Sitting of 18 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]
9.33 am
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You probably saw the news late last night on the report by the National Audit Office, which shows that some clearly fraudulent and other meritless visa applications for people to enter Britain were approved on the instructions of the Home Office against the advice of officials. Have you received any indication that the Home Secretary will come here today to make a statement on that very serious matter? Perhaps more relevantly, have you heard whether the Home Secretary is about to make a personal statement, because many of us think that it is a resigning matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that the Home Secretary or any other Minister has made a request to come before the House, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that we now have a procedure known as urgent questions, by which an application can be made to Mr. Speaker for a matter to be considered on a particular day. Will you confirm that were this matter to be submitted to Mr. Speaker on Monday, it could still legitimately be regarded as urgent because the Minister in question did not ask to come to the House today?
We often find ourselves in this odd position. Although there is no reason, as far as I know, why the urgent question procedure should not be used on a Friday—I wish it were used more often because this is, of course, a normal sitting day—surely it would still be appropriate for Mr. Speaker at least to consider an application for an urgent question even if a weekend intervenes and the matter was considered urgent today.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker to consider when he receives—if he should—the application.

Orders of the Day
  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
    New Clause 1

      CULTURAL AND NON-CHRISTIAN EXEMPTION
      '(1) Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees in that shop and lodges notice of such fact with the local authority no later than 1st November in any year, the large shop shall be exempt from the provisions of this act for the Christmas Day following.

      (2) A notice made under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall identify—

      (a) the shop premises concerned,

      (b) the owner of the shop, and

      (c) the identity of all the employees.'—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.36 am
      Mr. Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection(1) does not apply to any shop where there is a local public demand for it to be open on Christmas Day.
      (2B) A local public demand under subsection (2A) shall be deemed to exist for the Christmas Day following where by 1st November in any year the local authority has received a petition signed by no fewer than 1,000 persons

      (a) who reside within the local authority area in which the large shop is situated, and

      (b) whose names appear on the electoral register.'.

      Mr. Knight: I start from the position of thinking that the Bill is not necessary. I have arrived at that position without encouragement, coercion or inducement from any trade union. However, if others take a different view and think that we should legislate, it is right and proper that we try to accommodate all shades of opinion from all members of our society.
      The new clause recognises that not every resident of England and Wales is a Christian. Indeed, many members of this country do not practise the Christian religion and, indeed, may support another religion for which Christmas day has no religious significance.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I hope it may help my right hon. Friend, even at this early stage in his analysis, if I remind him of what I told the House on Second Reading, because it relates exactly to his point. I said—I quote myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is always a pleasurable thing to do:
      "Among people of working age—the 16 to 74 age group—the Christian element is 72 per cent., but the number of people with no religion, or no stated religion, was 22 per cent. The figure for the other defined religions was 4.1 per cent.—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1169.]

      975
      "Other defined religions" includes Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, others and Buddhists. Does that not set the context for what my right hon. Friend is going to argue? It reinforces his point that we simply must not assume that everyone of working age—this is the key point, as is made clear in the census, from which I quoted—is necessarily of the Christian religion.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the argument goes wider than that. I come from a relatively small family and have one brother. We received a similar education and obviously come from the same cultural background, yet his attitude to Sundays and Christmas day is totally different from mine. For me, Christmas is the time to stay at home with friends. My brother takes the opposite view. He likes to travel the world and to go shopping. He now lives in Hong Kong, where he can go to the shops on Christmas day. He often visits America, where it is possible to shop in New York on Christmas day. So two brothers from the same cultural upbringing have a totally different view of Christmas. I would argue that many Christians—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will start to address his new clause.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was seeking to explain that it is not just non-Christians who would favour new clause 1. Many people from a Christian background do not believe that Christmas day is a day on which one should stay at home and not be able to visit a shop.
      New clause 1 would exempt from the Bill large shops owned and run by non-Christians with non-Christian employees. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the city of Leicester, but I suspect that in view of the forthcoming by-election in Leicester, South many will become far more familiar with it in the coming weeks. I used to live in the city, which has changed dramatically, not always for the better as for many years it had the misfortune of having a Labour-controlled, anti-motorist city council. However, multiculturalism has made Leicester a better city, as members of the Asian community have brought a quality of life that was not present before.
      If hon. Members visit Melton road or Belgrave road in Leicester they would find a number of Asian shops that provide a valuable service, not just to members of the Asian community but to everyone. They include a number of large shops—we are not just talking about small corner shops—that are owned and run by members of the Asian community and trade seven days a week. Why do some Labour Members want to force such shops to close on Christmas day, when the owners and employees are not Christian? What is the argument for forcing the non-Christian owner of a large shop to close his store on Christmas day? People who seek to change the law in that way ought to be prepared to consider reasonable exemptions where there is a good case for them.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain how verification would be achieved. Would
      976
      people simply declare their religion or would there be an attempt at verification? Is he worried that his new clause contains the seeds of falsification or misrepresentation?
      Mr. Knight: When one is framing legislation one must always be aware of the fact that some people will seek to cheat or get round legal restrictions. However, new clause 1(2) enables the local authority to carry out random checks to see whether what is purported to be the case is indeed so. I would rather leave that to the local authority, as the owner of a large shop who wants to trade on Christmas day has to submit a notice to it identifying the shop premises, the owner of the shop and the identity of all employees, which should provide it with sufficient evidence when carrying out random checks to see whether information relating to a shop run and staffed by non-Christians is genuine. My right hon. Friend's fears are therefore groundless.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unlikely that such an application would be made without the employees being aware of it? If the notice stated that they were non-Christian but they were in fact Christian, that would soon be drawn to the attention of the local authority.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is quite right. The employees would appreciate the fact that the owner has to list the people in his employ. If he sought to go behind their backs, they, or any member of their family, could draw the error to the attention of the local authority.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, unfortunately, new clause 1(2) provides opportunities that unscrupulous employers of whatever faith have pursued throughout the ages? His proposal is quite unnecessary. We ought to get on and discuss the substance of the Bill, and see it safely through the House.
      Mr. Knight: I do not agree. The new clause is necessary, and I do not share the hon. Gentleman's depressing view of employers. If the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), thinks that more checks and greater protection against fraud are needed, I am sure that that could be discussed after our debate and perhaps corrected in the other place, if the Bill proceeds that far. I do not accept, however, that any further amendment is necessary.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his proposal would impose great burdens on shop owners? How would they verify what someone's religion is or is not?
      Mr. Knight: That is quite simple. If a shop owner decides towards the end of the summer that he would like to trade on Christmas day, he can call a staff meeting to say that he is thinking of submitting a notice seeking permission to trade, but can only do so if none of his employees is a practising Christian. It would therefore not be difficult for him to seek their views and take soundings.
      Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend

      977
      (Mr. Griffiths) ignore the fact that the great lacuna in the Bill is the complete lack of protection for employees? If protection in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 had been reproduced in the Bill, my right hon. Friend's new clause would not be necessary at all. He is trying to do something that I failed to do in an amendment that was not selected—he wants to go further than Labour Members and, indeed, the trade union sponsoring the Bill and provide greater protection for a minority of employees.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The question of protection for employees is separate from the argument about whether a shop should be allowed to open. If Labour Members are concerned that a small number of unscrupulous employers would use the new clause to force employees to work so that they can open their shop on Christmas day, they should address that in other ways, as protection for workers is an entirely separate issue. One or two hon. Members have argued that employers would be crafty and deny promotion to someone who has said that they do not want to work on Sundays or Christmas day, but there are ways of dealing with that problem. We could make employers hold a promotion register, in which they would have to say whether, from day one of someone's employment, they are likely to be promoted. If someone is getting 10 out of 10 in the book but is not winning promotion, we could prove that there was discrimination.
      Helen Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is going down a road where prying into someone's religion becomes the norm? Surely, no employer has the right to question his employees about whether they have any religious belief. If they kept the promotion register that he suggested, that would make the Bill even more intrusive, as someone's religion would be linked to their employment prospects.
      Mr. Knight: If we were dealing with a matter that had nothing whatever to do with religion, the hon. Lady's point might be valid, but we are talking about Christmas day. If we were discussing a Diwali celebrations Bill seeking to impose some restrictions in that regard, religion would be an issue. The fact that we are talking about Christmas day, one of the most sacred days in the calendar for Christians, means that religion is relevant. Labour Members cannot brush religion aside when we are speaking about Christmas day. To some people Christmas day means nothing, and why should it if they are not Christian? The new clause says that a shop that is owned and staffed by people who are not Christian and to whom Christmas day does not mean anything should not be forced to close.
      Most of us who have been to our inner cities where there is a large Asian community have nothing but admiration for the number of Asian businessmen who have started with nothing and built up very successful businesses. Why should the state say to someone who owns a large shop and who is an Asian, "You can't open because most people in this country are Christians and
      978
      we are telling you you've got to close on Christmas day"? That is unfair. The sole purpose of new clause 1 is to prevent that.
      Ms Ann Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the notion of national holidays? I am not a Christian, but I see Christmas day as a national holiday. Does he accept that if a day is seen as a national holiday, everybody who works should have the benefit of it? As he is aware, Easter day is exempt. Does he propose to take the same view of Easter day as he does of Christmas day?
      Mr. Knight: I would be brought to heel by the Chair if I exceeded the scope of the Bill. We are talking about Christmas day, not Easter. No, I do not accept that everybody should automatically have a right to a day off on a national holiday. That has never happened. Many people work on national holidays: news readers, paper shops and people in the media. There will always be exemptions. I ask Labour Members, what is wrong with that? Those who are seeking to bring about the change need to show why it should impinge on every culture in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is apparent from the interventions that he has taken, that there is a Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers agenda to give shop workers more days off, and it is being proposed on the basis that it is justified on Christian—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that we are no longer on Second Reading. Perhaps Members will address their comments to the new clause and the amendment under discussion.
      Mr. Knight: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is not right in his assumption. I trust that anyone who speaks in the debate and who has an interest to declare and who may be sponsored by a union will declare it.
      Amendment No. 11 recognises the fact that there may be a view in a local community that runs contrary to the views expressed from the Labour Benches. If that is the case, surely that view should be reflected in a provision for a local community to opt out. The amendment states that the Bill will not apply
      "where there is a local public demand"
      for a large shop to open on Christmas day, and a local public demand
      "shall be deemed to exist for the Christmas Day following where by 1st November in any year the local authority has received a petition signed by no fewer than 1,000 persons

      (a) who reside within the local authority area in which the large shop is situated".

      In case Labour Members ask, "What about fraud?" in this case, paragraph (b) of amendment No. 11 provides that those who sign the petition must be persons
      "whose names appear on the electoral register"
      so I hope that will allay any fears that amendment No. 11 could be open to abuse.
      Both new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are reasonable and fair. They are designed to exempt from the Bill those shops where the view of the owner is that

      979
      the shop should be exempt, but that is limited to the grounds specified in the new clause and the amendment. It would not be a case of an owner deciding of his own volition that he wanted to trade on Christmas day. If new clause 1 were accepted by the House, he would need to show that his employees are not members of the Christian faith.
      I am thinking primarily of the large Asian supermarkets, of which we have very many in the United Kingdom. Most of them, in my experience, provide an excellent service. The owners do not regard themselves as bound by our traditional holidays. They do not, by and large, support the Christian religion. so why should they be covered by the Bill?
      I should be interested to know why the promoter of the Bill feels that none of the provisions that he tells us are necessary should apply to Scotland, where I understand there are no rules to prevent a shop, Asian or otherwise, from opening on Christmas day. I hope that on sober reflection hon. Members will consider it appropriate to add new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 to the Bill.
      Mr. Russell Brown: I have some information for the right hon. Gentleman. A similar Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament to cover Scotland.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful for that information. I hope people are as tolerant in Scotland as I am seeking to make the Bill.
      On amendment No. 11, if a large shop were surrounded by a God-fearing devout Christian society, it would be right and proper that it did not open on Christmas day, but if the shop were providing a valuable service in an area of mainly secular agnostic people who wanted it to open, and if the owner wanted to open and could get 1,000 people from that area to sign a petition, why should he not be allowed to do so?
      Mr. Forth: Would my right hon. Friend comment on what might happen if there were a counter-petition by a similar or greater number of people of a different faith? We could get into competitive petitions, and I would be intrigued to know what might happen then.
      Mr. Knight: If people were alarmed that a shop had received the requisite number of signatures on a petition, I would say to them, "Don't go shopping". Shops exist to cater for those who wish to use them. If more than 1,000 in a locality want to use a shop on Christmas day or feel that it provides a useful service on Christmas day and they have signed the petition, the shop should be allowed to open. If other people, perhaps fewer or more, do not give a hoot whether the shop is open, they are free to stay at home.
      Helen Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's argument fall down? The figure in his amendment bears no relation to population density, so the situation could arise where 1,000 people want a shop to open, but the
      980
      vast majority of people living in that local authority area do not. Are their wishes to be overridden by the 1,000 people?
      Mr. Knight: Yes, and rightly so. I make no apology for that. Shops exist to serve those who wish to use them. I am one of a minority of people in this country, I think, who have no interest whatever in football. I have not watched any of the games that are being played at present, but I would staunchly defend the right of others to do so. If I see a sign outside a public house saying, "Large-screen TV—come and watch Euro-football here", I avoid it, but I would not for a moment seek to stop those premises showing that football match to those who want to watch it. Similarly, if a shop can show that 1,000 people in the locality want the right to use its services on Christmas, day, it should be allowed to open.
      10 am
      I wonder how many customers need to cross the threshold of a large shop to make it viable on a normal trading day—far less than 1,000, I assume. The answer is probably 100 or 150 people, assuming that they make a moderate number of purchases, so if a shop can show that 1,000 people wish it to be open and provide a service on Christmas day, it should be allowed to do so. If other people do not mind one way or the other, or would prefer the shop not to open, why should they prevent others who wish to use its services from doing so?
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am intrigued about the administration, red tape and bureaucracy that would be needed to administer or police the proposals. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was against more red tape and bureaucracy. Can he imagine handing such a job to a local authority? It would need to appoint an officer; that is the starter for five. He or she would probably need a supervisor, and it would not be long before a whole department was needed. Will he share with the House his proposals to deal with that red tape and bureaucracy?
      Mr. Knight: I know how Labour Members love red tape and bureaucracy, so if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be the effect, I would have thought that he would welcome these proposals—but I do not think that either proposal would take much policing. It is for each local authority to determine the surveillance that would need to be carried out. We have all heard of random checks, which are all that a local authority would need to do. Let us suppose that an authority received two petitions, each signed by 1,000 people. All that it would have to do is carry out random checks on the names on the petition to see whether they matched the electoral register. If they did not, the local authority could inform the shop owner that his petition was defective, and he was not exempt from the Act.
      Similarly, if the local authority received an application from an Asian superstore, but on closer examination it turned out not to be an Asian superstore—perhaps the manager was an Asian person, but it was a normal local shop, not run by non-Christians—the local authority could determine that the provisions of new clause 1 were not met. A great

      981
      bureaucracy would not be needed to administer the proposals. That may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but both new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are reasonable. They would restrict the scope of the Bill, so that it would not affect communities for whom Christmas day is not a special event. I should have thought that Labour Members would therefore welcome the new clause and the amendment.
      Ms Coffey: If 1,000 names were on a petition to keep a shop open, but the shop staff consisted of devout Christians, what resolution would the right hon. Gentleman propose?
      Mr. Knight: I cannot think of many shops that would have 1,000 employees. That would be a very large shop indeed. Perhaps the hon. Lady can give an example of a shop with 1,000 employees.
      Ms Coffey: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. He is talking about making an exemption where a local petition has 1,000 names, and I am asking how he would resolve a situation when a 1,000-name petition is received to keep a shop open, yet most of its employees are devout Christians who want that day off. How would he balance those interests?
      Mr. Knight: We are returning to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made about worker protection if an employee does not wish to work on Christmas day. That is a totally separate argument in relation to whether the shop should be allowed to open. I would not tackle that by telling the shop owner that he cannot trade on Christmas day. That is the wrong way to deal with the situation.
      Hon. Members may feel that these proposals might be unfair to members of a community who do not want a shop to open, but they should sit in the public gallery of a magistrates court dealing with licensing issues. Very often, when licensing justices are asked to renew a justices licence for a public house, petitions will be submitted to object to renewing that licence, perhaps because entertainment is put on there and noise is created. However, the very fact that someone in the community raises an objection does not automatically prevent that business from trading Of course, if there is a demand for a large shop to open, people will say that they would rather it remained closed—particularly,
      perhaps, those who live next door—but, in a free society, if there is a demand for a shop to open and the owner wants to open, he should be allowed to do so.
      Those hon. Members who were in the House when we first decided to tackle Sunday trading will be well aware of what we were told would happen if we opened up Sundays to allow trading. We were told that Sunday would be totally different. We would never again be able to enjoy Sunday as we knew it. Many of us received petitions signed by hundreds of people from the Churches. The Churches particularly—now it is the unions—told us that we should not tamper with the Shops Act 1950 and allow trading on Sunday, as it would destroy families: people would be forced to work, and Sunday would never be the same again. That has not happened. If we were now to seek to turn back the
      982
      clock and reintroduce the Shops Act 1950, I would bet Labour Members that they would receive petitions by the hundred saying "Leave our Sunday alone" and "Hands off Sunday." The amendment to the Sunday trading law has generally worked well–it has satisfied public demand–and that is all I seek to do with the new clause and the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: Did my right hon. Friend think it odd then, and does he still think it odd now, that in the United States, where Sunday trading is widely practised, church attendance has always been multiples of what it is in this country? More than 40 per cent. of Americans go to church on Sundays, despite shopping before and after, whereas regular church attendance is less than 10 per cent. in this country.
      Mr. Knight: I hesitate to go too far down that path, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my right hon. Friend has a point, in that these days many people do more than one thing on Sundays. It is apparent from the American experience that some people go to church and then to the shops, or to the shops and then to church. They do not regard the two as incompatible. Only the trade union involved in this case feels that we should prevent people from shopping in large shops on Christmas day. I do not know why the union takes that view. If it wants to address workers' rights, it should do so totally differently. If there is a demand for large shops to open on Christmas day they should be allowed to do so, according to my proposals.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that USDAW and other trade unions support the Bill, but it has also received strong support from others. I have letters from local Church groups, and both the established Church and the Catholic Church back the Bill as well.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, the same range of people told us that we should not get rid of the Shops Act 1950. Those of us who were in government at that time—it was before the 1987 election—went against the advice of all those people. We were told that we would lose support as a party. I have no evidence that people changed their voting patterns because we sought to address the problems of the Shops Act.
      Ms Coffey: For the record, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that USDAW supported the changes to Sunday trading.
      Mr. Knight: Churches have been mentioned. The Catholic Church and others did not support the changes. I did not know that the union supported the changes and I am delighted to hear that, but the Churches opposed them.
      Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Churches' attitude might have been slightly different if they had realised that the USDAW spokesman had said:
      "This has nothing to do with religion other than our belief that workers deserve the day off"?
      Mr. Knight: I shall not interfere between USDAW and the Churches. I hope that hon. Members, whatever

      983
      their party and whether or not they are members of a trade union, will consider the matter fairly, calmly and on its merits. There is an overwhelming case for providing that when a shop owner and the employees are not Christian, they should be exempt from the Bill. New clause 1 tries to achieve that, and I hope that hon. Members will view that as a reasonable position. The House should approve it.
      Mr. Brian Jenkins: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with growing concern. He implies that a non-Christian shop owner—I can think of a rather large store in London that has a non-Christian owner—should ensure that all his staff are non-Christian, and could thus seek an advantage over a competitor. Is not there an incentive in the new clause for the employer to ensure that all his staff are non-Christian? Imagine the discord that that would cause in stores throughout the country. In a multicultural country, where we are trying to engage with each other, I can envisage no more divisive path than creating shops that are almost ghettoes, with non-Christians in one and Christians in another.
      Mr. Knight: The idea that a shop owner will start sacking people and employing non-Christians merely to gain benefit from one trading day a year is incredible. I do not believe that that will happen, especially when some shops might not want to open on Christmas day. However, if they want to open on Christmas day, they should have the right to do that, and be exempt from the legislation.
      I believe that hon. Members who feel that the measure is necessary will be prepared to accommodate the views of large shop owners who take a different view and whose staff may take a different view. I therefore hope that new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 will commend themselves to the House.
      Malcolm Bruce: I shall not detain the House long. I make it clear that, as a Scottish Member, I shall not vote on the Bill, but I have a genuinely held view on its substance. My personal position is that I support the Conservative arguments for extending Sunday trading rules to Christmas, rather than the Bill. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is one of the measure's sponsors. I respect his views, but we do not share the same opinion on the matter.
      However, I am worried about the seriousness of the new clause. Most of the interventions have shown that it is not practical, as drafted. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has two objectives. The first is to extend the debate and the second is to defend not the new clause but the more substantive argument that people should have the freedom to choose what they do on Christmas day rather than having it restricted. I am sure that he acknowledges privately, if not publicly, that trying to isolate a store as non-Christian, requiring a register for a licence and identification of every employee is not a serious practical legislative proposition that any of us would regard as workable. [Interruption.] I do not want to be accused of
      984
      delaying the Bill's passage, but Labour Members who supported the Bill intervened often. I am surprised at that, in the context of parliamentary procedure.
      I understand what prompted the Bill. First, there is a fear that Christmas day is somehow being lost as a special day. However, the same argument applied to Sunday trading, and I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about that. Secondly, there is a worry that pressure will be exerted on individuals to give up their Christmas days. If people do not wish to work on Christmas day for specifically religious reasons, they should be given a legal right not to do that, as applies on Sundays.
      10.15 am
      I believe that the Bill will generate some negative reactions, because it is trying to reverse a process that is already happening. People choose to shop on Christmas day, and some shops are open. Although many people do not want to work on Christmas day—I am one of them; I want to be at home with my family—I know of people who loathe and detest Christmas day. They want to be out and about with other people, and would prefer to work. The Bill would deny them that right. The extent of the freedom of choice is at the heart of the question of whether we need the Bill.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: The law as it stands restricts the activities of largest shops if Christmas day falls on a Sunday. If it falls on another day, they can open. The Bill is simply trying to close a loophole. Many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading believed that the Bill would achieve that. There is not a free-for-all on Christmas day.
      Malcolm Bruce: I bring the benefit of being a Scottish Member to the debate: the law on Sunday trading and Christmas trading is different in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows that we did not have restrictive laws in Scotland, basically because people believed that the power of Calvinism would simply prevent such things from happening. As society has changed, the lack of a law has opened up opportunities. Shops are not as restricted in Scotland as they are in England. As someone who sometimes spends a Sunday in London but more often spends it in Scotland, I can say that the difference is marked. People in Scotland who like the current position would not like it if a Bill in the Scottish Parliament extended Sunday trading laws to Scotland on Christmas day.
      Mr. Forth: I intervene as a non-Calvinist who was born and raised in Scotland, and who therefore appreciates the hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall all watch with interest the Liberal Democrats' actions in the Scottish Parliament when such a Bill comes before them.
      However, we have to acknowledge the profound cultural difference between Scotland and England. When I was raised in Scotland, Christmas day was barely a public holiday, and that continues to inform many people's attitudes. However, the hon. Gentleman

      985
      must recognise that the attitude in England is culturally different. Drawing comparisons between England and Scotland on the subject is not helpful.
      Malcolm Bruce: I made it clear at the outset that, as a Scottish Member, I would not vote on the Bill unless amendment No. 12 to extend the measure to Scotland were accepted. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to decide. The Liberal Democrats regard the matter as an entirely personal issue—a matter of religion and conscience—and there will be a free vote on it. Although I am the trade and industry spokesman for my party, I am expressing my personal opinion, which is not a party view.
      I accept the chastisement of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I do not wish to impose any views or judgments on England. However, I believe that I am qualified to know the difference between England and Scotland, given that I was brought up in England, represent a Scottish constituency and married a wife from London. I therefore believe that I know both communities well.
      The serious point that I am making is that the climate has changed, and is changing. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether we need a law to try to protect Christmas day from a change that a significant minority of the population have actively been bringing about. My view is that we need to be careful not to impose restrictions that will be hard to sustain, because I suspect that the number of people who want the choice to make Christmas day different from what most people choose is growing, albeit slowly.
      That is all that I want to say. The new clause is an unworkable proposition, and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire would be wise to withdraw it. He has explored and identified a problem, but I do not think that he has found the solution.
      Mr. Forth: It pains me to say this, but I really was not convinced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). I say that as someone who—the House has rarely heard me say this, but I shall say it on this occasion—has changed his mind on the Bill in a general sense. We shall return to that on Third Reading, when I hope to explain my position in much more depth and detail.
      I make that point at this stage, however, because I began by having some sympathy for my right hon. Friend's new clause and amendment, and wanting to support them. I think that it takes us into a more general consideration of multiculturalism and monoculturalism. As I have said before and will say again, I am basically a monoculturalist. I believe that people who come to this country freely from elsewhere should be prepared to adapt to our culture and history, although not necessarily to our religion. I certainly would not want to say that, but I am uneasy when we go too far in encouraging differences in our society rather than integration. That is my starting point.
      I therefore come to the new clause and amendment with some trepidation, although I can see exactly what my right hon. Friend wants to say. The libertarian in me wants to reflect what the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) just said. In an ideal world, I would want everyone to be as free as possible to do what they
      986
      wanted to do of their own free will. I apply that argument to all sorts of subjects, and I suspect that we shall come to that when we debate smoking and other matters. However, that argument is overlaid by the profound cultural considerations that arise in discussion of the matter before us today. The very title of the new clause, "Cultural and non-Christian exemption", goes to the very heart of that. We must all examine our conscience and ask ourselves how far we want to go to use the law—which is what we are talking about here—either to impose uniformity on society or to acknowledge as far as possible the reasonable diversity in society. The new clause forces us to confront such issues right from the start, although I find myself torn in this case, because part of me wants the maximum freedom for people to do as they wish, even on Christmas day. I shall return to that on Third Reading, for which, unusually for me, I have done some preparation. I am not a great man for preparation, but on this occasion I have a little to hand.
      When I heard the argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made, the first thing that occurred to me was that, given the new clause's thrust, it is unnecessarily restrictive where it says:
      "Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees in that shop".
      I wonder why it does not say "largely" or "substantially" instead. As the new clause stands, the presence of one Christian employee in a fairly large shop would stymie or prevent the implementation of my right hon. Friend's argument. That is somewhat anomalous, and although I can see the rationale behind his use of "entirely", it goes a long way towards undermining the whole point of what he is trying to do.
      On the entirely practical question of the verification of religion, the question has rightly been raised of how we could balance reasonable privacy on a very personal matter—religion—against the reasonable verification that the new clause asks for. We get into some difficulty there. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that a notice shall be made in writing and shall identify the premises—that is fairly straightforward. The issue of the owner of the shop is also probably fairly straightforward, although it might not necessarily be in some cases. For example, I wonder how the new clause would cope with cases of corporate, as opposed to personal, ownership. Where the owner of a shop that employed entirely non-Christian employees was a corporation rather than an individual, there might be a complication.
      Subsection (2)(c) refers to
      "the identity of all the employees".
      The issue of identity might not provide a great difficulty—that should be known for all sorts of purposes, not least taxation and other matters—but the declaration of the employees' religion might bring considerable potential difficulties. How would we police and verify the religion of the employees to ensure that they were entirely non-Christian? That brings us, inevitably, to an intrusion into a private matter.
      Of course, it could be argued that where we are discussing the cultural matters involved here, and their importance, we have to confront the fact that if we start asking people whether they want Christmas day to be sacrosanct, which is by definition a matter of religion,

      987
      we inevitably get into declarations or verifications or religion. However, on what basis that would take place is another matter. Is it simply a question of a declaration of faith, or would one require some sort of demonstration of that? I am not a churchgoer myself, except for on one day a year, Remembrance day, and I do not want to intrude unduly into Church matters, but I am aware that some faiths, Churches and religions require a certain degree of demonstration of adherence to the faith before they will go ahead with ceremonies such as baptism or marriage.
      Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that even the census requires people to state whether they are Christian, or what their religion is?
      Mr. Forth: I am not sure to what extent that is a requirement, and even there I am not sure what verification procedure exists. My hon. Friend almost makes, or emphasises, my point. As I recall it, the census invites people to declare their religious affiliation, but goes no further. I am not sure, therefore, that that is a terribly good example.
      I foresee all sorts of real difficulties with the new clause. Although it pains me slightly, I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that the point that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) made about red tape and bureaucracy was fair. Conservative Members need always to be aware—I have taken some of my hon. Friends to task about this before, usually, but not always, on Fridays—that, preaching as we do the virtues of deregulation and the evils of red tape, we need to exercise much care before we come to the House with measures that would impose additional bureaucracy. On the face of it, new clause 1 would do just that. It would require a procedure for notices to be made in writing and, presumably, lodged with the local authority; and my right hon. Friend also said, under pressure from questioning, that there would have to be a random inspection or verification process. It follows that those processes would have to be undertaken by local authority employees. That might be an excellent job creation scheme, or could even be part of the new deal for all I know, but it is not exactly the sort of scheme to which Conservative Members normally give ready support.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend is now trying to have it both ways. Does he not accept that I would prefer not to have this legislation? However, I was trying to say that if we must have it, the legislation would be better with the new clause and amendment No. 11.
      Mr. Forth: I half accept what my right hon. Friend says, as we established on Second Reading, as is explicit in the Bill, that there will have to be some sort of additional proceeding for policing the basic provisions of the Bill, to say nothing of his new clause. He may therefore be able to subsume his red tape into the red tape that would exist under the basic provisions of the Bill. I will go that far, and perhaps accept his helpful intervention.
      Mr. Mark Francois: On the point about red tape, there are data protection implications
      988
      relating to the policing, as it were, of new clause 1, as religion is in the category of sensitive personal data as defined under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is the type of information about which those holding it must be particularly careful. Therefore, an employer who was seeking to record it for the purposes of implementing new clause 1 would need to register as a holder of sensitive personal data with the Information Commissioner. There is a cost associated with that, and the policing of it becomes more complicated. I hope that that assists my right hon. Friend in his argument.
      Mr. Forth: Sad to say, it assists me in my argument but it does not assist our right hon. Friend—I am not sure whether he realised that there was this new bureaucratic horror, which has just intruded into our proceedings thanks to my hon. Friend. We can perhaps revisit in a moment the whole process that was outlined in new clause 1, as I was about to move away from it before my hon. Friend helped me. Perhaps we must now consider it again in terms of the notifications that must be made and the personal data contained in those notifications.
      I am anxious to move on to amendment No. 11, which, if anything, is even more defective, if I may say so, than new clause 1. I can see what my right hon. Friend was aiming at, but I am not sure that his amendment goes anywhere near succeeding in it. Some of the questions that arose during his explanation were relevant. First, on the face of it, local public demand is an attractive phrase, to which most of us would subscribe in most circumstances, but how we identify that is a difficulty. The mechanism by which we identify it must be examined carefully.
      When considering a local authority area, my right hon. Friend gave a hint that he had in mind a densely populated, relatively well-defined area such as Leicester—that is probably where his thinking started. Many local authority areas, not least in Scotland but also in England, are very large and disparate and a number of different communities will reside in them. One can therefore have a homogeneous, densely packed, highly occupied area of an urban local authority on the one hand, as opposed to a large, disparate local authority area on the other. The definition or the basis in terms of local authority areas would not therefore stand too much scrutiny.
      Mr. Colin Pickthall: I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he also agree that in many areas such as mine, the large stores that we are talking about—out-of-town-type stores—are right on the edge of a local authority, with almost their entire custom coming from the next-door local authority? Were this nonsense proposal to get anywhere, we would have a situation in which a local authority was dealing with an issue that affected people who did not belong to that local authority.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipated what I was going to say, but he puts it well. A real problem with my right hon. Friend's amendment is that in seeking to base the demand on a local authority area, we bump up against the problem, which occurs so often, of proximity to the boundary and cross-boundary activity. That is illustrated graphically by the Greenwich

      989
      judgment in relation to local authorities and schools, on which I do not want to digress, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an analogous case, however.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Does any of this matter in relation to my right hon. Friend's argument? Surely, if a large shop is popular and people want it to open on Christmas day, some of the customers may come from far afield, but at least it will have a customer base within the local authority area, and if 1,000 people want the shop to open, why should it not?
      Mr. Forth: I will come to the issue of 1,000 people in a moment. We have not got to that yet—we are still talking about local authorities. My right hon. Friend has made a brave attempt to define local public demand, but we have already arrived at a real problem in relation to what that local public demand is and how we measure it. I am simply saying that rather than taking a defined area, my preferred approach would have been to take a five or 10-mile radius around the shop in question. That might have made a lot more sense—perhaps not administratively but in terms of identifying local demand. I therefore query the use of the local authority area as a criterion on which to measure demand.
      Mr. Chope: Does not my right hon. Friend's argument ignore the fact that the impact on the local community of a shop opening is likely to be in that very local authority area?
      Mr. Forth: No, I am arguing the opposite. The impact will be within a prescribed area in relation to the store, regardless of the local authority. Some local authority areas—with which I am not very familiar as I have the pleasure of representing a suburban residential area in London, which is not large—are very large. Such areas, which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent, can be 50 to 60 miles from one end to the other. Therefore, the point about local authority demand and local authorities falls down immediately if we are talking about the potential impact on a community of a shop or store opening. I now wish that I had tabled an amendment to my right hon. Friend's amendment to change the definition from "local authority" to "prescribed area around the store". That opportunity, however, has gone.
      The issue of 1,000 people signing a petition also raises some difficulty. Of course, one can pick any arbitrary number. I think that 1,000 is a low number on which to base such a proposal, and had I considered this matter, I would have picked a higher number. We could have the difficulty of competing petitions. Were 1,000 people, or even 5,000 people, to petition in the way that my right hon. Friend has suggested, it is likely that people of a legitimately different point of view might want to table an opposite petition. His amendment does not seem to provide for that. Would it not be embarrassing, to say the least, if 1,000 people petitioned in one direction and 5,000 people petitioned in the other? One wonders what the outcome would be. Perhaps it would have been better to provide for a more competitive or comparative process, whereby people could indicate their level of wish or demand one way or the other, rather than having a one-way mechanism. In some ways, it seems
      990
      profoundly undemocratic that a small number of people can dictate to a community what will or will not happen in that area.
      Mr. Knight: Why should anyone who does not want to use a shop have the right to stop it opening? The whole purpose of the amendment is to accommodate those who do want the shop to open. I thought that my right hon. Friend was a libertarian.
      Mr. Forth: I try to be a libertarian whenever I can, but as I said at the outset—and this will be the thrust of my analysis on Third Reading, although I suspect that that is some way off—there is a competing pressure here, and a competing demand.
      I would have much more sympathy with my right hon. Friend's amendment were it more appropriately drafted. First, I do not think that, in this instance, specifying the local authority area is a good idea. Secondly, I am not convinced that a petition from 1,000 people is a sufficient basis on which to make the move towards liberty that my right hon. Friend seeks. Thirdly, I see a lacuna in that there is no provision for the counter-view to be measured or assessed. For all those reasons, I think the amendment is defective.
      That is not to say that, in an ideal world, we should not allow for more local discretion and decision making. Perhaps we have all missed a trick—I plead guilty to this myself—in not taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to revisit the philosophy behind the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and, indeed, what preceded it. We shall have a chance to do that when we deal with the next group of amendments.
      My right hon. Friend may be on to something really important. Sadly I consider his amendment defective, but perhaps we should have allowed much more scope for that local discretion and decision making rather than imposing a blanket national provision. My right hon. Friend has, after all, put his finger on the fact that local communities vary enormously in their composition, in their ethnicity and, in some cases, in their religious affiliation. We can readily identify many local communities with particular characteristics and meriting different treatment, in terms of shops opening on Christmas day among other things. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss the issue some other day, or in the context of another private Member's Bill. We should never regard what has been done once as being set for ever. Indeed, we may have a chance to explore these matters later today.
      All in all, I am not unsympathetic to the thrust of what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but having looked in some detail at the way in which his new clause and amendment would operate, I am afraid I cannot support them at this stage, and I would need a lot more convincing before I could. I hope he may yet be able to persuade me, but thus far he has not been able to do so.
      Mr. Chope: I am rather disappointed by the illiberal approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which contrasted with the classic liberal approach adopted by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce).
      Like most Members, I consider Christmas day to be the second most important festival in the Christian calendar, and think that we should do everything

      991
      possible to preserve its significance. I have to recognise, however, that an increasing number of people in the country are not Christians and do not profess to be, and that many positively adhere to other religions. In those circumstances, I think we need to preach the virtues of tolerance, understanding, freedom and choice.
      That, indeed, is what the Bishop of Winchester did when he preached at evensong in Christchurch priory in my constituency on Trinity Sunday this year. He spoke of the significance in the Christian calendar of that day, which—for those less familiar with the dates in the calendar—happened this year to coincide with the 60th anniversary of D-day. He pointed out that the Winchester diocese contained two large non-Christian communities—a large Muslim community in Southampton and a significant Jewish community in Bournemouth. He might have added, although he did not, that there is also a significant community of Sikhs and Hindus in Southampton, as I know from the time when I represented Southampton, Itchen.
      10.45 am
      New clause 1 reflects the reality that parts of our country now contain large non-Christian settlements. If the Bill is designed to keep Christmas day special for Christians, where does it leave those who are not Christian? In Scotland, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has an agenda to make new year's day a special day on which shop workers would not have to work, perhaps because people in Scotland regard new year's day as almost a bigger religious festival than Christmas day. What is certain, however, is that new year's day is not a Christian festival. I do not believe that the campaign by those promoting the Bill is motivated by a concern for Christianity; I think they are concerned about shop workers working on public holidays, and if that is their agenda I think they should be open and clear about it.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) acknowledges that agenda in his new clause, which I was happy to support. He says we should recognise that Christmas day is a Christian festival, and that those who are not Christians and do not want to join in should not be compelled to do so. The issue is voluntarism versus compulsion. My right hon. Friend says that all employees would have to be non-Christian before his new clause could be triggered and the shop could be opened. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst feels that that is going slightly too far, but I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire should be praised for saying that we need to ensure that every Christian who might be forced to work in a large shop should be protected. If only one Christian were working in the shop the new clause would not apply, but if there were no Christians and the owner wanted to open the shop, why should he not be able to do so?
      Chris Bryant: As one who was only too happy to work on Christmas day, and for that matter on Boxing day and St. Stephen's day and every Sunday as well—in fact, that was the only day of the week on which I was prepared to work—may I suggest that that is not the point at all? What the right hon.
      992
      Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) aims to bring about through what we all realise is a parliamentary device is one of the most illiberal, sectarian and divisive provisions that has featured on an amendment paper for many a long month.
      Mr. Chope: I am amazed by what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not understand the riddles in which he speaks. I know that many preachers go into the pulpit and try to attract the congregation's attention by speaking in riddles, and the first part of his intervention came into that category. As for the second part, the new clause is the reverse of illiberal and sectarian. It recognises the reality established the last census. We learn from the census that 26 per cent. of Leicester's population are Indian—the highest percentage in any UK local authority—and 36.1 per cent. are non-white. In Newham, 60.6 per cent. of the population are non-white: in other words, the majority of the population. In Brent, 54.7 per cent. are non-white.
      Mr. Forth: Those figures might be very interesting—they might even be slightly instructive—but is not my hon. Friend illustrating my point: that what happens in a local authority may not have much relevance to the community within which the store to which the new clause refers is situated? Surely there is a material difference, even in the cases that my hon. Friend quotes, between the local authority at large and the community immediately surrounding a shop that may, under these terms, open on Christmas day.
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend's argument is directed more towards amendment No. 11 than new clause 1. In an area such as Newham or Leicester, it is quite likely that there would be a large shop whose owner wished to open on Christmas day, and all of whose employees were non-Christian. That is the point that I am making, particularly in relation to communities in which more than half the population are non-Christian.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the new clause were adopted, in what is a Christian country, we would be discriminating against Christians? If a devout Christian who did not want to work on Christmas day, and who recognised the Christmas holiday, applied for a job in a store employing only non-Christians, there would be an incentive for the store owner not to employ that person because, under the new clause, if they were employed, the shop would not be allowed to open on Christmas day.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes that point on the supposition that a responsible store owner would seek to discriminate against a potential employee on the grounds of that person's religious beliefs. I do not think that that is the way in which responsible shop owners would behave.
      Mr. Jones: Yes, but the fact of the matter is that, under new clause 1, if that person were the only Christian employed by that store, it would not be

      993
      allowed to open. Is it right that, in a predominantly Christian country, we should introduce legislation that discriminates against Christians?
      Mr. Chope: As of 1 November in any given year, there would be a test. If no Christians were employed at that time, the test would apply for the following Christmas day. If, in the period between then and the following November, the store recruited Christians—or, perhaps more likely, existing employees changed from another religion or from being non-believers and adopted the Christian religion—the situation would alter.
      New clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are being discussed together because there are two mechanisms that would enable exemptions to be made to the rather authoritarian approach that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) proposes. It is surprising that the practising Christian Members of the House, who are trying to preach tolerance and understanding through the new clause, are being strongly opposed by those who make it clear that they do not have Christian beliefs.
      Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should be careful to judge not, lest he be judged. He said that 60 per cent. of people in Newham were non-white, but the fact that someone is non-white does not mean that he or she is non-Christian. Indeed, one of the most active Christian communities in the United Kingdom is the Afro-Caribbean community, and I think that its members would take significant exception to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is preaching this morning.
      Mr. Chope: I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. I am certainly not equating being non-white with being non-Christian. If we look around the world today, we see that some of the worst atrocities being committed against Christians are against black and other non-white Christians. I accept that wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the Library brief does not give details of the non-Christian population by community; all that I have are the details of the non-white population.
      I do, however, have the overall figures for population by religion, which show that only 71.6 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom said in the 2001 census that they were Christians. Only 2.7 per cent. said that they were Muslim, 1 per cent. Hindu, 0.6 per cent. Sikh, 0.5 per cent. Jewish and 0.3 per cent. Buddhist. It would be erroneous to lump the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh populations together and say that they are non-white. I am not seeking to do that at all.
      The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise, however, as did the Bishop of Winchester, that there are communities in this country with a significant non-Christian population. The new clause would give them the right to go shopping in large shops on Christmas day, should they so wish. I should like to emphasise, in relation to the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on amendment No. 11, that this would not be compulsory. If someone presented a petition in which 1,000 people said that they would like a shop to open on Christmas day, and there were a counter-petition, the shop would not have to open. It would be for the shop owner to decide whether he wished to open his shop. If
      994
      1,000 people wanted a shop to open, but 5,000 people argued against that, the shop owner would risk annoying or losing many potential customers whose views had been expressed in the counter-petition if he opened his shop.
      Some of the arguments against amendment No. 11 have been based on the false understanding that it would introduce an element of compulsion. Would that it were possible that, if a community said that it wanted to keep its post office open and 1,000 people signed a petition to that effect, the post office would, ergo, be kept open. Sadly, that is not the case, and it would not be the case in relation to amendment No. 11. If 1,000 people said that they would like a shop to open on Christmas day, that would not be decisive in itself, but it would provide a trigger that would enable the owner to open—all other things being taken into account—should he or she so wish.
      Mr. Forth: That is all very well, but let us suppose that 1,000 people at one end of a large local authority area petitioned that a store at the opposite end of the area should open on Christmas day. That would not inconvenience those people. They would have operated the mechanism under amendment No. 11, but only the people in the immediate vicinity of the store—who had not petitioned for it to open—would suffer. Is that not a possibility?
      Mr. Chope: Obviously, anything is possible. I cannot dispute that that is a possibility, but my right hon. Friend should accept that common sense would apply. This would be an issue of local public demand. If there is local public concern about shops opening on Christmas day, that should be dealt with through the planning process. There is nothing to prevent a provision that a shop should not open on Christmas day from being included in the terms of its planning permission. That would be a better way of reflecting local opinion on such issues than rejecting amendment No. 11.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the issue of reasonable verification of religion in his objection to the new clause and the amendment. The census figures make it clear that the 23 per cent. of people who do not adhere to any religion are a mixture of people who said that they were non-believers and people who said that they were not prepared to answer the question. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is no compulsion in the census on a person to say whether they are Christian or not. In reality, I doubt whether that would be a difficult problem to overcome, because it should be apparent to anyone who runs or owns a shop whether his employees are keen for the shop to open. It would be quite easy, in the form of a secret ballot, to find out whether people are Christian. It would not be necessary for an individual to be identified as a Christian in a shop in which most employees are non-Christian. The situation could be dealt with by other means, and as long as it was dealt with sensitively there would be no need for the identity of the person in question to become known to either the shop owner or to other employees.
      11 am
      The only reason we are tabling the new clause and the amendment is the fact that this is essentially a restrictive

      995
      Bill that seeks to impose greater restrictions than currently exist. Inevitably, if one wants to impose restrictions and to have exemptions to them, there will be some ambiguity and need for interpretation, and for common sense to be applied. If the Bill's promoter accepts the central argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and I that the reality is that we do not live in a monocultural society—much as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might wish that we did—certainly so far as particular localities are concerned, that argument should be recognised and reflected in the Bill.
      I hope that, on reflection, the Bill's promoter will say, "Although I do not agree with its detail, I accept the principle behind the new clause." If the Bill is granted a Third Reading, I hope an amendment will be tabled in the other place to reflect the points that have been made in this debate. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would be so arrogant as to suggest that the new clause is perfectly drafted and ideal, but the principle that we have been articulating is one that the promoter should take on board.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: This has been a good debate and I do not want to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), because they have raised issues that, in a multicultural society, need to be dealt with not only through this Bill but in other areas of public policy. However, there are clear problems in enforcing the provisions in new clause 1.
      Several Members have discussed the issue of intrusiveness and how we clarify an individual's religious beliefs. The hon. Member for Christchurch suggested the use of a secret ballot, but that would have to be policed. Do we really want local authorities to be able to pry into people's religious beliefs, which in some cases change over time? In my view, that would not be right, although it might be welcome to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), given his libertarian views. The state ought not to be able to ask people what their religious beliefs are.
      Moreover, the new clause would lead to discrimination against Christians. Ours is a Christian country and we should recognise that fact through Christmas day and other holidays. As I said earlier, it is clear that, under the new clause, if a Christian joined the staff of a shop the majority of whose employees were non-Christian, the shop could no longer open on Christmas day. That would put pressure on people to hire only non-Christians, and I am sorry, but I do not agree with that at all. Likewise, pressure should not be put on such an individual by non-Christians to change their religion or to leave the store's employment, simply because of their religious beliefs. It is a fundamental freedom of this country that the law and society tolerates religious beliefs irrespective of their nature; long may that continue.
      Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful response to this debate, for which we are all obliged. However, is there not a flaw in the argument that he is developing? If a store were composed largely, but not exclusively, of non-Christian employees, the
      996
      store owner could rely on amendment No. 11. He need not necessarily take action through the religious exception; he could seek to test support in the local community for his store's opening on Christmas day, so the effect that the hon. Gentleman fears might not come about.
      Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention and I shall deal with amendment No. 11 in a moment. In fact, new clause 1 contains the following phrase:
      "Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees".
      It is clear that there would be pressure to employ people who are not Christian, if employing Christians would prevent shop owners from opening on Christmas day.
      The issue has rightly been raised of large Asian shops situated in multicultural areas. My Bill simply seeks to bring Christmas day into line with the Sunday Trading Act 1994. As things stand, a large store of more than 3,000 sq ft cannot in any case open on Christmas day if it falls on a Sunday, so my proposal can hardly be described as draconian.
      There is another problem with new clause 1. How would we police its provisions and verify people's individual religious beliefs? The new clause makes reference to a cut-off date of 1 November, but it is clear that employees will join and leave a store during the course of a given year, and in that regard the provision would put an administrative burden not only on the owner, but on the local authority in question.
      When the Department of Trade and Industry put out for consultation the proposal that Christmas day be brought into line with the 1994 Act, the various religious groups made no representations whatsoever. Although I understand the spirit behind the new clause, it would be difficult to enforce in practice and administratively very expensive.
      Mr. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman's Bill passes through this House today—in whatever form—and if, before it completes its entire legislative passage, members of the Asian community and non-Christian shop owners indicate that they want to discuss their concerns about the Bill with him, can he assure the House that he would be willing to agree to such a meeting?
      Mr. Jones: I can, and I am sure that the Minister will want to address that issue in his reply. But in terms of public consultation—
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Given that my hon. Friend has worked extensively on this Bill, he will be aware of the consultation that took place in 2003, and of the fact that no other religious groups commented on the proposals in the Bill. They did not regard them as a problem.
      Mr. Jones: I certainly want to reinforce that point. I have received letters from owners of smaller shops in my constituency—very hard-working non-Christian families—expressing some concern. However, this Bill will not restrict their trade on Christmas day and other such days. So although I understand the reasoning behind the new clause, because of the way in which it is framed it would be very difficult to enforce and very expensive to implement.

      997
      Various issues have been raised in the debate, and the question arises of whether we want to open up the can of worms that is the 1994 Act. Perhaps it is time to look at some of the broader issues, although I accept that such legislation had a painful passage when it was last considered in the House.
      New clause 11 tries to address an issue that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raised on Second Reading: Stan's Shop, and the question of local demand for stores to open in rural areas. I looked into whether that could be done. This is an attempt to do so, and I accept the spirit in which it has been proposed. Again, however, the issues raised in the debate this morning have shown that, in practice, it will prove very difficult. For example, the question of why it should be 1,000 persons has been raised. It would be a problem if 1,000 people in a town or village wanted the shops to open, but another 3,000, or 4,000 did not. Who would arbitrate on whether the store should be open?
      Another problem is that many large shops are based out of town. To take one example, Sainsbury's in Pitty Me—just over the border of my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—serves a large catchment area. It straddles two local district council areas. Many people in my constituency might want the store to be open on Christmas day, but those in the neighbouring constituency might not. That is always a problem when stores straddle constituency or local authority borders.
      Another problem with the proposals is that they could lead to aggressive campaigning between various stores. The whole point of my Bill is to ask whether consumer demand should dictate whether stores open on Christmas day. I do not believe that it should, because, for reasons that were advanced on Second Reading, I want Christmas day to be a special day.
      Finally, the proposals are not practicable because of the possible horrendous costs that would be incurred by local authorities in attempting to police the measures. Amendment No. 11 refers to the electoral registers as providing proof that people are indeed who they claim to be. However, having to check every one of the 1,000 names would be onerous. Similarly, I know that when constituents are thanked for signing a petition, they often say, "When did I sign that?" It would again be difficult to police the names on the petition. I finish by acknowledging the reasons behind the proposals, particularly in rural constituencies such as my own.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking briefly on this matter. I am motivated to contribute because our interesting debate has pointed to a fundamental dilemma in our society. I have one crucial point. I am not a libertarian, although I understand the libertarian point of view, whereby society should not judge anything and people should be allowed to do anything that they want, as long as they do not harm other people. That is not my view because I believe in society. I believe in the building blocks of society—family, community and nation. Christmas day is part of our culture.
      I believe that there is something dangerous about the proposed amendments. New clause 1 is particularly dangerous because it identifies one part of our community and sets it apart from others. I recognize
      998
      that although we are still a predominantly Christian country, many people are not Christians. We all accept that, and it does not matter. The fact remains that we are a predominantly Christian society. We recognise that there are Muslims, Hindus, Jews, non-believers, atheists, agnostics and so forth. That is fine: let them all have their beliefs, but we are a fundamentally Christian society.
      What worries me about the new clause is that it identifies certain people as being different. It is, of course, completely unworkable in any event. It requires only one member of staff to be a Christian for the new clause to be inapplicable. Are there any shops in that position? I doubt it, but that is not the point. The problem is that the proposals are about creating a new society in our country, in which people are deliberately set apart because of their religion. They are placed in a sort of ghetto, which I believe is profoundly dangerous. We should never allow that.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Chope: But surely that has already happened and is happening. It is why questions in the census ask people about their religion. It is why forms no longer ask people for their "Christian names", but refer to "first names".
      Mr. Leigh: I am happy that people's sensitivities are respected. I do not want to impose my views on anyone. If I know that it will offend someone attending my constituency surgery if I ask them for their Christian names, I will not say that, but ask for their first names. However, the new clause is effectively saying to society as a whole, "Look at that store over there; it is a Muslim store; it is the only store that will be open on Christmas day because is has only Muslims working for it". Is that the sort of society that we want to live in, or do we want a society in which people are happy with being Muslims, Jews or non-believers, but are part of society as a whole? If I lived in a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu country, I would respect the general mores of that society. If I were a store owner, I would not want to be setting my little Christian store up as open in the middle of Delhi or wherever. That is not what creating society is all about.
      Mr. Greg Knight: With respect, my hon. Friend is getting carried away with his own rhetoric. The number of non-Christians in our society is 29 per cent.—almost a third—so we are not talking about a minuscule number. Furthermore, the proposed amendments—and, effectively, the Bill—relate to large shops only. My hon. Friend's scenario with the little Muslim shop on the corner being the only shop open does not apply. [Interruption.] Small shops will be allowed to open. We are trying to allow large supermarkets and stores to open where they are run by and serve non-Christians.
      Mr. Leigh: I precisely did not say that. We all know that the Bill does not apply to small shops; we all know that small shops remain open on a Sunday. My point is that the new clause relates to large stores and sets apart a particular store precisely because it is manned by people who are not Christians. The implication may be that they are "not British". It is the wrong implication: just because people are not Christian, it does not mean that they are any less British.

      999
      Let us be honest about it. Christmas day is not just a Christian festival. The real Christian festival is Easter day. Christmas day is about being British: it is a festival of giving, of not working, of being with one's family. That is what it is all about. That is why, although the debate has produced an interesting argument, I am wholly opposed to the amendments.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I shall be extremely brief. I am a strong supporter of the Bill and I am aware of the passage of the clock. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but I believe that the new clause is profoundly mistaken. It would be intrusive, bureaucratic and it would indeed attack social cohesion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has rightly argued.
      I have no difficulties or dilemmas: no one has ever mistaken me for a libertarian, or, indeed, a liberal. I believe firmly that society must look to the best of the past and seek to reform those things that need reform. Social cohesion is an overwhelming concern for Government and Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire really want a situation in which the only Christian employee in, say, an Islamic business—I choose Islamic only because of the international tensions of the moment—finds himself in the odious position of preventing the store from opening on Christmas day unless he is willing publicly to leave aside his faith?
      I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—the Liberal Democrat spokesman has left us, at least for the moment—say that opposing the amendment would mean opposing a trend that is already happening in society. Surely one does not have to be an old-fashioned Conservative like me to see that some trends are undesirable. I shall not waste the House's time by furnishing it with some obvious examples, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I agree with what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just said. I, too, will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has taken us through all the issues raised, quite properly, by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), whose skill in putting his arguments I fully acknowledge. It is a sad aspect of the time scales within which we work that we did not have an opportunity to look at many of those issues during the Committee stage. Everyone in the Committee fully supported the Bill, as do most Members of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on that support: he said that he did not like the Bill or think it necessary, and he has quite properly put his arguments.
      Mr. Forth: In the friendliest possible way, may I caution the Minister against using terms that we hear all too often on a Friday about the extent of support for a Bill? He would not, I hope, want us to test that support in a Division, so I ask him, and anyone else who comes
      1000
      along on a Friday to support a Bill of their choice, not to tell us what support it has; otherwise some of us might be tempted to test the proposition.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the experience and skill of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the point that he makes. The debate has been a sincere one about the issues, which is how the House should operate.
      The Bill is not, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire suggested, just about trade unions. It enjoys support outside the House from a large number of organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham noted. It is an important Bill that respects the special nature of Christmas day as a holiday for all sections of society, irrespective of faith.
      The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire should know that there was extensive consultation on the Bill in 2003 with all groups. There were no significant objections from religious groups. The burdens that new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 would impose have been mentioned, and previously debated, on the money resolution—such as the costs of the Bill, particularly focusing on what "negligible" means. The point is that significant costs would arise from the Bill if the new clause and amendment were accepted.
      The Bill is about large shops. The industry has said that it favours legislation on the basis that there would be a domino effect if one shop opened because others would follow suit, and we do not want that. Given the sincerity of the debate and the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, I hope that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Greg Knight: I thank all who have taken part in an interesting debate for their suggestions and, indeed, criticisms, of the new clause and the amendment. They have done democracy a service by expressing their views and showing their support or opposition to my proposal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that he did not want to impose his views on anybody, but the gist of his argument was in fact that he did seek to impose his views on those who are non-Christian when it comes to opening large shops on Christmas day. In framing legislation, we must take account of the 29 per cent. or so of our society who are not Christians.
      I was heartened by the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who said that even though there had been consultation, if, during the passage of the Bill, anyone wanted to see him to express their concerns, he would be willing to listen. That is a commendable attitude and I thank him for it. I wonder what he would say to an Asian businessman who came to his surgery and said, "Why has my large shop got to close on Christmas day when I am not a Christian, my work force is not Christian and most of my customers are not Christian?" I hope that such a person would get an answer because we have not had one yet to that question.
      I am not, particularly, a practising Christian, but I do support Christian ethics—the beliefs in tolerance, in fairness and in accepting and appreciating the views of

      1001
      people who hold a different opinion from oneself. If I sense the mood of the House correctly, it is against what I seek to achieve, but I hope that if any section of our society feels wronged by the Bill, the promoter will be willing to listen, even at a late hour. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      PROHIBITION OF OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS ON CHRISTMAS DAY
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      `(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop where the trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of books.'
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop where the trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of children's toys and games.'.
      No. 8, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop which meets a prescribed local need.
      (2B) in this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (2C) In this section, the power to make regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument, and any regulations are to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 10, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop—

      (a) which is a registered pharmacy, and

      (b) where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances.'.

      Mr. Forth: The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), said on Second Reading that
      "the Bill is based on the provisions of the 1994 Act. The Bill will adopt the same exemptions from prohibition as contained in the Act".—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1156.]
      He then went on to list those exemptions. I thought at the time that an opportunity had been missed simply to carry forward the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wanted to do that: a large part of his argument was that there was an anomaly or a loophole in the 1994 Act and that the thrust of what we are being asked to do now was to rectify it. Given, however, that we have had 10 years' experience in dealing with these matters, it might have been more appropriate to use this opportunity to revisit the exemptions in the 1994 Act to see whether they were still appropriate.
      I recall that reservations were expressed in 1994 about the list of exemptions. I could, of course, have gone back through all the debates and rehearsed the speeches all over again today, which might have been amusing, and even slightly informative, but which would have been more than a little tedious. None the less, it is relevant to
      1002
      reconsider schedule 1 to the 1994 Act, which I seek to amend. Some of the exemptions caused puzzlement at the time, and they may still do so.
      The first exemption was any shop at a farm where the trade or business carried on consists solely or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm. I suspect that, then and now, that is relatively uncontroversial. Farm shops are unusual in many ways: they are, almost by definition, remote from most community centres; they are largely—if not exclusively—family businesses; and they conduct, again almost by definition, a fairly restricted type of business. That was uncontroversial then and it is uncontroversial now.
      11.30 am
      The next exemption—concerning any shop whose trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor—leads one into all sorts of different territory. In the debates on Sunday trading at the time, I remember people using the phrase, "Why booze, not Bibles?" It seemed odd that we were permitting the sale and purchase of intoxicating liquor on a Sunday, but not of a Bible.
      The next exemptions concerned shops involved with motor supplies and accessories, and cycle supplies and accessories. Also exempt were registered pharmacies and shops selling medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances. Shops at designated airports and at railway stations were exempt, as were service areas, petrol filling stations, and, intriguingly, any stand used for the retail sale of goods during the course of an exhibition.
      I thought then, and do now, that the list was interesting, puzzling and not a little anomalous. I suspect that it was rather arbitrary at the time, and it seems so now. It raises the question as to how far one seeks to make exemptions to a general provision covering trading on a Sunday, as it was then, or Christmas day trading, which we are discussing now.
      The thought occurred to me that we should perhaps seek to remove some of the exemptions rather than carry them forward. I was intrigued that the hon. Member for North Durham did not seek to do so in proposing the Bill. I am not just a closet libertarian, but a full-blown practising libertarian, and I will now revert to that part of my nature.
      Mr. Brazier: I am enjoying this morning enormously, but I particularly enjoyed my right hon. Friend's use of the phrase "that part of my nature." I am so pleased to discover that there is also a strongly conservative part.
      Mr. Forth: I like to think that I am a conservative libertarian; perhaps that will help my hon. Friend.
      We should think seriously today about the list of exemptions in the context of Christmas day; hence my amendments. The first change that I suggest returns to the question of booze and Bibles, but goes wider. Of all the stores that were to be allowed to open on Christmas day, it seemed odd that we were not allowing bookstores to open on Christmas day. That is not just because someone might feel the sudden urge to buy and read the Bible—not a completely unlikely occurrence. Also, someone given a book token as a Christmas gift might like the opportunity to use it to buy a book on Christmas

      1003
      day itself to read to their children, for family entertainment or to fill in those hours of Christmas day during which television is unutterably awful.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Parents could take their children to any church in the land, which they would find open, where they would be able to peruse the Bible free of charge. The following day, having introduced their children to the experience, they could go to an open bookshop—so there is no need for bookshops to be open on Christmas day.
      Mr. Forth: That may be the case, but my hon. Friend could not guarantee that the version of the Bible that they wanted to read would necessarily be available at their local church. Despite the fact that I am not a churchgoer, or indeed a practising Christian, I know that there are many splendid versions of the Bible. The local church might be one of those ghastly, trendy, modern ones with one of those ghastly, trendy, modern Bibles. My hon. Friend's constituent might want the authorised version to read.
      Mr. Howarth: As churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I can assure my right hon. Friend that I shall make it my business to ensure that the King James version is available to all those who believe in the proper rendering of the Bible. In Aldershot all will be well, and I shall try to ensure that the same is available throughout the country.
      Mr. Forth: I admire my hon. Friend's assiduity and I am sure that his constituents will be as grateful to him now, and at the next election, as they were at the last. However, that does not solve the problem. We are legislating nationwide, and not allowing local discretion; I rather wish we were, and we may return to that question in future. Given the context of the list of exemptions, it strikes me as peculiar that we are allowed to buy the items I listed but not books.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's line of argument is interesting, but I wish to question the definition of a shop that sells mostly books. I understand that he has mentioned people buying the Bible, but would large licensed sex shops—which may sell mostly books, but sell other things as well—be allowed to open on Christmas day?
      Mr. Forth: The answer would, I presume, be yes. I simply carried forward the wording from the 1994 Act—the hon. Gentleman did the same in his Bill—and that refers to shops whose business consists "wholly or mainly" of the sale of intoxicating liquor etc. The same would apply to a shop whose business consisted wholly or mainly of the sale of books. I make no distinction about the sort of books, because I believe that in a free society, adults should be able to buy any sort of printed material.
      Mr. Pickthall: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the number of book stores large enough to fall within the ambit of the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: Happily, that number is increasing. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of excellent book stores
      1004
      such as Waterstone's, and stores such as Borders, and Barnes and Noble—stores that I visit as a regular visitor to America—which are coming to this country and offering their excellent services to the public. They have pioneered the idea of incorporating coffee shops into book stores—something that had been available in the United States for some time. One can go to a book store and peruse books while enjoying a cup of coffee and, if one is not on the Atkins diet, a cake.
      The answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly fair question is that in future I hope that the number will increase. In Florida, the part of the United States I visit most regularly, I have to drive 40 miles to my nearest book store—but given that gasoline is now $2 a gallon, I may have to think again.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about addressing his comments to the amendments.
      Mr. Forth: Yes indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was being seduced by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and trying to give a comprehensive answer to his pertinent question.
      Mr. Greg Knight: There is a good example in America that supports my right hon. Friend's view. In the Georgetown area of Washington, when all other shops are closed, the bars, restaurants and book stores remain open. They seem to be on to something. If the law says that it is all right for a bookshop in an airport to open on Christmas day, why should the rest of us be denied the opportunity to go to Borders and peruse the books there on that day?
      Mr. Forth: That is a fair point. I cannot remember whether the area is K street or P street in Washington DC; it is one or the other. My right hon. Friend has pointed out yet another anomaly. It seems rather unfair on the public at large that those who choose to travel and use a railway station, service area or airport will be able to avail themselves of such services, because of the exemptions that the Bill already contains, while the rest of us cannot do so. I would have thought—surprisingly, this does not appear to be the case—that including books in the list would have been utterly uncontroversial. What could be more innocent, pleasurable, educational and positive than being able to buy a book, even if it is on Christmas day?
      A similar argument applies to amendment No. 7, which makes the case for allowing the sale of children's toys and games on Christmas day. I would have thought that that was almost self-evidently reasonable. Let us suppose that someone had inadvertently forgotten, or failed to buy, a toy or game for a child in their family or elsewhere, or was suddenly invited to visit somebody on Christmas day without having purchased a gift for a child. Rather than disappoint the child, would it not be proper to permit the sale of children's toys and games on Christmas day, of all days? I would have thought that that was self-evidently a very strong argument. If one can buy liquor, why can one not buy a child's toy or game on the day of giving?
      Ms Dari Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that for children,

      1005
      Christmas day is a day of magic? Most of them think that their presents have not come from their parents or a shop, even though they may have seen them in shops. Is he not suggesting a very functional way of treating Christmas day?
      Mr. Forth: I do not know what sort of magic kingdom the hon. Lady occupies, but I think that reality has intruded rather more on many people's lives, and sadly, that is the case even for young children.
      Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) were kind enough to invite me at the last minute to join his family celebrations on Christmas day. What would happen if I were more than happy to accept, but I thought that it would be appropriate to take gifts for his children? Given that he has six children, that might a rather expensive proposition, but it would be entirely appropriate to take gifts for his younger children. What would be wrong in my wanting to purchase something appropriate for a child when visiting another family on Christmas day?
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have a solution for my right hon. Friend. Since motorway service stations and petrol stations are open, and as products that I know are of interest to children will available in such places, he need have no problem. I know that the children of our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would appreciate any small gift from my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Forth: On the face of it, that proposition seems to answer the particular case that I made, but it does not deal with the more general case. Where the journey from the visitor to the host does not involve a motorway journey, my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion will not apply.
      Mr. Knight: If our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough were true to his beliefs, he would not accept Christmas presents purchased on Christmas day. So far as the magic of Christmas is concerned, what about the poor family who have a burglary on Christmas eve in which all the presents are stolen? [Laughter.]
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend illustrates very well the sort of problem or dilemma that may arise, and I do not for the life of me understand why his suggestions caused such hilarity. On each Christmas day, tragic and difficult circumstances of the sort that he describes must arise throughout the country. I do not see why we should not allow the flexibility that I propose. After all, if we all wake up on Christmas day with a hangover after over-celebrating on Christmas eve and decide that we need a hair of the dog, we can go straight out and buy intoxicating liquor, because the exemptions will allow us to do so.
      11.45 am
      It is beyond me to understand why hon. Members should resist the thought, as I gather those present do, that we should be able to buy books or children's toys on Christmas day, when we can go out and buy booze. I simply do not understand it. Neither do I understand the apparent resistance to the idea that, having had 10 years'
      1006
      experience of the 1994 Act and the exemptions that it contains, we should be able to look at it again and perhaps add to it or even subtract from it. I cannot see why that is creating such difficulty.
      I think that I can understand why the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who may be able to expand on this point, wanted to slide from the Sunday trading provisions to the Christmas day provisions as uncontroversially as possible. I suspect that he may well be proved right in his judgment some time later this morning. None the less, it would have been helpful if we had decided to look again at the list of exemptions, which my amendments seek to do.
      I had thought that in turning to amendment No. 8, I would be moving from simple and uncontroversial suggestions to a proposal that would be somewhat more controversial in a number of ways. The amendment states:
      "Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop which meets a prescribed local need."
      In this instance, I did indeed want to introduce a much wider degree of flexibility. I confess that in speaking to the amendment, I am trying to edge towards that element of local discretion that I have mentioned once or twice already, to see whether we can pay much more respect to local communities and their needs. The irony is that I have had to approach the matter through a route that I would normally deprecate and be uneasy about. Proposed subsection (2B) states:
      "in this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
      I confess that that was the only way into this issue that I was able to find for the time being, but I hope that it helps to establish the principle, or precedent.
      In a sense, what I am proposing harks back to amendment No. 11, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), which we discussed a short time ago. I am trying to reach out and see whether we can identify communities in which one could well make a case for allowing a particular shop to open on Christmas day for particular local community needs. Such a need could be religious or it could be rather different. In a remote or scattered community, the only store might be a large store that provides a wide range of products and services, but it could be established that it was relevant on Christmas day. Such a store might sell almost all the things that have been mentioned, whether in my amendments or in the existing list of exemptions. I wanted to see whether we could introduce some degree of flexibility, even though, in the case of amendment No. 8, it would be through the discretion of the Secretary of State, in order to help such a community.
      Again, I would have thought that that would be relatively uncontroversial. After all, I think that all political parties now claim that they are signed up to elements of local discretion and local decision making. Certainly the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are fully signed up to the concept of devolution, whatever that may mean. Very much in that spirit, I am suggesting a mechanism, in the context of the Bill—given that it is essentially restrictive—to allow for an easement, which might well be appropriate, so that more attention can be given to the needs of local communities.
      Just glancing at amendment No. 10, I was slightly puzzled by its content. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the

      1007
      Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) can explain this, but it seems to me that it is already covered by paragraph 3(1)(d) of schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I am not sure that I see the distinction between that and the amendment, but that is for them to explain.
      Mr. Knight: If my right hon. Friend looks at the 1994 Act, he will see that paragraph 3(1)(d) states that a registered pharmacy is exempt only if it
      "is not open for the retail sale of any goods other than medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances".
      Amendment No. 10 is drafted slightly wider, and would allow a Boots type of store to open and sell any of the products within its range.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will want to expand on that in due course. It just shows how carelessly I read his amendment, and schedule 1.
      I might mention in passing—I will return to this theme on Third Reading—that I have looked at what happens in other countries. Although we should never slavishly follow what happens in other countries, it can sometimes be quite informative. I got the Library to look at what happens in broadly relevant and parallel countries, such as Canada, Australia and the United States—[Interruption.] I deliberately did not mention any European countries, because I do not regard them as in any way parallel or similar to this country in any respect, either politically or culturally. I preferred to look at the real countries of Canada, Australia and the United States, as opposed to the increasingly pseudo countries absorbed into the ever more embracing European Union.
      In Canada on Christmas day and new year's day, all businesses affected by the Retail Business Holidays Act must close unless they qualify for an exemption. The exemptions are interesting. I did not replicate them in my amendments, but in a way, I wish that I had. According to the Act, small stores under 2,400 sq ft—note the square feet; the good old Canadians are at least traditional in that respect—with a maximum of three employees, which is a variable that we have not introduced, that sell food, tobacco, antiques or handicrafts, may be open. That is another interesting possibility that we might want to consider at a subsequent stage. Gas stations and garden supply outlets are also exempt from closing requirements. Other exceptions affect businesses including laundromats and car rental offices, which are not defined by law as retail businesses, and therefore not bound by the Act.
      I mentioned that in passing, just to illustrate the different nuances that one can get in other broadly similar cultures. They are worth looking at, and we may want to return to them. Perhaps I am just putting down a marker that should I ever come anywhere near the top of the private Members' Bill ballot, which I pray every year I will not, there may be some scope for coming back to the issue of Sunday trading and Christmas day trading and reconsidering the exemptions.
      I have just described my little list of exemptions. I hope that the House is sympathetic to it, because by and large, it is pretty innocuous and, in some cases, would be
      1008
      genuinely valuable. I hope that the House will find relevant the fact that a similar approach is taken in other countries—I gave just one example, that of Canada. I also hope that the House accepts that this is an appropriate occasion to reconsider the list, to update it and to make it a bit more flexible to meet the reasonable needs that I am sure can exist on Christmas day.
      Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has got himself into some difficulties. I am not sure which way he is coming from. Having been on the receiving end of his taunts about my party, I must say that he seems to be behaving in the way in which he usually accuses Liberal Democrats of behaving, which is to face both ways.
      On the more serious matter of the Bill, the starting point is that Christmas day should be special and, in an ideal world, no one would be shopping or doing anything on it. Then we say that we should look at the parallel of the Sunday trading laws to specify what people should and should not do on Christmas day. That is worrying, because the House is making choices about what people should or should not do on Christmas day. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman demonstrate the anomaly of that position, as it would be all right to buy strong liquor but not books. People talk about the classic values of Victorian Britain, but Scrooge could buy almost everything that he needed on Christmas morning after his conversion by the three ghosts overnight. In Victorian Britain, restrictive trading was not common.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Good legislation is the result of consultation, and this Bill was subject to thorough consultation. More than 90 per cent. of respondents favoured keeping Christmas day special, which is why the Bill has proceeded as far as it has.
      Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister. As I have made clear, I favour keeping Christmas day special. My family and I, like many other people, treat it as a special day. I am not an avid churchgoer, but I sometimes take my family to church at Christmas. I celebrate Christmas as a family event, but I also acknowledge its religious significance, and I believe that the majority of people in the country want to do the same. I am not hostile to the Bill, as I understand the motivation behind it, but I have some practical reservations. We seem to be saying that big shops should not open but lots of little ones should.
      Chris Bryant: We are saying that they can open.
      Malcolm Bruce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but there seems to be an arbitrary distinction about which shops should open. Are we saying that people should be allowed to work and shop if they choose, but only at places specified on a list? I accept that there has been consultation on the nature of those outlets, but we are nevertheless making a decision about what it is reasonable for people to do. It is one thing to say that we want to observe Christmas day and keep it special, but another to say that as a result only certain shops can open at certain times.

      1009
      Consultation on the Sunday trading laws showed that while people accept restrictions on the opening hours of supermarkets and other shops in England, many believe that 10 am is a late opening time. If someone wakes early on a Sunday morning and decides that they want bacon and eggs for breakfast, 10 am may be a little late to go out and buy them. I do not know whether that is the reasoning behind their choice, but people would like the shops to open a little earlier. We are therefore in danger of passing a Bill that, in five or 10 years' time—and probably long before that—Members will wish to amend in the light of changing circumstances.
      The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst therefore demonstrate that we are making an arbitrary distinction, which does not make sense in relation to individual choice. I freely concede that I have always taken a libertarian position on the matter, just as I have on Sunday trading.
      Mr. Forth: I am slightly disappointed to be getting the blame as I, too, am reluctant to accept the anomalous list of exemptions in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has transferred to his Bill. I am simply trying to make that list less anomalous or more flexible, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) would approve of that. If he does not like the restrictions in the existing list, can he not go along with my slightly less restrictive list?
      Malcolm Bruce: I probably could, but I am not sure what sort of legislation the right hon. Gentleman wants. I am fairly certain what he does not want, but I am not at all sure what he does want I have made my preferences clear, and the majority of my colleagues are enthusiastic in their support for the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Keeping Christmas day special commands widespread support, and many people who are not religious or whose faith is non-Christian accept that others wish to do so. However, that does not mean that we should impose a restrictive framework on which shops should open and what people can and cannot do, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has highlighted that dilemma.
      12 noon
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: First, I apologise to the promoter of the Bill, of which I am a strong supporter, for not being present earlier.
      The day my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, in whatever position but particularly if he is in the top six, he may rest assured that on the days on which his Bill appears before the House, the House will never have been so full on a Friday of hon. Members seeking to exact the maximum revenge and subjecting his Bill to the depth of scrutiny to which he has subjected any number of Bills on a Friday. Of course, we all thoroughly support my right hon. Friend in pursuing his parliamentary duty so diligently that he has ensured that much legislation that would otherwise have gone through without the requisite scrutiny has been subjected to proper scrutiny. Nevertheless, we all look forward to the day that his Bill comes in the first six.
      1010
      As I said, I am a strong supporter of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I believe that Christmas day is particularly special in this country, and that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. It is therefore important that we ensure that the special character of Christmas day remains. That is the purpose of the Bill, as much as it is to ensure that those who wish to spend Christmas day with their family are able to do so and are not obliged to work or penalised for wishing to observe Christmas day with their family.
      When moving the amendments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst started by saying that he was looking to repeal some of the exemptions. In fact, all he has done is to add to the list of exemptions. As I am not, like him, a libertarian, although I believe in individual freedom, I hoped he would help us repeal some of the exemptions, but he added more. There must be a question as to whether farm shops ought to be open on Christmas day and whether there is something special about them or about off-licences. The rest of the existing exemptions are there for good reason.
      I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the exemptions fall into two categories. The first is emergency services. We would all agree that the availability of medical supplies at pharmacies on Christmas day would fall into that category. Unless we propose to stop trains and cars running, it is important that those facilities should also be open. I am not sure about exhibition stands. I do not see why those should be open on Christmas day.
      The other exemptions fall into the second category, which I would describe as facilitating the getting together of families on Christmas day. We live in a society where families are widely dispersed throughout the land, so for many families it is, sadly, essential that they drive on Christmas day in order to be with their relatives. Unless families are fortunate enough to drive a car with good fuel consumption, which I do, even though it is a French car—I cannot help that—they will have to refuel. It is unrealistic to expect petrol stations to remain open but not the shops attached to them. Anyway, those shops fall within the small shop category. So there seems to be a lot of logic in some of those exemptions in so far as they fall into those two categories, but the Government—who, I understand, support the Bill—might usefully consider removing some of the exemptions in so far as they do not fall into those categories, particularly if they are determined to maintain the special nature of Christmas day.
      Mr. Chope: What does my hon. Friend think about the rules on stations? Stations are not open on Christmas day because the people who run the railways do not think that there is sufficient demand. They do not buy into his argument that travelling by train on Christmas day is necessary to facilitate families' getting together.
      Mr. Howarth: As train services do not run on Christmas day, there is no need for railway shops to open. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
      Mr. Forth rose
      Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend wish to support me as well?
      Mr. Forth: I was slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend sought to criticise me for not seeking to reduce

      1011
      the list of exemptions. He had ample opportunity, did he not, to table amendments to the Bill, but he saw fit not to do so; so I find his criticism rather misplaced.
      Mr. Howarth: I did not realise that my right hon. Friend was so sensitive. He is one of my very closest friends, and I have clearly hurt him. I really do apologise to him. I will buy him half a pint of beer to make amends. Of course, he is on rather stronger ground in so far as he is quite right: I should have tabled some amendments to give expression to our mutual desire to reduce regulation.
      Inevitably, the list is arbitrary—the point that my right hon. Friend is making—and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. We are trying to achieve a proper modus vivendi, whereby we can facilitate people travelling to their families on Christmas day and provide emergency facilities for people. Those are the two criteria that should apply. In so far as any of the exemptions does not fall within those criteria, it could usefully be excluded. Perhaps that is, unfortunately, for another day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment in due course.
      Mr. Greg Knight: I rise to speak primarily to amendment No. 10. I would welcome hearing what the Minister has to say about that amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has said, it is similar to the exemption in paragraph 3(1)(d) of schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994, but it does not mirror that exemption. The 1994 Act exempts

      "any shop that … is a registered pharmacy, and … is not open for the sale of goods other than medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances."

      That could cause a difficulty for large stores, such as those in the Boots Group, that are primarily chemists and pharmacies, but which over the years have started to sell other products. One can imagine, for example, a pensioner going into one of those shops on Christmas day to get some urgently needed pills and wanting to buy a shower cap while in the store. As I read the original 1994 Act, those in the shop would commit an offence if they sold a product that could not be described as a medical or surgical appliance while trading on Christmas day. In this day and age, it would be unrealistic to expect the owner of such a large pharmacy somehow to block off or cover certain stalls. Does it really matter if an item that is not strictly medical is bought as an ancillary purchase?
      Ms Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that 3,000 sq ft is a large area? Many Boots shops are smaller than that and current Sunday trading laws do not apply to them. The Bill would not apply to them, either. He gave an example of a pensioner who goes to a store. She would be more likely to go to a small store, which could open if Boots wanted it to. The area of 3,000 sq ft is large and we are therefore considering large Boots stores that are sometimes located outside town centres. We should bear that in mind.
      Mr. Knight: I accept that, but the local chemist may decide that he does not want to open. Anyone who has
      1012
      to go out for a medicinal supply on Christmas day must shop around. As the hon. Lady knows, chemist's shops often put notices on their doors to help their customers, explaining that they are closed on Christmas day, but that store X at Y street is open. The amendment would ensure that a large pharmacy that opened would not run the risk of being prosecuted for selling goods other than the medicinal products that are mentioned in the 1994 Act.
      Mr. Forth: I did not want to let the hon. Lady's intervention pass without pointing out that 3,000 sq ft is no bigger than an average-sized detached house. We are not used in this country to measuring house sizes in sq ft but I assure my right hon. Friend that a house of 3,000 sq ft is no bigger than average. Such a store would not therefore be very large.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts that amendment No. 10 is not a wrecking amendment, but seeks a modest relaxation of the rules simply to ensure that the large pharmacy that goes to the trouble of opening on Christmas day does not have to monitor the items that it sells through the till. I therefore hope that he will react favourably to amendment No. 10.

      Amendment No. 8, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled, is interesting. First, it goes against everything for which he has argued in the past: giving Ministers the power to prescribe regulations that the House does not supervise. In other words, the amendment would give a Minister carte blanche. Secondly, if I understand the amendment correctly, it would mean that a Minister would be in order to say, "I now have the power to make the regulations. I do not think that the measure needs to be widened and I therefore decline to make them." It would appear to give a Minister the opportunity to take the power to widen the scope of the Bill without giving hon. Members a commitment that he intends to use it.
      The power is useful because it would mean that we did not have to go through the process again if any further minor adjustments were deemed necessary in future. Oppositions do not normally like giving Ministers such a power. However, in the case that we are considering, the Minister might want to reflect on it and decide to accept it even if he has no intention of using it today.
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made several attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For example, he said that, a moment ago, my right hon. Friend opposed new clause 1 but now advocated amendment No. 8, and that my right hon. Friend did not support giving Ministers powers to make law through regulations but now proposed that. My right hon. Friend based much of his speech in a bookshop He reminds one of the character in literature called Jan us, given that his arguments have changed since the earlier part of the debate to the view that he has now reached. However, I am delighted to support amendment No. 8.
      My right hon. Friend has not persuaded me about amendments Nos. 6 and 7 because of the point that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made. My point about chemists was different and I believe that if one wishes to buy a book on Christmas day, one does

      1013
      not need to have recourse to a large bookshop. I am therefore sorry that my right hon. Friend has not carried me with him on amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      12.15 pm

      Mr. Kevan Jones: I accept that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is trying, with his amendments, to open up the debate on exemptions. The problem with framing this Bill, as with the 1994 Act, has been that whatever we add to the list of exemptions will create difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in asserting that I do not want to reopen the entire debate on the 1994 Act, because I was not a Member at that time, but I know I hat there was much heated debate and horse trading to get it enacted.
      Turning to the points that have been made on amendment No. 6—for example, on books—the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is quite right to say that there are many outlets for access to a Bible on Christmas day. Someone can view a Bible in a church, for example. In the smaller bookshops that still exist and have not been taken over by larger retailers, Bibles can be purchased, along with a whole range of books. On the point about being able to buy gifts convenience stores, railways stations and other outlets have a range of books available. In all honesty, I would not consider the ability to purchase a book as an essential service, unlike access to a pharmacy.
      Mr. Forth: What about booze?
      Mr. Jones: That might be essential for the celebration of Christmas in some people's eyes, although I would not agree.
      We come back to the point that several Members made eloquently on Second Reading: are we suggesting that, with all the trading days that we have in the year, Christmas should be just another trading day because people cannot plan their Christmas shopping during the lead-up to Christmas? That period already sees not only every Sunday being used for shopping, but late-night opening and other ample opportunities for people to buy everything, including booze and Bibles, that they wish to purchase.
      There is a similar position with children's toys and games. I know that the family of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will be waiting in trepidation for a visit on Christmas day from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I am sure that, should he arrive, he would have had ample opportunity on the way to Gainsborough to purchase small gifts for them.
      Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman would be a present in his own right.
      Mr. Jones: Obviously, some people would agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly make an entertaining Christmas day for the family of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and, no doubt, others. There is opportunity, in smaller convenience stores and other outlets, to purchase emergency supplies or presents on the way to Gainsborough.
      I understand that, under amendment No. 8, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seeks to recognise the fact that there are certain needs and
      1014
      conditions in some areas, especially rural ones, that do not exist in large cities. However, there would be problems in implementing the amendment. How would the right hon. Gentleman define "prescribed local need", and who would make the decision on what that need was?
      Mr. Forth: The Secretary of State.
      Mr. Jones: I am sorry, but I should not like to give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers. I foresee great legal challenges if he allowed a store to be exempt in one area but not in another. The amendment would be expensive and bureaucratic to implement, and it might go against what the Bill is trying to achieve—to keep the special nature of Christmas day—and turn that day into just another shopping day if we had the extensive use of "prescribed local need." No doubt, many large shop owners and companies would describe the service that they offer the local community as meeting a clear need. Furthermore, in most communities, there are extensive local convenience stores, which are mainly family-run, that are not covered by the Bill and will be allowed to open on Christmas day. As for the person on their way to Gainsborough who finds that they have forgotten a packet of stuffing or cranberry sauce, they will find that in most communities there are well-run convenience stores providing that type of service. I reiterate that the Bill will not restrict that.
      The issue of pharmacies is interesting, because there are many small local pharmacies. My village, Sacriston, in Country Durham, has a local pharmacy, and local pharmacies come to an arrangement on Christmas day opening that is published in the local newspaper. They cater for a specific local need on Christmas day, as people wish to get prescriptions or other medical supplies. I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about larger stores such as Boots, but they tend to be located mainly in out-of-town retail outlets or large shopping centres. I accept that under amendment No. 10 the trade or business carried out would be

      "wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products",
      but there would also be a call for pharmacies located in large supermarkets to be able to trade. They would ask, "Why are we treated differently just because someone who uses the pharmacy picks up a packet of crisps on the way?" In my local community, however, local pharmacies open and provide that essential service.
      Mr. Forth: I am puzzled about why the hon. Gentleman seems to be so resistant to any changes to his Bill. It is normal for the House to seek at one stage or another to amend Bills, for this or that reason, and it is perfectly normal for promoters to accept this or that amendment. He seems rigidly unwilling to accept amendments, however. He is not being leant on by the Government by any chance, is he? He is his own man, is he not?
      Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman does not know me very well if he makes that assertion. The point is that this is a simple Bill to close the loophole in the 1994 Act. I am trying to ensure that we do not make that difficult by opening up the Act, and creating problems. Some of

      1015
      the issues that have been raised require discussion, and we might need to revisit the 1994 Act on certain issues. That would require a wider Bill, however, than this small but well-crafted and concentrated one. We are in danger of straying on to a wider agenda.
      As for whether points that have been made today need to be addressed more broadly, I think that the answer is yes. Society has changed since the 1994 Act. Clearly, people's shopping habits and lifestyles are changing. I am not sure whether any Government or private Member's Bill would address that. Last time, a lot of controversy and heated debate was created. Clearly, there are many issues in relation to Sunday trading. I supported the Sunday Trading Bill when I was chairman of licensing on Newcastle city council, and, overall, it has worked. It took away the anomalies and expense with which local councils were left by the Shops Act 1950. I hope that this Bill, if it receives the House's support today, will close one small loophole that most Members who spoke on Second Reading, and who were Members of the House in 1994, thought that it covered anyway.
      I sympathise with the views of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for East Yorkshire, and my attitude to the amendments is not one of resistance. We have had a good discussion on a range of issues. which may lead to their being discussed again at a later stage. That does credit to Members and the House. If something further comes out of today's debate, we shall have done a service not just to the House but to the quality of Sunday trading legislation generally.
      As I have said, I have some sympathy with the amendments, but because of practical difficulties that would arise from them I hope they will not be pressed.
      Mr. Leigh: I thought that one of the most interesting speeches was that of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who drew attention to the logical inconsistencies in both the 1994 Act and the Bill. He is right: there are only two entirely logical, neat solutions. Either we adopt a wholly restrictive point of view and prevent any shops from trading, or we adopt a wholly liberal point of view and say that in a free society people should be allowed to do what they want.
      Unfortunately, when we deal with legislation we must deal with the art of the possible and with compromise—shoddy compromise. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is impossible to construct a Bill that is perfect in terms of its logical application. As a supporter of devolution and the devolution Acts, he knows that that legislation is not entirely logical. He is well acquainted with the West Lothian question—the fact that the Scots are allowed to vote on our legislation but we cannot vote on theirs. He supports that, because he believes in the general principle that Scottish people should be able to govern their own affairs.
      The 1994 Act is a similar shoddy compromise. It proclaims the principle that we should keep Sunday special. This Bill says that we should keep Christmas day special, but we are realistic. We cannot take an absolutist view, and therefore we must allow some exceptions. We must allow people to call into their local
      1016
      filling stations to fill their cars with petrol; in the days when trains ran—in most cases, they no longer do so—we had to allow people to go to railway shops.
      We were very weak in 1994 in the case of the exemption for off-licences, but that too was a shoddy compromise. For some people an off-licence is as essential a local commodity as the local filling station. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that we allowed pharmacies to remain open because we recognised that people have medical needs, but we did not want to accept the principle that pharmacies could sell non-medical commodities.
      All this is just a compromise. I oppose the amendments because I think the aim is to move away from essential relaxations of the law allowing people to get around the country and buy essential medical supplies—to move the goal posts. Why toys, why
      books?
      To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, I should say that he made one good point. Everyone laughed at him when he asked what would happen if the presents were stolen on Christmas eve, but friends of mine were burgled on Christmas eve and the burglar took all the presents that were under the tree. However, it is possible to devise any number of scenarios in favour of being able to shop on Christmas day. If we accept these amendments— starting with
      books, then exempting toys and who knows what else—we shall have no legislation left at all. We might as well scrap the 1994 Act and the Bill, and have a free-for-all.
      Mr. Forth: That may well have been the hidden wish of some of us, but if my hon. Friend shares my view that the intoxicating liquor exemption was somewhat odd and anomalous in 1994 and remains so, was he never even slightly tempted to try to amend the Bill to eliminate that exemption for the purposes of Christmas day?
      12.30 pm

      Mr. Leigh: No, because I hope that I am a politician who recognises political realities. It simply would not be politically realistic to try to get an amendment through the House that would remove that exemption. In any event, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has made the point perfectly well that if he is to have any chance of getting his Bill through, he has to make it as simple as possible. It has to be introduced on the back of the 1994 legislation, and if he were to try to create a separate structure that was in any way different from that legislation, he would never get it through the House. One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has achieved is to ensure that hon. Members who introduce legislation nowadays come to the House with very modest and restricted Bills because they realise that, if they try to make them wider and to create new principles—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Leigh: Of course I accept that injunction. I was simply trying to answer the question that my right hon.

      1017
      Friend had put to me. Incidentally, I would welcome a visit from him bearing gifts on Christmas day, especially if he were dressed as Santa Claus.
      If the amendments were to be passed, starting with toys and books, it would create a new structure for the Bill that would be totally different from the 1994 legislation. That would drive a cart and horse—or perhaps a sleigh and reindeer—through the Bill and create something totally different from what the hon. Member for North Durham wants to achieve. I therefore oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right in recognising that this is an illogical Bill and that it comprises lots of shoddy compromises. The amendments try to make it less illogical and less shoddy. I particularly ask the promoter of the Bill to consider amendment No. 10, which relates to registered pharmacies
      "where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medicinal and surgical appliances."
      The argument against that is that there is no point in having a large shop of more than 3,000 sq ft to provide those services. If that argument is correct, the existing exemption, which covers only registered pharmacies, would be meaningless. That would mean that the promoter of the Bill recognised that it would be impossible to have a registered pharmacy of some 3,000 sq ft, and if he recognised that, why should that exemption be transposed anyway? Surely it would make more sense, if we recognise the importance of access to pharmacies on Christmas day and other days, that those pharmacies that can be included can be of any size, provided that the trade or business that they carry on
      "consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medicinal and surgical appliances."
      Amendment No. 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is one that I find attractive. It relates to the sale of books, and as he said, there is now an increasing number of specialist bookshops, and that can have the effect of exciting readers, young and old, and giving them the idea of picking up a book and reading it. Let us couple that with the fact that many people, give book tokens as Christmas presents. When can those book tokens be converted into real books? What could be better than for a father or mother to say to their child on Christmas day, after their auntie or granny has given them a book token, "Let's go off to the boot shop together, as a family, and choose some books." I am sure that even my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would not find that suggestion unreasonable, anti-family or anti-Christian. Surely this is a sensible way of recognising the reality that, since the 1994 Act, much larger and more attractive specialist bookshops have opened. There is also an increasing national crisis in that a whole generation of people apparently do not want to read books for pleasure.
      Ms Coffey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such large bookshops, which serve excellent coffee, are exciting, but people can visit them 364 days a year. He paints a very nice picture of a family going together to the bookshop on Christmas day to spend the book
      1018
      token that they bought for their children, but what about the family of the employee who has to work in the bookshop on Christmas day?
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady seems to be concerned only about the families of employees who work in large bookshops; she seems not to be concerned about the families of those who work in small ones. I am afraid that the more I listen to this debate, the more I realise that it is totally illogical to try to separate small bookshops from large ones, small pharmacies from large ones, and so on. However, that is what we are discussing today, and I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that, for the reasons that I have set out, it is sensible to treat large bookshops in the same way as small ones.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that I had tabled an amendment that, sadly, could not be selected because it was not covered by the Bill's long title. The Bill cares so little about the protection of employees that its long title does not even allow for an amendment that sought to provide such protection.
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is rightly critical of the Bill's promoter and sponsors, who were doubtless aided and abetted by Government Front Benchers who wanted to restrict the Bill's terms as much as possible. In effect, they wanted to do so to prevent us from dealing with matters of much greater concern—a lot of time has been available today to do so—and to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made about all the legislation on this issue being an illogical and shoddy compromise.
      If we are concerned about reading habits, why can we not allow the big bookshops to open on Christmas day? We are not saying that they must open; we are simply trying to give them the option to do so. At the moment, the opportunity to browse in a large bookshop on Christmas day arises only if one is travelling by air. Frankly, where is the logic in allowing people to fly on Christmas day? Why can they not complete their journeys on an earlier or subsequent day? Why should they use our airports on such a day, given that many of our airports employ far more people than are employed in large shops? Why should such employees have to work on Christmas day?
      One can advance all sorts of arguments as to why Christmas day should be kept so special that nobody works at all, apart from priests and the emergency services, but that is not the position of the Bill's promoter and sponsors. They are saying that many other people should be able to work on Christmas day for various reasons, but for some reason that cannot include anybody working in a large bookshop. That ignores the importance of being able to excite those who have received book tokens as Christmas presents from members of their family into the habit of reading.
      It is surely in the national interest to allow large bookshops to open on Christmas day, and I hope that the Minister addresses that issue in his response. Perhaps it would also be in the national interest to close down all the television services, apart from those that produce the Queen's Message. Most families would accept that the presence of a television in the living room is more intrusive and destructive of a family gathering than anything else. So let us promote the family and

      1019
      promote education. Let us keep the bookshops open on Christmas day, and perhaps close down the television services.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I am slightly worried about some of the responsibilities that would be placed on my shoulders were I to accept the amendments tabled by various Members. That said, we have had a good debate on some of the issues that needed to be examined.
      I shall deal with the various amendments quickly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has already dealt with them. On amendment No. 6, the list in question is an arbitrary one and we do not want to revisit it. We are being asked to add books to that list, and although we all want to raise standards and ensure that people become more literate, there are perhaps other ways of doing so than by opening bookshops on Christmas day. So for that reason, we do not want to add to the list.
      On amendment No. 7, people say that Christmas day is already over-commercialised and toys are not an essential item. We do not want to deprive children of their mums and dads who work in shops on Christmas day, if we can help it, so we are not inclined to support the amendment.
      In respect of amendment No. 8, we talked about bureaucracy earlier and I was chided on Second Reading and when we debated the money resolution for being over-bureaucratic in attempting to apply the Bill. However, there are no criteria for local need in the Bill and we want to avoid going down this route, which would create more problems.
      I am more concerned about amendment No. 10. I acknowledge the principle behind what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggested. I do not accept the exact wording of the amendment, but I acknowledge the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said and want to reflect further on whether the Bill meets the criteria that he outlined.
      Mr. Greg Knight: May I say that, thus far, the Minister has behaved in an exemplary manner? His attitude and approach should be a model for all Ministers. On the basis of his undertaking that he wants to achieve what amendment No. 10 is designed to achieve and will reflect further on the wording, I will not press my amendment.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful for that. We want to get the Bill right. I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: It is always disappointing, when one tables amendments in good faith in order to seek to improve a Bill, to find that they do not gain support from any quarter of the House. In that case, far from seeking to test the will of the House—I do not propose to do so on this occasion—I will say merely that an opportunity has been missed here.
      It is all very well for everyone—the promoter, my hon. Friends, the Minister—to oppose the amendment, but what we have before us is very unsatisfactory. The
      1020
      provisions are full of anomalies and difficult to justify, yet we are supposed to give up the opportunity to put the Bill right. That is the gist of what has been said. I fully understand the rationale—I, of all people, could hardly
      disagree—that in order to keep the Bill tight and acceptable to the widest number of people, we should not put it at risk through amendments. In normal circumstances. I find that argument attractive and not a little tempting. On this occasion, having listened to the debate and gained an understanding of the House's intent—very much in the spirit of what my right hon.
      and hon. Friends have said—I shall withdraw the
      amendment in the hope that we may be able to return to some of the issues on a different occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) In its application for the purposes of subsection (2), Schedule 3 to the 1994 Act (loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning) has effect as if the reference to Sunday were a reference to Christmas Day.'.
      This is another occasion on which I find it puzzling that a provision in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 has not been carried forward into the Bill. Given the intimate connection between the 1994 Act and the Bill, I would have hoped that the promoter would examine the positive and good features of the earlier Act to ensure that they were carried forward to the Bill in the spirit of bringing Christmas day into line with Sundays. I was very disappointed—I shall return to the point on Third Reading—that the opportunity was not taken to carry forward an element of proper protection for employees who do not wish to work on Christmas day, and to reflect it in both the short and the long title of the Bill. I mention that only in passing now, but I will raise the matter again on Third Reading.
      My amendment deals with a very precise measure in the 1994 Act, which could and should be carried forward into the Bill. It refers simply to loading and unloading at large shops on a Sunday morning, and I now wish to apply the same provision to Christmas day. Surely, to the extent that the acts of loading and unloading are viewed as undesirable on Sundays, they must be viewed as equally or even more undesirable on Christmas day. For the life of me, I cannot see why that provision is not incorporated in the Bill.
      12.45 pm

      Mr. Greg Knight: Is it not the case that greater nuisance, annoyance, menace and disturbance are often caused to residents from loading, particularly from container lorries that service big shops, than from the act of trading from those shops?
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend makes the point better than I had hitherto been able to, for which I am grateful. He is right, and that must be why the loading provision with reference to Sundays was included in the 1994 Act. From the varying experiences of our different constituencies, we all know that loading and unloading can be a source of great unhappiness and distress. It is an essential part of our modern life, and our retail trade is probably one of the most efficient in the world in its

      1021
      arrangements for supplying stores How rare it is to see—if, indeed, one ever sees them these days—empty
      shelves in our stores large or small, and that is a great tribute to our systems of distribution. I pay tribute to all involved in the distribution business, but—it is a big but—there are considerable social considerations governing the hours and days of the year when that may be done.
      My challenge to the House is simple: it seemed sensible and desirable to include the loading provision in schedule 3 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994, and my amendment seeks simply to carry that provision forward into the Bill. If it is deemed undesirable that loading or unloading should take place on a Sunday, that must equally, or even more so, be the case on Christmas day.
      Mr. Chope: Will my right hon. Friend address the point that if vehicles need to be loaded or unloaded outside large shops, employees in those shops must attend to deal with that event?
      Mr. Forth: Yes; my hon. Friend beats me to the point, for which I am grateful. That is self-evidently the case. We must not forget—I do not wish to be misunderstood
      here—that loading and unloading involves not only the driver of the vehicle and his or her assistants, but the employees of the receiving store, whatever size it may be, who must open the premises, who may have to assist with loading and unloading, and who must certainly receive the goods being delivered. If the point is not covered in the Bill, as my amendment seeks to ensure, there will be, at the very least, a risk—I put it no higher—that the employees of the distributing company, or of the distribution element of the retailing company, will be involved, and others, perforce, must also be.
      I do not want to belabour the point; it almost makes itself. I hope, therefore, that the Bill's promoter will see fit to recommend to the House that a measure included in the 1994 Act can and should be carried forward, through my amendment, to the Bill.
      Mr. Brazier: I should have made it clear earlier that I speak today in a personal capacity on a matter that has long been entirely a question of conscience in my party.
      I hope that the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), will be able to agree to the amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with considerable eloquence, and I am glad to support him. The amendment should come as no surprise to those on the Government Front Bench following Second Reading, when the argument was raised by several people, including me. Sympathetic noises were made at that time, and it seems an extraordinary anomaly that a little piece of the original legislation has been left out of the Bill.
      My right hon. Friend referred to the large numbers of employees involved in loading. I confess that although I am concerned about them, as the representative of a major regional shopping centre I am more concerned about people living immediately round those premises. I suspect that any large store would be able to find without any difficulty a small number of employees who would be happy to work on a Sunday.
      1022
      In my constituency—we sometimes have 15,000
      people on the high street, which shows the scale of our
      shopping centre—there are substantial numbers of
      people, many elderly, who live close to our largest stores. I will mention one of them: my parish priest, who has completed 40 years in the priesthood and lives next to the largest store in Canterbury. He has not raised the issue with me but, in 1994 his curate pointed out the problems caused by unloading.
      As has been pointed out, loading can be a bigger problem for people living next to a store than shopping, with the sound of those wretched heavy lorries with their bleepers going off when they reverse, the sound of enormous doors being slid to and fro, and the banging and so on, sometimes very early in the morning. I do not see why on two days of the year—the other, of course,
      being Easter—people should not be exempted from that. Let me be clear: none of the department stores in Canterbury is a problem in that regard, but they all make the point that if one or two stores broke the line, it would put the others at a competitive disadvantage. There was sympathy for that view on Second Reading.
      The promoter of the Bill has steered it through the House extremely skilfully, and his interchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have become more and more touching at every stage, revealing sides that one hardly knew were there. This is an excellent amendment. Everyone understands why it is needed and I hope that both the hon. Gentleman and the Government will support it.
      Mr. Knight: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I have had some differences this morning, but we have now reached agreement. I accept the force of his arguments. The original restriction in the Sunday trading legislation applies to any large shop, and prohibits loading or unloading before 9 am on a Sunday unless consent has been sought from the local authority. I would have gone further than my right hon. Friend. I think there should be no loading, full stop—not just early loading—on
      Christmas day.
      Luckily, I do not live near a large store, but a few years back I was taking part in a classic car rally and made the mistake of booking into a hotel adjoining the car park and loading bay of a large store. I was rudely woken up at 7 am by two delivery employees who bore more than a passing resemblance—certainly in how they behaved—to the screen comics Laurel and Hardy, in
      that they seemed to take great delight in throwing around metal pallets and anything that would make a noise to create disturbance. [Interruption.] I hear someone saying, sotto voce, that they must have known I was there.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had not heard that comment. I wish it had not been uttered.
      Mr. Knight: I do not think that those involved knew that I was staying at the hotel. What happened brought home to me the unnecessary intrusion that many people who live near to such supermarkets must suffer in what is supposed to be their private home life. Although they must often bite their lip and live with such activities during the week, I think that they could do without such a nuisance on Sundays and on Christmas day.

      1023
      If the Minister is unable or unwilling to accept the amendment today, I hope that he will do what he did in respect of amendment No. 10, which I tabled—recognise that an issue needs to be addressed and undertake to look at the matter and amend the Bill during the remainder of its passage.
      Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the rather unusual schedule for private Members'
      legislation this year—the final day for considering it in
      the Commons is 15 October—presents us with an
      opportunity? If the promoter or the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, there would be an opportunity for them to seek to amend the Bill in the Lords, after which it could comfortably return to this House by 15 October for us to deal with the matter then. Unusually, that opportunity exists; indeed, I understand that that is one of the reasons why the Government schedule private Members' Bills to run so late in the year.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out to the House the opportunities that exist for making such an amendment. I do not mind how the Minister does it, but I hope that he will do something to alleviate the problems and nuisance that this loophole will undoubtedly cause.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) summed up the effects of unloading and deliveries on those who live close to large out-of-town retail outlets. The disturbance will often occur at very unsocial hours. Such problems are bad enough for people who live in city centres, but many people who live in what used to be semi-rural areas are now suffering the effects of early morning deliveries, and I sympathise with them. I also sympathise with the amendment, because the main thrust of my Bill is to keep that one day of the year, Christmas day, special not only for shop workers, but for people's enjoyment. Peace and quiet on a Christmas day should be a right.
      I am told that the drafting of the amendment means that is it not technically possible for it to achieve what it seeks to do, so I ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to seek leave to withdraw it. The only fear that I have—although I accept the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who has more experience of such matters—is that if the Bill goes to the other place in that
      way, it will run out of legislative time. If we have full cooperation in all parts of the House, it should not be beyond our wit to come up with something that could meet aspirations that I would sympathise with, as would all Labour Members.
      Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if an amendment were carried in the other place, it would be the first business when the Bill returned to this House on 15 October, because Lords amendments will take priority over everything else?
      Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my main interest is to get the Bill through. With active cooperation from Opposition Members, I think that such
      1024
      a process would be a way forward. I know from the comments that have been made by Opposition Members that the Bill has their support and sympathy, as well as that of Labour Members. If we can come up with a proposal, I would hope to see a way forward. However, it would be sad if the Bill were to fall on one technicality. The active support arid co-operation of all hon. Members would be needed.
      Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The promoter of the Bill has made a number of fair comments about his concern that if the Bill is amended in the way in which I think all hon. Members wish it to be amended, it may fall. The Minister has a team with him, although I know that we are not supposed to see them. Would you be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment on this matter, so that it can be dealt with today?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would want to hear from the Minister before I adjudicated on such a question.
      1 pm
      Mr. Sutcliffe: We do have a difficulty, which has been identified. I want to meet the spirit of the amendment, but it is technically deficient and would not achieve what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wants it to achieve. I am also aware of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said about the procedural situation. Amendment No. 10 is different because it can be covered in guidance. Amendment No. 5, however, is about prohibition and would need to be on the face on the Bill. I am sympathetic to the amendment and look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. for guidance on how we can get round the problem. I am prepared to consider the amendment, but I do not want to commit to a course of action that would cause us to lose the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is the general will of the House to overcome what might otherwise be seen as a technical difficulty, the Chair is prepared to accept a manuscript amendment, but it will have to be presented very quickly indeed if it is to be dealt with in an orderly manner before the House moves to Third Reading.
      Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your ruling, would the answer be for the House to adjourn for 15 minutes so that those involved with the Bill can draft the manuscript amendment?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think that I can afford to prejudice the laid down business of the House by an adjournment of that kind. Some swift action has to be taken. I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of right hon. and hon. Members to allow a few moments for further consideration of the matter while appropriate wording is formulated.
      Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave us an idea of the extent of the variation in the wording that would be required to bring it into order in a way that he would find acceptable. If my wording needs to be altered only very slightly, rather than more radically, that could be done quickly in the form of a manuscript

      1025
      amendment. We look to the Minister for guidance on whether my amendment can be manually tweaked and laid before the House.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) held ministerial positions under the previous Government and know that officials become jittery when Ministers try to accommodate the will of the House on the hoof at the Dispatch Box. Officials want to ensure that we meet the requirements of parliamentary counsel. The difficulty is that tweaking the words may seem appropriate to us, but may not be helpful for parliamentary counsel. I understand that information is being checked with parliamentary counsel. Although I accept the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, it would be wrong of me to undertake to alter words without the support of legal and parliamentary counsel.
      Mr. Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister sat down now, would it be possible for him to get leave to speak again if, in the intervening period, other people who wish to speak in the debate were to do so?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be a matter for the House. I think that I should refine my earlier ruling. In making it, I was not aware of exactly how procedurally easy and technically correct it would be to identify the correct wording. There will be a further opportunity, if a formulation can be found, for an amendment to be introduced in another place if there is a clear indication that the Minister intends to respond to the wishes of the House in that respect. It would not be appropriate for me to hold up the business of the House to facilitate something that cannot be done very quickly and in a way that satisfies all the tests that legislation should pass. This is not the absolute last-ditch time that we can put right a matter that the House wants to see effected in the Bill.
      Mr. Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the whole House is grateful for your ruling. If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) catches your eye and speaks for a few minutes when the Minister finishes his remarks—he may have already finished; I am not certain—perhaps the Minister could take that opportunity to find out whether the manuscript amendment is in order. In that way, we may still be able to dispose of the matter today.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he would like to be satisfied that he has the clearance of parliamentary counsel and his advisers before he commends a particular wording to the House, even though there is a general intent to get it right. It is important that it is technically correct, so that the legislation is not in any way defective. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman and the House, if there is the will, there is another way that would be effective in achieving that without detriment to the legislation.
      Mr. Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without wishing in any way to
      1026
      challenge what you have said, it would be helpful to know whether the Minister is seeking to contact parliamentary counsel now, or whether that is impossible. If that is happening at the moment, some hon. Members would wish to continue our debate for a short period while inquiries are taking place. If they cannot take place now, it would be helpful to know that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So that we may be clear, I did not accept that the Minister had finally concluded his speech. He still has the floor, and if he wishes to resume his speech to clarify any further points, I call upon him to do so.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I apologise but, in the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, it will not be possible to get the clearance and cover that I seek in the available time scale. I prefer the route via the other place that you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the caveat about not losing the Bill. I certainly want to reflect the spirit of hon. Members' suggestions in any subsequent amendment, and urge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to withdraw his amendment on that basis.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful both to the hon. Member for North Durham and to the Minister for their extremely positive approach, which is a good example of the proper use of procedures for the scrutiny and consideration of Bills. It has emerged that my modest amendment has support on both sides of the House, and the general will is that it should be pursued. I do not wish in any way to jeopardise the Bill at this stage, and in that spirit, I join the Minister in hoping that he and the hon. Member for North Durham will find a way of accepting in the House of Lords an amendment of the nature that we have discussed and broadly agreed, on the understanding, if my procedures are correct—that is not always the case—that such an amendment could come back to the House of Commons, either on 16 July or on 15 October. Unusually, we have more time then than we have had in previous years.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I want to be absolutely clear about what we are doing. If he is right about the procedure, and that can be done, there is no problem as far as I am concerned. However, if it cannot be done, we need to deal with the matter appropriately.
      Mr. Forth: The Minister is a man of integrity, and I very much accept the spirit and letter of what he has said. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.8 pm
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I pay tribute to everyone who took part in the debate on Report, which was very good and well natured. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have tried to improve the Bill, and with Members' good will it will, I hope, complete Third

      1027
      Reading and become law in another place. I am pleased that it has reached this stage, and I pay tribute to hon. Members who contributed to Second Reading and served on the Standing Committee. I thank the Bill's sponsors, including the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who piloted a similar Bill in the last Parliament. However, that Bill ran out of parliamentary time, and she put a lot of time and effort into achieving the aims in my Bill.
      I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for his support, and also my hon. Friend the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who worked hard on the Bill and has worked closely over a number of years for the rights and interests of shop workers. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for their sponsorship of the Bill.
      On Second Reading and on Report, we heard that the Bill was about protecting shop workers. That is correct. It will help 2.6 million shop workers in Britain to keep one day of the year special for themselves and their families. The Bill has also been supported by Church groups and others and by the general public. The number of letters that I have received from members of the public saying that the Bill seems a sensible way forward shows that it has universal support across the country.
      I pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers' union, for its campaign, and particularly to Sir Bill Connor, the retiring general secretary, who has worked tirelessly to promote the Bill and the interests of shop workers over many years. Through his active participation in his union and the trade union movement generally, he has ensured that working conditions for shop workers are better than when he joined the union as a young official.
      David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely accurate when he describes the good work done by USDAW. When I introduced my private Member's Bill this time last year to afford protection to shop workers in Scotland, I found USDAW to be an extremely effective campaigner on behalf of its members, which is not true of all trade unions.
      Mr. Jones: I concur with the first part of those remarks, but as a former full-time official of the GMB, I cannot concur with my hon. Friend's remarks about other trade unions.
      I pay tribute to the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which has worked to promote the Bill. Its work has widespread support. The Bill also received wide support in the House. Early-day motion 327, which I tabled in December last year, had support across the House. Both on Second Reading and in the debate today we saw that
      1028
      although hon. Members may support the Bill for different reasons, it has cross-party support, irrespective of political differences—for example, it has the support of our libertarian friend the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I know that he is often criticised for being destructive and he was vociferously attacked by a fellow Opposition Member on Second Reading, but he has been extremely constructive as regards the Bill and the amendments that he moved today will improve it.
      The Bill will stop the domino effect that would have occurred among large shops. Once one large shop opened on Christmas day, market pressures would have forced others to follow. It is interesting that in the consultation that took place, the Bill was supported not only by trade unions, religious groups and the public, but by major retailers, which do not want to be forced into making Christmas day just another trading day. Although the debate today on ethnic minorities was important, it is also important to remember that during the consultation there were no major objections to the Bill as framed.
      As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is supported by Mr. David Rae, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores. If it becomes law, it will assist some of the small corner shops and convenience stores that are so vital to many communities. I always describe my constituency as rural with urban problems, and many of the convenience stores in the small villages in North Durham are the life and soul of those communities, so it is important to support them. They meet a social need that will not be affected by the Bill, which will help them in trading on Christmas day.
      The wider debate, which has been touched on but is perhaps for another day, is about whether the Sunday Trading Act 1994 needs to be reconsidered. Given that we are nearly 10 years on, perhaps that needs to be done, but it would have been ambitious, to say the least, to take my private Member's Bill into the minefield that surrounded that Bill in 1994. However, the Government need to consider ensuring that we have a structure and laws that people want and that cater for local needs.
      In conclusion, I thank again all hon. Members who support the Bill and have taken part in today's debates and Second Reading. The Bill has cross-party support and widespread support in the country. I also pay tribute to the Minister for playing a vital role in ensuring the Bill's passage through the House. He has not taken the rigid view that Ministers or officials sometimes take. He has tried to reach the necessary compromises. I apologise to his officials if I have been a bit abrupt with them on occasion. I hope that, with the amendments and good will that have been apparent today, we can ensure that the Bill becomes law when it returns from the other place.
      1.17 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), with whom I have had the pleasure of serving for two years on the Defence Committee, for introducing the Bill with cross-party support. I am delighted to support the Bill; I believe it to be important. I recognise that there is an element of the handout in the nature of the Bill—it enjoys the support of the Government—but there is no

      1029
      harm in that; it ensures that something that most hon. Members agree is an important measure will be placed on the statute book. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and others on the work that they have done in bringing it to this point.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly said a few moments ago, the Bill has been introduced not just for the benefit of shop workers, although that is an important consideration in itself. There is no doubt that shop workers, even if they have the protection of the law, nevertheless feel that if they say that they will not work on Christmas day, just as perhaps some say that they will not work on Sundays, they will be discriminated against in an imperceptible fashion That would be most unfortunate. The Bill will serve to give them that protection.
      As the hon. Gentleman also said, however, the Bill will proceed to the statute book with the support of the major retailers. One might argue that it is a shame that they feel the necessity to have the force of law to protect them from themselves or, indeed, from the venal nature of their customers. Nevertheless, the support of major retailers and, indeed, widespread public support for the Bill is another reason for accepting it.
      The Bill also benefits the country because it reinforces the special nature of Christmas day in this country. Easter and Christmas are our two great Christian festivals. Anything that detracts from their observance detracts from the integrity of our country. Freedom of religion in this country separates us from many other countries. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law worked in the middle east and the same ability to follow one's religion as Muslims find here does not exist in Muslim countries. That is because Christianity is an especially tolerant religion.
      However, it is important to send a clear message that this is a Christian country not only because Christianity is a tolerant religion but because it is the basis on which the country has been moulded. It is the basis for all the laws that we pass. The Christian code of conduct—the ten commandments—is probably the best summary of how to live one's life. All our legislation should be based on the Christian code, which has forged the nation over the years. There is no doubt that it is under threat.
      I do not go to church every Sunday but when I drive there I see the new religion expressing itself in a variety of forms, not least the car boot sale. Thousands of people go to car boot sales every Sunday. If they do not do that, they are often on the football pitch. I believe that people should be entitled to do what they want in this country—I am a high Tory, not a libertarian. However, I believe that it is important to ensure that the Christian nature of this country is reinforced, not diminished. The Bill conveys that clear message and also protects shop workers.
      For what purpose does the Bill protect shop workers? It protects them for the purpose that we, as Christians, believe to be necessary: to enable them to be with their families. We accept that not all members of the emergency services can be with their families but we must ensure that we make it easier for people to spend Christmas day with their families. The Bill will secure that.
      1030
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I know that he shares my convictions and I congratulate him on the part that he has played in supporting the measure not only from the Opposition Front Bench but in multifarious ways, to ensure that we do all that we can to preserve the nuclear family as the building block of our society. I commend the Bill to the House.
      1.23 pm
      Mr. Pickthall: I begin by declaring an interest in that I have been a member of USDAW for a long time. I shall make a couple of brief points. The Bill deals with working people in businesses that do not need to be open on Christmas day. We fully understand that some workers, such as members of the emergency services, have to work on Christmas day. We also understand that some people choose to work on Christmas day, especially those in small retail outlets that serve immediate neighbourhoods—garages and so on.
      However, not only do the large stores not need to be open on Christmas day but they do not wish to do so. The only large retailer that would make some extra profit would be the first one to open on Christmas day. The following Christmas day, all the other stores would be open as well, so each would then take only a proportionate share of its usual customer spend on that particular day—spend that would otherwise have been taken on Christmas eve or Boxing day.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the consultation was done, it was the fear of the domino effect that concerned most retailers? Most did not want to open on Christmas day but thought that if their opposition were opening on Christmas day, they would have to. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will agree, but this literally comes down to the suggestion, "For Christ's sake, have a day off!"
      Mr. Pickthall: I should not have put it quite like that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a relentless process of follow my leader in the supermarket business, in which all the supermarkets are inescapably locked. None of them dares to step an inch out of line for fear of losing an inch of market share, and the workers are simply dragged along in the slipstream unless we are careful to protect them. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) summed up the point extremely well when he said that the retailers seemed to be saying to us, "We do not want to open, so please legislate to prevent us from opening."
      Of course, this debate is essentially about protecting retail workers for one day a year—just one day, the day when, as has been said over and over again, most families want to be together to celebrate, relax and have a good time. That seems to be a modest thing for us to ask and to legislate on. Just to illustrate that point, I came across a comment by Sylvia Bew, an USDAW member in London who works for Sainsbury's, in an USDAW document on the subject. She pointed out that last Christmas Sainsbury's decided to open some of its London stores but did not announce that decision to its workers until Christmas eve. It is hard to imagine anything more disruptive to a worker's life, or more callous, but it is the inevitable result of a firm's trying to

      1031
      steal a march on the follow-my-leader structure that I described a moment ago—something, however, that they can do only once. It is the inexorability of that process that the Bill is trying to end.
      I finish by heartily congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on the immense amount of clever work that he has done on the Bill over many months. That has been a fine example of how to pursue a private Member's Bill, and not only my union but his will be very proud of him.
      1.27 pm
      Malcolm Bruce: It is interesting that employees and major traders support the thrust of the Bill. Of course, the very fact that major traders want the Bill shows that there are people who would like larger shops to be open on Christmas day, so I wonder whether, in the end, it will slow, rather than stop, the process. As I have said in interventions, there are anomalies about the things that we think that people can and cannot do on Christmas day. We cannot protect catering workers on Christmas day, for example, because many people want to go out to hotels or restaurants for their Christmas dinner or lunch, and no one is suggesting that those workers should have their right to be at home with their family protected. We are taking an arbitrary view that shopping is something that should not happen on Christmas day, while many other activities may go on.
      I am not against that, and I understand the reasoning behind it. I have already said that I share the view that Christmas day is, and should be, special. I simply make the observation that I suspect that in a few years' time there will be pressure on the House to introduce more liberal trading laws for Christmas day. I am not sure that the House can stop that process indefinitely, although clearly, after consultation, there is a mood at this time to preserve the current status of Christmas day and the existing role of large traders. Were traders to take a different view, and begin to want to open on Sundays, considerable pressure would be brought to bear on Members to change the law.
      At the moment, traders seem to make the simple analysis that because there is only so much trade to be had, opening on Christmas day and having to pay extra rates would not increase the total amount of trade, so if they all agree, or if legislation requires them all to agree, they can protect the status quo. I give as an example the independent line that John Lewis took on Mondays. To give its partners a two-day weekend, albeit not at the weekend, John Lewis maintained Sunday and Monday closing for many years. In recent years, the forces of competition have increasingly put pressure on it to open on a Monday, and I am not sure whether any John Lewis store still closes on a Monday. I know for a fact that only in the past year or two has the store in Aberdeen yielded, which demonstrates the pressures.
      This is an English Bill and, as a Scottish Member, it is not my job to oppose or resist it; I simply make a contribution to the debate. The Scottish Parliament is considering a similar Bill, and this debate will help to inform it. If the Bill proceeds in Scotland, I hope that the debate on the previous amendment on loading, and the difficulties in that regard, will assist the legislative process. Clearly, the issue is not different north and south of the border.
      1032
      I accept that it is an ironic unintended consequence that the recent divergence that has developed between the position in England and Scotland is as a result of an anomalous situation—Scotland, having a much tighter observance in the past, did not have the legislation. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly pointed out, however, Christmas was not celebrated vigorously in the Presbyterian tradition, although I can testify that Christmas day is now celebrated in Scotland every bit as enthusiastically as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      There are real issues of debate. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but when we pass legislation we should recognise that it is a compromise—not a very tidy one—and that many of the issues behind it will not
      go away. It is right to keep the issue simple and in line with Sunday trading. Clearly, as the Bill operates on that basis, it has widespread acceptance, and deserves to get the support of both Houses. Therefore, in spite of my reservations I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his Bill, and wish him well. I know that he has the enthusiastic support of many of my colleagues.
      1.32 pm
      Linda Gilroy: Having been present for the Second Reading debate but unable to make a contribution, I want to make a brief one now. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for all the work that he has done to bring the Bill to this stage, and for keeping those of us who have been keen to support it briefed throughout.
      There are probably several thousand shop workers in most of our constituencies. In city centres such as Plymouth, there are probably more than the average. It is not surprising, therefore, that I and others have had hundreds of letters in support of the Bill from shop workers, who are particularly affected, but not solely from them—as others have said, a much broader range of people have also written. In particular, I want to pay tribute to USDAW, which is an active and lively union, not just on this issue but, particularly at the moment, on the "Freedom from Fear" campaign, which most Members support. The district officer, John Crick, has enabled me to have good-quality contact with his shop workers in relation both to that and to this Bill and what has led up to it.
      There are also those who want to keep Christmas special, either for a religious or other motive. I was reminded just now, when the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke, of when I moved down to England from Scotland. It is true that Christmas day celebrations in Scotland were much more low key. Having responsibility for a small office in Plymouth back in 1979, I had not been used to the big build-up to Christmas. I was sitting there at 3 or 4 o'clock on Christmas eve, and my small staff of about five were beginning to get restive. It was my first Christmas there, but I learned very quickly that the staff were used to being allowed to leave early. Around us, all the

      1033
      celebrations in the city centre were beginning. In the many subsequent years during which I had the pleasure of working there, I was wise to the fact that Christmas had a special place for people, irrespective of whether their backgrounds were religious.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned the domino effect and the follow-my-leader effect. We should also bear in mind the commercial pressures that can arise from just one or two people breaking ranks, and the fear that that could drive a coach and horses through the wishes of the many.
      I am glad to have been present for much of the debate, and I hope the spirit that has pervaded it will continue in the other place. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage, and that those of us who have played a small
      part in it—and my hon. Friend. who has played a significant part—will be able to feel when we enjoy
      Christmas in the future that those Christmas days are still special because of what we have been able to do today and on other occasions.
      1.36 pm
      Mr. Chope: I share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I do not think that this is a great event for those of us who are Christians and want to keep Christmas day special. Ten years ago people thought that it would be kept special by convention, without the need for legislative intervention—just as we expected Good Friday to be kept special as a Christian festival. As the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation paper made clear, what was envisaged 10 years ago has not come about. A dam is being placed in the stream to prevent Christmas day from being completely wrecked by the opening of large shops, but I do not share the enthusiasm of those—perhaps including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who think that this is a red-letter day
      for those of us who want to keep Christmas festivals in this country special.
      An early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) calls for legislation to
      "protect Christians from being compelled to engage in commercial activities on Good Friday and Christmas Day."
      Relatively few Members have signed it. What could be described as an irreligious early-day motion tabled by the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), which refers not to Christianity but to the convenience of shop workers, has received much more support.
      I do not think that those of us who want to maintain the traditions of a Christian country have anything to celebrate. We should reflect on the fact that it has been estimated that more than 800,000 people regularly work on Christmas day. More small shops are opening on Christmas day, fewer aspects of the day are treated as being special, and an increasing amount of commercial activity is taking place. Although I shall support Third Reading, I do not believe that the Bill will succeed in fighting the tide and preventing the undermining of our Christian society. I feel sad about that prospect, but it is hardly surprising, given that the census shows a rising proportion of people who do not profess to be Christians or who adhere to another religion.
      Those of us who want to keep Christmas day special and maintain Christianity at the core of our cultural heritage will have to do a lot more in our everyday
      1034
      actions and encourage others to do the same, rather than trying to defend the current position with late legislation. The Bill has major limitations, although I suppose that in the overall context it is better than nothing.
      1.40 pm
      Ms Dari Taylor: I rise to support the Bill with considerable gusto. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) that, in my constituency, he gets wholehearted support. I have not received one letter that in any way objects to his Bill, but I have had a bucketful that say, "Get in there, Dari, and support him." So I am more than pleased to be here today and to have this opportunity to speak.
      I am much more of an optimistic Christian than the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I believe that the Bill is a sign of the times, and I do not say that with ease. Profit, rather than people, has become far too great a focus in our lives, and the Bill registers clearly how important it is for those of us who are Christians that Christmas day should be a special day. There should be many special days on which we are allowed to enjoy our religion and share our religious practices with others.
      I have two reasons for supporting the Bill, apart from the views expressed by my constituents, whose serious support I have witnessed in a great deal of correspondence. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that I am a Christian. I always want to maintain special days in the year on which my family and I have an opportunity to celebrate together, and I want such opportunities to be available to all people. We are attempting to achieve that today. The celebrations are about giving, and often about picking up a phone, and having the time to do that. On Christmas day, I phone many people and I have virtually a 100 per cent. success rate. They are nearly all at home, and I am pleased to speak to them. I have time to do that, and so do they. That is an important moment for me and my family, and I hope that it is for others. I also hope that that will be the case for more and more people who do not at present share my Christian beliefs. I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that the letters that I have received have not all come from Christians. In fact, many have come from people who are not Christians, but who have said that they enjoy British Christian traditions and being part of the festivities.
      My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I am a very principled trade unionist. I have been one all my working life and I shall always maintain that position. It is crucial that we understand that many people are coerced into working in these circumstances. Heavy-handed persuasion is often used, and veiled threats are invariably made to people who are not prepared to comply with their employer's requests. Employers have a job to do; I do not deny that. I know, however, having worked with trade unions for many years, that people feel that their non-compliance will impact on their working lives. So it is also as a principled trade unionist that I stand here today. To USDAW, I say loud and clear: "Well done! You have run a very good campaign." I also want to thank my own trade union, the GMB, for the tremendous support it has given me.

      1035
      We in this House enjoy the right to choose what we do on Christmas day, and to choose how we behave at that time. That is an inviolable right, and it should exist for others too. The Bill—in a small way, no doubt—extends
      that right to them. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) described with some passion our British society as a Christian community. I totally applaud those sentiments. I was brought up in a Baptist home, and I have always lived in a Christian home. I live in a Christian society and I am incredibly proud of our Christian heritage.
      Sometimes I despair of some of the things that we do in the name of Christianity, but I believe that our country should always be prized as a Christian society, and that we should be prepared to defend it and to share it with others. I, of course, welcome the fact that people from around the world come to this country to live with us. I enjoy multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, but for me the straight statement is that we are a predominantly Christian society. That should never be undermined, and we should never keep our lips sealed when we feel that we have something proud to say about our existing religious institutions.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch—if it was not you, it was the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—made great statements to the House
      today. I am very sorry; I feel ashamed that I cannot remember whether it definitely was you. You said that 29 per cent. of people in Great Britain claim that they are not Christian, or are of a different faith. I have to tell you that the other side of the coin—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady's peroration but she must remember to speak in the third person; otherwise, she is referring to me.
      Ms Taylor: I accept your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply pointing out that the other side of the coin is that more than 70 per cent. of people clearly want to be regarded as Christian and identified as such. We should never underestimate that fact.
      I wish the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham a swift and successful passage in the other place, and I believe that that will be achieved.
      1.46 pm
      Helen Jones: I do not wish to detain the House for long. We have had a very interesting and good-natured debate, and I want to commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in piloting this Bill through the House. It constitutes excellent use of private Members' legislation and enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House.
      This is probably the third occasion on which we have debated Christmas day trading, following the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who should also be commended for her work on this issue. My view has not changed throughout those debates, and I support this
      1036
      Bill for a number of reasons. First, it is right to extend to others the privilege that we ourselves enjoy of being at home with our families on Christmas day. I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that because we cannot extend that privilege to everyone we should not seek to extend it to anyone. That is not an argument in respect of such legislation.
      I commend the excellent work that the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has done on this Bill, but we should also remember that many shop workers are not members of trade unions. They are often poorly paid women workers who, if this Bill is not enacted, will be put under tremendous pressure to work on Christmas day once stores start opening. The same situation arose with Sunday trading. The premiums started to disappear and the right to opt out was gradually eroded, am for that reason people get less and less time to spend with their families.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) referred to profit and people, and it is true that there has been too much emphasis in our society on commercial activities and too little on other worthwhile things, such as spending time with one's family. As I said when my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich introduced her Bill, a society that defines itself only by how it shops is a very poor society indeed. Some things are far more important, and preserving Christmas day is one of them—and not simply because it is a Christian festival, although that is the prime reason for doing so.
      To emphasise our own Christian heritage in no way denigrates that of other religions; indeed, to value other religions one must first value one's own. We should also preserve Christmas day because it is a day on which those who are not Christian can spend time at home with their families. It is a day on which to value those things that are more important than buying and selling. No one ever starved to death because large stores were closed on Christmas day, but families can very easily fall apart without the necessary time to spend with one another.
      This is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.
      1.49 pm
      Shona McIsaac: I shall be very brief. I congratulate, as will the shop workers of Cleethorpes, my hon Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on steering the Bill through the House. There has been much detailed discussion today, but for me, the Bill is simple. When the Sunday Trading Bill became law, people believed that it covered Christmas day. However, there proved to be a loophole, because Christmas day was covered only if it fell on a Sunday. What we are trying to achieve today is simple—to close the loophole, deal with the anomaly and give people the right to spend Christmas with their families. Many hon. Members have eloquently articulated the argument today. I wish the Bill success in the other place and I hope that it becomes law as soon as possible.
      1.50 pm
      Mr. Brazier: The Bill is excellent and I congratulate its promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), once again. We often hear platitudes about

      1037
      the House operating at its best on Fridays, but I genuinely believe that we have seen that happening today. Two useful and worthwhile concessions have been made to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      The Bill does not protect retail workers alone; more importantly, it protects their families. Whatever one's religious inclination, Christmas day is a day for families—and family cohesion matters. Christmas day
      has a special place in the life of the nation. Remove it, as could easily happen if the opening of large stores became a widespread practice, and community cohesion would suffer. I make no apologies for supporting those hon. Members who pointed out that this is a predominantly Christian country—that is nothing to be ashamed of.
      I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I cite a small story from history. When the Duke of Wellington arrived in Portugal with his army—one that was almost entirely Protestant-officered—he sent out a message to the officer corps, reminding them that they were in a Catholic country. He expected every officer to be punctilious in saluting religious processions as they passed in the streets. There is no reason why a Christian in a Muslim country cannot show respect for Muslim customs, and no reason has ever been put to me by any members of any minority faith in my constituency—I have some in my Conservative association—why they cannot support a measure such as this.
      Almost 10 per cent. of the work force—and almost 13 per cent. of women—work in the retail sector. I believe that that is one of the reasons why we have one of the highest proportions of people anywhere in the developed world who answer surveys saying that they work more hours than they would like. I am also convinced that that is one of the causes of family breakdown in this country. Our divorce rate is much higher—almost 50 per cent. higher—than the European average. Of course, this one small measure will not roll that back on its own. Nevertheless, as an old-fashioned Conservative, I believe that symbolism is important. By showing that we regard the two most important religious days of the year—Easter, which was covered in the 1994 Act, and Christmas, which we are dealing with today—as special, we are doing a real service to family life and the wider nation.
      I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I want to emphasise again how grateful I am for the concession that was made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In major retailing shopping centres in Canterbury, the issue of loading and unloading—with all the noise that it brings with it, early in the morning—is a significant one for many of my constituents, particularly the elderly.
      It is a good Bill and we have had a good debate. Speaking in a personal capacity—this is a conscience issue for my party—I am delighted to support it from the Dispatch Box.
      1.54 pm
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I very much support the Bill, which may explain why I have taken a Trappist vow as it has passed through its various stages, rather than behaving as I usually do on Fridays in welcoming or opposing Bills at somewhat greater length
      1038
      than I shall now. I shall also speak briefly because of the other important business timetabled today, for which I have been waiting for some time. I have made good use of that time, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will shortly discover.
      Retail is one of the most important employers in my constituency. Brent Cross employs thousands of people, full time and part time. In addition, people from my constituency work in retail throughout London. They will be greatly pleased by the Bill's passage, and I do not mean only those who are Christians, because the Bill is a measure for every person of every faith who works in retail. It is important to respect Christmas day as the one day that is special to the whole country, no matter which faith people profess. The Bill is therefore important and I wish it all the best in its future passage through the other place.
      1.55 pm
      Mr. Sutcliffe: As the Minister with responsibility for consumers, competition and employment, I welcome the Bill in every aspect. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggests, it sometimes seems like I am the Minister for everything!
      This has been an excellent debate. I am beginning to be worried by the fact that I am coming to like Fridays, although I am sure that it will pass fairly quickly. Fridays give the House an opportunity, through the private Members' Bill process, to consider issues in detail, sometimes properly and sometimes, perhaps, with a bit of filibustering, though that was not so today.
      It was important to get the Bill right and to get it through the House. This was not the first attempt to put the Bill's provision on the statute book: my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tried to do so, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who, I am pleased to see, is in his place and who will be pleased to see the Bill achieving support on Third Reading.
      We must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for his work on the Bill. He has steered it excellently through negotiations with officials at my Department, and I am pleased that they have helped him to move it in the direction that he required. I have taken great pleasure in working with him on Second Reading and in Committee as we have tried to get it right.
      I acknowledge that the amendments debated this morning raised some areas for consideration, and hon. Members will note my assurance that we shall try to achieve what they asked for in the way that I set out earlier.
      Mr. Greg Knight: The Minister should never say that he likes Fridays when he is in the presence of a Whip.
      Will the Minister do two things? He has handled the Bill very well, and he kindly indicated that the concession that he intends to make in respect of amendment No. 10 will be covered, he hopes, in guidance. Will he send me a copy of that guidance when it is finalised? Secondly, will he write to my right hon.

      1039
      Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and to me to let us know when he has made a decision on the loading problem?
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Those are perfectly fair requests, and I undertake to do all that at the appropriate time.
      The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been referred to. I have been pushing for a long time for unions to be modern and relevant to their workplaces. USDAW has achieved that in the way in which it has run its campaign on Christmas day trading. The Bill is not all about USDAW, however: it is about the nature of Christmas day and how we preserve it for the family by making it a special day of the year. The Bill goes a long way to doing that.
      The Bill applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland, where the Scottish Executive are considering the matter. Enforcement of prohibitions and other matters in the Act will be the same as for the 1994 Act and will be operated by local trading standards authorities.
      The Bill is necessary. We are often accused of regulation for regulation's sake, but that is not the case here. The domino effect was a real consideration; the retailers told us that if a competitor opened up, they would have to do the same, and they thought that regulation was appropriate.
      Further important Bills will follow this one, so I shall not detain the House much longer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work. I accept that the Bill is not yet the perfect piece of legislation, but it is an attempt to try to put right a mistake that was made when Christmas day was included in the previous legislation only if it fell on a Sunday. I hope it passes through the other House with due speed, and I commend it to this House.
      2 pm
      Mr. Forth: I have said throughout the day that I would want to speak on Third Reading, and this is my big moment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not immediately call his name, but as he had not given a previous indication in my hearing, I was slightly surprised. I would never seek to deny the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I like to spring the occasional surprise, even on you.
      On Second Reading I said that I was not happy with the Bill. There was a rather half-hearted attempt by USDAW to get people to write to me. In the end about 30 did, and there were a couple of phone calls, one rather abusive. That made no difference to my views, and it did not say much for USDAW and its organising ability.
      I changed my mind for two reasons. First, I had a look at what happened in other countries that I regard as culturally comparable with ourselves—Canada and Australia, mainly. But the thing that incensed me and made me change my mind was an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 9 May that referred to a 99-page document
      1040
      published by the Commission for Racial Equality setting out draft guidance on how companies should prevent discrimination against religious and racial minorities. The most controversial proposal was that employers should have to provide prayer rooms and to give time off to non-Christians to mark their own religious holidays.
      That is what changed my mind about the Bill. Other speakers have mentioned this matter, but I will put my own very different interpretation on it. I am normally incensed by anything the CRE says, and the sooner we abolish it the better. However, the fact that it had the impertinence to say something like that convinced me that the Bill would be a small but significant symbol of the need to reassert the fact that this country is, and remains, essentially a Christian country. We have an established Church. Her Majesty is the head of that Church, as well as being our head of state. For the race relations industry to have the cheek to come forward with such a statement was an insult, and something that should be dealt with firmly. The Bill has provided us with the occasion to do something about it.
      Instead of seeking to oppose the Bill I shall support it with alacrity, for that reason. It is time we in this country put down a marker in defence of our culture and what is still our religion. That is not to say that we should not be perfectly tolerant of people with other views, or no views. Reference has been made to the census, which revealed that a significant proportion of people in this country now feel that they have no religious affiliation, or decline to say what their affiliation might be. We must respect them as well.
      None the less, it is important that in our institutions and, where necessary, in our legal framework, we assert, and reassert where necessary, where we believe this country should place itself in terms of its religious affiliations. That was the main reason that brought me, unusually—it is not something that I do often—to change my mind. I am happy to say that the Commission for Racial Equality has had that effect on me, and will be able to claim at least some of the credit for the fact that the Bill will make progress today. Good for the CRE; that is the only time you will ever hear me saying that.
      I have here a letter from the Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality—she is in her place now, and I welcome her to the debate. The letter, which she kindly wrote on 4 May, said:
      "There is no automatic entitlement for employees not to work on Christian holy days or on holy days of any other religion. This is a contractual matter between employees and their employers. However, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which came into force in December last year, make it unlawful for employers to treat staff from a particular religious group less favorably than those from other religions when considering requests for leave, or requests to refrain from work on particular days."
      That is a very fair statement of the Government's position, but it sits slightly at odds with the tenor of this debate and of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister for Industry and the Regions and her colleague should have a quiet chat to see whose view will prevail. We have heard the Minister who has just spoken welcome the Bill, USDAW and all its works, and so on, while the Minister for Industry and the Regions took a slightly more

      1041
      neutral position. It seems that the Government are of two minds. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is getting excited; she is welcome to intervene if she wants to elucidate—but, obviously, she does not want to emphasise her remarks in any way I understand that.
      As I said, the other reason why I changed my mind on the Bill is what happens in other countries, but before I deal with that point I want to express again my disappointment that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) did not seek to include in the Bill any sort of explicit protection for workers to ensure that they were not forced to work on Christmas day. I sought to secure such protection in an amendment that I was advised could not be selected, simply because the long title of the Bill would not allow it. That is not an excuse. The long title of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 allowed schedule 4 to that Act to provide protection for workers who did not want to work on a Sunday. I am appalled that a Bill that is supported by a trade union—USDAW, no less—has such a restrictive long title that it cannot be amended to provide proper protection for workers on Christmas day.
      Frankly, that undercuts all the words of praise that have been said today about that union and all its works, and about the wonderful role that it has played in such matters. I think that it has been in gross dereliction of its duty not only to its members, but to workers at large. I was the one who sought to table an amendment to protect workers, but my amendment was denied because of the shoddy way in which the long title of the Bill had been drawn up. My praise for the hon. Gentleman is therefore somewhat tempered by the fact that he and the union have been in dereliction of what the latter normally regards as its duty to its members and workers at large.
      I make those remarks because I hope that somebody may want to return to the matter some day. If we are serious about all the words that have been said in the Chamber today about how special Christmas day is, the need to protect the workers and so on, why cannot we include in legislation a provision that seeks to give proper protection, as we did in the Sunday Trading Act 1994? That remains a mystery to me. I hope that it will be corrected one of these days.
      I have in my hands some information about the great province of Ontario in Canada. In Ontario, employees of most retail businesses generally have the right to refuse to work on a public holiday, and they do not have to give reasons for declining to work on a public
      1042
      holiday. Furthermore, employers in Ontario cannot punish such people for not working on those days. Such provision exists in other civilised parts of the world, and I would have thought that it should exist here. I regret that this opportunity to introduce such provision has passed us by.
      Although I support the Bill and wish it well, for the reasons that I have given, I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), hope that the Minister will be able to tell us in due course that he has been able to incorporate the amendments that the House has generally supported, particularly with regard to loading and unloading. I hope that he will ensure that that issue is dealt with in one way or another.
      All in all, I believe that the hon. Member for North Durham has done a service to our society and to its workers in introducing the Bill. Defective though it may be, I believe that it is good enough to have the support of the House today.
      2.9 pm
      Mr. Kevan Jones: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members for their kind words. The debate has been good hearted, as it was on Second Reading. It will ensure that we make a small move towards protecting Christmas day for workers and making it the special family day that it is for people, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
      I note with interest the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); he is obviously a loss to the trade union movement. It seems that in selecting the subject for a private Member's Bill and in achieving the consensus to get it to this stage, the more limited the scope, the more chance it has of succeeding. For that reason, I concur with some of his points.
      Today's amendments were sensible and passionately argued. I am glad that we can improve the Bill, which is important. I thank all hon. Members who supported it and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make my small contribution to the legislative programme.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
      Order for consideration read.
      To be considered on Friday 15 October.

      Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill
      Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Clause 1

      DISCRIMINATION: PRIVATE CLUBS
      2.12 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
      '29E Unreasonable works and alterations
      Nothing in the provisions of sections 29Ato 29D requires unreasonable works or alterations to be carried out on existing buildings.'.
      The Bill is well meaning but controversial. Following Second Reading, which was some time ago, I took the opportunity—indeed, the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). almost invited me to do so—to contact some of the primary organizations representing private clubs to find out their views. Those contributions were very helpful. He mentioned the Royal and Ancient golf club of St. Andrews. In fairness to him, he was honest with the House in saying that it was unhappy with the Bill. I contacted the club, which had much to say.
      I am sure that we will have the chance to return another day to many of the other issues that the Bill raises, because my modest amendment covers only a very small part of the Bill. Sadly, we have only 17 minutes or so to go, and I suspect that we will not get much past this amendment—or, indeed, past it at all. Happily, that will enable us to consider the Bill further and in more detail another time, when we can try to address other aspects of it.
      The Royal and Ancient had something to say about the one part of the Bill that my amendment attempts to highlight. Indeed, it picked up on something that we had spotted on Second Reading. That is covered by proposed new sections 29B, 29C and 29D of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Royal and Ancient says:
      "The layout of clubhouse buildings at many golf clubs is a further, significant difficulty. Considerable capital expenditure will be required in many cases to convert clubhouses to dual-sex use throughout. Again, given the poor financial condition of many clubs, the R and A believes that this also makes it desirable for provisions enabling gradual transition to be incorporated into your bill."
      2.15 pm
      We can return to the issue of transition on a future occasion, but we need to zero in on the difficult question of capital expenditure and the Bill's effect on clubs. So that we can orientate ourselves, proposed new section 29B is entitled, "Guests: discrimination by mixed-sex clubs" and says:
      "It is unlawful for an association to which section 29A applies to discriminate against a woman on an occasion when she is its guest—
      (a) in the way in which it affords her access to any of the benefits, facilities or services to which other guests are afforded access by it on that or a comparable occasion,
      1044
      (b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford her access to any of those benefits, facilities or services, or

      (c) by subjecting her to any other detriment."
      That has confused some people, including some of the club organisers to whom I wrote. I am advised that when the Bill refers to a woman it also means a man. As we discovered on Second Reading, when I tabled a number of amendments to clarify the issue, provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act stipulate that when legislation refers to a woman it also means a man and vice versa. That is the even-handed and non-discriminatory approach one would expect of such legislation, and it clarifies the position in the Bill.
      The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that references to "he" and "man" in every other piece of legislation are also references to "she" and "woman"?
      Mr. Forth: In the modern world of gender neutrality, equality and all the rest one would expect to take that for granted. However, the club organisers whom I contacted suggested t hat the Bill appears to be obsessed with women. An obsession with women is rather healthy in us heterosexuals, but the suggestion was that the Bill was concerned only with the rights of women, not those of men. I am trying to be helpful by clarifying the Bill's provisions and the legislation underpinning them. When I refer to a woman, I also mean a man. I hope that that does not upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you appear to be more than usually perturbed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that might be upsetting me is whether the right hon. Gentleman is straying from the exact terms of the amendment into something that is more akin to Second Reading, but I am sure that he has no intention of doing so any longer.
      Mr. Forth: Certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are talking about the Sex Discrimination Act, and I should have thought that a bit of chat about sex was entirely in order.
      Mr. Greg Knight: So that I am not accused of anything, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Will my right hon. Friend address a point that gives me cause for concern? As I understand it, the reference in proposed new section 29B(c) to actions that subject women "to any other detriment" could cover a case where a ladies lavatory is on the first floor and the gents is on the ground floor. The club would then be obliged to construct a new set of lavatories on the ground floor. Would that be considered unreasonable under my right hon. Friend's amendment? He does not make clear in his amendment precisely the scope of the word "unreasonable" I hope that he will deal with that important issue. What, does he mean by "unreasonable" in the amendment? Does he envisage certain capital works being necessary or none at all?
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has me at a disadvantage. He is a distinguished and experienced lawyer, which I am not. I worry quite a lot when a lawyer of his distinction taxes me on the interpretation of the

      1045
      word "reasonable", but I have been in the House long enough to know, or think I know, that the word "reasonable" is a term of art in the British legal system
      —is it not? I am even more worried when I cast my eyes back and see that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is as eminent a lawyer, is sitting beside my right hon. Friend, so I have two eminent legal brains sitting behind me. I should have thought that if my right hon. Friend cannot answer his own question, there is little chance of my being able to answer it.
      Mr. Knight: I can see a difficulty in interpretation. Clearly, if a club has several thousand members, carrying out small capital works may not be unreasonable when one looks at the club's accounts, but if a club is very small and because of the passage of the Bill into law it has to carry out capital works, in the light of that club's turnover the very same works may be deemed to be unreasonable. I want to flush out from my right hon. Friend where he sees his amendment playing in all that, if it is accepted by the House.
      Mr. Forth: I assume that when my right hon. Friend uses the term "flush out", he is referring to the particular alterations to the building to which he previously referred.
      I thought that the wording of my amendment was somewhat clearer than my right hon. Friend suggests. When I refer to
      "unreasonable works or alterations to be carried out on existing buildings",
      I am not speaking about scheduled works or works that would otherwise be done. I am referring explicitly, in the context of the Bill, to the kind of works that would be forced on the organisations or associations by the terms of the Bill, unless it is amended by my amendment.
      David Wright: The Bill relates to private members clubs that currently offer membership to both sexes but discriminate against women in their practices. That would mean that those clubs would already have facilities for women to use, such as changing facilities or toilet facilities. If any changes were required to deal with women or men who had disabilities, those would be covered by the disability discrimination legislation. The clubs would have to make the necessary changes anyway, following action by the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows what his own Bill means. I can only go by what is stated on the face of it. I am seeking to amend it and the fact that the amendment has been selected suggests that it has relevance. We have not even come on to guests yet, and I have not got on to my thoughts on whether his Bill might force a lot of clubs to go back from being open to both sexes to being single-sex clubs.
      Mr. Knight: I think the intervention that my right hon. Friend has just made is legally incorrect. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) is legally incorrect in his remarks. My understanding is that a private club does not have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 unless it admits members of
      1046
      the public, so a private members club open only for the benefit of its members is exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act, but, for example, if that club hires out a room for a wedding on a Saturday, it would have to comply for that particular day with that particular Act. The premise of the intervention was wrong.
      I was seeking to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention—I hope he will address the issue—not the lack of provision for, let us say, ladies lavatories, but the fact that under proposed section 29B there is a reference to
      "subjecting to any other detriment",
      so if the lavatories for one sex were up a flight of stairs, the club might be forced to put both sexes' lavatories on the same floor, which seems to me way over the top.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I seek to bring a sense of proportionality to the debate? Interventions appear to be longer than the speech that is being made.
      Mr. Forth: I will seek to lengthen my speech to get back the proportions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is your wish. It is not often that I have been encouraged from the Chair to do that, but I am more than happy to do so on this occasion. Let us get back to the text to find out whether that helps us to keep our bearings.
      We are talking about a woman—or a man—when she
      or he is a guest and about the facilities or services afforded to guests. Of course that is where we get into the likelihood that is referred to in my amendment of the need to carry out works and alterations to buildings. Given the breadth of the definition, it is surely self-evident that benefits, facilities or services can cover a huge variety of different circumstances in the context of clubs. That must be the case at a large number of premises. I suppose that the facilities can range all the way from the obvious—toilets— which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has mentioned already, to changing rooms and, no doubt, all sorts of other facilities as well. As was highlighted by the Royal and Ancient golf club, although the same thing is in the minds of many people, the problem is the likelihood that, if the Bill were ever to reach the statute book, bite and start to affect clubs in the way in which it is presumably intended, expenditure would be inevitably forced on those clubs.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend refers in his amendment to unreasonable costs that might be attributable to a club in undertaking material alterations to the structure. I put it to him that the use of the word "unreasonable" could subject those clubs to an endless barrage of litigation to determine that which is reasonable and that which is not reasonable. In the circumstances, instead of using the word "unreasonable" and bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said about some of those clubs having small numbers of people, might it be preferable to put a monetary figure on such things, rather than leaving them open to the lawyers to decide?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that could well be a very useful further amendment to seek to make to the Bill. I think that I am right in saying that, procedurally, as we are sadly about to run out of

      1047
      time, there happily will be plenty of time to table further amendments to the Bill for consideration on the subsequent occasion on which it is debated in the House. My hon. Friend has just come up with a very helpful suggestion to which we could return if my amendment, after due deliberation and perhaps even a Division, proves not to be to the satisfaction of the House.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's amendment refers not to unreasonable costs, but to unreasonable works. The cost of the work may be only one of the grounds on which the work is unreasonable.
      Mr. Forth: Ah! Again I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gives me another thought: a planning dimension could come into play and a conflict could therefore arise. If the Bill became a statute and it were thought that it required alterations of a kind for which planning permission could not be obtained, there would appear to be a conflict between the Bill's requirements and planning law.
      Peter Bottomley: Has it struck my right hon. Friend as odd that restaurants, village halls and other places do not face such problems?
      Mr. Forth: I find many things odd in both the law and life in general, but I can only deal with the Bill as it is before us. Again, if my hon. Friend thinks that further amendments would be helpful, he will happily have the opportunity to table them for debate when the Bill is further considered.
      David Wright: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the R and A had contacted him about the Bill. Has he had any contact from the CIU, which is offering wholehearted support for the Bill? I think that the CIU would find the amendment rather strange.
      Mr. Forth: Yes, I have indeed. The hon. Gentleman is correct: the CIU has indicated that it is content with the Bill.
      Mr. Howarth: For the elucidation of the House, will my right hon. Friend tell me what CIU means?
      Mr. Forth: The CIU is the Club and Institute Union, which is a very august and eminent body that represents what, in the good old days, used to be known as working men's clubs. They are probably now known as lifestyle clubs—I should not be surprised—or work persons' clubs, more probably, given their current attitudes—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the debate without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 October.

    Remaining Private Members' Bills

      CONSTITUTION FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION (REFERENDUM) BILL
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 July.

      LOCAL LAND CHARGES (FEES) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.

      HUMAN RIGHT'S ACT 1998 (MAKING OF REMEDIAL ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

      GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (NEED AND SAFETY TESTS) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

      CRIMINAL JUSTICE (JUSTIFIABLE CONDUCT) BILL
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [14 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 July.

      TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

    Clinical Services Review (South West London Health Authority)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
    2.32 pm

    Tom Brake: I am pleased to have secured the debate in the pre-consultation period of the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" project, which is otherwise known as the clinical services review or strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy speaker, and I shall leave him some of my time to raise other points with the Minister.
    I had friendly discussions with the Minister's spy at yesterday's seminar and I understand that the spy has been in touch with him and that he has been fully briefed. I therefore hope that he can respond to the points that I shall make.
    First, I support the concept of the strategy, which is that there should be a critical care hospital and several local care hospitals. Yesterday's meeting was well attended by representatives from many health organisations, patient groups and so on. There was support for the initiative at the meeting. People asked for more information but they also wanted to make progress. A problem with such projects is that the time scales are inevitably long because of the need for consultation, reforms, the building process and so on. If steps are not taken, there is a risk that the project will die an unceremonious death when some new initiative supplants or replaces the current one. People want progress to be made.
    St. Helier hospital and Sutton hospital clearly need to be rebuilt. Anyone who has visited those hospitals will know from the state of the structures that they require urgent attention. I understand that parts of St. Helier hospital are off-limits to patients because of health and safety concerns. Measures such as the working time directive make the need for the development of such concepts even stronger, and the proposed changes would probably happen in any case.
    Whatever configuration is arrived at for the local care hospitals and critical care hospital, the highest priority must be to ensure the best quality of patient care. It is also important that the critical care hospital should be as close to the centre of the area that the trust serves as possible, with that centre adjusted to take into account the health profile of the catchment area. St. Helier is an area of my constituency, and of the London boroughs of Sutton and Merton, that has significant health needs to be addressed.
    Accessibility and employment considerations will also be factors in determining where the critical care and local care hospitals will be located. St. Helier, which crosses the London boroughs of Sutton and Merton, is one of the areas with the highest level of deprivation in those two boroughs, so the employment impacts will be significant. Accessibility for a
    1050
    population many of whom do not have access to their own transport will also be important. One measure that could significantly improve the accessibility of St. Helier hospital, which is already good, would be the extension of the Croydon tram to Sutton. If the Minister is a good friend of Ken Livingstone, perhaps he will have a word with him about bringing that tram to Sutton. We would certainly welcome that. The location of the hospital will of course be dependent on other factors such as the availability of land and planning considerations, but taking all those criteria into account, the St. Helier site is likely to be the most appropriate for the development of a critical care hospital.
    I should point out that although I think that the development of such a hospital would be welcome in the area, some residents who live on the proposed new hospital site would be affected quite significantly by it and might have some objections. I intend during the next few days to write to the residents who would be most closely affected to ask them for their views and to bring to their attention the fact that although there is nothing concrete about the plans yet, there are proposals of which they should be aware.
    If the St. Helier site is developed, because the proposed land is metropolitan open land the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have to approve the change, although I understand that there is likely to be compensation in terms of metropolitan open land being provided at another location close by, which might address that issue.
    Another site, the Sutton site, is also being considered, as is the Epsom site. There is an issue specifically in respect of the Sutton site on which I hope the Minister will respond. The site is close to the Royal Marsden hospital, which has, as the Minister will know, recently secured foundation status. If the Sutton site were to be developed, I have no reason to believe that the Royal Marsden, were it approached and asked to contribute some of its land, would refuse such an approach. In fact, I understand that some positive discussions are under way. However, I pose a hypothetical question to the Minister. If such a trust or foundation hospital anywhere in the country were approached and asked to participate in a project that the community felt was in the best interests of the local health community, and that foundation hospital decided that it did not want to take part, would the Minister have the power to direct that foundation hospital, and would he use that power if he had it? I hope that he will be able to respond on that point.
    Another point on which I hope the Minister will respond is the proposal that some have mooted that if the St. Helier site, for example, were developed, the Epsom site would declare UDI and go its own way. Has the Minister had a chance to consider that suggestion? What does he think of its viability?
    I have a couple of points on the consultation process. The formal consultation will run from 1 September to 30 November, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I intend to hold a large public meeting in September to hear people's views on the proposals. For the consultation process to be meaningful, options setting out the probable or likeliest location of both the local and critical care hospitals will have to be provided. It must be seen as

    1051
    a package. Given that the range of possible locations for the critical care hospital is limited, it should be possible to identify the probable locations of local care hospitals at the same time. We will need to know what the range of services provided by those hospitals will be, too.
    Consultation with patients and future patients will have to be extensive, because the existing forums, which were put in place after the abolition of community health councils, are in their infancy. Consultation will have to encompass not just the people who were present at yesterday's meeting but those who have traditionally been excluded such as black and ethnic minorities, the unemployed, single parents and so on—it must go beyond the usual suspects. Does the Minister believe that the effectiveness of the forums would be enhanced by allowing them to sit as observers on the programme board for the clinical services strategy? I understand that they currently do not have observer status.
    The battle over community health councils was lost, but their replacement is in many ways much more complex and underfunded. Does the Minister agree that the original indication was that patient forums would have about 15 volunteer representatives, but that the number has been reduced to 10? Will he explain why? I have been told that that is to save on their expenses, which, incidentally, are lower than those of staff, which I do not quite understand. Will he assure us that the Secretary of State's recently announced cull of quangos will boost the funds that will go to local forums?
    Is the Minister aware of a letter that was sent from the collective forums of the south-west London strategic health authority to the chief executive of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, in which Barbara Price expresses concern that owing to a lack of information that the forums and forum support organisations receive from the commission, they are struggling with some of the essential administrative and financial aspects of this role? They are concerned that no timetable has been set in which their concerns will be addressed. I hope that he will pick up on that point.
    To return to the specifics of the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" initiative, and to conclude to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam an opportunity to speak, it is important that residents who remember the breach of trust that occurred when a previous NHS trust failed to provide a separate children's hospital on the St. Helier site are reassured that the total package will be delivered. They will also need assurances that the reorganisation will not affect existing services and will not exacerbate problems that still exist between the Epsom and St. Helier hospitals, which have not been addressed since their merger a number of years ago.
    Mental health issues must be brought to centre stage because they are currently on the periphery, and I welcome the fact that the programme board has agreed that it will present a paper covering the subject. The
    1052
    impact on other trusts needs to be properly quantified and assumptions about how many patients will choose to travel to an alternative hospital will need to be verified against actual changes experienced elsewhere in the country. Nothing will progress without funding, and I hope that he Minister can provide some reassurances on that.
    "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" should be good news for patients. It should improve outcomes and make health care more accessible. I hope that the Minister's response will make it clear that the Government will give their backing to these plans. Without the Government's financial support, "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" will be nothing more than a pipedream.
    2.44 pm
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to take part in this debate and for his initiative in securing it. It is timely to have the opportunity to discuss this matter, not least because the organisation of health services in the London borough of Sutton and beyond has been an issue of long standing. Over almost the past 10 years, there has been a series of attempts by the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust to come forward with a set of plans that held together and would be viable. Yet we are still waiting, with out-of date building stock. We are still waiting, in particular, for St. Helier hospital—which is almost ancient—to be replaced. One conclusion that I drew from yesterday s event in Addington is that it is almost universally accepted that, whatever happens, St. Helier needs to be rebuilt to be fit for the 21st century, whether it is a critical care or a local care hospital.
    I want to emphasise several points made by my hon. Friend. One thing that emerged from yesterday's debate in Addington was concern about the lack of clarity so far in the process of deciding what local care hospitals are to be. If the new model of care proposed in the local clinical services strategy is to be realised, and people are to buy into it through the area covered by Epsom and St. Helier trust, it is important for us to know how many sites there will be, where they will be, and precisely what services will be provided by the local care hospitals.
    The Minister will probably empathise with one point raised yesterday. So far, the opportunity to include social care in the services provided by local care hospitals has been missed. There is an immense need to co-locate and integrate social care, and I hope the Minister will ensure that the opportunity is not lost in Sutton and Cheam or in Carshalton and Wallington.
    As a result of the lack of clarity over local care hospitals, the focus has tended to be on the critical care hospital and where it will be. It is not surprising that Members of Parliament and others have fierce loyalties to their existing hospitals, as do our communities. My hon. Friend has already outlined some of the concerns that he and I share with the London borough of Sutton. The local authority feels that the new critical care hospital must be at least as accessible as St. Helier. I

    1053
    would go further, and say that the St. Helier site seems to offer the best fit strategically for a new critical care hospital.
    I want to raise two or three issues about consultation. As has been pointed out yesterday and today, we should ask whether a two-site solution is viable. People will want to know, and will want to see demonstrated in the formal consultation, that the two-site option has been properly evaluated. If it is not viable, it should be shown why. If that does not happen, it will inevitably fuel the view of those who think that this is an exercise to get rid of the hospital and have just one acute hospital in the area.
    Another question that needs to be addressed in the formal consultation is my hon. Friend's point about UDI. I do not think that it is as much a question of UDI as a question of whether there is merit in exploring the case for an amicable divorce between Epsom and St. Helier hospitals and the recreation of the pre-existing trusts. That is certainly a live issue in Epsom.
    One of the things that puzzled me most about the criteria so far for evaluating the various site options was the low weighting given to health equality and equity of access. I hope that the Minister car reassure us that the Government take health inequality seriously when it comes to the reconfiguration of services.
    At this point in the life of the project, the capital costs have been estimated at anything between £215 million and £228 million. Other Members with an interest in the project have rightly asked whether that will be deemed affordable. It would be helpful to know whether people are wasting their time with this enterprise, or whether the Government feel that the public purse can afford it. I hope that the Minister will also be able to consider my hon. Friend's points about foundation trusts.
    The consultation must not he just for the vocal and articulate few. It must strive to reach the hard-to-reach groups, the vulnerable and those who do not have a voice; otherwise, it will risk letting the community down and not providing health care closer to home that will meet the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend mentioned that we plan to hold consultation events of our own during the formal consultation stage. Given our desire to ensure that the hard-to-reach groups are reached, we shall want to hold more than one meeting, and we hope that the NHS will co-operate with us to ensure that factual information is provided to our constituents during the process.
    2.50 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): This is an important subject and I suspect that, as the consultation proceeds, we shall not have heard the last of it in the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for his contribution. They both made important points about the way in which the consultation should proceed and the need to focus on evening out health inequalities. The hon. Member for
    1054
    Sutton and Cheam made the particularly important point that the consultation should involve not just the loud mouthed and the pushy—it also needs to reach those whose voices are not normally heard.
    I would like to begin by paying a brief tribute to all the NHS and social care staff in the South West London strategic health authority area. They are hardworking, dedicated and committed to the improvement of the local NHS and local services. Let me start my response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington by acknowledging the pressures on the NHS, not only in his constituency but throughout the country. A consequence of that is that we must increase capacity, which is why the Government are investing so heavily in doctors, nurses, technicians and new equipment. We must also work to raise clinical standards generally. In other words, it will not be good enough for us to keep doing more of the same; we have to take a radical review of how services are provided.
    The NHS plan sets out a challenging 10-year programme for that reform. Far-reaching changes are often necessary to try to provide the best possible services for patients, and we must ensure that those services are accessible, flexible and designed around the needs of patients. However, we cannot do that from Whitehall. It is no good pretending that I know best what is right for the hon. Gentleman's constituency when I neither live there nor access health services there.
    It is our policy to shift decision making to local areas. That is why we started the "Shifting the balance of power" initiative and why we now devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for the primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. They are in the best position to do that because of their specialist knowledge of the local community.
    As part of the modernisation programme, many NHS economies and organisations are using this freedom and responsibility to consider, with their local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. They recognise that services cannot be static, and that they must change to reflect changing circumstances and to respond to local needs. In carrying out such reviews, they must take account of a number of different pressures on the local service, including changing medical practice, training-related issues, the working time directive, population distribution and travel times. The hon. Gentleman mentioned all those issues. They have an additional responsibility to live within their means. These issues and many others have to be taken into consideration. Of course, biggest is not always best. Local decision makers need to recognise that patients want more, not fewer, local services. However, that pressure has to be balanced with the need to ensure clinical safety and to develop excellence.
    That brings me to the situation in south-west London. In terms of health care in the Sutton, Merton and mid-Surrey area, local stakeholders have looked at the local

    1055
    position and a general consensus has developed locally that the status quo cannot remain. The fabric of the estate at St. Helier hospital is poor, with problems of a lack of privacy and dignity on the wards, and of few toilets and bathrooms. The Epsom hospital is small and some of its building fabric is also poor.
    There are challenges associated with recruiting clinical specialists to deliver services over split sites, and with supervising and training doctors. Sub-specialisation is difficult in the present circumstances and it is also proving difficult to create and sustain viable clinical rotas. There is also a duplication of services across the sites and the problems at each site are likely to worsen with time.
    There is local recognition that things must change and that there needs to be a locally developed proposal with which to move forward. That proposal—I stress again that it is a local proposal, not one imposed from Whitehall—is to create several community hospitals, referred to in the proposals as local care hospitals, supported by one acute hospital, which is referred to in the proposals as the critical care hospital. This concept has received widespread local support from both consultants and GPs, and there is agreement on the model. There is also general consensus on the way forward that the model represents. It aims to separate the planned and emergency care processes and to redesign services around the patient.
    The proposed strategy challenges the notion of what an emergency hospital should really be doing, while seeking to devolve the planned aspects of traditional hospital activity, so that they can be delivered closer to the patient's home. Those services will then be brought together with primary care services to challenge the traditional configurations within GP and health centres. The point that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made about the need to involve social care in those activities is an important one, and he is right to press it.
    The function of a local care hospital will be to offer more clinical services than can traditionally be offered in a GP surgery. They will include health surveillance and screening; elective work, such as day-surgery; the majority of high-volume, low-complexity out-patient appointments; some in-patient beds and intermediate care; minor injury and illness units; and diagnostic services such as X-ray.
    The critical care hospital will deal with all emergency work, complex elective work and low-volume, high-complexity and multi-speciality out-patient work, supported by relevant diagnostics services. The advantages of placing these acute services in one critical care hospital include meeting national standards for clinical services; meeting national employment and training standards; providing capacity for planned growth in the number of patients needing services; providing flexibility for future needs; integrating clinical specialties in order to provide better care and to use scarce resources to best effect; and providing a better environment to help patients' recovery and staff recruitment and retention rates.
    1056
    This new model of care will realise the ambitions of "Keeping the NHS local". It will also mean that the constituents of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will benefit from better, more modern health care services, delivered in a better and more appropriate environment that is closer to their homes. The proposals will also give the local health service the opportunity to improve the standard of the environment in which hospital services are delivered—for example, by providing more single rooms. They will also create an opportunity to rationalise NHS land holdings locally and, potentially, to release land for key worker housing.
    It is important that I point out, however, that while consensus has been developed over the model of service, no decisions have been taken on the site of the critical care hospital or of the local care hospitals. As the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam have rightly pointed out, the decisions on the siting of the local care hospitals and of the critical care hospital are of equal importance.
    Mr. Burstow: The vision is widely supported, but both parts—the local care hospitals and the critical care hospital—have to be delivered to achieve it. If one part
    is not delivered, the whole thing will fall apart. Can we afford this package, and will it actually be delivered?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a blanket promise of funding for the new project in the middle of an Adjournment debate. What I can say is that we will work very closely with the local decision makers to ensure that they have appropriate guidance on what may or may not be feasible.
    The siting decisions to which I referred must be made locally and not by Ministers. Formal public local consultation on the siting of the hospitals will take place during this September, October and November.
    I understand that, so far, formulation of the proposals has been a very inclusive process. GPs, hospital doctors, nurses and other health professionals from the trust and from the two local PCTs—Sutton
    and Merton, and East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey—have been working together intensively throughout 2003–04, together with patient and public representatives and groups, to develop this new model for local health care I will ensure that careful note is taken of the comments that were made concerning those groups that may not nave been properly involved in the process. Informal discussions have been held with tenants and resident groups, with local authority overview and scrutiny committees and with the media and NHS staff. I understand that the process throughout has been carried out in an open and transparent manner. For example, detailed working papers have been made public—in March 2004 and again last week. Comments from stakeholders on the papers published last week have been invited by 7 July 2004.
    I am also aware of yesterday's full-day meeting in which stakeholders received presentations and were able to ask questions. I was pleased to learn that it was a well attended event and that a number of hon. Members were present and able to participate with others in

    1057
    understanding the issues, debating the key points and identifying where further analysis is required. I am told that the day highlighted a high level of commitment to the model of care and that the key stakeholders debated the importance of delivering the elements of the reconfiguration in an integrated way. I hope that the event will have made a significant contribution to defining the further work to be completed before the formal consultation period.
    It is always important that the local NHS strives to engage in a meaningful way with its local community as well as with all interested stakeholders. It is encouraging, then, to see that the NHS in south-west London is seeking to work in a different and more open way in the development of ideas and options—
    Tom Brake: In the time available, will the Minister touch on the issue of foundation hospitals and clarify whether he will direct?
    Dr. Ladyman: The position with foundation hospitals is that they have a duty of partnership. The Secretary of State is not in a position to give directions in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested, but I can assure him that the duty is there for foundation hospitals to be involved in a partnership. An independent regulator will take a view on whether that duty is being fulfilled or not. Perhaps the solution to the problem will not be brought about in the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested, but I can assure him that I am satisfied that steps can be taken to ensure an appropriate resolution of the problem—
    The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.

TREASURY

  Child Tax Credit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Greater London, broken down by borough, are eligible for the child tax credit; and what the take-up rate is. [179401]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of families in London receiving child tax credit (CTC) is shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses. April 2004", which is on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm. The estimated number of families in each London borough receiving CTC is shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. January 2004", at the same site. The estimates are based on a sample of cases, and are subject to sampling uncertainty.

  No estimate is available of the number of families in London who are eligible for the child tax credit.

  Greater London Constituencies
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Greater London constituencies experienced the greatest fall in electorate between(a) 1990 and 2000 and (b) 1997 and 2004 in (i) numerical and (ii) percentage terms, listed in descending order. [179400]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 18 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the Greater London constituencies that have experienced the greatest fall in electorate between 1990 and 2000 and between 1997 and 2004. (179400)

  New constituencies came into place in 1996, therefore it has only been possible to compare figures for 1990 with those for 1995.

  I am placing four tables in the House of Commons Library.

  Table 1 shows the Greater London constituencies that have experienced decreases in electors between February 1990 and February 1995, ranked by numerical decrease. Table 2 shows the same constituencies ranked in order of percentage decreases in electorate over the same period.

  Table 3 shows the Greater London constituencies that have experienced the greatest fall in electors between February 1997 and December 2003, the latest date for which data are available (ranked by numerical decrease). Table 4 shows the same constituencies ranked in order of percentage decreases in electorate over the same period.

TRANSPORT

  A30
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects a decision to be made on the A30 dualling from Bodmin to Indian Queens. [179581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister are currently considering the Inspector's report of the public local inquiry and will issue their joint decision as soon as possible.

  Dunstable Northern Bypass
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Dunstable Northern bypass from the A5 to the M1 will be built; and what funding has been specifically allocated to build it. [179442]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M1-A5 Dunstable Northern Link Road is in the Department's Targeted Programme of Improvements. The contract is expected to be part of a package, which includes the widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 13. Subject to statutory procedures and the availability of funds, works could start during 2008–09.

  The estimated cost of the Dunstable scheme is £48.1 million.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) private and (b) commercial liquefied petroleum gas fuelled vehicles there are in the UK. [179422]

  Mr. Jamieson
  According to the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association (LPGA), there were 107,000 LPG powered vehicles on the road in the UK on 31 December 2003. Although figures on the breakdown between private and commercial vehicles are not recorded, some 25,000 of these vehicles were vans, and a straw poll of major suppliers carried out in 2003 indicated that of the 82,000 remaining vehicles there were an estimated 250 black taxis in London, and at least 8,000 operating as private taxi hire throughout the UK.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 70W, on noise pollution (roads), what other methods are used to reduce noise from road surfaces. [179175]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My answer of 7 June referred to the sound-proofing of residential properties. Quieter road surfaces and noise barriers are other methods that are used to reduce noise from road surfaces on the strategic road network.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrian deaths in road accidents there were where the pedestrian had over 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood in each year since
  1119W
  1997; and what percentage of pedestrian road accident deaths in (a) England and (b) each region this represented in each case. [179152]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Not all pedestrians who die in road accidents are tested for blood alcohol level. Among those who were tested, the percentage of pedestrian fatalities in Great Britain who had blood alcohol levels over 100 mg/100 ml are shown in the following table, for the years 1997 to 2001 (the latest year for which this information is available). Figures are not readily available for England or by region.

  Percentage of pedestrian fatalities with blood/alcohol 100 mg/ml: Great Britain

  1997

  35

  1998

  35

  1999

  37

  2000

  33

  2001

  38

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal road traffic accidents there have been in each county in England since 1997. [179423]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Fatal road accidents, by county: England 1997 to 2002

  Accidents

  County

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon

  46

  52

  37

  43

  51

  41

  Bedfordshire

  37

  28

  44

  35

  37

  44

  Berkshire

  33

  36

  44

  55

  36

  46

  Buckinghamshire

  48

  47

  44

  44

  51

  59

  Cambridgeshire

  58

  60

  63

  72

  53

  56

  Cheshire

  59

  60

  68

  66

  64

  63

  Cleveland

  23

  15

  21

  23

  25

  18

  Cornwall

  41

  31

  27

  33

  36

  48

  Cumbria

  48

  46

  54

  48

  45

  45

  Derbyshire

  62

  60

  55

  55

  42

  56

  Devon

  52

  51

  46

  54

  51

  54

  Dorset

  40

  31

  35

  39

  37

  52

  Durham

  32

  38

  29

  20

  26

  38

  East Sussex

  38

  40

  44

  55

  39

  48

  Essex

  83

  79

  104

  82

  111

  85

  Gloucestershire

  48

  36

  40

  33

  47

  38

  Greater London

  263

  220

  254

  270

  294

  267

  Greater Manchester

  111

  98

  84

  99

  102

  81

  Hampshire

  70

  72

  86

  81

  66

  84

  Hereford and Worcester

  58

  59

  29

  43

  53

  55

  Hertfordshire

  52

  53

  47

  49

  43

  54

  Humberside

  63

  58

  68

  41

  52

  44

  Isle of Wight

  4

  3

  5

  6

  1

  5

  Kent

  107

  83

  94

  82

  96

  100

  Lancashire

  75

  81

  70

  60

  74

  62

  Leicestershire

  58

  74

  82

  56

  60

  71

  Lincolnshire

  73

  75

  87

  63

  74

  77

  Merseyside

  50

  48

  54

  68

  42

  55

  Norfolk

  55

  62

  64

  64

  56

  70

  Northants

  53

  49

  61

  50

  40

  50

  Northumberland

  25

  29

  25

  18

  18

  24

  North Yorkshire

  74

  75

  63

  77

  73

  84

  Nottinghamshire

  77

  81

  62

  66

  77

  70

  Oxfordshire

  48

  59

  55

  55

  47

  36

  Shropshire

  29

  27

  42

  42

  35

  36

  Somerset

  38

  44

  34

  41

  44

  41

  South Yorkshire

  43

  53

  46

  55

  46

  56

  Staffordshire

  68

  62

  52

  64

  75

  56

  Suffolk

  42

  21

  45

  50

  49

  42

  Surrey

  66

  56

  69

  66

  48

  58

  Tyne and Wear

  45

  26

  35

  24

  24

  37

  Warwickshire

  53

  48

  42

  57

  49

  48

  West Midlands

  108

  93

  78

  71

  82

  77

  1120W

  Fatal road accidents, by county: England 1997 to 2002

  Accidents

  County

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  West Sussex

  43

  54

  39

  35

  55

  38

  West Yorkshire

  115

  100

  108

  115

  128

  110

  Wiltshire

  47

  42

  43

  34

  46

  38

  England

  2,761

  2,615

  2,678

  1,659

  2,700

  2,717

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fly-tipping (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions Merseyside local authorities have used their new powers to investigate and tackle fly-tipping since the inception of these powers. [178330]

  Mr. Morley
  No data is collated on how often local authorities use the specific stop, search and seizure powers and investigation powers that were extended to waste collection authorities under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

  Information can be derived from returns to the Flycapture database on numbers of prosecutions:

  St. Helens—182 incidents, 20 investigations

  Sefton—171 incidents, No actions recorded yet

  Knowsley—215 incidents, No actions recorded yet

  Liverpool City—Not yet registered for Flycapture

  Wirral—Registered but not submitted a return for April

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress by Merseyside local authorities in the adoption of the standard classification system for the reporting of fly-tipping. [178331]

  Mr. Morley
  The Flycapture database that has been developed between Defra, the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association went 'live' on 5 April. The first returns were due to be sent by 25 May.

  So far, progress nationally on adopting Flycapture has been good with 92 per cent. of waste collection authorities in England and Wales registering.

  The progress of local authorities in the Merseyside area is detailed:

  Liverpool City—Not yet registered

  St. Helens—Registered and submitted data

  Sefton—Registered and submitted data

  Knowsley—Registered and submitted data

  Wirral—Registered but not submitted data for April.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles there were in England and Wales in each financial year since 2001–02(a) in total and (b) broken down by region. [176937]
  1121W
  Mr. Morley
  Figures for numbers of abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed are compiled from the Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2001–02 and 2002–03 and the Defra Abandoned Vehicle Survey for 2002–03.

  Figures for England broken down by region are listed as follows:

  Thousand vehicles

  Region

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North East

  3.8

  6.9

  North West

  13.0

  18.5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  12.7

  15.7

  East Midlands

  17.6

  20.5

  West Midlands

  12.0

  26.0

  East

  42.2

  44.4

  London

  104.5

  94.5

  South East

  57.3

  56.2

  South West

  23.3

  27.3

  England

  286.3

  310.1

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned cars each local authority in England and Wales stated they had removed in their submissions to the most recent Municipal Waste Management Survey. [176938]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest data for abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed by each local authority in England are taken both from the 2002–03 Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey and the 2002–03 Defra Abandoned Vehicle Survey. The results from either survey are available in the Library of the House.

  Cardiff Process.
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government is taking to ensure the success at EU level of the Cardiff process to integrate environmental considerations into sectoral policy. [178704]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has been an active supporter of the Cardiff process since its launch under the UK presidency in 1998. The European Commission has recently produced a stocktaking report of the Cardiff process ['Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas—a stocktaking of the Cardiff process' COM(2004)394]. This document shows that whilst some progress has been made in important areas such as agriculture (reform of the CAP) and energy (Directive 2004/87/EC on Greenhouse gas emissions) more work is still needed. My department will consider the recommendations in the stocktaking carefully. In the meantime my department has beer considering ways of promoting environmental integration through various other tools. For example, we see a fair and balanced impact assessment of new EU policy proposals as a key tool in promoting environmental integration; my department have commissioned a study investigating the Commission's new impact assessment system and will be sharing its conclusions and recommendations with the Commission. We will also be looking for further improvements in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy which is being reviewed this year.
  1122W

  Ceramics Industry
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the UK ceramics industry about(a) European regulation and (b) the Government's implementation thereof; and what action she has taken as a result. [177449]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Ceramic industry is subject to a range of EU legislation. I believe that, in this case, the hon. Member may be referring to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). The ceramic industry is one of the sectors covered by EU ETS.

  Government have held discussions with the ceramic industry in relation to the EU ETS through formal consultation and a sector meeting held on 27 February. A meeting with the ceramic sector was held on 11 May to renegotiate their Climate Change Agreement targets. This work will also feed into the EU ETS allocation process. Representatives from the ceramic industry have also been present at various seminars held by Government, the most recent being on allocation methodology held on 20 May.

  Officials have also worked closely with the British Ceramic Confederation over the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, including their involvement in implementation trials and discussions about interpretation and statutory guidance. Amendments have been made to the guidance in the light of their comments. The British Ceramic Confederation is a member of the Department's Industry Forum concerning the Pollution Prevention and Control regime, which meets twice a year.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK farm holdings received total annual Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments in excess of(a) £500,000, (b) £750,000 and (c) £1,000,000 in each CAP accounting year in the last five years for which figures are available. [177122]

  Alun Michael
  The number of farm holdings in England that received total annual CAP payments in the requested bands is shown in the following table.

  These figures have been taken from European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) accounts. The EAGGF financial year runs from 16 October to 15 October.

  The information for other countries within the UK is a matter for their devolved assemblies.

  EAGGF year

  Over £500,000

  Over £750,000

  Over £1,000,000

  2000

  32

  9

  4

  2001

  27

  11

  7

  2002

  25

  8

  5

  2003

  37

  19

  11

  1123W
  The Rural Payments Agency introduced a new accounting system in 1999 so complete figures for that year could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174821]

  Alun Michael
  The number of staff in Defra and its agencies seconded from the private and academic sector in each of the last three years is shown in the following table:

  Private sector

  Academic sector

  2001–02

  4

  2

  2002–03

  4

  0

  2003–04

  7

  0

  The purpose of bringing people into the Civil Service from other sectors is to fill skills gaps and to add dimensions and insights from outside. For the individuals themselves, the secondment provides experience of another sector and an opportunity to enhance existing skills and develop others.

  Secondments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an interchange can occur, all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much hazardous waste was illegally dumped in(a) Merseyside and (b) Crosby in each of the last three years; and how many prosecutions resulted. [177861]

  Mr. Morley
  Information has been provided for the numbers of incidents involving illegal deposits of hazardous waste recorded by the Environment Agency. While the Agency holds prosecution data for all illegal deposits of waste, hazardous waste prosecutions are not themselves separately recorded.

  Local authorities may additionally hold records of those incidents and prosecutions that they have taken but this is not held centrally.

  There are no Agency recorded incidents or prosecutions relating to the illegal deposit of hazardous waste in Crosby in any of the last three years.

  Those for Merseyside are set out in the following tables.

  Table 1—Total incidents of illegal hazardous waste deposits recorded by the Agency

  Merseyside

  Crosby

  2002

  12

  0

  2003

  9

  0

  2004

  4

  0

  1124W

  Table 2-Total number of Agency prosecutions for all illegal waste deposits (including non-hazardous)

  Merseyside

  Crosby

  2002

  15

  0

  2003

  7

  0

  2004

  2

  0

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many speeches she made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156147]

  Margaret Beckett
  I made 19 speeches during the eight month period from 9 June 2003 to 1 February 2004. Copies of my keynote speeches can be found on the Defra Website: http://defraweb/corporate/ministers/speeches/default.asp [156147]

  Orchards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with English Nature about biodiversity in English orchards. [177784]

  Alun Michael
  Officials have been in discussion with English Nature with a view to finding a way forward within the Single Pay meat Scheme for traditional grazed orchards (that are important in the biodiversity context) to remain eligible for CAP subsidy.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the EU about a derogation for(a) some and (b) all English orchards allowing them to be included in the Single Farm Scheme. [177785]

  Alun Michael
  Orchards are not eligible land for the purposes of the Single Payment Scheme and there is no prospect of a general derogation from this rule for any member state. However, officials remain in discussion with the Commission over the status of traditional grazed orchards.

  Radio Identifier Frequency Devices
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to commission research into the environmental impact of the use of radio identifier frequency devices in retail goods. [178245]

  Alun Michael
  We are not aware of any particular environmental concerns relating to the use of radio frequency identification devices and currently have no plans to commission any research into their impact.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to bring forward proposals in response to the Review of Existing Private Sewers and Drains in England and Wales. [178954]
  1125W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department plans to publish a response to the consultation in the summer. This will summarise responses, give the Government's views and set out the issues that need to be addressed before a final decision can be made. A decision paper should be published early next year.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the(a) recycling and (b) incineration of (i) oxo-biodegradable plastic and (ii) conventional plastic; [176907]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of oxo-biodegradable plastic in combating litter; [176908]

  (3) what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on oxo-biodegradable plastics, with particular reference to the contribution they may make to a better environment; [176910]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the effect on the environment of making short-life plastic products degradable. [176911]

  Mr. Morley
  The National Non-Food Crops Centre (NNFCC) recently published a review of current knowledge on the environmental profiles of biodegradable polymers (BDPs). The main focus of the review is on BDPs made from renewable feedstocks such as starch, polylactic acid and cellulose and their environmental performance compared to conventional plastics. The summary report, "Biodegradable Polymers and Sustainability: Insights from Life Cycle Assessment", can be viewed on the NNFCC website at: www.nnfcc.co.uk

  The Environment Agency will Follow up this work with two Life Cycle Analysis research projects. The first will consider disposable plastic carrier bags from supermarkets and alternative product systems (e.g. paper and bioplastics) and the other will look at food packaging product systems. Oil-based biodegradable (oxo-biodegradable) plastics are included in the scope of the alternative materials. The results of the research will be reported March 2005.

HEALTH

  Arm's Length Bodies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the arm's length bodies for which his Department has responsibility, indicating in each case whether it is an(a) executive agency, (b) special health authority, (c) non departmental public body and (d) other body. [175313]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A list of the Department's arm's length bodies is shown in the tables.

  Executive agencies

  Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

  NHS Estates

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  1126W
  Special health authorities

  Counter Fraud and Security Management Service

  Dental Vocational Training Authority

  Family Health Services Appeal Authority

  Health Development Agency

  Health Protection Agency

  Mental Health Act Commission

  NHS Appointments Commission

  NHS Direct

  NHS Information Authority

  NHS Litigation Authority

  NHS Logistics

  NHS Pensions Agency

  NHS Professionals

  NHSU

  National Blood Authority

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  National Patient Safety Agency

  National Treatment Agency

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  UK Transplant

  Executive non-departmental public bodies

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (The Healthcare Commission)

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health

  Commission for Social Care Inspection

  General Social Care Council

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

  National Biological Standards Board (UK)

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  Other bodies

  Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals

  Dental Practice Board

  Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board

  Breastfeeding
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a breastfeeding strategy for England will be included in the Children's National Service Framework. [178289]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services will set out standards for a wide range of health and social care services and the interface with education. The standards are likely to set out what support should be available to children, young people and pregnant women.

  The Government encourage breastfeeding as the best form of nutrition for infants and has set an national health service priorities and planning framework target to increase breastfeeding initiation by two percentage points a year between 2003–06, focusing on women from disadvantaged groups.
  1127W

  Chorley and South Ribble PCT
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had treatment in Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust in each of the age groups(a) two to 11, (b) 11 to 18, (c) 18 to 30, (d) 30 to 40, (e) 40 to 60 and (f) 60 to 70 in each of the last five years, broken down by gender. [179281]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information is not gathered on the number of people receiving treatment.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money is earmarked for health over the next two years in Chorley. [179282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The allocations to the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust are as follows:

  £

  2004–05

  181,153,000

  2005–06

  205,458,000

  Depression (Young People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes for depression in children and adolescents there were in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [178480]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The available information is shown in the table. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently developing a guideline on the identification and management of depression in children in primary care and specialist services. The guideline is scheduled to be published in 2005.

  Primary diagnosis (ICD-10) F32—Depressive episode and F33—Recurrent depressive episode; Count of finished consultant episodes; for age groups 0–15 and 16–17, National Health Service hospitals in England 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  0–15

  16 and 17-year-olds

  0–17 total

  1996–97

  190

  315

  505

  1997–98

  214

  283

  497

  1998–99

  212

  251

  463

  1999–2000

  227

  263

  490

  2000–01

  189

  40

  429

  2001–02

  225

  239

  464

  2002–03

  248

  270

  518

  Notes:

  Ungrossed Data

  Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Finished Consultant Episode (FCE)

  An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis)

  The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are practising in 1128W
  the NHS in Lincolnshire; and how many people were practising 10 years ago. [177036]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The earliest available data shows that in 1994, there were 337 general medical practitioners, excluding retainers, registrars and locums, in the then Lincolnshire Health Authority.

  The latest data shows that in 2003, there were 375 general medical practitioners, excluding retainers, registrars and locums, in Lincolnshire.

  Hospital Capacity
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if on divert is a phrase recommended by his Department to be used by hospitals that are unable to accommodate additional patients; and how often in the last three months hospitals in the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust have been on divert. [178438]

  Dr. Ladyman
  On divert is an expression used in the national health service to describe a technique used to manage variations in local demand for emergency care. NHS trusts are said to be on divert if they have agreed with their neighbouring trusts and strategic health authority that some or all of the emergency patients who would usually be taken to one of the hospitals within that trust will, for a temporary period, be taken to alternative hospitals. Information on the number of diverts at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust during the last three months, if any, is not held centrally.

  ME
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department spends money on helping ME sufferers in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley. [179347]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected centrally. Allocation of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to educate the public about mental illnesses to tackle the stigma associated with these illnesses. [178144]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) is about to publish a new five-year strategic plan to tackle stigma and discrimination on mental health grounds. The plan will be launched shortly and will build on the foundation of the Department's "Mind out for mental health" campaign and key recommendations of a scoping review commissioned by NIMHE of what works in anti stigma and discrimination. In line with the evidence, the programme will target key audiences and be underpinned by people affected by mental health problems being at the heart of all work. The brand and first resources and projects will be formally launched I on World Mental Health Day, 10 October 2004.
  1129W
  This work will support the implementation of the social exclusion unit's action plan on social exclusion and mental health that was launched on 14 June.

  MRSA
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to compensate victims of MRSA in NHS hospitals. [178106]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans to award compensation to patients with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in national health service trusts.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been made to NHS Direct in each month since November 2001. [178455]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of calls made to NHS Direct in each month since November 2001 are shown in the table.

  Number of calls answered by NHS Direct since November 2001

  Calls answered

  November 2001

  415,845

  December 2001

  513,741

  January 2002

  518,375

  February 2002

  459,305

  March 2002

  500,547

  April 2002

  471,551

  May 2002

  478,767

  June 2002

  485,061

  July 2002

  479,096

  August 2002

  485,296

  September 2002

  420,017

  October 2002

  488,856

  November 2002

  475,026

  December 2002

  570,227

  January 2003

  547,872

  February 2003

  509,293

  March 2003

  575,946

  April 2003

  579,994

  May 2003

  552,749

  June 2003

  523,997

  July 2003

  532,447

  August 2003

  520,148

  September 2003

  476,102

  October 2003

  511,835

  November 2003

  545,826

  December 2003

  570,349

  January 2004

  548,523

  February 2004

  506,112

  March 2004

  542,014

  April 2004

  544,879

  May 2004

  554,454

  Source:

  NHS Direct health intelligence unit.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 most common reasons for calls to NHS Direct over the last year. [178479]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the most common reasons for calling NHS Direct has only been collected nationally by the NHS Direct health intelligence unit since January 2004. The 10 most common reasons for calls to NHS Direct from January 2004 to March 2004 are shown in the table.
  1130W

  10 most common reasons for calls to NHS Direct, January 2004 to March 2004

  Algorithm

  Percentage of overall

  Abdominal Pain

  4.4

  Chest Pain

  2.3

  Headache

  2.3

  Toothache

  2.2

  Rash Toddler (Age 1–4 years)

  2.1

  Fever Toddler (Age 1–4 years)

  1.9

  Sore Throat

  1.9

  Ingestion Toxic

  1.8

  Diarrhoea

  1.7

  Vomiting

  1.7

  Source:

  NHS Direct health intelligence unit.

  NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government's conclusions on proposals to amend the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. [179248]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government have considered the report of the expert advisory group set up to advise how best to implement the proposals and we will come forward with further announcements as soon as possible.

  The Government remain fully committed to reforming the current regulatory regime.

  Smoking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of smoking-related diseases as they affect each social class. [178934]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Smoking has been identified as the principal reason for the inequalities in death rates between rich and poor in the United Kingdom. We commissioned the then Heath Education Authority to undertake research into the effects of smoking related diseases. "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995", published in 1998, provides information on the estimated number and percentage of deaths attributable to smoking related diseases and includes some information on deaths by social class. A copy is available in the Library.

  We have now commissioned the Health Development Agency to undertake a similar study estimating the number and percentage of smoking attributable deaths by primary care trust and strategic health authority which should be available later this year.

  There is also a larger proportion of smokers in lower socio-economic groups, therefore a disproportionately high proportion of people in those groups are likely to suffer from smoking related diseases. In England in 2002, 19 per cent. of those in managerial and professional occupations were smokers, compared with 31 per cent. of those in routine and manual groups.

  Wheelchairs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to(a) NHS trusts and (b) social services departments on the expected safe lifetime of electric wheelchairs. [178497]
  1131W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has specific responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State to safeguard public health where medical devices are involved. Electric powered wheelchairs come within this overall remit.

  MHRA has issued guidance, which is available to health and social services. This guidance relates to the management, purchase, repair and maintenance of medical devices. This guidance has also been incorporated into the NHS Controls assurance Standards for medical devices.

  The wheelchair manufacturer should provide information on the expected safe lifetime of his product. This is dependent on the use, repair and maintenance being carried out in line with the manufacturer's instructions.

  Many manufacturers base their lifetime information on the results that they obtain from the international standards for impact and fatigue testing of wheelchairs during their product development. This standard is generally taken to equate to approximately five years of moderate use of an occupied wheelchair.

  Infrequent light usage of a wheelchair combined with appropriate maintenance may allow the lifetime to be extended. A lower quality wheelchair and inappropriate or heavy usage combined with inadequate maintenance will shorten the expected safe lifetime of the wheelchair.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to(a) NHS trusts and (b) social services departments about the use of reconditioned motors in electric wheelchairs. [178498]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has specific responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State to safeguard public health where medical devices are involved. Electric powered wheelchairs come within this overall remit.

  MHRA has issued guidance, which is available to, health and social services. This guidance relates to the management, repair and maintenance of medical devices. This guidance has also been incorporated into the NHS Controls Assurance Standards for medical devices.

  Within this guidance the use of reconditioned parts such as motors for electric wheelchairs is acknowledged as an option that can be cost effective. However, the source and specification of the reconditioning process is a critical element. It is generally recommended that reconditioning is carried out by the original equipment manufacturer. If it is to be carried out by another source then it is essential that the reconditioner can prove that the process has produced the same level of safety, technical specification and performance as the original equipment. The fitting of the reconditioned motor and
  1132W
  any subsequent changes that are required to the maintenance process for the wheelchair itself will also need to be recorded in the equipment records for the wheelchairs.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Carers Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to reach a decision on the effect on the entitlement to carers allowance of receipt by carers of supporting people payments. [179353]

  Mr. Pond
  Supporting People payments made to carers contracted to Supporting People service providers count as earnings for the purpose of entitlement to carers' allowance.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people were committed to prison because they had committed offences relating to the work of the Child Support Agency in each year since the Agency was established; [177532]

  (2) how many parents have failed to pay Child Support in each year since 1997; and of these how many have (a) received a driving ban and (b) received a jail sentence in each year; [177539]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences removed by the courts in each year since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; [177540]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. David Willets, dated 18 June 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently on leave I am replying on your behalf.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were committed to prison because they had committed offences relating to the work of the Child Support Agency in each year since the Agency was established.

  You then asked two further related questions, which requested information on the removal of driving licences:
  How many parents have failed to provide Child Support in each year since 1997: and of these how many have (a) received a driving ban and (b) received a jail sentence in each year; and
  The number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences removed by the courts in each year since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.
  The number of non-resident parents that have failed to make child maintenance payments since 1997 are shown as follows. The figures are taken from the 5 per cent. quarterly samples of the Child Support Computer System from March 1997 to February 2003. The data looks at compliance in every quarter of the year therefore those who are nil compliant will have been nil compliant within every quarter of the year.

  1133W

  £000

  Total cases with full maintenance Assessment

  Number of non-resident parents that are nil compliant

  1997–1998

  674.3

  45.3

  1998–1999

  854.2

  57.7

  1999–2000

  967.2

  63.8

  2000–2001

  1,052.6

  63.9

  2001–2002

  1,075.6

  59.0

  2002–2003

  1,116.4

  53.2

  Notes:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Committal action:

  From March 1999 to May 2004 there have been 171 suspended committal sentences. The first specific reference we have to a non-resident parent serving a prison sentence is in 2002–2003. Information pre dating 2001–2002 does not specify whether the non-resident parent served a prison sentence; the records only show whether a warrant for committal was issued.

  2001–2002—0 sentences served.

  2002–2003—4, sentences served.

  2003–2004—8 sentences served.

  Removal of driving licences:

  The power to withdraw driving licences was brought into effect on 2 April 2001 (under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000)

  2001–2002—3 suspended licence sentences issued.

  2002–2003—1 driving licence removed and 7 suspended licence sentences issued.

  2003–2004—1 driving licence removed and 9 suspended licence sentences issued.

  Please note committal to prison or disqualification from driving is only considered after all other enforcement options have been attempted or discounted. We use these ultimate sanctions as the final lever to achieve compliance rather than as a punitive measure for those non-resident parents who will not pay. This explains the huge difference between the number of warrants we obtain and the number of driving licences withdrawn or prison sentences actually served.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) have claimed and (b) are eligible for council tax benefit in Greater London, broken down by borough, in each of the last three years. [179357]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. Estimates of the number of entitled non-recipients are not available below national level. The national level estimates can be found in a series of DWP reports entitled "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up". The latest publication relates to the financial year 2001–02; copies of this and previous reports are available from the Library.

  The available information is in the table.

  Council tax benefit recipients by London borough

  Thousand

  Local authority

  2002

  2003

  2004

  London GOR

  610.4

  625.4

  646.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  18.0

  18.4

  18.7

  Barnet

  20.0

  20.3

  21.7

  Bexley

  13.0

  13.0

  13.4

  Brent

  21.5

  22.9

  24.4

  Bromley

  15.0

  14.1

  16.2

  1134W

  Council tax benefit recipients by London borough

  Thousand

  Local authority

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Camden

  24.1

  23.8

  23.5

  City of London

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Croydon

  22.9

  23.3

  24.3

  Ealing

  19.9

  19.6

  22.0

  Enfield

  23.1

  22.8

  25.0

  Greenwich

  22.8

  23.9

  24.0

  Hackney

  28.2

  29.8

  25.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16.8

  16.6

  17.4

  Haringey

  24.7

  25.8

  27.1

  Harrow

  11.6

  11.5

  12.8

  Havering

  14.7

  14.6

  15.2

  Hillingdon

  16.2

  15.7

  16.8

  Hounslow

  16.4

  16.7

  16.9

  Islington

  24.9

  24.6

  26.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12.1

  12.5

  12.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  6.7

  6.2

  7.0

  Lambeth

  25.5

  29.9

  29.8

  Lewisham

  26.8

  26.8

  27.1

  Merton

  10.8

  10.7

  10.9

  Newham

  28.3

  31.2

  32.0

  Redbridge

  15.5

  15.7

  16.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  8.4

  8.5

  8.9

  Southwark

  33.0

  34.4

  34.4

  Sutton

  8.3

  9.8

  10.0

  Tower Hamlets

  28.8

  29.3

  29.9

  Waltham Forest

  19.9

  20.2

  20.7

  Wandsworth

  18.1

  17.6

  19.6

  Westminster

  14.1

  14.6

  15.5

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  4. Figures include estimates for non-responding local authorities.

  Source:

  Housing benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in February 2002, 2003 and 2004.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what mechanisms exist to distinguish between those matters which are his Department's responsibilities and those which are directly those of the Prime Minister. [179463]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 703W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  All-postal Ballots
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate he has made of extra costs arising from problems with distribution of ballot papers in regions for which all-postal ballots are being held for elections on 10 June. [178403]
  1135W
  Mr. Leslie
  Returning officers have the contractual relationship with suppliers of ballot packs. They will be submitting claims for their costs of the all-postal ballots to the Elections Claims Unit in due course. When those claims have been received, it will be possible to make an estimate of any costs falling to Returning Officers arising from any problems with printing and distribution.

  Environmental Cases
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many applications for judicial review relating to environmental matters were granted permission to proceed in each year since 1997; and what proportion of the total number of applications this represented in each year; [179559]

  (2) how many applications there were for judicial review in the High Court relating to environmental matters in each year since 1997; and what proportion of the total number of applications this represented in each year; [179560]

  (3) how many cases relating to environmental matters were granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords in each year since 1997; and what proportion of the total number of cases heard by the legal committee of the House of Lords this represented in each year; [179561]

  (4) how many cases relating to environmental matters were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in each year since 1997; and what proportion of the total number of appeals to the Court of Appeal this represented in each year. [179562]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Administrative Court Office's case management system does not identify cases by the category of "environmental" matters. The Administrative Court cannot therefore provide the information requested without incurring disproportionate costs.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many greyhounds were bred for racing in the UK in 2003. [179233]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are no precise figures available for the number of greyhounds bred for racing in the UK in 2003.

  However, 10,709 greyhounds were registered with the English Stud Book in 2003.

  Licensed Premises
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many licensed premises serving alcohol in England there were in each year since 1997. [179432]

  Mr. Caborn
  Statistics on the number of licensed premises and clubs serving alcohol are collected on a triennial basis. Figures are available for 1998 and 2001—all figures are as at 30 June.
  1136W

  1998

  2001

  On licence

  104,057

  102,551

  Off licence

  42,462

  41,742

  Registered clubs

  21,084

  20,487

  Theatres

  262

  201

  Total

  167,865

  164,981

  The collection of figures for 2004 is currently under way.

  Pre-owned Assets
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Treasury on tax on pre-owned assets. [179180]

  Mr. Caborn
  Changes to the taxation regime are a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Measures to amend the tax treatment of pre-owned assets, intended to deter abuse of the inheritance tax "gift with reservation" rules, were announced on 10 December 2003 in the pre-Budget report.

  The Minister for Media and Heritage—my right hon. Friend, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—wrote to the Paymaster-General in February to ensure that consequences for heritage assets were taken into account in the detailed workings of the income tax charge on pre-owned assets.

  Details of the charge, and proposals for further consultation on valuation and the rates of return for chattels and intangibles, are included in Inland Revenue 'Budget Notice 40: Tax Treatment of Pre-Owned Assets'.

  Racehorses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many horses were bred for racing in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [179514]

  Mr. Caborn
  The numbers of thoroughbred horses bred for racing in the UK in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  2003

  5,432

  2002

  5,156

  2001

  4,977

  2000

  5,194

  1999

  5,363

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations were conducted by his Department before publication of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004. [179520]
  1137W
  Mr. Rammell
  Before the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order 2004 were submitted to Her Majesty the Queen in Council, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave very careful consideration to all relevant interests and concerns, including the feasibility of the re-settlement of a civilian population in the British Indian Oct an Territory and the likely financial and other commitments which that would entail, and also its impact on the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes.

  Butler Inquiry
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the oral answer of 15 March 2004,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 1–3, of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, what export controls were in place at the time of the sale of biological materials to Iraq by the United States. [176578]

  Mr. Rammell
  The exports of biological materials from the United States to Iraq in the 1980s were licensed by the US Department of Commerce under the (US) Export Administration Act.

  Chagos Islanders
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made since 2000 for Chagos islanders to be allowed to visit Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands. [179521]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have twice put in hand preparations to arrange such a visit, most recently in 2002. However, those preparations fell through for reasons outside our control. Nevertheless, we remain ready to consider the re-instatement of the visit once the situation permits.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reply to the letter of 5 May from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, ref. PO 5158/4. [177875]

  Mr. Mullin
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have yet to ratify the Rome Statute; and what efforts his Department is making to encourage those countries to ratify the Statute. [177716]

  Mr. Rammell
  A list of countries that have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court can be found on its website at: http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/ treaty10.asp.

  It is a UK and EU objective to increase the universality and jurisdiction of the ICC by urging as many states as possible to ratify the Rome Statute. The
  1138W
  EU has a Common Position and Action Plan in support of the ICC. The plan identifies target countries and the presidency tasks individual member states with lobbying exercises. The UK has lobbied in the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana and St. Lucia as well as in Troika demarches in other countries.

  The UK also looks for appropriate opportunities to raise ratification of the Rome Statute in bilateral and multilateral fora such as annual bilateral human rights talks and the recent UK/Caribbean Forum 10–12 May. We have also made clear, at various levels in the US Government, that while we understand the US concerns about the ICC, we do not share them. We hope that, over time, the court will be able to demonstrate that US concerns are unfounded and that the US will adopt a more positive approach to the ICC.

  We recognise that ratification of the Rome Statute must be accompanied by the ability to implement the statue. We have funded a number of initiatives including courses, this year and last, for legal officials (mostly from Africa and Eastern Europe) involved in drafting implementing legislation, and are working with the Commonwealth Secretariat on a project to produce and disseminate model ICC implementing legislation.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178377]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A staff survey taken earlier this year showed a total of 77 UK-based staff have signed an opt-out.

  No exemptions from the Working Time Directive apply to Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) staff. The directive applies to all workers in EU countries. It does therefore apply to FCO local staff in EU countries as well as to UK-based staff. It does not apply to FCO local staff in non-EU countries. We do not keep records centrally of hours recorded in excess of the maximum allowed under the directive.

  The FCO is committed to meeting the standards of the directive; line managers are responsible for ensuring that any excess hours worked are kept to an absolute minimum.

DEFENCE

  Environmental Modification
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Ministry of Defence flights adhere in all respects to the requirements of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. [179458]

  Mr. Ingram
  Yes.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Battle of Britain memorial flight aircraft will take part in the 300th anniversary celebrations of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. [179285]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army regiments will take part in the 300th anniversary celebrations of British sovereignty in Gibraltar; and what role they will play. [179293]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 16 March 2004,Official Report, column 200W.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of death, injury or ill-treatment in Iraq have been referred to the Attorney-General or the Crown Prosecution Service for review. [179010]

  Mr. Ingram
  One.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Statement of 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS, on Iraq, what the names are of the individuals concerned in the cases where investigations are still in progress where individuals died. [179029]

  Mr. Ingram
  The names of the individuals concerned are Tanik S. Mahmud, Ather Khalaf Mohammed, Ahmed Jabber Kareem, Said Shabram, G. G. H. D. Roomi, S. Kazim, R.Z. Habib and F.T. Zaab. There are also nine cases where the identity of the individual remains unknown.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Written Statement of 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS, on Iraq, what deficiencies in the recording and investigation of civilian deaths and injuries as a result of actions by armed forces personnel were identified as a result of the verification exercise. [179034]

  Mr. Ingram
  No deficiencies in the recording or handling of investigations by service police have been revealed by the verification exercise. The exercise has, however, served to illustrate shortcomings in the arrangements for the central reporting of information relating to investigations into the death, injury or alleged ill-treatment of Iraqi civilians as a result of actions by UK Service Personnel.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined in relation to the deaths of(a) Hazim Jum'aa Gattel Al-Skeiri, (b) Baha Ahmed Al-Awari, (c) Abbas Kuhdayar Gatteh, (d) Kasber Farhoud Jasim, (e) Laffeh Ahmed Awdeh and (f) Riyadh Turthi Taha Haseen. [158877]

  Mr. Ingram
  The deaths of the individuals named were all raised by Public Interest Lawyers and form part of the Judicial Review to be held in July and therefore it would be inappropriate to give details.
  1140W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers from his Department have visited prisons run by the British coalition forces in Iraq; what the dates of the visits were; what report was made of the visit; and whether he read that report and discussed with the Minister his impressions of prison conditions in British-run prisons in Iraq. [177248]

  Mr. Hoon
  I visited Shaibah, the UK's only detention facility in Iraq, on 14 June. The facility is run to exacting standards to meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention. The International Committee of the Red Cross have inspected the arrangements in place and have declared them satisfactory.

  Namibia
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send a fisheries protection vessel to the seas off Namibia. [179266]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to deploy fisheries protection vessels to the seas off Namibia. This would not address the root causes of the problem. UK fisheries protection vessels are currently deployed elsewhere We are, however, supporting the British High Commissioner in Windhoek and his Defence Attaché in developing proposals to assist Namibia with Economic Exclusion Zone management training.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been agreed to allow the US Third Air Force and USAFE to take responsibility for the operation of RAF Menwith Hill; and if he will make a statement. [179207]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: There are no plans for the United States Third Air Force and USAFE to take responsibility for the operation of RAF Menwith Hill. However, discussions are taking place concerning the possible provision, by USAFE, of an administrative and logistic support unit. This will not have any impact on the current management of the base nor the mission, which will remain unchanged.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has held with the US Air Intelligence Agency about its operation of the RAF Menwith Hill Station. [179209]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: Ministry of Defence officials work closely on a daily basis with their counterparts in the United States Air Intelligence Agency regarding the operation of RAF Menwith Hill.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he permits US forces based in the UK to hold(a) chemical and (b) biological (i) weapons and (ii) counter-weapon material. [178707]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: There are no United States chemical or biological weapons held in the United Kingdome. Both the US and UK are States Parties to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons

  1141W
  Convention (BTWC). The BTWC prohibits the development, manufacture, acquisition, and stockpiling of any biological weapons.

  The US is a declared possessor of chemical weapons under the terms of the CWC and is in the process of destroying its stockpiles under Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons supervision.

  Both the CWC and BTWC provide for States Parties to maintain programmes to protect against chemical and biological weapons.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advertising campaigns his Department has run since 2001 to make eligible parents aware of their child's entitlement to free school meals. [179060]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has not run any advertising campaigns to make eligible parents aware of their child's entitlement to free school meals. My officials provide local education authorities (LEAs) with the eligibility criteria for free school meals and LEAs disseminate this information to parents and schools.

  Racism (Schools)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what instructions have been given to(a) local education authorities and (b) head teachers to ensure that children are not exposed to (i) racist opinion expressed by and (ii) policy decisions taken by elected representatives. [176829]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are safeguards in sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 against politically partisan activities or teaching in schools. LEAs and schools must take reason able steps to ensure that where political or controversial issues are covered, teachers offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views. Guidance for teachers from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on teaching citizenship education, a national curriculum subject which covers these issues, has been s to all schools. As part of local authorities, LEAs are bound by duty under the Race Relations Act (2000) to promote race equality, tackle unlawful racial discrimination and promote good race relations when carrying out all their relevant functions, even where those functions is are carried out by other representatives.

  Computer/Student Ratios (England)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the computer/student ratio is for(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in England, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [179091]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  1142W
  Figures for England, which were derived from a sample of schools, are shown in the table.

  Average number of pupils1 per computer (used solely or mainly for teaching and learning purposes) by type of school—England—year end March 2003

  Number

  Maintained primary schools

  7.9

  Maintained secondary schools

  5.4

  Maintained special schools

  3.0

  1Full-time equivalent numbers of pupils.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin "Survey of information and Communications Technology in Schools 2003", which is available on the Department's website www. dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many secondary schools conduct drug testing on pupils. [176785]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We do not collect these data centrally.

  Educational Visits (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance his Department has issued to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities in relation to the health and safety of pupils on educational visits; [179103]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the legal obligations and standards of care that apply to teachers participating in an educational visit. [179104]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has issued:"Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits" (1998)
  "Standards for LEAs in Overseeing Educational Visits, Standards for Adventure" and "A Handbook for Group Leaders" (2002)
  "Group Safety at Water Margins" (2003)
  "Swimming Charter" (2003)

  Teachers must take reasonable care of their own and others' health and safety; co-operate with their employers; carry out the activities in accordance with training and instructions; and inform the employer of any serious risks. The good practice that helps teachers fulfil their statutory obligations is set out in the above documents.

  Home Computers (School Pupils)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the proportion of(a) primary school age and (b) secondary school age pupils who have home access to computers; and if he will make a statement. [179089]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest figures on child access to ICT at home are shown in the table. These figures are derived from the Young People and ICT 2002 survey which was a sample survey of households with children in England, carried out in September and October 2002.
  1143W

  Access to a computer at home by key stage of child

  Position as at autumn 2002

  Key stage

  Percentage

  Overall

  81

  Key stage 1

  68

  Key stage 2

  79

  Keystage 3

  83

  Key stage 4

  87

  Post 16

  87

  The full survey results have been published on the Department's website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/ictinschools/evidence/

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the link between home computer access and learning; and if he will make a statement. [179090]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has commissioned the University of Sheffield to conduct research into children's use of ICT at home and its impact on attainment in key stage tests and GCSEs. The project commenced in December 2003 and is due to report in spring 2005.

  Research shows that household access to ICT has increased significantly in recent years. Among school-age children, the effective use of ICT has been shown to have a positive effect on their learning. The ImpaCT2 research study (2002) quantified this as the equivalent of half a grade at GCSE in some subjects. The current research on pupils home use of ICT will help us to understand the relative contribution of home use of ICT to improving standards.

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much time his Department spent dealing with honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by civil service grade. [173037]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Between April 2003 and March 2004, the Department had the following staff dedicated to departmental honours secretariat work:

  Number

  HEO

  0.6

  EO

  1

  AO

  2

  AA

  0.8

  Members of the senior civil service spent 102 hours during the year on the twice-yearly honours sift meetings.

  The majority of the work on honours is undertaken by the departmental honours team. Information is not available on time spent on honours related work by departmental staff who are not members of the Department's honours team.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of official vehicles 1144W
  used by his Department are run on (a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172774]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department's ministerial vehicles are provided by the Government Car Service (GCS). Detailed information on the breakdown of the GCS vehicle fleet has been sent from Nick Matheson, Chief Executive of GCS, to the hon. Member on 25 May and copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The following table provides a breakdown of my Department's vehicle fleet in 2003 by vehicle category and fuel type:

  2003

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Cars

  Petrol

  15

  34

  Diesel

  24

  55

  LPG

  5

  11

  Natural gas

  0

  0

  Total

  44

  100

  Vans <3.5 ton

  Petrol

  2

  22

  Diesel

  7

  78

  LPG/natural gas

  0

  0

  Total

  9

  100

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1825W, on bureaucracy, what records he keeps of the information his Department automatically sends to schools. [179102]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Records are based on a central publications database maintained by the Communications Unit responsible for gate-keeping mailings to schools within DfES. A nominated officer maintains a control spreadsheet which details the name of documents approved for automatic mailings and the date that they were sent.

  Pupil Records Transfers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the(a) cost and (b) inconvenience caused by the transfer of records between the schools of highly mobile children. [177790]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Assessments have not been carried out of either the cost or the inconvenience caused by the transfer of records between schools of highly mobile children.

  However, the Department recognises the additional burden that high pupil mobility places on schools and we introduced the electronic Common Transfer File in 2002 to ease such demands.

  The Common Transfer File is an electronic record that comprises a statutory set of information on pupils who move from one school to another. Its aim is to ensure that there is a consistent set of information

  1145W
  available to teachers and staff at the receiving school, thereby saving time that would be spent in re-entry of pupil information and on reassessment of the pupil. Feedback from schools on its effectiveness has been positive.

  In addition, the Department is also conducting a review of the effectiveness of the Parent Held Pupil Record, which is currently used to transfer information on gypsy/traveller pupils between schools.

  School Sports Days
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department has issued to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities in relation to school sports days. [179105]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department has issued no recent guidance to schools or local education authorities in relation to school sports days.

  Schools are free to hold sports days or similar events as part of the overall package of sports opportunities which they offer their pupils. The 2003/04 PE, School Sport and Club Links survey found that 96 per cent. of the 6,547 schools taking part in the survey held a sports day or similar event during the last academic year. A copy of the results of the survey has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Sixth Form Education (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to encourage more students to enter sixth form education within the Greater London area. [179032]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are working on a number of fronts, and with a number of partners, to encourage more students into sixth form education, both in London and nationally. In London, the Government:have set out plans through the London Challenge to introduce 15–20 new sixth form institutions—whether as free-standing sixth form colleges, in schools or as autonomous centres in FE colleges—by September 2006;
  are introducing Educational Maintenance Allowances from September 2004. An evaluation of the EMA pilot found that 16-year-old participation in full time education increased by 5.9 percentage points amongst the eligible cohort, with greater increases in participation from boys and students from the lowest socio-economic groups;
  are working closely with partners to ensure a coherent approach to 14–19 provision, ensuring that it is diverse and is able to support learners irrespective of their learning needs; and
  are working with London's Learning and Skills Councils to help develop and implement Area Wide Inspection action plans for 14–19 provision, and a pan-London approach to Strategic Area Reviews, to ensure that the quality of provision is of the highest standard.

  Under-Age Pregnancy
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department takes to involve parents when under-aged pregnant girls seek the advice of a health worker at school; and if he will make a statement. [174532]
  1146W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government continue to support the provision of school-based health services where the school identifies a need. The decision to provide such services, and the content of that service, is for the individual school governing body in consultation with pupils, parents and the school community, information about the services provided should be included in the school's Sex and Relationship Education policy. The aim of school-based health services is to improve young people's access to professional advice and support on a range of health, relationship and emotional issues which may be troubling them.

  For all consultations on contraception, sexual health and pregnancy the legal framework is clear. It involves assessing the young person's competence to understand the choices they are making, under guidelines established in 1986. Professionals are expected to encourage under-16s to talk to their parents and help them find ways of overcoming their apprehension. But where requested, a young person's right to confidentiality is respected unless there are serious child protection issues.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff in his Office and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174817]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  The purpose of bringing people into the civil service from other sectors is to fill skills gaps and to provide new perspectives and insights. For the individuals themselves, the secondment provides experience of another sector and an opportunity to enhance existing skills and develop others.

  From 29 May 2002 to 31 March 2003 there were 15 secondees from the private sector and three from the academic sector working in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. From 1 April 2003 until 31 March 2004 there were 13 secondees from the private sector and six secondees from the academic sector working in the Office.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many refuge places have been available for victims of domestic violence in each of the past three years. [178812]

  Yvette Cooper
  There were 5,831 units as at 1 April 2003. This figure includes both accommodation in refuges and other forms of provision including floating support services where victims are supported to remain in their own accommodation where appropriate.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much Government funding was available in each of the last three years to provide refuge places for women who have experienced domestic violence. [178813]
  1147W
  Yvette Cooper
  Revenue funding for refuge places is provided through the Supporting People initiative. Information is not readily available for 2002–03 prior to the introduction of Supporting People as funding was provided through a number of different revenue streams.

  Supporting People funding is made available by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for local authorities to provide housing related support services to vulnerable people. Priorities are set locally and the proportion of the funding spent on people vulnerable due to domestic violence is a decision taken locally. When funds are spent on those who are vulnerable due to domestic violence then this does not always take the form of refuge based services. Housing related support can also be made available in other ways such as clients being visited in their own homes.

  In 2003–04, £1,814,096,410 was made available and of this £57,131,302 was spent on services for people vulnerable due to domestic violence.

  In 2004–05, £1,804,997,000 was made available and of this local authorities are spending £56,964,000 on services for people vulnerable due to domestic violence.

  In addition, in April 2003 further measures were announced to support refuge provision through capital programmes over a three year period. In 2003–04 a total of £18.8 million funding was provided for refuge places and to improve existing, run down facilities for women who have experienced domestic violence through the Homelessness and Housing Directorate and Housing Corporation programmes. In 2004–05 and 2005–06, a total of £7.5 million has been allocated for this purpose by the Homelessness and Housing Directorate and a total of £5.8 million by the Housing Corporation.

  Electoral Registration
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each local authority electoral registration department spent per elector in England in each of the last 10 years, listed in descending order by region. [178421]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact prolonged stays in temporary accommodation have on homeless households' ability to access employment opportunities. [178737]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no assessment of the impact of temporary accommodation on the employment prospects of homeless households. However we are aware of the potentially negative impact that prolonged stays in temporary accommodation can have on homeless households employment prospects and also on their health, well being and children's education.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be commissioning a representative survey of homeless families this autumn. This survey will identify both
  1148W
  the prevalence of Unemployment among families in temporary accommodation, and barriers to entering employment.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will bring the rent liability for statutorily homeless households placed in temporary accommodation into line with the average rent for social housing in that local authority area. [178739]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change rent liabilities for statutorily homeless households in temporary accommodation. However, along with the Department for Work and Pensions we are currently discussing possible alternative funding mechanisms for temporary accommodation with the Association of London Government, Greater London Authority and others.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the London borough of Brent's decision to use some of its dedicated Homelessness Strategy funding to provide enhanced financial incentives to under-occupying tenants moving from family-sized housing to smaller accommodation. [178689]

  Yvette Cooper
  Homelessness grants from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are intended to supplement core funding received in part from Revenue Support Grant and are no longer ring-fenced. Local authorities have discretion as to how they spend the grant, provided that they deliver key outcomes on homelessness. We are aware that the London borough of Brent has been offering financial incentives to under-occupying tenants moving from family sized social housing to smaller accommodation. This type of incentive can be effective in allowing households to move to smaller and more manageable accommodation. It also releases to the authority larger family accommodation of the type generally required to house homeless families. This can help local authorities in their work to avoid the use of inappropriate temporary accommodation and sustain the government's target to end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families with children.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1222W, on homelessness, when he expects to publish research into homelessness among people from black and minority ethnic communities. [178688]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned research on homelessness among black and minority ethnic (BME) households in February 2003.

  A draft report and guide to encourage the development of effective homelessness services for BME households has been produced and are being discussed with a selection of local authorities and other key stakeholders in order to improve the usefulness of the final document. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects a final version of the guidance to be ready for publication later this summer. Copies of both documents will be made available in the Library of the House.
  1149W

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden on 6 May, reference 172312, on mobile telephone mast sitings. [179258]

  Yvette Cooper
  I answered this question on 17 June 2004,Official Report, column 1032W.

  Affordable Housing (London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable homes were built under section 106 agreements by London boroughs between April 2000 and April 2004. [179203]

  Keith Hill
  The number of affordable homes built under section 106 agreements by London boroughs between April 2000 and March 2004 is as follows.

  Number

  2000–01 (outturn)

  1,106

  2001–02 (outturn)

  1,610

  2002–03 (planned)

  2,560

  2003–04 (proposed)

  3,917

  Source:

  "Housing in London 2003", Table 4.3, Greater London Authority

  Ordnance Survey
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the framework document for the Ordnance Survey to be published. [176729]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the publication is overdue. The extended timescales reflect the importance that the Government places on the Frame work Document for Ordnance Survey. We expect publication to take place before the summer recess.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate extra costs incurred in preparing for postal ballots for the elections to be held on 10 June, attributable to problems with printing and distribution of ballot papers. [178283]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Returning officers have the contractual relationship with suppliers of ballot packs. They will be submitting claims for their costs of the all postal ballots to the Elections claims Unit in due course. When those claims have been received, it will be possible to make an estimate of any costs falling on Returning Officers arising from any problems with printing and distribution.

  Public Funding (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has been spent in Crosby. [177851]
  1150W
  Yvette Cooper
  Projects of the value of £13,282,807 and which benefit Crosby and other neighbourhoods in the South Sefton area of Merseyside are currently being funded by the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public funding has been spent from the Community Participation programmes in Crosby. [177852]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Community Participation Programmes (Community Empowerment Fund, Community Learning Chest and Community Chests) provide funds for the 88 most deprived local authority areas in England. Crosby falls within Sefton, which is one of these areas.

  Community Participation funds are always provided directly to a community or voluntary sector organisation in each of the 88 areas. The Community Empowerment Fund is used to develop and support a Community Empowerment Network (CEN) helping to facilitate community and voluntary sector involvement in the LSP, especially in the most deprived neighbourhoods and hard-to-reach groups. The Community Chest and Learning Chests provide small grants to support a wide range of community activities and to develop the skills and knowledge of local communities so that they can participate in Neighbourhood Renewal at a local level.

  The organisation that administers the Community Empowerment Fund is Sefton Council for Voluntary Service and the Community Foundation for Merseyside administers Community Chest and Community Learning Chests. These organisations identify and agree spending priorities with the Community Empowerment Network and other VCS stakeholders, which is then approved by the Government Office.

  The total Community Participation grant allocation for Sefton over three years (2001–04) is £1,215,434. This financial year (2004–05) the grant allocation for Sefton will be £551,064.

  Public Perceptions (Surveys)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what surveys of public perceptions of his Department and of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176943]

  Yvette Cooper
  No surveys of public perceptions of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months.

  Radon Gas
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he intends to take to tackle radon in Cornish homes. [179461]

  Phil Hope
  Radon is classed as a contaminant and is dealt with under Part C of the Building Regulations. I expect to make an announcement shortly on improvements to Part C.
  1151W
  Government have provided guidance on radon protection of new homes since the late 1980s. The current guidance, BRE report BR211, "Radon: guidance on protection measures for new dwellings," was last revised in 1999 following the results of a survey of radon levels in all homes in England and Wales. This survey was carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and was published in 1996.

  Temporary Housing
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of providing temporary housing was to each local authority in each of the past 20 years, expressed at today's prices. [178429]

  Yvette Cooper
  The amount reported by local authorities in England as being spent on homelessness from the General Fund Revenue Account for each year from 1987–88 to 2003–04 expressed at 2003–04 prices is tabled as follows. This includes expenditure on homelessness including temporary accommodation, private sector leasing and bed and breakfast accommodation.

  It is not possible to give figures for expenditure on temporary accommodation from the Housing Revenue Account as this is not recorded separately.

  General Fund Revenue Account net current expenditure on homelessness at 2003–04 prices

  £million

  1987–88

  209.1

  1988–89

  183.3

  1989–90

  141.7

  1990–91

  148.1

  1991–92

  152.0

  1992–93

  167.9

  1993–94

  140.8

  1994–95

  139.9

  1995–96

  143.3

  1996–97

  142.0

  1997–98

  142.5

  1998–99

  169.7

  1999–2000

  189.5

  2000–01

  218.0

  2001–02

  198.0

  2002–03

  203.0

  2003–04

  220.5

  The figures have been revalued for previous years at 2003–04 prices using the current Her Majesty's Treasury GDP deflators.

  Figures for the individual local authorities for each year from 1998–99 have been made available in the Library of the house. Individual figures for earlier years are not available.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding has been allocated to the Single Regeneration Budget for financial year(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2005–06, broken down by region; and what funding plans are in place to continue the work of the Single Regeneration Budget from 2005–06 onwards. [178108]
  1152W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) was subsumed into the Regional Development Agencies' Single Programme in April 2002 and remaining expenditure from SRB commitments will be funded from the Single Programme. Information on the level of SRB commitments is not separately collected. Funding for the RDAs' Single Programme is made up from contributions from a number of different Government Departments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution to the Single Programme is £1,524 million (outturn) for 2003–04 and –1,513 million (planned) for 2005–06. RDAs are continuing to fund regeneration activity from the Single Programme. Funding for all programmes, including those of he RDAs, from 2005–06 is being considered in the 2004 Spending Review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of private sector investment in Afghanistan has been in each of the last three years. [176605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not collected by HMG and there would be a disproportionate cost to obtain the information.

  Corus
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make ex gratia payments to Mr. Paul Thomas and Mr. David Morgan, former employees of Corus, whose cases have been the subject of correspondence with her Department. [178114]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am aware that Mr. Thomas has pressed for payment for himself and Mr Morgan, under the Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme (ISERBS) which permits us to make payments to redundant steelworkers under the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty. ISERBS was introduced in 2001 and ECSC rules permitted the scheme to be backdated to include steelworkers made redundant since January 2000. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Thomas were made redundant in 1999. The Government are not able to make ex gratia payments to individuals who do not qualify under the scheme rules.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been seconded from the private sector 10 the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the last 10 years, stating in each case(a) the companies from which they have been seconded and (b) the start and end dates of the secondment. [176444]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four people have been seconded to ECGD from the private sector in the last 10 years. They came respectively from:Barclays Bank plc between October 1989 and January 1993;
  British Aerospace for 15 working days over the period June to September 1993;

  1153W
  HSBC between January 1996 and December 1997; and NatWest Bank between July 1997 and February 1999.

  Internet Telephony
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications for the telecoms sector of the increasing use of internet telephony. [178716]

  Mr. Timms
  New services that can offer consumers lower prices and advanced features are welcome additions to a competitive telecommunications market. Ofcom, the telecommunications and broadcasting regulator, is currently considering the regulatory issues concerning voice over broadband (VoB) services as part of a wider strategic review of telecommunications. It has also consulted on specific issues such as numbering arrangements and runs a VoB industry group.

  The Ofcom Strategic Review of Telecommunications can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/telecoms_review/index.htm

  Details of the VoB industry group can be found at: hap: //www.ofcom.org.uK/ind_groups/ind_groups/telecommunications/vob/?a =87101

  Kismet Road Project
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the withdrawal by Advantage West Midlands of agreed funding for the Kismet Road project; and what assessment she has made of the effect on companies which have incurred costs as a result. [177206]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands received an application for funding for the Kismet Road project but was unable to make an offer of support.

  Any funding given by Advantage West Midlands is subject to a formal appraisal process. Early on in the appraisal process, it became clear that Advantage West Midlands could not fund the project because there were irreconcilable anomalies and inconsistencies within the application's proposed funding package and the project offered no acceptable outputs. That decision was communicated to the applicant at the earliest opportunity.

  Ministerial Travel
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the travel costs incurred(a) by her Department and (b) by. each Minister within her Department, for each of the last 10 years; [175646]

  (2) how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in her Department in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175740]

  Ms Hewitt
  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more luring each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. These reports contain information reaching back from 1995–06. Information for earlier years could 1154W
  be obtained only at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  For domestic travel the DTI has devolved to the local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record the costs of taxis, train travel, helicopters or airline tickets used by staff separately. To obtain accurate data for the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code of Practice.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on ministerial travel by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and (d) helicopter, in each of the last 10 years. [175663]

  Ms Hewitt
  For part(a) of the question my hon. Friend the Minister of the Cabinet Office has asked Nick Matheson, Chief executive of the Government Car and despatch Agency to write to the hon. Member with details of the cost of ministerial vehicles provided to this Department.

  For parts (b) (c) (d) the DTI has devolved to the local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record the costs of taxis, train travel, helicopters or airline tickets used by staff separately. To obtain accurate data for the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code of Practice.

  Nirex
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will give an assurance that the Government's intentions on the future role of Nirex will be made public before the Energy Bill completes its passage through the House. [177224]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Government are working hard to determine the future of Nirex and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food an Rural Affairs will announce the outcome of its review as soon as it has been completed. I am not as yet able to give a firm date for the announcement.

  Ruth Lea
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions the Permanent Secretary of the Department has had concerning Ruth Lea while she was employed by the Institute of Directors; and if she will make a statement. [179106]

  Ms Hewitt
  The details of meetings held internally between officials, or privately between officials and third parties, are exempt from disclosure under exemptions 2 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, protecting internal discussion and information given in confidence respectively.
  1155W

  Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff in her Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174822]

  Ms Hewitt
  The purpose of bringing people into the Civil Service from other sectors is to fill skills gaps and to add external dimensions and insights. For the individuals themselves, the secondment provides experience of another sector and an opportunity to enhance existing skills and develop others.

  The following table shows the secondments from (a) the private sector and (b) the academic sector for the last three years:

  Secondments from the private sector

  Secondments from the academic sector

  2001–02

  72

  3

  2002–03

  64

  1

  2003–04

  57

  3

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Bob Spink, dated 18 June 2004:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  Companies House has not seconded any individuals from either the private or academic sector in the last three years.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Bob Spink, dated 18 June 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you directly on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect of your question (2003/3107) asking how many staff in its agencies were seconded from the (a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years.

  The Insolvency Service seconded one member of staff from the private sector during the last three years. The secondment ended in August 2001.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects Sellafield's new mixed oxide plant to become fully operational. [178760]

  Mr. Timms
  The Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) is currently manufacturing Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) as part of the final stages of commissioning the plant. Formal consent to operate SMP will be sought from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nil), the regulatory body in late 2005, subject to the plant achieving its manufacturing schedule.

  Sickness Absence
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days were lost in her Department through sickness absence in the year ending 31 March 2004. [178344]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, the headquarters of the Department of Trade and Industry (including Small Business Service and UK 1156W
  Trade and Investment) lost 30,910 days due to sick absence. These figures include weekend days where absences span the weekend.

  The figures can be further broken down to show that 21,184 of these days were certified and 9,726 were uncertified.

  Southampton Port
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to support the competitive position of the port of Southampton. [175577]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is for the Port of Southampton to determine their own future investment needs in discussion with the appropriate authorities. The Government through the South Last England Development Agency (SEEDA) would be keen to work with the port to develop its future strategy.

  Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  1 o ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what surveys of public perceptions of her Department aid of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if she will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176948]

  Ms Hewitt
  My department commissions surveys from time to time of customers' views of its services so as to help improve those services. Recent examples over the last 12 months include:"Fair Markets Stakeholder Survey"
  "Survey of DTI Customers in the Business Relations and Energy Group Areas'

  DTI has received some initial findings from these surveys, but the full reports are not yet ready for publication. However, early indications from the survey of DTI's Fair Markets stakeholders include that DTI was rated highly on effective stakeholder engagement, with professional and competent staff who are good at delivering on strategy and policy. Comments suggest that we could improve our consultations by engaging stakeholders earlier and providing feedback after each consultation.

  The total combined costs of these surveys were approximately £60,000.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees in her Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in her Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178372]
  1157W
  Ms Hewitt
  Formal opt-out forms from the Working Time Directive and flexitime forms are held at local management level and are not readily available centrally.

  DTI does not collect data on those who are exempt from the Working Time Directive, as all DTI employees are covered by the Regulations.

  Yumi Yet Bridge
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department has been approached for support for Phase 2 of the Yumi Yet Bridge Development Programme in Papua New Guinea. [177600]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: For reasons of commercial confidentiality, ECGD does not normally reveal details of applications for cover it receives in respect of prospective export transactions.

  Nevertheless, in this instance, Mabey and Johnson Ltd. has agreed to ECGD disclosing that it has applied for cover in respect of Phase 2 of the Yumi Yet Bridge Programme in PNG.

  However ECGD has not yet taken a decision on whether to provide cover for this follow on business.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Autistic Spectrum Disorders
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are set for doctors and psychiatrists who offer themselves as expert witnesses on autistic spectrum disorders. [178959]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: In criminal law, where matters fall outside the ordinary knowledge of the court, the court may allow the opinions of an expert witness to be admitted as evidence. If either the prosecution or the defence wishes to adduce the evidence of an expert witness. they are obliged to disclose the expert's statement to the other side in advance of the trial. The other side may then request further details from the expert. This obligation also allows the other side sufficient time to prepare their arguments if they wish to challenge, the expert witness.

  The decision whether or not to allow the evidence of an expert witness to be admitted rests with the court, which must be satisfied that the material comes within a recognized field of expertise and that the witness is indeed an expert in that field. It is for the jury to decide what weight ought to be placed on any expert evidence that has been admitted.

  One exception to these general rules is that, under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, a defendant shall not be acquitted on the grounds of insanity, or found unfit to plead, except on the evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners, at least one of whom is approved by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder.
  1158W

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the total number of restraining orders made under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 after a conviction under section 2 of the Act was in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the defendant; [159393]

  (2) what the total number of restraining orders made under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 after a conviction under section 4 of the Act was in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the defendant; [159394]

  (3) what the total number of applications alleging a breach of a section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 restraining order resulting in a conviction was in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by gender; [159395]

  (4) what the total number of applications alleging a breach of a section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 restraining order resulting in an acquittal was, broken down by gender, in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [159396]

  (5) how many magistrates, court and Crown court prosecutions under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 resulted in (a) conviction and (b) acquittal in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003, broken down by sex of defendant. [159399]

  Paul Goggins
  Table A shows the number of persons sentenced to a restraining order following a conviction for an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 2 and 4 at all courts in England and Wales during 2001 and 2002.

  Table A: Number of persons sentenced to a restraining order after being found guilty of an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 2 or 4, all courts, England and Wales, 2001 and 2002

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Sex

  Sentenced to a restraining order1

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 2

  Offence of harassment

  2001

  Male

  1,057

  Female

  147

  Total

  1,204

  2002

  Male

  1,235

  Female

  146

  Total

  1,381

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 4

  Putting people in fear of violence

  2001

  Male

  141

  Female

  9

  Total

  150

  2002

  Male

  192

  Female

  13

  Total

  205

  1These data are on the principal offence basis (but including primary and secondary disposals).

  Table B shows the number of persons acquitted or found guilty at all courts of the offence of breaching a restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in England and Wales during 2001 and 2002.
  1159W

  Table B: Number of persons acquitted or convicted of breaching a restraining order under tit Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 5, at all courts, England and Wales 2001 and 20011

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Sex

  Acquitted 2

  Found guilty

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 5

  Breach of restraining order

  2001

  Male

  57

  501

  Female

  6

  38

  Total

  63

  539

  2002

  Male

  59

  556

  Female

  7

  48

  Total

  66

  604

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Charge dismissed at magistrates' courts.

  Table C shows the number of persons acquitted or found guilty at both magistrates' courts and the Crown Court of offences under sections 2 and 4 of the

  Table: C Number of persons acquitted or found guilty of offences under sections 2 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, England and Wales 2001 to 20021

  Magistrates' courts

  The Crown court

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Sex

  Charge dismissed

  Found guilty

  Acquitted

  Found guilty

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 2

  Offence of harassment

  2001

  Male

  372

  2,377

  18

  98

  Female

  65

  320

  4

  11

  Total

  437

  2,697

  22

  109

  2002

  Male

  111

  2,422

  14

  107

  Female

  71

  328

  5

  6

  Total

  182

  2,750

  19

  113

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 4

  Putting people in fear of violence

  2001

  Male

  84

  371

  91

  178

  Female

  11

  32

  13

  9

  Total

  95

  403

  104

  187

  2002

  Male

  73

  376

  86

  223

  Female

  7

  26

  11

  13

  Total

  80

  402

  97

  236

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the Autumn of this year.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to assess whether experiments on animals can be scientifically reproduced using other methods and subjects. [176778]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research to demonstrate that experiments on animals cannot be scientifically reproduced using other methods and subjects, and has no plans to do so. Instead, the assessment of project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 focuses on these issues on a case by case basis. Under the 1986 Act, the use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited where a scientifically valid, non-animal alternative is available.

  Burials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced by the Government in response to the shortage of space for further burials in cemeteries and graveyards. [178715]
  1160W
  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in England and Wales during 2001 and 2002.

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are aware of concerns over the potential lack of appropriate burial space, particularly within built up urban areas. The current public consultation exercise "Burial law and policy in the 21st Century: the need for a sensitive and sustainable approach" seeks views on the existing arrangements for providing cemeteries and the on the possibility of reusing old ones. The results of this exercise, which is part of the on-going review of burial law and ends on 13 July 2004, will help to inform the Government's decision on how best to proceed.

  Corporate Killing
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish a Bill on corporate killing. [178226]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The Government are firmly committed to reforming the law on corporate manslaughter. We plan to publish a draft Bill before the end of the current session.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him date 10 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. S. Nyathi. [178949]
  1161W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 June 2004.

  Crime Victims/Witnesses (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the residents of Crosby have benefited from the national strategy to improve services for witnesses and victims of crime. [177949]

  Paul Goggins
  Criminal Justice Boards have been established in each of the 42 criminal justice areas in England and Wales and their work includes delivering the Government's Public Service Agreement targets to bring more offences to justice, improve public confidence in the Criminal Justice system and increase victim and witness satisfaction.

  Every Criminal Justice Board has produced a plan to improve services to victims and witnesses.

  As part of the No Witness, No Justice programme, Witness Care Units are being established in every criminal justice area to provide a single point of contact for victims and witnesses. The provisional dates for rollout in Merseyside are between 1 April and 1 October 2005.

  In February 2004, the first pilot to help vulnerable witnesses of crime with communication difficulties to give evidence was launched in Merseyside.

  The Home Office is funding three pilots to test out the best approach to supporting victims of road traffic incidents. Aftermath Support, in Merseyside is one of these schemes and is provided by local partners.

  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what relationship the National Offender Management Service will have to the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme; and who will allocate staffing to Criminal Justice Interventions Programmes from within the National Offender Management Service management structure. [174461]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Justice Interventions Programme is a critical part of the Government's national strategy for tackling drugs. Its implementation is being phased and delivery at a local level is through community-based Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) which adopt a case management approach to offer access to drug treatment and support for drug misusing offenders.

  With the creation of the National Offender Management Service we envisage that the drugs case manager will be the link to and, in some cases, the provider of drug treatment services. The Regional Offender Manager will be responsible for ensuring proper links are established within his or her region between offender managers and CJITs. This will avoid duplication and ensure a fully integrated package of support and management to drug misusing offenders before, during and after sentence.
  1162W

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government is taking on domestic violence other than imprisonment of offenders. [176814]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: Domestic violence is a horrific crime, which claims the lives of around two women a week. This Government is determined to tackle it.

  The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for thirty years. It is a key part of the Government's aim of putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system and part of our wider domestic violence strategy to protect and support victims, as well as bringing perpetrators to justice.

  A broad range of other initiatives are being taken forward by the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence. These initiatives include important developments in health, education and housing as well as the civil and criminal justice systems. This year we are investing £56.97 million on domestic violence services as part of the Supporting People Program. Following a positive evaluation of the effectiveness of five specialist domestic violence courts in what further action we can take to improve Court Services for victims of domestic violence.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been killed by(a) intimate partners and (b) family members in incidents in each of the last five years for which statistics are available; and in how many of these cases children were also killed. [178354]

  Paul Goggins
  The latest available information on homicide is published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 01/04, "Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime". It provides information on gender of victims and relationship of victim to suspect. The Bulletin does not identify individual cases where children were also killed.

  For England and Wales, the available information on women homicide victims killed by partners/ex-partners and others known to them is given in the table.

  Partner/ex-partner

  Other known1

  1998–99

  76

  82

  1999–2000

  88

  55

  2000–01

  98

  76

  2001–02

  120

  64

  2002–03

  107

  85

  1 Other known includes relationships of victim to principal suspect of son/daughter, parent, other family, friend and acquaintance.

  Note:

  Figures are as at 13 November 2003 and are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police, by the courts or as further information becomes available.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the performance indicators against which he plans to measure the(a) medium and (b) long-term success of his domestic violence strategy. [178817]
  1163W
  Paul Goggins
  We intend to measure the effectiveness of our domestic violence strategy over the medium and long term using the following indicators:Homicides as a result of domestic violence;
  Headline prevalence of domestic violence (as measured by the British Crime Survey Inter-Personal Violence module);
  Numbers of (a) young people and (b) all people who think that violence is acceptable in some circumstances;
  Percentage of domestic violence incidents with a power of arrest where an arrest was made related to incident and, of this, the percentage of partner-on-partner violence (within the Policing Performance Assessment Framework).
  A new indicator covering rates of attrition in domestic violence;
  The number of civil orders made;
  A new Best Value Performance Indicator designed to assess the overall effectiveness of local authority services to domestic violence victims. This will shortly go out for consultation with local authorities, and it part of a suite of indicators which will be piloted in the autumn and introduced in April 2005;
  An indicator relating to victim satisfaction with the support they have received from key agencies.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what easy-to-understand guidance he has issued for practitioners on the sharing of personal information where domestic violence is(a) suspected and (b) disclosed to them. [178818]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office Development and Practice Report 30, "Safety and justice: sharing personal information in the context of domestic violence—an overview", was published at the National Victims Conference on 28 April 2004.

  The report, which was endorsed by the Information Commissioner and by the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence, provides an introduction to responsible and lawful sharing of personal and sensitive information between practitioners in domestic violence contexts in England and Wales. It also demonstrates that sharing personal and sensitive information can be done in a legal, pragmatic and straightforward way. We have also developed a web-based tool to accompany the report. This can be accessed at www.crimereduction.gov.uk.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many calls there have been to the domestic violence hotline in each month since its introduction. [178865]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been 26,070 calls to the national domestic violence helpline (0808 2000 247) jointly operated by Refuge and Women's Aid between its launch on 15 December 2003 and 15 June 2004. In addition, Women's Aid have received 42,691 calls on their previous help-line number, and Refuge 43,890 calls on their previous numbers. A monthly breakdown of these figures is given as follows.

  Calls made to the national domestic violence helpline

  Number

  December 2003

  1,345

  January 2004

  3,382

  February 2004

  3,654

  March 2004

  5,933

  1164W

  Calls made to the national domestic violence helpline

  Number

  April 2004

  3,956

  May 2004

  4,098

  June 2004

  3,702

  Driving Offences
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving in each of the last three years. [178682]

  Paul Goggins
  The information for England and Wales for the years 2000 to 2002 is contained in the table. Data for 2003 will not be available until the autumn.

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody1 at all courts for causing death by dangerous driving2, England and Wales 2000 to 2002

  Total3

  2000

  166

  2001

  193

  2002

  199

  1Includes unsuspended imprisonment, detention under sec90/92(PCC(S))A2000), detention in a young offender institution and detention and training orders.

  2 An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.1 as added by the Road Traffic Act 1991 s.1.

  3 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Firearms
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to review procedures governing the use of firearms by the police. [176268]

  Caroline Flint
  There are no plans to further review procedures governing the use of firearms by police. The Code of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons, which was published in December 2003, sets out the basic principles in relation to the selection, testing, acquisition and use of firearms and less lethal weapons by police. The Association of Chief Police Officers also issue a detailed manual of guidance to police forces.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department low many incidents resulting in(a) fatalities, (b) serous injuries and (c) minor injuries have occurred (i) in miniature rifle ranges exempted from certification or involving weapons linked to such ranges and (ii) on theatrical, film and television productions under present exemptions or involving weapons held under such exemptions in each of the last 10 years. [177467]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: Information available centrally relates only to recorded crimes resulting in injury or death and in any event does not record the location where the injury was sustained.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences there were involving shotgun cartridges of components derived from them
  1165W
  other than in the circumstance of a crime where a shotgun itself is discharged in each of the last 10 years. [177468]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  FRANK Communications Campaign (Corby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the FRANK communications campaign has benefited the residents of Crosby. [177938]

  Caroline Flint
  Crosby sits under the Sefton Drug Action Team (DAT) area. This DAT, in partnership with local agencies, has used tile FRANK campaign materials to communicate to the local population on drug and community safety issues. These have been used in schools, pupil referral units, colleges and youth centres throughout the DAT area inclusive of Crosby. In addition, 120,000 homes in Crosby will be sent information in the next few weeks about the FRANK 24 hour helpline, website and email service, in a community safety magazine commissioned by Merseyside police. Local data are not available, but nationally there have been over 1.5 million visits to the website and over 425,000 calls to the helpline.

  Funeral Rites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the UK chose to have their mortal remains(a) cremated, (b) buried and (c) otherwise disposed of 1n each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) expressed as a percentage of all deaths per year. [178714]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not collected centrally. The number of cremations in recent years has levelled at just over 70 per cent. (72 per cent. of 612,000 deaths in 2002). All other deaths are dealt with by burial or by other means (eg repatriation of the body out of England) and these details are not held centrally.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents involving self harm there have been in Holloway Prison in each of the past three years. [178575]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 14 June2004]: The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Holloway Prison

  Number of recorded incidents of self-harm (not the number of individuals)

  2001

  542

  2002

  765

  2003

  1851

  1 In December 2002, a new form for reporting self-injury (the F213SH) was introduced across the prisons estate in England and Wales, which is known to have improved reporting practices. Much of the increase in reported self-harm in 2003 may result from the change in reporting procedures rather than reflect an actual increase in incidence of self-harm.

  1166W
  Women prisoners will benefit from a specifically targeted and separate suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy being developed for them. This draws upon specialist knowledge of suicidal and self-harming behaviour among women prisoners, and builds upon a number of interventions including: individual crisis counselling for women prisoners who self-harm; the continued development and evaluation of dialectical behaviour therapy, which is currently being trialled at Durham, Bullwood Hall and Holloway prisons; investment and planning to ensure progress on the detoxification strategy in women's prisons; and the introduction of a new training pack for all staff working with women in custody, which includes a module on the health and well-being of women prisoners. A total of £l million from the Department of Health has been allocated to women's prisons to be spent on the recruitment of psychiatric nurses.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued to prisons wishing to apply for late release of juveniles. [176783]

  Paul Goggins
  Late release provides a sanction where a young person subject to a Detention and Training Order (DTO) has been violent, dangerous or destructive while in custody, or has consistently failed to co-operate or to take responsibility for his or her behaviour. Applications for late release require the approval of a court.

  No specific guidance has been issued on the procedure for applying for late release. The introduction in May 2002 of presumptive early release with electronic monitoring provided an alternative sanction in many cases, in that DTO trainees who exhibit a pattern of bad behaviour can be required to remain in custody to the end of the first part of their Order. We are currently reviewing policy on late release in the light of establishments' experience, particularly over the two years since electronically monitored early release was made available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times each prison has applied for the late release of a juvenile prisoner in each of the last five years. [176786]

  Paul Goggins
  Section 102(5) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 enables a youth court, on application from the Secretary of State, to order that a young person serving a Detention and Training Order (DTO) of eight months or more should be released one month after the half-way point of the Order. (A young person serving 18 or 24 months can, alternatively, be ordered to be released two months after the half-way point.)

  The following table shows late release applications by Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) in the period beginning with the introduction of the DTO on 1 April 2000 up until 31 May 2004.
  1167W

  YOI

  Late release applications

  Approved

  Awaiting Court hearing

  Ashfield

  0

  —

  —

  Brinsford

  4

  3

  1

  Castlington

  0

  —

  —

  Feltham

  0

  —

  —

  Hindley

  0

  —

  —

  Huntercombe

  0

  —

  —

  Lancaster farms

  3

  3

  —

  Onley

  0

  —

  —

  Parc

  0

  —

  —

  Stoke Heath

  3

  1

  —

  Thorn Cross

  0

  —

  —

  Warren Hill

  0

  —

  —

  Werrington

  0

  —

  —

  Wetherby

  0

  —

  —

  Brockhill

  0

  —

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  —

  —

  Eastwood Park

  0

  —

  New Hall

  0

  —

  —

  National Offender Management Service
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the all-Wales probation board will be organised at a local level in the new National Offender Management Service. [175781]

  Paul Goggins
  While the precise arrangements in Wales have not yet been agreed, the National Offender Management Service will ensure that effective links with bodies such as Local Criminal Justice Boards, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, Drug Action Teams and local authorities, are maintained and developed. All Regional Offender Managers—including the offender manager for Wales—will be required to establish these links within their region and develop other community and neighbourhood networks as appropriate.

  Police (Specialist Skills)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers are trained to handle digital evidence; [178503]

  (2) how many police officers are (a) serving with computer crime units and (b) have higher level forensic skills. [178504]

  Caroline Flint
  The allocation of officers to computer crime units and the training of officers in these and other units in forensic investigation skills is a matter for individual chief officers. There are no centrally aggregated figures of these resources.

  However, every police force in England and Wales has expertise in the recovery and analysis of forensic evidence. These skills are utilised in a variety of investigations. With regards to training officers who are not part of specialist units, there is a module included in the probationary training for all new police officers covering the internet and new technology. Centrex are also developing an online training package for existing officers.
  1168W
  This month the Home Office has produced tactical guidance for managers of computer crime units within forces, which includes advice on running these units and practical guidance on procedures and tools for forensic analysis.

  Prison Staff
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Prison Officers' Association regarding proposed changes to the uniform worn by staff in young offender institutions. [173396]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Officers' Association has objected formally to a Prison Service proposal to introduce a more relaxed style of uniform in establishments holding juveniles. Discussions to resolve the disagreement are continuing.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men were being held in prison on 12 March; how many prisoners were released on early release on 12 March; how many prisoners were eligible for early release on 12 March; and how many prisoners were released on 12 March. [162199]

  Paul Goggins
  On 12 March 2004 there were 4,569 females and 70,451 males being held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. There were an estimated 175 prisoners with a sentence length of three months to less than four years whose Home Detention Curfew (HDC) eligibility date was 12 March 2004. On that date, 77 prisoners were actually released on HDC.

  Some prisoners with a sentence length of three months to less than four years do not quality for HDC because of the nature of their current or previous offences.

  In addition, the figure of 175 will exclude a small number of prisoners in the population who were on remand at the time of the count, but were subsequently sentenced to a custodial sentence suitable for HOC and whose HOC eligibility date falls on 12 March 2004. This occurs when they have spent a significant period on remand.

  A further 623 prisoners were discharged by other means on 12 March 2004, not including discharges following recall after release on licence, fine defaulters and non-criminals.

  Prisons
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life sentence prisoners have been released on parole in each month since January 1995. [171248]

  Paul Goggins
  Release details for all life sentence prisoners are only available in the monthly format requested from 1 April 2000 onwards. Information for the period 1995–99 is available only by calendar year.

  The annual release figures for the calendar years 1995–99 are as follows.
  1169W

  Number (first time releases only)

  1995

  92

  1996

  85

  1997

  98

  1998

  98

  1999

  122

  The release details from 1 April 2000 onwards are shown in the table.

  Releases on life licence April 2100—March 2004

  Month

  Year

  Number of releases

  April

  12000

  8

  May

  12000

  13

  June

  12000

  19

  July

  12000

  13

  August

  12000

  4

  September

  12000

  7

  October

  12000

  8

  November

  12000

  6

  December

  12000

  4

  January

  12001

  16

  February

  12001

  14

  March

  12001

  13

  April

  2001

  25

  May

  2001

  12

  June

  2001

  14

  July

  2001

  11

  August

  2001

  17

  September

  2001

  9

  October

  2001

  18

  November

  2001

  15

  December

  2001

  10

  January

  2002

  10

  February

  2002

  13

  March

  2002

  10

  April

  2002

  12

  May

  2002

  17

  June

  2002

  12

  July

  2002

  22

  August

  2002

  26

  September

  2002

  14

  October

  2002

  26

  November

  2002

  14

  December

  2002

  18

  January

  2003

  18

  February

  2003

  28

  March

  2003

  29

  April

  2003

  18

  May

  2003

  30

  June

  2003

  22

  July

  2003

  38

  August

  2003

  32

  September

  2003

  22

  1Relates to first time release cases only. Subsequent data includes cases where prisoners have been re-released following recall from life licence.

  Releases on life licence April 2000—March 2004

  Month

  Year

  Number of releases

  October

  2003

  40

  November

  2003

  15

  December

  2003

  30

  January

  2004

  15

  February

  2004

  31

  March

  2004

  38

  The lifer population in June 1995 stood at just under 3,300 and has risen at roughly 8 per cent. per year to the current level of over 5,500. This increase in population
  1170W
  has been reflected in the number of lifer cases considered each year by the independent Parole Board and in the number of cases where release was recommended (or directed) by panels. Following the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Stafford in May 2002, the Parole Board is now responsible for the release of all tariff expired lifers, including mandatory lifers.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Prison Service uses Contracted Supplementary Hours rather than exgratia payments to cover for staff shortfalls. [178404]

  Paul Goggins
  Contracted Supplementary Hours is a contracted agreement between management and staff for working additional hours, allowing advance planning of attendance patterns to cover periods of staff shortfall. For this purpose, Contracted Supplementary Hours are used in place of ex-gratia payments, which are primarily one-off payments to cover individual circumstances in unforeseen cases of operational emergency.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Contracted Supplementary Hours scheme to cover for staff shortfalls in the Prison Service. [178405]

  Paul Goggins
  The Contracted Supplementary Hours scheme was introduced to provide prison governors with the flexibility to provide immediate additional working hours to meet operational needs. Since it has been in operation for the majority of prisons for just over a year, no assessment has yet been made on the cost-effectiveness of the scheme in covering staff shortfalls in the Prison Service.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the relative cost-effectiveness and flexibility of ex-gratia payments in covering for staff shortfalls. [178406]

  Paul Goggins
  Ex-gratia payments provide flexibility in individual circumstances for unforeseen cases of operational emergency. In view of the unpredictable nature of these payments, it would be very difficult to draw generalised conclusions about them. Hence, no assessment has been made to date of their cost-effectiveness.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average ratio of prisoners to wardens was in (a) privately and (b) publicly run prisons in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by category. [177846]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is as follows:

  Contracted prisons1

  Category

  Ratio for the number of prisoners to prison officers2

  Category B

  3.97

  Category C

  3.63

  Juvenile

  1.61

  1Privately operated.

  2 Prison custody officers are the equivalent of the public prisons prison officer.

  1171W

  Public prisons

  Category

  Ratio for the number of prisoners to prison officers

  Category B

  2.78

  Category C

  3.58

  Juvenile

  1.78

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time teachers are employed in each London prison. [177816]

  Paul Goggins
  There are 64 full-time teachers employed in the London prisons, broken down as follows:

  Prison

  Number

  Wandsworth

  10

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10

  Feltham

  17

  Holloway

  6

  Pentonville

  4

  Brixton

  8

  Latchmere

  0

  Belmarsh

  9

  Total

  64

  Learning opportunities for prisoners are also provided by a range of other staff including part-time teachers employed by the contractor, Instructional Officers, Prison Officer Instructors and other prison staff.

  Probation Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prisoners and (h) people under supervision of the probation service have obtained qualifications in basic skills in Merseyside in each year since 1997. [177935]

  Paul Goggins
  Until 2000 there were no clear definitions of what an adult should be expected to know, understand and do at each level of literacy, numeracy and spoken language. The Government's Skills for Life strategy is raising levels of adult basic skills through the introduction of national standards and curriculum documents for listening, speaking, reading, writing and numeracy. These now provide the framework for all adult literacy, numeracy and ESOL screening tests, diagnostic tools, programmes of study and qualifications.

  In 2002–03 central monitoring of literacy, numeracy and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) was introduced for offenders under the supervision of the National Probation Service (NPS). This is the first year for which national targets were set. Targets were introduced in Prison Service establishments in 2000–01, from which date only aggregate figures are available. 2002–03 is the first year from which figures are available at establishment level.

  The number of qualifications obtained by offenders in prison and under probation supervision in Merseyside from 2002–03 is contained in the tables:
  1172W

  Basic skills qualifications; offenders in custody

  Target

  Achieved

  2002–03

  506

  915

  2003–04

  692

  938

  Basic skills qualifications: offenders under probation supervision

  Target

  Achieved

  2002–03

  38

  95

  2003–04

  155

  234

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to maintain community and local involvement in the probationary services as part of the restructuring process. [175227]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Offender Management Service will ensure that effective links with bodies such as local criminal justice boards, crime and disorder reduction partnerships, drug action teams and local authorities, are maintained and developed. All regional offender managers will be required to establish these links within their region and to develop other community and neighbourhood net works as appropriate.

  Project Reflex
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Project Reflex. [177869]

  Caroline Flint
  Reflex is the government's response to organised immigration crime. It was established in 2000 as a multi-agency task force to co-ordinate intelligence and the law enforcement response. Led by the National Crime Squad (NCS), Reflex brings together the key agencies involved in combating organised immigration crime including the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the security and intelligence agencies, the UK Passport Service, government departments including the Crown Prosecution Service and key police forces.

  Based on its initial success Reflex was awarded £60 million over three years starting in April 2003. The core aims of Reflex are to raise the risks that organised crime gangs must take, render their illegal businesses unprofitable and reduce the opportunities for them to exploit communities.

  Reflex targets criminal groups involved in the volume facilitation of illegal migrants, human trafficking (in particular the trafficking of women and children) and running the criminal infrastructures that serve both to facilitate illegal entry and to exploit the illegal population once in the UK.

  Between April 2003 and April 2004 reflex resulted in 38 disruptions. In the same period Reflex operations resulted in 38 convictions.

  Secure Units
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that children sent to secure units are contained as near to their families as possible. [175835]
  1173W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) is responsible for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for young people who receive custodial sentences, and for placement decisions.

  It aims to improve the geographical spread of places suitable for the younger and more vulnerable young people in secure training centres (STCs) and local authority secure children's homes (LASCHs). It has already expanded two STCs by a total of 64 places and a new one is due to open this summer at Oakhill, Milton Keynes. Based on modelling of the home locations of young people placed since April 2000, the 80 places it will provide—in exchange for withdrawal from 64 LASCH places—will significantly improve the geographical coverage in particular for young offenders from north London.

  Sentencing Guidelines Council
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is envisaged that the Sentencing Guidelines Council will examine the case for reducing sentence lengths for less serious offences. [147632]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government believe that less serious offenders should be punished by fines or community penalties; prison should be reserved for serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will issue guidance on the appropriate sentences for all offences. One of its first tasks is to look at the use of the generic community sentence established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Government believe that this new sentence offers the opportunity for more offenders to be punished in the community and to increase the opportunities for rehabilitation.

  Shoplifting
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were imprisoned for shoplifting offences in Greater London in the last five years. [158441]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for stealing from shops and stalls in the Greater London Area1, 1998 to 20022

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Offence

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Stealing from shops and stalls

  1998

  1,957

  415

  2,372

  1999

  2,225

  418

  2,643

  2000

  2,394

  481

  2,875

  2001

  2,290

  435

  2,725

  2002

  2,730

  518

  3,248

  1Metropolitan and City of London police force areas.

  2 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  It should be noted that courts' sentencing decisions are influenced by the seriousness of the offence and take into account previous convictions.
  1174W
  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Women Prisoners
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners were electronically tagged in(a) England and (b) Wales during the period between January and December 2003; and what the most recent available figures are for 2004. [177256]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2003 there were 2,153 female prisoners released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme (HDC). Between 1 January 2004 and 30 April 2004, there were 689 female prisoners released on HDC. These prisoners were all released from prisons in England There are no prisons for females in Wales. The country (i.e. England or Wales) in which electronically tagged prisoners reside on release is not recorded centrally.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women's places were not used in bail hostels in(a) England and (b) Wales during the period between January and December 2003; and what the most recent figures are for 2004. [177257]

  Paul Goggins
  There are currently 100 approved probation and bail hostels throughout the 42 probation areas which make up the National Probation Service for England and Wales. They provide a total of 2,238 places, of which 2,016 are for men and 222 for women. These approved premises broadly accept three categories of residents; bailees, those on community orders with a condition of residence at the approved premises, and those on licence following release from a custodial sentence. Five of these premises (all based in probation areas in England), are for women only. A further 28 premises (three of which are in Wales) provide mixed accommodation. However, no published data is available on how many women's places were not utilised during 2003 or 2004.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many custodial sentences being served by female prisoners of one month or less were imposed on female convicts and served at HMP Holloway in the last year. [177494]

  Paul Goggins
  Of the women serving custodial sentences at Holloway in the last year, 123 had received sentences of one month or less. The Government does not believe that these kind of short sentences are generally effective in reducing re-offending which is why we are introducing the Generic Community Sentencewhich will enable sentencers to choose from a range of measures appropriate for each individual offender and Custody Plus which will ensure that short periods of custody are followed up with effective supervision in the community.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners were in England and Wales(a) broken down by prison and (b) as a total in each year since 1997. [177510]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of female prisoners in England and Wales, broken down by establishment and as a total, on 30 June in each year since 1997 is given in the table.
  1175W

  Female prison population by establishment—England and Wales, 30 June

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Askham Grange

  131

  126

  113

  113

  128

  135

  122

  Birmingham

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brockhill

  135

  132

  145

  155

  150

  161

  155

  Buckley Hall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  203

  308

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  134

  137

  160

  162

  181

  163

  Cookham Wood

  147

  161

  147

  137

  151

  144

  143

  Downview

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  245

  212

  Drake Hall

  281

  275

  209

  162

  232

  276

  303

  Durham

  42

  45

  103

  96

  104

  97

  107

  East Sutton Park

  95

  97

  96

  70

  89

  95

  99

  Eastwood Park

  125

  259

  277

  301

  299

  322

  286

  Foston Hall

  0

  134

  171

  167

  156

  207

  224

  Highpoint

  204

  206

  198

  201

  251

  270

  293

  Holloway

  524

  516

  501

  490

  474

  480

  465

  Low Newton

  47

  83

  105

  207

  251

  286

  268

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  188

  188

  347

  New Hall

  317

  364

  379

  366

  347

  348

  374

  Risley

  152

  160

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Send

  0

  55

  89

  201

  216

  215

  216

  Styal

  267

  281

  446

  449

  424

  455

  426

  Winchester

  80

  91

  91

  80

  91

  86

  84

  Total

  2,672

  3,120

  3,207

  3,355

  3,713

  4,394

  4,595

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the women's unit at HMP Durham will close; where the female inmates at HMP Durham will be moved to; and if he will make a statement. [177575]

  Paul Goggins
  Durham is to change its role from a high security prison to a community prison by April of next year and will no longer be holding women 1176W
  prisoners. The change is due to spare capacity in the rest of the high security estate and the availability of new accommodation for women at Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex opening on 17 June and Peterborough in June 2005.

  There are currently around 100 women being held at the prison of whom seven are category A. The women will all be subject to comprehensive sentence plans to determine the most appropriate prison for them.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Register of Learning Providers
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  Following the recent announcement notice by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which set out new immigration measures being developed for marriages, students and managed migrants I can now provide further details of the measures relating to education.

  Student mobility is a welcome feature of 21st century globalisation and we benefit from it. The recent British Council report showed that students from overseas currently contribute £3 billion a year to the UK economy. It estimated that half a million English language students come to the UK annually. But we must make sure the system is not abused. Those coming to study here must be genuine students studying at a genuine and registered college.

  As you will know, we are encouraging English language schools to seek accreditation with existing bodies such as the British Council or the Association of British Language Schools. This is a positive step forward to ensuring we retain our reputation for high quality educational provision. It will provide reassurance to students coming into the UK to learn English and safeguard the future of the sector within the UK.

  We have also been looking at measures to ensure that students attending other private education providers are able to receive genuine opportunities. Partly for this purpose, the Department for Education and Skills has been developing plans for a register of educational providers and I can now announce that this will be in place by the end of the year. We will then make the register available to the Home Office to support them in making their decisions on granting leave to study. They propose only to issue leave to study to students attending providers on the register.

  The register will be of educational providers who are able to provide evidence of their business and will prevent entirely bogus providers from bringing purported students to the UK. We know these providers are in the minority and that a much greater number of providers are working to make genuine opportunities available to their students. For this reason we are working to make the scheme as straightforward as possible for those genuine providers, who will easily be able to provide evidence of their work. Those providers who receive public funding, and private providers who are accredited, have undergone robust assurance measures already and we will not be looking to undertake further checks on them I will provide further information on the registration scheme in the summer.
  62WS
  There were other measures proposed to support student immigration. These included asking institutions to report students who have leave to study but do not attend to the Home Office. We are currently consulting with the education sector on these measures and will provide more information in a month or so's time.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hydebank Wood Prison
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I wish to announce that with effect from 18 June 2004, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that part of the site of HM Young Offenders Centre Hydebank Wood, known as Ash House and the adjoining land be designated as Hydebank Wood prison. The parts to be designated as Hydebank Wood prison are indicated on the map, by the words "Hydebank Wood", which I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the Prison Service's second annual sustainable development report, covering the period April 2003 to March 2004.

  The report sets out the significant progress being made by the service in addressing its sustainable development commitments. Most prisons are now more energy efficient, use more environmentally preferable goods and products, employ better waste management practices, and manage more sensitively the wildlife and habitats which exist on the prison estate. In addition, the report describes the service's social impacts in respect of reducing re-offending and improving prisoners' prospects on release.

  The report also details the service's future aims, particularly for meeting the targets set under the Government's framework for sustainable development on the Government estate and the initiatives planned to continue its successes.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Dome and Greenwich Peninsula
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  On 29 May 2002 my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton advised the House of Lords that English Partnerships had entered into legally binding conditional contracts with Meridian Delta Ltd (MDL), a consortium consisting of Lend Lease and Quintain Estates and Development plc, and Anschutz Entertainment Group (Anschutz), for the future use of the dome and development of approximately 190 acres of land on the Greenwich Peninsula. Since then, planning permission and other consents have had to be secured under the terms of the May 2002 contracts but I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that
  63WS
  the conditions attached to those contracts have been satisfied and the overall transaction has gone unconditional. This is a major milestone in the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula and the growth of the Thames gateway.

  The long-term benefits we have secured for future generations of Londoners are a fitting legacy for the dome project and for the public investment that has gone into the Greenwich Peninsula.

  Four billion pounds of private sector investment, including a £550 million cash return over the next 20 years, will bring new jobs, new homes, new services and infrastructure to London. This is a fantastic result, and reflects the commitment and vision of all our private and public sector partners. Every £1 of public money on the Peninsula has attracted over £6 from the private sector.

  The timetable going forward is now as follows. During the summer Anschutz will appoint a contractor for the construction of the new arena inside the dome, for work to start in spring 2005. At the same time MDL will submit to Greenwich Council a planning application for Millennium Square, the major new public space proposed next to the dome. MDL expect contractors to start delivering early infrastructure works to facilitate the wider development late in 2004 and, once detailed planning permission has been secured for the first phases, start of work on the housing and other facilities is expected in late 2005 or early 2006.

  Construction of the arena is expected to be completed in spring 2007, together with other leisure uses under the dome roof, the plans for which Anschutz will be working up in the coming months. Millennium Square will be completed within the same timescale, and the residential development will be well under way by the time the new arena opens for business in 2007.

  This stage has been achieved only through a considerable effort and close co-operation amongst a number of private and public sector partners. English Partnerships (EP) has secured contracts that are set to deliver an exemplar sustainable community and a fabulous addition to London's entertainment offer. EP will continue to work in partnership with the developers as work progresses and EP's, Quintain's and other third parties' land is drawn down for development. The London Borough of Greenwich granted planning permission on 23 February 2004 for the development, and was robust in securing a highly valuable package of measures of public benefit through the section 106 agreement negotiations and related matters. The Mayor of London, through various of his functions and organisations (primarily Transport for London), has been instrumental both in facilitating the planning permission and in completing elements of the contractual negotiations. MDL and Anschutz have both invested substantial time and considerable money already in preparing the physical plans and developing other matters in preparation for a long period of activity in developing out the site and creating the sustainable community and a magnificent new entertainment hub for London.

  The development will see: the creation of an estimated 24,000 new jobs; the building of over 10,000 new homes, 3,800 of which will be social rented, low cost and family units; significant infrastructure improvements; 48 acres of open spaces and parkland; and the building of new
  64WS
  community and health care facilities including new schools, all of which will lead to the wider regeneration of the local area and beyond. Some £4 billion of private sector investment is expected from this transaction alone; and across the Peninsula, every £1 of public sector investment will be levering in over £6 of private sector money.

  This development will continue the innovation and high quality established at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the Peninsula. The Village is already paving the way on high density living, achieving new levels of energy efficiency, creating the high quality environment that is needed, and providing integrated services through the new school and health centre that are at the heart of the development. It is setting standards from which important lessons can be learned, and establishing best practice that will influence wider development, on the Peninsula and elsewhere. The development enabled by the completion of the transaction being announced today will deliver a community several times the size of the Millennium Village while incorporating the type and variety of public facilities and infrastructure that are required of a 21st century sustainable community. The numbers of new homes will also make a substantial contribution to delivering the step change announced in the Sustainable Communities Plan, particularly for the Thames gateway growth area.

  Anschutz will transform the inner part of the dome into a world-class 26,000 capacity entertainment and sports arena. Anschutz is committed to investing at least £120 million in the Arena, with EP receiving, after a priority return to Anschutz, 15 per cent. of the profits. We cannot reveal the details of the priority return, as it impacts on Anschutz's ongoing business and is commercially confidential.

  The arena is only part of the story. In the outer rim of the dome, Anschutz will construct a mixture of retail, entertainment and leisure facilities—this part of the development is currently known as the dome waterfront. EP will receive at least a third share of the profits, after the developer's priority return. At least a further £65 million will be invested in this area by the private sector. EP will also receive payment for the hotel site next to the dome.

  On the rest of the land EP and MDL have agreed that they will develop the site jointly over the next 20 or so years, with an end date of 2025. The detailed terms provide for EP to remain ownership of its land until individual plots are required for development. The payout will work as follows: first EP will receive an agreed, indexed, minimum land value, on the sale of any parcel of land—this protects against any downturn in the market; secondly, a share of MDL's profits after deduction of development costs to reflect the enhanced planning consent and the market value at the time of sale to the developer. The share to be received by EP increases over time throughout the development phases from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent.

  Where MDL develops land itself, English Partnerships will receive the agreed indexed minimum land value plus a share of sale proceeds, or the value of the development—both after costs—once the development is complete. This share ranges from 15 to 20 per cent. depending on timing.
  65WS
  Over the period of the deal, EP expects to receive a financial return in the order of £550 million in cash terms. This is based on a validated assessment of expectation from the sale of the land, and does not include any additional return which may flow from the profit shares in respect of the dome, nor any redevelopment proceeds in the event that the dome is demolished after 2018. Up to that date Anschutz and MDL are contractually required to maintain the dome. Should the dome structure ever be removed and the land redeveloped, EP will be entitled to a 50 per cent. share of redevelopment proceeds. This protects English Partnerships' position on the redevelopment value of the land.

  With the completion of the contracts English Partnerships costs incurred in respect of the sale process and decommissioning of the dome site have now ceased. The total costs incurred by English Partnerships in those areas that have now concluded are as follows:

  First dome sale competition

  £6.7 million

  Latest sale process

  £9.0 million

  Decommissioning

  £6.7 million

  Total

  £22.4 million

  In addition, EP has already incurred costs of £8.2 million on the management, maintenance, security and insurance of the dome site up to 31 May, offset by income from events and lettings of £1.4 million. These figures have been regularly reported to Parliament. As previously reported to Parliament EP will continue to meet the dome's necessary management, maintenance, security and insurance costs until Anschutz completes the construction of the arena. However, those costs will gradually reduce as preliminary works start before the main contract commences. EP estimates its average monthly cost will fall from the recent £190,000 to around £60,000 when the main arena contract starts in spring 2005.

  All of EP's costs from when it took ownership of the dome (in July 2001) to the completion of the arena's construction, and including the costs of the entire sale process, will be recovered from sale proceeds. Based on the above figures to date, and an estimate of the likely future management, maintenance, security and insurance costs, the total costs that EP expects to incur in relation to the dome project, over six years and after taking account of offsetting income from events and lettings, is around £33 million.

  The Government, in recognition of the leading role played by the Lottery, through the Millennium Commission, in helping to regenerate the Greenwich Peninsula, has consistently stated that it will receive a fair share of proceeds from the sale and development of the dome. The division of proceeds with the Lottery has now been agreed. EP will retain all of the first £30 million of development receipts, to cover most of those dome-related costs described above, as a first call on proceeds. Thereafter, EP will retain 87 per cent. of receipts and the remaining 13 per cent. will be passed to the Lottery in recognition of the contribution of the dome. This share will be reflected in a new legal agreement between EP and the New Millennium Experience Company, which will bind the parties to the respective shares of proceeds over the period covered by EP's contracts with MDL and Anschutz.
  66WS
  Under the terms of the original acquisition of the land EP paid British Gas £20 million, for the original transfer of the land, plus £4.3 million as a share of EP's sale receipts to date on the southern part of the Greenwich Peninsula as required in the original purchase transaction, which entitled British Gas to 7.5 per cent. of all open market value land sales. British Gas has also received a further £10 million in respect of the enhanced value of Greenwich Peninsula due to MDL's proposals and the retention of the dome. This represents good value for money and reduces EP's liability under the original purchase agreement.

  In agreeing this deal, the Government focused on four main aspects: value for money; regeneration benefits for the area; deliverability and an innovative use for the dome.

  With regard to value for money, we made clear throughout that we would only proceed with the deal if it provided value for money for the Government. That included comparison with the value for money that could be delivered by demolishing the dome, or by alternative development scenarios retaining the dome. The currently estimated value of the development to EP, assuming the full scheme is developed, of around £550 million will depend on market fluctuations over 20 years for the eventual outturn, but we are confident that the structure of the deal will deliver excellent financial returns for the taxpayer as well as enormous public benefits on the ground.

  This deal enables the Government to benefit from the increasing value of the land across the peninsula both now and over time. This is sensible, and in the public interest. As the development proceeds, land values will increase. This will be reflected in the land value element in the payment to EP when the land is sold for development. In turn, this will enable EP to reinvest more money in creating sustainable communities; in new housing, including for key workers; in environmental improvements; and in supporting the delivery of regeneration and best practice throughout England.

  With regard to regeneration benefits, these are described briefly above. There is much more, which will only become apparent once the development has begun, environmental improvements are being made, jobs are being filled and homes are being built. It is a programme of fitting scale and quality for a site that was the centrepiece of the Millennium celebrations and is now a flagship project for London and the Thames gateway.

  As regards deliverability and sustainability, the participants in the development include players established records in delivering developments of the size and quality this project requires. This is their core business.

  Anschutz Entertainment Group is part of the Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest private corporations in the United States of America. It has worldwide sporting and entertainment interests, including the Staples centre arena in Los Angeles and the new arena it is building in Berlin. Lend Lease is a major development company, quoted on the Australian stock exchange and operating in 40 countries. It owns Bovis in the UK and has successfully developed the Sydney Olympic village and Bluewater shopping centre. Quintain is a significant player that is quoted on the

  67WS
  London stock exchange. It is also involved in Wembley, and several other large mixed use developments and regeneration schemes.

  These players have the resources, the experience and the ability to deliver.

  Finally, in relation to the use of the dome, the arena and associated entertainment and leisure facilities will be a highly appropriate use for what is widely acknowledged to be a world class landmark building. Public access is assured. Keeping the dome as the lynchpin of the development has been welcomed by the London Borough of Greenwich and the Mayor.

  The Government believes that the regeneration programme now secured for the Greenwich peninsula amply satisfies all four of the criteria that were set out for it.

  We look forward to work starting on site in the near future, leading to the delivery of the continued regeneration of a key site in the evolution of Greenwich, London and the Thames gateway.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Mental Capacity Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Mental Capacity Bill has been published today.

  This Bill is the culmination of extensive consultation and careful consideration over many years, of the needs of people who lack mental capacity. It also benefits considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee. The Committee made 99 recommendations for improvements to the Bill, 88 of which the Government have accepted and used to improve the Bill introduced today.

  The overriding aim of the Bill is to improve the lives of vulnerable adults, their carers, families and professionals. It provides a statutory framework for decision making for people who may lack capacity, making clear who can take decisions, in which situations and how they should go about this.

  The Bill is based on clearly defined principles. Its starting point is that everyone has the right to make their own decisions, and must be assumed to have capacity to do so unless it is proved otherwise. No one should be labelled as incapable—each decision should be considered individually and everyone should be helped to make or contribute to making decisions about their lives. The Bill sets out clear guidelines for, and limits on, other people's role in decision making.

  The Bill has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. At some point in their lives, everyone is likely to be affected by mental incapacity—either personally or because of caring responsibilities. Up to 2 million people currently lack capacity, including for example, over 700,000 people in the UK who suffer from dementia and 145,000 adults in England who have severe and profound learning disabilities.

  People affected by a lack of capacity are not well served by the current law, which has grown up in a piecemeal way. It is difficult to plan ahead for a time when you might lose capacity and there is no reliable framework to support carers in their decision making.
  68WS
  The absence of a clear legal framework means that it is not always clear who can do what, or how anyone can determine where another person's best Interests lie. Some people may think they can do whatever suits them, perhaps because of a family relationship. Others may err on the side of doing too little, worrying about criticism or even prosecution for the actions they might take.

  We know that there is much good practice in making decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity. The Bill will over-time bring about a quiet revolution in public attitudes and practice, building on current good practice and existing statutory and common law rules. The Bill will provide greater empowerment and better protection for vulnerable people, and for those who face the difficult and sensitive task of handling decisions on their behalf.

  The Bill offers better protection both for people who lack capacity and for carers and professionals. For the first time it offers statutory guidance to help assess what constitutes someone's best interests. All decisions must be made in the best interests of the incapacitated person, with adequate weight given to what they themselves would have wanted—their wishes, feelings, values and beliefs—while ensuring that the decision is the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms.

  Guided by these principles, the Bill provides a legal basis for a person to undertake acts in connection with care and treatment on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity. This provision was drafted as a "general authority" in the draft Bill, but we have renamed and recast it to ensure that it is not misinterpreted or misunderstood. This provision is not about granting a new authority to intervene in the life of someone lacking capacity, but simply confirms that carers are protected from liability when they demonstrably act in the best interests of a person who lacks capacity to consent to what is done.

  The Bill provides formal mechanisms to support the decision-making process and offer protection to those involved. It establishes lasting powers of attorney (LPAs), allowing people to appoint an attorney to act on their behalf if they should lose capacity in the future. Unlike a current enduring power of attorney (EPA), an LPA can extend to welfare and health matters (as well as financial matters) if the donor wishes. The Bill also creates a system of court appointed deputies to replace and extend the current system of receivership in the Court of Protection.

  The Bill clarifies, with additional safeguards, the current common law rules about advance decisions to refuse treatment. This confirms that people may plan ahead, if they wish, to refuse specific treatments. A properly made, valid and applicable advance decision has the same weight as a refusal of treatment made by a person with capacity. But doctors will need to consider whether the advance decision is really valid and applicable, and any doubt must always be resolved in favour of the preservation of life.

  There is a range of other provisions in the Bill to protect the needs of the person lacking capacity. It introduces a new criminal offence of neglect or ill treatment, which can be used against a carer, attorney or deputy who has ill-treated or wilfully neglected a person

  69WS
  who lacks capacity. A person found guilty of such an offence may be liable to a term of up to five years' imprisonment.

  The Bill sets up a new court of protection and a new statutory figure, the Public Guardian. Both will be built around the needs of those who lack capacity. The new court will have jurisdiction to consider applications for both financial and health and welfare decisions. The Public Guardian will be the registering authority for LPAs and court appointed deputies and will work with other agencies, such as the police and social services, to respond to any concerns about possible abuse.

  Following the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the Bill now provides for properly controlled research that respects the requirements in the clinical trials directive (2001/20/EC) implemented in the UK on 1 May 2004. This will allow for research into conditions related to mental incapacity and how people with capacity problems can be helped. Research studies will be endorsed by a research ethics committee to ensure the project is necessary, safe and cannot be done using people who have mental capacity. There will be stringent safeguards around an individual's participation in a study.

  The Bill will also now provide for an independent consultee, to speak up for people who do not have a relative or carer when decisions are taken about serious
  70WS
  medical treatment or long-term residential care. The intention is that such consultees will also be involved in annual care reviews for those people, where they have previously been involved in the original decision. There will be a regulation making power to extend the provision to other serious decisions and vulnerable groups, on which we intend to consult with stakeholders.

  The Government agree with the Joint Committee's view that codes of practice will be essential for the proper and effective implementation of the new legislation, and that drafts should be available to assist the parliamentary consideration of the Bill. Therefore, codes of practice will be available at Commons Committee stage. There will be extensive consultation on full codes of practice to accompany the Bill when it becomes law and these will be laid before Parliament in draft. Copies of the draft codes will be made available in the Libraries, the Vote Office and the printed paper Ooffice when they are published at Committee stage.

  Finally, the Government very much welcomed the Joint Committee's finding that many of the fears which have been raised about possible connections between the draft Bill and euthanasia appear to be misplaced. The Bill has nothing at all to do with euthanasia. Its aim is to empower, and increase protection for thousands of vulnerable adults. For the avoidance of any doubt the Bill now expressly states that nothing in it affects the law on murder, manslaughter or assisted suicide.