures that the procedure applies to the regulations made under Section 171B(7) of the Act which allows the application of the

409
own-occupation test to people who have more than one job in the prescribed period or do more than one job at a time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Severe disablement allowance]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1) leave out "(a)" and "or (b) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below"; in subsections (2) (b) leave out sub-paragraph (i) and leave out subsections (3) and (6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious that we are at a late stage in the examination of a Bill which is as complicated as it is controversial. I have never had to take part in any Greek drama, but there are times when I feel that the text of my brief on the Bill makes me reflect that it must be very difficult to make a speech in a language that one does not understand.
Since there has been much correspondence off stage, as well as earlier debates, I shall spare your Lordships by being as concise as possible. I am just a little uneasy that that intended courtesy may leave those for whom the history of incapacity benefit has not been their favourite bedside reading wondering what on earth I am talking about.
The amendment deletes the additional disability conditions for severe disablement allowance and leaves the sick or disabled person without contributions to satisfy the same new incapacity test as a sick or disabled person with contributions. Some of the disabled people who would benefit from the amendment are people with learning disabilities—people who seldom have the opportunity to work and pay contributions. I anticipate the Minister's response by saying that I accept that most of that group will not find their double test, in whatever form it takes, a major hurdle. I am arguing for the principle for all and the practical consequences for some.
We did not pursue the same amendment on Report since the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I received letters from the Minister in the few hours before the debate began, and both courtesy and common sense dictated that we should take time to reflect upon those letters. Having reflected, we return to the fray better informed about the Government's view, but not persuaded by it.
Summed up a little breathlessly, but not, I hope, misleadingly, the sequence of events is as follows: in the 1970s, non-contributory versions of invalidity benefit were introduced. No extra test beyond the usual medical certificate applied to most of those affected. Married women, however, had to satisfy an extra test of incapacity for household duties. In 1984, that unsustainable discrimination was abandoned by introducing a new benefit—the severe disablement allowance. That had an extra 80 per cent. disablement test on top of the incapacity for work test—a sort of 80 per cent. on the Richter scale of disablement—though young claimants, those who already had one of the two previous benefits, and people receiving the then attendance allowance could qualify on that basis rather than having to satisfy the 80 per cent. test.
The Government argue that leaving severe disablement allowance, which no one has seen as a problem, as
410
little changed as possible by the Bill means replacing the medical certificate by the new incapacity for work test and leaving in place the existing 80 per cent. test or its alternative. The Government also argue, though not I think with any great confidence on these figures, that to rely upon the new incapacity for work test alone would cost £20 million a year in extra benefits. I and those who support me argue that the real reason for the original SDA double test was doubt about the ability of the GP certificates to screen out married women with real but minor disabilities and health problems. With the new "incapacity for work" test under the Bill, there is no need for an extra test. To impose one is unreasonable and unfair.
If Clause 9 remains as it stands, we are faced with a division of those claimants who because of sickness or disability are unable to work. They will be divided into those regarded as incapacitated who will receive incapacity benefits, those regarded as unemployed but not incapacitated who will have to turn to unemployment benefits, and those without contributions who are regarded as incapacitated but not sufficiently disabled who will receive income support or nothing. That seems less social policy than confusion. I do not understand it and I cannot see claimants understanding it. I fear that the Minister is having considerable difficulty in explaining it. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment so comprehen-sively moved by my noble friend Lord Rix. He said that with the new medical test under the Bill there is no need for an extra test and to impose one is unreasonable and unfair. Is it not really rather daft to continue to impose this dodo of a test which is left over from the NCIP in the 1970s when claimants will now have to undergo the more stringent incapacity test?
Whether the tests are carried out at the same time, therefore causing little extra hassle, is not the point. "Unnecessary" is a favourite word of the Government, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government reject the unnecessary. The 80 per cent. test is unnecessary; it is obsolete. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and bury this dinosaur by accepting the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rix, explained the background extremely well. We received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on 9th May in which he attempted to explain the situation. I have read the letter three times and it is like so many letters that one receives from the Department of Social Security. I am sure that it read much better in the original Sanskrit.
The letter appeared to confirm this extraordinary division that the department had created; proposing the division between the people who are able to work into those regarded as incapacitated, those regarded as unemployable but not incapacitated and those who are accepted as incapacitated but not regarded as sufficiently disabled. There is a real confusion in that and throughout the Bill we have heard that the

411
Government intend to simplify the social security regulations and so forth. That provision seems only to add to the confusion.
As drafted, the Bill is hardly designed to achieve the simplification that we wish to achieve. The amendment would put that right and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the amendment seems to me to be eminently suitable. For my noble friend on the Front Bench not to accept it would be absolutely farcical. Why do the Government not take the advice of an expert in farce and accept the amendment?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if there are to be two tests will the doctor carrying them out be paid twice?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to remove the 80 per cent. disability qualifying test for severe disablement allowance on the grounds that it will not be needed in future with the new test of incapacity. We debated the amendment in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, I wrote to him before the Report stage and I placed a copy of that letter in the Library. I also sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am sorry that it was not as crystal clear as he might have wished. I am also sorry that my noble friend Lord Swinfen appears to have had problems in understanding it. So, with your Lordships' permission, I shall try to be as clear as I can in explaining not only my letter but my argument. I believe that I shall be able to reassure your Lordships on this point.
As I have explained, the 80 per cent. disability test is a vital element in deciding who has the greatest need of the finite resources available for SDA. The disability test is needed in addition to confirmation of incapacity and will continue to be needed in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has attempted to show that the disability test has no place as a substitute test for the household duties test that existed under non-contributory invalidity pension (NCIP). However, I do not believe that this is a true comparison and I shall attempt to explain why that is the case. The disability test was never intended as a substitute for the household duties test. This argument assumes that SDA is NCIP but by another name. This is not so. SDA was introduced in 1984 as a new benefit to focus help on the severely disabled who have not been able to satisfy the contribution test. If any comparison is to be made, therefore, it is the position of SDA before and after April 1995.
The primary qualification for SDA is that a person must be incapable of work. He or she must also be continuously incapable of work for 28 weeks. These qualifying conditions mirror the arrangements for paying the short-term higher rate of incapacity benefit. In applying an incapacity test it is therefore logical and correct to use the same one as for incapacity benefit.
In Committee I made the point that the incapacity and disability tests are different tests serving different purposes. Both tests exist in the current scheme and will
412
continue in the new scheme. The incapacity test will test only a person's ability to do work. It is not a test of his or her ability to lead a normal life. This is the purpose of the disability test, which takes into account all disabling conditions not just those related to work. On the introduction of SDA in 1984, it was explained that the 80 per cent. disability test had nothing to do with the "incapacity for work" test. That will still be the case from April 1995.
I must again stress that SDA is aimed at the most severely disabled. By targeting on this group we are able to make the maximum use of limited resources.
We recognise that some people have not had the chance to build up sufficient contributions to qualify for incapacity benefit. We will therefore carry over the provision that those whose incapacity began before they were age 20 will not have to satisfy the disability test.
Passporting provisions will also allow some people to be treated as having satisfied either or both the incapacity and disability tests without the need for a medical examination.
Those who are terminally ill, or in receipt of the highest rate of DLA care component, or who have certain listed conditions such as severe learning difficulties, can be deemed as satisfying the incapacity test without the need for a medical examination. Those who are in receipt of the highest or middle rates of DLA, or who are registered blind or partially sighted, or in receipt of a vaccine damage payment or in certain other specified groups will not be tested for their disability as now.
Of course, the majority will not need examinations as they will be passported onto SDA. Where examinations are needed for both tests arrangements will be made for these to be done at the same time. I can assure noble Lords that no one will be required to attend for two separate medical examinations—one for incapacity and one for disability—in connection with the same claim. I confirm that a doctor will not receive a fee for the two tests because it will be one examination. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will be reassured by this important change. Although some people have only had to have one examination others have not. I am giving a clear undertaking that from April 1995, when the new test is introduced, there will be no need for more than one examination. It has always been our intention with the new scheme to ensure that the most severely disabled are inconvenienced as little as possible.
SDA is a non-means-tested benefit and a non-taxable benefit. As previous assurances have made clear, the structure of ADIs and age additions is not being changed by the Bill. The effect of that means that those who have not paid contributions could be better off than those who have. The 80 per cent. test ensures that the severely disabled may be advantaged in that way and that is thoroughly defensible.
I hope that with that somewhat lengthy and complicated explanation, I have made clear the Government's intentions and views. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had very proper anxieties on this subject, but I hope that I have reassured him sufficiently to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he give the House an indication of the number of claimants which the department believes will be subject to that single examination for a dual test?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have the figures with me. The important point that I was making was that there will be one test and not two.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It did not in fact give too much away to me by way of clarification. However, I am delighted to accept his assurance with regard to the one test.
With the lateness of the hour, and in view of the fact that arguments about this matter will clearly rage for some months to come outside your Lordships' House, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. To do so at this stage would be more of a gesture than a means of gaining ground. The Minister is clearly convinced that he has answered the points which I raised. I am slightly confused and not absolutely certain that he has. However, I ask that the SDA claims, awards and rejections are monitored closely so that we can see what is happening and have an opportunity for second thoughts in the light of experience. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astorb Viscount Astorb moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("under section 30A below or
short-term or long-term incapacity benefit under section 40 or 41
below").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 14 to 35. All these amendments are consequential on the amendments to the Bill made in Committee and on Report which introduced special arrangements for people who are terminally ill. They are required to ensure that widows and widowers who are terminally ill can benefit from the concession introduced in Committee to pay the higher rate of benefit from the 29th week of incapacity. The number of people affected is comparatively small but the amendments offer significant improvements in these cases. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 35:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert ("under section 30A above").
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("long-term").
Page 25, line 16, at end insert:
("(3A) A woman to whom this section applies who is not entitled to long-term incapacity benefit under subsection (3) above, but who is terminally ill, is entitled to short-term incapacity benefit under this section for any day of incapacity for work which—

(a) falls in a period of incapacity for work that began before
the time when her late husband died or she subsequently
ceased to be entitled to a widowed mother's allowance,
and

(b) is after that time and after the first 196 days of incapacity
for work in that period.

For the purposes of this subsection a woman is terminally ill if she suffers from a progressive disease and her death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months").
Page 25, line 17, leave out ("long-term").
Page 25, line 26, leave out ("long-term").
Page 25, line 29, after ("(3) (a)") insert ("or (3A) (a)").
Page 25, line 36, at end insert:

("(6) Where a woman entitled to short-term incapacity benefit under subsection (3A) above attains pensionable age and defers her entitlement to a Category A pension or makes an election under section 54(1) below, the days of incapacity for work falling within the period of incapacity for work mentioned in that subsection shall, for the purpose of determining any subsequent entitlement to incapacity benefit under section 30A or the rate of that benefit, be treated as if they had been days of entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit.

(7) References to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate shall be construed as including short-term incapacity benefit payable under subsection (3A) above.").

Page 25, line 44, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 2, at end insert:
("(2A) A man to whom this section applies who is not entitled to long-term incapacity benefit under subsection (2) above, but who is terminally ill, is entitled to short-term incapacity benefit under this section for any day of incapacity for work which—

(a) falls in a period of incapacity for work that began before
the time when his wife died or within the prescribed
period after that time, and

(b) is after that time and after the first 196 days of incapacity
for work in that period.

For the purposes of this subsection a man is terminally ill if he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.").
Page 26, line 3, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 6, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 9, after ("(2) (a)" insert ("or (2A) (a)").
Page 26, line 18, at end insert:

("(5) Where a man entitled to short-term incapacity benefit under subsection (2A) above attains pensionable age and defers his entitlement to a Category A pension or makes an election under section 54(1) below, the days of incapacity for work falling within the period of incapacity for work mentioned in that subsection shall, for the purpose of determining any subsequent entitlement to incapacity benefit under section 30A or the rate of that benefit, be treated as if they had been days of entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit.

(6) References to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate shall be construed as including short-term incapacity benefit payable under subsection (2A) above.").

Page 26, line 29, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 40, leave out ("long-term").
Page 26, line 46, leave out ("long-term").
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("long-term").
Page 27, line 7, leave out ("long-term").
Page 32, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert:
("(4) For paragraph 5 substitute—
"Incapacity benefit for widows and widowers
5. Paragraph 1 above does not apply for the purpose of determining whether the conditions specified in section 40(3) or (3A) or section 41(2) or (2A) above are satisfied.".").
Page 33, line 15, leave out ("long-term").
Page 33, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert:

("(a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

"(a) short-term incapacity benefit;"; and

(b) for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) long-term incapacity benefit;".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
We have examined the Bill in considerable detail in Committee, last week on Report and today on Third Reading. I extend my thanks to noble Lords on the opposite side, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Turner of Camden, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have

415
all contributed to our debates on this Bill. We have not always agreed but there has been much common ground among us.
On my side I would particularly like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who with her expert knowledge of the subject has taken us through the complexities of the medical test and I am extremely grateful to her for her help. Indeed, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for helping me to provide answers to your Lordships. I must also mention the contribution of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who powerfully and clearly presented his amendments to your Lordships. He has always represented the cause of the disabled and we are grateful to him for that. I should mention too the contributions of my noble friends Lord Zouche, Lord Wise and Lord Milverton, and not forgetting the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the Cross Benches, and last but not least my noble friend Lord McColl, who has made valuable contributions to our debates from his expert knowledge in the medical field.
During the passage of this Bill we have listened carefully to concerns of your Lordships and I have been able to make a number of important announcements during the passage of the Bill, all of which are designed to protect the most vulnerable or help with the transition back to work. We have also listened carefully to what has been said about the most vulnerable group, the terminally ill. In response we have brought forward the highest rate of benefit for people who are terminally ill to the 29th week of incapacity.
We recognise the importance of training in helping the long-term sick make the transition back to work. But we also accept that, if people are to be encouraged to try a return to work, they must feel certain of returning to the higher rates of benefit. We have therefore broadened the application of the training long-linking rule.
We have extended the qualifying period for the own-occupation test to make sure that as many people as possible are assessed against their own job for the first 28 weeks of incapacity. Those who are able to do so can undertake voluntary work for a wide range of public bodies. The hours limit on therapeutic work has been removed for people who do therapeutic work under medical supervision while in a hospital or other institution. I have also announced three improvements to DWA which will be a very important incentive for disabled people to move into work. The importance of this House as a revising Chamber has once again been clearly demonstrated.
The Government remain committed to the contributory principle. Incapacity benefit will provide a basic level of income for those who are unable to work, regardless of other income or savings. This can be topped up by occupational sick pay, a pension or any other income. Income related benefits will continue to be available to those that need them. The reforms focus the benefits on those who cannot work and will be sustainable into the next century.
If left unattended, spending on invalidity benefit, already over £6 billion a year, would grow by a further
416
50 per cent. or more in real terms by the end of the decade. Governments across Europe, in North America and Australasia are all considering reforms in this area and are considering our proposals with interest. I believe that any responsible government must take steps to deal with such rapid and sustained growth.
Before sitting down, I should like to pay one final tribute to the voluntary organisations which have contributed their knowledge and experience to the debate both directly and indirectly. I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our thanks to them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Astor.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is a time of thanks and on these Benches we should like to record our appreciation for the courtesy of both Ministers and the helpfulness of their civil servants who have taken the time on several occasions to offer us briefing sessions and points for discussion.
It is also a time at which to pay tribute to the all-party support for the amendments that have been moved. I believe that we owe special thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is not easy to move a series of amendments against the Government Front Bench with such information, eloquence and dignity. He did that on behalf of people from whom we do not always hear; that is, the disabled outside this House. By their support for the disabled, the noble Lord and some of his colleagues have maintained the reputation of some parts of the Conservative Party and they should be commended warmly.
I thank warmly the Cross Benches, led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, who have consistently argued from personal experience as to the situation of disabled people when they face adjustments to benefit and adjustments with regard to medical tests. We thank those on the Liberal Benches and those on the Bishops' Benches, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who has graced the debate with several of his contributions.
I should like a special thank-you to be extended to my colleagues on these Benches, my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Carter, who know far more about these subjects than I do. I should like to thank them for their continuous and reliable contributions. Finally, I should like to express my thanks to our special advisers who have sat patiently in the Box. I do not doubt that they were much frustrated both by their inability not to be able to make the speeches themselves and by their not being able to get the notes to us in due time. I believe that the noble Earl wishes to make an observation. I give way.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I wish only to say that it is not customary to refer to people in the Box.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case, I suggest that it is a convention which might well be amended in the light of the contributions that we have had, and given the fact that the Minister himself paid

417
tribute earlier to the voluntary organisations that are represented by those same special advisers in the Box. However, I believe that the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House was not present in the Chamber to hear that tribute.
The Bill has centred on two issues; first, the level of benefits paid to disabled people, and, secondly, the medical tests. As regards the level of benefits, we have indeed seen some improvements. There was a government amendment which we warmly welcomed moved on behalf of the terminally ill. There were also amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, with all-party support, which were moved, on the one hand, on behalf of families with children, and, on the other, on behalf of those disabled people experiencing or enjoying the higher rate of DLA. We are glad that those amendments were passed. The voices collected from all sides of the House on behalf of disabled people were heard and such issues were voted upon. With proper respect, I believe that the House of Lords played its appropriate role. However, we were not able to make such improvements to the medical test, although some aspects of it will have gained in clarity. We welcome that fact.
In January, the House debated a Bill on statutory sick pay which transferred the cost of SSP from all of us as taxpayers to employers and thus ensured that sick people seeking to return to work now carry a negative dowry in perpetuity. That was unfortunate; but it is gone. More recently we saw the shenanigans—I think that is the right word—of what happened to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which sent out a signal about procedures in another place showing them as being of perhaps less than the highest repute.
The amendments to the Bill, some passed with government support and others passed against the Government, will now return to another place for consideration. Given the strength of views expressed in this House and the way that disabled people may possibly and properly feel that the Government have not had their best interests at heart as regards the events of the past three months concerning SSP and the civil rights Bill, and given the modest financial implications of the amendments and the significance that they have for disabled people, I hope very much that the Government will at least accept, respect and not seek to overturn the amendments in another place before the Bill finally returns to us on the way to enactment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell who, unfortunately, is unable to be present. He has asked me to express his warm thanks to the two Ministers concerned for the helpful way in which they have guided the legislation through the House. My noble friend also wishes to thank all those who took part in the meetings, including that held with the doctors of the British Medical Services agency.
We on these Benches also welcome the amendments carried on Division. We wish them a fair wind in another place. We regret that the changes were not more significant. However, there is time for wiser thoughts to
418
prevail. I hope that they will. If not, we shall be reversing the provisions of the Bill within three years of its coming into force.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Navy would have been proud of my two noble friends on the Front Bench. My noble friends Lady Cumberlege and Lord Astor have been in the middle of a lonely sea with cannon shot coming at them from all directions. But they are still here and smiling, despite the fact that they have hardly heard a word said in favour of anything they pronounced during the whole course of the Bill's passage. I congratulate both for sticking it out and corning through.
I also thank my noble friends for the courteous manner in which they have discussed the Bill with me outside the Chamber. That has been most helpful. Despite that, I have continued to press my points and, I am glad to say, with a little success both last week and this week. I do not know what the Minister in the other place will decide to do with the amendments. I hope that he will not be too over-zealous and that he will feel able to leave them in the Bill. From the point of view of those whom it concerns, there are considerable benefits to be: had at very small cost.
I intend to continue fighting the corner for disabled people. However, at the same time, in an age of change with an ageing population, with more people surviving with very severe disabilities after accident, illness or birth, and with a reduced number of people actually in the workforce, I realise that it will be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, I feel that any civilised society must look very carefully at those people who need support. The task has to be undertaken at whatever cost necessary for our own sake, let alone for theirs.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sunday Trading Bill
7.45 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 8 [Meaning of "local authority "]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("(bb) a county borough council,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. These are purely technical amendments and arise as a consequence of the reorganisation of local government in Wales through the Local Government (Wales) Bill which is at present in Committee in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 20 at end insert:
("(3) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (2) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, leave out line 9.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides a definition of the term "licensed premises". However, those words do not appear anywhere else in Schedule 1 and, therefore, there is not much point in leaving in a definition of something which no longer needs to be defined. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 3, leave out from ("shop") to ("the") and insert ("which is at a farm and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 14 which are also tabled in my name. It is usual practice that, where your Lordships have approved an amendment which has not been drafted by the parliamentary draftsman, the Government consider the drafting of the amendment to see whether it is in the best and most appropriate form and whether or not it requires amendment to tidy up the drafting. That is what the amendments achieve in respect of the amendments which your Lordships approved to exempt DIY shops and garden centres, motor supply shops and farm shops from the six-hour restriction that the Bill places on Sunday trading by large shops.
The amendments do not disturb in any way the intentions of your Lordships in approving those exemptions. The amendments merely provide consist-ency in the phrasing of the exemptions from the six-hour limit and make consequential provision. They will enable the Bill to leave your Lordships' House in a better state technically, whatever your Lordships may think about the substance of the provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("wholly or mainly") and insert ("entirely or almost entirely").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 11. I am anxious that the six-hour limit for large shops does not get chipped away in one way or another through the exceptions which have been put into the Bill. I see the danger of just this happening in regard to liquor, farm produce, motor accessories, garden produce and do-it-yourself home improvement products. The activities of these large shops are qualified only by the words "wholly or mainly". The question is: what do these words mean? In the previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said he thought there was a precedent that had established the meaning of the words as 90 per cent. of the whole. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, perhaps wisely, concentrated on the word "mainly". He said it meant more than a majority. I understand that. But he said that even then it depends on how we judge the matter. He asked whether we judge it, for example, by value, by stock or by turnover. I believe he gave the example of Rolls-Royces and baked beans. I can see the problem but I still hope that we can obtain a little more
420
certainty as regards what "wholly or mainly" might mean or change that phrase, as my amendment proposes.
I believe that in the previous debate the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, went too far when he tried to exclude any leniency at all in relation to the activities that these stores might carry on. My amendments seek to establish the concept of the 90 per cent. figure rather than the concept of a majority. I know that there is no legal precedent for my words. Nevertheless, if the Government in particular, and others, would support us in our attempt to define more clearly what this all means, I hope that would be of help if and when the courts have to decide the matter. I realise they would decide the matter on a case in question but they would also consider what took place in this debate.
As I have already said, there is no precedent for my suggested phrase; but the key word is "almost". If one says, "a glass is full or almost full" everyone knows pretty well what that means. I have tried to suggest the same meaning by using the word "almost" in my phrase "entirely or almost entirely" which is proposed as a substitute for the phrase "wholly or mainly". If my suggested phrase was accepted, I hope it would convey the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, of 90 per cent. At the moment "mainly" is equated with "wholly". I realise that "wholly" comes before "mainly" in the Bill, and perhaps therefore it is the more important of the two words. However, the qualification "or mainly" is very unfortunate. I very much hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say—if my amendment is not accepted—that in his opinion "wholly" is more significant than "mainly". I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I much regret not to be able to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in this endeavour, other than to hope that it elicits from my noble friend a helpful and more precise and influential definition of what "mainly" means.
I have to ask your Lordships not to support the noble Earl. I do so with regret because I sympathise with what he is trying to do, and I made that sympathy clear at the previous stage of the Bill. I so ask your Lordships for two reasons. One is, as the noble Earl has already said, there is no legal precedent for these words. Therefore there is complete uncertainty as to their effects, which could only be established in the courts and no doubt by more than one hearing. That is to no one's advantage. The second reason is that I regret that, much as I sympathise with the noble Earl, we were beaten on this issue at the previous stage—as near, as they say, as dammit. The words are different but the principle is the same. We were trying to restrict the categories which he is trying to restrict. The House made it quite clear that that was not its wish and I do not think it ought to be invited to debate that issue again. I hope that we shall elicit from my noble friend a more precise definition which may be of use to the courts, and leave it at that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would like to support the amendments spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I shall say a few words in support of them in a moment. First, however, I wish to make a statement.

421
During the debate on Report on Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I made comments at col. 1262 of the Official Report of 5th May relating to the attitude of the RAC and Halfords which gave the impression that both organisations were content that motor and cycle stores of over 3,000 square feet in floor area should be restricted to six hours' opening on Sundays. I was clearly misinformed and mistaken and both the RAC and Halfords have informed me that they are very much in favour of complete exemption for these motor and cycle accessory stores. I accept that that was always their position. It is right therefore that I should set the record straight. I trust that what I have just said does exactly that. I must express my regret for any difficulty or inconvenience that my remarks caused to the RAC and Halfords, to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and of course to your Lordships' House itself.
I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I do so in the hope that, as he said, they will elicit some clarification from the Government. But as the Bill now stands, it clearly is not satisfactory that firms with a floor area of over 3,000 feet should be granted an exemption on what may very well prove to be a false premise. I think most of your Lordships would be quite content if, for example, garden centres sold even 10 per cent. of goods which were not related to gardens. But the fear that some of us have is that they could sell very much more—even up to 90 per cent. —of alternative products. That clearly would be unfair to other traders selling that particular type of goods. Therefore I believe that there is a case for this sort of clarification, perhaps through the words of the noble Earl, or indeed through the words or some assurance of the Government. I believe that some clarification is necessary, otherwise we will find in the future that there will be some real difficulties.
I accept that many firms have given assurances at the present time that they have no intention of selling more than a very small fraction of goods outwith their normal trade. However, all sorts of other things happen. Managements change and there are takeovers and other such matters. Therefore I believe that at this stage we should have some clarification either through the words of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, or indeed through some assurances or some statement from the Government.
8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords,—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to speak first.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I see no particular reason why I should do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to speak the reason will be clear. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who would have wished to have been here, and who is my colleague on the public policy committee of the Royal Automobile Club, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his very clear statement. Both
422
my noble friend Lord Brabazon and I are most grateful to him for it. Knowing the noble Lord opposite well, we appreciate that he would not have wished to mislead your Lordships' House during the Report stage of our proceedings on the Bill. We are grateful to him for having set the matter straight.
Since our conventions do not allow me to rise twice to speak to the same amendment, perhaps I may say a few words on both Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8, which has been agreed. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for making a technical correction to the amendment which was moved originally by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. As your Lordships will recall, that amendment was agreed at Committee stage without a Division, and by a substantial majority when we debated the matter at Report stage.
That takes me naturally to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am not sure that the purpose of that amendment is merely to seek clarification.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to replace a well-established statutory expression with one which, so far as I can ascertain, has been used only once before in statute law. The words "entirely or almost entirely" appear just once, in the well-known provision found in English law at Schedule 7A, paragraph 1(7) (b) (ii), in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. So far as I am aware, the expression has never been used in Scots law. That may be of interest to the noble Earl.
By contrast, "wholly or mainly" is used regularly in criminal and civil law, and as was mentioned in earlier debates, it appears on no fewer than four occasions in the Shops Act 1950. Indeed, it appears in parts of that Act which will continue in force in relation to staff protection even after this Bill has been enacted.
Again, so far as I can ascertain, there has been no difficulty in practice in its interpretation or application. There is no record of its use having ever given rise to calls for the law to be amended. Indeed, during the Committee stage the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pronounced their view on the subject with clarity.
The motor parts supply industry has enjoyed this exemption since the 1950 Act. In no case has any charge been brought against the integrity of that industry. It seems to me impossible that, having achieved by virtue of the exemption the conditions which it previously enjoyed, the industry would have any reason to usurp its position. It therefore seems to me that we can have absolute confidence in the expression "wholly or mainly" in this context, and that is the end of the debate. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not accept Amendment No. 7 in the name of the Earl of Perth.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. While he may be perfectly correct in saying that the expression "wholly or mainly" is clear in law, if it does not mean what the House wants the clause to mean would it not be better to find some other phrase?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that may well be the case; but, since the use of "wholly or mainly" has not been challenged in relation to a number of other

423
issues contained within the Bill before your Lordships, there seems to be no good sense in altering what has already been established so far as concerns Amendment No. 8.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
First, it may well be, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, that my amendments were too narrow. They were criticised because they were too narrow. We were told that they created problems and they did not have the support of the House. Therefore, if we can find another way of achieving some of the aims of those amendments, I shall support it.
Secondly, it is not true that we know what the phrase "wholly and mainly" would mean in this Bill. Some people may know what it meant in other Bills. They have told us what it meant at various times, and every time they have told us something different, presumably because they quoted from different Bills. We certainly do not know what it will mean in practice by reference to the 1950 Act, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. In Section 22 of that Act one finds the phrase "wholly and mainly", but it refers to individual workers and not to goods. It refers to the circumstances in which:
"any person employed wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquor"
for example, or
"employed wholly or mainly as a milk roundsman",
should get time off in lieu. That has nothing whatever to do with what we are talking about now.
Therefore, we have no idea what the courts would say about "wholly or mainly" in the context of this Bill if they had to apply it. We fear—as many eminent QCs have indicated, although I do not say that they are necessarily right—that it will be too wide. I accept that that will not necessarily be the case in relation to the motor trade; but it will be the case with DIY centres and garden centres. It will be far too wide. After all, those centres now sell everything—barbecues, clothes, Christmas lights, garden furniture, cookers, and so on. You name it, they sell it. We are afraid that it will be too wide, and as long as only 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their trade is in other goods and the majority of their trade, however defined—and we do not know how a court would define it—relates to their principal business as specified in the context of the Bill, then they will be covered by the law. We say that that is too wide.
In that context, I suggest that what is suggested here —"entirely or almost entirely"—is no more hazardous. It will have to be interpreted by the courts just as "wholly or mainly" will have to be, and it is significantly more narrow.
Thirdly, that is important because we are very worried that, if all the amendments appear on the face of the Bill, when the Bill goes to the other place it will be found to be what in some ways it will be, a form of undercover total deregulation. I remind the House that there was an overwhelming vote both in this House and
424
in another place against total deregulation. Therefore, if one wants an element of sanity and sense one cannot have such amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the problem with the Bill throughout is whether it will be completely and clearly understood by the courts. One of the reasons why people such as myself would much prefer total deregulation is because total deregulation would be entirely free of any misunderstanding or difficulty of interpretation. The Bill will give the courts and the local authorities quite a lot of problems of interpretation. That being so, the last thing we want to do is to make it more liable to misunderstanding. That is where I have to agree wholly with my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The formula proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, so far as we can trace appears simply in one statute. There has been little interpretation of it. However, the expression "wholly or mainly" is frequently used in a great many statutes; and the courts are quite familiar with the problems of its interpretation. Therefore we should consider the matter from the practical point of view of those who will have to administer the law, given that it is quite a difficult Bill to administer because it goes only part way to deregulation. If we insert a formula such as the noble Earl proposes which makes the Bill more difficult to interpret, we are doing a great disservice to all who will have to administer a fairly complicated provision of the law. Therefore, I remain firmly of the view that your Lordships should not accept the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but should leave the Bill as it is in that respect.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this area has been well traversed before your Lordships on many occasions. I do not think that there is any difficulty in interpreting the phrase "wholly or mainly". The first matter is a question of law. The meaning of a word in a statute is primarily and generally a question of law. The first point of law that is raised by the words "or mainly" is perfectly clear. It indicates that goods may be sold other than those which are specified in the statute. That is the difficulty.
Great difficulties were raised under the 1950 Act. Goods could be sold in one shop, some of which could be legally sold and some could not. The only manner of enforcement was by snoopers and agents provocateurs. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe was right when he said that that problem does not arise under this Bill. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out another difficulty that is raised by the fact that other goods can be sold; namely, that large shops which fall under the schedule can compete with shops which are more closely regulated.
Having said that, on the last occasion I deprecated, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seeking to fiddle with the words "or mainly" when they had been fully considered in Committee before a large House, and again on Report in a much larger House than is present this evening. Once the words "or mainly"

425
have been construed in the sense that I have indicated, there is little difficulty in their application. The judge will advise the jury or the tribunal of fact that the word "mainly" is a common sense English word and they should apply their common sense to it, taking into account a number of factors many of which were enumerated by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the last occasion. In other words, the words "or mainly" occur in a number of statutes, and there will not be much difficulty in their application.
On the other hand, those are wide words. The words suggested by my noble friend are much narrower. He has done us a service in placing that formula before us and thereby ensuring that it is one of the options that are open to another place.
There is another reason why we are indebted to my noble friend. The amendment applies wherever the words "or mainly" occur. That is necessary because if we narrow the words "or mainly" in only one case—as we sought to do on Report—it makes the words "or mainly" very much broader wherever else they occur. We are greatly indebted to the noble Earl. It seems to me that his formula of "entirely or almost entirely" is much tighter than the words "wholly or mainly". There may not be much judicial precedent, but I do not see that the courts would have any difficulty in interpreting his words.
As I ventured to argue last time, since the matter should be left now at large to another place, perhaps I may suggest two other formulae that might be considered. I believe that "wholly or substantially" falls somewhere between the formula of my noble friend of "entirely or almost entirely" and the phrase that is now in the Bill, "wholly or mainly". There is a fourth way in which it might be possible to deal with the issue. It is to leave out entirely the qualifying words. There is a legal maxim which lawyers always express in Latin, but as lawyers' pronunciation of Latin is apt to offend your Lordships I shall try to paraphrase it. The maxim is that the law does not take account of insignificant things. So if any qualifying words are entirely left out it would not prevent, say, a tray of packets of sweets being offered in a shop which sells cycle goods and so on. The insubstantial, minor offer of goods would get by. It seems to me that in order of descending strictness we have the amendment on Report of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, which was undoubtedly very clear and exclusive; we have my suggestion of no qualifying word from which insubstantial deviations might be allowed; we have the formula of my noble friend of "entirely or almost entirely"; and we have the phrase "wholly or mainly". Having argued last time that the matter should be left to the other place, it seems to me that there is an even stronger case today for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I desire only to add this. I have been increasingly worried at our chipping away at what was an agreed consensus, a compromise between the Keep Sunday Special deregulators and those like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with whom I stand on the matter, for total deregulation. It now remains for the other place to consider the amendments which noble Lords have made in their entirety, as well as each one.
426
As regards these amendments, for the reasons I have given, I suggest that we express our debt to my noble friend. However, I do not think it would be expedient now to make such an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although my attitude to the Bill and the whole issue is much more libertarian than that of my noble friend Lord Perth, nevertheless I have considerable sympathy for the objectives underlying his amendments. However, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with the considerable legal expertise at his disposal, has chosen to continue to use the words "wholly or mainly" in his new amendments before us this evening. That indicates that he and his department must be well satisfied that the words "wholly or mainly" effectively mean 90 per cent. plus, rather than the 51 per cent. plus, about which some noble Lords were worried. Provided the noble Earl can assure us that that is the case and that "wholly or mainly" means 90 per cent. plus and not something like 75 per cent. plus, there seems to be no need to alter the existing wording. If, however, 75 per cent. plus is the more likely meaning of "wholly or mainly", then perhaps the amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth needs more consideration.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, as we have continued on our roundabout over "wholly or mainly", with noble Lords placing different interpretations on the words, I have wondered whether we have been going through the looking glass with Lewis Carroll:
'"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less'".
No, my Lords. The words "wholly or mainly" do have a precision. They have precision in statute, they have precision in a number of cases that have been before the courts.
Since our last debates on 'wholly or mainly", I have made it my business to examine a number of those cases. Let me cite one to your Lordships. It was a case that was taken in 1909 by Mr. Justice Parker in the Chancery Division called the Hatschek Patents case. The learned judge in that case was adjudicating on the Patents and Designs Act 1907. The words in that Act were "exclusively or mainly" rather than "wholly or mainly", but nothing turns on that difference.
So it was that Mr. Justice Parker, in relation to whether patented goods were manufactured "exclusively or mainly" outside the United Kingdom, approached the construction of the word "mainly" in this manner. As a starter, he said that the word "mainly" should be seen to have been,
"used in close connection with and as an alternative to the word 'exclusively'".
It therefore followed in his construction of the word "mainly" that there had to be a,
"disparity … greater than a small percentage",
between the goods in question.
In the example which he cited of just under 49 per cent. of the patented goods being manufactured in the United Kingdom and of just over 51 per cent of the patented goods being manufactured abroad, he thought that that did not come anywhere close to applying the word "mainly". He ruled that there had to be a "substantial" difference between those two groups of

427
goods which ultimately depended on the "abuse" to which Parliament was directing its attention. That was 80 years ago. Why should the courts today have any different approach?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is well travelled ground and we have the pleasure of going through it again this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked me to confirm that it was my opinion that "wholly" was more significant than "mainly". I shall not be so stupid as to do anything like that. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me whether I would clarify the position of Her Majesty's Government. It is for the courts to clarify the position.
As my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the phrase "wholly or mainly" is not unknown to the statute book. The phrase has been used in both tax and planning legislation. As I pointed out to your Lordships on Report, the Broadcasting Act 1990 provides that one commercial radio station has to be devoted "wholly or mainly" to speech.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships when I say that ultimately it can only be for a court to determine as a matter of fact whether a store does or does not meet the "wholly or mainly" test in the particular circumstances of a prosecution brought against that shop by a local authority. I fancy that one of the advantages of the "wholly or mainly" test is that that prosecution would not be brought on the basis of the technicality of whether a DIY shop had sold a single carpet tack or a single curtain track—and whether those were or were not permitted items. A prosecution would be brought where the local authority believed that the shop in question, whatever it claimed to be, was not the type of shop which could be exempt from the six-hour rule and was clearly cheating—for example, where a shop claiming to be a garden centre was actually selling only a very few plants but a great many hi-fis.
When coming to a decision on whether the "wholly or mainly" test was satisfied in any particular case, a court might wish to take into account turnover where there was an established trading pattern. The court might well decide that a particular proportion of sales in permitted items would satisfy the test. "Mainly" would probably take its natural meaning, so this proportion of sales would have to be more than half of total sales. But turnover may not be the only factor or even one of the factors which a court will wish always to take into account. Sometimes there might not be an established trading pattern—for example, in relation to a new shop which has only recently started to trade.
In my view, it would be reaching for the stars to hope to settle in advance in legislation how precisely the "wholly or mainly" test might be applied in every individual case. Those are matters which must be left to the good sense of the court so that it can determine the case as a matter of fact in the individual circumstances of the individual case which is before it.
However, there are two things of which we can be confident. The "wholly or mainly" test will be a workable test for the courts and for local authorities to
428
apply. The test will work and will inhibit cheating by those who try to pass themselves off as exempt from the six-hour rule when in fact they are not.
I should also like to remind your Lordships that the provision that a shop should sell "wholly or mainly" certain items is not the only criterion which it must satisfy in order to qualify for an exemption from the six-hour restriction other than in the case of shops selling wholly or mainly intoxicating liquor. In order to qualify, the shop must be a garden centre or a do-it-yourself store, a farm shop or whatever. The courts must be satisfied of this. If the courts were to feel that the store in question was really a supermarket, the fact that it sold some fig trees would not give it a suitable cover to protect it from prosecution. I fancy that your Lordships would consider that they can recognise a garden centre when they see one, and so could the courts.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested an alternative form of words, "entirely or almost entirely". It is now for your Lordships to decide whether this formulation would work in practice. The noble Earl has argued that "entirely or almost entirely" is a better test than "wholly or mainly", which is the text in the Bill that your Lordships might think allows the sale of too many non-listed goods.
If the noble Earl's text of "entirely or almost entirely" were used, it might mean that if a do-it-yourself store were to sell, say, one choc ice at the checkout, it would not fall foul of the noble Earl's test, because one choc ice is clearly unlikely to be a significant part of that shop's trade. But if the shop were to sell a freezerful of choc ices, then it might fall foul of that test.
The question for the retailer, the local authority and ultimately the courts would be: how many choc ices could it sell without rendering the sale of the permitted items to be inadequate to pass the test that they are entirely or almost entirely the trade of the shop. In the case of choc ices, would it be 10 of them; or 20; or 30? Or would it be half a tonne? Would the shop have to say to the 1lth, 21st or 31st child, "I am so sorry. It's been a very hot day today. There's been a run on choc ices, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, says that we must not sell any more". As the late Mr. Kenneth Williams of those lovely "Carry On" films might have put it: will this sort of "mucking about" really aid the enforcement of the law?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would there not be the same problem for the courts in drawing the line over "mainly"? There are always problems when there are boundaries as to where you draw the boundary. I do not happen to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but it does not seem to me that that is the reason for not supporting it. The courts must make the same sort of judgment as they do when deciding whether or not it is "mainly". What is the difference?
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course that is a matter for the courts to decide. That is what I have been trying to say all along. But it is very much easier for them to

429
reach that judgment on the basis of "wholly or mainly" rather than "entirely" or "almost entirely". It is a different gradation in the scale.
During the last debate on this matter I pointed out to noble Lords that do-it-yourself stores sell a great many items which are not used to repair or decorate buildings. I imagine that a smoke alarm—except perhaps if it were a particularly decorative smoke alarm—would not qualify. Nor would a washing-up bowl, unless it might be used to wash brushes. Nor would an ironing board, unless, I suppose, it might be used to iron paper which had somehow become crumpled.
If the noble Earl's amendment were to be agreed to, a store would need to make a decision about each item of its stock and decide whether or not it would qualify. That decision would need to be made over possibly hundreds or thousands of different product lines. The shop would then need to decide how many of the non-permitted items it could sell without falling foul of the "almost entirely" test. I find it unbelievable that the collective wisdom of your Lordships would feel that this was a practical proposition.
At Report I pointed out the danger of including provisions which are unworkable in an attempt to undo what your Lordships have already decided; namely, to exempt certain types of shop from the six-hour rule. I pointed out that I was not in favour of—indeed, I voted against—the exemptions for do-it-yourself stores, garden centres and farm shops. But I fancy that if those shops are to be exempt, they should be permitted to get on with their business without having, like some hypochondriac, perpetually to take their temperature to see whether they were on the right side of the law. As I have said so often, the matter is entirely for your Lordships. I hope that, whatever your Lordships decide, that conclusion is the right one.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate and particularly those who supported my amendment. I must confess that I was not as encouraged as I had hoped I might be by the noble Earl. He did not give any indication of a move towards the judgment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rather than simply that of a majority. However, I hope that our debate may help another place. In particular, the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale contained wisdom which everyone should ponder. I accept what he said. We are not a very large House tonight, and furthermore it should be for another place to decide. With those words, and again with thanks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 8, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 11 and insert ("any one or more of the following—

(i) motor supplies and accessories, and

(ii) cycle supplies and accessories,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from first ("or") to ("materials") in line 14 and insert ("a combination of these, and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following—

(i) plants,

(ii) garden supplies and accessories, and

(iii)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) any shop where the trade or business carried on continuously since 19th November 1990 consists wholly or mainly of either—

(i) antiquarian books; or

(ii) other second-hand books; or

(iii) both.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the slightly unusual wording of this amendment and the background to it. At Report stage, four of us from all quarters of the House supported an amendment to exempt all large bookshops from the six-hour Sunday limitation. Although secondhand bookshops were briefly touched upon, what we essentially had in mind were shops like Dillons and Waterstones. Over 300 shops might theoretically have benefited, although in practice many have no intention of opening on Sundays, whatever the number of hours allowed to them.
I believe that we argued convincingly that booksellers and their customers are a special case—after all, Her Majesty's Government recognise that by exempting books from VAT on cultural grounds—and that acceptance of the amendment would in no way result in those who understandably want to keep Sunday quiet and peaceful becoming disturbed or upset. The amendment, unfortunately, was not reached until after dinner when three-quarters of our potential supporters had disappeared; so we lost. The amendment now before the House does not try to reverse that decision so far as the 300-plus shops selling mainly new books are concerned. However, antiquarian bookshops are a different matter. Only within the past few days did I learn that the prosperity of Hay-on-Wye on the Welsh borders is almost totally dependent on the survival of a flourishing secondhand book trade. The large second-hand bookshops in the town are famous not only all over the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe and North America as well.
One large bookshop, as some noble Lords may have read in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday,
"sells half-a-million books a year and carries a stock of 350,000 or so",
including at the moment,
"5,000 works on Hungary and 20,000 on Venezuela".
Another large bookshop in the town has a stock of a quarter of a million books. Nearly all its customers come, so I am told, from more than 50 miles away. So it is obviously no good telling those customers that they should come during their lunch hour rather than trying to shop on a Sunday. If you happen to live and work in London, Manchester, Brighton or Edinburgh, obviously that is not feasible. It is still less feasible if you live on the Continent of Europe or in North America.
Moreover, although it is true that on the Continent, as was pointed out at earlier stages, shops do not generally open on Sunday, an exception is generally made for bookshops. The French, after all, take their culture very seriously.
The economy of Hay-on-Wye has benefited enormously from the book shop trade. No fewer than 70 shops of all sorts and descriptions are flourishing compared with four in a similarly sized town on the Welsh borders with no book shops. Hotels, restaurants and guest houses are also extremely dependent on the book trade. It is no exaggeration to say that, if that trade collapsed or substantially diminished as a consequence of strict enforcement of Sabbatarian laws, it would be like the closure of a pit in a mining village. Therefore, the amendment is highly targeted but also very modest. It would probably cover no more than 25 shops in the whole of England and Wales as compared with the 300 shops with which the Report stage amendment was concerned.
Furthermore, to make it even more acceptable to those noble Lords who seek to constrict rather than relax the law, I limited the provision to those shops which have been trading for at least three years before the First Reading of the Bill. It happens coincidentally to be exactly six months ago today; but that is pure coincidence. Three years is long enough to build up an international reputation.
The other place of course is always free to extend the period to five years if it so chooses, reduce it to one year or eliminate it altogether. But I thought it reasonable to put down some kind of marker today so that noble Lords will understand what I am trying to do. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is another example of another breach. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I must say that it is the weakest that we have yet heard. In so far as reasons can be found for why there should be exceptions (and we tried to find reasons), none of them applies in this case. It is not the case that it was legal before. If shops selling books are open on Sunday, it is illegal and it has always been illegal. So there is not the acquired rights argument.
It is not the case that these shops are essential. I wish it were; but they are not essential. One does not die because one cannot buy a book. It is not the case that large book shops occur in isolated venues such as airports. There are small book shops there as well. Nor are they the only shops. There are Blackwells, Dillons, Heffers, Foyles and Hatchards. Above all in Hay-on-Wye, there are many small book shops all around the large book shops.
In most cases, the people who own the large book shops own half of the small book shops. Certainly that is the case in Hay-on-Wye. One gentleman owns over half of the book shops in Hay-on-Wye and nothing would be easier for him than to open them on a scheduled basis: six hours for one and six hours for another. He could open for 24 hours. There has never been an attempt weaker than this amendment to exempt a class of goods.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I must have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He seemed to imply that if antiquarian book shops were not allowed to be open for more than six hours, the impact on Hay-on-Wye would be similar to that of the mines being closed in a mining village. I must have misunderstood him because that is surely the largest exaggeration that I have heard. I cannot see why a shop selling antique books should have unlimited opening without antique furniture shops or other similar shops also being allowed to open. To accept this amendment would be to add yet one more anomaly to the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, does not seem to have many friends for his amendment this evening. I am bound to say that when I read his amendment I was fascinated by the choice of the date of 19th November. I wondered why he had chosen it and thought I had better do some research into the matter. He told us and it is quite right that 19th November was the day on which the Bill was introduced in another place. But I did not see how that had much to do with antiquarian book shops. My researches also showed me that on 19th November 1895 the pencil was invented. It was on 19th November 1969 that Pele scored his one thousandth goal. I wondered whether it was on 19th November that Hay-on-Wye, the home of the antiquarian book trade, proclaimed independence. Evidently that was not so, either.
I must confess that I did not quite see why an antiquarian book shop which has been trading, albeit continuously, for three and a half years, should receive different treatment from one which decided to start up this week.
Your Lordships have already debated at length the question of whether a book shop selling all manner of books should be exempted. I fancy that if your Lordships have decided that a large book shop selling Jeffrey Archer and Jilly Cooper novels should not be exempt, your Lordships may also see no reason why a large book shop selling Bram Stoker's Dracula should be exempted—even if it had been tooled with gold leaf on the cover.
As my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out at Report, reading is a pleasant way in which to spend a Sunday; but so are many other things such as listening to music. Some people like to play computer games or watch videos on a Sunday. But your Lordships have not given an exemption for large music shops or computer game shops.
Although it is easy for your Lordships to have sympathy with any sector which puts forward the argument that it is a special case, one would soon end up, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested, with total deregulation, if every sector, for which some of your Lordships had sympathy, gained an exemption. As I have said before, it is entirely a matter for your Lordships to decide. I do not see, much though we may enjoy antique and second-hand books, that the case for making an exemption there has been made.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am glad that my amendment has given the noble Earl so much pleasurable research in looking up what happened on 19th November in various years. He now knows the object of putting that particular date. One has to choose an arbitrary date, which can always be altered by another place. But that is the least of the objections raised to the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out that the shops had been opening illegally on Sunday, and in fact they open for 10 or 11 hours every day of the week. It is true; but, on the other hand, there has been no appetite on the part of the local authorities to enforce the law because they consider that the law is an ass, and the trade that those book shops bring into the town is to be welcomed and encouraged. I do not suppose that they will have any appetite for enforcing the law now. But pressure will be brought to bear on them now that the fine has been raised tenfold. That is one of the reasons why the amendment is so important.
The noble Viscount asked what was so special about books. He did not actually use those words, but that was implied. He asked what was the difference between books and furniture. I suggest that spiritually man can just about survive without furniture; but he cannot survive without books. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that the fact that Her Majesty's Treasury do not impose VAT on books indicates that it also recognises that reality.
This House is often accused of being excessively élitist over such matters of crime and punishment. This Bill has probably been excessively populist, if I may say so. Exemptions have been made in favour of what one might call the tabloid readers for DIY shops, and so on; but nothing has been done to help the readers of The Times Literary Supplement, as exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
In the absence of any further support, I can only beg leave, very reluctantly, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cochrane of Cults Lord Cochrane of Cults moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) any shop within a Holiday Park open only for the sale of goods to paying guests at that Park.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. I am chairman of a company which is in the holiday parks business in Scotland, to which this Bill does not apply.
The amendment is necessary to allow large shops —those over 280 square metres in area—to trade within holiday parks, in the same way that small shops are permitted to trade. Up to now those larger shops—about 50 of them are believed to exist—have been eligible to trade under resorts exemptions in the 1950s Act. Those exemptions are abolished in the Bill now before your Lordships. That has the unexpected result of leaving the shops subject to a more restrictive regime than now exists, yet the Bill's preamble states that it is to reform the law on Sunday trading.
The customers of the shops in the amendment are the guests staying at the holiday parks: people and their families who have gone to the park for a self-catering
434
holiday. Much of the changeover of guests at holiday parks takes place at weekends, and there is then a real need for more generous opening hours at large park shops to meet the needs of guests and their families who have recently arrived for a holiday.
Self-catering is now the fastest growing sector in the holiday business. That is because of the freedom it gives people to do as they choose at their own pace. That type of holiday makes one realise how great the need is for shops where, at a convenient time, one can readily buy necessities for the family's needs.
The reality of what I say is that almost: the whole of the purchases made at holiday park shops are of food. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I shall not use the words "wholly" or "mainly", or any such analogy. If the shop on the holiday park is bigger than the size prescribed, then its hours are restricted. But if it falls below the stipulated size for a large shop—there may be more than one such shop in the park—the opening hours are not restricted. That is a rather anomalous state of affairs. For example, in a large park one, two or even three shops could be open on Sunday morning if each were smaller than the prescribed size; yet two of them together could be almost double the size of a "large" shop.
A further valuable benefit to come from the acceptance of the amendment—which is purely of a tidying-up nature—is that the enforcement duty of all local authorities with holiday parks within their boundaries will be reduced. They will not have to deal with inspections for shop measurements and so forth for any of the holiday parks within their district. That will reduce their expenditure and allow them to devote resources to other and more useful matters.
Large holiday parks can be the size of modest towns. When I last spoke on the Bill, I mentioned towns of the size of Uttoxeter (where there was racing today); Tewkesbury or indeed Henley, each with around 10,000 inhabitants, as an example of the size of some of the larger holiday parks that already exist in England and Wales. In a letter to me, my noble friend suggested that local residents—say, in Bognor—may feel put out in some way if they saw that a park shop was open before they could use their local large shop on a Sunday. Of course, that is a possibility; but a remote one. The difficulty and cost of travelling to a holiday park would be a considerable deterrent.
Holiday parks are not usually adjacent to built-up areas. If the shopper from Bognor has the choice of the small shops round about and they are not to his liking, he can change his mind about what he wants or wait until a large and perhaps better stocked shop opens. Of course, he could set out from Bognor and travel perhaps for some distance to a suitable holiday park, paying the entry charge when he arrives. Any casual purchase he made would be rather expensive due to the size of the entry charge. My figures indicate that that is normally around £6.50. Not many noble Lords would care to pay a £6.50 surcharge on a pound of sausages.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council offered no objection to the amendment. In a letter to me it referred to obvious shortcomings in the Bill affecting the larger shops within holiday parks. Evidently, the council does

435
not see it as a threat to its members' trade or to the compromise, and that therefore disposes of what I termed the "Bognor" question.
The Confederation of British Industry is staunchly in favour and gives particular emphasis to the concept that holiday parks are islands in terms of the local economy. I go further and say that they are islands of relaxation and leisure for those who holiday there. The amendment will reduce the burden on local authorities by reducing the range of inspections required. In many cases it will restore, in today's context, benefits previously enjoyed by large shops. Finally, it will help to add to the enjoyment of those who go to the holiday parks to enjoy themselves in comfort among pleasant and safe surroundings, as they rightly deserve. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, that the Shopping Hours Reform Council supports the amendment. That is not the case. It does not support the amendment. I did not speak to the amendment at Committee or Report stage. Many other Members of your Lordships' House wanted to speak. However, my objections to it are precisely the ones made consistently throughout the period of Committee and Report stages of the Bill—that is, that any amendment which attempts to extend the exemptions of the six-hour rule for large shops undermine the basic compromise of the Bill. The arguments against the amendment were adequately outlined at earlier stages of the Bill.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, perhaps with leave, I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I said that the Shopping Hours Reform Council offered no objection. I spoke to a representative this morning and confirmed those words which were conveyed to me in writing. It was further stated that the council had no objection to my repeating them this evening in this House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. There is a considerable difference between having "no objection" and not supporting. I say now that I do not support the amendment as chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. If the noble Lord looks back at my contributions in Committee and on Report, he will see that they are entirely consistent with the position that any further exemption to the six-hour rule for large shops has been consistently opposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. In my capacity as chairman of the council, I voted against those exemptions. That will be seen from the record.
Perhaps I can make one further point. This was something which was not mentioned on Report; but the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, made the point again this evening. He said that the people who visit holiday parks can number around 10,000 and that that is the equivalent of a small town. It seems to me therefore that there must be an anomalous position if he is suggesting that the people who are in an encampment the size of a small town have the advantages of an exception to the six-hour rule, whereas the inhabitants of a small seaside
436
town of 10,000 people, whose population is enormously increased during the summer months, do not. What is the difference between being in a small holiday village which is enclosed and counts as a holiday park and being in a small holiday village by the sea, which has the same number of inhabitants?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, is right when he says that he is not asking us to include "wholly" or "mainly". But he is asking us to include something much wider; he is asking us to say that the shops can sell what they like. As long as the shops are regarded as holiday camp shops, they can sell anything they like.
It is right to say that there are examples of that in the Bill. But this is one of the most unjustifiable exceptions —for which I am not responsible—in Schedule 1. If one is at an airport, a railway station, a service area or a filling station—which is nothing to do with the 1950 Act; they just shoved that in—one can sell anything. I do not know how those phrases came to be in the Bill but they are extremely dangerous. They mean that if one is in an isolated position where one can argue that one's customers are, in a sense, entrapped in some quasi-monopoly state, one should be allowed to sell anything.
I cannot see why, if this is passed in another place, similar amendments cannot be brought forward for university campuses, hotels, funfairs, festivals or football stadiums. Anything would be possible on that basis. It is one of the weakest exceptions we have had.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment, and in doing so I should perhaps repeat a declaration of interest, though it is not a financial interest. I am a director of a company which runs two—and will shortly run three—holiday parks.
I think I can possibly answer the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with what I am about to say. There is a very real distinction between a holiday park, which is a holiday entity in itself, like a hotel, and a village or a small town where there will almost certainly be a number of shops, a number of other options for shoppers and a number of opportunities for people to set up shops if they want to, if there are not already enough.
At the previous stage of the Bill some noble Lords ask what a holiday park is. I have obtained a quite useful definition of a holiday park as,
"self-contained premises where the main business is the provision of holiday accommodation with ancillary facilities and services".
Holiday parks usually provide self-catering accommodation, which means that the cost can be significantly lower than the cost of a hotel. But in other respects they are to a considerable extent like some types of hotel. Because they have lower prices they are particularly attractive to family groups and to people who are less well off—the lower budget holidaymakers. What happens is that guests arrive, as they do to a hotel, very often for a week's stay. They are likely to arrive on a Saturday and quite likely they have come a long way and may arrive hot, tired and dusty, with the children screaming in the back of the car. They go to bed. In the morning, instead of going to a restaurant or to a

437
cafeteria, as they would if they were staying in a hotel, they go and buy their fresh produce from a shop. They buy fresh milk, hot rolls and all the things they need for their breakfast. They then consume it on the premises —this is an important factor—either by the pool or in their chalet.
Most holiday parks are remote from towns. The guests therefore do not have the opportunity to go and buy in small shops. Conversely, the people who live in those towns will not be tempted to drive a long way and pay the entrance fee to go into the park—if the park allows day visitors, and most of them do not—so that guests from outside the parks will not use the shops in the parks. The availability of breakfast at a holiday park is part of the total holiday experience which we try to offer, an experience of relaxation and freedom from stress. It is especially important on a Sunday for the family who have arrived late and tired on the night before.
We are talking about possibly 50 large shops. To maintain the quality of the holiday experience the owners of most parks would feel that they had to build a small shop in order to provide breakfast materials for the extra two or three hours on a Sunday. I do not think that was contemplated in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is simply to avoid that, in my view, totally unjust and unintended imposition on the owners of the parks who could not let their guests suffer the inconvenience. It is so totally unnecessary and a total waste of time.
I would argue that the function of a food shop in a holiday park is comparable with the function of a cafeteria in a hotel. It is a catering function. It is interesting to note that the definition of the sale of goods in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 specifically excludes from the sale of goods the sale of refreshments for consumption on the premises. Whether or not a carton of fresh milk or a hot croissant are refreshments would be a matter for the courts to decide, but my guess is that they probably are. It seems to me that it is much better to accept this amendment and clarify the position. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
9 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am very glad that no reference has been made today to suggest that this amendment would bring the law back into line with the 1950 Act. The restrictions on holiday camp shops were fairly serious at that stage. They could be open for only 18 days and for a limited range of goods. We have not fallen into that trap today. However, I fully endorse the fact that this would be yet another anomaly for the reasons clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I believe that we should not accept the amendment. I note that the two movers are both directors in this business and that no one else appears to be supporting the amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults is a cricketer, but I note the fact that he has twice moved and withdrawn this amendment at earlier stages. Perhaps I may express the wish that he will score a hat-trick by for the third time withdrawing the amendment today.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, here we go again, with another possible exception. My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults, with admirable persistence, once again seeks an exemption for large shops in holiday parks. My noble friend considers it essential that shops in holiday parks should be exempt because the people who visit such parks expect the shops there to be open early on a Sunday morning and late on a Sunday evening. It is the duty of the parks, so the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says, to cater for their guests. I should have thought that they might more appropriately have been called customers.
That is the case, so far as I am concerned, for the prosecution. While I have wondered at times what it is about holiday parks which makes those visiting them so reluctant to leave their confines to search out a corner shop or a garage willing to sell them a pint of milk or a pot of marmalade when they are in extremis, I nonetheless have to accept that my noble friend Lord Cochrane and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are experts on this matter. They know their own customers or guests and they know them best.
It has been argued before that a special exemption for shops in holiday parks is justified because the Shops Act 1950 allows, through Section 51 and Schedule 7, local authorities to make an order authorising shops in resort areas to sell additional goods to those which are listed in Schedule 5 to the Act. I have mentioned before that these orders could apply only to 18 Sundays in a year. Your Lordships will note that the amendment seeks to exempt only shops in holiday parks, not shops in holiday resorts. So your Lordships should be quite clear that what my noble friend is seeking is a special exemption for shops in holiday parks on the ground that they are a special case. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, says that a holiday park is like a small town and may have 10,000 inhabitants. My noble friend is not just seeking to replicate an existing provision in the 1950 Act; he is asking them to be considered as a special case in the new Bill.
Your Lordships may well believe that holiday parks are a special feature and therefore a special case. But you should perhaps consider whether such stores in resort towns might feel that they would be unfairly treated if shops in holiday parks were to enjoy such an exemption whereas shops in holiday resorts were not. My noble friend has put forward the argument that, as the exemption would apply to those shops which sell goods only to paying guests at the park, other stores need not fear that they might lose custom to the shops in holiday parks. My noble friend's argument —your Lordships may find it a good one—is that members of the general public would hardly choose to pay the often substantial entry fee to a holiday park—which my noble friend Lord Cochrane says is £6.50—in order to buy, as he suggests, a pound of sausages outside the six-hour period permitted to all large shops.
But there is another way of looking at this. It could be argued that the holiday parks would, indeed, prefer their paying guests to make all their purchases at the park shop. That would be good for business. But in fact holiday parks may not have entirely captive customers and, if that were the case, supermarkets in the nearby

439
resort or town might expect some guests to forego the convenience of a shop on their very doorstep in the holiday park and might wish to venture into the town perhaps in search of more variety or cheaper prices.
If guests at holiday parks are not entirely captive, then there is an argument that, if your Lordships have to allow park shops an exemption from the six-hour rule but were not to allow such an exemption to shops elsewhere, then you would be helping to discourage park guests from shopping further afield. This in turn would tilt the balance towards holiday parks and against retailers in nearby resorts and towns.
Your Lordships may also like to consider whether the holiday resort as a whole might feel it right that holidaymakers who are staying in the holiday park can benefit from access to a large shop at any time on a Sunday but similar holidaymakers staying in flats on a nearby site could not. Landlords in the town might feel that they are up against enough competition from holiday parks as things stand without holiday park customers being given special privileges which are denied to other holidaymakers.
However, as I have pointed out before to your Lordships, these are weighty matters for your Lordships to consider. But, speaking personally, I am not enormously impressed with the amendment.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his exposition of what I said. But I do not agree with his interpretation of a certain amount of what I said. Perhaps I may try to reply to the various points made. I believe that I have cleared the point with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when I said that the Shopping Hours Reform Council offered no objection, which of course is not the same as necessarily supporting but is a good deal better than opposing.
Another point is that the shops in the town are provided by a number of people. Within a holiday park they are under the control of one company or person. That is the essential difference. There may not be a choice of shops; they may all be congregated. I enjoyed very much the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. He took to pieces the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for bookshops by stressing all the matters which were deficient in his argument and using the points which were the very strength of the argument for large shops. It was a curious dilemma.
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked whether I was a cricketer. The answer is unquestionably no. The nearest I got to cricket was to go on a cricketers' holiday, which some noble Lords may know about. I do not propose to score a hat trick. For one thing it is rather late at night and I could not possibly hit the ball three times. However, I shall invite your Lordships to support this amendment in due course.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked why we do not describe people as "customers". It is not because we want to avoid catching a nasty habit from British Rail where passengers have been turned into customers. People who stay in hotels and hostelries have always been guests. I am grateful to my noble friend for
440
commenting politely and flatteringly on the expertise which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I appear to have on this subject. The concept is of an hotel in a field and therefore "guests" is the operative word.
My noble friend was greatly exercised about the effect on the local shops of a holiday camp. When I first spoke on this subject I said that people treated them almost as a holiday prison. I was extremely apprehensive when I received a telephone call from the legal department of one of the main operators asking me to ring back. I thought that I had privilege and wondered whether there was going to be an objection because I had described the undertakings as in the nature of prisons.
All I meant was that people like to go to such places to cut themselves off from their usual surroundings and enjoy themselves. About 80 per cent. of the people go by their own transport and 20 per cent. by various means of public transport. The parks are not entirely self-contained, but the people spend most of their holiday money within the park. They will go out for a trip and so on, but the effect on the local economy is small compared to the number of people involved.
My noble friend also suggested that we were asking for a special case. Yes, I am asking for a special case, but it is to give equality of treatment to people who go to parks where the shopping may be restricted to a large food shop and other shops and to help our tourist trade remain internationally competitive and pleasant and attractive to our guests.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 7; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranborne, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hacking, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L. [Teller.]

Northbourne, L. [Teller.]

Courtown, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brentford, V.

McCarthy, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nome, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rochester, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Haskel, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Vinson, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.23 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("(1) (b)") and insert ("(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Supplementary provisions]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, leave out line 16.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20. These are minor technical amendments to tidy up the drafting of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("Schedules 1 and 3 to this Act and Part III of this Schedule").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. These are purely technical amendments to clarify the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 31, after second ("of") insert ("Schedules 1 and 3 to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 9, line 45, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "shop" have").
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("(within the meaning of this Schedule)").
Page 10, line 7 at end insert ("and is at that time a large shop within the meaning of Schedule 1 to this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert ("and as may be sufficient to cover in whole or in part the reasonable administration costs of processing his application.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, Schedule 3 covers the loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 provides that local authorities are allowed to set reasonable fees as they see fit or, to use the words of the Bill, as they "may determine" for granting consent to deliveries before 9 a.m. The fear is that some local authorities may see that as a means of charging larger retailers amounts which go well above and beyond administrative costs.
Local authorities have a number of statutory duties in relation to loading and unloading; for example, they have a duty to investigate noise. The anxiety is that the cost of some of those investigations and other matters may be incorporated in the fee which the justices charge under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3.
It is not simply a figment of imagination. Representations have been made to me by a large retail store. In its experience, there are a wide variety of charges and different interpretations can be placed upon terms such as appear in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support the amendment. In the absence of a provision to say that the fee is repayable to the applicant if the application is refused, those words are a useful indication of what Parliament means by a "reasonable fee". They indicate clearly that local authorities are not intended to make money by refusing applications.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I suggest, on the contrary, that the costs of the authority are not only administrative. The authority supplies the labour force necessary to keep the traffic moving, the streets clean and so on. We have talked a lot this evening about how it is right to leave the courts to interpret well-understood words like "mainly". "Reasonable" is an even more familiar word in statute and I should have thought that it was for the courts to decide what is reasonable in those: circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that is a very reasonable observation. The term "reasonable fee" as used in Schedule 3 to the Bill is quite a standard term and it appears frequently in legislation; for example, paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which deals with the licensing of sex shops, uses the term "reasonable fee", as does paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which covers loud-speakers in the streets.
The amendment which is tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking seeks to make it explicit that the fee could be used to cover, in whole or in part, only the reasonable administration costs of processing the application. But that seems to be over-egging the pudding. I find it: difficult to know to what else a "reasonable fee" could relate. The paragraph already states that it has to be in respect of the application. The local authority could not, therefore, use it as some kind of addition local tax with which to fund a lavish new town hall. It could not: properly be used to cover general administrative costs incurred by the local authority in the normal course of its business because those costs would not be in respect: of the application as the Bill requires. I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that the term used in the Bill is a normal term; that it does not cause problems in other legislation; and that, therefore, his proposed amendment would do no more than add unnecessary words.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend has given a most adequate reply. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

443
9.30 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Rights of shop workers as respects Sunday working]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert:
(" "large shop" means a shop which has a relevant floor
area (within the meaning of Schedule 1) exceeding 280
square metres").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very much to my surprise, and to my mild dismay, I find myself speaking first to this group of amendments most of which—that is, the substantive ones—have been inspired either by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, or by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. The reason I do so is that my purely technical amendment just happens to slot in a little earlier in Schedule 4.
What the right notice period should be for employees who have opted for Sunday working but who have subsequently changed their minds was argued at length during earlier stages of the Bill. I, for one, found the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who argued for the existing three-month notice period, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who argued for a one-month notice period, equally compelling. That would seem to suggest that a compromise period of two months is about right.
However, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that any such compromise should apply only to employees of large shops, one of the main reasons being the problems, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, of,
"those shops whose sales staff are required to have specialist knowledge".—[Official Report, 18/4/94; col. 14.]
Large shops with many employees should be able to get around that problem. They may not be able to do so in every case but, on the whole, they should be able to do so. However, that is not the case so far as concerns smaller shops.
Let us take, for example, the case of an antique dealer with only one employee who agreed earlier to work on Sundays. If he or she were subsequently to give two months' notice, the employer could find himself in real difficulties in finding someone in the time available, given the fact that the employee might be expected to be left in sole charge of the shop while the boss is away, for example, at a country house sale. Such an individual would need to possess a thorough knowledge of antiques, not merely a superficial one, and have plenty of references testifying to the fact that he or she was totally honest, as large sums of cash would almost certainly be handled. For all those reasons, I beg to move my paving amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 31. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for having moved Amendment No. 22. I should, indeed, have done so myself. I believe that there is general agreement that, in reaching a conclusion as to what should be the period of notice that a shopworker should give in order to opt out of Sunday working, there is a need to achieve a balance; that is, a balance between the differing interests of employers and employees.
444
On Report, I was among those who argued that the period should be no more than six weeks. In doing so I was influenced by two considerations. First, if a shopworker was unexpectedly confronted with a family problem which meant that he or, more probably, she no longer felt able to work on Sunday, that person might be obliged to give one month's notice to leave altogether rather than the three months' notice required to opt out. That seemed to me to be unduly harsh. Secondly, when employees give the normal notice of one month if they wish to terminate their employment, employers seem to manage well enough. I could not see therefore why an employer should have more than six weeks' notice that an employee wished to stop working on Sunday.
On Report, I went on to say that if the period could not be six weeks, let it be two months. I expressed the hope that in that way we could achieve a consensus on the matter. In his reply the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that a large supermarket employing hundreds of workers might well be able to cope with some of its employees opting out of Sunday working simply by seeking more volunteers from within its existing workforce, but that a small newsagent on the other hand with only one or two employees might have great difficulty in continuing to trade if his entire complement of staff were able to opt out of Sunday work at six weeks' notice. The noble Earl added that if a shop had only a handful of staff in certain key posts where, for example, specialist knowledge was required, it could create greater problems if those staff were to opt out of Sunday work at relatively short notice than would arise if, say, a checkout operator or shelf filler were to opt out.
In drafting my Amendment No. 24 I have endeavoured to meet those criticisms, first, by extending the suggested period of notice from six weeks to two months and, secondly, by confining the period of two months to large shops as defined in Amendment No. 22. In smaller shops the period of notice would stay at three months. I hope the Minister and your Lordships will recognise that in this way I have done all I can to find common ground in this matter and that Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 will be accepted. Amendment No. 31, to which I am also speaking, is consequential.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. My own Amendment No. 25 is in this grouping. A number of us clearly have felt that three months is far too long for the average shopworker to be expected to give notice that he or she does not want to do Sunday work. The Government claim that shop working on a Sunday must be voluntary and I believe that this is sincerely their objective. On the other hand, there is also a desire to protect the interests of small shopkeepers who may not find it so easy to obtain replacements for workers who feel they cannot work on Sundays. Both the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have repeated those arguments this evening.
I still favour my original amendment which was rejected by your Lordships. I still think one month's notice should be enough, but clearly your Lordships did not think so and there does seem a genuine concern that

445
small shops in particular would find this difficult to cope with. I nevertheless ask your Lordships to consider the position of a shopworker—in all probability a woman —working at an unskilled or semi-skilled job, perhaps stacking supermarket shelves. She takes on Sunday working originally because she needs the extra money but having done so she then finds she cannot manage it. The domestic pressures may be too great. If she has family responsibilities, perhaps small children, she may find it too exhausting to continue or else she may have elderly relatives who need to be cared for. To expect her to give three months' notice of her inability to continue working on Sunday is, I think, too much and it certainly undermines the voluntary nature of shop working which the Government have been anxious to maintain.
Nevertheless, I am aware of the fact that we have rehearsed these arguments both in Committee and on Report and I have decided to back the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because it seems to me that it has tried to overcome the opposition to previous amendments which have been voiced in this House. It is a question of attaining the right balance, as has been said on a number of occasions in debate. I believe that as the Bill now stands the balance is tilted too much in the direction of the employer.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment to which I am now speaking because it makes a genuine attempt to deal with some of the objections that have been voiced in previous debates on this issue in Committee and on Report. I support the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendments. I said previously that I thought that three months was too long, but I was unhappy that four weeks was too short a period for the reasons that have been rehearsed. As has been said, this is a question of balance, and I hope that the balance that has been put forward is acceptable to the House for the reasons which have already been given and which I shall not repeat.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said. I want to make just one point. Whenever the issue has been raised the Government seem to have said that the rights that they are giving to workers relate to temporary absence from Sunday work. It is not to be permanent. You are supposed to want for some reason not to have to work on Sunday and to be able to say to your employer that you cannot work on Sunday. If that is the case, I suggest that that must be due to some short-term crisis. What else could it be? After all, the new entrant is screened before he or she starts the job. If that person gives an indication that in general he or she will not work on Sunday then presumably that individual will not be taken on. Therefore, staff must normally give an indication that they will be prepared to work on Sunday. This is the way the Government regard the matter.
Then there is a crisis. Surely it must be a short-term crisis, whether it is a sudden death in the family, a football match or the collapse of a child-minding arrangement. It must be sudden and in the nature of a
446
crisis. What earthly use is a three-month period of notice to anybody in those circumstances? In those circumstances, as has been said, the individual worker either has to leave or has to beg the employer. The employee has to say "I have no statutory right, but I can't work next Sunday. I have to give you three months' notice. Therefore I beg you to give me what I do not have as a statutory right". What good is that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the question of what period of notice should be required from an employee who wants to opt out of a contractual agreement to work on Sundays has, as your Lordships have already observed, been discussed many times both here and in another place. We return to it once more today.
I recognise the concern which many noble Lords feel on this point. However, I remain of the opinion that this unique option to opt out of a contractual agreement which has already been freely entered into is generous as it stands. To reduce the statutory maximum notice period from the three months which is proposed in the Bill would cause real difficulties for employers and would tip the balance unduly in the direction of the employee.
It seems to me that to be able to opt out of a contractual obligation in that way—and so simply—is a very generous measure. I find it difficult to accept the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that in a sudden change of circumstances at a time of family crisis the three months' notice period is too long, with the inference that two months or six months is manageable.
Family crises are not confined to Sundays. It seems to me that that is an entirely separate issue. Misfortunes can occur on any day of the week. In such circumstances employers and employees naturally agree a suitable course of action. They have always done so in the past. I am sure that a reasonable employer would consider a request from an employee to be excused Sunday duties on the grounds of unexpected family circumstances or tragedy. It would, in all probability, be in the employer's interest to do so. But the right to opt out of their contract is not designed to deal with unexpected emergencies but nor would a six week period or even a month. The fact is that it is a right for all shop workers, whatever their reason, to opt out.
There is nothing to prevent the employer from waiving the three months' notice period, and the fact that employers who backed the Shopping Hours Reform Council have agreed with the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers to a one month notice period illustrates that voluntary agreements can be mutually acceptable.
But the schedule allows any shop worker, no matter what his reasons and with no regard to the status or circumstance of his employer, unilaterally to alter the terms of his employment. A three month notice period of the intention to do so seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
As with many other amendments, noble Lords have sought to bolster their arguments by claiming that, if those employers who back the Shopping Hours Reform

447
Council option can manage, so can others. But, of course, Shopping Hours Reform Council employers are not, and do not claim to be, representative of the retail industry as a whole.
While I appreciate the sentiment underlying the variation on the amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I do not think that it would work. It is true that the problems which are experienced by a retailer when employees opt out of Sunday working are likely to be greater in smaller shops than in larger ones. For example, the size of the workforce in a small shop may make it more difficult to rearrange staffing rotas. But such problems are by no means limited to smaller shops.
The Government have received many representations, from employers as large as John Lewis and Burton—as well as from smaller retailers and shops which require expertise among their staff, such as gardening centres and hardware stores—expressing their concern that there should be a right to opt out at all and that the three months' notice period will cause difficulties. Their interests must also be taken into account.
In allowing such a radical departure from normal practice it is imperative that the interests of employers should be taken properly into account as well as the interests of employees. The three month notice period should allow sufficient time for retailers to make alternative arrangements. A lesser period may suit some shops, and they are perfectly free to agree to a shorter period with their staff if they wish to do so, but a shorter period could well cause real difficulties for others. It is for those reasons that we feel it right to keep the figure at three months.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said. However, I remain unconvinced, as I am sure do the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and others who have supported the amendments.
The compromise amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself are designed to appeal to noble Lords across the political spectrum and not only those on the Opposition Benches. Quite apart from the intrinsic merit of those amendments, I invite noble Lords in the Shopping Hours Reform Council lobby, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to consider the following. It is often psychologically prudent as well as undoubtedly courteous to allow your opponents at least one small victory to compensate for a series of defeats. In this particular case, it is psychologically prudent because it may well allow Keep Sunday Special campaigners in another place to accept more of our liberalising amendments than they will be prepared to do in the absence of an amendment like this being accepted. For that reason I intend to divide the House.
9.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 43.

Division no. 6

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Norrie, L.

Brentford, V.

Richard, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Rochester, L.[Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Camock, L.

Lyell, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranbome, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

St. Davids, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Stewartby, L.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.56 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 19 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 said when the House considered the Bill on Report that I would return with this amendment at Third Reading. The reason for doing so is that we did not reach the amendments concerned with employee protection until approaching midnight. It was not possible to do the arguments justice at that time and when the House was very poorly attended. We are not very much better situated tonight, I may say. However, I had then the advantage of the Minister's response.
The main anxieties among those who have not been happy about the Bill have been about the protection of workers who do not, for whatever reason, want to work on Sundays. Most people, I think, still regard Sunday as a special day. There has been a real fear lest the changes to which both Houses have now agreed will ultimately have the result of making Sunday a day like any other. Clearly, it is not. Most people in this country would not want it to be. They treasure the special nature of Sunday, and certainly I do. It therefore follows that workers who do not want to work on Sunday for religious, domestic or other reasons should not feel compelled to do so.
The Government have recognised those fears, which is why they have agreed to the measures of protection that are written into this Bill in Schedule 4. Protected and opted out shopworkers, as we find in the Bill, cannot

449
be compelled to work on Sunday; and any term in their contracts of employment to that effect becomes unenforceable.
However, those arrangements apply only to people working under contracts of employment. There is no comparable protection for people working under a contract of services. This is no longer a small matter. Increasing casualisation of employment—increasing flexibility, which is what the Government want—could mean that workers in shops doing what could be regarded as casual work would not be covered by the protections that apply to Schedule 4. Not only will the contractual obligations of such workers to do work on Sundays be unaffected by the Bill, but they could 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.
The development of the kinds of flexible arrangements whereby individuals could perhaps be regarded by the courts as self-employed was recognised by the Government when they introduced the Wages Act. Under Section 8 of that Act, a worker within the meaning of the Act is defined as being,
"an individual who has entered into or works under … one of the
contracts referred to in subsection (2)".
Those contracts are either a contract of service, a 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 the contract that of a
client or customer or any profession or business undertaking
carried on by that individual".
The Act's provisions apply:
"whether such a contract is express or implied and, if express, whether it is oral or in writing".
When I moved the amendment very late in the day on Report, the Minister did not deny that there might be individuals who may come into the category that I quoted and therefore would not be covered by the protection afforded by the Bill. He believed, however, that the workers in the categories to which I referred were more often found in industries such as construction, where what is known as "labour only" sub-contracting is very common. He did not think that it applied to the retail sector.
But I do not feel that we can be so sure about that. As I said earlier, flexibility has increasingly become the practice across a whole range of industries. There is now such a thing as "zero employment", where the employee is effectively on call and comes in when called upon to do so, keeping himself or herself available in case of need. Moreover, some employers may feel inclined to employ people on the sub-contracting basis which has become prevalent in construction. Clearly it has advantages for the employer, who then escapes all the obligations that labour law can rightly impose upon him when he employs labour in the traditional way.
Therefore, I do not see why the Minister the last time around felt that he could not accept the amendment. The Government are already committed to a similar formula in the Wages Act, an Act which by no means applies solely to the construction industry, or indeed to manufacturing industry generally, but is of more general application.
I hope that this evening I shall meet with a more sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in the brief discussion on this subject that we had on Report, late at night, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, acknowledged that there was one category of shopworker to which the schedule of provisions did not extend: broadly, those who are self-employed rather than those who are employees.
At that time the noble Lord resisted the amendment, partly on the grounds that there are relatively few self-employed retail workers. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, self-employment is increasing and in these days of flexible jobs, when there is the temptation to reintroduce casual working or so-called zero employment, employers may well seek to employ more people on that basis because, as the noble: Baroness said, the statutory rights to which other employees are entitled do not have to be accorded to self-employed people.
Therefore, I suggest that the need for the amendment: has been demonstrated. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will accept it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Government will not deny that there has been a general growth in the: self-employed, part-time, temporary labour force compared with the full-time labour force with employment contracts. The Labour Force Survey in general terms shows that to be the case. We are often told that this country has millions of part-time workers. We are told that the self-employed are the fastest: growing part of the labour force.
That being the case, the precise number of such self-employed, part-time or temporary workers who work in the retail trades is a second order question. They may very well not be as many as in construction but there are some. The evidence that we have indicates that their number is increasing. So there is a significant number of workers who are not protected by this legislation.
We do not want to say that all employers or even most employers will take such an attitude. But it is very easy to reclassify people as self-employed, without employment contracts but with contracts of service, so that one escapes liability not simply for this piece of legislation but for unfair dismissal legislation, equal opportunities legislation and so on. There is therefore an incentive. This amendment would allow the Government in that respect to combat the incentive and give the rights to workers that they were intended to have when the Bill was first tabled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, again we are running round old courses. As the: noble Baroness explained, the amendment is designed to extend the Schedule 4 employment rights to shopworkers who are not employees but are self-employed workers engaged on certain contracts for services. In practice the workers who would be covered are those who are not genuinely in business on their own account. We touched on this matter at Report, albeit briefly. I hope that by repeating some of what I said then

451
and a little more I can offer the appropriate reassurances to the noble Baroness that her amendments are unnecessary.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned to ensure that all individuals who do shop work are covered by the employment provisions in the Bill. As I made clear at Report, the Government share that concern and that is why the definition of "shop worker" in Schedule 4 has been drawn widely.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Rochester, identified two possible categories of people who may not be covered; first, the self-employed on a contract for services and, secondly, casual workers who may be engaged on zero-hours contracts. I shall deal with both in due course.
With regard to casual workers, the noble Baroness cited the development of the flexible labour market and implied that its participants are not normally considered employees and therefore would not be eligible for the protection provided. Those with short-term, casual or zero-hours contracts would all be covered so long as they were engaged under a contract of employment. Those rights will apply from the first day of a shopworker's employment. They are not subject to any qualifying period of service. They do not depend on working a specific number of hours a week and there is no upper limit. Therefore, workers employed on short-term, casual or zero-hours contracts will benefit from the protections in the same way as those employed under contracts of an indefinite duration. The schedule does not distinguish between the two groups in terms of the extra rights that it gives to shopworkers.
It has been argued also that the extension is needed in order to deter employers from making their employees self-employed so that they no longer enjoy the protections in the schedule. It was suggested that there was a real possibility of employers taking that line. I do not believe that the evidence supports such a belief. General unfair dismissal provisions have been with us for well over 20 years. In all that time there is no evidence whatever that employers sought to give their workers self-employed status in order to escape those provisions. Occupational group rather than legislative vicissitudes tends to be the determining factor in whether workers have self-employed or employee status. As I indicated, the overwhelming tendency is for retail workers to have employee status.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, implied that there would be an incentive for employers to, as it were, make their employees self-employed. I must remind the noble Lord—he will be the first to acknowledge this—that the question of employment status is not a matter for unilateral decision either by the employer or by the employee. The noble Lord will be the first to acknowledge and is well aware that it is a question of law and of fact relating to the status of that employee and the degree of control exerted over him. Where an individual's employment status is unclear, it would be for a tribunal to decide the nature of the employment relationship on the basis of the facts in the specific case.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord says that. But if one came before a tribunal it would be very influential if the employer could say, "I offered him a contract for services and that is what he has got. I never offered him a contract of employment".
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will know perfectly well that it is not what the employer says that matters. It is the degree of control exerted over the employee or self-employed person that defines his status. It is not a matter purely for the employer to declare that he is employed under a contract of service. If the facts of the manner in which he is working indicate that he is an employee, an employee he is, and he is not self-employed. That is what the tribunal would have to decide, whatever the employer had said. I think the noble Lord would have to accept that from his knowledge of labour law.
Perhaps I may say a little about the Wages Council Act because the amendment makes cross-references to that Act. It provides the necessary technical device for the amendment. The provisions of the Act serve an entirely different purpose from the Schedule 4 provisions. They are there to ensure that people get paid fairly for work they do. The wide definition is designed to ensure in particular that workers in the construction industry are covered. That industry has unusually high numbers of self-employed workers who often experience difficulties in getting paid their full due. Those workers do not, however, have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. That right has only ever applied to employees. In large part that is because it is difficult to see how workers can be protected against dismissal if they are not employed. It would be wholly inconsistent with the rest of unfair dismissal law to apply this aspect alone to a particular category of the self-employed.
With the assurance I have given her I hope the noble Baroness will accept that her amendment is not only unnecessary but is also inappropriate. I trust, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position. Despite the argument about the status of the employee, I am quite convinced that with the casualisation of the labour market we shall see a growth of the practices that have existed in a number of industries hitherto. People are categorised as self-employed because they have a contract for services as distinct from a contract of service.
If my amendment had not been satisfactory or suitable it might have been possible—at an earlier stage admittedly; not at Third Reading—to have devised a formula which would have given protection to those workers. The Minister said that the formula in the Wages Council Act would not serve this purpose because it was for quite a different purpose and in any event the definition did not cover people in respect of unfair dismissal because they were not categorised as employees. That may well be so, although I still think that there could have been an opportunity at an earlier stage of the Bill to devise a formula which would have given the kind of protection that we are seeking.

453
Nevertheless, as I said earlier, it is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division at this hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 24 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 25.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the dismissal of a shop worker was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show that the reason (or, if there was more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal was not a reason falling within sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. I return to amendments which I moved at an earlier stage at: a time when it was not possible to air the subject adequately. The amendments are concerned with the burden of proof in the event of a dismissal which the employee contends is unfair. In Committee the Minister confirmed my impression that for the employee with less than two years the burden of proof when dismissed allegedly for refusal to work on Sunday rests firmly upon the employee.
For longer-serving employees the Minister seemed to indicate that the burden of proof is reversed—that is to say, it would be for the employer to prove that the dismissal was not connected with a refusal to do Sunday working. It is not entirely clear-cut. For the avoidance of doubt, my amendments cover all employees included in the definition of "shopworker" contained in the Bill.
This is not a small matter. It is difficult for an employee, particularly one who is not represented, to win at an industrial tribunal, anyway. The employer is unlikely to make it easy by declaring that the dismissal is due to a refusal to work on Sunday. As we know, the reasons for dismissal can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. Some imagined misdemeanour can be dredged up; fault can be found when it is not found in employees willing to do Sunday work, and so forth. However, the mere fact that the legislation makes it clear that the employer will have to prove that dismissal was not due to refusal to work on Sunday will be an added protection for shopworkers many of whom are very vulnerable. Many will not have worked for two years and will often not be in unions. This is in an industry where short-term employment is very common. If such employees want to enforce their rights, they will often have to make unrepresented application to an industrial tribunal.
That is a daunting experience. Only about 10 per cent. of all unrepresented applicants succeed. The industrial tribunal system has become one in which it is increasingly necessary for applicants to be represented whether by a union or by a legal representative. Therefore, I do not accept what has been said earlier by the Minister about these amendments. The wording now before the House is a little different from that put forward in Committee. The two amendments now cover
454
unfair selection for redundancy as well as straight dismissal. I believe that the Government are sincere when they say that Sunday working should be entirely voluntary. I believe that they are just not fully aware of the kind of pressures which can be brought to bear on vulnerable employees who need the work and who are afraid of insisting on rights even when these are clearly set out in legislation. The amendments are intended to make it easier for them to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give them a sympathetic ear this evening. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee: the noble Lord, Lord Henley, acknowledged that this was a complicated matter. He did his best to satisfy us that the right not to be dismissed for refusing to work on Sunday was adequately protected in the Bill as it stood. However, he failed to persuade me among others that that was so in all cases, particularly in relation to employees having fewer than two years' service. The misgivings felt on that score have been expressed again tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and I share them. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting this amendment, and that is what I hope the Minister will now agree to do so that there is no longer any room for doubt in the matter at all.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. I remind the House that: the sort of employee of whom we are speaking is likely to be very low paid to begin with. He frequently does not serve the two-year period. Employers not infrequently seize the opportunity to get rid of him whenever and however that opportunity may present itself so that the employee does not reach the two-year period. There is no legal aid for representation at an industrial tribunal so such an employee is thrown back either on defending himself, which is a very daunting experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has said, or having a trade union to represent him. For whatever reason, a very great many employees are not in trade unions and are not likely to be. So the odds are very heavily weighted indeed against the employee. In the light of these arguments, surely it is not too much for the Government once, and as a last chance, to show that they can accept an amendment on this matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in Committee we argued these matters at an earlier hour in the evening, and I gave a fairly thorough response to a similar amendment moved by the noble Baroness when I sought to explain why such an amendment was unnecessary. I highlighted the potentially absurd situation, to which the amendment could give rise, of an employer being required to demonstrate that the reason an employee had been dismissed was not a refusal to do Sunday work, even if the employee concerned had agreed to do such work and had always done it when asked.
I pointed out the danger of getting the issue out of all proportion. All the employee needs to do is to establish a prima facie case. I fancy that obstacle to be far from insurmountable. Thereafter, it is for the employer to establish the reason for dismissal. I would add that the

455
amendment is circular. If a tribunal is considering a case under the terms of the schedule, then it must have already accepted that there are some grounds for thinking that the worker was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays.
I appreciate that noble Lords who have spoken feel deeply on this matter and the points that I made have not necessarily removed their concern. However, I do not feel that it would serve any useful purpose to revisit the arguments I have made. I do not believe that it would be a fruitful use of our time to repeat them.
I should like to say a word or two, however, about industrial tribunals. The noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, implied that the industrial tribunal system does not meet the objectives set out for it and that a great many people had considerable fear of using it. I do not believe that there is any evidence that employees are deterred from using tribunals. There is no evidence that they are deterred from using them by the absence of legal aid. We have seen applications to the tribunals increase by some 67 per cent. in the years 1990–91 to 1992–93. They increased from 43,000 to some 72,000. That indicates that employees themselves think that industrial tribunals work. If they did not, the applications would not have risen by such an amount.
All noble Lords will know that industrial tribunals are informal and speedy compared with other courts. Most users express high levels of satisfaction with the procedures and how they work. A recent survey showed that some 42 per cent. of those who represented themselves or who were represented by a friend or relative were successful. That is a higher proportion of success than those employing any other form of representation. There is little evidence to show that people are deterred from using industrial tribunals. The absence of legal aid is not shown to be a deterrent to individuals making use of the tribunals. I hope that the noble Baroness will again see that her amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not altogether surprised by the Minister's response, and I am not of course convinced by it. I have some experience of appearing before industrial tribunals, representing members of my union. I believe that members, even when represented, find it a daunting experience. I have some research which seems to indicate that the number of cases which go to a tribunal is a relatively small proportion of the whole and that those which are resolved in the employee's favour are a small proportion of that.
Research has established that financial support and legal advice from a union, or some other body, are vital to an individual's chances of success before an industrial tribunal, especially where the employer is represented. Of course, legal aid is not available to applicants in unfair dismissal hearings. So I do not accept what the Minister said about individuals not finding the experience daunting. In my experience they do.
The increase in the number of cases may well be due to the fact that there have been far more dismissals and
456
redundancies during a period when there has been a great deal of unemployment and many problems for individuals resulting from the recession. I cannot expect to call a Division at this hour of the night. I am not satisfied, however, with what the Minister said. I still think our case is a good one. I still think it would provide further protection for vulnerable shopworkers if they knew that the burden of proof was on the employer. It would also be somewhat of a deterrent for employers who might feel inclined to deny to workers the rights set out in Schedule 4. Nevertheless, I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight. I am glad at least to have had the opportunity earlier than midnight—as opposed to the previous occasion —to put the arguments for it on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 17, line 6, at end insert:
("Limitation of Working Hours on a Sunday
.. No shopworker shall be employed for more than eight hours on a Sunday and any provision in any shopworker's contract which requires, or may have the effect of requiring, the shopworker to be employed for more than eight hours on a Sunday is null and void.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I had intended to table this amendment in Committee but somehow it was omitted from the Marshalled List. I did not move it on Report because the hour was late. The House has agreed to the preferred option of six hours working on Sunday, which is supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Group. The intention of the amendment is to limit the number of hours that a shopworker can be compelled to work on a Sunday.
That is reasonable, since in the event of a shop opening for six hours it will be normal to expect the shopworkers, or some of them, to be there before opening time and immediately after closure in order to handle the necessary supplies and to undertake appropriate preparation and clearing up afterwards. It would therefore be appropriate to say that eight hours is the limit that should be worked on a Sunday.
After all, it is agreed by everyone, except perhaps those in favour of total deregulation—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place and therefore cannot comment on the point—that Sunday is a special day. As a result of that feeling, special protection is written into the Bill for those workers who, for whatever reason, do not want to work on a Sunday. But we must still be careful that those who work on a Sunday are not exposed to exploitation.
This is another amendment that has union support. I gather that agreements already exist with a number of employers to the effect that the limitation of work on a Sunday is eight hours. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will see fit to give it support.
The noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Monson, have tabled amendments to provide for exceptions in the case of small shops. As with arguments in respect of Amendment No. 24, they believe that there must be special arrangements to protect small shopkeepers. I would not object to those amendments because if they

457
amended my Amendment No. 28 and were incorporated in the Bill that would be an improvement. However, some limitation must be put on the number of hours that people can be expected to work on a Sunday and it seems to me that eight hours is a reasonable figure. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
Line 3, after ("shopworker") insert ("in a large shop").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to support the principle underlying the amendment moved so capably by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. As she said, the Bill stipulates that trading in large shops should be confined to a period of six hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. However, there is no limit to the number of hours that shopworkers can be required to work. By the time the shop has been prepared beforehand and cleared up afterwards, more than eight hours can easily elapse. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to limit work in large shops on what many of us regard as a special day to no more than the length of a normal working day.
What has troubled me a little about Amendment No. 28 is that problems could arise in the case of small shops which may already be open on Sunday for more than eight hours. If that amendment were passed, such a shop would have to open later or close earlier than the owner might wish unless he were willing to pay another worker for the extra time. That would seem an unfortunate consequence and it has prompted me to table Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. Their intended effect is simply to confine to large shops the proposed limitation of the working day to eight hours, leaving the position in small shops as it is now. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support the amendment. We should remind ourselves yet again that this relates to Sunday working and some of us still believe that Sunday is a special day. Because it is a special day, we need special legislation for it.
In fact there is ever greater reason for the kind of protection proposed. In Committee and on Report, the House decided to widen and increase the range of shops which can open all the hours that God might send on a Sunday. Those shops will not be confined to six hours. There are now groups of shops—garden centres, motor accessory shops and DIY shops—which are permitted to open longer than six hours. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be some protection for the staff working on Sundays. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically the amendment moved by my noble friend and the amendments to that amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Monson.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has just said. The fact is that during the passage of the Bill those of us opposed to what is proposed should become the law said that it was not partial deregulation; it was deregulation. Already we see the limits being nibbled away. I would lay a wager with anyone in your Lordships' House that in five years'
458
time, we shall have total deregulation in fact, whatever it may be de jure. That being so, we need to see the safeguards for workers fully in place before total deregulation in fact, if not in principle, becomes the law of the land.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to try to forestall an argument which the Government may use. It is an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would undoubtedly have used had he not gone home. It is the argument: what is so special about shopworkers? He often asks why we should do anything special for shopworkers. The Government do not believe in regulating hours or employment conditions at all. So why should they make an exception for shopworkers?
The answer is that we have always in the past thought that we should. From the nineteenth century onwards, it has been accepted that shopworkers are in a particularly weak position. Perhaps it was the novels of H.G. Wells. But it was accepted that shopworkers are particularly liable to exploitation and extremely difficult to unionise. Therefore, for a long time we have had a good deal more regulation. It is even provided that women must have seats on which to sit. There are many regulations in the 1950 Act which the Government do not intend to get rid of entirely, as far as I can see.
Therefore, it has been generally accepted until this point that shopworkers are particularly open to exploitation by a minority of employers. Since we have got rid of most of the regulations affecting shopworkers, including the most important—the wages councils—we suggest that a little of that nineteenth century tradition for the exceptional position of shopworkers might be continued in this Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can well understand your Lordships' anxiety, which led to the tabling of the amendment. However, I think that the spectre of a somewhat Dickensian world of an oppressed workforce toiling long hours for scant reward is misleading. I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that the principle of voluntary Sunday work, provided by Schedule 4, ensures that a statutory limit on the number of hours that an employee may work is unnecessary; and, indeed, undesirable.
The provisions in Schedule 4 will ensure that Sunday shop work is entirely voluntary. If people want to work, possibly for more than eight hours—and usually at premium rates—I, for one, do not see any justification for preventing them by statute from doing so. Your Lordships may care to consider, for example, the position of a student who works part-time to help pay his way through college, or a housewife who welcomes the opportunity to work on a Sunday in order to bolster the family income. Those are wholly meritorious objectives. I cannot believe that it is right to limit their ability to earn the money that they need and which they may not be able to earn on any other day by imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of hours that they are allowed to work. Apart from anything else, that could present particular difficulties for small shops many of which are trading perfectly legitimately at present. However, when the law on Sunday trading is reformed, those people will face new obligations.

459
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, would simply add further to the burdens of small shops and, I believe, to no good effect. For example, it would not be unusual for a small shop to open on a Sunday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. That is nine hours' opening time. But, if the amendment were carried, it would mean that such a small shop would need to engage two workers rather than one if cover was required for the full opening period. The cost might well be prohibitive for many small shops. We would therefore see the restrictions on Sunday trading (which your Lordships voted against so decisively before Easter) being introduced via the back door. The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, is designed to meet the latter concern. But, in doing so, it ignores the legitimate needs of large shops and creates unacceptable differences in treatment between the employees of large shops and those of small ones.
It seems to me to be quite unfair that a restriction on working hours should be imposed on some workers but not on others. In my modest view, there is no need for any further protection to be provided in the schedule. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, does not share that view. However, I hope that the rest of the House will do so. I am perplexed at the noble Lord's apparent conviction that only employees in large stores should have their hours limited by statute.
Instead of providing protection for the individual, the amendments would actually inhibit the freedom of individuals and that of employers, both of whom could agree together about what their working patterns should be. Those patterns would meet the interests of both parties concerned. The amendments would also damage the earning potential of those employees for whom Sunday represents the only opportunity to take paid employment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has sought to persuade us that the amendment is necessary in order to ensure that shopworkers should have the opportunity to spend at least some time with their families or friends or to pursue other non-work activities. I agree: Sunday is a special day. I hope that families will be able to spend their time together. However, I do not believe that Parliament should seek to restrict the amount of time which workers can lawfully work on a Sunday on the grounds that those shopworkers alone must have a certain amount of time available to do other things.
The amendment would interfere with the desires and wishes of employers and employees in that way. It is a matter of individual choice and of individual agreement. I do not believe that it is a matter for statutory determination. On reflection, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the Bill is best left in its present position and that it is not right to impose statutory limitations on people's hours of work which they wish to enter into quite freely.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, all I can say is that it seems to be very difficult to get things right in the eyes of the Government. I would like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in support of these
460
amendments. I am not persuaded, as he foresaw, by the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The difference between us is clear-cut, but it is plain that the Government are unwilling to accept what I and others have said on this matter. At this time of night all I can do is to express disappointment and beg leave to withdraw my amendment to Amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I wish briefly to respond to the Minister on Amendment No. 28. He says that we seem to believe that we are still living in a Dickensian era. I have to tell the noble Minister that there are many shopworkers who really do still live in what one might call a sweat shop era, and that is particularly the case since even the protection that existed with the wages councils—as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said—has now been removed. What we are trying to do in this legislation, it seems to me, is to give protection to very vulnerable workers who often are not able to be easily unionised and have no other form of protection except what is provided in the legislation agreed in both Houses of Parliament.
I am not persuaded that the amendment we have tabled to extend those protections is unnecessary. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who pointed out to the House that the consensus which was originally agreed has been gradually nibbled away and we may well find ourselves in a few years' time having total deregulation, and if that is going to be the case the stronger the protection we can obtain for vulnerable workers, the better.
We have the opportunity in this Bill of strengthening the protections that were devised in Schedule 4. However, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, there is no point in pressing this amendment at this hour. We have had the opportunity of putting our fears on the record, perhaps for future reference, and having said that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 18, line 50, at end insert:
("( ) A shopworker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns during his normal working hours on a weekday, or in the case of a shopworker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate which exceeds that earned by a shopworker carrying out similar shop work for the employer during his normal working hours on a weekday. That rate paid shall in no instance be less than one and a half times the hourly rate and a shopworker claiming to have been denied remuneration at the appropriate rate may seek to recover compensation for the amount lost by applying to the Industrial Tribunal for an Award.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I argued that individuals who work on a Sunday when the rest of us are at leisure should have some compensation for so doing. The Bill does not envisage total deregulation although we may be unfortunately moving

461
gradually in that direction. So there is an acceptance at present implicit in the Bill that Sunday is a special day and a number of noble Lords have reiterated that view in the debate this evening. That is why, quite rightly, the Government themselves have written into the Bill some protection for workers who do not want to work on Sunday.
If Sunday were a day like any other there would be no argument for enhanced payment, but it is not. It is right that the minority of people who work so that others may enjoy varied leisure pursuits on Sunday—which will now include shopping—should have compensation for doing so. I was unable to persuade the Chamber in Committee to this effect. It was argued that many small shops could not afford to pay double time which was the demand in my previous amendment.
Several of us on this side of the House, notably my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who I am glad to say is in his place this evening, cited a number of examples indicating that it was generally accepted that Sunday working should rate for double time. Indeed, the consortium of companies supporting the Shopping Hours Reform Council has already entered into agreements with the unions which guarantee double time on Sundays. Those companies believe that they must do that in order to attract staff of a suitable calibre for Sunday working. They do not wish to be undercut by firms which refuse to compensate their staff adequately, relying on the fact of unemployment to get people to work without proper payment.
In the light of some of the comments made in Committee, I have produced another amendment. I must stress that it is my belief that the correct level of enhanced payment for working on a Sunday is double time, but in the light of some of the remarks I have drafted an amendment which lays down time and one half as a minimum. If it were passed I would hope that it would be the floor on which much better agreements could be built.
I have also noted the criticisms that my previous amendment contained no means by which enhanced payments could be enforced. I agree that that is difficult, but I have added a provision that a worker who believes that he or she should have had an enhanced payment and has not received it could apply to an industrial tribunal for an award to be made. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is tempting to say, "I told you so". From the start I have maintained that the only way to make sure that Sunday did not become like any other day and so no longer warrant premium pay was to prevent large shops from opening on any except the four Sundays before Christmas. Your Lordships decided otherwise, and now we are stuck with the consequences.
In Committee I said that I was tempted to vote in favour of shopworkers being paid at least one-and-a-half times the normal weekday rate, if only as a deterrent to more and more employers deciding to trade on Sunday. However, I went on to express doubts as to whether it was right for rates of pay to be prescribed by law at all and as to how, if they were so prescribed, they
462
could be enforced. I also feared that if such a course were followed it might compel small shops to shed labour or close altogether, at the expense of disadvantaged people who depend on them.
In the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has put forward this evening she has endeavoured to meet at least one of those difficulties in suggesting a means by which shopworkers claiming to have been denied remuneration at the appropriate rate might seek to recover compensation for the amount lost by applying to an industrial tribunal for an award. That is a proposal which needs to be judged on its merits.
Aside from that, I remain unhappy about the effect of the amendment on employment in small shops, for in the amendment no distinction is made between large and small shops. There is also the difficulty that if the amendment were passed it would place shopworkers in an altogether exceptional position compared with other people who have no statutory right to enhanced pay for work on Sunday. I do not see how that can be justified.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will not insist on her amendment tonight.
Baroness Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I feel that I must rise to speak in support of my noble friend's proposal in regard to extra pay for Sundays. I am very conscious of the needs of small companies. I come from an industry which is made up predominantly of small companies. I recognise that there is a tendency to overplay the vulnerability of small companies. Until quite recently there were wages councils which provided a base level below which workers could not be paid.
Sunday is a special day. I ask noble Lords to reflect whether they would be prepared to work on Sunday for the same level of pay as they receive during the week. Only approximately 11 per cent. of the workforce work on Sunday. The available statistics show that generally in industry and commerce anyone who works on Sunday is paid extra.
We are talking about a change to the Shops Act. Therefore it is within the responsibilities of this House to consider the whole picture. Having achieved a change whereby shops can open on Sunday, it is not good enough then to say, "Let's nibble away at the minimal rights that workers will have when working on a Sunday". I hope that noble Lords will seriously consider the proposal that is put forward. I do not accept that the provision is too onerous on shops which choose to open to trade on Sunday.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that I am certainly not on overtime at this time of night.
Once again we find ourselves back on the issue of premium pay for shopworkers on a Sunday. We had a long debate on this matter at Committee stage, with a great many interesting speeches. The Committee decided by a pretty large majority to reject the noble Baroness's amendment. The noble Baroness says that she has come forward with a more reasonable, milder, amendment; she has added the provision that the shopworker can go to an industrial tribunal. However, in other respects I do not see the provision as being much

463
different. In the old amendment it was a minimum pay of time and a half; in this amendment it is still a minimum pay of time and a half. If people want to go beyond that, that is a matter for negotiation.
I do not want to rehearse at length the arguments made at Committee stage. But I will briefly reiterate the points that we made on that occasion. We believe that statutory wage fixing distorts the operation of the labour market and destroys jobs. We believe that pay is properly a matter for employers and employees to agree according to local circumstances, or according to negotiations such as those to which the noble Baroness referred, as announced by those shops which are part of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. They are not matters for Parliament. Employers are in the best position to judge what rates of pay they can afford as well as what rate is needed to attract and retain staff of the right calibre in the light of local market circumstances.
We believe that there are no grounds for making an exception to this principle for Sunday retail workers. Although the Sunday Trading Bill will liberalise the law and allow more shops to open than at present, certain Sunday trading is currently perfectly legal. There is no legislation in force which requires Sunday shopworkers working lawfully to be paid at a premium rate. The power of wages councils to determine those special rates was abolished as long ago as 1986.
I believe that the amendment would create undesirable rigidities which are not removed by the token flexibility of a range from time and a half to whatever the employer wishes to pay. For example, the amendment would prevent an employer whose business was on the edge of viability from agreeing with his employees a reduction in Sunday pay rates to less than those paid on weekdays even if this would prevent job losses. It would also prevent him from offering a lower pay rate to Sunday only workers than weekday workers even if the supply of Sunday only workers far exceeded those available to work during the week. Additionally, it would have a damaging effect on employers who decided to pay a premium but were unable to pay as much as time and a half.
For those reasons, I believe that the noble Baroness ought to withdraw her amendment. If she wishes to press the matter to a Division, I would advise noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not surprised by the Minister's response. There is no meeting of minds on this question. I believe strongly that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to intervene to protect the vulnerable; and in some cases it is necessary to do so in the ways that we have sought to do by amendments to Schedule 4 to the Bill.
People who are organised in unions will have agreements to ensure that they have Sunday working premiums. Those who are not—they are often the most vulnerable and employed in smaller shops—will not have such protection and will be open to exploitation. I was under the impression that the Government wanted to ensure that working on a Sunday was going to be
464
entirely voluntary; there was going to be no pressure of any kind. If people are to be pressurised to work either for no premium amounts or for even less than their normal working arrangements, that surely is a degree of exploitation which should not be acceptable to this House.
As for people not being able to reach agreement with their employers to work for lesser amounts, it often seems to me, when we hear talk of small businesses and how small employers may not be able to offer employment, if the only way in which some shopkeepers can make a living is by exploiting their workforce, they ought to question whether they should be in business at all. There is no reason why a minimum standard should not be laid down in legislation.
The Minster says that he hopes I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I would do so if it were earlier in the evening. Unfortunately, it is quite absurd to consider pressing the issue to a vote at this time.
I must say again, as I said when we discussed Schedule 4 at Report stage, that it is very unsatisfactory that amendments concerned with the protection of employees' interests should on both occasions have been discussed late at night when there has been a thin House. That meant that it was quite impossible to test the feelings of noble Lords on such an issue. Having said that, I feel that I have no alternative but, with regret, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
This is a unique Bill and the way in which it has been dealt with in Parliament is unique. "Unique" is a description which is frequently misapplied, but in the case of this Bill I fancy that the description is justified. This is the 30th Bill in the past 44 years to attempt to reform the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950.
The issue of Sunday trading rouses strong passions which transcend the normal party lines in politics. As a result, another place has found it impossible before now to agree on the shape which reform of Sunday trading law should take, although even the other place has managed to agree that reform is necessary. The fact that, with your Lordships' approval, this Bill may be the first to succeed after 44 years of trying is at least a considerable achievement. It is an achievement in part because of the unique way in which the crucial decisions on the shape which reform should take have all been taken by both Houses on a series of free votes.
I add only that as a member of a government who, as all governments do, have business to try to get through, I would not necessarily recommend the process that we have adopted on the Bill as a normal way of dealing with difficult and contentious issues. However, one of the advantages of the system which we have used with this Bill is that we have all found ourselves in such charming and unusual company in the Division Lobbies.
There was a great risk, when the Bill was first introduced in another place, that Parliament as a whole

465
would fail once again to reach a conclusion. There was a risk too that noble Lords and Members of another place would fail to agree on the best option for reform. But noble Lords, with their customary percipience, chose the same option as that chosen by another place. If I may say so, thank heavens for that.
The fact that noble Lords chose partial deregulation means that, although Members of another place may find when they come to consider your Lordships' amendments that they do not agree with everything which your Lordships have done, at least the differences between this House and another place will be on questions of detail rather than on the substance of the Bill.
The hour is late and noble Lords have been remarkably stoic in remaining here so long. It would not meet with the approval of the House if I were to digress into a long speech rehearsing the advantages of the Bill. I do not intend to do so. It would be invidious to single out too many of our debates for special mention now. But I have been impressed, and I would like to thank various noble Lords for what they have done. In particular I was impressed with the indefatigable efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord McCarthy, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. They have enriched our debates. They had strong views and they put them over courteously, generously, consistently and constantly. For that we are all grateful.
I recognise, too, the splendid mix of deep passion and impressive ability to marshal an argument that has been brought to bear by my noble friends Lord Elton and Lady Young. I also recognise the remarkable, inflexible determination of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to put his point of view—which in his view was always the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his turn added considerably to the debates that we had on the various subjects.
Many noble Lords have brought distinctive interests to bear. In particular, I cannot help remembering my noble friend Lord Onslow, who informed us that he sells in his bigger than 809 cubits garden centre, as he put it: white rabbits, pink rabbits, rabbits with floppy ears, fish, parakeets and marmosets, as well as chameleons and tarantulas. That to my mind was a funny sort of garden centre. It seemed to me to be more like a zoo or Noah's Ark. But one lives and learns. According to the amendments which your Lordships have passed, my noble friend's curious garden centre will now be open for more than six hours on a Sunday.
Your Lordships have given this Bill, as is your Lordships' wont, careful thought and scrutiny. The Bill represents a compromise; and that inevitably means that not all of it is to everyone's liking. Indeed, to some noble Lords I fancy that none of it is very likeable. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: there is nothing wrong in compromise; that in itself can be a principle too.
Those noble Lords who remain unhappy about some of the provisions can at least have the satisfaction of knowing that, thanks to your Lordships' meticulous consideration of the provisions, the issues have been thoroughly debated.
466
Despite the passions which this issue arouses—they are great, they are considerable, they are deep, and they are all the better for that—our debates have been lucid and, I think too, of good humour. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords that my frequent litany of, "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that, but of course inevitably in the end it is a matter for your Lordships", has provoked only gentle smiles rather than the type of ribaldry which might have greeted the sight of a Minister of the Crown perched so graciously but determinedly on the fence.
I would also like to thank my noble friends Lord Henley and Lady Trumpington for the help that they have given me during the passage of the Bill. I know in particular that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be especially pleased that an issue that has concerned her for so many years, and one which she. has tried in the past to resolve herself, is finally about to be settled.
All of your Lordships who took part in so many different ways and spoke on so many facets of this Bill and with such a variety of views always did so with consistency and graciousness. For that I think we can all be grateful. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
11 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister is quite right. This is a unique Bill and one which has been extremely difficult to handle on all sides of the House. We have managed to reach a consensus which, although I have my doubts, I hope has brought to an end the debate on the whole issue of Sunday trading.
We on this side of the House operated the free vote system, except when it came to Schedule 4. As noble Lords know, we felt very strongly about the whole matter of protection of employees. Although the Minister on practically every issue concluded his remarks with, "It's a matter for your Lordships", he did not say so on anything connected with Schedule 4. We had to fight very hard to put our point of view across —although I must say that I would like to thank him for the courtesy with which he dealt with our opposition on the issues about which we felt so strongly.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is not in his place at the moment, for the way in which they handled the issues that we raised on this side of the House. I also thank my noble friend—if I may call him that on this occasion—Lord Rochester, who worked very closely with this Bench on the whole matter of employment protection. I know that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, feel very strongly on that matter, as indeed do we. We hope very much that when the Bill is fully in operation as an Act, workers are protected against exploitation and that the protections which have been placed in Schedule 4 operate effectively on their behalf.
It simply remains for me to thank the noble Lords who have supported us and spoken in the debates. I regret very much that the issues about which we felt strongly came up at a very late stage in the evening on both days, particularly on Report, when we were talking about worker protection at midnight. I do not believe

467
that that is terribly appropriate. Even this time round we have had to deal with our amendments very late in the day. I hope that if we have another such Bill on another occasion, we somehow manage the arrangement of our business in a rather more reasonable way. I hold very strongly to the view that we cannot debate issues in any reasonable way after about 10 o'clock at night and certainly not at midnight.
Having said that, I again thank the Minister for his good humour and for the the way in which he dealt in general with the Bill and with noble Lords on this side of the House and for the consideration shown to us.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I speak as an individual and not for my party. I continue to regret that the House chose the option of the so-called compromise which now forms Schedule 1 to the Bill. I believe that at the end of the day its commercial, social and environmental effects will prove to be no different from total deregulation.
I am sorry too that in Committee and on Report so many departures from that compromise were countenanced by your Lordships. It remains to be seen what the other place has to say later about those amendments. I have done what I could to safeguard the rights of employees who are unwilling to work on Sundays.
At this point I should like to support most strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said. It is deplorable that the Government were not able so to arrange their business as to enable amendments to Schedule 4 to be discussed at a more reasonable hour either on Report or tonight at Third Reading. I fear that under the option of so-called partial deregulation, employment protection will be severely limited. I fear too that, as Sunday increasingly becomes just like any other day, the justification for premium pay for work on that day will eventually disappear altogether. However, all that is now water under the bridge.
For the rest, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for the dispassionate and good tempered way in which they steered this controversial Bill through its various stages, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also on the great part that she has played in discussions on the Bill. I can only hope that the ultimate effects of the Bill will prove to be less damaging than those that I have foretold.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is very late. I frequently find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but never more enthusiastically than with what she had to say in relation to the timing of the debate. I hope the Rippon committee will take notice of what happened today and, indeed, every day this week. Nevertheless, I would not wish to let go the opportunity of associating the Cross-Benchers with the gratitude expressed to the noble Earl and his coadjutors.
The noble Earl's first difficulty was to ensure that we entered the right Lobbies on the options. I fully expected at least 10 per cent. to end up in the wrong Lobbies, but in fact such was his care and clarity of direction that I have not heard a single complaint.
468
It would be an impertinence to mention other noble Lords who contributed so richly to the diversity of our debate. I must, however, make one exception, if I may be so allowed. And that is the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. We would not have this Bill at all if we had not had the Shopping Hours Reform Council. We would still be in the mire, slough and turgidity of the 1950 Act and its invitations to lawlessness. Therefore, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, we have had, and both Houses have found it possible to concur in, a genuine compromise.
I was worried that your Lordships' House, with its strong predilection for deregulation, had made a number of exceptions, all of them in favour of greater deregulation and every one of them widened by the words "or mainly". I was worried about that for several reasons. I dislike very much your Lordships' House being so completely, as we now are, in the hands of the other place. But even more, it seems to me, we have acted without sound policy, even when we had the power and the right, in derogating from the compromise.
It seems to me that we have been less than fair to the Keep Sunday Special interests. They made a sacrifice in our direction and it seemed to me incumbent that we should not let them down. They will not necessarily be let down, because in the other place, where the Keep Sunday Special interests are strongly represented, the vote against that option was quite a narrow one and it may intervene in their interests.
Having said that, I come back to where I began; namely, our great indebtedness to the noble Earl. Having managed to shepherd us into the right Lobbies on the options, he very fairly summarised at every stage the considerations that apply, sometimes adding that, "Although it is your Lordships' decision, I hope you come to the right one." So too with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington; those of us on the Cross-Benches are deeply grateful to her.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I echo what my noble friend the Minister said in his closing remarks that on balance our very long debates, which have resulted for some in satisfaction, and for others in not so much satisfaction, have been conducted with good humour. That is endemic in the behaviour of your Lordships in most cases.
I want particularly to thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, he put the different sides of the argument and then invited your Lordships to make the decision. We have reflected the changing patterns of trade and industry and we have reflected that which was best in the old Act. I can only hope that the other place finds that our deliberations and our decisions meet with its approval and that we can go forward over the next years with a law which can be accepted by all those who trade without the arguments that have gone on in the past 10 or 15 years. I thank my noble friend for his help in conducting us through a difficult Bill.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, at this late hour there are many things that one should like to say, but one refrains from doing so. Certainly, words of gratitude and thanks should be expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the work of the Retailers for Shops Act Reform, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the work of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, and to my noble friend the Minister for his work and that of his advisers. If I may, I shall cut short those words of thanks and praise and turn to the amendment that I have some responsibility for—the amendment concerning garden centres and DIY stores.
The Motion before your Lordships' House is that the Bill do now pass. It will be passing back again to another place and the other place will be considering the amendments that we have now placed in the Bill. As reports reach me, the amendment with which I was concerned will receive particular attention in another place. I should like to say that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Norrie, who tabled and spoke in favour of the amendment concerning the exempt status in the Bill of garden centres and DIY stores, made plain throughout our proceedings that we were only seeking exemption, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, for genuine garden centres and DIY stores. It was never our purpose, in persuading your Lordships to accept the exemption which is now paragraph 3(1) (c) of Schedule 1, for other retailers to masquerade as garden centres or DIY stores. In that context, I have to express considerable reservations about the tarantulas and other products sold from the garden centre of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and whether he would be able to persuade any court that that was a genuine garden centre of the kind our amendment was directed towards.
I should like to put before your Lordships very clearly the intent behind our amendment. I and my fellow peers who introduced the measure concerning garden centres and DIY stores had a clear intent and I should like to set out what we believe, following that intent, should be the correct approach of the court in construing it. The court will of course come to its decision as a matter of fact and law, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rightly suggested at Report and again in our debate at Third Reading. It would take into account the proportion of goods sold in each category, the value and quantity of each set of goods, the shop's turnover and established trade pattern, its stock records and other pertinent evidence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the greatest of respect and with deep interest in what the noble Lord is saying, he is repeating his arguments of an earlier stage. I wonder whether we can just rely on Hansard and revert to the Question of the Bill do now pass.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am not intending to lengthen the debate. It is a matter of considerable importance that when this amendment is considered in another place it clearly knows what our intent is. Therefore, I have to say that our intent has been plain and we wish the exemption to be considered on a proper basis of fact and law. If it is, then the noble Lord, Lord
470
Elton, who has just interrupted me, will find that the sale of a few frocks at garden centres, DIY stores or at motor and cycle retailers, will not be deemed to be breaking the law, but when the frock retailing goes up to 49 per cent., which was the figure which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted to your Lordships, the justices may think that they are dealing with a hosiery business and not plants or flowers for the garden or planks of wood for home-made shelves.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend the Minister for his usual humorous and courteous impartiality throughout our long debate. It certainly gives me great pleasure to think that this battle:, which has been going on for 10 years and where he and I have certainly been in dispute on a number of occasions, is drawing to a close. I am also grateful to him for his written answers to questions received during our debates on the Bill. In contrast to my noble friend Lord Hacking, I very much hope that some of the anomalies which have been introduced into this Bill by your Lordships will be reconsidered in another place and that it will be tidied up and made more uniform and less prone to argument in the future. I am very grateful that we are now drawing to a conclusion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not repeat the expressions of gratitude and admiration which I share for all who have taken part or address a series of amendments which we have spent a great deal of time on already. Will your Lordships permit me three minutes? I have not yet spent one of them. Therefore, will your Lordships permit me four minutes on the clock to say something about the passing of this Bill? The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave it five years before regulation de facto became extinct. I agree with her. Those who have failed to extend the protection of shopworkers, therefore, may comfort themselves with the thought that those provisions will all be obsolete then because there will be nothing special about Sunday. As the right reverend Prelate said in a moving speech at the beginning of the Committee stage, individuals cannot make Sunday special any more than they can make green belts or national parks special. That takes statute. By then the statute will be dead.
The statute which we have replaced was muddled, not merely in its detail but in its motive. It was muddled originally in its detail and much fun has been had with that. The motivation became more muddled as the years went by because the statute was itself the legislative consequence of the social expression of the religious perceptions of our fathers and grandfathers and even the father and grandfather of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Those perceptions will also change. We were a people who recognised, at least with a collective nod, the place of the Christian religion and particularly Anglican and nonconformative Christianity in regulating our collective behaviour. We are now a people who recognise with a rather deeper obeisance the right of commercial interests—usually described as "market forces" —to dictate our behaviour in all respects. So be it. I realise that there are people on both sides with deep religious convictions. As the right reverend Prelate put it, there are no devils or angels here.

471
As I reminded your Lordships before, it is not 44 years since the debate began. The first Sunday regulation was by King Athelstan 100 years before the Norman Conquest, and the thousand-year story is now nearly, but not quite, over. Give it, as the noble Baroness said, five years. Then Sunday will be a maxi-shopping day; 3,000 small shopkeepers will, I fear, have closed; countless council workers, not protected by the measures put into the Bill, will find themselves at work; and families will be separated for another day of the week. Worship will not stop. Sunday will be special for those who want it to be special. So this is not a watershed, nor, for the next five years, is it the end of the story.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for finishing my remarks on this long Bill on a slightly more optimistic and enthusiastic note than that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. First, my enthusiastic thanks, like those of other noble Lords, to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and, of course, to my noble friend Lady Turner on the Opposition Front Bench, especially for the very hard work that she has done on Schedule 4. I agree with her about the inappropriate hours at which we have discussed those important measures.
My enthusiasm for the passing of the Bill has to do, of course, with the way in which it was begun, and with the enormous interest of women consumers in particular. The voice of women in this procedure has been welcome. I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Dean, who is in her place, for her support in greatly advancing the view that this is a measure which is of particular interest to women who work and women who consume.
I am, of course, disappointed that the Schedule 4 amendments were not carried, but I should like to re-emphasise what was said by my noble friend Lady Turner, that many of those measures have already been incorporated in voluntary agreements between the
472
SHRC and the USDAW union. The union has professed itself satisfied with the provisions as they now stand, although of course we should have liked to have seen them tightened in certain ways.
On a final less pessimistic note than that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I believe that when those noble Lords who speak about this being deregulation in disguise look at the way in which Sunday will still be different from other shopping days, they should think of the fact that it is now part of the normal trading hours that many of the stores will now be limited to six hours on Sunday. On a six-day week they would be trading for 12 hours, so there are restrictions. There are the benefits that we have discussed at length for small shops in having their market advantage retained and the provision they give to shoppers particularly emphasised before 10 o'clock in the morning. I shall not follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and discuss the differences that exist over some of the details of the amendments which your Lordships have accepted.
In conclusion, I say merely that partial deregulation was at the core of the Bill when it came here from the other place; I think that it remains at the core of the Bill. I believe that partial deregulation reflects the interests of the great number of consumers who have shown that they want to be able to shop on Sundays. It meets the concerns of employees whom we have tried to protect to the extent that we have, and it is a partial compromise for those traders whose opening hours are limited and those small shops which can stay open for 24 hours a day.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank your Lordships not just for the part that your Lordships have played during the passage of the Bill, but for what your Lordships have said this evening.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCEDURES: CONSULTATION PAPER
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCEDURES: CONSULTATION PAPER
  FINES: INCOME
  FINES: INCOME
  CROSSRAIL BILL: PROCEDURE
  CROSSRAIL BILL: PROCEDURE
  THE NUCLEAR REVIEW
  THE NUCLEAR REVIEW
  MISSILES: PROCUREMENT OPTION
  MISSILES: PROCUREMENT OPTION
  US MISSILE TRACKING: DATA DISTRIBUTION
  US MISSILE TRACKING: DATA DISTRIBUTION
  MILSTAR SPACE SYSTEM
  MILSTAR SPACE SYSTEM
  MISSILE EARLY WARNING: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
  MISSILE EARLY WARNING: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
  ARMED FORCES: DISMISSAL COMPENSATION ENTITLEMENT
  ARMED FORCES: DISMISSAL COMPENSATION ENTITLEMENT
  GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS: DESIGN GUIDELINES
  GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS: DESIGN GUIDELINES
  BLETCHLEY PARK WARTIME HEADQUARTERS
  BLETCHLEY PARK WARTIME HEADQUARTERS
  IVORY: TRADE BAN
  IVORY: TRADE BAN
  WATER CHARGES
  WATER CHARGES
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  SECURITIES FACILITIES AGENCY: TARGETS
  SECURITIES FACILITIES AGENCY: TARGETS