Sitting of 12 November 1992

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Boundaries Commissions Act 1992

  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1992

  London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992

  Price's Patent Candle Company Ltd. Act 1992

  Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Act 1992

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
      BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
          EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
            GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

              WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
              Orders for Second Reading read.
              To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Subcontractors (Payments)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has to assist the prompt repayment of debts to subcontractors from contractors employed by Government Departments.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): All contractors to a Government Department are required to commit themselves by contract to their subcontractors to pay promptly, ordinarily within 30 days.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Chief Secretary realise that many prime contractors do not consider paying their debts until writs have been issued and that that adds greatly to the climate of fear that is paralysing much of British industry?
    976
    Will he assure us that the 30-day limit will be rigidly applied? At the moment, there are many exemptions. Will the Chief Secretary consider introducing the right to claim interest on all debts that are not paid within 30 days?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has pursued that matter assiduously with me in correspondence and parliamentary questions. It is a requirement that there should be a commitment within the contract to pay within 30 days. That has been with us since April and the Government take it very seriously. I should be happy to take up on the hon. Gentleman's behalf any case that has arisen. It is possible, as he said, for a company to pursue the matter through the courts. It is also possible for the Government to take account of poor performance when awarding future contracts. Those are the best remedies, rather than imposing interest payments, but the hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue a particular case with me.
    Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that system is not working, particularly in the private sector? If a subcontractor objects to the main contractor about non-payment within 30 days, he will probably never be given another contract. It is impossible to legislate for such an event. This must be part of the moral factor of a contract that the Government should emphasise in both the public sector and the private sector.
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is easier to see this as part of a culture than as a matter where legislation would be effective, although I do not rule that out entirely for all time. The Government have made efforts to improve the small claims court procedure, which requires large companies to report on their performance in their report and accounts. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), we have taken steps with our own contractors regarding the way in which they deal with subcontractors.
    Mr Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is desirable that subcontractors are protected? A serious problem, which must be addressed, is that after a main contractor has taken over a contract, the subcontractor having been approved by a Government Department, the main contractor could go into liquidation, with no protection for the subcontractor. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into that problem and endeavour to protect subcontractors?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and difficult problem. I am not sure to what extent Government protection can be extended in these cases. It might help me, however, if the hon. Gentleman were to refer to me the case that he has in mind and we could see whether any general lessons could be drawn from it.

    Inflation
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the rate of producer price inflation.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the prospect for inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Producer price inflation for manufacturing, excluding food, drink and tobacco, is estimated to have

    977
    been 2·5 per cent. in October—the lowest rate of increase since May 1969. I shall outline my latest assessment of the prospects for inflation when I present my autumn statement later today.
    Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that low inflation gives British industry a great opportunity? Furthermore, will he urge British business men to build on the Government's achievement of low inflation by going out into world markets and selling more British goods?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Low inflation is the most important aspect of competitiveness. As long as other countries have low inflation, we cannot afford to have high inflation. That is why it is good news for our exporters to Europe that our level of inflation has been below the European Community average. I hope that our exporters will take the maximum advantage of that.
    Mr. Carrington: The news about inflation is extremely good. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the dangers of an increase in inflation are ever present in the economy, particularly given the decrease in the value of the pound? Will he reassure the House that his determination to continue to fight inflation is undiminished?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that excessive depreciation of the pound would endanger our inflationary objectives. That is why I have consistently made it clear that I am not prepared to take risks with inflation or the exchange rate. Having said that, the depreciation that we have experienced and the fact that our inflation is lower than the European average mean that our exporters have a considerable opportunity.
    Mr. Beith: As the Chancellor often pointed out that the exchange rate mechanism partly helped us to achieve low inflation, is there a level below which he would not wish the pound to sink because of inflation dangers? If he will not tell us what that level is, how are markets to believe that he will pay more attention to the level, which may be in his mind, than to all the pressures from behind him?
    Mr. Lamont: As I have repeatedly made clear, we do not have a formal or informal exchange rate target. But I have made it crystal clear that we believe in a strong exchange rate. The right hon. Gentleman asks why people should believe that we care about inflation or that we will do what is necessary. The one thing that cannot be denied is that in the past couple of years we have fought a tough battle, stuck with difficult policies and succeeded in getting inflation down from nearly 11 per cent. to under 4 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer got a cheek telling the House that he is capable of bringing down inflation, or anything else, after the misery of the past few weeks? Is this not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who borrowed £7·25 billion not to bolster social services but to throw money at the stock exchange, and the same Chancellor who condemns the Labour party for borrowing money to provide services despite throwing £10 billion down the black hole at his City friends?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—I do not know whether intentionally or otherwise—if he is implying that money spent on supporting the pound might have been available for public expenditure. As he knows,
    978
    we exchange one currency for another by using reserves or by borrowing. The cost to the public sector depends on what happens to the trend of the exchange rate. Much of the reserves that were deployed to support the pound were acquired at a lower level than that at which they were sold and we made a profit.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the battle against inflation remains the central aspect of the Government's economic policy and that, in the long term, policies based on debauching the currency will lead only to economic ruin, as we saw for so many years under Labour Governments—when we last had them?
    Mr. Lamont: I hope that I have made it clear that we have not gone through the past couple of years—the sacrifices, effort and difficult policies that have been pursued—to throw it all away. As various of my hon. Friends have said, a low rate of inflation is vital for our competitiveness and the future of jobs and therefore important to the country as a whole.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given all that the Chancellor says about the prospects for inflation, will he explain why, in the months after devaluation, input prices for manufacturers rose by 2·5 per cent. in only four weeks? In answer to a question on inflation several months ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that unemployment was a price worth paying. Will he now apologise to the million people who have lost their jobs since he made that statement? Can he now tell us when unemployment will come down?
    Mr. Lamont: The most important thing for unemployment is, first, that we get recovery and, secondly, that we have low inflation. Those are the most important factors that will affect unemployment.
    I am certain of one thing about input inflation: those figures in that one month do not reflect the depreciation of the pound. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that producer output inflation, minus food, drink and tobacco, was the lowest since May 1969. The trend of producer prices is a good guide to future inflation and is extremely encouraging.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that low inflation figures are one of the factors that are crucial for restoring consumer confidence? Will he deplore the practice of certain business organisations, political and economic pundits and Opposition Members who constantly talk down every good statistic that is published, thereby undermining any increase in confidence?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have made the same point from time to time. My hon. Friend is also right to say that low inflation is vital for consumer confidence.

    Devaluation
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the future effect on United Kingdom inflation of the devaluation since he suspended the United Kingdom's membership of the exchange rate mechanism.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): As my right hon. Friend said just now, he will be publishing a revised forecast of prospects for inflation in the autumn statement in the usual way.
    Mr. Betts: Given the Chancellor's previous statements of confidence about the level of inflation—a confidence which is not shared by many private sector analysts, including the London Business School—why do the Government wish to rejoin the ERM? Do they intend to rejoin the ERM before or after the Danish referendum?
    Sir John Cope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we pay tribute to the ERM, for the way in which it has helped us to get inflation down. That is part of the reason why we will re-enter the ERM when times are right.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent easing of monetary policy is by no means inconsistent with a policy of keeping inflation low, provided that we maintain controls over public expenditure, particularly revenue expenditure?
    Sir John Cope: Indeed, and we shall hear more about that later today. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reaffirmed that he is not prepared to take risks with inflation.
    Mr. Darling: Notwithstanding what the Chancellor said about the 2 per cent. rise in input prices last month, does the Minister not accept that, although there is spare capacity in the United Kingdom economy, our economic base is so weak that, unless remedial action is taken, there will be a substantial risk that inflation will rise beyond the upper estimate of 4 per cent. which the Chancellor gave? Can we take it from the Minister's comments about the ERM and his tribute to it that the Government regard a managed exchange as being dead?
    Sir John Cope: On the contrary, I said that we would rejoin the ERM when times were right. As we have made clear before, that is what we shall do. There are still strong deflationary pressures in the pipeline.

    Civil Service Relocation
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payback period his Department demands for civil servant relocation projects; and what plans he has to bring these into line with those pertaining in private industry.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): In common with private industry, we require relocation proposals to offer good value for money.
    Mr. Bruce: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not appear to know that the answer that I received from the Ministry of Defence about a week ago was that there was a 25-year pay-back period on relocation whereas private industry has a three-year pay-back.
    My hon. Friend will see an announcement at 4 o'clock which will add to the relocation out of my constituency. A total of 2,300 jobs will be moving. The Treasury has approved some of these moves, at a cost of £60,000 per move. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at the matter with renewed vigour?
    Mr. Dorrell: Of course, I understand the considerable impact that the proposals will have on my hon. Friend's constituency. He will know that the proposals are being announced, subject to discussion with the trade unions. Of course, we shall take those discussions seriously.
    980
    It is not correct to imply that there is a firm rule or a piece of algebra that exempts decision makers from the necessity to make a judgment. We do not define a piece of algebra. We ask people to apply a wide range of tests so that when proposals to relocate staff from one part of the country to another are put into effect, they can insist that good value for money is delivered to the taxpayer, taking all taxpayers into account.

    Housing Market
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to assist the housing market; and if he will make a statement.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): A package of measures was implemented to reduce the number of repossessions. I also announced recently two measures—top-up loans and security substitution—to help borrowers with negative equity. The fall in mortgage interest rates should bring relief and help stimulate a revival of confidence in the housing market.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for that answer because the problem of negative equity is simply that, more often than not, people cannot move house even if they have a willing buyer. As it does not worsen the risk position of the lender in any way if a borrower moves into a similar house, will my hon. Friend put as much pressure as possible on lending institutions to allow people to move within the new guidelines? That would inject much-needed activity into that sector of the housing market.
    Mr. Nelson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I acknowledge that negative equity can be a problem for some borowers. [Interruption.] For some borrowers, yes; for others, it is not a problem. The Bank of England recently estimated that up to 1 million people may find themselves with negative equity. I hope that the two measures that I have announced will help tens of thousands of negative equity borrowers. However, it will require the assistance of the building societies and their schemes. I hope that they will heed my hon. Friend's words.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister consider making capital financing available, through either the borrowing allocation or the use of capital receipts, so that local authorities and housing associations can help people trapped by negative equity to buy houses that are empty, under do-it-yourself or other shared ownership schemes?
    Mr. Nelson: Even under existing spending plans, it is anticipated that by the middle of the 1990s housing associations will spend about £2 billion a year; so a considerable commitment has already been made. I ask the hon. Lady to await the statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make later.
    Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that mortgage lenders are as quick to pass on reductions in base rates as they are to pass on increases in base rates?
    Mr. Nelson: I hear what my hon. Friend says, as will the building societies. Of course, the building societies also consider the competitive interest rates offered by other savings products. I, too, am mindful of that when influencing the rate of national savings products. I hope that the building societies will heed what my hon. Friend

    981
    says if there are any further reductions in interest rates. Their alacrity in passing on reductions to borrowers will be welcome.
    Ms. Harman: Given that the Government's policies have left 60,000 families homeless, 400,000 construction workers on the dole and 1·5 million families in houses that are worth less than their mortgage, does the Minister recognise the failure of the Government's policies? Does he recognise that the housing market will not pick up until the economy recovers? It is because the Government have no policies for recovery of the economy that the housing market continues to look gloomy.
    Mr. Nelson: I acknowledge that the housing market has gone through a difficult period, as has the construction industry. However, to listen to the hon. Lady, one would think that there was no good news on the scene at all. Indeed, the good news is welcome. For example, there was strong growth in housing transactions in the third quarter of this year and a significant drop in the number of repossessions in the first half of this year. The affordability of homes for first-time buyers is extremely good. We do not want to fuel house price inflation and have the sort of housing boom that put housing beyond the reach of ordinary people and first-time buyers.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant part of the problems in the housing sector has arisen as a result of negative equity in home income plans? Is he aware that all right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have been adversely affected by the lending institutions' refusal to come to terms with some of the ruthless consequences of the sale of such plans? One of my constituents committed suicide because of it. Will my hon. Friend take a more active stance than hitherto in trying to bring the building societies and others to realise that they must solve the problems?
    Mr. Nelson: I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, and I know that they are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government, too, have been concerned by the marketing of some of the home income plans—I replied in a debate on the issue in the House recently. The problem has been largely resolved for the future, but many people have still lost out in the meantime. That is why I welcome the fact that the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation has set up a one-stop shop to try to resolve some of the problems. Again, that will require the assistance of the building societies and other lenders, which I hope will be forthcoming.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to reduce the United Kingdom's balance of payments deficit.
    Mr. Portillo: The recent reductions in interest rates, our low inflation and the competitive level of sterling offer significant opportunities to exporters and to firms competing against imports in domestic markets. The key to long-term success remains United Kingdom producers' ability to keep costs down and quality high.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that PowerGen has decided to import 6 million tonnes of coal from Colombia
    982
    and China through the Liverpool docks? That will serve only to increase our balance of trade deficit. It will result in the closure of Parkside colliery, the only remining pit in the Lancashire coalfield, and it has threatened the jobs at the Point of Ayr colliery. Will the Minister join me in condemning the politics of the madhouse, which we see here this afternoon?
    Mr. Portillo: If coal is imported, clearly the balance of payments suffers to that extent—but that is not by any means the end of the story. If British industry is obliged to take electricity and other fuel supplies at prices higher than those paid by our competitors, that is bad for both imports and exports. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering a broad range of issues in relation to the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with such a simplistic statement about the economics as they affect this country.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the balance of payments deficit is relatively small compared with our gross national product and that it is well financed by the massive increase in overseas earnings from interest and dividends from successful British companies and investment overseas?
    Mr. Portillo: The balance of payments is indeed financeable, but I should not like to say that it is small—clearly, it is a matter of concern to the Government, and that is why we pursue policies to enable our economy to grow and our manufacturers to do well in export markets. My hon. Friend made a good point about inward investment. As a result of Nissan's investment in this country, that company now exports half what it produces in Sunderland, and the United Kingdom is set to become a net exporter of television sets.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is it not a measure of the Government's utter industrial failure that our balance of payments deficit is now running at £1 billion a month? When will the Government start backing British exporters, as other countries back theirs? What action will the Minister take to cut the export guarantee insurance premiums which so undermine the efforts of British exporters?
    Mr. Portillo: There has been a substantial increase in the cover provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for our exporters. Last year, that cover provided for £2 billion worth of British exports. We have been fighting hard in the European Community to reduce trade barriers, and I believe that the single market is worth £400 million in savings to British business. We have successively cut the rate of corporation tax on businesses, which has given them a tremendous competitive advantage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led the fight to keep alive the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations, because that is the most important development possible for British exporters. All those measures have been substantial commitments to British business.
    What is more, we have created a climate in Britain that has enabled us to attract half the investment into Europe from Japan and the United States. All that improves our export opportunities.

    Public Sector Debt
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for net public sector debt as a proportion of gross domestic product; and what the equivalent figure was 10 years ago.
    Sir John Cope: At the end of March 1992, net public sector debt amounted to 28½ per cent. of GDP, compared with 47 per cent. at the end of March 1982.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer to what I can only describe as the Uxbridge question is most satisfactory and that my constituents will regard it as a record of prudent financial management by the Government, in sharp contrast to that of the last Labour Government? How does the position of the United Kingdom compare with that of our Community partners?
    Sir John Cope: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. It is a great tribute to Conservative government over the years that we have such a strong position in that respect. Only Luxembourg in the Community has a better ratio of Government debt to GDP.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: How much of the change is due to debt repayment and how much to inflation? What contribution has privatisation of public assets made to the change—privatisation which has been carried out, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) could tell the Paymaster General, at a substantial loss to the public purse?
    Sir John Cope: A whole series of factors have gone into it, not least tight control on Government spending over many years. Debt repayment has been very significant and places us in a much stronger position now.

    Public Expenditure (Index Linking)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items of public expenditure are index linked.
    Mr. Portillo: Certain social security benefits, public service pensions and some debt interest are linked to increases in prices either by statute or ministerial pledges.
    Mr. Field: Does not indexation amount to institutionalising inflation, something the private sector can never afford and which the British taxpayer should not be asked to underwrite? With the retired population exceeding the working population for the first time in the nation's history by the year 2005, is not indexation the economics of the mad house?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good case for low inflation because inflation causes indexation to be a burden. I believe that people who have contributed all their lives to social security benefits are entitled to see those benefits rise in line with inflation. It is the Government's duty to ensure that inflation is kept to the minimum. My hon. Friend raises a most pressing problem for all economies in the west. As time passes and the retired population becomes larger, so the burden falling on the working population becomes very large indeed. That is one reason why the Government have been so keen to help people make provision for themselves beyond and outside the state sector with personal and occupational pensions.
    Mr. Sheldon: On a day when even Sam Brittan accepts the need to learn from John Maynard Keynes, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree with him? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to promote sensible public investment?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not think that I have seen the article to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. However, we have made it perfectly clear throughout the public spending round that we believe that we should do all we can to protect capital spending. However, the extent to which we can do that depends on the extent to which we can find savings in current spending. Given the present levels of borrowing and spending, I believe that it would be irresponsible to propose, as the Labour party proposes, that we should borrow more.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Are not we fortunate that spending on health in Britain has not been strictly index linked since 1979 bearing in mind that under this Government spending on the health service has increased far faster than inflation? In contrast, were not we unfortunate in the late 1970s that health spending was not index linked, bearing in mind that Labour slashed the hospital building programme and on one occasion cut nurses' pay in real terms?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. The instinct of the Labour party when it concerns itself with controlling public spending is to cut capital projects wherever it can. It always takes the short-term, short-sighted view. That is not the view which we would want to take. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that spending on the health service has increased far faster than inflation. But the case is much stronger. Because of our efficiency gains and the reforms that we have made to the health service, the output which we get from that money is even greater than the amount would suggest.
    Mr. Salmond: Some public expenditure items are linked to inflation and some to population. Now that the right, hon. Gentleman has routed the Scottish Secretary of State on the Barnett formula, is not it convenient for him to judge these things on population since it means that the more he depopulates Scotland the less he has to spend on it? If expenditure on Scotland is to be judged by population why is not expenditure on the London docklands judged similarly?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's last question is completely beside the point. He will find this afternoon that a very fair settlement has been made for Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to announce proudly the outcome of the public spending review. He has protected Scottish interests in a difficult round and he will have every reason to come away with considerable pleasure.

    Debt-income Ratio
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many G7 countries have achieved a fall in their debt-income ratio since 1980.
    Mr. Nelson: Only the United Kingdom of the G7 countries has reduced its ratio of general Government debt to GDP since 1980. The ratio has fallen by over 19 per cent. to 35·4 per cent.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that these are significant figures? The simple fact that we are the only G7 country to have reduced the ratio, coupled with the earlier answer that, bar one, we are the lowest in the EC, makes a mockery of what the merchants of doom in the Opposition say when they make their comparisons with international figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should welcome these figures and trumpet them, which of course the Opposition will not do?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our public sector debt of £195 billion is relatively low compared with other G7 countries. We are in that strong position partly because of the repayment of significant amounts of public debt in the late 1980s and also because of the significant growth that has taken place under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Do not the figures that the Minister has just announced to the House make a clear case for massive public sector investment by the Government?
    Mr. Nelson: That is typical of the hon. Gentleman. His party has always been the party of big spenders at somebody else's expense. His party has no qualms about handing on an inheritance of increased debt to the next generation and it has no worries about the impact of extra borrowing on interest rates and inflation.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that to reduce national debt as a proportion of GDP to the level of 1991 means that we will have to bear down heavily on public expenditure not just this year but for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Nelson: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make strictures about the need to restrain public expenditure. Unless growth is to increase dramatically, we will need to restrain the extent to which the public sector borrowing requirement is allowed to rise. That has implications for fiscal policy as well.

    Government Deficits
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he estimates the United Kingdom will have met the convergence criteria on Government deficits as laid out in article 104c of the treaty of Rome, proposed under the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government have a long-standing commitment to avoid what the Maastricht treaty describes as "excessive budget deficits".
    Mr. Soley: Given that the Government could already meet the criteria of article 104c, can the Minister tell us why they have deferred signing it? Is it for the political reason that if they sign it the European Commission could fine Britain? If so, does not that indicate that the Government have no serious intention towards the long-term convergence of the economies of Europe?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood completely the relevant provisions of the treaty. There is no provision there for the Commission to fine any member state for transgressing a single rule. The treaty provision requires the Commission to present a report to the Council in the event of a member state finding itself in a position
    986
    where the Commission believes that it is running an excessive budget deficit. It is nowhere near as automatic as the hon. Gentleman's question implies.
    Mr. Paice: Is it not abundantly clear that many countries that signed that treaty do not expect to reach those convergence criteria? Whereas this country decided not to support the move to the single currency until we know what the situation is, many other countries such as Italy will have to renegotiate because they will not be able to fulfil their obligations.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, from the beginning of the negotiations, our position has been that we cannot reasonably commit ourselves to joining a single currency years in advance, when we are unaware of the circumstances in which that currency will come into effect. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that other member states, and the people within them, are coming to realise the wisdom of that position.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not article 104c imply an enormous handing over of economic power to the EEC? Would not Mr. Martin Bangemann be among those Commissioners who would initiate proceedings if the Government acceded to the full section of the treaty, which could result in the Council of Ministers taking a decision to fine the United Kingdom if we failed to raise taxes or to cut public expenditure? Also, is it not true that the United Kingdom Government would not be allowed to vote in such proceedings if we were subject to them?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is advertising the importance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's achievements in allowing us to make a decision to join, or not to join, a single European currency when we are able to take into account all the circumstances in which that currency will come into effect. Those circumstances are not yet clear.

    Retail Sales
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the latest trend in retail sales.
    Sir John Cope: Retail sales volume has risen by a half of 1 per cent. in each of the past two quarters.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figure gives some encouragement? Is it not a sign that the cuts in interest rates are working through? Does he agree that the prophets of doom and gloom, who thrive on bad news and who rubbish the economy at every turn, do great harm to this country?
    Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend is right. It does no good to talk down this country in the way that some people do.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Can retail sales be expected to improve while the purchasing power of people is so low, with more than 3 million people unemployed, and while the incomes of large numbers of other poor people are deliberately kept low by the Government?
    Sir John Cope: That is exactly the point. Retail sales have risen and that reflects the fact that people have had some money in their pockets and have been prepared to spend it.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interest rate cuts since the 1990s, down from a peak of 15 per cent., have helped to generate retail sales and have meant lower mortgage rates—some of the lowest since the 1960s—and that, although those interest rate cuts have been welcome, another cut, sooner rather than later, would be most welcome?
    Sir John Cope: I hear what my hon. Friend say. He is obviously right about the effect on retail sales.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he takes into account in setting the level of interest rates.
    Mr. Dorrell: The level of interest rates is set so as to meet the Government's objectives for low inflation and sustained economic growth.
    Mr. Cohen: Although lower interest rates are most welcome, is there not an underlying concern that the main criteria for setting the rate is the Chancellor's whim? Does not experience in the United States show that lower rates will not succeed unless they are matched by sustained investment?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman must be one of a relatively small group of people if he believes that there was not a case for reducing interest rates in recent months. We have set the interest rate at the level that we believe holds the balance between our inescapable obligation to hold down the rate of inflation, to safeguard long-term economic prospects, and our desire to create room for growth in the months ahead. Our success in reducing inflation in the past two years has allowed us to plan for growth.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the inflation rate was 15 per cent. only two years ago? Will he tell the House about the great amount of money that must have gone into the economy as a result of people being able to spend more because they no longer have to pay so much in interest rates? Will he also remind the House, however, that if we reduce interest rates too far, that will work its way through to the value of the pound, the cost of imports and, eventually, the inflation rate and the cost to people of buying things?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right to identify that risk in the second part of his question.
    On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the reduction in base rates since their peak has reduced the cost base of British industry by £9 billion and has reduced the cost to a typical family with a £30,000 mortgage by £110 a month. It is precisely because we recognise the value of those reductions that we are so determined not to jeopardise the success that we have achieved in bringing inflation down and creating the opportunity for stable growth.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Garrett: Today's unemployment figures confirm that Britain is in the longest recession since the 1930s and is still heading for the deepest recession since the 1930s. How would the Prime Minister describe his stewardship of the economy, when to most people it has been incompetent and callous?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the difficulties that are faced not only here but elsewhere across Europe and beyond Europe. What the hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention is that, this morning, notwithstanding the fact that every single figure in the unemployment increase is a personal tragedy, that increase is smaller than the average monthly increase has been for some considerable time. I hope that that will prove to be a welcome trend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out some measures later on today of which I think the hon. Gentleman may approve.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since his recent chat with Mr. Delors, it was reported in yesterday's American press that the French Government are hinting that a compromise on GATT may now be only just around the corner? I do not know what my right hon. Friend said to Mr. Delors when he popped into Downing street recently, but, for the sake of all those manufacturing industries in the north of England, will he keep on saying it please?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly keep pressing the case for an early conclusion to the GATT round. I certainly welcome the assurance that the President of the Commission gave me last Friday about an early resumption of talks with the United States. I am delighted that that has subsequently been endorsed by the full Commission and equally pleased that Mr. MacSharry will be rejoining the talks. We will certainly continue to press for a very early conclusion. I believe that the Commission hopes to regroup on 20 November. It would be very agreeable if it were able to report a success with the United States so that the matter could then go to Geneva for final settlement.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew that the Government guidelines on the export of arms-related machinery to Iraq were being breached?
    The Prime Minister: Let me try, for the sake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a number of other hon.

    989
    Members of the House, to disentangle the true issues from some of the misunderstandings and wilder allegations of recent days.
    Let me make the first and fundamental point that the issues raised by the Matrix Churchill case have been referred to an independent judicial tribunal. All the papers that the inquiry seeks will be available to it. All Ministers and officials who are asked to give evidence to that inquiry will be required to do so and the inquiry will be free to publish whatever material it wishes.
    The second point relevant to the whole House, I think, is that every relevant aspect of the conduct of all Ministers will be open to scrutiny by the inquiry and I thoroughly welcome that. I will, if I may, clear a third point and that is that Ministers, in claiming public interest immunity, were doing what they were obliged to do by law. They signed such documents only as advised by counsel and the Attorney-General. It follows that they were not concealing information from the court. On the contrary, they were making available the relevant documents to the court. It was then for the judge to decide which of the documents should be protected by public interest immunity and which should not. I hope that that will clarify matters.
    Mr. John Smith: Instead of answering a clear and direct question, the Prime Minister has issued a prepared statement. I remind him that this question goes right to the heart of the credibility of his Government. I ask him it again. When did he first know that the guidelines on arms-related exports to Iraq were being breached; what date, please?
    The Prime Minister: It is not clear at all that they were breached. The first allegations that they might have been breached were made by The Sunday Times in late 1990. Following that article, I, together with the Cabinet Secretary, had a meeting with Mr. Alan Clark. At that meeting he told me that it was totally false to suggest that he was advising the companies concerned on how to prepare licence applications in such a way as to conceal military use. Mr. Clark took the same position in the written witness statement which he provided to the court. It was not until his testimony in the case, therefore, that I had any reason to believe that what he had told me and what was in the written witness statement might not correspond with his oral evidence.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister understand that if he thinks that the guidelines were not breached, he must be about the only person in this country who has arrived at that conclusion? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he gave replies, in particular a reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Liberal Benches on a previous occasion about exports to Iran being conducted in the light of the guidelines, that was the whole truth as he knew it at that time?
    The Prime Minister: Every parliamentary answer that I have given or letter that I have dispatched has been based on the position as I understood it to be. I am utterly confident that that will be clear in Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is quite appalling for right hon. and hon.
    990
    Gentlemen to go on the media and accuse my right hon. Friends of dishonourable conduct before—[Interruption.]—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat unless he questions correctly. The Prime Minister has responsibility only for Government activities. Will the hon. Gentleman frame his question correctly or not?
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all that he has said so far this week indicates that there will be a complete inquiry and that all will be revealed, honourable conduct included?
    The Prime Minister: The House has that complete assurance. Indeed, if I had wished there not to be a complete inquiry and hon. Members to be open to questions, I might have followed the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and had an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would have made the matter sub judice in the House.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Government knew as early as July—that is, six months before the Prime Minister's letter to me—that the machine tools being exported to Iraq by Matrix Churchill and other companies were beyond peradventure being used to make munitions for the Iraqi army?
    The Prime Minister: I have replied to the right hon. Gentleman's letter and the many media appearances that he has made. As he will see when he receives my letter, his second letter shows that he has completely misunderstood the position. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question; he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my letter of 6 December and wrongly claimed that I misled him by concealing knowledge of the Matrix Churchill case when I explained the Government's policy on export licences for Iraq. That is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman reads my letter, he will see that I refer in the second paragraph to an investigation by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which was into Matrix Churchill. I made it clear that I could not comment in case I prejudiced any proceedings. That is the rational explanation for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. He failed to understand my correspondence.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest figures, for October, for manufactured car exports show an increase of no less than 37 per cent. on last year? Is he also aware that the Textile Alliance anticipates that the exports of the textile industry from the United Kingdom, at £4·8 billion, will be a record for this year? Does he agree that a newly competitive exchange rate will give British exporters the opportunity to improve even on that excellent performance?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. That is certainly the case, and there is no doubt that car production rose very dramatically in September, and the figures for October, which were released today, suggest that production is holding up. I have no doubt that our present competitive exchange rate will improve that position.
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cryer: Instead of passing the buck continually to a vague and unsatisfactory inquiry, will the Prime Minister clean out the cesspit of the present Government by sacking all those Ministers who conspired to pervert the course of justice in the Matrix Churchill case in order to cover up a Government policy of encouraging the sale to Iraq of machinery which they knew was to be used for the manufacture of munitions and nuclear weapons? Or would that involve sacking himself?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is one of the foremost conspiracy theorists in the House and an acknowledged expert at muckraking. But not even he can call an independent judicial inquiry anything other than an impartial, clear-cut and independent inquiry. That is what we have ordered and that is what we shall have.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great scandal that some local authorities are obstructing schools that want to become grant-maintained? Will he join me in welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State for Education that the law will be changed to make that obstruction impossible? Does he agree that most of that obstruction has come from Labour-controlled local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is a matter of fact and not conjecture. I very much welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend in the Education Bill to ensure that parents have a proper choice. It is intolerable that some local education authorities should deliberately scare parents by claiming, entirely falsely, that by voting for grant-maintained status, they will damage their children's education. It is equally unacceptable that LEAs, as teachers' employers, should put pressure on staff to resist the ballots of parents.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Prime Minister intend to retain the nurses' pay review body? If so, does he agree that, if that body is to have any relevance to the pay that nurses actually receive, the Government must accept its recommendations and fund them?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be able to hear my right hon. Friend's statement very shortly.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private sector proposal to work the Markham Main colliery has been with British Coal for almost three weeks without any acknowledgement? Does he agree that that may suggest that British Coal does not want competition?
    The Prime Minister: I shall pass my hon. Friend's remarks to the President of the Board of Trade. I have no knowledge of that particular proposal, but I have no doubt that it will be brought to British Coal's notice very speedily.
    Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Prime Minister agree with those Conservative councillors in Bath who this week supported a motion expressing dismay at the deterioration of the national health service in Bath? Or does he support the comments of the Secretary of State who, on a recent visit, said of the closure of wards at the district hospital, of the loss of beds for the elderly mentally infirm and of the increased waiting lists for elective surgery that she thought they were "mere teething problems"?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is just a little selective. He makes no mention of the fact that health service expenditure is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 or that, for every pound spent in 1979, nearly £4·50 will be spent this year. Neither did he mention the fact that the national health service will spend nearly £2,500 a year for every family of four in this country. No other Government would have provided those resources.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sunday trading at Tesco superstore in Purley has resulted in an increased turnover, more jobs and a surplus of staff who want to work on a Sunday, and it is very popular with my constituents? Will he introduce legislation that clarifies that area of the law before an unacceptable compromise is introduced to the House in January?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have a manifesto commitment to bring forward proposals for reform once the European Court of Justice has settled the compatibility of the current law with the free trade provisions of the treaty of Rome. We expect that judgment in the Court in November and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will then make an announcement to the House about legislation.
    Madam Speaker: Time's up. We now have a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Autumn Statement
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make my autumn statement.
As usual, the main public expenditure figures and the full text of the Industry Act forecast will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed autumn statement will be published next Wednesday, after which there will be a full debate in this House.
Following the announcement that I made in my Budget, next year the autumn statement will be brought together with our proposals for taxation in one annual Budget statement. This is, in my opinion, a long overdue reform. For one final year, however, I shall bow to tradition and leave my Budget proposals until the spring. But this autumn statement will also be the first occasion on which the Treasury's economic forecast will be presented alongside others. Two weeks ago, I announced my intention to establish a new panel of independent forecasters. That will be in operation for next year's Budget; but in the meantime, the forecast that I am publishing today will include some details of how the Government's own economic forecast compares with the view that other organisations have taken. I am sure this change is sensible and will be welcomed, in the House and outside.
This year's autumn statement has been drawn up against a background of continuing recession at home and renewed weakness abroad. Despite exceptionally low interest rates, confidence in the United States remains depressed. Industrial production has fallen sharply in Japan, and the countries of continental Europe face the prospect of continuing high interest rates and a marked slowdown in Germany.
It is not surprising, therefore, that here in Britain, the recovery which nearly all forecasters expected at the time of the Budget has still not become established.
There has been an encouraging increase in retail sales, but the housing market remains depressed and confidence has taken a severe blow from the turmoil in the foreign exchange markets that led to sterling's suspension from the exchange rate mechanism.
Against that difficult background, a strategy that brings renewed confidence and a return to growth is more essential than ever, but the Government have no intention of engineering a short-lived boom that would lead swiftly to higher inflation and higher interest rates. Our objective is sustainable, long-term growth and our strategy to achieve that is based on three clear principles.
First, with the pound floating, a completely new framework is required for monetary policy. Interest rates are now set according to British monetary conditions—to meet the target that I have established for inflation. Underlying inflation will be kept within the range of 1 to 4 per cent., and our aim is to get it down to the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. Low inflation is the key to sustainable growth and a lasting reduction in unemployment.
I have set out clearly the indicators that will guide our assessment of how far we are on track to meet our inflation objectives. The exchange rate, asset prices and the growth of narrow money are all taken into account. Today, I can
994
announce the monitoring range that I intend to use for the broad measure of money, M4. For the second half of this financial year, that range will be 4 to 8 per cent.
Madam Speaker, as I have explained to the House before, in the past few months of our ERM membership, monetary policy was tighter than was actually needed to deliver our inflation objective. It is crucial that monetary policy should not be so lax that the private sector faces higher inflation, but nor should it be so tight that money demand is inadequate.
Outside the ERM, I have been able to rebalance policy by cutting two percentage points off interest rates. That, in itself, will provide a significant boost to the economy, without re-igniting inflation. Despite the fall in the exchange rate, I expect underlying inflation to be below 4 per cent. by the end of next year. In common with most economic forecasters, I expect gross domestic product to rise next year, by about 1 per cent., following a fall of a similar magnitude in 1992.
My second principle is that there must be an appropriate balance between fiscal and monetary policy. Above all, public spending must be kept under firm control. The Government therefore put in place last July a clear medium-term strategy for the control of public spending, designed to ensure that public expenditure declines as a share of GDP over time. The new system is based on a top-down approach. Clear and affordable limits are set for the total level of public spending, and the Government can then settle their priorities through a process of collective discussion—involving first a new Cabinet Committee, and then the full Cabinet itself.
The third key principle of the Government's strategy is that the best way to increase the long-run growth rate in the economy is to make markets work better, so we will be pressing ahead with our policies on privatisation, deregulation, cutting out waste, and keeping the tax burden on companies and individuals as low as we can. We must also fight for the interests of British business in world markets, and provide them with the best environment in which they can compete and succeed. In the short term, that means securing a successful outcome to the GATT round.
Low inflation, tight control of public spending, open markets, competition, and a vigorous supply side policy—those are the principles of the Government's strategy, and they provide the right framework for economic growth. I do not believe that Governments can spend their way out of recession. It is individuals and companies in the private sector that are the engine of economic growth.
But that does not mean that, once the right economic framework is in place, the Government's task is complete. The Government too are investing for the future, in the nation's infrastructure and the development of human capital. As I said in my Mansion house speech, the Government have also been looking at specific policies to ease the path to recovery. I shall be announcing later in my statement a series of measures to rebuild confidence, to help industry and strengthen the economy.
Taking account of those measures, I expect the public sector borrowing requirement in the current year to rise to about £37 billion. Of course, that is high, but borrowing is bound to rise in a recession; and it would be damaging to seek to prevent it from doing so at this moment. As the economy recovers, it is absolutely vital that borrowing is

995
brought back towards balance. We have made an excellent start today with a tight overall settlement for public spending.
Much of the recent increase in the PSBR reflects the rapid growth in expenditure on social security benefits, and that has also damaged the financial position of the national insurance fund. In normal circumstances, it would have been necessary to raise national insurance contributions, to reduce that shortfall; but, given the current weakness of the economy, I do not believe that this would have been appropriate.
Accordingly, while the upper and lower earnings limits and the thresholds of the bands for the employers' contribution will be indexed as usual, the rates for national insurance contributions will remain unchanged. I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that the fund should receive a Treasury grant to make up the shortfall.
Let me now turn to the Government's public spending plans. In this survey, the priority was clear. It was vital to put the needs of the economy first. Therefore, within a tight overall settlement, we have sought, wherever possible, to protect programmes, especially capital programmes, that will promote recovery and Britain's longer-term prospects.
At current levels of borrowing, the amount we have to pay in debt interest is rising rapidly, diverting billions of pounds a year away from spending on services. Against that background, the Cabinet decided in July to set a remit for the public spending round which would keep expenditure under firm control. That remit had two elements. For next year, we set ourselves the objective of sticking to existing cash plans. For the three survey years as a whole, our aim was to hold the growth of the new control total down to 1·5 per cent. or less, to keep the overall rate of growth in public spending to a rate below that of the economy as a whole.
Although our target for next year of £244·5 billion allowed a real increase of 4·5 per cent., the pressures for more spending have been intense, and we have had to consider carefully whether the original targets were achievable. However, I can now announce to the House that we have indeed achieved our target. The planning total for next year will be £244·5 billion. As a result of certain definitional changes, I should warn the House that the number which actually appears in the printed document will be slightly different. It will, in fact, be some £2 billion lower.
I can also announce that the new totals for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are fully consistent with the remit agreed in July. Despite the pressures that have emerged since the summer, the real growth in the new control total over the next three years will average just under 1·5 per cent. a year, half the rate of growth over the last three years.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friends will welcome the meeting of the remit; and let me at once pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for his skill, perseverance and hard work in making his achievement possible.
To meet our objectives, we have had to look very carefully at every single programme, and particularly at current spending. The biggest single budget is, of course, social security. Indexing social security benefits in the coming year would cost £2·5 billion. If we are to protect capital spending, it is to areas of current spending such as social security that we must look first. I can tell the House
996
that, despite the many claims on the available resources, the Government have been able to meet in full their commitment to index pensions and other benefits.
The other major claim on current public spending is public sector pay. The earnings of public sector staff have risen on average by 20 per cent. over the last two years, compared with just 13 per cent. in the private sector; but, if the gains in competitiveness from the recent fall in the exchange rate are not to be lost, it is vital that all employees keep tight control over their pay bills. The public sector cannot be sheltered from the difficulties faced by the private sector, where pay awards are now the lowest in a generation. I have therefore decided that, in the coming year, pay settlements in the public sector should be restricted to a maximum of 1·5 per cent. This, of course, is consistent with a lower growth in total pay bills. The aim must be to keep the growth in pay bills in each area of the public sector as low as possible.
The restriction will apply to the whole of the public sector and related bodies without exception, regardless of whether pay is negotiated, recommended by review bodies or subject to formula calculations. It will apply to all offers made from today, although formal offers already made will be honoured. The Government will in due course bring forward a resolution on Members' pay, consistent with this policy, but I can tell the House that Ministers will receive no increase at all.
Given the overall objective of restraining the growth in public spending, this survey has involved some difficult decisions. If some items are to be increased, it inevitably means that others must be cut back. Our tough decisions about public sector pay will lead to savings for other programmes and services of some £1·5 billion a year. As I say, that will permit higher levels of service to the public, and higher capital programmes as a result. None the less, in some programmes we have made reductions in the base lines which were set out last year; but, in many of those cases, expenditure still remains on a rising trend. What is more, the progress that we have made on inflation will help to ensure that reductions in base lines are consistent with continuing improvements in public services.
Even so, individual programmes have faced searching scrutiny, and hard choices have had to be made. Over the next few years, defence expenditure will continue to fall in real terms. The benefits of the "Options for Change" review will be secured, and some further savings, consistent with the policies which underlie it, will be made. The legal aid budget is a demand-led programme that has been putting immense pressure on public finances. The Lord Chancellor is announcing changes to restrict its growth, and they are fully reflected in the survey.
At a time when tight control over public spending is needed at the national level, it is clear that the same discipline should be applied at the local level. Central Government support for local authority revenue expenditure in England will therefore rise by 3·7 per cent. next year, and the total standard spending by 3·1 per cent. In addition, there will be a special grant of £539 million in England, to help local authorities to meet their new responsibilities for community care.
This settlement should be fully adequate to meet local authorities' requirements. The proposals assume that local authorities implement in full our policy of pay restraint. Provided that they do this, the savings made will enable them to ensure proper provision of services without exerting upward pressure on the council tax. The

997
Government will not hesitate to use their capping powers as necessary. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a full announcement later this month. Full details of the new plans for local authorities in Scotland and Wales, and for other programmes, are being made available separately.
The population-related formulae which largely determine changes to expenditure provision more generally in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been updated. Expenditure plans for the territories will be announced by their respective Secretaries of State at a later date.
At the time of the general election, the Government made it clear that education and health would be among their key priorities for the longer term. Rising spending in these areas is fully justified, not just in terms of immediate needs, but as a contribution to the country's human capital.
The education programme is therefore planned to rise to a level £1·5 billion higher in 1995·96 than the equivalent spending this year. There will be some important changes over this period. The proportion of children staying on at school beyond 16 is expected to go on rising. The Government are providing for a higher proportion of school leavers to take up YT places. We shall finance a sharp increase in the number of students attending further education or sixth form colleges—25 per cent. up over the survey period.
At the same time, we have earmarked enough finance to maintain the present record level of participation of young people in higher education. All this is an important investment in our young people which will improve the quality of the country's human capital and benefit the economy in the longer term.
There will also be increases in the level of real resources provided to the national health service in each of the next three years. Spending in the NHS will rise by nearly 3 per cent. in real terms next year, compared with this year's plans. That means an increase of over £1·9 billion.
This is a very tight settlement overall. At the beginning of the spending round, there was widespread speculation that the Government would take the easy way out, by letting current spending rise and cutting capital spending instead. But what we have done is to take the tough but necessary decisions to put the needs of the British economy first.
Restraint on current spending has made it feasible to provide more protection to capital, and we have done so across a whole range of programmes. Next year there will be a significant increase in the volume of road building. We have maintained the national roads programme at a time when construction prices have fallen. Our new plans will ensure that in real terms, compared with 1979, we will have a doubling next year of the combined capital spending of British Rail and London Transport. Next year health capital spending in England alone will be at the record level of nearly £2·1 billion. The new plans should more than deliver our election commitment to provide through the Housing Corporation 153,000 homes over three years.
One major project for which we have expressly reserved provision is the Jubilee line extension. Subject to satisfactory completion of negotiations, the line will be able to go ahead. This will create many thousands of jobs and give an important boost to the construction industry.
998
The Government have taken seriously their pledge to do what they can for capital spending, but there is yet more that can be done.
I said in my Mansion house speech that I was examining ways to increase the scope for private financing of capital projects. Obviously, the interests of the taxpayer have to be protected, but I also want to ensure that sensible investment decisions are taken whenever the opportunity arises. I am now able to announce three significant developments.
In the past, the Government have been prepared to give the go-ahead to private projects only after comparing them with a similar project in the public sector. This has applied, whether or not there was any prospect of the project ever being carried out in the public sector. I have decided to scrap this rule. In future, any privately financed project which can be operated profitably will be allowed to proceed. This should be widely welcomed, particularly by the construction industry.
Secondly, the Government have too often in the past treated proposed projects as either wholly private or wholly public. In future, the Government will actively encourage joint ventures with the private sector, where these involve a sensible transfer of risk to the private sector. We may be prepared to consider such an approach, when the time arises, for projects such as the east-west crossrail, the central Scotland fastlink, the Birmingham western orbital road and perhaps also the channel tunnel rail link.
Thirdly, we will allow greater use of leasing where it offers good value for money. As long as it can be shown that the risk stays with the private sector, public organisations will be able to enter into operating lease agreements, with only the lease payments counting as expenditure and without their capital budgets being cut.
In addition, British Rail will be allowed to lease some £150 million of new rolling stock in the next three years. The new leases will be undertaken with a view to developing the leasing market for rolling stock, which will facilitate privatisation.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will publish a Green Paper early next year on the scope for motorway charging. If, in the light of consultation, the Government decides to proceed with charges for inter-urban roads, this would create significant new opportunities for private finance. As a possible transitional step, private contractors might be invited to design, build and operate roads, for which they would receive payments from Government relating to the use of their roads. Money contributed by the private sector under these arrangements will not contribute towards public spending: it will represent additional resources in the area concerned.
Those changes are only the beginning. I have asked my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to carry forward and develop our policy in this area, encouraging the private sector to bring forward proposals and to help us identify any obstacles which frustrate its success.
Many of the measures that I have announced so far today will take time to have their full effect. I therefore propose to introduce a supplementary package of time-limited fiscal measures. These will be aimed at sectors of the economy which have been hardest hit by the recession, helping to rebuild confidence and so foster recovery.

999
Housing and construction have faced particular difficulties in the past two years, but home buyers now have some of the lowest mortgage rates since 1978. The Government have responded in a number of other ways, most recently with measures to help those with negative equity who wish to move. Today, I propose to go further.
The overhang of empty properties in the owner-occupied sector is holding back activity in the housing market. I therefore propose to make available an extra £750 million to he used before the end of this financial year to buy up some of these properties. I hope that the Housing Corporation will be able to achieve a substantial contribution on top of this from private sector lenders. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will introduce parallel measures.
This measure, even without additional contributions from the private sector, should reduce the overhang of empty properties that has been holding the market back by more than 20,000 over the next few months, so providing a stimulus to activity. It will also increase the available stock of subsidised housing by a similar amount and make a real contribution towards housing families in need.
Many hon. Members are aware of the representations by many local authorities to persuade the Government to relax the rules on local authority capital receipts. Many local authorities have accumulated a stock of these receipts, rather than use them to pay off debt, as the Government advised. That remains the Government's view, and I do not intend to reward those who have ignored it.
I propose, however, to allow a time-limited relaxation of the rules governing local authorities' use of their future capital receipts. The existing rules allow them to spend only 25 per cent. of housing receipts and 50 per cent. of other receipts. With certain exceptions, local authorities will now be entitled to spend all the capital receipts that they realise between tomorrow and the end of December 1993.
This measure is expected to stimulate extra capital spending by local authorities of over £1·75 billion in the next three and a half years. The Government hope that local authorities will make early and effective use of the additional spending power before the end of this financial year across the range of local authority capital programmes, including housing, education, schools and roads. Any receipts which are not spent this year or next will provide an on-going stimulus to house-building and construction in 1994–95 and 1995–96, as well. The availability of the extra receipts will be taken into account in distributing credit approvals between local authorities. In that way, virtually all local authorities should receive some benefit. There will be separate measures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The reduction in the exchange rate has offered immense opportunities to exporters, but our exporters of project equipment and other supplies which require medium or long-term finance rely heavily on the guarantees provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
I now intend to make available a further £700 million of ECGD cover and to ease some of the constraints on cover for individual countries. That will enable our exporters to compete more effectively in the increasingly difficult situation that they now face. I am sure that the measure will be widely welcomed by the engineering and capital equipment industry.
1000
I have also considered the position on capital allowances. It remains my view that the reform of business tax by Lord Lawson in his 1984 Budget was the right one. Low tax rates and a broad tax base provide the best framework for the medium term. However, in the present circumstances, I am prepared to allow some changes which should help to bring forward private sector investment.
Accordingly, for a limited period of 12 months, I propose to raise from 25 to 40 per cent. the allowances available in the first year for investment in plant and machinery, excluding cars. I also propose to introduce an initial allowance of 20 per cent. for spending on new industrial and agricultural buildings for which contracts are placed before 31 October 1993 and which are brought into use before the end of 1994. That will help the construction industry. I propose to legislate for those changes, with retrospective effect to 1 November, in the next Finance Bill.
I have one final measure to announce. The motor industry lies at the heart of British manufacturing. In recent years it has seen a renaissance, with large increases in inward investment. However, the recession has brought a more difficult climate. I have considered what might best be done to help. Of course, any action in this area will have to be paid for in my next Budget by higher motoring taxes after 1992–93.
I have decided nevertheless to continue with the tax reform begun in my last Budget and to abolish car tax altogether from midnight tonight. That will mean a saving of about £400 on a typical family car. This measure will require a simple Bill, which I shall bring forward shortly. It will provide a direct boost to the motor industry and will, of course, benefit business more widely. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed.
The measures that I have announced today should provide an immediate boost to confidence and welcome relief for some of the most hard pressed sectors of the economy. Taken together, they will add some £4 billion to borrowing over the next three years, but with no increase to the PSBR over the medium term. These measures come on top of the Government's new spending plans for the next three years and the proposals that I have announced to liberalise the rules on private finance.
Finally, there is the significant relaxation in monetary policy since Britain left the ERM just two months ago. Britain already has the lowest interest rates in the European Community; and the pound is trading at a level that gives British industry a sharp competitive edge in foreign markets.
That relaxation of policy has been possible because of the dramatic progress that we have made in getting inflation down; and it is precisely because our inflationary prospects remain excellent that today I can go further.
Alongside the tight public expenditure plans that I have announced, I believe that it is appropriate now to make a further reduction in interest rates. The Governor and I have agreed that the Bank will tomorrow set the minimum lending rate at 7 per cent. That reduction is, in my judgment, fully consistent with the Government's inflationary objectives.
Today's reduction takes British interest rates down to their lowest level for nearly 15 years; it means that our interest rates have been cut by fully eight percentage points over the last two years; it takes a further £1 billion off

1001
industry's costs on top of the £9 billion fall in interest payments that we have already seen; and it will provide further help to all those with mortgages.
British business now has the opportunity that it has been looking for—to bring the country out of recession; to increase sales, expand production and invest for the future. Industry can now seize the new opportunities, safe in the knowledge that the Government are playing their full part.
We have a new monetary framework that will deliver low inflation over the medium term. We have a new system for controlling public spending that will deliver annual spending increases which the country can afford. We have new spending plans, which protect the poorest in society and offer hope, help and opportunity by switching resources to programmes that support the long-term prosperity of the country.
We have the lowest interest rates in the European Community, and we have a carefully targeted set of measures designed to lift confidence and get the country back to work. This is a clear and comprehensive strategy. It is a strategy for growth. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor first tell the House and his Back Benchers and then tell the country what he did not tell us in his statement—that, as a result of the publication of his documents today, unemployment will continue to rise; the balance of payments will continue to worsen; as a result of the underfunding of the health service, waiting lists and queues will grow; low-paid workers such as nurses and home helps will face even greater poverty; overseas aid budgets will be cut; and, despite the welcome interest rate cut today, for which the Chancellor has long been pressed by the Opposition, business bankruptcies will unfortunately continue to grow?
The Chancellor's detailed figures, which he did not share with the House, confirm that Britain is bottom of the league in the European Community for growth, investment, output and employment. Yesterday the Governor of the Bank of England admitted Britain's image as a second-rate economy. The truth is that, having been driven by events to signal a change of policy against his will, the Chancellor has not only failed to admit the scale of the mistakes of the past but has failed to measure up to the extent of the problem which the country faces. He has failed to give us an economic and industrial strategy for the future.
With regard to the credibility of the Chancellor's forecast this afternoon—[Interruption.] Conservative members will have to listen, because it is the Opposition who are speaking for the country, and about the need for change. Will the Chancellor confirm that national output, which last year he told us would rise by 2 per cent., has fallen by 1 per cent.? He promised us that consumer spending would rise by 2·5 per cent., but it has not recovered at all. Will he confirm that, according to the Government data in the report, investment, which he said would rise by 1·25 per cent., has fallen by 2 per cent.? Will he further confirm that manufacturing output, which he said would rise by 3·25 per cent., has fallen by 1 per cent., that exports, which he said would rise by 6 per cent., have risen by less than half as much, and that unemployment,
1002
which he told us last November would be at 2·4 million, has risen to almost 2·9 million—half a million more men and women than he predicted—as a result of his mistakes?
What credibility does the right hon. Gentleman have when virtually his entire economic forecast of last year has been proved wrong? Can he give us one good reason why we should believe anything that he says this afternoon, when not only his forecast but his economic policy has collapsed? Were not the Conservative Members who cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Chancellor this afternoon part of the group who cheered and waved their Order Papers at him a year ago, when he promised that we would stay in the exchange rate mechanism, that he would not devalue, that the exchange rate was at the centre of his anti-inflation policy, and that he would reduce unemployment—and when he promised a recovery which he has failed to deliver?
The Chancellor is being dragged by public opinion into accepting some of the measures which we proposed, and which he used to call fake remedies. Only a few weeks ago, his colleagues ridiculed export credit help as being unnecessary in a free market. In April, he himself described investment incentives as phoney measures, which would not be used, and his Housing Minister said only a few weeks ago that the release of capital receipts was fools' gold.
Will the Chancellor not accept, however, that, although he has been driven part of the way by the pressure upon him, through lack of conviction he has failed to adopt the full recovery programme necessary to bring the economy out of slump? He has failed to accept the employment measures and the industrial strategy that Britain needs—the essential direct construction measures which would lie at the heart of any recovery programme.
Is it not true that not one penny of the £5 billion in capital receipts which local authorities have amassed will be released as a result of the Chancellor's proposals? He is allowing local authorities to spend in a year when there will be very few council house sales. Is it not the case that, apart from the Jubilee line, which he has reannounced for the umpteenth time today, he has not announced one capital investment project in London or in the rest of England, or in the nation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Is not the proof of all this the figures which have emerged from the autumn statement details? The combined total of all the Chancellor's proposals for the private and public sectors leads him to predict that investment will grow by only 0·25 per cent. in 1993, and that growth in the economy will be only 1 per cent. The result of that is inevitable—thousands more face unemployment.
When unemployment has today risen for the 30th month running; when male unemployment is worse than at any time since the 1930s; when, inevitably, unemployment will rise for a 31st, 32nd and 33rd month and more under the Chancellor's proposals, will he agree that, by his failure today to direct action against unemployment by taking up the new employment programme that we proposed, which would create jobs and rebuild Britain, he has failed to understand that, while unemployment continues to rise, and the fear of unemployment continues to rise, the confidence necessary to get the economy moving will not return?
In that context, is it not a disgrace that, when we face the single market, the industry budget of the President of

1003
the Board of Trade is to be cut by 32 per cent. by 1994–95 and that the training and employment budget of the Department of Employment is, according to the figures that we have seen, to be cut by £200 million? Is not the great recovery programme being launched on the basis that the training budget between 1987 and 1995—the whole Department of Employment budget—is being cut by the Government by £2,000 million?
What possible help can cuts in Department of Employment and DTI budgets be to reduce unemployment or ensure recovery? Is it not a tragedy that, while a few of the richest in the world made millions as a result of speculation, millions of the poorest in the world face starvation as a result of further cuts in the overseas aid budget—£75 million by 1995?
Will the Chancellor explain why he is setting an inflexible ceiling on public sector pay, breaking all agreements with review bodies, tearing up quite specific promises and making home helps, nurses and other low-paid workers the scapegoats for his economic failures? Will the Chancellor explain specifically why that is being done when the Prime Minister said:
"heavy central control, uniform, rigid and monolithic pay structures will mean difficulties over recruitment and retention of particular skills, mean staffing problems and put the public services at a very severe disadvantage"?
Given that the Chancellor has also announced new road taxes from next year, does that include road pricing? When there are 1 million children in school classrooms built before the first world war; when two thirds of hospital wards are hangovers from the days of charity hospitals; when roads need repair and when the rail infrastructure needs not a pilot scheme, but proper and sustained—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. Our fellow citizens are watching the debate on television. If the House were to realise the number of letters that I receive each day from people outside this place about the poor behaviour here, I am sure that there would be order on both sides of the House.
Mr. Brown: When there are nearly 1 million people on health service waiting lists—and people outside this place will be interested to hear what the Government are doing—why will health service spending not keep up with the needs of demography and technology? Why is the transport budget being cut by £270 million in one year? Why is local authority expenditure down £0·5 billion in a year? Why are the Government assuming that rents in local authorities will rise by 9 per cent. in a year?
How can the Government justify breaking yet more election promises that all public spending programmes in detail would be upheld? Those breaches of promises can only add to unemployment, prolong the recession, damage long-term efficiency and hit hardest the poorest and weakest in our community.
Is it not the case, in looking at the autumn statement as a whole, that having abandoned the unemployed, having abandoned the low-paid with the abolition of wages councils, having hit the sick and disabled by underfunding the health service, having made nurses and home helps pay the price for the Government's mistakes over public spending, and having promised a recovery that they have singularly failed to deliver after all the promises before and after the election, there is now no one left for the Government to betray? The election having been fought
1004
on the issue of trust, is it not the case that the country will never trust these men, these Ministers or the Conservative party again? Is it not also the case that the fresh start which the country needs is a fresh programme of measures under fresh leadership?
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate that it is very difficult to respond to statements quickly, but that was a pretty feeble showing by the hon. Gentleman. The programme contains a reduction in interest rates, a boost to private sector investment through increased capital allowances, £1·8 billion of capital receipts available to help the construction industry, and a boost to the motor industry by the abolition of motor tax. How he can say that that will add to unemployment I cannot understand. The only explanation for the hon. Gentleman's view is that he believes, wrongly, that employment comes from Government spending. It does not: it comes from the private sector. That is the mistake that the Opposition always make.
The hon. Gentleman again, I am afraid, was wrong in many of the points that he made about the individual programmes. For example, on aid there are cash increases in the next few years, not cash cuts. On health, the programme shows that spending is rising each year. We shall be able to finance increased throughput, increased treatment of patients and an increase in activities of 2·5 per cent. a year. What the hon. Gentleman looks at are the actual money numbers, but the health service is very much an employer of labour. The fact that we are putting a limit on public sector pay means that services can be improved with less money. That is the point. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the only way to improve services is with money rather than with efficiency and with having a limit on wages.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the budget for the Department of Employment. Again, contrary to what he says, there will next year be a real increase in that budget. The training and enterprise councils' budget will remain virtually intact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It will be 99 per cent., to be precise.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the performance of the British economy, referring to how disappointing the outturn had been and how forecasts had been wrong. As always, he talked about the British economy as though no other country had any problems with growth. He seems to be unaware that in five out of the past six months Germany has seen unemployment rise, and that in six out of the past seven months it has seen industrial production fall. The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that in Japan industrial production over the past year has fallen by over 4 per cent., that in Germany it has fallen by over 3 per cent., that in Italy it has fallen by over 3 per cent., and that in Canada it has fallen by over 2 per cent. That is the difficult climate in which we are competing. That is the difficult world background to the autumn statement. That is why we have given a special boost to help exporters and to help industry at this time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to forecasts and made much of the fact that recovery had not appeared. May I remind him that it was not just the Government and the Treasury who were forecasting recovery? At one time, even he and his hon. Friends were saying that there would be a recovery. His right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the former Leader of the Opposition, accused me last autumn of creating a pre-election boom

1005
and said that the recovery had been managed in order to create conditions for an election. Indeed, an official fund-raising letter from the Labour party at the time explained:
"Interest rates are dropping just in time to create a pre-election boom."
The hon. Gentleman talks about consistency. Let us remember the consistency of his party's policies. What did the Opposition propose at the election?—the biggest increase in taxes on incomes since the war. I remind the House that after the election the Leader of the Opposition stood by his party's policies and said:
"I strongly defend these proposals."
A few days ago, the shadow Chancellor said:
"Further tax increases at this time would be a mistake." Who are the opposition to talk about consistency? Who are they to talk about forecasts? Everything that they have said has turned out wrong.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I congratulate the Chancellor on an extremely imaginative package, and welcome his acceptance of the idea suggested by the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service that a number of the measures ought to be time-limited to avoid a resurgence of inflation later. Will he make it clear to the foreign exchange markets that, given the degree of deflation in the economy, the amount of stimulus that he proposes is sensible and is likely to reinforce his view on the exchange rate, and that the package is likely to restore confidence and to be welcomed by the country?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When he was Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he often emphasised the need for and the appropriateness of time-limited measures. That is a part of the package that we have put forward today. The measures that we have announced are prudent. As I have explained, they do not add to medium-term borrowing and have only a short-term cost.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about exchange rates. I have consistently made it clear that I believe in a strong exchange rate, and that remains my position.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Chancellor confirm that he is maintaining capital spending levels and not providing a large boost? Although the abolition of car tax and the capital allowances will significantly help some sections of industry, when set against the loss of spending power for the lowest-paid people in the public sector, the total effect is unlikely to give anything like the boost that he needs. How can it make sense to ask local authorities to sell land if they want to engage in capital expenditure when the market is at rock bottom?
Instead of a pay freeze for Ministers, would it not have made sense to put them on performance-related pay, so that, if these measures do not work, they will not get paid at all?
Mr. Lamont: The key requirement must be to control borrowing. I had hoped that I had spelt out clearly and frankly to the House the need to control public borrowing. That has to be done by one means or another. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that that can be evaded. It cannot be avoided—we have to
1006
face up to it—and there must be restrictions either on current or on capital spending. This year we have decided to restrict current spending to protect industry, especially the construction industry.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have also cut interest rates today, on top of the 2 percentage points reduction in interest rates in the past six weeks. There has also been considerable depreciation in the exchange rates. That is a considerable loosening of monetary policy, which confirms the outlook for British industry.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point about the prospects for sales, our estimate of £1 billion is based on a cautious assumption compared with the past, and with what local authorities have been able to sell.
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on announcing a strategy for growth which will be widely welcomed and which deserves support? Although a public sector borrowing requirement of £37 billion is high, should we not bear in mind the fact that in 1931, when the country last found itself in a similar economic predicament for somewhat similar reasons, the PSBR was 7·5 per cent. of GDP, which is a significantly higher figure than the 6 per cent. I take to be the percentage of GDP represented by £37 billion. In 1931, that justified a reduction in interest rates to 3 per cent. which makes his announcement of a cut in interest rates to 7 per cent. fully sustainable and a step which can be pursued downwards as time passes.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and I am glad that he welcomes the reduction in interest rates. However, I must make the cautionary point that the PSBR, at some 6 per cent. of GDP, is, on a medium-term basis, far too high. When I look at what is happening in other countries, I am sure that it is in the best interests of everyone that it is brought down. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may disagree and people may argue about economic management, but, at the end of the day, the fundamental problem that remains is that debt must be paid for and interest must be paid. If we have too high a level of debt interest, it squeezes out other items of public spending.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for and approval of the reduction in interest rates, but I think that we should address the problem of the PSBR, and I will do that.
Mr. Giles Radice: What assumptions about the level of unemployment for the coming year has the Chancellor given to the Government Actuary?
Mr. Lamont: 2·8 million.
Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage and determination in tackling the problem of the growing budget deficit. His colleagues on the Conservative Benches believe that his package will increase confidence, stimulate investment, encourage exports, help the housing market and boost the motor industry. We now have a coherent economic policy for recovery, which we strongly support. Does he agree that it is now time for British business to take advantage of the lowest interest rates in Europe, low inflation, a competitive pound and incentives for investment and go out and sell?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The measures that I have announced on capital allowances are designed to promote private sector investment.
The motor industry very much wanted to be rid of the car tax. It is one of the most important manufacturing industries and, in recent years, its decline has begun to be reversed. With the receipt of foreign investment, its prospects are excellent. It is right and appropriate to encourage that industry in such a difficult time.
The measures that we have announced on credits will help exports, so my hon. Friend is right to say that the depreciation of the pound gives our exporters a considerable opportunity. It is vital that business does not allow its own costs to get out of control, that it remains competitive, and that it takes advantage of the new opportunities that now exist.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the capital allowances concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given. I would have preferred it to be more, but I am pleased that it is on plant and machinery. Up to four years ago, however, the Government believed that manufacturing industry presented no problem. In the past four years, they accepted that it was a problem, but they did nothing about it. Now, very late in the day, they are doing something and making some concession. Meanwhile, the industrial base of this country has shrunk alarmingly. We have lost 30 per cent. of our industrial base under the Government.
The measures announced are inadequate given that it is now assumed that the growth rate will be 1 per cent. next year instead of 3 per cent., as forecast at the time of the Budget, and there is a crisis in the manufacturing industry. Although the right hon. Gentleman has done something, he has not done enough.
Mr. Lamont: It is something that the right hon. Gentleman is able to give even a modified welcome to the measures, and I am grateful to him for that. He is quite wrong to say that we have not thought manufacturing to be important. It is, but we have to look at the economy as a whole, and manufacturing is a part of it—perhaps the most important part. We have always believed that it is important.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the modest growth forecast that we have made, and it is somewhat lower than most forecasters are projecting, but I believe that, in recent weeks, the prospects in the world have got considerably worse. It is therefore right that we should look to ways to help British industry to take advantage of the new situation. The right hon. Gentleman says that 1 per cent. is not enough. Of course it is not enough, but we cannot just conjure more growth out of the air. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman would say about Germany, where the projection is that the economy will grow by 1 per cent. next year and by 0·5 per cent. the year after. This is a very rough world.
Sir Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for his decision to encourage capital projects and to give the green light to them? It can truly be said that the Government are rolling out the cement mixers, and many people will think that that is quite right at this time.
I want to ask the Chancellor about a particular problem with regard to investment. Although his investment incentives will be welcomed, there is a problem for small
1008
and medium-sized firms, which are encountering difficulties in getting the right support from the banks because the banks themselves have got into trouble in recent years. Will he look at this problem, because, if firms do not have support for their productive investment, it will be difficult for them to take advantage of the situation as the country comes out of recession?
Mr. Lamont: What I have announced on capital allowances applies right across the economy; it applies to all purchases of plant and machinery, not only manufacturing. It is not just of help to the construction industry; it is of help to engineering, and metal-based industries in particular.
My hon. Friend mentioned banks. I very much hope that the reduction in interest rates today and the 2 per cent. by which I have reduced interest rates since 16 September will be passed on by the banks. Last year I had cause to discuss with the banks whether small businesses were getting the benefit of interest rate reductions, and the banks assured me that they were. Recently, I have been concerned to discover that some banks are operating a floor for interest rates beyond which they will not reduce them. I hope that they will consider this position very carefully.
Mr. Frank Field: Recently, the Chancellor said that every Government action would be evaluated as to its effect on increasing employment. In pursuance of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), may I ask, first, how many more people will be in work one year hence? Secondly, when he said that pensions and other benefits would be fully indexed, the House assumed that he meant that all other benefits would be indexed. Was the House right in assuming that?
Mr. Lamont: The answer to the second question is yes. When the hon. Gentleman asks me how many people will be in work, or out of work, in a year's time, he knows that not only can I not but we never do make a forecast for unemployment. However, as a result of the measures that we have taken today, the outlook for growth and jobs is definitely better.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement deserves to generate confidence not only on the Benches behind him, which is useful, but also in the country? Does he agree with me that the main reason that this country is in a bigger hole than many other countries is our debt overhang, which is due overwhelmingly to housing debt? Therefore, while I understand the pressures that have driven him to throw another £750 million at housing, will he avoid giving the impression to the country that we can reflate our economy by reflating our housing and building some spurious prosperity on houses—which cannot, incidentally, be exported?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point, and a very correct analysis, which he has made on earlier occasions. He will understand that the £750 million for the purchase of empties is not to reflate the housing market; it is to take the overhang of properties off the market. I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis.
I believe that the main thing that has been holding back recovery in this country, as in the Scandinavian countries, some of which have had recessions just as long as we have

1009
—indeed, Sweden is in the third year of recession—and as in north America, is the overhang of debt, which does not exist in continental Europe to the same extent. The measures that we have taken will help, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the position of housing is absolutely crucial. We would be making a great mistake if we simply tried to have a great house price boom again.
Mr. William Ross: Is the Chancellor aware that the Unionist party is happy that he has reasserted his view today that the public sector borrowing rquirement must be kept under firm control? But I confess that seeing the PSBR for the current year rising from £28 billion to £37 billion between March and November could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as keeping it under firm control, especially when the right hon. Gentleman also said in his statement today that he expected it to rise next year. Can he say what it will be in cash terms in 1993–94?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also, when looking at the sums that should go to housing, ensure that a large proportion of those sums is directed to housing associations, which seem to make better use of the moneys than can be said of some public bodies that receive them?
Will the Chancellor look carefully at the situation of the north of Ireland block grant? In the past, certain sectors have lost money because of the need to pay compensation to those who suffered from terrorist violence. As that has simply meant hardship for those who suffered from terrorist violence in one form or another, may I ask him to consider the possibility of financing all such extra compensation sums from the contingency fund, which should, of course, be used for the defence of the realm? If compensating those who suffer from terrorist violence is not part of the defence of the realm, what on earth is?
Mr. Lamont: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have noted the hon. Gentleman's points. I am indeed aware of the controversy and argument, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into that today.
The hon. Member talked about the PSBR and outturn and asked why it was not kept under control. He should realise that the main reason for the increase in the PSBR is falling tax revenues. It is not expenditure. It is largely in the ratio of 6:1 of falling tax revenues. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he said that it is difficult to predict the outturn for the PSBR. For that reason, he will perhaps understand why I do not accept his invitation to predict it for next year, though I shall be doing that at the time of the Budget.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If interest rates of 7 per cent. on 13 November are appropriate, how could interest rates of 10 per cent. have been appropriate on 13 September? Should we not all be profoundly grateful for black Wednesday, and would not the best thing that my right hon. Friend could say to increase confidence be that we shall never ever return to the ERM?
Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. He will be aware that we have options open to us as to how far and at what speed we wish to defeat inflation. I have made it clear—I have done so before and I repeat
1010
it—that I believe that in recent months, which does not mean in the whole of the last two years but recently, as a result of the direction in which German interest rates were going, our policy was not wholly appropriate for this country.
Mr. Budgen: The Chancellor did not say so at the time.
Mr. Lamont: But I made it clear very quickly indeed. My hon. Friend should recognise that the fact that we might have over-achieved on inflation in the short term was not something that would have brought other than advantage and gain for this country. We cannot, as some of my hon. Friends sometimes seem to think, opt out of the battle against inflation. It remains extremely important indeed.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the Chancellor agree that this modest boost to the economy is being paid for by an absolute cut in the standard of living and quality of life of many hundreds of thousands of public sector workers, many of whom receive the lowest pay in this country?
Mr. Lamont: Public sector wages in the last two years have done better on average than those in the private sector. Many public sector workers also have greater security of employment than is the case in the private sector—[Interruption.]—not in all cases, but in some. I believe that, given the choice, it is right for the Government, rather than to cut services, programmes, the provision of health and the provision of education, to economise just for one year on our current spending. Is that really so unreasonable?
Mrs. Marion Roe: I add my congratulations to the Chancellor on his statement this afternoon. At a time when he has, rightly, been concerned first to help the economy, his statement is also good news for the health service. Does he agree that his announcement shows the Government's continuing priority for the health service, as has been demonstrated since 1979? Does he further agree that the large NHS programme will be good not only for patients but for the construction industry and for jobs?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. The capital programme in the NHS will be at record levels next year. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the number of patients who will be treated and about the level of activity. There will be an increase next year in activity of about 2·5per cent. and an increase in expenditure overall in real terms of about 3 per cent., demonstrating clearly the Government's continuing commitment to the NHS. That is amply demonstrated by the fact that total expenditure since 1979 has gone up by the astonishing figure of 65 per cent. in real terms.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: How will a 2 per cent., cut in the wages of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers, including nurses, whom the Chancellor has betrayed by these cuts, help the economy to recover? I assure him that services are affected when morale is low. Is he not aware that, when nurses cannot pay their bills, that is reflected in how they do their work? Is he further aware that by hitting the public sector in this way he is particularly hitting women, who are in the low-paid sector, more than anybody else? He is making low-paid workers pay for the incompetence of the present miserable Tory Government.
Mr. Lamont: I tried to explain to the House why, in my view—I believe that the whole country recognises this—some economies must be made. Expenditure and borrowing must be cut back. We have a choice of acting on capital spending, on programmes or on the salaries and wages of those employed by Government. To say that they will have an increase of from nil to 1·5 per cent. for a 12-month period, given what is at stake, does not seem an unreasonable policy or an unreasonable request for the Government to make.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that I am pleasantly surprised by his autumn statement—[Interruption.]—and I shall have no difficulty in voting for it. He knows that my devotion to the manufacturing sector is total. For the first time for some years, he, as Chancellor, has injected confidence into both manufacturing and construction in Britain. His reduction in interest rates, his reintroduction of capital allowances, his relaxation on spending of capital receipts and his abolition of the special car tax will be very welcome indeed.
May I take it that this will be the first of many pronouncements by my right hon. Friend, whose credibility has been restored by his statement this afternoon, and that he and the Government finally recognise that manufacturing industry is the only real source of non-inflationary economic growth?
Mr. Lamont: I am tempted to say that I am pleasantly surprised by my hon. Friend's remarks—[Interruption.]—and particularly by his comments about voting. I have always believed that manufacturing was important, contrary to what my hon. Friend seems to think I thought. As I say, I have always regarded it as an important part of the economy, and it is obviously the key part in relation to international trade.
But we also have services and financial services. We have a diverse economy. I believe that the measures I have taken today will help construction, the engineering sector and manufacturing in general. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is pleased.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Chancellor described Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as territories in his statement, was that an official Government description or a Treasury forecast of the fate that will befall our country if we allow Tory economic policy to continue to depopulate it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the adjustment to the Barnett formula means that the Scottish Office will have £60 million less next year than it otherwise would have had? If that spending squeeze is combined with the investment project concentration in the south-east of England, is not the Chancellor's announcement more a dash for votes in the Tory heartlands than a strategy for growth? If the Chancellor had not lost £2,000 million in a single afternoon, what would he have spent it on today?
Mr. Lamont: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, no, Scotland will gain more than it would have done. The change that has been made in the formula as it applies to Scotland merely brings the formula in line with the population, as determined at the time of the census. That means that, since we have been making reductions in
1012
the survey, the reductions that apply to Scotland have been less than they might otherwise have been, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not be quite so dismayed.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact, and make it widely known in Scotland, that there will be a £70 million package of construction-related work over the rest of the present financial year; that Scottish Homes will benefit from new investment resources amounting to some £70 million over the next three years; and Scottish business rates will be reduced next year by £68 million. Taken together, those three measures represent a £340 million boost for Scotland over the next three years. Go and tell everybody in Scotland about it.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the package that he has announced today will be extremely helpful to the small business sector? As he will be aware, in the south-west, and particularly in my constituency of Tiverton, we have only small businesses; we do not have large companies. They will welcome the reduction in interest rates, help with exports and, particularly, the increase in the first year's capital allowances, along with other measures that he has announced. Does he also agree that, in the 1980s, the small business sector created 1 million new jobs and we shall look to that sector again in the future for the creation of wealth and new employment opportunities? The statement will be greatly welcomed in Devon.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Small businesses are the backbone of this country's economy. One of the great achievements of the 1980s was that so many small businesses were created. I note that, even today, despite the recession and insolvencies, VAT registrations for 1991 were slightly up on the previous year's. Anything that can be done to encourage small businesses is obviously welcome. Some of the measures, such as capital allowances, might be thought to apply only to large businesses, but my hon. Friend is right to remind us that capital allowances also benefit small businesses, which will also benefit from the reduction in interest rates.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Chancellor has announced that £1·9 billion will go to the health service. I note from the papers that he has distributed that £300 million that comes from so-called efficiency gains. What sum also comes from income generation by the NHS? Is any of the so-called new money for the health service a transfer from Department of Social Security funding?
Mr. Lamont: The money for care in the community will involve some new money as well. There will be £140 million for care in the community. The hon. Gentleman points out that we are assuming some efficiency gains in determining our budget. Why on earth not? Surely one should assume that, as we always have in the past and always do everywhere in the public sector. What we are assuming on income generation and efficiency gains is not out of line with what has been achieved in the past. That is why the settlement for the health service is realistic and will enable the health service to go on improving provision.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right lion. Friend accept that, at a time when many in the private sector have been suffering short-time working, cuts in pay, and even redundancy and unemployment, he got the balance absolutely right when he suggested that we

1013
should have restraint in public sector pay, accompanied and balanced by the fact that those who rely on the state for their income benefits are protected? That will give great pleasure to my constituents, so many of whom are pensioners. Will he share my hope that, when we vote on the question of restraint of the pay of Members of Parliament, we shall be supported by Opposition Members?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to say that we should restrict public sector pay to preserve services. The Government will be recommending a zero increase in the pay of Members of Parliament, and I hope that we shall get the support of Opposition Members.
Mr. Tony Banks: How will the £750 million to be used by housing associations for the purchase of properties be distributed throughout the country? Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically ruled out the spending of the £5·1 billion accumulated capital receipts?
Mr. Lamont: I explained the latter point in my statement, when I said that we had in the past encouraged local authorities to pay off debt. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the disagreement between myself and Opposition Members on that issue has always been based on the simple fact that letting local authorities spend their receipts adds to public spending. We must hear that in mind. I decided that a relaxation was in order, but it must be limited. I decided to do it in this way for the reasons that I gave. The distribution of the £750 million will be the subject of an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is consulting the Housing Corporation about it.
Mrs. Judith Chaplin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to abolish car tax. Does he agree that that will help not only British car manufacturers but all businesses which must spend money on cars?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right—it will help all purchasers of cars. They were very much helped in the Budget by the first step that I took when I halved car tax. My hon. Friend may remember that I also increased the capital allowances. Specific limited capital allowances apply to the purchase of motor cars by businesses, and I increased those by a considerable amount in the Budget. So three distinct and, I hope, important measures have helped the car industry, both in my Budget and in this autumn statement. The car industry was pressing for that, so I am sure that it will be widely welcomed. In tax terms, it also makes sense.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Will the Chancellor give us his balance of payments forecasts for this year and next year? In the calculation of next year's balance of payments forecast, has he made any allowance for the Government's proposed pit closure programme?
Mr. Lamont: When the hon. Lady looks at the published documents in the Table Office, she will see the provision in the programme of the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that it does not sound too Irish—[Interruption.] I must be careful because I have a difficult paradox to tell the House. Provision has been made both
1014
on the basis of a certain number of pits being closed and of pits being kept open. We have allocated a substantial amount of money in the second year of the DTI's programme, as the hon. Lady will see. The projection is that the current account deficit next year will be some £15 billion, but I expect that the depreciation will gradually have a favourable effect on the current account. I know that the hon. Lady follows these matters closely and understands them. One would expect to get the adverse effects before the beneficial effects.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend ever heard such a moaning, miserable, Jeremiah-like, negative performance as that which we heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?
I appreciate the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) against a housing boom and housing debt, but is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor aware that in his statement he recognised that the higher priority now is for economic growth to restore confidence in the construction industry and housing market? What he has said today will go a long way to help that hard-pressed sector. I welcome the reductions in interest rates that he has announced, but will he bear in mind the fact that the essential ingredient for a thriving economy in the long term is a low interest rate policy?
Mr. Lamont: Of course, what my hon. Friend says is right, but he must bear it in mind that interest rates are not just part of industry's costs, but a tool of economic management. They control the growth of money in the economy and are, above all, the key weapon in the fight against inflation. Without low inflation, businesses—big and small—will be destroyed.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend supports what I have managed to do today. I believe that the housing and construction industries have faced serious problems, and although I have been able to reduce interest rates—in some ways the single most important factor for housing and construction—I thought that it was right to take additional measures.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman gave the go-ahead for the Jubilee line in London, which may well bring a boost in morale to those living in the south. Will he itemise the specific, named capital projects for which he will give the go-ahead in the north to give a similar lift in hope to my constituents and people living in surrounding constituencies?
Mr. Lamont: There will be twice as many road starts next year as this year. That will benefit construction and the road building industry all over the country. In my statement I listed a number of projects—
Mr. Mandelson: In the north?
Mr. Lamont: Several of those projects were not in the south—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I will not identify where the projects are constituency by constituency, let alone town by town or village by village. What I will say is that the whole country will benefit. I do not make decisions on the basis of log rolling, which the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) seems to think is the only appropriate way of making them.
Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend understand that any small disappointment that may have been felt because he was unable to announce an unequivocal go-ahead for the Jubilee line extension today is more than offset by the widespread approval throughout our great capital city of his decision to reserve the money for it? Will he and his ministerial colleagues accept the thanks and congratulations of Londoners on the fact that they have remained faithful to that major infrastructure project? Will my right hon. Friend warn the bankers that if they balk at coming up with their contribution they will not be forgiven?
Mr. Lamont: I am more than usually grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. We shall keep faith and hope that the bankers will also—that is important. The Jubilee line is a major project that will provide thousands of jobs in the construction and engineering industries, and will be of great benefit, not just in London, but to firms up and down the country.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that when he talks about a public sector borrowing requirement of £37 billion—probably rising to £50 billion the following year—one of its biggest component parts is the £30 billion that is paid to keep 3 million to 4 million people unemployed? If the right hon. Gentleman tackled that problem, he would be halfway to solving all his Budget problems.
In the twilight of his Chancellorship, the right hon. Gentleman has today introduced a spiteful mini-Budget that attacks the lowest-paid, taxes nurses and others in the public sector, and hammers women—who are mainly low-paid workers. He should have clawed back the £29 billion that went to the richest 1 per cent. of the population under previous Tory Budgets. If he had taken back that money from the richest 1 per cent., he could have ensured that the national health service, pensioners, the low-paid, and the education and housing sectors benefited. Instead, he has lined the pockets of his City friends, and wants the workers to pay the tab.
Mr. Lamont: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that one can simply spend one's way out of recession. The hon. Gentleman said that we did not need to have a PSBR problem but that all that was necessary was a series of employment-creating measures. He said that
1016
that would eliminate the PSBR problem and the recession. That is nonsense. If that were the solution and the right approach, there would be no public deficit problems and no recession in any country in the world. That is not the way to approach the problem.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reference to the preservation of the national roads programme and the ultimate creation of money for the Jubilee line. I also welcome his commitment to involve private sector capital in transport projects across the country. Will he bear it in mind that there is a successful precedent for such a policy in the construction of the Dartford bridge, which was built by free enterprise using private money, has been completed and is now running on time?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am afraid that our regime for private finance has been extraordinarily complex and arcane. I know that many people have felt that it was designed more to frustrate private financing of infrastructure than to encourage it. It was something of a minor miracle that the Dartford bridge got the go-ahead as a private sector project. We want to encourage more Dartford bridges which is why we have now finally made what I think will turn out to be decisive and clear changes in the rules to facilitate more construction in the longer term.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I welcome the increases in line with prices in the invalidity benefit, but how does the Chancellor intend to raise the £240 million that he mentioned in his statement by tightening up on invalidity benefit? Does he intend to tax the benefit in future, or does he intend to interfere with doctors' judgments?
Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is to make a statement immediately after this statement which will cover the hon. Lady's point.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, points of order are taken after statements and the business statement.

Social Security
5.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, I wish to make a statement on social security following directly from my right hon. Friend's autumn statement.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced, spending on social security in each of the next three years will be £79·8 billion, £82·9 billion and £87 billion.
That is a gauge of the Government's commitment to the needy, the sick, the elderly and to families. Despite the intense pressure on the social security budget we will maintain support for those hit by the recession, we will focus additional support on the most needy. and we will keep our pledges to families and to the elderly.
I can today announce that all major benefits will be increased fully in line with inflation. Subject to parliamentary approval, benefit rates will therefore go up by 3·6 per cent. next April.
The basic retirement pension for a single person will increase by £1·95 a week to £56·10, and for a couple it will rise by £3·10 to £89·90. Unemployment benefit will increase by £1·55 for a single person and by £2·50 for a couple, and I propose to make no other changes to that benefit.
Child benefit will be £10 for the first child and £8·10 for each subsequent child. In addition to uprating all benefits, we will keep our promises to focus increased support on those in greatest need. Last month, the Government boosted the income support rates for pensioners, by £2 for a single pensioner and by £3 for a couple. From next April there will be a increase in the real value of income support. Thereafter, no one on income support will be required to contribute a minimum of 20 per cent of the local government taxation charge, as people have up to now, but the increase in basic income support levels introduced to match that liability will be maintained. That is worth on average £1·40 a week for a single person under 25, £1·60 for a single person over 25 and £2·80 for a couple.
That means that the disposable income of an unemployed couple on income support will actually increase by an average of £5·20 a week next April, and the disposable income of an average 80-year-old couple on income support will be £9·35 more than it was last April, taking their income support over £100 a week for the first time. The uprating itself will cost £2·5 billion next year and the real increase in disposable income for those on the income-related benefits is worth a further £1 billion.
It has been possible to meet these commitments in full only as a result of a searching scrutiny for savings in all my Department's programmes. My first priority has been to find savings that do not involve curtailing entitlement to benefit. I have therefore subjected my Department's running costs to rigorous examination, while maintaining my Department's full commitment to the citizens charter and enhancing capital spending, which will rise by £159 million over the next three years, bringing total capital expenditure to more than £1 billion in that period.
A major component of running costs is the payment of benefits by order book or giro. That is markedly more costly than payment through the banking system. I therefore propose to encourage more customers to accept payment of benefits directly into their bank or building society accounts. In addition, my Department will be
1018
working closely with the Post Office to improve efficiency and reduce theft and fraud involving order books and giros. This, along with fraud elsewhere in the system, can involve very substantial sums of money. I have already announced my determination to tackle fraud and abuse of benefits. Those who defraud the system have nothing in common with the vast majority of honest and genuine claimants, and every pound lost through fraud means less for those in real need.
I therefore plan to step up the fight against fraud. I am increasing our investment in fraud work by £10 million a year. This, aided by better use of our existing resources and new techniques, will have an expected return of £100 million a year. I am today laying the regulations withdrawing income support from those—be they new age travellers or others—who are not even actively seeking work. I will consult the local authority associations on a new initiative to encourage local authorities to stop fraudulent claims for housing and council tax benefits. By taking those measures, I hope that the total of fraud identified and stopped will increase to nearly £1 billion each year.
It is also necessary to look carefully at how well benefit spending is focused on those whom Parliament intended to help. There has been a significant increase in the numbers on invalidity benefit and in spending on it. There are now more than twice as many people drawing this benefit as in 1979, at a cost nearly two and a half times as great. By 1996 invalidity benefit will cost well over £7 billion a year. Against that background, I intend to tighten up the administrative and medical procedures for controlling this benefit. That will ensure that medical examinations are better targeted and that more effective action will be taken when people fail to attend for their examination or are found to be capable of work. Those changes are expected to reduce spending by £240 million over the survey period. A major research study into invalidity benefit was launched last year. Some results have been received, and others will be received during 1993. I shall consider those results carefully as they become available.
I have also looked at two aspects of war disablement pensions. Officers receive more compensation for a given disability than other ranks. There is no reason why they should. I therefore intend to abolish rank differentials for disablement pensions, by moving everyone up to the rate for officers. That will benefit nearly 200,000 war disablement pensioners who will gain by up to £5 a week.
This will be made possible by the second change, which is to bring the rules for noise-induced hearing loss more into line with the industrial injuries scheme. As under that scheme, awards will no longer be made to those whose noise-induced hearing loss is assessed at less than 20 per cent. disablement. But I can assure the House that no existing war pensioner will suffer a reduction in the cash that he or she is currently receiving. These proposals will now be discussed with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.
I also intend to introduce two minor savings measures. I propose to increase the top rate non-dependant deduction in housing benefit and income support, but to freeze the three lower rates. I propose also to freeze the higher rate of statutory sick pay, as most employees who benefit from it are covered by occupational sick pay schemes. These enable me to make a number of modest, but worthwhile, improvements. I plan to increase by £10 per week all but one of the income support limits for those

1019
with preserved rights in residential care and nursing homes. I plan to extend the severe disability premium to those sharing a household with a blind person. I am increasing the amount that carers may earn without affecting their benefit. I am giving £1 million to help hospices and more money to help severely disabled drivers.
We are also introducing improvements in the benefit arrangements for orphans. I believe that those measures will he widely welcomed.
I now turn to the social fund. By using loans, we can help far more people with a given amount of money than if it were given as grants. Improved repayments of these loans enabled me last week to announce an extra £8 million for the social fund discretionary budget for the current year. Together with a further injection of cash, that means that I now expect next year's budget to be up 12 per cent., at £340 million. That is a 50 per cent. increase in two years.
In accordance with my statutory duty, I have carried out a review of national insurance contributions. The national insurance fund is obviously affected by the state of the economy. However, the Government do not propose to make changes to national insurance contributions for next year other than normal adjustments for inflation. That reflects our determination to minimise the burdens on employers and employees. Instead, we intend to seek powers to keep the national insurance fund in balance by drawing as necessary on a new, limited, Treasury grant. That grant will give us useful flexibility in managing the fund during a downturn in the economic cycle. I intend to introduce a Bill shortly to make provision for the grant. The Bill will also provide for the new age-related addition for personal pensions. Personal pensions have proved outstandingly popular. This addition will remove a potential distortion. It fulfils our manifesto commitment and it will ensure the continued success of personal pensions.
Fuller details of the uprating, national insurance and other measures have been given in two written replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Tiverton (Mr. Browning). Those replies are available with the autumn statement briefing in the Vote Office and will be published in the Official Report.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a tough and realistic programme for public expenditure as a whole. Within that total I have sought to make savings, particularly by bearing down on operating costs and fraud. I have sought to curb programmes that might otherwise pre-empt the resources needed to sustain recovery in the longer term. As a result, we have been able to protect benefits for those hit by the chill wind of world recession, to channel increased support to the most needy and to keep the pledges that we made in April. I commend our plans to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Let me begin by welcoming the general uprating of benefits by 3·6 per cent. It is not so much a cause for satisfaction as a cause for relief when measured against the rumours that were allowed to run.
Let me also register my personal relief that the Secretary of State has not acted in the spirit of his speech to the Tory party conference, in which there was so much
1020
talk of subsidised scroungers and the something-for-nothing society. To say that the preservation of the status quo is presented to look like progress is, I think, to make a fair comment on the Government's record.
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's complacency, will he recognise that, for many, life on benefit is anything but easy? Last year, income support was uprated by 7 per cent.; this year, the uprating is 3·6 per cent. Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever the technical reasons for the change in the Rossi index, many will feel a cold wind blowing in the new year? Retrospective indexing is, of course, a comforting method when inflation is falling, but now, with the emergence of a very different picture, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is leaving pensioners' living standards vulnerable to rising inflation in the coming year?
The underlying rate of inflation in the year to September was 4 per cent. Is that not a better estimate of pensioners' costs, given that most of them do not have mortgages? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that bonfires will not be lit following the news that a married person's pension is to rise from £86·70 to £89·90?
I hope that the Secretary of State has noted and studied the Rowntreee report, by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, which was published earlier this week. The report underlined the difficulty of making ends meet at current income support levels. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is little room for comfort when—according to the report's findings—a couple with two children under 11, living in a council house, need an extra £36 per week to fund an austere low-cost budget? There are no signs that this Minister and this Government have any visible or active commitment to tackling the problems of poverty.
I note that the Secretary of State intends to cut £240 million from invalidity benefit expenditure over the survey period. A few minutes ago, one of my hon. Friends asked the Chancellor a question that I shall now ask the Secretary of State. Is he, in effect, challenging the professional judgment of general practitioners, and does that imply that there will be new instructions on certification by doctors? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman give details? If not, exactly what kind of changes is he contemplating?
Will the Secretary of State now come clean about the hidden agenda in connection with invalidity benefit? Are there plans for legislation to reduce average payments of the benefit, and to bring it into tax? Would that not mean that an additional 70,000 people whose only income is invalidity benefit would have to pay tax?
Mr. Nigel Evans: That is a scare story.
Mr. Dewar: I shall be delighted if the Secretary of State tells us that it is a story without foundation, and rules it out. I shall wait with interest to see whether he does so.
I note that the Secretary of State is laying regulations to withdraw income support when it is held that a claimant is not actively seeking work. Those changes will not only affect new age travellers, as Ministers often imply; they will affect all applicants for unemployment benefit. Will the Secretary of State tell me what advice on the matter, and on that specific proposal, was given by the Social Security Advisory Committee?
I welcome the changes in war disablement pensions to put other ranks on a footing with officers, which

1021
constitutes a rare appearance of the classless society in the Government's work. Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that there will be some disquiet at the news that the changes are to be funded at the expense of those claiming for hearing loss as a result of service?
There will also be a welcome for the changes affecting income support levels for residential care and nursing homes. The Secretary of State should note, however, that we shall want to look closely at the increase in the top-rate non-dependant deduction in housing benefit. Is that not a disincentive for children to stay with their families, at a time when homelessness is growing—and is certainly one of the most common causes of benefit overpayment and, on occasion, of fraudulent claims?
I welcome the extension of the severe disability premium to those who share a household with a blind person; but will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that that is not the end of the story? It would be very sad if it were to be the final concession, and if all other carers living with the person cared for were to be permanently excluded from the premium. As one of my hon. Friends suggested earlier, should not the criterion be disability rather than loneliness?
May I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the social fund? I recognise his reluctance to retreat, but the social fund is arbitrary in operation and often unjust in outcome. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need to review the cash-limited nature of the fund?
The significant figures in today's statement are the projected spending totals for the next three years, which are to rise to a formidable £87 billion in 1995–96. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, under current policies, expenditure on benefits will continue to rise for the worst of reasons—the rise in unemployment? Given that every 100,000 added to the unemployment total costs the right hon. Gentleman's Department £330 million this year, what room will there be for any real improvement in living standards for the people on benefit who are included in those totals?
The long-term outlook remains depressing. There is a price to be paid for the Government's mistakes. The Secretary of State pays out almost £1 in every £3 spent by Government. The tragedy is that it will not bring comfort and dignity to those at risk while this failed Administration use it to fund the cruel waste of the dole queues.
Mr. Lilley: Let me take an opportunity that I missed on a previous occasion, and welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to his post, to which —as the whole House will agree—he will bring a high level of intelligence, integrity and diligence. I am particularly delighted to see my former pair sitting opposite me.
The hon. Gentleman gave my statement a rather grudging welcome, although it was a little more forthcoming than the response of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is made happy only by bad news, and it seems that the hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues are made rather gloomy by good news.
The hon. Gentleman's principal criticism of the Government's actions seems to be our failure to fulfil the "rumours" that he himself fostered and encouraged on
1022
every possible occasion. He also suggested, rather surprisingly, that my statement was out of tune with a speech that I had made to the Conservative party conference. I assure him that it was in no way out of tune with that speech. Then, I emphasised the importance of an attack on fraud, and made it clear that there was every difference in the world between the vast majority of claimants—who are honest and genuine people—and those who commit fraud. It is the Labour party that does not distinguish between the two.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of a paper that was submitted to the Labour party's national executive committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). According to that paper, one of the disadvantages from which the Labour party suffered was the fact that it had linked itself with freeloaders. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give chapter and verse later, if anyone cares to question that point.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that income support had risen by only 3·6 per cent. I spelt out in some detail the implications of the extra £1 billion of resources that would be provided on top of that, allowing income support beneficiaries a rise in disposable income significantly larger than the original figure. That will mean a real improvement in standards of living, especially among the poorest pensioners.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we move to a system of uprating based on prospective rather than retrospective inflation. I should have thought that, at a time of falling inflation, that would disadvantage most people, returning us to the days of a Labour Government who made precisely such a change and, in the process, cut the real value of pensions by 6 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Rowntree report spelt out an "austere low-cost budget"—a budget that allows the poorest only a video recorder, a camera and a television set; the report adds that they will not be able to afford a second television set for the children. According to the report, a modest budget requires an income of nearly £21,000 a year. As I recall, that is close to the income level at which the Labour party considered that a person was so rich that he should suffer a tax increase.
As for invalidity benefit, that is not a cut in entitlement. By tightening up our procedures and making better use of our medical resources, we hope to be able to save that amount over the period. For example, we shall cut out some of the procedures that require us to go twice to our own medical officers for the same piece of information. Medical officers will therefore be able to examine more cases and exercise tighter judgment. The opportunity has always been there to take the opinion both of general practitioners and of our medical officers. It is not unknown in the medical world to take a second opinion.
The taxation of invalidity benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as are all taxation matters. The hon. Gentleman knows that the literature that recipients of this benefit receive contains a statement that it has been our long-standing intention to bring that benefit into tax, but only when the difficulties in doing so can be overcome.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of the regulation laid today on those who are actively seeking work and said that it would apply to all people. It will apply only to those without children. A number of other

1023
categories are excluded, including—following the advice of the advisory committee—pregnant women. They, too, will be excluded from the operation of this rule.
The hon. Gentleman described the social fund as arbitrary and unjust. I believe that it is a far better system and less arbitrary and less unjust than the single payment system that preceded it. It will not be possible to operate it without a cash limit. Were we to operate solely on the basis of grants, the amount of cash that we have would mean that the operation of the cash limit would be far more stringent than that which we operate at present.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the very large total expenditure on social security. That is a gauge of our commitment to the neediest and to those who are most affected by severe economic circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the best help they can have is the recovery of the economy. I believe that the Chancellor's statement earlier today offers the best promise of achieving that recovery. I believe, too, that his statement will be welcomed as much by the beneficiaries of my Departments as by every hon. Member.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the action that he has announced against new age travellers will he particularly welcomed on this side of the House? Does he also agree that the vast majority of people who honestly draw benefits find it peculiarly insulting when they see the nation's resources being squandered on an indolent, anarchic rabble?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. In the estimates that I have made of savings through tackling fraud, I have made no allowance for any deterrent effect that the announcements will have. I believe, however, that an example effect was created when people could see that perhaps only a small number of people were getting away with living on benefit. That must have tempted others to do likewise. Now that they know that we are bearing down on that practice, they will not be so tempted. That must be beneficial to the country as a whole.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), extend a grudging welcome to the statement? It is with some relief that we see that the Secretary of State has managed fully to index benefits. I acknowledge and welcome that fact. However, it drives a coach and horses through the contributory principle of the national insurance fund if the Secretary of State needs a Treasury grant to balance the books. It takes us all the way back to the old Treasury supplement days.
In his conference speech, the Secretary of State said that he intended to crack down on fraud. That is right and proper. However, can he give the House an assurance that the new techniques will not result in menace and intimidation? Many claimants are genuinely ignorant about the system and find it difficult to make claims.
As for the social fund, can the Secretary of State tell me how much of the announced money that he has adverted to this afternoon is real, new money and how much of it is due to the faster repayment of loans? The only effective way of measuring the size of the social fund budget is to measure it as an amount versus the number of income support claimants.
Can the Secretary of State also say a word about payments directed into bank accounts? He knows that many claimants do not have bank accounts. Very many
1024
post offices in rural areas and other areas will find it difficult to remain financially viable if the Secretary of State is too draconian about introducing that change too fast.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his self-confessedly grudging welcome. He believes that it is a small matter fully to uprate the benefits throughout the system. Many other countries throughout Europe are finding it difficult or impossible to do so. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants us to follow Europe in every respect. Does he wish us to follow in that respect also? The hon. Gentleman said that the ability to top up the national insurance fund from taxation was unwelcome. I presume, therefore, that he wants us to put up contributions. We think that that would not be right at present.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of menace and intimidation in the pursuit of fraud. I agree that it would be entirely wrong to go down that route. None the less, it is right to use all the techniques and information that we have available, through the computerisation of the benefits system, to achieve that end.
As for the social fund, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the increase in the budget in recent years and in next year's budget is in excess of the increase for people on income support. Therefore the amount of help available to people in that category is, effectively, increasing, even though the amount of new cash is quite small, but the recycling of cash through the repayment of loans earlier than was originally thought possible enables a 12 per cent. increase to be made in the coming year.
Mr. James Couchman: I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend on having uprated all benefits in line with inflation and on not imposing an additional burden on industry through increasing national insurance contributions. It must have been a strong temptation, which my right hon. Friend was very wise to put on one side at this time. The very many people who are on low incomes find it grossly offensive that people who earn money through the black economy make no contribution, either through taxes or insurance. My right hon. Friend's attack on fraud will be particularly welcomed by those low-income families who pay their tax and national insurance honestly.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. It has obviously been difficult for the Chancellor to achieve such a good settlement. I am delighted that he has been able to do so and that we have been able fully to uprate without increasing national insurance contributions. My hon. Friend is correct about fraud. No one resents fraud more than the genuine claimant of unemployment benefit when he sees someone else, who he knows has a job, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefit. That is intolerable and unsatisfactory. We shall do our best to root it out.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Benefits Agency office in my constituency deals with the largest number of disability benefit claimants in the country. The Secretary of State's reference to tightening up the procedures implies that it will become more difficult for people to claim disability benefit. Many of my constituents will be shocked by that remark. One of my constituents heard only a fortnight ago, two years after making her application for

1025
disability benefit, that it had been approved. Thousands upon thousands of people throughout the country have been waiting for months and months—in this case for two years—to hear whether their application has been approved. Can the Secretary of State assure us that these measures will not lead to a reduction in the number of people who receive disability benefit?
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will reassure his constituents, that there is no question of harassing the vast majority of people who are entitled to this benefit and who will continue to receive it. We are proud of the fact that we helped twice as many people with this benefit as the Labour party and that we spend two and a half times as much upon it. However, we want to ensure that it goes where Parliament intended it to go. We have legal powers to check the medical basis upon which it is given. Anyone who fulfils those criteria has absolutely nothing to worry about, but it is right and proper that where referrals are made and there is a question about entitlement, we should investigate more of them than we do at present. I shall look into the two-year delay to which the hon. Member referred. He may have been referring to the disability living allowance, which is newer and with which there have been problems, but we have drafted in 800 extra people to get on top of them.
Mr. Lyles Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his caring and balanced statement means that there will be no curtailment in the duration of unemployment benefits and no reduction in its real value? If so, will he use the opportunity to condemn the scaremongers on the Opposition Benches who have been having a heyday spreading rumours and, consequently, dismay? They must have had a disappointing afternoon, because they have a vested interest in bad news.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I can confirm that there will be no reduction in the duration of entitlement to unemployment benefit. Rumours to that effect, fostered by Opposition Members, have proved ill-founded, as so many have in the past. Opposition Members' obvious delight in getting hold of any rumours or suggestions was matched only by the misery and disappointment on their faces when they realised that they were untrue.
Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is a condition of entitlement to benefit that an unemployed person must not only be available for work but actively seeking it? Will he therefore elucidate on the changes for which he said he is legislating today?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, I am happy to do so. Under existing rules, someone who is not actively seeking work is not entitled to the full rate of income support. It has been possible to secure the hardship rate, which is 40 per cent. lower, without actively seeking work. That entitlement has been removed from most categories where it clearly should not apply. A number of cases have been allowed to continue, where appropriate, partly on the advice of the advisory committee.
Mr. Charles Hendry: I welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend made about trying to
1026
make savings in his departmental budget by encouraging more people to have their benefit paid directly into their bank account. Will he confirm that that is possible only because of his Department's multi-billion pound investment in new technology, which shows that the Government are committed not only to maintaining the level of benefit but to improving the way in which it is delivered?
Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely correct. On the issue of encouraging people to have their benefit paid directly into their bank accounts, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I should point out that only those who have bank accounts and can be persuaded to use the facility will do so. There can be no question of claimants in rural areas who use the Post Office or whose bank is a long distance away switching from the Post Office. There is therefore no threat to rural sub-post offices.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, and especially on inflation-proofing benefits, contrary to the scare stories, which did not help people who are on benefit. I particularly welcome the announcement about the savings that have been achieved by targeting fraud—£1 billion is not an inconsiderable sum of money—which have been reinvested to the benefit of people in need. May we have an assurance that the campaign against fraud will continue and that any future savings will be reinvested in the social security programme?
Mr. Lilley: Had I not been able to offer the Treasury the assurance that we would make efforts to stop and get back the £1 billion that otherwise would be lost through fraud, we would have £1 billion less to pay in benefit. It would not have been possible, therefore, fully to uprate benefits. That is why some Labour Members who deride the attack on fraud and identify it with an attack on poverty are 180 deg wrong. The hon. Member for Brightside, who cast doubt on my reference to his quotes, has conveniently left, but in his paper to the national executive of the Labour party, he said fear of Labour arises when
"it tolerates the intolerable—anti-social behaviour, freeloaders and the like from whatever level of society."
He is right; the rest of the party should listen to him.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has stated that he wants to introduce administrative ideas to control invalidity benefit. Does he see control as being more important than the award of invalidity benefit, and when he talks about difficulties in taxation with this aspect of social security benefit, is he advocating taxation or opposing it?
Mr. Lilley: There is no conflict between controlling a benefit and awarding it. We want to award benefit to those who are entitled to it and ensure that it is not indiscriminately available to those who are not. It would be wrong and contrary to the intentions of Parliament to award benefit to those who are not entitled to it, so we propose to check more cases that are referred to us for checking, to make better use of information and to have better relations and transfer of information with GPs, who often are not experts in social security law but who, in effect, have to comment on it. As a result, we shall better handle a very important benefit for many people and the money will go to the right people.
Mrs. Ewing: And taxation?
Mr. Lilley: I have made my position clear to the hon. Member for Garscadden: taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We have a long-standing commitment to bring untaxed benefits, including this, into taxation, but that has not yet proved possible because of the difficulties surrounding it.
Mr. Frank Field: Has not the Secretary of State scored a first in persuading his Cabinet colleagues of the extent of social security abuse, which is so widely believed at Tory party conferences? I congratulate him on so exciting his colleagues that he managed successfully to steer through his total social security budget. Does he accept that, although he has been successful, Secretaries of State responsible for the public sector have allowed the lowest paid workers to suffer real cuts in living standards? Some of those workers earn about the same as or less than they could claim in benefit. Is there not something unsatisfactory about the public expenditure review when the living standards of the poor are dependent on the political skills of the masters around the Cabinet table?
Mr. Lilley: I am very grateful for the hon. Member's friendly remarks—perhaps "friendly" is the wrong word because he supports us only when we are right and a real friend would support us when we were wrong. We are right today and we have done the right thing. I am glad that he recognises that. He carries a lot of weight as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security and we always listen carefully to what he has to say. Inevitably, everyone who is dependent on public spending must keenly await the outcome of a public spending round. We always try to protect the poorest and most needy. I have made clear and explicit statements that that is our objective, including in my speech to the Conservative party conference. Others chose to listen to rumours rather than to my clear and open words.
Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his conspicuous success in securing a full uprating of social security benefits. I congratulate him particularly on securing what is in effect an increase in the real value of income support. Is not that evidence of our ability to target help effectively on the poorest members of society? Our low inflation ensures that the real value of benefits is maintained properly during the year and that old and unemployed people do not suffer a 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. reduction in the real value of their benefits, as they did under the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. It is true that we have increased the real value of benefits to the most needy. That is the best way of targeting. The Labour party is now committed to considering the means testing of all universal benefits. That is another way of targeting. We shall see how popular means testing proves to be.
My hon. Friend is right that inflation is the real thing that hits the poor. It destroys their savings. In the course of the year inflation can undermine purchasing power. If inflation is 20 per cent., on average purchasing power throughout the year is 10 per cent. less than it was at the start. That was the position under the Labour Government when we had an inflation rate of 20 per cent. That would be the position again if we were to give way to the Labour party's profligate and foolish policies.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I welcome the uprating and the other improvements that have been announced, especially as they relate to war pensions. Can the Minister reassure the House that, as a result of tightening up the invalidity benefit and other procedures, no one who is entitled to a benefit will be disadvantaged in any way? Will he take into account the many proposals that have been made to make the social fund more effective and fair, which it is not at present?
Mr. Lilley: I can give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal assurance on invalidity benefits. Our intention is not to reduce the entitlements; it is simply to ensure that the benefit goes to those who are entitled.
I will consider carefully the several reports that have been made on the social fund. I am not persuaded by any of the reports that we should move away from the underlying principles on which the fund is based. The underlying principles are that the fund must have a discretionary element to deal with the aspects of benefits which are not covered by the present complex system of rules, that it must include a loan element and that it must be cash-limited.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the full uprating of all social security benefits. Does he agree that it is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to spread fresh rumours about the erosion of the value of pensions in the future when the only Government ever to massage the real value of pensions downwards was a Labour Government? [Interruption.]
Mr. Lilley: From the squealing on the Opposition Front Bench, it is clear that my hon. Friend's bullet hit its target.
Mr. Paul Flynn: While no one would defend claims by anyone who is not entitled to a benefit, does the Secretary of State note that in the valleys of south Wales there are a larger number of claims than usual for invalidity benefit? That is not because people cheat or doctors lie but because the area has a high incidence of silicosis, pneumoconiosis and bronchitis among people working in quarrying and mining.
If the Secretary of State wants to tighten up on scroungers, as he told the Conservative party conference in Brighton, should not he look to the royal travellers—the minor members of the royal family—who take substantial sums of public money to which they are not entitled? Should we re-examine the possibility of taxing the Queen?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman spoilt a good point with a bad one at the end. He is right about the ill health and disability that is often experienced by miners. We have every intention of keeping invalidity benefit fully open to them.
The hon. Gentleman may have referred to remarks on the television. The views were those of the programme, not of any Minister. We did not participate in that programme, which made suggestions about miners in south Wales. I have not seen the programme but I know that there are problems in mining communities. We want the benefit to be available to miners.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the congratulations which are rightly

1029
due to him, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, for piloting his budget through the Cabinet, should perhaps be shared with his predecessors, notably the Leader of the House, for the difficult decisions that they took in targeting the benefits programme? Does he agree that we should also congratulate the electorate on resisting the siren voices in the Labour party, which wanted to make extravagant promises that it could not possibly have afforded if it had come to government?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his efforts to eliminate social security fraud will be welcome among Conservative Members, particularly those who represent parts of the country which were invaded this summer by new age travellers? I fear that, if the weather had been better this summer, we would have suffered rather more substantial and lengthy invasions by those travellers. As part of the programme of investigating fraud, will he examine the rents charged in constituencies such as mine for accommodation which is designed primarily for people on social security benefits? Certain local authorities feel that rents should be examined.
Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is impossible to overstate the amount that we owe to my predecessor both when he was Secretary of State for Social Security and now in his strategic location. I have only one thing against him: he weeded out many nonsenses which would otherwise have been available for me to weed out and for which I could claim credit.
My hon. Friend is right about new age travellers and others. We have nothing against the travelling mode of life as long as people obey the law, contribute to society and do not become leeches on it. Of course, I shall look into the matter of rents with local authorities.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Secretary of State referred to a major research project into invalidity benefits and said that he was examining the results of it. Will he publish those results? Does the research include examining the fate of the many people who are deemed capable of light work, which is unspecified and usually unobtainable?
Mr. Lilley: Some results of the research are already coming through and more results will come through in the next few months and in 1993. I will certainly consider publishing them. It is my predisposition to publish, and that is the normal practice.
Obviously, the existing rules on light work will not be changed by what we have announced today.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend remember a motion that was passed at this year's Labour party conference which called for increases in—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I give a little guidance to the hon. Member? We are asking questions on a statement that has been made by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member must ask a question about the statement.
Mr. Elletson: In the light of the announcement today of increases in income support and support for pensioners and other categories of people, does my right hon. Friend remember a motion that was passed at this year's Labour party conference which called for increases in pensions?
1030
Can he confirm that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) admitted that such increases could cost the taxpayer up to 25 per cent.—
Madam Speaker: Order. I try to help hon. Members who have not been here very long, but I am afraid that I cannot accept that question. We must now move on.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that the breaking of the link between the state old-age pension and earnings in 1980 and the substitution of a link with the retail prices index has cost pensioners about £15 per week, if not more? Do the Government intend to recompense pensioners for the money that has been stolen from them in the past 13 years and restore fully the link that existed under the last Labour Government?
Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that the living standards of pensioners have increased five times as rapidly under this Government as they did under the last Labour Government. I believe that most pensioners are glad that we have pursued our policies, not those of the Labour party. The Labour party often makes reckless pledges and commitments and then breaks them. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North referred to a pledge that was passed at the Labour party conference. The deputy leader of the Labour party says that the Labour conference makes Labour policy. At the Labour conference the hon. Member for Garscadden said that such a pledge would cost about £25 billion, and added that he saw it as a commitment by the conference, and supported it as an aspiration. It is an aspiration which it would be impossible for any Labour Government to fulfil—certainly not while doing all that was announced in my statement as well.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will he warmly welcomed in the country? In the depths of a world economic recession it is a fine achievement. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that there is no monopoly of compassion among Opposition Members, and that in supporting his statement Conservative Members are every bit as committed to giving the elderly and sick and the disadvantaged the best help that we can. The difference between us and them is that we know that there is no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow out of which all demands on the public purse can be met.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government could not even muster the resources to pay pensioners their £10 Christmas bonus?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Any pretence that the Labour party ever made to be the friend of the needy was blown apart by the miserable looks on Labour Members' faces when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, and I repeated, that all benefits would be uprated in full. I hope that those miserable faces will be seen on the nation's television screens. Never have I seen gloomier faces on the Opposition Benches.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I would suggest that our faces wore expressions of doubt, disbelief and mistrust rather than of gloom. When we talk about scaremongering, the Secretary of State must know that his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a study whose findings appalled the

1031
nation, with its ideas on how much it was reasonable to expect a person to live on per week, and the kind of diet that would result. Will he now tell us that he rejects those findings, and would expect people to have a better standard of living?
The Secretary of State mentioned that people's money should not be paid by giros or by order book. I hope that he realises that many people cannot have bank accounts —banks will not accept large one-off payments because the bank managers do not expect such people to be able to sustain bank accounts, so they are turned away. Will the Secretary of State tackle that problem?
Mr. Lilley: We believe that income support is sufficient, and in effect, as I explained, this year we have increased the real purchasing power of those who receive it by removing the requirement to pay 20 per cent. of the council tax. Thus we leave people free to spend that money as they choose, on different necessities of life.
I propose to encourage people to receive benefits by automated credit transfer into their bank accounts, but clearly people without bank accounts will not be able to do so. I should he happy to discuss the matter with the banks if, as the hon. Lady suggests, there is evidence that they refuse my customers bank accounts. I would tell them that they should not refuse, because social security payments are reliable, social security is good money, and if people wish to receive their benefits in that way that is better than benefits being paid by more expensive means.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend spell out for us—in simple language that even the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) can understand—the Government's continued commitment to basic state pensions and child benefits, which has been demonstrated by his statement?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only party which threatens universal benefits with means testing is the Labour party, which proposes a commission on social justice? Such a commission would produce not social justice but the opposite—[Interruption.]—and would threaten the basic pension and child benefit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has made his point in an admirably clear, concise fashion, which I think brought a measure of understanding to the hon. Member for Islington, North, who obviously wished to show his support. What my hon. Friend said is absolutely correct.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that we oppose fraud, whether in city boardrooms, in Lloyd's of London, in insurance companies or of welfare benefits? However, does he accept that his explanation of welfare fraud omitted the fact that in order to obtain the figures his Department multiplies by 32 all fraudulently claimed money recovered, which somewhat exaggerates the total?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the House would not be happy to entrust a tax on fraud to such a scaremongering Minister as himself? At the Tory party conference the right hon. Gentleman said that there were girls who got pregnant in order to cheat on housing queues, and councillors who cheated by obtaining benefits and attendance allowances at the same time. Neither his Department nor the Department of the Environment has
1032
any statistics for either of those categories. The Secretary of State has no figures whatever to prove his false, malicious, scaremongering smear. He should withdraw it now and apologise to the House.
Mr. Lilley: I unreservedly agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said: we too oppose fraud in all aspects of life, whether in the benefits system, in commerce or in taxation—indeed, I believe that the whole House opposes it. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, to be accused of scaremongering by him is an accolade indeed.
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. I understand that behind that statement lies a recent success, on which my right hon. Friend may like to comment. He won a recent court case on national insurance contributions and saved £500 million, which has enabled him to uprate pensions. Will he also tell us whether that was the first time that we have won such a case?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We won a case in the European Court of Justice, which preserved revenues of £500 million a year which we would not otherwise have had, or which we would have had to obtain elsewhere, so we would have found it that much more difficult to meet the uprating bill. My hon. Friend is correct to say that that was the first such case that the Government have ever won in the European Court of Justice in our 20 years of membership. However, my Department has won two more cases since then, so clearly we are on a winning streak.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: If we are to have a public sector pay freeze, which will include the wages of poor families with children, at a time when social security benefits are being uprated, what will the effect of the one be on the other? If there is to be more poverty in real terms, what are the implications for social security entitlement, and therefore for public expenditure projections? There must be a connection.
Similarly, what implications will abolishing the wages councils have for projections of social security expenditure?
Mr. Lilley: The interrelationship between my statement and the tight control of public sector pay is clear. It is because we have exercised tight control of public sector pay, and because of the other rigorous measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted, that the Chancellor has been able to secure the position of the less well-off, the most needy, and to increase resources for those in greatest need—and also to generate more resources, which will increase the number of jobs in the future.
We believe that in the long run the abolition of wages councils will increase the number of jobs, and so diminish the burden of expenditure on my Department. It is possible that some of those jobs may be low-paid, so that those who do them will be helped by family credit. That is what family credit is there for.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: What adjustments does the Secretary of State intend to make to housing benefit to ensure that those on benefit who pay rent do not receive money from the Government with one hand and have to pay it straight back with the other in increased rent?
Mr. Lilley: To the extent that rents increase, people on low incomes are protected through the operation of housing benefit—that is what it is there for.
Mr. Keith Bradley: May I press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)? The announcement that public sector pay will be kept down at 1·5 per cent. means that many low-paid workers will receive a very small increase in their wages. Has the Department estimated the number of people who will then be eligible to claim other means-tested benefits, particularly family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit because those people will fall into that category and become eligible for means-tested benefit?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). If those in work take only moderate increases, we can help those who are out of work and help generate the jobs to bring them back into work. The net effect of the changes that we have announced will be beneficial in terms of my budget and in terms of the well-being of the population as a whole.

Business of the House
6.10 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Slightly later than usual, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "Housing—Homelessness and the Mortgage Crisis" followed by a debate on Bosnia. Both debates arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY I7 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to car tax (abolition).
WEDNESDAY I8 NOVEMBER AND THURSDAY I9 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
It may also he helpful for the House to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 18 November at 10.30 am.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Not again.
Mr. Newton: Evidently with the reluctant participation of at least one hon. Member. They will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:
[Wednesday 18 November
Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10229/91 Common Fisheries Policy

(b) 5337/92 Fisheries: Discards

(c) 9135/92 Common Fisheries Policy: Mid-Term Review Proposals

(d) 9019/92 Common Fisheries Policy: Control System

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 24-ix (1991–92) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(b) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(c) HC 79-vii (1992–93)

(d) HC 79-vii (1992–93)

Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
6818/92 Aid for former East German Ship Yards.
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-iv (1992–93)]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. There may be a certain amount of cynicism in some parts of the House about the fact that the Liberal Democrats' saving the Government's bacon is followed so closely by the award of an Opposition day.

1035
I press the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the supply of plant and machinery to Iraq. Before the Leader of the House reminds us that there is to be an inquiry, may I say that the matter is not sub judice. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent the House from having a debate. We have a duty to scrutinise the role and behaviour of Ministers in relation to the House and statements made here.
As the timetable for completion of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill seems to be under continual review, when does the Leader of the House now expect to resume the Committee stage? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for next week's debate on the autumn statement, but will he bear in mind that, after the Select Committee report, the House will want an opportunity to take a more detailed look at the public expenditure programme?
Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the strong view on the Opposition Benches that it is quite unacceptable that the autumn statement and the social security uprating statement should be made on the same day in future, particularly on a Thursday, as that is bound to reduce the opportunity normally available to the House for questioning on those different subjects? Finally, may I utter the two words, "Members' interests"?
Mr. Newton: Taking the last point first, I assure the hon. Lady, as I have assured the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on whose behalf she no doubt raises the point in his absence, that I have that matter very much in mind. However, I cannot add to what I have said over the past week or two.
Returning to the main thrust of the hon. Lady's questions, although I note without surprise what she described at the outset of her remarks as cynicism, it will be well within the knowledge of those on the Liberal Democrats Bench that they have been pressing for a Supply day opportunity for some time—as, indeed, the hon. Lady probably has. My statement gives an Opposition day to the Liberal Democrats and to the official Opposition. It does nothing more than reflect my normal wish to be as helpful as I can in responding to the pressures on me.
With regard to the debate on the Matrix Churchill business for which the hon. Lady was pressing, I cannot promise that. The proper course is for the independent inquiry to do its work. However, I have already said that there is an Opposition day and no doubt the hon. Lady may wish to bear that in mind when considering what she wants to do.
I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise date at the moment for embarking on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. However, I assure her that she will not have to wait too much longer. In respect of the hon. Lady's desire for a further debate on the autumn statement, I have said that next week's debate is expected to take place on a motion to approve the autumn statement. That would take over from the debate that more normally takes place in January. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to press, through the usual channels, for further opportunities to debate economic or public expenditure matters, between now and the Budget, consideration can clearly be given to that in the normal way.
I was a little surprised by the hon. Lady's remarks about the autumn statement and the social security
1036
statement coming on the same day. In many ways, there has been an artificiality in previous years in having the social security statement picked out some weeks in advance of the overall outcome of public expenditure. Although I do not say that that sets an immutable precedent, it makes a certain amount of logical sense. It is now more than two and three quarter hours since the first of the statements was embarked upon and there has been a full opportunity to question my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week on the way in which the House will examine the issue of the ordination of women? My right hon. Friend will be aware that that matter will have to come before the House after the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses has considered it. Is he aware that there is deep feeling on both sides of the House about the issue and that we will expect a full day's debate at least when it comes before the House?
Mr. Newton: I take careful note of that point. I am well aware that, following yesterday's decision, the House will expect a substantial opportunity to debate the matter should it come before us. I shall bear what my hon. Friend said in mind.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Grateful though we are for the debate space on Monday, I wish to press the Leader of the House on the Committee timetable and remaining stages timetable on the Maastrich Bill. Will he dispel the various confusions in Government circles about the timetable from now on? Are we going to start the Committee stage, as we are told, the week after next? When will Third Reading be taken?
Mr. Newton: As I told the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I cannot give a specific date, but I certainly anticipate embarking on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill very shortly after we have disposed of the business that I announced today, which takes us up to Monday week. However, I shall not attempt to give a specific date this afternoon. As for subsequent stages of the Bill, the position has been made entirely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have nothing to add to that.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Would my right hon. Friend care to tell me when I shall be able to express my dismay at a rather feeble decision by the Rugby Union authorities to kow-tow to the African National Congress and decide not to play the national anthem at Twickenham on Saturday? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the fans at Twickenham to initiate the singing of the national anthem on Saturday to continue the long-held tradition which has been enjoyed there for such a long time?
Mr. Newton: Many will share my hon. Friend's concern. I understand that, following the press report earlier in the week, further discussions are taking place today and a decision is expected later. So far as I am aware, it has not been made yet. It is not, of course, a matter for the Government, being a matter for private bodies, but I hope that a solution will be found that will enable the tradition to be maintained.
Dr. Godman: May I say in passing that I am very interested to hear that European Standing Committee B is meeting next week.
My question concerns the need for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Social Security about a decision by the chief adjudication officer to appeal against a commissioner's decision to restore invalidity benefit to a lady in Liverpool. The Government's refusal to restore payment of that benefit by way of the commissioner's decision, which is based upon an EC directive dating from as far back as 1979, has important implications for many thousands of women, some of whom are quite frail in health.
I appeal to the Leader of the House, who has knowledge of these matters, to arrange for a statement concerning the timing of the appeal to the English Court of Appeal. If that appeal is lost, I should like to know whether the Government would then appeal to the House of Lords. I have today written to Mrs. Papandreou urging her to take action at the European Court of Justice against the Government by way of article 169.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I had a certain knowledge of social security matters, which I suppose inescapably is the case after three years as Secretary of State, but it does not extend—
Mrs. Beckett: That does not necessarily follow.
Mr. Newton: That is a really cynical remark.
Dr. Godman: What does the Leader of the House mean?
Mr. Newton: I was referring to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear her sedentary and cynical intervention.
As for the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that whatever knowledge I have did not extend to the details of the case that he raised. However, I know enough about such matters to know that I would be unwise to comment off the cuff. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Robert Banks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is some time since we have had a debate in Government time on tourism? Will he give recognition to the fact that tourism is Britain's largest industry, both in terms of revenue gains for the country and because of the number of people employed in it? Will he therefore urgently see if he can find time for a debate on tourism?
Mr. Newton: That is the second time in a couple of weeks that the point has been raised. Although I cannot give any promises, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. Meanwhile, noting the town that he represents in Parliament, I hope that it did reasonably well out of the CBI conference.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House the desperate plight of between 20,000 and 25,000 unfortunate old-age pensioners who, as a result of deregulation of the money markets in the mid-1980s, were encouraged by investment companies under the umbrella of the FIM BRA logo—that of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Association—to take up home investment schemes and who have seriously impoverished themselves. Some families are almost on the point of suicide. Will the Leader
1038
of the House arrange for a Treasury Minister to make a statement to the House next week, with a view to introducing strict regulations to protect those unfortunate people?
Mr. Newton: I do not have to undertake to bring Treasury Ministers to the House next week, because they will be here in profusion on Wednesday and Thursday. It will be for you, Madam Speaker, to judge whether reference to such a matter would be in order in that debate. As I said last week, it would seem that, with reasonable ingenuity, it might be possible to get the point in.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend give time for a debate on nepotism in local government and recent accusations which have been made, in particular against Monklands district council in Scotland?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise an immediate or early debate on that matter, but my hon. Friend has made his point by raising it in the House.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 647, which calls for the introduction of a boarder premium for homeless families.
[That this House is deeply concerned at the growing number of homeless families living in temporary accommodation, without access to independent cooking facilities, who are suffering from severe dietary and health problems; notes that these families have no resources to meet the additional costs of buying take-away food and having to east out in cafes, and that in the majority of cases children are not getting an adequate diet; congratulates the House of Lords for supporting Lord Henderson's motion to implement a boarder premium on 6th July; and urgently calls upon Her Majesty's Government to amend the 1987 income support regulations accordingly, thereby providing an extra £10 per week to each member of a homeless family living in these intolerable circumstances.]
That motion has now been signed by 176 hon. Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Social Security, agree that it was a serious disappointment that there was no mention in the statement by the present Secretary of State of the need for the introduction of that premium to cope with the acute problems of deprivation and malnutrition among such families? Will he urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter and to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Newton: Again, given that social security was very much part of the autumn statement, albeit the subject of a separate statement, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to raise that matter in the two-day debate next week. However, I do not wish to raise his hopes for a sudden change in policy. I draw his attention to the fact that quite significant increases in social security benefits for families of all kinds were announced by my right hon. Friend only a few moments ago.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the warm response of the people of Northern Ireland to his positive statements yesterday concerning the democratic deficit that they have suffered, particularly in local government? Will he encourage the Secretary of State

1039
to make provision for the restoration of accountable democracy in local government in Northern Ireland, if not next week, at least before the forthcoming local government elections?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also be grateful, for the hon. Gentleman's comments and, indeed, for the comments of many from the political scene in Northern Ireland during the exchanges yesterday. I shall draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I, too, am concerned about yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked a question about economic and social affairs in the Province. The right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that those matters were taken seriously in the talks and were a serious concern of the Government. Yet when I look at the material supplied with the autumn statement, I find that from 1988–89 to the estimates for 1995–96 there is a decline year by year in the percentage that is to be spent by the Northern Ireland Office. That does not seem to tie in with the notion that there is concern for economic and social regeneration. We should therefore have a debate on the matter.
Mr. Newton: Following the autumn statement, we are having a two-day debate next Wednesday and Thursday. It is clear, as I think I can say even without consulting you, Madam Speaker, that the point made by the hon. Gentleman would be in order in that debate.
Mr. John Gunnell: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are 180 refugees stranded on the Austro-Slovenian border? They have been there since 9 am yesterday. My understanding is that they are going to different destinations in the United Kingdom and that the coach that is coming to Leeds carries people who have connections in Yorkshire. I further understand that those people are stranded because of the changes in arrangements for entry which were made recently in the House. When the original arrangements were made, their papers were in order, but they are now no longer so.
Is that entirely the responsibility of the Home Office or, given where those people are, is it the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary? Will the Leader of the House ensure that action is taken rapidly to get those people moving? Will he also ensure that a statement is made to the House next week?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention both of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, although I understand that the organisation that has been involved in the matter was informed on several occasions before the people started their journey that visas would be required for the passengers.
Mr. John Hutton: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 778 concerning the future of Britain's shipbuilding industry.
[That this House notes with deep concern the continuing loss of jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry, with recent redundancies at Swan Hunters and VSEL; recognises that in shipbuilding communities there is a collection of unique and
1040
precious engineering skills vital to the success of British manufacturing industry; and therefore calls upon the Government to take immediate action to promote the industry and thus secure the jobs of many thousands of people by pursuing policies which will allow warship yards to bid competitively for merchant orders through the intervention fund scheme, by bringing forward the order of new vessels such as LPH, and by actively supporting diversification initiatives.]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in recent years there have been thousands of redundancies in our shipbuilding communities and more than 6,500 in my constituency. Government policies are ruining jobs in shipbuilding industries and we need an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the future of that once-mighty industry.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I had a considerable connection with shipbuilding matters, so I am obviously aware of the problems. I am also aware of the important amount that has been done, with considerable success, in many shipbuilding areas, not least in Sunderland, where the Nissan factory is virtually m sight of the former shipyards and has brought new and diversified employment.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given my questions during past weeks, it will come as no surprise to the Leader of the House that I welcome the meeting of European Standing Committe A next Wednesday. Does he realise the exact extent of the legislation that he has remitted to that Committee? The documents that I have here are only 50 per cent. of the material that affects common fisheries policy. I could question Ministers for two and a half hours on those documents alone.
Is it possible for the Committee meeting to be extended to ensure that we can question Ministers in detail? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the presence of a Scottish Office Minister at the meeting because of the closure of the haddock fisheries, which are important to the Scottish fishing industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that that meeting is not a substitute for a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I take the hon. Lady's latter point. She has strenuously pressed that matter during the past few weeks. She will be well aware that normally there is a debate on fisheries towards the end of the year. Although I cannot give a time for that debate, I note her implicit request.
On the Standing Committee, I shall consider the matters that the hon. Lady raised. I cannot say more than that today. Given that there is to be a Fisheries Council discussion on 23 November, it is important to have a discussion in the Standing Committee beforehand, and that was the best way to do it.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Have Ministers studied early-day motion 775, entitled "Rights of Social Security Claimants", tabled by myself and my hon. Friends, which requests the Government to withdraw the measure restricting the rights of claimants to have errors corrected?
[That this House believes that if an error is made in determining a person's benefit the claimant should have a statutory right to have such an official error corrected; therefore regrets that the Government has laid the statutory

1041
instrument entitled, The Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2595) as it will diminish the rights of existing and future claimants to such retrospective entitlement; believes that this attempt to remove Regulation 49 of the 1987 Claims and Payments Regulations is a further attempt to erode the rights of the poorest in the community and reduce social security expenditure by undermining the rights of benefit claimants; and urges the Government to withdraw S.I., No. 2595.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the strength of opinion in the House on that matter and arrange for an early debate?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comment to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security rather than promise a debate. I understand that the repeal of regulation 49 will not deny rights to people who have not received their entitlement to income support or family income supplement because of official error.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House think that it is about time that we had another debate on the mining industry, because the first debate was allocated on an Opposition Supply day? The Government ought to allocate a day's debate to that subject because 10 pits are being allowed to go to rack and ruin and 7,000 miners are being turned away when they go to work. It is costing the Chancellor of the Exchequer or British Coal £1·4 billion to send miners home instead of letting them go down the pit. Those 10 pits are being gradually closed, even though the Government gave a commitment that all 31 would remain open. Surely we should have a debate on that issue in Government time.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the review that is being conducted. The appropriate time to consider further debate in Government time would be when we have the results of that review.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Leader of the House will no doubt have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say during his autumn statement that the Secretary of State for Wales would make a statement on expenditure in Wales. I noticed in one of the tables that central Government support for local government will increase by £140 million in England and by £20 million in Scotland, but that it will decrease by £80 million, or 3·3 per cent. in Wales. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how soon the Secretary of State for Wales will come to the House to face questions on a serious issue for Welsh Members?
Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I cannot tell him anything beyond the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is due to answer questions next Monday.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman has held his office for some time now—more than six months—so when does he propose to make a statement on access for disabled people and visitors to this building and to refreshment and toilet facilities and on allowing members of the public to see the building without being accompanied by a Member at all times? I am sure
1042
that he agrees that it is nonsense that the House has legislated for facilities for disabled people in cinemas and public buildings, but that there is no real access to this place, apart from the humiliation of people in wheelchairs being taken down the back stairs route via goods lifts. It is high time that the right hon. Gentleman did what none of his predecessors have done and achieved a real change in this building.
Mr. Skinner: I asked about that last week.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right. He raised those matters with me last week and I undertook to assist and to do whatever I could. In the not-too-distant past, the House agreed revised arrangements for its governance, delegating substantial responsibilities to fully fledged Select Committees, including the Accommodation and Works Committee, chaired by a respected member of the Opposition Front Bench. In the first instance, I must draw to the attention of that Committee the issues being raised in the Chamber.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the need for a Commons debate on the Matrix Churchill affair? Some of the issues are separate from the Scott inquiry. There are matters with which the House needs to deal and we have received answers from Ministers and from the Prime Minister about which there are serious questions. We need to debate a serious issue—either the Prime Minister knew about the arms exports, in which case he is being dishonest, or he did not know about them, in which case he is being incompetent.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt at some length with those matters at Question Time today. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add to what I told the hon. Member for Derby, South in response to her request from the Opposition Front Bench. The appropriate course is to ensure that the independent inquiry conducted by the judge is carried out as quickly and as fully as possible.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but he came into the Chamber when the Lord President of the Council was on his feet answering the first question. It is a matter of courtesy and procedure that if Members are going to question statements, they should be in the House to hear them, irrespective of what they are.
Mr. Mackinlay: I fully accept that ticking off, Madam Speaker, and your advice and guidance.
At the remembrance service on Sunday, it occurred to me that it would be timely for the House to debate the plight of many war veterans and their dependants—widows and orphans. Many of them are increasingly infirm and are in the late evening of life. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong connections with the Royal British Legion, the Royal Naval Association and the Royal Air Forces Association and they would welcome the opportunity to discuss the increasing plight of many elderly and infirm ex-service men and women and their dependants. It is time for the House to put aside a half-day to debate those issues and especially

1043
early-day motion 735, which draws our attention to the inadequate compensation awarded to Japanese prisoners of war after the second world war.
[That this House joins with the nation in remembering on Sunday 8th November all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to remember those Japanese prisoners-of-war alive today, still imprisoned physically and mentally by the callous and inhumane actions of Japanese Imperial Forces during the Second World War; records that this continuing sacrifice was deemed in 1951 and still remains worth only £76·50 in final and complete settlement; reminds Her Majesty's Government that this issue is not closed until survivors receive full and adequate compensation commensurate with the sacrifice, claims which hitherto remain challenged only by the absence of natural justice.]
Many hon. Members would like to press the Government to consider whether that matter should again be raised with the Japanese Government.
Mr. Newton: I am glad to find that I have something else in common with the hon. Gentleman, other than the fact that we both represent parts of the same county, through our connection with the Royal British Legion and the Royal Naval Association. I repaired to the Royal Naval Association branch in Braintree after the remembrance service on Sunday afternoon, where I met many of my friends. No doubt the hon. Gentleman did the same.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made an announcement that will help more than 200,000 war disablement pensioners, who will gain up to £5 a week. Not more than two years ago, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I made an announcement that was hugely beneficial to a large number of war widows.

Points of Order
6.40 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During questions on the autumn statement, the Chancellor was asked by one of my hon. Friends whether invalidity benefit would be taxed in future. In answer, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement to be made later by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. When the Secretary of State was asked that same question, however, by one of my hon. Friends, he said that that was a matter for the Chancellor.
I wonder whether you would check the record, Madam Speaker, to see whether the Chancellor said, as I believe, that it was a matter for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. If so, would you call the Chancellor back to the House tomorrow to answer that question?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I have no authority to require Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box. Perhaps this matter can be made clear in the debate next week.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the extremely important and delicate matter of the memory of those who were rightfully or wrongly killed, the Government Whip and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), seemed to find it all very amusing and kept on trying to interrupt my hon. Friend as he asked that serious question. May I ask them, through you, Madam Speaker, to disport themselves in a better manner when my hon. Friend speaks?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I think that I made my position clear to start with when I said that I expect hon. Members, however serious their contribution, to be in the Chamber at the beginning of a statement.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INCOME TAX
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guyana) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.

Adoption Law Review
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
6.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): The debate this evening provides the House with an opportunity to consider the recent report to Ministers by the interdepartmental working group, set up in 1989 to carry out a review of adoption law. The report was published in full on 19 October and was made available to hon. Members in the usual way. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House some of the more important and innovative proposals contained in the report.
The House should be aware that there is no commitment by the Government at this stage to proceed with any of the recommendations contained in the report. We wish to encourage further debate on the proposals. That is why we are anxious for the report to reach as wide an audience as possible—not only from within the public and voluntary sectors but from individuals affected by adoption or who have had experience of the adoption process. But today's debate, is not just an opportunity for consideration of the report's proposals. I hope, within the limits of order, that it will also give the House an opportunity to discuss all aspects of adoption which may be affected by the proposals.
It is 20 years since the Houghton committee produced the last report on adoption law and practice. The recommendations of that committee were the main principles underlying the Adoption Act 1976 and included the restriction of power to arrange adoptions to local authorities and approved adoption societies; placing local authorities under a duty to provide a comprehensive adoption service, and giving adult adopted people the right to obtain a copy of their original entry in the register of births.
The intervening years have seen many developments in the social structure of our society, particularly in relation to the family and the care and protection of children. Since 1976, adoption practice has developed in response to the new obligations placed upon agencies and courts in recognition of those social trends. Changes in professional and public concepts of the needs of children, birth families and adoptive families have brought about developments in social work theory and practice. There has been growing recognition of the desirability of involving birth parents in the adoption process; and of the need felt by some adopted people to learn about their origins and make contact with members of birth families.
There has continued to be a steady fall in the number of babies needing adoptive families, and therefore an increasing emphasis on placing older children, children in care and children with special needs. In 1974, the total number of children placed for adoption in England and Wales was 22,502, of which more than 5,000 were under the age of one year. In 1990, the total fell to under a third of that figure—6,533—of which only 969 were under one year of age. Many voluntary adoption societies are developing specialised family-finding services, especially for children with special needs. Inter-agency working arrangements and partnerships between agencies have been developed. There has also been a growth in the number and range of other voluntary organisations and
1046
self-help groups to meet the needs of people involved in adoption, especially in connection with post-adoption services.
Since 1979, several legislative measures have been introduced to improve child care and the reform of family law. The Children Act 1989—"the charter for children" —is the most recent and notable example. The review of adoption law is a logical consequence of the Children Act and is also part of the Lord Chancellor's review of family law.
In July 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with the Lord Chancellor, Home Secretary and other Ministers established the interdepartmental working group comprising officials from the health Department's, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and a law commissioner. The group was supported by a joint team from the Department of Health and the Law Commission. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the work of that group.
The group's work followed on the Royal Assent to the Children Act in November 1989, and the review has been conducted in a similar way to the review which led to that legislation. Four consultation papers were issued—"The Nature and Effect of Adoption" in September 1990; "Agreement and Freeing" in September 1991; "The Adoption Process" in November 1991; and "Intercountry Adoption" in January 1992. In addition, three background papers on international perspectives, research relating to adoption and inter-country adoption were also issued as part of the consultation material. More than 200 organisations and individuals responded to those papers. Members of the group also met representatives of organisations involved in the various aspects of adoption. The results of those wide-ranging discussions are contained in the review.
The review looks at all aspects of adoption law and practice including, most importantly, an examination of the nature and effect of adoption; agreement to adoption; a review of court procedures; alternatives to adoption orders available under the Children Act 1989; improving the adoption service; and inter-country adoption.
Adoption continues to provide an important service for children. In the provision of this service, the needs of the child come first and the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration. This principle has been rigorously maintained by the working group throughout its work on the review—and quite rightly. The purpose of adoption is to provide children with families, not families with children. There is no room for dogma when dealing with an issue as complex and important as this. What is needed is common sense, compassion and a sound legal framework.
The report contains a total of 45 main recommendations, some confirming present practice, some amending and extending it, and I draw the attention of hon. Members to a few of them. The first is the need for local authorities to have a duty to establish and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child, his or her parents and any other person whom the agency considers relevant.
Secondly, children of 12 years and over should have automatic party status in court hearings. Children under 12 years may be given party status by the court if appropriate, and a guardian ad litem should be appointed in every case.

1047
Thirdly, freeing for adoption should be abolished so that the court can consider the advantage to the child of a particular adoption. A placement order would be granted by the court before placement commenced and parental agreement to a particular placement would normally be obtained. The grounds for dispensing with parental agreement will be limited where the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement; or to a single test that will require that the court be satisfied that the advantage to the child of a new family significantly outweighs any other options that may be available, so justifying the overriding of the parents' wishes.
Fourthly, the report recognises that, in the case of step-parent adoptions, it should not be necessary for the birth parent involved to become an adoptive parent, and that there should be provision for such an order to be undone if the marriage ends.
There are also recommendations to extend the remit of the adoption contact register, allowing birth parents and other relatives to indicate a preference not be contacted. There should also be the facility to allow bona fide tracing agencies to locate interested parties seeking a link.
Openness in adoption is another feature of the report, although not, of course, a new concept. It can take many forms and should be seen generally as a move away from the closed and secretive process which has characterised adoption until recently. Openness may take the form of exchanges of information between adoptive families and birth families or contact between adopted children and members of their birth family—brothers and sisters or grandparents—not necessarily involving birth parents. Whether openness is appropriate in any individual case or what form it should take will, of course, depend on the needs of the child.
One point that I wish to stress to allay any unfounded fears is that it is certainly not envisaged that contact should be imposed on adoptive families. The arrangements must be handled in every case with sensitivity and skill. They require agreement by all parties well before an adoption order is made. Nobody involved in adoption, whether as part of the birth family or of the adoptive family, should feel threatened by the risk of unwelcome or unauthorised contact.
The report makes a number of important recommendations about inter-country adoption.
The origins of inter-country adoption date back to the post-war years, but its nature has changed. Originally, it was mainly a humanitarian initiative in response to catastrophe, designed to meet the needs of children displaced and suffering through war. More recently, inter-country adoption has developed more as a service for childless couples, although, of course, humanitarian instincts are still prevalent.
Its growing popularity stems in part from the decline in domestic adoption in many western countries in the past two decades as the number of babies available for adoption has decreased. In the United Kingdom this has been due in large measure to the greater availability of birth control, changed attitudes towards single mothers, and the more sympathetic social conditions which enable unmarried mothers to take responsibility themselves for the care of their children.
Communications have also played a part. Not many years ago the plight of children in countries overseas would have been largely unknown. Today, heart-rending pictures of deprived children are beamed straight into our
1048
living rooms from all around the world. As the world shrinks, we identify more with the difficulties of people in other countries and, with fewer babies available for adoption at home, prospective adopters naturally look further afield for children. This trend is likely to continue.
There are different and often strongly held views of inter-country adoption. For many childless people and for those who wish to add to their family, inter-country adoption seems to achieve two objectives: fulfilling their wish for a child, and meeting the need of deprived children elsewhere for a home. For others, inter-country adoption appears to be a form of humanitarian aid, rescuing children from abandonment and poverty.
There are people, however, who have serious reservations about inter-country adoption on grounds of principle, or practice, or both. There are practical concerns over the supervision of adoption arrangements in some countries and about children's ability to adapt to life in a very different culture. Underlying these reservations is a basic question: is it right that many arrangements for inter-country adoption should operate primarily as services to provide couples with children rather than to provide children with families—which, as I said earlier, is the purpose of adoption?
In some countries, despite great efforts to introduce safeguards and regulation, an unofficial traffic continues alongside the official services. Even where legislation in sending countries specifically requires that foreigners should not be allowed to adopt except where they have been found suitable by the authorities in their own country, the requirements are not always observed.
We should not underestimate the risks that official arrangements can mean for children. For a child to be taken to a foreign country only then to be rejected is very undesirable indeed. Similarly, it is unacceptable for parents who have been turned down by the authorities in their home country to try to beat the system by adopting from overseas. These risks are not a reason for preventing inter-country adoption altogether, but they underline the need for great care in its regulation and management at both the national and the international level.
When the report was published last month, there was some interest in the recommendation that bringing children into the United Kingdom without proper authority should be made a criminal offence. I can assure the House that this action would not be considered until any new legislation was in place and running smoothly.
National initiatives must fit into a wider international effort if we are to guarantee the well-being of children involved in inter-country adoption. Two important international instruments contain provisions about inter-country adoption. These are the 1986 United Nations declaration on social and legal principles relating to the protection and welfare of children, with special reference to foster placement and adoption nationally and internationally, and the 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
The declaration and the convention together spell out a number of key principles in relation to inter-country adoption. They are proving increasingly influential in shaping the development of Government policies and legislative reform in sending and receiving countries.
Perhaps the most encouraging development in inter-country adoption in recent years is the proposed international convention on inter-country adoption. It is being developed by a special commission set up in 1990 by

1049
the Hague conference on private international law and will meet again in May next year to discuss the draft convention. It aims to establish safeguards so that inter-country adoptions take place only when they are in the best interests of the child. It also aims to establish a system of co-operation among contracting states to ensure that these safeguards are respected.
In the United Kingdom we strongly endorse these aims. It is only through international co-operation, on the level of both policy and planning and on the case-by-case level, that inter-country adoption can truly meet the needs of individual children. I am glad to say that in the United Kingdom we already have in place the infrastructure of central authorities and authorised agencies which the proposed convention envisages for the proper regulation and strong central supervision of inter-country adoption.
Additionally, in recognition of the increasing interest in overseas adoption, the Department of Health awarded a grant to the Bridge child care consultancy earlier this year allowing it to host the overseas adoption helpline project. The helpline is intended to be an independent source of advice and information for families seeking to adopt from abroad as well as for professionals in the field. The helpline began operations on 11 May and its progress will be reviewed in the new year. The recommendations in the report reflect those international initiatives, and I commend them.
I will mention some aspects of adoption practice which are not covered directly by individual recommendations in the review but which are fundamental to any consideration of the whole subject. I recognise that one of the main reasons why some would-be adoptive parents attempt inter-country adoption outside the existing legal framework is their anger and frustration at what they see as the obstructive attitude of some local authorities.
I do not condone such attempts by prospective parents to short-circuit the system, but local authorities must understand that public confidence in the fairness of their policies is destroyed if adherence to fashionable or politically correct notions appears to influence their decisions more than consideration of the interests of the individual child.
Three aspects of adoption practice give rise to particular controversies. They are age, race and the position of single people. On the subject of age, the report does not include recommendations on an upper age limit for prospective adopters. Nor does present adoption law specify such a limit. In looking at an individual child with individual needs, the aim must always be the best possible environment for that child. In particular cases, that could mean older parents. Rigid and inflexible age limits have no place in modern adoption practice and should not be imposed by any local authorities.
Agencies generally follow the practice of placing babies with couples who are not much older than the age at which most people start a family. Because there are more people wishing to adopt healthy babies than there are babies needing families, there is an abundant choice of prospective parents, but we must not discount the real value which more mature parents can bring to parenting in terms of security, experience and general understanding.
I come to what has become known as the "same race placement" policy. The Government have no such policy,
1050
nor is one suggested in the review, because the starting point in arranging for family placement of a child from a minority ethnic group is that all issues concerning the child's needs and welfare must be considered.
Issues of race and culture are important but form only part of a wide range of considerations in determining the most suitable placement for a child. A guiding principle is that, all other things being equal, in many cases a placement with a family of similar ethnic origin is likely to meet a child's needs. There will be exceptions to that general approach, and guiding principles are valuable only insofar as they are applied with proper consideration for the circumstances of the individual child. The Department's guidance specifically points out that there may be circumstances in which placement with a family of different ethnic origin is the right and best choice for a particular child.
The third area of practice on which I wish to comment is adoption by single people. It is beyond question, in my view, that the interests of the vast majority of children will best be served by having a mother and a father. I therefore expect that in every case of a child seeking adoptive parents the authorities should make the most strenuous possible efforts to place that child with a married couple. However, there may be occasions where no suitable couple is available to adopt a child. When that occurs, I would not wish to use either the law or guidance to prohibit adoption by a single person. Indeed, adoption by a single person may for some children be their only route out of an institutional environment into a family home.
In choosing adoptive parents, adoption agencies must always remember that their duty is to serve and safeguard the best interests of the individual child. "Equal rights" and "gay rights" policies have no place whatsoever in adoption work. No one has a right to adopt a child. It is the duty of adoption agencies and the courts to provide the best adoptive parents for each child.
The Government have not yet decided whether to follow the review's line that the law should be silent on those issues. It may be that the principles of good practice should be enshrined either in primary or secondary legislation, and I shall be interested in the views of hon. Members on that point.
The review comprises a comprehensive and far-reaching view of the way forward for adoption in a fast-changing society. I hope that it will stimulate extensive debate, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.
7.4 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: It is a privilege to make my maiden speech at the Dispatch Box on an issue of such fundamental importance as adoption. As the Minister will be aware, I had the honour to be closely involved with the Children Act 1989.
The review of adoption law is very much the unfinished business of the 1989 Act. It is a pleasure to see in her place my predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench who was responsible for matters concerning children, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who served, as I did, in Standing Committee when that important measure was being discussed.
The Opposition welcome the publication of the report, and my hon. Friends and I look forward positively to contributing to the wide-ranging debate that is bound to take place on some of the often difficult and at times

1051
contentious issues to which the Minister referred. While we have reservations and concerns about a number of points —I shall refer to some of them—we believe that the overall direction of the report is to be generally welcomed.
I have always regretted that on most occasions social work practice comes under scrutiny in the House because of apparent failures. Indeed, the most recent deliberations in the Chamber concerning social work arose following the publication of reports on matters relating to the Orkneys and Fife. The usual tirade of abuse of social workers followed, and even The Observer carried an article suggesting that it might be no bad thing if social workers were "disbanded as a profession."
As some hon. Members may be aware, I must declare a degree of subjectivity on such matters because, in common with the Secretary of State—although we have precious little else in common—I spent many years in social work before entering Parliament.
There are few areas where the skills and successes of social work practice are more evident than in this country's adoption provisions. Sadly, but rightly, successful adoptions—they are the vast majority—do not make newspaper headlines or feature in our constituency postbags, but they are a quiet and conclusive demonstration of the fact that social workers have considerably more successes than their much publicised failures.
Having undertaken guardian ad litem work and the challenging task of vetting applicants for adoption, I can express a personal appreciation of the efforts of the inderdepartmental working group. Having many years later served as a local councillor on an adoption panel, I pay tribute to the fact that the group has clearly tried to get to grips with the way in which what might be termed the adoption environment has markedly changed in recent times.
Our adoption law must be reviewed to take account of a whole range of developments, some arising directly from the Children Act 1989. The fact that the welfare principle underpinning the Act is proposed for application to adoption legislation is to be welcomed. It is also entirely consistent to place positive emphasis on the child's needs in proceedings rather than concentrating on underlining parental failings, as has often been the case in the past.
The application of the welfare principle beyond just childhood into adult life reinforces the importance and possible implications of decisions that are taken during a child's or young person's early years. The 1989 Act introduced a whole range of important new options available to the child, the family and other interested parties, the social services and the courts. It is right that consideration should be given to the possible relevance of those when a court is considering an application for a placement or adoption order. The availability of the widest possible range of alternatives enables the court to have the opportunity to consider the most appropriate response to the needs of a child or young person.
I stress "young person" because, as the review makes clear, we are now more than ever concerned with the consideration of possible adoption arrangements for an older child or young person. It is in a situation such as that that those concerned with making the best possible arrangements for the child often face the most difficult decisions in determining whether links with the natural family should be totally severed.
I was recently involved with a constituency case in which a child's grandmother, probably the most stable
1052
influence in the birth family, faced total loss of contact with the child, having given love and care for the first eight years of the child's life. Such situations are not infrequent and are particularly traumatic for all concerned, the child in particular. The wider range of possible options arising as a result of the 1989 Act, picked up by the interdepartmental working group, offers some hope for the better resolution of similar situations, and we welcome that fact. The proposals for a new order to be available to step-parents is, similarly, an important recognition of the realities of our times.
On the review's proposals for agreement to an adoption order, although it rightly presumes that the child's wishes and feelings should be taken into account at all times, the proposal that a child of 12 years of age or more should be able to prevent the granting of an adoption order by withholding his or her agreement raises important questions.
The Opposition have no objection to what is proposed but are concerned about whether a specific age can realistically be prescribed in that way. It might be suggested that, with some children, 12 is too young an age for such a decision or indeed for party status. I personally feel that 10 may have been more appropriate, giving some consistency with the age at which criminal law suggests a minor has achieved some maturity. But I concede that different children have different levels of maturity and we need to question whether it is necessary to put forward a specific age when it will inevitably be somewhat arbitrary.
We do, however, welcome the proposals for clarifying provisions for parental agreements and simplifying grounds for dispensing with parental consent. Frankly, our past practices in that respect, both in adoption and the assumption of parental rights, have left a good deal to be desired and the simplifications suggested are a positive step. Just as the Children Act 1989 reinforced not just the rights of the child but also those of the natural family, it is right that in any changes to adoption law the voice of the birth family is strengthened, especially in contested cases.
I am aware of the fact that it has been suggested that if the report's recommendations on consultation with birth parents and pre-placement hearings are introduced, the number of contested cases is likely to fall significantly. Bearing in mind the fact that, especially with the abolition of freeing, agencies would have to find placements that are, in most instances, consistent with the wishes of the child and birth family, the reduction in contested cases should be a logical outcome.
We wish to support in particular the proposal that any new legal provisions should underline a child's right to know that he or she is adopted. Since the 1975 Act, significant numbers of those who have in the past been adopted have taken advantage of their right to learn about their origins once they reach the age of 18. But it must be said that many of them have struggled to get what is theirs by right and perhaps the review group could have given more thought to how we may in future reduce some of the difficulties they so often face.
Some time ago, I was contacted by a 51-year-old man, whom I have known personally and well for some 25 years. He came to me as his Member of Parliament over the difficulties that he was having in tracing his natural family. Although he was always reticent about discussing his past, I had no idea that he had been abandoned by his mother as a baby and subsequently adopted by a family who subjected him to both physical and sexual abuse.

1053
My role became one that should not have been necessary—of lobbying various local authorities and Government Departments to get them to take seriously that man's desire and right to know of his background. Clearly, many of those bodies felt that they had more important priorities than assisting him with his inquiries. He tells his own story in a letter which he sent me recently setting out how he first tried to trace his natural mother 25 years ago but was refused assistance by various charities, which felt that it was ridiculous for someone of his age to be worrying about the facts of his birth or natural mother.
He goes on to say:
"I got on with my life until more recently. A number of television programmes 3 or 4 years ago showed that it was possible for adoptees and mothers to find each other. I started again.
I advertised extensively for my mother in newspapers and ITV Oracle, etc, without response. A very kind lady helped me considerably by researching through natural birth registers of which there were microfilm copies at her local library in Lancashire. I discovered North Yorkshire Social Services had lost my adoption file. Harrogate Magistrates Court where I was adopted had also, but found it accidentally when they moved. I got access to their file after permission was granted by the OPECS and saw the childcare report and mother's notes already referred to.
With your help and also pressure from Wakefield adoption office, it was finally possible to discover from the DHSS that my mother was dead but nothing more. I visited London, got her death certificate from St. Catherine's House and a copy of her probate to trace a relative.
It was only when I visited Harrogate Magistrates Court that I made the first discovery that I had a brother. On the way home, I nearly broke down, and even now, I try not to think too hard about him. He died a few years before mother, aged 46 and unmarried. I never knew about him, that I had a peer, an older brother with whom I could have shared some life and happiness, and it is now too late".
If that man had received the proper help to which he was entitled, it might not have been too late. He concludes his letter by saying:
"We get virtually no official help, just as we did not when taken as children into whatever situation. Official records are largely denied to us, particularly the DHSS. It is a struggle of some magnitude in trying to get birth information and follow up contact with natural parents and relatives.
And it does seem strange to me that adoption and illegitimacy does still bear some stigma. Discussion with friends is extremely difficult, no matter how well they like me. And they cannot understand the desire for knowledge of my natural family. And I am now expected to remain silent as the `facts' are known at last".
Having traced my family history back to the 1700s, I fully understand the desire to find one's roots and I am sure other hon. Members also appreciate that point. Our task is to ensure that the various official agencies also appreciate that point and have some understanding of the need to give proper priority to dealing sensitively and carefully with the kind of inquiries that my constituent has understandably had cause to make.
It is perhaps appropriate at this stage to refer to the review group's proposals on inter-country adoptions. I know that their deliberations were at least partly prompted by the situation in Romania. Through my wife's involvement in a charity providing children's homes in Romania, I visited that country just over a year ago. I saw some very moving scenes that will remain with me all my life. I met a number of people who spoke to me in detail of the concern, at that stage within Romania, about the removal of children from institutional care, supposedly for
1054
foreign adoption, where the children were known in certain instances to have ended up in western European countries and America involved in organised prostitution.
I am certain that the vast majority of individuals from this country who have attempted to adopt Romanian children have done so for the best of reasons. I have met people with an understandable humanitarian concern, to which the Minister referred, to offer such children the opportunity of better material circumstances, love and care.
I have talked to people who feel that the Secretary of State's initial response to that issue was insensitive and wrong. Despite her treatment of me during Department of Health questions earlier this week, I must make it clear that I think that her response to the initial attempts to adopt Romanian children was broadly correct. Similarly, the working party proposals on inter-country adoption are also broadly in the right direction.
When I went to Romania I learned some important lessons on that issue. Perhaps the main one was that, far from many of those children being orphaned and unwanted, vast numbers of them had families who wanted them but were prevented from caring for them by a basic lack of resources to feed, clothe and house them. Although I do not doubt that adoption arrangements can be made within or outside that country to the benefit of some of those children, I sincerely believe that, if we are to offer humanitarian assistance, the most effective means is not by moving the children to other countries and other cultures but by enabling their own families to have the wherewithal to raise them properly in their own homes, in their own communities, in their own country and culture.
Certain lessons might also be applied in Britain. Having had the experience of receiving into care a total number of children that must have reached three figures, and having seen a significant proportion of that group subsequently adopted, similar issues of poverty and bad housing are not infrequently linked here with the eventual use of adoption procedures.
It is a simple fact that the majority of children entering care in Britain come from the very poorest sections of the community and are more likely to have had parents who were unemployed and to have endured homelessness or bad housing. Some of those children are ultimately adopted. I know from personal experience that the birth parents in such circumstances often become resigned to the fact that their children would be better fed, clothed and housed if adopted.
Just as it is wrong for Romanian children to lose their families in such circumstances, it is also wrong that we witness the same process, albeit to a much lesser extent, in Britain today. It is highly appropriate that discussion of such issues should follow on directly from the Chancellor's autumn statement, which is another significant reminder of the processes whereby the Conservative Government have consistently, year by year, plunged more and more children and families into homelessness, poverty and desperation.
There was a political consensus on the Children Act 1989, and there may be a political consensus on many of the provisions contained in the adoption review. However, there is no consensus on many of the related issues. For example, there is no consensus on the gross inequality in treatment of people who suffer from infertility. It is wrong that, in some districts of Britain, people are denied treatments that are available to others elsewhere. Many of

1055
the people who are denied treatment regard the adoption process as their only option. There is no consensus on the reasons for family breakdown and receptions into care. The Opposition answer is not simply one of adjusting child care legislation. We know that there is much more to do —we must tackle poverty and low pay, mass unemployment, homelessness and bad housing. The review deals with the consequences, not the causes.
We concede, in a way that the Government never do, that the implementation of such proposals will place significant new demands on local authorities and adoption agencies. We recognise that such changes and improvements require proper resources. We also appreciate that the development of new skills requires the provision of appropriate training. Let us be in no doubt that any move towards many of the proposed changes contained in the report will add significantly to the workload of all the agencies involved.
We are grateful for the opportunity to debate the overall direction of the report. It is also helpful to learn something of the Government's thinking on the matter and, particularly, to gain some clarification of the Minister's personal position. On 29 October, Social Work Today magazine stated:
"the Minister's obvious lack of interest in adoption law reform—apart of course from his conviction that you need to be heterosexual and married (a view not apparently shared by the Review's authors)—is all the more unfortunate because of the care and courage that has gone into the Review".
The Opposition welcome the report's publication. We feel that there should be the widest possible consultation and debate on its proposals, with an extension of the limited consultation period beyond the end of the December. We commend those involved in the review group for their efforts and hope that the Government will, in due course, grasp the nettle and bring forward legislative proposals for the important reforms that are so clearly needed.
7.24 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate held on a busy day, after a welcome autumn statement which contained many provisions for social security and carers.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, many of the children adopted today are children with special needs. It is most important that there should be ample provision to help parents whose adopted handicapped children may make considerable demands on them. I was pleased to note that the autumn statement contained additional provision for those in receipt of invalid care allowance so that there will be a larger earnings disregard. That means that the parents will be able to take on other jobs as well as their caring duties in the home.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. He is well known in the House for his interest in personal social services. I was glad to hear him welcome this important Government report. I have only just had an opportunity to read most of the report and would still like to study it in more detail. It is a comprehensive report on the subject, and a welcome study of many aspects of inter-country adoption.
My own interest in adoption arose in 1983 when my wife and I initially fostered, and then adopted, a handicapped child. I know that the arrangements need
1056
streamlining. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the need to streamline them, but much more needs to be done. Local authorities are not the most efficient organisations and it can take some time for would-be adoptive couples to receive the necessary home studies and approvals.
My wife and I had to attend a considerable number of interviews and answer questions. When it was realised that my job as a Conservative Member of Parliament was in a marginal seat, I was termed as someone with an insecure occupation—a factor that can create potential difficulties. When it was discovered that our children got into bed with us on a Sunday morning, that almost finished our hopes. I know that social workers do not have an easy job, but I press on my hon. Friend the need to streamline the arrangements—a matter that forms the basis of my speech.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the need for children to be adopted, generally, by a normal family. I also agree with him that in some cases a single parent can make an outstanding adoptive parent. If my hon. Friend has the opportunity to visit my constituency, I hope that he can meet an excellent lady called Annie Gibson. She is a widow, but that did not prevent her from adopting an extremely handicapped child, Trevor, from the Elizabeth Ashmore home for handicapped children in Bolton. She lost her husband, a haemophiliac, when he became infected with AIDS through a blood transfusion and died. Annie wanted to have a caring role in life and decided to adopt Trevor. As a single parent, she had to go through all the hoops and await a number of committee meetings before she was accepted.
The local authority committee structure is not one of the best ways to make decisions. When my wife and I were finally approved as adoptive parents, our phone did not stop ringing. We were being asked to adopt almost every handicapped child in the district—for up to about 100 miles away—who was looking for a home. Committees tend to wait for someone to make a decision, and when that finally happens, want to climb on the bandwagon.
Annie Gibson is an outstanding example of how a single parent can provide the most loving care for a child who is seriously multiply and physically handicapped. If we study that case we reach certain conclusions. If a single parent can be an ideal adoptive parent—as Annie is—who she or he is living with is secondary. We need not pursue further the rare examples of gay or lesbian couples, but should consider each case in the light of its circumstances to see whether the requirements of the individual child are fully met by the proposed adoption arrangements. We should not be too dogmatic about the circumstances of the entire household into which the child is to be placed. The child's circumstances must come first—that is also true when a single parent is involved.
One of my first contacts with inter-country adoption was in Hong Kong. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has visited Hong Kong recently or is to go there, but if he does I strongly recommend that he visits the Home of Loving Faithfulness. It is a remarkable institution that exists to care for severely handicapped Chinese children and find homes for them. The Chinese culture does not tend to favour the adoption of children, let alone handicapped children. The Home of Loving Faithfulness in Hong Kong has found parents all over the world for severely handicapped Chinese children. It is a classic example of how inter-country adoption can be used to find a loving home for children with no prospect of finding a home in their immediate environment.

1057
The United Nations declaration is absolutely right to state that we should first try to keep children with their own families and, if that is not possible, to find adoptive homes in their own countries. If that cannot be done, one should look further abroad. I am concerned that the tone of part of the report is too parochial, mainly because it is written by officials who have a duty to look after British children. Those who wrote the document had no duty to look after Romanian children or those from anywhere else in the world and were bound to consider their own requirements. That is one of the problems encountered with local authorities. Although my hon. Friend thinks that local authorities should be able to carry out the job, they can be extremely parochial and consider that the only children who should be adopted are those on their own register, and parents who want to adopt other children have something wrong with them.
I ask my hon. Friend to adopt a broader perspective. Perhaps politicians have a better understanding of the motives of people who want to adopt, and perhaps the public can help officials to understand their wider duty. I am sure that my hon. Friend will do that well; I know that his predecessor did it extremely well.
This issue is all about love, a word that does not appear in the document, which is full of rules and regulations. For instance, paragraph 47.1 states:
"People who wish to offer a child a home and who are assessed as suitable to adopt a child from overseas should be enabled to do so."
That offers no encouragement to anyone to do so. The document continues:
"We consider that the way forward lies in the development of a system which allows intercountry adoption to take place".
The spirit of the report seems to be one of tolerance, not one of recognition of a worldwide problem which could be solved by finding homes for children who would not otherwise have a satisfactory future.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Wakefield visited Romania last year. I was there earlier this year and I visited a home for irrecuperable children. I also visited an institution to which those children were sent when they reached the age of 16. The orphanage that I visited was called Ionaseni. I also went to see an adult psychiatric institution to which children are sent. It is called Podriga, and it is a frightful place. One would not keep animals in the conditions imposed on those people. It was supposed to be a hospital, but there was no doctor. My daughter Sophie, who worked in Romania, saw patients dead in their beds at Podriga, where there was no running water, where the toilets were all blocked and absolute chaos reigned. It is terrible to think of children being abandoned to that sort of future.
We are talking about relatively small numbers of children being adopted. If children from other countries can be adopted by people in this country, subject to proper safeguards, that will offer an example to Romanian people and to people in other countries of what they too could be doing. We should see inter-country adoption as just part of the solution—a way of offering an example to others of what should be done, and how it should be done. It should certainly not be regarded as an overall solution—that would never be right. Equally, it would be a great mistake to close down this option.
1058
I do not know what is going on in Romania. I am not aware of any children having been adopted since the Romanian adoption committee was set up. The last letter that I received from the Department of Health suggested that five cases were under consideration. Perhaps some of them have come through now, but it is tragic that the committee has effectively stopped all further adoptions from Romania.
I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the letter that I wrote to the Home Secretary asking him to reconsider the case of the Luffs. This tragic case concerns two Romanian children, Marcel and Florina, who have been waiting to be adopted for two years. I cannot imagine how we can claim that this country's arrangements serve the interests of those children. The whole episode is a terrible blunder. The doctor at the Department of Health who signed the certificate was under the impression that someone else would adopt the children if he signed a certificate saying that it would not be suitable if the Luffs adopted them. If my hon. Friend can rescue these two children from being strangled by British red tape, he will have done mankind a great service. I hope that it is not too late for him to reconsider that difficult case.
An overseas adoption helpline has been set up to advise people interested in inter-country adoption. I had asked for such a facility for some time, and I am pleased at the progress that has been made, but I am not sure what is happening at the helpline now. I do not think that it has had any public launch—I have seen nothing about it, nor have I had an opportunity to visit it. I do not know whether any other hon. Member has had a chance to see the helpline in action, but it certainly seems to be hiding its light under a bushel.
We need a specialist inter-country adoption agency. Not all local authorities have the skills or time to be able to attend to the needs of those who are adopting from abroad. We need more than a helpline; we need a full-blown inter-country adoption agency. I do not know whether it could be developed from one of our voluntary agencies, but I ask my hon. Friend to help bring it about. We do not have such an agency so far. Perhaps voluntary agencies are too tied up with the local authorities with which they have to work closely to be able to do the job.
One aspect of the report that I do not fully understand concerns whether there will be appeals. A complaints procedure is mentioned in part of the report. If local authorities are to have a virtual monopoly, and if they then create problems, there must be good arrangements for appeals by would-be adopters if they find that they are not receiving the help from their local authorities that they should.
Couples have contacted me to say that they might have to move home so as to live in the area of an authority that will give them more help. The campaign for inter-country adoption, of which I am a founding member, wrote to the Minister's predecessor in March, following the consultation paper. The letter, sent on 12 March, gives examples of the sorts of difficulties that occur with some local authorities. Authorities such as Mid Glamorgan, Islington, Hampshire and Ealing did not approve of inter-country adoption and were generally obstructive to people living in their areas who wanted to adopt. This is just not good enough. If the Government's policy is to leave the matter to local authorities, they must be obliged to deal with it properly.

1059
A more positive solution would be to allow would-be adopters to use an alternative channel. If they are blocked by their local authority then they should be able to go through such a channel, and that in turn would stimulate the local authority to give them better service in the first place and, instead of being obstructive, to advise them to use the alternative channel—
Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of the local authorities to which he has referred are not dogmatically opposed to inter-country adoption but are so overstretched, in terms of resources and staff, that they find it impossible to meet their statutory duties to the children even of this country? I suspect that many of the responses of local authorities stem from the fact that they feel that it is beyond them to undertake the work expected of them—to evaluate applications for inter-country adoption.
Mr. Thurnham: To some extent, that is true. Local authorities are all under pressure. They have to implement the Children Act 1989. They have a shortage of skills in the first place, and all their time, money and skills are involved in their own responsibilities. They have no responsibility for children in Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand or Sri Lanka, so they are bound to have difficulties giving priority to would-be adoptive couples. Yet such couples are entitled to such priority, given that the public at large believe that such adoption is commendable and humanitarian.
So there is a conflict, and that is why we need an alternative channel to enable would-be adoptive couples who do not get the service to which they are entitled to go about the problem in a different way. Unless such people get help from their Member of Parliament, they can be left in queues and then be faced with these ridiculous restrictions—they are too old if they are over 35, or they may smoke, or have a dog, and hence not be allowed to adopt. Without the alternative channel that I propose, people will not be able to adopt children whose futures will otherwise be at best precarious and in the long term utterly bleak.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell us a little more about how the helpline is supposed to work. Will it have a public launch? Will it advertise its services? It is not clear how active it is at present. I know that some money has been provided, and that is welcome, but it is important that the overseas adoption helpline work closely with others who are active in the field and build a constructive relationship with them.
The campaign group feels that the report does not give nearly enough help and encouragement to would-be adopters. I agree: would-be adopters should be regarded not as a nuisance, but as people who can help to bring about more adoptions generally. One of the tragedies of an excessively parochial attitude is the way in which it chokes off the idea of adoption as a whole. Some 5,000 severely handicapped children are currently in institutional care in the United Kingdom and I believe that they would be looked after much better if they enjoyed the loving care of a family.
People need to be encouraged to provide that loving care. Perhaps they can be encouraged by the example of an acquaintance who has been to Romania and adopted a handicapped child from that country: that may provide the stimulus for them to adopt a British handicapped child. Similarly, people living abroad may have
1060
connections with this country, and, on a visit, may find out about handicapped British children who would benefit from adoption. Perhaps they will take those children back to Canada, Australia or wherever they live. Inter-country adoption can be a two-way thing; it should not be seen simply as a service for childless couples in Britain.
I recommend a book called "The Story of Michael", by Deborah Fowler. It describes how a couple—not a childless couple—adopted a child from Romania. Inter-country adoption should be seen first and foremost as an act of love between the child and his adopted family. I believe that the public would support my hon. Friend the Minister if he ensured that that was made possible, arid that, where local authorities could not provide the necessary service, others could.
I was disturbed to hear talk of criminal sanctions. Obviously, a couple who arrive at an airport with a child will present the authorities with a dilemma; but surely, rather than talking of criminal sanctions, we should recommend an improvement in the current arrangements. We need at least one specialist inter-country adoption agency, and I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage the establishment of such an agency.
I thank my hon. Friend for providing an opportunity for us to debate the report, and I hope that we shall have further opportunities to discuss the whole subject further.
7.42 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on the balanced way in which he presented his arguments. I also congratulate the Minister on his presentation of the report, and the working committee on its work: it has touched on almost every aspect of adoption and fostering that is currently being discussed.
When the Minister said that he thought it far better for children to be adopted by married couples, I thought that I was going to fall out with him; however, he enabled me not to have a guilty conscience by adding that, in certain circumstances, single people could make successful parents. Despite all that has happened over the past 20 years, I feel that I was a reasonably successful single parent —certainly no less successful than many married parents.. regardless of whether their children are adopted.
I warmly support what the Minister has said throughout our discussion of the issue. On one occasion I wrote to him, pointing out that we were talking about trying to give children suitable families rather than the other way around. I believe that much of the discussion of, in particular, inter-country adoption has assumed the reverse.
When—many years ago—I first became interested in adoption, the subject was shrouded in secrecy. In many families an adopted child became a secret that was not discussed very much, because those who could not produce their own children were stigmatised to a certain extent. People went to enormous lengths to hide the fact that they had adopted a child, and—as we have heard—it was a long time before adopted children's right to know their background and origins was made public.
I remember being involved in discussions which, even then, I thought rather strange, about the matching of babies to their adoptive parents. A fair-haired child would be sought for a fair-haired parent, so that no one would know that the child was adopted. I also remember arguing

1061
about class background. Nowadays we all talk about the classless society, but things were different then. In those days, it was always the father who was the college professor and the mother who was the parlourmaid. The person with whom I was arguing suggested that a fairly intelligent family should be sought for a child with such a father—which, of course, assumes that the child would take on the characteristics of its father. Personally, I am sceptical about the whole question of heredity. I asked, "What about social mobility? After all, the builder of today can be the college professor of tomorrow; things are changing." That was not thought very relevant.
Given the history of adoption in this country, it is small wonder that many adopted children grew up unaware of their background, which later came as a terrible shock to them. Perhaps even worse, others grew up with a private shame about their origins, feeling that they had been put up for adoption only because they had not been wanted or were unworthy in some way. We have moved a long way since then; we are now embarked on a fresh review of adoption law, which—as the Minister and others have pointed out—is very timely.
The last 20 years have seen substantial—indeed, dramatic—social change, in this country and throughout the world. That change has shown itself in a variety of ways. There has been a rise in the number of one-parent families; increasing economic and social pressures, leading to family breakdowns; an increasing emphasis on the placement of older children, children with special needs and children who have been in long-term care; and growing involvement with children from other countries. The report also takes on board the question of divorce, remarriage and step-children, and I welcome that too. I consider it important for the House, in changing adoption and fostering law, to keep up to date with the rapid changes that have taken place, even in my time in the House.
The report has a go at almost every aspect of the subject that we have discussed; and those aspects will continue to be discussed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, I wish that there were a longer consultation period, because getting together people and organisations takes time.
We would all agree that any review of adoption law must be firmly anchored in a commitment to making children's rights a reality, not just an empty slogan. If their rights and interests are paramount, we must provide legislative structures to observe that. Children's rights have been enshrined in a United Nations convention-the right to a decent standard of living, the right to a family, the right to an identity, the right to education, the right to protection from violence and exploitation, and other rights. Today, we are really asking how well current adoption practice matches that modest checklist, and how we can make the system more responsive, more accessible and in children's best interests.
As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) well knows, I have never been a strong supporter of inter-country adoption. I have always felt that it should be a last resort, except in the case of children whose families are already here. When I represented Slough, I dealt with families who were trying to adopt children from their countries of origin and finding it
1062
extremely difficult to do so. By and large, however, I believe that it is wrong to encourage a country to export its children.
As others have said, we should be helping countries to tackle the problems of poverty and ignorance about contraception which force parents to part with their children. Had I ever become an Aid Minister, I should have wanted many more aid projects to be directed to the welfare of children, and the rescue of children who are abandoned and have little hope of a future of any kind—not just in Romania but in Ethiopia, in Mozambique, throughout the African continent and throughout Latin America.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said that he felt that the Minister had grudgingly accepted inter-country adoption. I agree with the Minister about that. It is a complex process that is open to tremendous abuse. I have been appalled by how easily many people have acquired children from other parts of the world. It is not, in my view, a question of culture. I do not believe that children who are two or three months old, or even a little older, have a particular culture. One acquires the culture of wherever it is that one lives. The committee's report states that this is a child protection argument. I am glad that the Government have said that adoption procedures that involve children from other countries must be as rigorous as those that are applied here.
To those children from abroad who have come to this country, I say that I wish them well. Many of them will triumph and blossom in an atmosphere that it would be impossible to find in their country of origin. If the international community ensured that resources, aid and help were given to the families of those children, this would not happen. The fact is that 98 per cent. of Romanian "orphans" have parents. Disgraceful pressures were put on many people to hand over their children. They were given no alternative.
Many hon. Members know of the work of the Migrant Children's Trust. From the 1930s until the 1960s, children were shipped out from this country to Canada and Australia. Many of them have now asked the Migrant Children's Trust to trace their families. In many cases it has been found that those children had parents or relatives and that they were not eligible for adoption. However, they were sent abroad because it was felt that that would be better for them. A book entitled "Children of the Empire" deals with that issue.
When the question of inter-country adoption was raised I was reminded of that book. I think in particular of a woman who put her child in care in the 1940s or 1950s because she had to go into hospital for an operation. She was very poor. There was no family support. When she left hospital she found that her child had been shipped out of this country. She knew nothing of its whereabouts until many years later. The reunion of some of these people, who are now in late middle age, makes me think that at that time we did not do enough to find out what alternatives were available.
That applies equally to children from other countries that families here seek to adopt. We cannot allow children to be adopted on the basis that those people, having been rejected as possible adopters of children in this country, are good enough for children from abroad because they are second-hand children, or words to that effect. A report was published this week on what is taking place in the Philippines, where there is sexual exploitation of children

1063
and the buying and selling of children. Unless there are strict laws regarding international adoption, we shall be left wide open to international trafficking in children. Therefore, I welcome what has been said about the application of rigorous procedures for the adoption of children from abroad.
Reference has been made to the age of adoptive parents. As a result of fertility tests, people can be approaching the age of 40 before they are finally told that they cannot have children, or that it is too late for a woman to have a child because of the fear of complications. In many of those instances, they do not qualify to adopt children because they are over the age limit. That is wrong. Older parents have a great deal to offer children. If a survey were made of the successful upbringing of children—though the older I grow and the more I know about children, the fewer the theories I have about their upbringing—I think that we should find that the age of those bringing up children makes no great difference to the success rate.
When families break up nowadays, the grandparents are often fairly young. It is important, therefore, not to rule out by statute the opportunity for grandparents to adopt their grandchildren when family life breaks down. Every case has to be considered on its merits, but age is just one factor in the application of the adoption rules. There ought not to be a cut-off point, resulting in people over a certain age not even being considered suitable to adopt children. They can successfully bring up older children, in particular. One reads that in future women of 60 will be able to have children, so we have to look at the question in a different way.
As for the racial question, which is dealt with in the report, when children from different ethnic backgrounds are placed with families it is important to consider matching, but matching is only one factor. When children are successfully fostered by people of a different ethnic background, it can do great damage if they are then moved from those families, on that one argument alone. When I have taken up this issue I have been told by local authorities that that was not the only reason for the move; there were all sorts of other reasons.
I agree about matching, for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons. However, a loving home is even more important, so long as we do not lose sight of the question of ethnic identity and so long as contacts are made with people of the same ethnic origin as the child. It is far better for a child to be in such a home than to have to linger in a children's home waiting for the right placement, or to be moved from foster home to foster home.
Short-term placements are sometimes made. We understand why, but they become long-term placements. Two or three years later, application is made to adopt a child but it is turned down on the ground that it is a short-term placement. Children are resilient, but they need stability and to be able to identify with the people with whom they live. What the report says about that is very important.
Reference has been made to single parents. Relatives of a single parent may want to adopt a child after a family tragedy. Apart from those people, there are others who are unmarried who would make ideal parents. We cannot just rule out one category of people and say that in no circumstances can they adopt children.
Open adoption is a controversial question and will continue to be controversial. There is a great deal to be
1064
said for an adopted child keeping in contact with its birth family. Many children have remained in care or have been moved from foster home to foster home because the birth parent found it too difficult to let go. The local authority may believe that eventually it will be possible to reunite the child with the family, but in many cases family circumstances do not improve and reunion is impossible. If a child is not provided with stability, many of the social inadequacies—I emphasise social inadequacies because I do not believe in inherited inadequacies—will be passed on to the child. Insecurity breeds insecurity.
If we can meet the needs of older children in particular for identity and stability and yet allow a relationship with the birth parent to continue, we shall be able to free certain children for adoption and give them an environment in which they can flourish without them feeling that they have deserted their own parents. That is often what older children feel, or they feel that they are being forced to make a choice.
Reference is made in the report to the age of 12. I think that it could be lowered. If a child were told, "Yes, you can be adopted by these people who love you and with whom you live, but you can see your own mother or your own father," I think that the child would consent, but not if told that it must be a clean break and that there could be no contact with the parents. We must consider different types of adoption and guardianship.
I welcome the report. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it deals with most of the aspects of fostering and adoption that are under discussion. Children should be consulted as early as possible on how they see their future. That is impossible with very young children, but it is possible with older children.
Every hon. Member has said that we are talking about giving a child an identity and a future. That identity, future and security must always rest on what is in the child's best interests and not on what a family or person might want because they have been deprived of a child. Nobody has the right to a child. It is important that the Government rightly said where they stand on inter-country adoption. We must not allow the feeling to grow that children from other countries, who may be suffering enormously, are second-class and can therefore have adoptive parents whom our society may have said are not suitable. We cannot allow that to happen. I should like us to allocate more resources to ensuring that children stay in their own country rather than having their future exported.
8 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: I could say that I have a lifetime's experience of the issue because I was born into a family that had experienced adoption and therefore have an adoptive sibling. I followed that by becoming an adoptive parent, and more recently I have been a member of an adoption panel. In a sense, I have some practical experience and, through my experience, an ability to compare what the law permitted in the 1930s with what it required in the 1960s and how it operated in the 1990s.
I welcome the document because, like other hon. Members, I believe that it tackles all the issues. It will strengthen and tighten legislation and therefore will improve practice. I hope that the consultation period will not be too rigid because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I believe that it is

1065
important to get a response from all the agencies involved in the issue. After the consultation period, I hope that it will not be long before the Government legislate.
The basic principle of the document—the centrality of the welfare of the child—is important and correct. The document must attempt to apply the same principle across the board. It is important to follow the same principles for inter-country adoptions as we follow here. It is right to view with scepticism what have often seemed a little like DIY adoptions, because we must ensure that the welfare of the child is paramount and that those who adopt are people who, in any circumstances, would be accepted as adoptive parents.
The document rightly considers the law as it applies to all the parties concerned. It is an improvement to make provision for a social worker to act with the natural parents. I am sure that that will be welcomed in contested adoptions, but it must be said that it will be quite a costly proposal. It is estimated that between 50 and 80 families a year in Leeds would seek that additional social work input, which will be costly to the authority.
It is important to consider the views of relatives, primarily grandparents and siblings, and children. It is difficult to define an age rigidly, but I should prefer the principle that the views of children are taken into account to the extent that they are able to participate because it recognises the different development of children at a given physical age and that we should seek the views of children. It should be part of children's rights, where they can understand, that they should take part in a decision affecting their parentage.
One of my sadder duties as chair of social services in Leeds was to take part in what might be described as the opposite of that process, because until the implementation of the Children Act 1989 the termination of access between parents and children was decided by a panel of elected members. Over a two-year period, I saw many parents because it was my job to talk to them and convey the views of the panel. The only time that children were consulted was when I specifically asked to meet them, and that was not possible often. The evidence of children's views will have to be made very clear.
The document deals with the child's right to know and sets guidelines for the life story that social workers will have prepared. At all stages in their development, children should have as much knowledge of their background as it is possible for them to understand. It is a good recommendation that local authorities should have a duty to contact the child when he or she reaches 16 and ensure that the information has been passed on. That important duty will have to be handled sensitively. Again, sometimes it will be quite a costly operation, and we must consider how far back authorities can go, because the further back they go the higher the cost to local authorities.
I note that paragraph 23 talks of more flexibility in the membership of adoption panels and the difficulties that panels sometimes encounter in making a quorum. I certainly experienced that. As chair of social services with other duties, I often created a bit of a problem. We should be more flexible, but we should seek not additional members but that every panel member has an alternate member. An adoption panel must offer some continuity and, if possible, training. It is important that the
1066
documents that are placed before it are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Therefore, in changing the rigidity of the present arrangements, alternate members must be available to maintain continuity and confidentiality.
I appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) about the need to achieve flexibility in adoption by single parents. In practice, the adoption panel that I was part of mainly placed or matched children with couples who were married. However, it sometimes placed children with single parents after it had examined all the evidence and was sure that it was the best placement for the child. We witnessed some placements to gay or lesbian couples. One would not have a policy of seeking such adoptions. However, in some circumstances, with particular children and in view of the relationships that they have developed with others, it is logical to say that such a placement is best for them. Therefore, although we set down what may be perhaps the normal pattern of adoption, we must always be prepared to be flexible.
The matter of race applies to inter-country adoptions. As other hon. Members have said, we must be careful about breaking a child from its cultural background and inheritance. If we cross such boundaries, we must take into account the age and circumstances of the child. Clearly, in many adoption cases the child was originally a foster placement. Frequently, a foster placement develops into the sort of bonding that leads to it being the logical permanent placement for a child. That may occur across the difference in ethnic backgrounds. In some cases the relationships and the bonding that exist become more important than the cultural difference.
Some anxiety has been expressed about the new court arrangements and court time. The adoption panel of which I was a member was worried about the length of time that it sometimes took between a placement being made and an adoption taking place. We must beware of increasing the number of court appearances which each adoption involves. We do not want to make the process longer than is necessary. Also, the length of the process adds to the costs. Obviously, additional court appearances increase the amount of social work time required, and extend the work and role of the guardian ad litem. The changes must be properly funded so we must examine the costs.
Adoption law is an important matter. I hope that the changes recommended in the report will be introduced in legislation. However, if social services departments are to undertake the additional work involved, we must make an accurate assessment of the costs which will be incurred. We must ensure that the authorities have sufficient funds to do the job.
I welcome the report. It offers the promise of security and happiness for more children. That is something to which we are all committed.
8.12 pm
Ms. Ann Coffey: It gives me much pleasure to be involved in this debate tonight because, before I was elected in April, I worked in the adoption service. I am glad to be part of the initial consultation process rather than in the position that I was in last year. The consultation process was so short that the document came to us for consultation two days before it was due back at the Department of Health. As other hon. Members have

1067
done, I urge the Government to extend the consultation process; otherwise the consultation document may end up on the director's desk without percolating down to those who are involved in practice and nothing meaningful will come back from the consultation material which is sent out.
Adoption has certainly changed over the years. From experience, I should say that most local authorities now place children between the ages of two and eight, sometimes singly and sometimes with brothers and sisters. Sometimes the children have additional special handicaps, and sometimes the children are of a different race from the adoptive parents. The majority of children who are placed for adoption are between two and eight.
Children placed by local authorities are a difficult group because, unfortunately, they may be damaged at an early age and that damage is sometimes irrevocable. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the fact that, sadly, despite our enormous technological and scientific advances, we still do not have in Britain the skills to help small, damaged children overcome initial emotional distress. It would be helpful to put resources into finding a way to help them. Adoptive families who have taken on the care of those children find that they face difficult years ahead, often without help. We do not have the knowledge or skills to help the child and the family. As everyone who has been involved in adoption work knows, love is not enough. Love gives a base, but sometimes something additional and specialised is needed.
The extension of the welfare principle enshrined in the Children Act 1989 is welcome. I also welcome the notion of parental responsibility. It is clear that the use of the phrase "parental rights" has not helped. Parents do not have rights; they simply have responsibility. I have difficulty in understanding why the welfare principle should apply to almost all cases except the determination of an adoption order. If the welfare principle is paramount, it should be paramount in all cases. I cannot see any reason why there should be an exception.
The change in step-parent adoptions is welcome. Obviously, it was nonsense that the process of adoption made an adoptive parent of a natural parent because both had to lodge applications to enable the step-parent to adopt.
I also welcome the notion of a child's agreement. I agree with other hon. Members that an arbitrary age is not helpful, but the recommendation will give the message that, even if the age limit is complied with, we should listen to children. Sadly, children in care have simply not been listened to. They have been subjected to what other people think is good for them. People often take a dogmatic view. To encourage people to talk to children is a progressive step.
The abolition of the freeing for adoption order is welcome. I agree with the Minister that that provision was perhaps used in a way that was not helpful and was not intended. The idea of settling an adoption by means of a placement order is helpful in contested cases, but I have a problem with the notion of a placement order being made before every placement. I ask the Minister to consider how that will work with the role of adoption panels.
The adoption service looks for special parents when it seeks to place children between the ages of two and eight. Having identified those parents, it is often difficult to proceed without a meeting or some introductory period which serves as a time for judging whether that placement
1068
should proceed. I am concerned that having an adoption order made in all circumstances would not help in making a proper assessment or using an introductory period as an assessment time. I suspect that most social workers would never introduce a child to adoptive parents before a placement order had been made, so a chance to assess what the child is like with the adoptive parents, and how the adoptive parents feel about the child, may be lost.
Often this is a matter of chemistry. Things may look excellent on paper, but when people meet and spend time with each other, for some reason the relationship may not work on that level. I ask the Minister to consider more carefully what current practice is, before insisting on a placement order before the placement of every child. In some circumstances that would not be helpful.
I also ask the Minister to take the fostering legislation into consideration. Most children—indeed, all children, especially those of the ages I have mentioned—are first placed with foster parents, under fostering legislation. There is a danger that, if we make one route too hard, children will remain in foster care—and that will not reduce the delays or achieve the original intention of the Act. Will the Minister consider that aspect carefully?
As the Minister knows, I have corresponded with him before about being careful to ensure that there are no loopholes or easy ways out in what we put on to the statute book. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people will use those if they can. I especially remember writing to the hon. Gentleman about unregistered children's homes. Clearly, the intention of the Children Act 1989 was that homes with more than four children would register—indeed, that was a legal obligation.
However, it was assumed that homes with fewer than four children would be covered by fostering legislation. That turned out to be an incredible assumption. In fact, there was no legal obligation for homes to fall into either category, so there are now several small private children's homes covered by neither the fostering legislation nor the private homes legislation. In other words, local authorities placed children in totally unregulated homes, because the possibility to do so existed.
I urge the Minister, when he examines placement orders and the whole process of placement, to consider other legislation, too. It is important that children whose best interests would be served by adoption should end up being adopted rather than continuing to be fostered by default because the adoption process has become too difficult.
I am a little concerned about non-agency placements. Foster parents and other carers and non-relatives can apply for an adoption order, but so far as I can see, such people cannot apply to adopt a child without the local authority's consent. Without that consent, there is no way in which their application to adopt can surface—and there have sometimes been disagreements between foster parents and agency social workers about what is in a child's welfare interests. If a social worker decides not to recommend the application, there is nowhere for foster parents to appeal against the decision, because the whole process is contained within the agency.
Will the Minister consider setting up a process whereby foster parents can appeal—possibly to an independent body—against agency decisions not to support an adoption application? I have known of foster parents who had a good case and placements that would have met a

1069
child's welfare needs, yet because of a certain social worker's attitude, the application could not proceed. It is unfortunate, to say the least, when that happens.
One part of the report deals with marital status. I was taken aback by the illogicality of paragraph 26.10, on applications from unmarried couples. It is permissible for one half of such a partnership to apply and for the social worker making the assessment to take into account how the other partner, who cannot apply, is likely to look after a child and that person's possible parenting ability. But the report gives a reason for not permitting joint applications from unmarried couples and I must quote it, because I find it difficult to understand. It states:
"unmarried parents do not have the same legal obligations to one another as a married couple have."
That is true, but married couples have those legal obligations only so long as they wish to have them. When a couple who were once married wish to dissolve those obligations, they no longer have them. The report says that, for that reason:
"the caring parent may therefore be less financially secure than if they were married."
When a relationship breaks down, whether unmarried people are separating or married people are divorcing, the financial security and the arrangements made afterwards depend on their individual financial circumstances. The fact that a couple have been married does not give them any advantage over an unmarried couple, so the generalisation in the report is wrong. It cannot possibly be a reason for not accepting applications from unmarried people.
The report continues:
"one of the special features of adoption is that it transfers a child from one family to another and gives the child a legal relationship with all members of the new family, including grandparents, aunts and uncles. However great the commitment of unmarried adoptive parents to a child might be, it is open to question how far their wider families would be willing to accept that child as part of their family."
That is absolute nonsense, because in any assessment the social worker will examine the wider support networks—that is part of the assessment. One does not presume that the networks are non-existent and that the wider family will not accept the child, simply because the couple are not married. One considers that possibility during the assessment process. If the recommendation is to be pursued, someone somewhere will have to come up with a better reason than the one in paragraph 26.10, because it is terrible nonsense.
We talk of providing a "service" for adoption and discuss services for birth parents, adoptive parents, prospective adopters and childless people. In this context, the word "service" means social workers taking time to talk to people—the service which is provided is time. If you want that service to be provided, you will have to back it up with payment for the service and for the time, otherwise those services will not be provided, either by local authorities themselves or by their giving grants to voluntary agencies to provide services on their behalf. When resources are limited, people prioritise, and services for which there is less statutory responsibility fall off the end. Local authorities have been doing that for years.
When you provide, as I am sure you will, a brochure saying that local authorities will provide those services, all that will happen is that you will raise expectations—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Lady continues, I remind her of the rules governing the use of the word "you". I had hoped that she was using that word in an impersonal sense, but it is now clear that she is directing some of her remarks to the Minister instead of to me.
Ms. Coffey: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got slightly carried away.
The Minister is considering allowing local authorities to charge for adoption services. I caution him to examine that proposal very carefully. I am concerned that if there is a charging policy, only those who could pay for that service would use it and that might become discriminatory.
It is difficult to be a good parent even if one has a supportive family, adequate income, friends, leisure activities and help. Some children—although not all—enter local authority care because little support is provided for mothers who are struggling with young children. Such situations lead to breakdown. In some circumstances, such families could have been kept together if there had been support in the community. Although that is the intention of the Children Act 1989, such provision is beyond the responsibility of the social services. We must consider all aspects of the services provided by local authorities.
8.31 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box.
We all agree that the interests and welfare of children should always be at the centre of adoption proposals and legislation. The review document recognises that an openness in adoption which allows for an exchange of information between doctors and birth families, and in some cases face-to-face contact, helps children to develop a more real and complete sense of who they are. It also enables older children to make the move into new families without the pain of losing links with relatives.
Open adoption will also help many adopted adults who spend years trying to trace information about their pasts. The amount and type of contact must be matched to the age and circumstances of each child and will inevitably change over the years as the child and the circumstances change and develop.
Any new legislation introduced as a result of the review must allow for a range of options in contact arrangements so that individual plans can be made for each child. Contact is a continuum, and any arrangements for contact must allow for the maximum flexibility.
The document recommends that no placement should be made without a formal hearing, during which a placement order will be made. Most of the children who are placed for adoption these days are older children and many of them have spent years in the care system. Many of them have come from very troubled and difficult backgrounds. Although introductions may have taken place, it is difficult for children or adults to make an informed choice in such a situation.
The document recommends that a guardian is appointed once the request for a placement order is lodged. It also recommends that during a very short period—for example, six days—the guardian will have to approach all interested parties to discover whether anyone

1071
objects to the child being placed for adoption. If an objection is lodged, a full court hearing will have to be held, and that would take several months.
Given that current experience shows that attachments between children and adults begin at the point of introduction, one wonders how a three-year-old child will understand what is happening or how a troubled seven or nine-year-old will cope with the uncertainty while waiting for a court hearing.
In those circumstances, is it envisaged that contact between the children and prospective adoption family will continue? Or is everything going to be put on ice? In such circumstances, it is likely that agencies, aware of possible repercussions. and insecurities for children, will prefer to use the fostering family placements legislation and put children in a foster placement. That could lead to a drift and avoid permanence—something that the review sets out to avoid.
The review suggests that a guardian ad litem be appointed for every adoption case and that the strict timetables introduced in the Children Act 1989 are used throughout the adoption process. That would create an enormous amount of extra work for guardians ad litem, and one wonders how existing guardians would be able to undertake extra work.
Moreover, the review also states that agencies should have a duty to give birth parents the opportunity to have their own social worker so that they can participate in the decisions about a child's future. In effect, that means that, where adoption is being considered for a child, three different social workers could be involved—the child's social worker, the birth parents' social worker and the guardian ad litem.
Such a recommendation obviously ensures the highest possible practice, but one wonders how a local authority could possibly manage to resource that recommendation in the current economic climate. The document clearly identifies current delays in adoption practice and recommends strict timetabling in future to avoid that. However, it is conceivable that the extra work involved will mean that adoption will be delayed because agencies simply will not have the resources to meet any new requirements. As a result, children may well still be drifting around in care.
The document also recommends that the responsibility for inspection and approval of voluntary adoption societies should revert to local authorities. That responsibility is currently held by the social services inspectorate and inspections are carried out every three years. The recommendation will lead to difficulties for many local authorities.
We must recognise that a large proportion of adoption work is carried out by voluntary societies such as Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Church of England and many others. Much of the expertise in adoption lies with those voluntary societies. I wonder how local authorities will be able to inspect those organisations effectively.
The arms-length inspection units were set up to inspect residential homes for the elderly. They also have some responsibilities under the Children Act 1989. We must recognise that adoption work is highly complex and specialised. I believe that such expertise is currently not available in most of the inspection units, and it may well have to be brought in from elsewhere. The document
1072
suggests that the voluntary agencies should pay for that service. I wonder how on earth they could possibly afford that, given the current economic climate.
Concern about children who come into Britain has been growing for some time. For some children, their only chance of a happy family life is through inter-country adoption. However, those children need and deserve the same kind of protection that we take for granted in domestic adoptions. The proposals represent a real step forward in introducing safeguards. They will not prevent inter-country adoptions when that is best for the child, but they will go a long way towards preventing abuses such as trafficking in children.
We look forward to the proposals being translated into legislation, but only after full consultation with all concerned.
8.39 pm
Mr. Hinchliffe: I wish to take up some points from the debate and reinforce comments made on both sides of the House. We have had a useful debate. There is broad consensus on what is proposed in the review, albeit some reservations have been expressed.
Although there was only one contribution from the Government Back Benches, it was by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has a particular interest in the issue. I read with interest the comments that he was reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 25 October as having made:
"Mr. Thurnham does not support calls from the far right that children should be placed only in two-parent families and that homosexuals should be rejected. 'Every case should be considered on its individual merits. I know of many cases where single people do a wonderful job,' he said."
I reinforce that comment. Although I disagree with the emphasis in parts of his speech tonight, it was thoughtful, useful and helpful. I think that we would all concur with his central point that the main issue is what is best for the individual child.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has had to leave the Chamber, but I am glad that she was able to make a contribution. I affirm her success as a single parent, having met her children and her grandchildren. She described from her personal knowledge the marked changes in society which have led to the need for the review and for changes in adoption legislation. My hon. Friend reinforced the point that children's rights and interests must underpin the adoption proposals.
One crucial point made by my hon. Friend on inter-country adoptions was that British children have been exported for adoption. When the Australian rugby league team were here for the world cup final recently, I met a woman who had come with the team. She had found out that her father had been exported to Australia, without the knowledge of his family, and had been adopted in questionable circumstances. That happened within the lifetime of hon. Members present for the debate.
My hon. Friend also stressed the need for balance in same-race adoptions. Again, no doubt most hon. Members would agree with what she said.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who has a unique background, both in personal terms and because of his political involvement as a past chair of Leeds social services department. He made the important point that the same principles should apply to

1073
inter-country adoptions as apply to adoptions within this country. I support that; no doubt Conservative Members would subscribe to that, too.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue, covered by several other hon. Members, of proper resources being necessary for local authorities to operate provisions affecting children. Many hon. Members with experience of working in local government or as councillors can vouch for how hard pressed many local authorities have been over many years and certaintly recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) gave us the benefit of her recent professional knowledge. It is gratifying for me to welcome her as a former social worker to the House. I felt somewhat lonely having only the Secretary of State to talk to as a former social worker, and I did not often get great comfort from her. I am glad that my hon. Friend is here to support me and to contribute to these debates from her practical experience.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to encourage people to listen to children. In the past we have often disregarded the voice of children. When I worked for Leeds social services department, I can recall the first time that the actual child in care was involved. That was as recently as the mid-1970s. That is a disgrace.
I look forward to the Minister's response to a specific issue raised by my hon. Friend—the gap in the Children Act 1989 in regard to unregistered private children's homes. The Minister has corresponded with my hon. Friend on that. I am concerned about the issue which she has uncovered. No doubt the Minister will be willing to respond to it.
My hon. Friend also made a telling point about the need for appeal mechanisms. Sometimes social workers make wrong decisions. A social worker may be prejudiced about an adoptive applicant, so it is right that appeal mechanisms should he introduced in future adoption legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), another former chair of social services who speaks with experience of balancing demands and statutory obligations against the matching resources, made an important point which has underpinned several contributions. He wanted to know how the Government would square the recommendations with resourcing the extra social work time that will be needed to carry out many of the provisions.
We have had an interesting debate with several important points being made. I hope that the Government will realise how much interest there is in this subject and that the Minister will take note of the pleas of several hon. Members to extend the consultation period so that there can be proper debate and public discussion of the many important recommendations in the report.
8.46 pm
Mr. Yeo: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has said, it has been a useful debate, characterised by the fact that all hon. Members who spoke did so either with a long-standing interest in the subject or with direct experience of it.
1074
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench duties? He brings considerable knowledge and experience of the issues. I do not suppose that we shall always enjoy the same harmony as this evening. He was somewhat ungracious in his reference to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I was paying her a compliment.
Mr. Yeo: The compliment was heavily disguised. The attitude of the Government Benches towards social workers has undoubtedly been influenced in a most favourable manner by my right hon. Friend's demeanour, bearing, and, if I am allowed to say so on the day after the Church of England decided to approve the ordination of women, even her appearance; she has influenced many of my hon. Friends to take a more sympathetic attitude towards social workers.
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the high success rate of adoptions in this country. Above all, that is a tribute to the care with which the whole process is undertaken. We must be careful not to do anything which diminishes that success rate in future.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the suitability of the age of 12, which was also mentioned by the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). Inevitably it is an arbitrary figure which we may want to reconsider in the light of the response to the review. The court has the power to make any child, however young, a party to the proceedings.
The hon. Member for Wakefield referred in his opening speech to the sad case of an adopted person who experienced difficulty in tracing his birth family. Such experience must influence our consideration of issues about openness and contact.
The only time when the hon. Gentleman dragged in politics was when he tried to imply that poverty and deprivation were factors which might lead parents to decide that they wanted their child to be adopted.
Mr. Hinchliffe: That is true.
Mr. Yeo: If it is true, as the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, the dramatic fall in the numbers of children needing adoption since 1979—a fall of more than 40 per cent. over the last 13 years—is yet another indicator of the massive rise in living standards enjoyed by every section of the community.
Mr. Hinchliffe: To balance the figures that the hon. Gentleman just quoted, he ought to consider alternative means to deal with children requiring substitute care other than adoption. The figures are not as bland and simple as he quoted.
Mr. Yeo: As the hon. Member knows, the number of children in residential care has fallen dramatically during the same period.
The hon. Member for Wakefield commented on the consultation period and was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey). I do not have a passionate view on that subject. If the timetable were extended, it would obviously have an effect on the timing of future legislation. The more protracted the period of consultation, the later will be the chance for legislation, but we shall take account of the views expressed. The consultation process is helped by the fact that much of the work of the review was published as the process unfolded.

1075
The hon. Member for Wakefield quoted an article in Social Work Today. I make no apology for reiterating my conviction that in the majority of cases a married couple is the best answer for the child. I cannot stress how strongly I feel that every local authority should make the most strenuous efforts to seek married couples. No one has any right to adopt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) cited a useful example of the sort of single parent who can make a valid contribution as an adoptive parent. That was a helpful example. He also said that he had been assessed as having an insecure job. I am so glad that in 1987 and 1992 his job was demonstrated to have a high degree of security. If he continues to contribute to the House so thoughtfully and constructively, he has one of the most secure jobs of anyone who took part in the debate. I have noted his concern about the tone of the report's references to inter-country adoptions.
My hon. Friend mentioned Romania, and I have been disappointed that, since we signed the agreement with the Romanian committee for adoption in March—it became operative on 5 May—not one child has been adopted by a United Kingdom parent under the agreement. When the agreement comes up for review in January next year, we must consider carefully whether it is in our interests to continue with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East may like to know that I have decided to ask our ambassador in Bucharest to take up with the Romanian Government our concerns about the lack of results from the agreement, and to press them to take whatever measures may be needed to make that agreement work more effectively. I shall also write to some of the other countries involved—more than 20 have signed similar agreements with Romania—to find out their experiences and whether they have encountered similar difficulties.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May I give an example of a successful adoption from Romania? Bev and Ruth Smith, in my constituency, adopted Emese Gabor and at the time of her adoption she was the only child that I had heard of being adopted from a Romanian mental institution. The couple adopt many mentally disabled children and have all the facilities and abilities to deal with them. When they saw the terrible conditions which existed in Romania, they insisted on the adoption. It turned out that Emese is not mentally disabled, although she was in one of those terrible institutions. On carefully monitored occasions, such adoptions are very much worth while.
Mr. Veo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned one case and he will understand that I do not want to comment on it in public, although I shall consider what has happened and what the Home Office is doing about it. I suggest that he pays a visit to the helpline that he referred to. We should be glad if he did so. As he knows, the committee on inter-country adoptions has nominated a representative to serve on the project board which will review the operation of the helpline in the new year.
Several hon. Members mentioned resourcing of local authorities. Personal social services have been resourced
1076
generously—resources are up by two thirds in real terms since 1979. Charging is permitted, so no local authority should be deterred by a lack of resources from undertaking work in connection with possible inter-country adoptions.
An inter-country adoption agency could well have a place, but it would be better if it emerged from the domestic adoption service. The specialised knowledge of economic and social circumstances on an international scale may well be outside the scope of a local authority and an independent agency could fill that need. Of course, the basic principles and the standard of domestic adoptions, including the home study process, would need to be maintained.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made an outstanding contribution to the debate. She has been in touch with me about her interest in the subject and she has great experience of it. I welcome her endorsement of much that I said in my opening speech. She described powerfully the experiences of children taken from this country many years ago, and that underlines the fact that we should be careful to avoid allowing apparently up-to-date and fashionable ideas or modern thinking to outweigh basic common-sense principles when we consider adoption. Her remarks about age were important. I share her view that most of us enter parenthood with limited knowledge of what we are in for and that we have to learn as we go along. She was particularly right in her view of the race issue. There are appalling instances of children being removed from foster parents merely on the ground that they are of a different race from the child.
The hon. Member for Eccles made an interesting remark about the possibility that great openness and contact might lead to more adoptions. Under the Children Act 1989, grandparents may apply for a residence order which gives some stability and parental responsibility without the drawback of confusing the relationships of being a grandparent and a parent.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South made an important point about the need to avoid an unnecessary extension of the court time required.
The hon. Member for Stockport has been in correspondence with me about the position of small, unregistered children's homes and I shall respond to her about that as it falls slightly outside the terms of the debate. She referred to the fact that three out of five children adopted are between the ages of one and nine. That percentage has changed surprisingly little during the past 15 years. I note her concern about the procedure for the court to grant a placement order before placement commences, and we shall reflect on that. I do not share her view that unmarried couples should be considered equally suitable adoptive parents as married couples. Couples who have decided to get married have demonstrated a commitment to a relationship which is of a different order from that of two people who happen to live together.
The debate has been most helpful, and we shall take note of all the views expressed inside and outside the House. I hope that other people will follow the discussions and will support them by sending in their views.
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.

PETITION

  Pit Closures
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of more than 136,000 people from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire and elsewhere. The petition calls upon the Prime Minister to intervene personally to stop the recent pit closure programme announced by the Government.
  I should like to pay tribute to the Chad News Group, the Mansfield Observer, the Sutton Coldfield Observer and Worksop Guardian whose editors and staff have organised, launched and managed this petition. The petition from people of the area expresses their fears about the consequences of pit closures on their community, which could lead, if unchecked, to the loss of up to 100,000 jobs in the coalfield communities of Britain and up to 32,000 jobs in the areas served by those newspapers.
  This fine and honourable petition of honest opinion from my area I give unto the House's keeping and it reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of people of Mansfield, north Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, sheweth that 136,000 people of the said area are deeply concerned about the recently announced pit closure programme and have called upon the Prime Minister to intervene personally to stop these closures.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House listens to this call upon the Prime Minister to intervene personally to stop such measures which would lead to the annihilation of the coal industry.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  That petition is signed by Mr. Jeremy Plews of 21 Newgate lane, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire.
  To lie upon the Table

  Mr. Allan Nicklin
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to Madam Speaker for choosing this subject for the Adjournment debate.
  I rise to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Allan Nicklin, with a mixture of regret, frustration and anger: regret because what I say might conceivably strain relations between two friendly nations—this country and Saudi Arabia; frustration because, after 18 months of almost ceaseless work on behalf of my constituent, I have had to take the step of having an Adjournment debate on the subject; but most of all anger that Allan Nicklin has been treated so abominably merely because he had the misfortune to work for a company that turned out to be of dubious repute.
  Allan Nicklin, who is a Wolverhampton boy, educated at the grammar school, went into insurance after he left school. He qualified in the profession and has spent 30 years in various managerial positions. About half that time has been spent in the middle east, an area of the world to which he is passionately attached. Prior to the last job that he held in Saudi Arabia, he had done two tours in that country, to which he is also very attached.
  In 1988, Allan Nicklin was appointed general manager of Western Agencies, an insurance company based in the United States, with responsibility for three offices in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To him this was a job of challenge and promise, and he and his family relished the opportunity. They were in a part of the world that they all liked, in a country to which they had become attached. He felt that he would be able to do a good job in his chosen profession.
  Unfortunately, it did not work out quite that way. It soon became clear to Allan Nicklin that the company was not quite what he thought. There was slow payment of repair accounts for Saudi companies and towards the end of 1989 claims were being pressed. Throughout that time Mr. Nicklin made strenuous efforts to ensure that everything was done properly. By March 1990, however, he was advised that he had better not apply for an exit visa because he would not have a chance to leave the kingdom if he did. By July of that year, he was in prison, held responsible for the alleged debts of the company of which he was an employee. His wife made constant intercessions on his behalf. She took his food to gaol and she presented herself at office after office and worked tirelessly to ensure that her husband was released. She sought to ensure that it was recognised that he was not in any way responsible, so that he would be allowed to try to sort things out.
  At the end of November 1990, he was released from prison, but the case dragged on. At that stage, Mr. Nicklin looked upon this as a commercial and personal matter. Although the British authorities were aware in general terms of what was going on, Mr. Nicklin did not seek their active involvement or their help. He felt that it was a matter which he must sort out with the company for which he worked, and that was what he tried to do.
  By July 1991 he was told by the Saudi civil rights department that if he did not personally pay up he would go to gaol. It was at that stage, the middle of last year, that he asked for as much help as possible from the British

  1079
  consul and sought, through his wife, my help and intervention as his local Member of Parliament. He did not wish his predicament to become public knowledge or property. He was conscious of the fact that Britain and Saudi Arabia enjoyed close and cordial relations. He had spent much of his working life seeking to strengthen in his own way those close and cordial relations. If we look back to midsummer last year, we had just gone through the Gulf war, in which those close and cordial relations had been demonstrated in a particular way.
  Alas, all Mr. Nicklin's hopes and aspirations seemed to count for very little. On 6 November last year, the threat that had been uttered in July was carried out and he found himself in gaol. This was no mere arrest and detention. He was imprisoned in a cell 10 m by 5 m. There were 24 other people in that cell at all times, and 28 for some days. He was in the company of murderers and other criminals of evil repute. He was not allowed to wash. He was not allowed exercise. His wife, when she visited him, was subjected to body searches and had to sit in a dusty courtyard with crowds of other women, waiting to see her husband.
  Allan Nicklin was detained in those conditions until 21 January this year, in spite of the best efforts of the ambassador and the consul, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and myself. And still Mr. Nicklin did not wish his predicament, his troubles, to be made public. Obviously, I was in constant touch with his wife, and the House can imagine her distress and anguish when she returned to this country before Christmas last year.
  Soon after his release, the Saudi authorities admitted that Mr. Nicklin was indeed not personally liable for any debts; that there was no suggestion that at any time had he been guilty of any impropriety at all. This is not a British subject suspected of a criminal act. This case is not to be equated with the cases of drugs traffickers and those other cases about which one reads from time to time in which British subjects, sadly, contravene local laws, behave in a criminal manner and then, of course, must take the consequences. Here was a man who had sought to do nothing but follow his profession properly, and honourably discharge his business responsibilities, but all this to no avail.
  Although it is not done to name officials, I will name one official here—the private secretary of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Mr. Charles Moore, who has been exemplary in the way he has sought to help and has handled this case and kept in constant touch with me. But in spite of all our efforts, in July of this year, what happened? I got a call from Mr. Moore one Friday to say that I could expect Mr. Nicklin to be flying in within two or three days. That was just as we were about to rise for the summer recess. My last conversation in July with the Minister gave hope that I would be able to greet Mr. Nicklin at Heathrow or at his home in the constituency conveying the good wishes of everyone concerned.
  In the event, nothing happened. Papers had been passed from one office to another and from one Department to another. Since those days in July, much effort has continued to be put in. My hon. Friend who will answer this debate has been constantly helpful in the matter. The Foreign Secretary has raised the issue with his opposite number, the Secretary of State for Defence has raised it at
  1080
  high level and with his opposite number and the Prime Minister, with whom I have been in correspondence, has expressed concern and frustration.
  Indeed, as a result of a letter from the Prime Minister in which he said he saw no reason why I should not make the matter public, I talked to Mr. Nicklin and we decided that, at long last, the issue had to come into the open. It is a tribute to Mr. Nicklin and his wife that for all those long, dark, difficult months, they put the interests of this country and its relations with another country before their personal comfort and convenience.
  As I say, despite the totally genuine expressions of concern by the Minister who has had day-to-day charge of the case, by the Foreign Secretary, by the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nicklin remains without a passport and without permission to leave.
  This has been a cat-and-mouse game. Mr. Nicklin is being treated virtually as a hostage, and the situation is unacceptable. It is utterly unacceptable to Mr. Nicklin and his family and to their Member of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will demonstrate when he replies that it is equally unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
  This is a country with which, we all agree, we wish to have close relations, yet a British subject is being treated by that country in the way that I have described. It was out of sheer desperation that we decided—I spoke to Mr. Nicklin on the telephone from Saudi Arabia and I had numerous conversations with his wife, who comes regularly to see me and visits my office in the constituency virtually every day—that we could not allow the matter to go on without people knowing about it.
  Mr. Nicklin has not left Saudi Arabia for three and a half years. He has not been allowed to leave for two and a half years. He has not seen his daughter for two years, and during that time she celebrated her 21st birthday and graduated. He has missed all of the sort of family occasions that he should have had the right to attend.
  His son had to leave his independent school because the fees could no longer be paid. I managed to persuade the headmaster and governors to let him take his GCSEs, but then he had to leave. Mr. Nicklin has not seen his son for almost two years. The last time he saw his wife was when she visited him about a year ago in the intolerable conditions in prison to which I referred.
  Friends have helped to sustain Mr. Nicklin, and his wife has been marvellous in her support. But the strain on the family has been intolerable. Mr. Nicklin has no job and is without money. He has not been paid for over two years. It is clear from recent telegrams that the company for which he was working has almost certainly been guilty of criminal acts, but that is not his fault. In the United States, certain people are having to answer questions, but I will not digress and go into that now. Mr. Nicklin's reputation is such that other companies have been wanting to offer him employment. He has been unable to attend interviews, still less to contemplate taking up a job, because he has no passport and does not have permission to leave. He is entirely dependent on friends to feed and look after him.
  Although I do not want to over-emphasise my role as his Member of Parliament, had it not been for my intervention with all the statutory authorities who supply electricity, gas and so on, his family would have been in dire straits. I pay tribute to those to whom mortgage payments are owed, to British Telecom, British Gas and

  1081
  the local council for being extremely understanding and anxious to help. The position is desperate and that man remains in detention.
  We have moved a long way since 1850 and the days of Don Pacifico when Palmerston sent in the gunboats and later spent four hours addressing this honourable House to justify his conduct, making the greatest speech of his life. I do not necessarily invite my hon. Friend the Minister to emulate that but I stress that the position is unacceptable. I know that he and his colleagues in the Foreign Office have done all that they possibly could but it is terrible when, in spite of the constant entreaties of a friendly power, a nation refuses to allow a man against whom no charges are preferred or contemplated to return to his home and family.
  I tabled a question a few weeks ago asking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to summon the ambassador. My right hon. Friend replied that the ambassador was trying to be helpful and that he did not feel that that was the right moment to summon him. I do not criticise the Saudi ambassador in this country and am sure that he has tried to be helpful. However, all those good intentions and genuine efforts have not produced Mr. Nicklin at Heathrow airport and have not allowed him to rejoin his family.
  The last thing that I wish to do is jeopardise relations between Britain and any friendly country. Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in stark, unequivocal terms that such treatment of a British subject is utterly unacceptable and that the Saudi ambassador must be told that in no uncertain terms? Mr. Nicklin must be allowed to have his passport, return to his country and be reunited with his wife, son and daughter well before Christmas so that they can have a family time together. The family can then begin to unravel the manifold problems, financial and otherwise, that have encompassed and enmeshed them in the past two and a half years, particularly the past difficult year since he was imprisoned in those atrocious conditions in November 1991.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for the time that he has given to this case, will be able to give me a reassuringly robust answer tonight. I appeal through the House and beyond the House to the Government to say to his Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia that, if he cherishes his relationship with Great Britain and truly believes what he said on his state visit to this country and during the Gulf war—I have no reason to doubt it—he should show that he repudiates the prevarication of his officials and that he will allow Mr. Nicklin to come back quickly.
  9.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has brought this important matter to the attention of the House. I shall be speaking to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the subject following tonight's debate. A copy of the text of the debate will be sent to our mission in Riyadh for
  1082
  transmission to the appropriate authorities, and a copy will be made available to the Saudi Arabian ambassador in London.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, the story starts on 12 August 1990, when our consulate in Jedda was informed of Mr. Nicklin's arrest for debts incurred by Western Agencies Ltd., often known as WAL (Jedda)—the company for which he was general manager. As a result of representations made by our embassy in Riyadh, Mr. Nicklin was released for the first time from prison on 26 November 1990, two years ago to this month. But he was not free to leave Saudi Arabia then or now.
  Mr. Nicklin was initially given three months to settle the debts, and that period was extended to one year. He was unable to raise the money to pay the debts and, on 6 November 1991 he was rearrested. He was released into the custody of his sponsor, Prince Mishaal, on 21 January this year.
  Some 22 representations have been made to the Saudi Arabian authorities about the case by Ministers, consulate officials, myself and others during the past 12 months. Although, after Mr. Nicklin's arrest in January of this year, he was subsequently cleared of liability for all debts, he has not been allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. His case is now before the Council of Ministers, and we hope for an early and favourable decision that will enable him to return to his family in Britain.
  Under Saudi Arabian law, the senior representative of a company is liable for its debts and, until the debts are paid, he may be imprisoned. We have taken the view that Mr. Nicklin was an employee, not an executive, of WAL (Jedda), which was a subsidiary of the parent company based in Cyprus. WAL, a Cyprus-based company owned by two British nationals, Mr. Clive Lewis and Mr. Vincent Deacon, began operating in Jedda under the sponsorship of Prince Mishaal bin Saud bin Abdul Aziz on 27 March 1984. Mr. Nicklin arrived in Jedda in May 1988 to take up an appointment as general manager of WAL (Jedda). On I I August 1990, he was arrested and imprisoned for the local company's failure to pay claims to SASCO and Abbar company, both Saudi Arabian companies.
  During 1988 and 1989, numerous claims were made on WAL (Jedda) by both Saudi nationals and companies in respect of material damage, by fire and other events, which the company was unable to make good because the United States underwriters defaulted. The claims, amounting to about ·600,000, were underwritten by the United States companies Wilmington Marine and General Insurance company and American Marine and General Insurance company. Mr. Nicklin holds that all correspondence and dealings with the American insurers were conducted by WAL (Cyprus). One of the two major shareholders of WAL (Cyprus) admitted in a letter, dated 26 September 1990, that he and the other shareholder, as directors of the Saudi firm, were responsible for the debts of WAL (Jedda) and that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable.
  In December 1991, during an official visit to Washington, I asked an official at the United States State Department to look into the status of the two United States insurance companies. After the State Department confirmed that neither company was under federal investigation, our missions in Houston and Atlanta tried to contact them direct.
  We learned that American Marine and General, which may now be in liquidation, maintained that, since it had

  1083
  never received any premium on policies written by WAL (Jedda) and had never indeed written or authorised these policies, it did not consider itself liable for policies issued in its name. Mr. Nicklin disputes this, maintaining that premiums on policies issued up until the end of 1988, the period in question, were fully paid. Furthermore, he claims that virtually all policies issued by WAL in Saudi Arabia were signed by persons other than himself. Wilmington Marine and General, which was owned by a company now in liquidation, claimed that it was in the process of repaying its debt to WAL (Cyprus) by instalments, and that most of the money had already been repaid. The directors of WAL (Cyprus) claim that they have not received any payments.
  I want to put all the facts on record, as I am sure that they will be considered by others at a later date.
  In January 1992, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), raised Mr. Nicklin's case with Prince Ahmed, the Saudi Vice-Minister of Interior. As a result, Mr. Nicklin was released into his sponsor's custody and the documentation was transferred from Jedda to Riyadh. Our embassy in Riyadh submitted a dossier on the case to the Interior Minister on 23 March.
  In the meantime, our high commission in Nicosia had had a number of contacts with the two directors of WAL (Cyprus), the parent company, to try to bring home to them the seriousness of the position of their employee, Mr. Nicklin. Mr. Nicklin says that he has not received any financial assistance from them since mid-1991, although it has been made clear to them that both he and his wife, in the United Kingdom, are now destitute.
  We have repeatedly raised Mr. Nicklin's case at a high level with the Saudis, and our embassy in Riyadh has been active in trying to secure his release. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater raised the case in January 1992 with the Saudi Vice-Minister of Interior, a senior FCO official saw the chargé d'affaires of the Saudi embassy in London on 26 March. On 13 May, our ambassador in Saudi Arabia called on the Interior Ministry to express concern that the case had been transferred to the Ministry of Commerce. I raised the matter with the Saudi ambassador on 15 May, and the Foreign Secretary subsequently raised the case with the Saudi Minister of State, Mr. Masoud.
  On 19 May, our ambassador in Riyadh called on the Saudi Minister of Commerce, who said that the case was complex and would require careful scrutiny. He added that Mr. Lewis's 1984 contract with Prince Mishaal to sell insurance had not received Ministry of Commerce endorsement. Our ambassador reiterated our view that, as an employee of the company, Mr. Nicklin could not be held liable for its debts.
  Subsequently, we learned that the Ministry of Commerce had informed the Ministry of Interior that it considered that Mr. Nicklin should not be responsible for any debts; the United States underwriters should be responsible for the larger debt of about £500,000: the smaller debts, made up, for example, of repairs to vehicles insured, should be the responsibility of Prince Mishaal. The embassy was informed that the Minister of Interior would write to Prince Mishaal asking him to take on these liabilities. Our ambassador wrote to Prince Saud on 7 July to brief him on developments in the case.
  On 15 July, our consul in Riyadh accompanied Mr. Nicklin to a meeting with his sponsor, Prince Mishaal. The
  1084
  prince said that he had not yet received any communication from the Ministry of the Interior. However, as he had no claim against Mr. Nicklin personally, he said that he would not stand in the way of his leaving Saudi Arabia. On 22 July, the prince's manager in Jedda told our embassy that the prince had been informed of Prince Nail's wish to have the debt issue resolved. Although he intended to dispute his own liability for the debts, Prince Mishaal instructed his office manager to request an exit re-entry visa in Mr. Nicklin's passport to enable him to travel as soon as possible.
  However, the immigration authorities in Jedda remained unprepared to remove Mr. Nicklin's name from their list of people forbidden to leave the kingdom. They said that they needed specific instructions from the Ministry of the Interior to remove his name from the list. On 28 July, a senior FCO official raised the problem with the Saudi ambassador, who said that he would see what he could do.
  Repeated representations by our embassy in Riyadh and consulate-general in Jedda have not yet overcome this new obstacle. Our consul-general in Riyadh and Mr. Nicklin called on the deputy Minister of Commerce on 8 September, and were again told that the Ministry considered that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable for any debts, which should be the responsibility of the underwriters and his sponsor.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised the case when he met His Royal Highness Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Minister of the Interior, during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, on 20 September. The Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend that he agreed that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable for the debts, and hoped that he would be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia very soon; however, he wished to have a final look at the papers.
  Since then, the Interior Ministry has asked the Ministry of Commerce for further confirmation and clarification of its decision that Mr. Nicklin was not to be held liable for any debts. The Ministry of Commerce has, I understand, replied in the affirmative. As my hon. Friend knows, I spoke to the Saudi ambassador on 22 October, and followed that up with a letter enclosing a chronology showing how and when the Nicklin case had been discussed by British and Saudi Ministers and officials over the past six months.
  On 1 November, our ambassador in Riyadh was told by senior officials in the Interior Ministry that, as Mr. Nicklin's debts were not personal, the way should very soon be clear to authorising his release. We have now been informed that Mr. Nicklin's case has been referred to the Council of Ministers for final approval. Our ambassador spoke about the issue to the Foreign Minister on 8 November. We cannot, of course, tell exactly when that final approval will be given; but we have been given to understand that we are really at the last hurdle, and that Mr. Nicklin could well be free to return home very shortly.
  I know that this further delay will increase the distress to Mr. and Mrs. Nicklin, but I assure them, my hon. Friend and the House that we shall continue to do everything possible to secure Mr. Nicklin's unhindered departure from Saudi Arabia as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o' clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Language
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote the Irish language in education, including nursery, primary, secondary and university levels.

  Mr. Hanley
  Government do not directly promote the teaching of the Irish language but has, through the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989, provided a statutory curriculum for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland within which any school may offer teaching of the Irish language if it so chooses.

  The Department of Education also grant-aids two voluntary maintained primary schools in Belfast in which teaching is conducted through the medium of Irish. There is also an Irish-medium unit at Steeltown primary school, Londonderry.

  The Department has not funded the provision of Irish-medium nursery schools, in the light of the financial priority which has had to be accorded to nursery education in general and the number of outstanding proposals for nursery schools.

  In addition, the Department of Education has:
  introduced a prescribed programme of study for Irish for pupils receiving their primary education through the medium of Irish; provided for the development by the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council of assessment materials in Irish for pupils receiving their primary education through the medium of Irish; and
  provided for the development by the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council of a special Irish GCSE examination for pupils who have received their primary education through the medium of Irish.

  Universities are autonomous and independent institutions and are, as such, entirely responsible for both the range and the content of courses provided by them including those involving Irish language.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the Council of Ministers he has attended during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  None.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Mates
  None. The Northern Ireland Office has been creating records only since 1972—hence no papers 850
  have been transferred to the Public Records Office. The Northern Ireland Departments transfer their records to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Council of Ministers he has attended during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has not attended any meetings of the Council of Ministers but my hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has attended two Councils; the Fisheries Council on 19 October as head of the United Kingdom delegation; and the Agriculture Council on 26 October. On the occasions where Scottish Office Ministers do not personally attend they are represented at all EC Council meetings by senior officials or by their colleagues in the United Kingdom Government.

  Domestic Water Supply
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many domestic water disconnections have taken place in Scotland in each of the past 20 years;

  (2) if he will specify the authority under which water authorities in Scotland are empowered to seek domestic disconnections.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Scottish water authorities have no statutory authority to seek permanent domestic disconnections. Water supplies to domestic consumers may be disconnected only for short term operational reasons, for example to undertake repairs, make connections or plumbing alterations. Information on the number of such disconnections is not held centrally.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tendering procedures were carried out by Highlands and Islands Enterprise prior to the awarding of a contract to Ernst and Young, to perform the former functions of Highlands and Islands Enterprise's management unit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise carefully considered the experience of locally established firms and concluded that negotiations concentrating on value for money would be more appropriate than tendering. Discussions with Ernst and Young were conducted on this basis.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, broken down by road user group and age category, the numbers of people(a) slightly injured, (b) seriously injured and (c) killed on (i) motorways, (ii) built up roads and (iii) non-built up roads in each local authority area in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested amounts to 220 pages and I am therefore arranging that it be lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales have been conducted in Scotland, in each of the past five years by sheriffdom.

  Sheriffdom

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  63

  69

  43

  44

  41

  Lothian and Borders

  82

  135

  37

  49

  38

  North Strathclyde

  77

  123

  19

  27

  59

  South Strathclyde

  110

  116

  68

  26

  62

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  142

  115

  31

  45

  48

  Grampian

  227

  156

  81

  42

  75

  TOTAL

  701

  714

  279

  233

  323

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits for 1992–93 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates I intend to make changes to two cash limits:a. The cash limit for class XV, vote 3, training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland will be increased by £948,000 from £712,741,000 to £713,689,000. The increase takes account of a £200,000 increase in provision for Scottish Enterprise in respect of European Community projects supported by the RECHAR programme; and to carry forward the £748,000 capital underspend on roads and transport in respect of end-year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992, Official Report, cols 698–702.
  b. The cash limit for class XV, vote 13, education and arts and libraries, Scotland will be increased by £2,341,000 from £260,274,000 to £262,615,000. The increase reflects the full uptake of end-year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992, Official Report, cols 698–702.

  All the increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce details of the 1993–94 Scottish local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Lang
  In considering the settlement for next year I have taken account of the representations made to me by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the additional burdens facing local authorities next year, particularly care in the community; the scope for authorities to make further efficiency savings; and the Government's policy on public sector pay.

  I propose that aggregate external finance (AEF) should be set for 1993–94 at a total level of £5,147·3 million. This represents an increase in the 1992–93 provision for AEF of 3·2 per cent. after adjusting for:

  (a) the transfer of responsibility for further education colleges to central Government; and

  (b) the inclusion within the above total of £60·6 million to finance the full implementation of care in the community from 1 April 1993; and

  (c) £3·8 million to meet the cost of grants for rates rebates on premises within enterprise zones and £2·8 million to meet the additional cost of grants for rates rebates on premises for disabled persons. From 1993–94 both of these grants will be treated as specific grants within AEF.

  852
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provisional figures for numbers of warrant sales reported to the Sheriff Courts from 1987 to 1991 are set out by sheriffdom in the table:

  I propose that Government supported expenditure (GSE) for 1993–94 should be set at a level of £5,748 million, an increase of 2·75 per cent. on the 1992–93 figure after adjusting for the further education transfer and the inclusion of provision of £60·6 million within GSE for care in the community. I estimate that capital financing will require £725 million next year, leaving a residual amount for grant-aided expenditure (GAE)—excluding the above amount for care in the community—of £5,023 million, an increase of 2·6 per cent. over the adjusted 1992–93 GAE figure.

  In determining the above AEF figure, I have assumed that local authorities will contribute £12 million to the next stage of unified business rate policy. Details of the total reduction which I plan to make in Scottish business rates next year are being announced separately.

  I have the power to cap a Scottish local authority either where I consider that its planned expenditure is excessive or where there is an excessive increase in its planned expenditure as compared with the previous year. For 1993–94, my intended capping principles are:

  1. Any increase in budget between 1992–93 and 1993–94 of more than 2·25 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the local authority's grant-aided expenditure (GAE) assessment for 1993–94;

  2. Any increase in budget between 1992–93 and 1993–94 of more than 1·5 per cent. will be an resulting budget is over 1 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1993–94;

  3. Any increase in budget between 1992–93 and 1993–94 of more than 1·0 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is over 5 percent. above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1993–94;

  4. Any increase in budget between 1992–93 and 1993–94 of more than 0·5 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is over 10 percent. above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1993–94; and

  5. Any budget for 1993–94 more than 12·5 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment will be excessive.

  These principles are necessarily provisional. Before taking my decisions on capping, I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations.

  This represents a realistic settlement, especially in view of the need to control public expenditure. If local authorities ensure that pay settlements are as near as possible to zero in the coming year and they maximise efficiency savings, there will be scope for real increases in service provision. If authorities do not budget responsibly, I shall not hesitate to use the capping powers available to me.
  853
  The settlement should also enable authorities to set council taxes at reasonable levels. I intend to introduce a council tax transitional relief scheme to ensure that households do not face large increases in their bills next year as a result of the change from the community charge to the council tax.

  East Fortune Hospital
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the sale of the site and buildings of East Fortune hospital; and what undertakings are being given to prospective buyers about the relocation of the remaining patients and staff from the hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: Several expressions of interest in the hospital land and buildings at East Fortune have been received. No undertakings have been given to prospective purchasers on the relocation of those patients and staff remaining at the hospital; only when appropriate alternative accommodation is available, and the NHS has no further use for these facilities, will a sale be progressed.

  Forestry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the proportion of broadleaves of the total planting in Scotland by (i) the Forestry Commission and (ii) private sector companies in the years 1988 to 1992, (b) the hectarage of non-surplus plantations, buildings and plantable land sold and the sum raised by the sales since 1985, (c) the hectarage of non-surplus plantations sold and the sum raised by the sales since 1985 and (d) the hectarage of land sold by the Forestry Commission whether surplus or non-surplus where public access has been preserved by agreement since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1992, some 7 per cent.

  £'000s

  Year ended 31 March

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Planting grants paid to the private forestry sector in Scotland

  5,910

  (7,300)

  6,545

  (7,599)

  7,708

  (8,248)

  7,908

  Forest Recreation and Amenity Subsidies

  North Scotland

  710

  (877)

  870

  (1,010)

  1,131

  (1,210)

  1,053

  Mid Scotland

  899

  (1,110)

  1,045

  (1,213)

  1,310

  (1,402)

  1,297

  South Scotland

  706

  (872)

  838

  (973)

  1,087

  (1,163)

  1,097

  Scotland (Total)

  2,315

  (2,859)

  2,753

  (3,196)

  3,528

  (3,775)

  3,447

  England and Wales

  5,748

  (7,100)

  6,564

  (7,621)

  8,431

  (9,022)

  8,660

  Expenditure on Visitor Facilities

  North Scotland

  267

  (330)

  395

  (458)

  508

  (544)

  504

  Mid Scotland

  413

  (510)

  541

  (628)

  810

  (867)

  680

  South Scotland

  390

  (481)

  396

  (460)

  701

  (750)

  657

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the Forestry Commission's industrial labour force and (b) the numbers employed by contractors, in each year since 1988.
  854
  (1,943 hectares) of the Forestry Commission's total planting in Scotland was with broadleaves. The equivalent figure for grant-aided planting by the private sector was 20 per cent. (12,862 hectares).

  The Forestry Commission's plantations are not classified as surplus or non-surplus. The total area of land sold by the commission between 1 April 1985 and 31 March 1992, including plantations, buildings and plantable land, was 66,323 hectares, of which 34,767 hectares comprised plantations. The total sum realised was £96·7 million, of which £53·0 million came from the sale of 41,807 hectares of forest land, including plantations, plantable land, and associated land. The sum realised from the sale of plantations is not recorded separately.

  Public rights of way over land sold by the Forestry Commission are, of course, legally protected. Arrangements for preserving more general public access to such land were put in place in October 1991. Under these arrangements the commission offers to enter into an access agreement with the appropriate local authority before individual woodlands which have enjoyed unencumbered public access are put up for sale. Two such access agreements have been entered into to date, involving a total area of 68·4 hectares, but the sale of only one of these has so far been completed, covering an area of 21·4 hectares. Other agreements are being negotiated.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the value of the planting grants made to the private forestry sector in Scotland, (b) the amount of forest recreation and amenity subsidy made to the Forestry Commission in Scotland and in England and Wales, (c) the amount of forest recreation and amenity subsidy made to each Scottish conservancy of the Forestry Commission and (d) the sums spent on visitor facilities in each of the conservancies in Scotland, in each year since 31 March 1988, in each case giving also the figures adjusted for inflation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The information is given in the tables, with the figures updated to 1992 prices being shown in brackets.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The information is as follows:
  855

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Number of industrial workers employed by the Forestry Commission on 31 March

  3,032

  2,781

  2,615

  2,447

  Approximate number of contractors employed directly or indirectly by the Forestry Commission during the year ended 31 March

  1,200

  1,300

  1,300

  1,300

  Approximate number of contractors working on Forestry Commission land for purchasers of standing timber during the year ended 31 March

  1,500

  1,400

  1,400

  1,300

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the market research commissioned by his Department to sample the views of students, potential students and people in the wider community in respect of further and higher education in Scotland; and if he will make available the questions to be asked and the results; and who within the wider community will be consulted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: As part of the process of preparation of the Scottish further and higher education charter, the Scottish Office Education Department has commissioned market research. It will seek the views of a representative sample of almost 1,000 people in Scotland, approximately half of whom will be current or potential students in further and higher education, and the others a cross-section of the population including parents of students and others in the wider community.

  The aim of the research is to ascertain what consumers expect of futher and higher education services, what aspects of such provision they regard as most essential, and what they would expect to see in a charter for further and higher education.

  The findings will be used to inform the preparation of the charter. No decision has yet been made about the separate publication of the findings or of the questions asked.

  In addition to the research, widespread consultation with a range of educational, employment and student bodies has already been undertaken; further consultation on the development of the charter will be carried out.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the 10 micrograms of lead per litre of water recommended by the World Health Organisation; what level is recommended by the EC drinking water directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: It is expected that the World Health Organisation will recommend a new guideline for lead in drinking water in mid-1993. My right hon. Friend is considering this carefully as part of the review of public exposure to lead in drinking water announced in "Scotland's Health—A challenge to us all" published in July this year.

  The EC Drinking Water Directive sets a maximum admissible concentration of lead of 50 micrograms per litre in running water. Where lead pipes are present the
  856
  directive recommends that the lead content should not exceed 50 micrograms per litre in a sample taken after flushing. The directive also recommends that if the sample is taken either directly or after flushing and the lead content either frequently or to an appreciable extent exceeds 100 micrograms per litre, suitable measures must be taken to reduce the exposure to lead on the part of the consumer. The United Kingdom regulatory standard of 50 micrograms per litre in any sample is tighter than that in the directive.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals are still outstanding relating to bills received under the old domestic rating system.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: There are no such valuation appeals outstanding.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals were still outstanding on 1 November relating to bills received under business rates.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: There were 6,973 valuation appeals outstanding from the 1990 revaluation.

  Science Education
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the teaching of science in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in view of the findings of the science assessment of achievement programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: National guidelines on environmental studies from age five to 14 will be published in the next few months. These contain advice on the teaching of science in primary schools and the first two years of secondary schools. They will take account of the findings of the science assessment of achievement programme. We expect the guidelines to enhance the quality of science teaching, and the progress which pupils make in this subject up to the age of 14.

  Any review of the teaching of science in the later years of secondary schooling will be in the context of the Government's response to the proposals on which we are currently consulting for the 14 to 18 curriculum.

  Hake
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are taken to ensure non-sector boats keep within hake quota limits within west of Scotland waters;

  (2) what measures are taken to monitor boats fishing for hake in west of Scotland waters.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: All vessels fishing in the waters off the west coast of Scotland are subject to inspection by officers of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. In 1991, 1,130 fishing vessels were inspected by the agency's fishery protection vessels in west coast waters and over 35,000 landings of whitefish were inspected at Scottish ports. These control measures apply to hake and other species. They are designed to ensure that vessels catch and land only the species for which they are licensed and that the quantities landed by vessels fishing against non-sector allocations do not exceed their quotas. All landings are individually recorded on a computer system to show the quantities and species landed by each vessel.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quota arrangements currently exist for hake as applicable to the west coast of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Quotas for Western hake this year have been managed by two Scottish producer organisations (the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation and the North East of Scotland PO), the two Irish Producer Organisations (NIFPO and ANIFPO), and two English Producer Organisations (Fleetwood and Cornish). A copy of the rules on the quota management arrangements for white fish stocks in 1992 has been placed in the Library. Almost 54 per cent. of this year's quota is allocated to the rest of the fleet and is managed by Fisheries Departments which set monthly limits on vessel's landings, following consultation with relevant fishing interests.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent Scottish Producers Organisation hake quotas were reduced part way through the quota year for west of Scotland waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The methodology for allocating the United Kingdom quota of Western hake, and area VII anglers and megrim, to producer organisations and vessels in the non-sector was adjusted this year to take account of vessels which were de-registered in 1989, under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and which subsequently rejoined the United Kingdom fleet.

  In accordance with the timetable for issue of allocations, agreed with the industry, producer organisations were advised o n 9 March of their provision allocation and had two weeks to make representations. No representations were received from the Scottish producers organisations and final allocations were issued on 15 April.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions exist to limit numbers of boats registered in the ports of Ayr, Troon and Girvan.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Fishing vessel numbers are restricted through the licensing
  858
  scheme established under the terms of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. Questions relating to the registration of vessels, including fishing vessels, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Health Boards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last considered the relevance and appropriateness of the criteria employed in the recruitment and selection of persons for health boards in accordance with the procedure in paragraph 52 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend keeps the relevance and appropriateness of the criteria for selection of non-executive members of health boards under review, and this year has widened the base of selection for appointments currently under consideration through press advertisements and approaches to a greatly increased number of organisations.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current ratios of members of health boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Current health board member ratios, approximately, are:

  Male:female =3:1

  Non-executive:executive =3:2

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court actions for mortgage repossessions were made at Nelson county court in each year since 1987.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the total number of mortgage possession actions entered in Nelson county court for each year from 1987. At this stage the 1992 figure is provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

  Mortgage possession actions entered in Nelson county court 1987–1992

  Number

  1987

  136

  1988

  207

  1989

  201

  1990

  238

  1991

  286

  11992

  228

  1Quarter 1 to quarter 3.

  Trial Delays
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time between committal and trial in courts in England and Wales for each of the last four quarters.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the average waiting time between committal to the crown court and start of hearing.
  859

  Waiting times—committals for trial England and Wales

  Weeks

  Quarter 4 1991

  13·17

  Quarter 1 1992

  13·81

  Quarter 2 1992

  13·25

  Quarter 3 1992

  13·74

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date Mr. J. I. Disley was appointed an adjudicator for the conduct of immigration appeal tribunal hearings; how many complaints of alleged unfair treatment by appellants or sponsors have been made about Mr. Disley's conduct of proceedings; and how many have been found to be(a) substantiated and (b) unsubstantiated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. J. R. Disley (sic) was appointed as an adjudicator of immigration appeals on 1 May 1991. Most appellants complain about the conduct of proceedings by an adjudicator by appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal. No statistics are maintained of the number of cases determined by individual adjudicators and taken to the tribunal. Complaints are also sometimes made to the chief adjudicator. There has been one such complaint in relation to proceedings conducted by Mr. Disley but it was sub judice at the time and the matter was dealt with as part of the appeal by the tribunal which ultimately dismissed the appeal. The chief adjudicator sees every tribunal determination and where necessarry he or the appropriate regional adjudicator brings the matter to the attention of the adjudicator concerned.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints of alleged unfair treatment by an adjudicator at immigration appeal hearings have been lodged with the chief adjudicator of immigration appeals, in each of the last five years; and how many have been found to be(a) substantiated and (b) unsubstantiated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No statistics have been maintained as to complaints made directly to the chief adjudicator.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the workload expected to be undertaken by persons appointed to be adjudicators at immigration appeal tribunal hearings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Adjudicators of immigration appeals (as opposed to immigration appeal tribunal members) who are full time normally sit for five days each week as and when required, including, where necessary, weekends and public holidays. They are allowed 30 days leave a year plus 10½ days public holidays and privilege days (or days in lieu of these). Part-time adjudicators sit for a seven-hour day. The Lord Chancellor expects part-time adjudicators to sit for at least 20 days but not more than 50 days a year (unless the person concerned is retired or a consultant in which case the maximum can be relaxed to 70 days). The precise number of days sat will vary within these parameters.
  860
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current remuneration of adjudicators at immigration appeal tribunal hearings, including any expenses; and what was the level from which it was last raised.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The current remuneration of full-time adjudicators of immigration appeals (as opposed to immigration appeal tribunal members) is £52,520 a year. Part-time adjudicators are paid a daily fee of £215. These figures were raised in April 1992 from £50,500 and £207 respectively. Since full-time adjudicators are allocated to a particular hearing centre the question of expenses does not usually arise. Part-time adjudicators are entitled to a first class rail fare to and from the hearing centre (or a mileage allowance if a private car is used). Where their total time exceeds seven hours they are entitled to claim additional expenses for writing up determinations pro rata to their daily fee.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current number of immigration appeal tribunal adjudicators; and if he will give details of sex, age, ethnic background and professional or other qualification.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The relevant information relating to immigration adjudicators (who are not part of the immigration appeal tribunal which deals with appeals from decisions of the adjudicators) is as follows.

  There are 17 full-time adjudicators. They are all men. Their ages are 41, 47, 50, 57 (two adjudicators), 59, (two adjudicators), 60 (four adjudicators), 61, 62, 65 (two adjudicators), 67 and 68. Two of them are known to be from the ethnic minorities. Eight are barristers, seven are solicitors, one is a Scottish advocate and one is an experienced civil servant with a history degree.

  There are 81 part-time adjudicators: 63 are men and 18 are women. Their ages are 36, 37 (two adjudicators), 39 (two adjudicators), 40 (four adjudicators), 41 (two adjudicators), 42 (six adjudicators), 43, 44 (three adjudicators), 46 (three adjudicators), 47 (seven adjudicators), 48 (three adjudicators), 49 (two adjudicators), 52 (four adjudicators), 53, 54 (four adjudicators), 55 (three adjudicators), 56, 57 (three adjudicators), 58, 60 (three adjudicators), 61 (four adjudicators), 62 (five adjudicators), 62 (two adjudicators), 64 (two adjudicators), 65, 66 (four adjudicators), 67 (two adjudicators), 68, 69, 70 (two adjudicators) and 71. Four are known to be from the ethnic minorities. Twenty-nine are barristers, 50 are solicitors, one is an academic lawyer and one is a non-law graduate.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many immigration appeal tribunal adjudicators have been removed in each of the last five years following complaints of alleged unfair treatment by appellants or sponsors about the adjudicator which have been found to be substantiated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Adjudicators of immigration appeals are not part of the immigration appeal tribunal which has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the adjudicators. No adjudicator has been removed in any of the last five years.
  861
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action the chief adjudicator of immigration appeals takes when a complaint of alleged unfair treatment at an immigration appeal hearing by an adjudicator is found to be substantiated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Most appellants complain about the conduct of proceedings by an adjudicator by appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal. The chief adjudicator sees every tribunal determination and where necessary he or the appropriate regional adjudicator bring the matter to the attention of the adjudicator concerned. Where there is a direct complaint to the chief adjudicator he refers the matter to that adjudicator and, where he feels it sufficiently serious, to the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether those making complaints of alleged unfair treatment by an adjudicator at immigration appeal hearings to the chief adjudicator are interviewed to obtain precise details of such complaints.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  If complainants seek an interview with the chief adjudicator it is never refused.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by what process the chief adjudicator of immigration appeals investigates complaints of alleged unfairness in the conduct of appeal hearings by an adjudicator.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Most appellants complain about the proceedings by an adjudicator by appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal. The chief adjudicator sees all determinations by the tribunal and where necessary he or the appropriate regional adjudicator bring the matter to the attention of the adjudicator concerned. Complaints may also be made directly to the chief adjudicator who will investigate the complaint, seek the comments of the adjudicator concerned and respond as he thinks appropriate.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is proposing to take to restrain the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's plans for legal aid expenditure over the next three years have been published today. They provide for the net cost of legal aid in England and Wales to grow to £1,284 million in 1993–94, £1,406 million in 1994–95 and £1,528 million in 1995–96. Five years ago spending was £426 million. Legal aid spending will continue to grow rapidly during the next three years, on average by 10 per cent. a year from present levels. A number of measures will be necessary to ensure that legal aid spending does not rise even faster.

  As far as financial eligibility is concerned, the Government's objective is to strengthen the legally aided client's financial interest in the progress of the case, and to bring the means assessment for legal aid more closely into line with that used for other means-tested benefits. The Lord Chancellor intends to lay regulations to provide that, from 1 April 1993, the lower income limit for civil legal aid (ie the limit of disposable income below which an applicant for legal aid pays no contribution) will be reduced to the
  862
  equivalent income support limit. This means that, on current figures, the limit will be reduced from £3,060 per annum to £2,213 per annum.

  The Lord Chancellor also intends to lay regulations providing that, from 1 April 1993, dependants allowances for civil legal aid will be reduced to income support levels.

  Equivalent changes will be made to the financial eligibility regimes for criminal legal aid and advice and assistance.

  The upper eligibility limits for civil legal aid (ie the limits of disposable income above which an applicant for civil legal aid ceases to be eligible for assistance) will not be increased in April 1993.

  The Lord Chancellor intends to lay regulations providing that, from 1 April 1993, all those granted civil legal aid will be required to pay a contribution of one-third of their disposable income above the lower limit and that such contributions should continue for the life of the case. Equivalent provisions will be made in respect of criminal legal aid, and assistance by way of representation.

  The Lord Chancellor also intends to lay regulations providing that only those who would qualify for assistance free of contribution shall, in future, be able to receive advice and assistance under the green form scheme.

  In respect of remuneration, as he has already announced, the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce standard fees in the magistrates courts at the beginning of next year.

  The Lord Chancellor will then be taking steps to extend the existing standard fee scheme in the Crown Court to cover more cases. He will also be introducing a fixed hourly rate of payment for solicitors in civil non-matrimonial cases which are legally aided, and taking corresponding steps to gain control over legal aid payments made to barristers in those cases. He intends in setting these rates and fee levels to have regard to whatever rate would attract sufficient firms or barristers to do the work, while maintaining appropriate levels of quality.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Funds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring procedures of the maintenance of human rights accompanies the payment of moneys under the terms of the know-how fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund provides British expertise to the relevant countries rather than making payments of money. The purpose of the fund is to promote progress towards the market economy and democracy, including human rights. The human rights situation is monitored both bilaterally and through multilateral bodies such as CSCE and the Council of Europe.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1992–93 cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on
  863
  the external assistance vote (class II vote 5) will be increased by £54,184,000 from £1,743,015,000 to £1,797,199,000. Included in this amount are additional resources of £14,091,000 for the United Kingdom subscription costs to the European bank of reconstruction and development; £2,966,000 for the finacial sector scheme for the former Soviet Union (FSU); £315,000 to cover transport costs of the delivery of the United Kingdom share of emergency EC food aid to the FSU last winter and a transfer of £150,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for assistance to the FSU food sector. Also included is a further transfer of £450,000 from the Department of the Environment for conservation work in Africa. The balance of the increase is for rollover of underspend against 1991–92 EC attribution provision, £15 million of which has been allocated for additional humanitarian relief for former Yugoslavia. The running costs limit for the ODA has been increased by £432,000 from £46,922,000 to £47,354,000. This includes £224,000 in respect of end of year flexibility arrangements, a transfer of £58,000 from Property Holdings and £150,000 from existing resources to cover additional costs of administering the programme of assistance to eastern Europe and the FSU. All the increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

  Disabled People
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what efforts are being made to ensure that people with disabilities can gain access to the Palace of Westminster while lobbying Parliament.

  Mr. Martin
  The provisions which exist within the Palace of Westminster for the assistance of disabled people are set out in the leaflet "Arrangements for the Assistance of Disabled Visitors". I am arranging for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member. In the event of mass lobbies involving disabled people, special arrangements are made for their reception and admission to Westminster Hall and additional seating, heating and lavatories are provided. Special arrangements are also made when disabled persons need to reach other parts of the building.

  A stairlift was installed on the staircase leading to the Grand Committee Room earlier this year and handrails have been fitted to the steps down to the "W" rooms off Westminster Hall to assist those attending meetings. A comprehensive study by consultants has been commissioned to look at additional means of improving access for disabled people to the main public areas. Its recommendations will be considered by my Committee at the earliest opportunity.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Equality of Service)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect he expects the application of the citizens charter to the police to have on equality of service in response times to emergency and other inquiries.
  864
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A comprehensive set of performance indicators for the police service will be introduced at the end of this year. From April 1993, every police force will be required to set and publish standards of performance for responding to emergencies and telephone enquiries, and publish the achievement of these standards. This fulfils the commitment in the citizens charter that all police forces are expected to set and publish target times for answering telephone calls and arriving at the scene of incidents which require rapid reaction. Work is currently underway in police forces to implement the service's own quality of service initiative by setting standards for the quality of service to be delivered to the public. Every member of the community will know the level of service which they are entitled to expect from their local police.

  Primates
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the differences between the minimum standards for primates set out in the Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures and those applicable to premises in which primates are held for other purposes, including zoos.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures is similar in content to the Laboratory Animals Breeders Association guidelines in relation to primates.

  The Home Office code of practice is also broadly similar in content and range to section 9 of the "Standards of Modern Zoo Practice", issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, although the Home Office code is more detailed with regard to the temperatures, lighting, ventilation, noise, humidity and space requirements for the housing of animals, and deals separately with the particular needs of primates. The "Standards of Modern Zoos Practice" contain additional requirements relating to hazards from machinery, supervision of controlled drugs, post mortem facilities and safety of the public.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider consulting a range of independent primatologists and to establish what standards of housing and care are suitable for primates used in research as part of a wider review on the care and use of laboratory primates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate has regular contacts with experts in the field of primate care, and draws on the knowledge thus gained in assessing and monitoring projects involving the use of primates. Such contacts have also informed the review of facilities for large primates which the inspectorate is currently carrying out, and will contribute to the consideration being given to a possible code of practice for breeding establishments.

  I understand that the animal procedures committee may also consult other experts in the course of the review of laboratory primates which it is conducting.

  Prisoners' Release Dates
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is provided to prisoners of changes in their release dates.
  865
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  When prisoners' release dates change. they are advised of their existing dates of release, the number of days by which these have altered, the reasons for the changes and their new dates of release.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances prisoners can be detained once their sentence expiry date has passed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prisoners may be detained on the expiry of their sentences where a court has directed this in respect of other proceedings or if they have been ordered to he detained under the immigration Act 1971.

  Visas
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of refusals of visas broken down by country of application for 1991; and what is the current waiting time for refusal in each case.

  Applications from all countries for all types of entry clearance to the United Kingdom in 1991

  Number of applicants and percentages

  Country where application made

  Settlement1

  Non-settlement

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Algeria

  31

  8

  21

  6,471

  3,931

  37

  Angola

  6

  —

  0

  1,106

  27

  2

  Argentina

  46

  —

  0

  102

  1

  1

  Ascension Island

  —

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  Australia

  3,597

  44

  1

  7,563

  75

  1

  Austria

  52

  2

  4

  2,322

  17

  1

  Bahamas

  29

  —

  0

  139

  2

  1

  Bahrain

  25

  —

  0

  3,455

  50

  1

  Bangladesh

  3,143

  1,012

  24

  10,676

  2,554

  19

  Barbados

  93

  9

  9

  634

  137

  18

  Belgium

  37

  1

  3

  3,783

  96

  2

  Belize

  20

  3

  13

  29

  2

  6

  Bermuda

  5

  —

  0

  219

  —

  0

  Bolivia

  4

  —

  —

  23

  1

  4

  Botswana

  25

  —

  0

  687

  1

  0

  Brazil

  112

  3

  3

  887

  4

  0

  Brunei

  17

  —

  0

  1,129

  3

  0

  Bulgaria

  38

  —

  0

  5,938

  457

  7

  Burma

  5

  8

  62

  485

  14

  3

  Cameroon

  6

  1

  14

  1,007

  18

  2

  Canada

  1,309

  6

  0

  7,601

  65

  1

  Chile

  18

  —

  0

  184

  —

  0

  China

  64

  46

  42

  10,861

  2,534

  19

  Colombia

  56

  8

  13

  103

  2

  2

  Congo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Costa Rica

  —

  —

  —

  53

  1

  2

  Cote D'Ivoire

  1

  —

  0

  646

  46

  7

  Cuba

  2

  1

  33

  597

  —

  0

  Cyprus

  213

  17

  7

  4,884

  421

  8

  Czechoslovakia

  12

  —

  0

  754

  10

  1

  Denmark

  16

  5

  24

  2,402

  88

  4

  Ecuador

  10

  —

  0

  89

  —

  0

  Egypt

  91

  12

  12

  20,317

  1,222

  6

  Ethiopia

  377

  6

  2

  3,241

  456

  12

  Fiji

  48

  3

  6

  356

  13

  4

  Finland

  78

  5

  6

  1,116

  12

  1

  France

  180

  17

  9

  20,701

  532

  3

  Gabon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gambia

  10

  3

  23

  836

  118

  12

  Germany

  88

  29

  25

  17,660

  325

  2

  Ghana

  362

  113

  24

  14,854

  4,486

  23

  Gibraltar

  1

  —

  0

  176

  —

  0

  Greece

  32

  1

  3

  1,018

  24

  2

  Guatemala

  0

  —

  —

  22

  —

  0

  866
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applicants from(a) Third world countries and (b) the United States of America were refused short stay visas to enter the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest information by country of application for grants and refusals of visa applications to enter the United Kingdom. both for settlement and non-settlement is for 1991 and is given in the table. There is no visa requirement for citizens of the United States of America. The information on waiting times for refusal is not held centrally.
  867

  Country where application made

  Settlement1

  Non-settlement

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Guyana

  65

  16

  20

  603

  97

  14

  Holy See

  —

  —

  —

  26

  —

  0

  Honduras

  7

  3

  30

  11

  —

  0

  Hong Kong

  1,943

  85

  4

  20,564

  47

  0

  Hungary

  32

  —

  0

  665

  73

  10

  Iceland

  9

  —

  0

  110

  1

  1

  India

  3,327

  1,098

  25

  89,812

  9,828

  10

  Indonesia

  105

  3

  3

  12,260

  9

  0

  Iran

  2

  —

  0

  1,578

  —

  0

  Iraq

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  346

  2

  1

  2,350

  32

  1

  Israel

  134

  —

  0

  947

  2

  0

  Italy

  69

  3

  4

  4,660

  410

  8

  Jamaica

  418

  152

  27

  2,517

  680

  21

  Japan

  231

  —

  0

  5,022

  64

  1

  Jerusalem

  25

  —

  0

  1,223

  9

  1

  Jordan

  137

  —

  0

  8,996

  730

  8

  Kenya

  595

  58

  9

  1,507

  117

  7

  Korea

  16

  —

  0

  524

  8

  2

  Kuwait

  22

  —

  0

  1,504

  17

  1

  Lebanon

  19

  1

  5

  4,291

  318

  7

  Lesotho

  5

  —

  0

  59

  1

  2

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  —

  —

  —

  798

  7

  1

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  223

  2

  1

  Madagascar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  55

  1

  2

  322

  5

  2

  Malaysia

  330

  17

  5

  5,725

  180

  3

  Malta

  218

  1

  0

  3,665

  25

  1

  Mauritius

  88

  6

  6

  1,197

  129

  10

  Mexico

  56

  1

  2

  539

  —

  0

  Mongolia

  1

  —

  0

  152

  —

  0

  Morocco

  72

  19

  21

  5,101

  2,101

  29

  Mozambique

  4

  —

  0

  667

  16

  2

  Namibia

  6

  —

  0

  42

  5

  11

  Nepal

  27

  0

  0

  1,343

  127

  9

  Netherlands

  98

  10

  9

  6,141

  84

  1

  New Zealand

  3,229

  3

  0

  1,225

  29

  2

  Nigeria

  1,142

  311

  21

  49,301

  14,728

  23

  Norway

  142

  1

  1

  2,767

  184

  6

  Oman

  10

  —

  0

  5,958

  75

  1

  Pakistan

  6,331

  2,604

  30

  51,586

  16,055

  24

  Panama

  —

  —

  —

  75

  1

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  15

  —

  0

  264

  —

  0

  Peru

  45

  —

  0

  229

  1

  0

  Philippines

  80S

  374

  32

  9,766

  787

  7

  Poland

  214

  —

  0

  44,487

  2,462

  5

  Portugal

  41

  1

  2

  498

  13

  3

  Qatar

  4

  8

  67

  2,823

  135

  5

  Romania

  210

  28

  12

  9,935

  574

  5

  Saudi Arabia

  107

  15

  12

  38,570

  701

  2

  St. Helena

  1

  —

  0

  132

  —

  0

  Senegal

  7

  —

  0

  635

  22

  3

  Seychelles

  9

  —

  0

  158

  2

  1

  Sierra Leone

  20

  14

  41

  863

  363

  30

  Singapore

  163

  5

  3

  1,777

  36

  2

  Solomon Islands

  2

  —

  0

  18

  —

  0

  Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  651

  29

  4

  922

  37

  4

  Soviet Union

  114

  —

  0

  56,619

  1,087

  2

  Spain

  104

  2

  2

  1,849

  48

  3

  Sri Lanka

  181

  68

  27

  6,882

  1,143

  14

  Sudan

  30

  6

  17

  8,030

  42

  1

  Swaziland

  3

  —

  0

  30

  3

  9

  868 869

  Country where application made

  Settlement1

  Non-settlement

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Granted2

  Refused initially3

  Proportion refused4

  Sweden

  193

  1

  0

  4,363

  155

  3

  Switzerland

  134

  1

  1

  6,266

  50

  1

  Syria

  56

  —

  0

  4,759

  413

  8

  Tanzania

  95

  18

  16

  1,093

  37

  3

  Thailand

  602

  113

  16

  21,256

  809

  4

  Tonga

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  112

  19

  15

  1,586

  122

  7

  Tunisia

  31

  14

  31

  3,094

  172

  5

  Turkey

  727

  269

  27

  36,290

  2,322

  6

  Uganda

  28

  6

  18

  3,283

  516

  14

  United Arab Emirates

  57

  11

  16

  12,109

  888

  7

  United States

  2,838

  35

  1

  42,180

  154

  0

  Uruguay

  8

  —

  0

  58

  —

  0

  Vanuatu

  1

  —

  0

  29

  —

  0

  Venezuela

  26

  1

  4

  309

  5

  2

  Vietnam

  4

  —

  0

  340

  2

  1

  Yemen (North)

  —

  —

  —

  2,667

  138

  5

  Yemen (South)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  54

  6

  10

  414

  57

  12

  Zaire

  17

  —

  0

  661

  32

  5

  Zambia

  93

  12

  11

  1,423

  31

  2

  Zimbabwe

  185

  8

  4

  640

  76

  11

  1 Includes certificate of entitlement

  2 Granted initially or on appeal

  3 Some of these will be subsequently granted on appeal

  4 Calculate as: refusals/(grants-refusals) *100

  — no application received or none granted/refused

  Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted of offences specified in the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 since it received Royal Assent; what assessment he has made of whether the Act is deterring the taking away of vehicles without consent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Court proceedings data under the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992, which did not come

  Table of probation officers in post by police force area (whole-time equivalent) Figures relate to end of years and mid-1992

  Police force area

  Dec. 1987

  June 1988

  Dec. 1988

  June 1989

  Dec. 1989

  June 1990

  Dec. 1990

  June 1991

  Dec. 1991

  June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  156·0

  153·5

  159·5

  162·0

  165·0

  171·0

  175·5

  173·5

  181·5

  178·0

  Bedfordshire

  65·8

  66·3

  66·8

  66·3

  65·8

  65·8

  66·1

  67·3

  69·9

  69·2

  Cambridgeshire

  64·0

  62·0

  65·0

  65·0

  62·5

  65·0

  69·0

  67·5

  74·0

  73·5

  Cheshire

  99·5

  101·5

  105·2

  101·1

  100·1

  102·1

  104·0

  105·1

  113·1

  108·1

  Cleveland

  89·0

  91·0

  96·0

  96·0

  103·0

  101·0

  107·5

  99·3

  108·0

  108·0

  Cumbria

  56·5

  60·5

  58·0

  61·5

  59·0

  49·0

  59·5

  59·0

  64·0

  65·5

  Derbyshire

  96·7

  98·6

  103·7

  106·7

  112·2

  107·7

  117·0

  115·8

  117·5

  117·5

  Devon and Cornwall

  150·1

  150·9

  155·6

  153·1

  161·3

  161·7

  167·2

  165·4

  168·2

  173·7

  Dorset

  71·5

  73·5

  78·0

  78·0

  80·0

  85·0

  87·0

  87·5

  88·6

  87·5

  Durham

  79·0

  79·0

  81·0

  81·5

  83·5

  85·5

  89·0

  90·8

  92·5

  91·0

  Essex

  132·2

  129·8

  139·8

  137·2

  137·7

  136·8

  143·2

  144·4

  146·6

  142·0

  Gloucestershire

  53·0

  56·0

  55·0

  55·0

  56·2

  57·0

  62·5

  62·0

  64·0

  63·5

  Greater Manchester

  407·0

  401·0

  413·9

  409·5

  419·0

  415·0

  425·7

  421·0

  445·5

  442·2

  Hampshire

  194·0

  191·0

  194·0

  191·4

  196·4

  190·9

  190·8

  186·5

  200·4

  206·6

  Hertfordshire

  94·6

  91·4

  93·9

  91·8

  98·5

  94·5

  101·7

  102·5

  103·6

  101·6

  Humberside

  116·0

  115·0

  118·0

  118·0

  133·0

  136·5

  133·5

  133·5

  138·5

  137·0

  Kent

  157·5

  152·9

  160·4

  166·4

  167·4

  171·6

  163·2

  164·2

  170·6

  169·8

  Lancashire

  188·5

  190·5

  197·0

  197·5

  197·5

  197·5

  201·0

  204·0

  201·3

  205·0

  Leicestershire

  112·5

  111·5

  115·5

  117·5

  116·5

  117·5

  125·5

  125·0

  124·0

  122·0

  870
  into force until April 1992, will not be available until autumn 1993. It is therefore too early to say what effect the Act may have in deterring the taking away of vehicles without consent.

  Probation Service
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police authority area, the number of probation officers employed for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The numbers are as follows:
  871

  Police force area

  Dec. 1987

  June 1988

  Dec. 1988

  June 1989

  Dec. 1989

  June 1990

  Dec. 1990

  June 1991

  Dec. 1991

  June 1992

  Lincolnshire

  65·0

  64·0

  69·0

  71·0

  71·0

  69·0

  71·0

  68·0

  72·0

  77·0

  London City of

  4·0

  5·0

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  293·9

  296·4

  298·3

  296·4

  290·1

  287·1

  297·2

  291·0

  306·2

  311·2

  Metropolitan

  1.043·3

  1,035·9

  1,050·8

  1,036·2

  1,066·0

  1,058·9

  1,054·3

  1,074·6

  1,127·2

  1,145·4

  Norfolk

  62·5

  61·5

  65·5

  69·5

  74·0

  75·0

  82·5

  79·5

  82·5

  81·5

  Northamptonshire

  62·0

  65·0

  63·5

  63·5

  63·5

  59·5

  63·5

  69·5

  71·0

  71·5

  Northumbria

  208·5

  206·0

  210·5

  217·5

  222·0

  222·5

  237·0

  235·0

  237·5

  239·0

  North Yorkshire

  53·0

  53·0

  53·0

  52·0

  55·0

  53·0

  54·0

  54·0

  55·7

  58·0

  Nottinghamshire

  174·9

  175·8

  160·9

  166·9

  167·7

  174·5

  180·5

  175·9

  176·3

  182·9

  South Yorkshire

  195·5

  196·0

  202·0

  198·0

  202·5

  203·5

  204·5

  202·0

  221·5

  222·5

  Staffordshire

  161·0

  163·0

  164·9

  164·9

  160·5

  162·5

  169·1

  166·7

  169·5

  168·6

  Suffolk

  76·0

  75·4

  80·8

  79·8

  82·0

  81·0

  85·0

  85·0

  84·5

  85·0

  Surrey

  83·1

  81·7

  86·8

  90·0

  93·0

  84·5

  86·6

  85·0

  89·5

  91·0

  Sussex

  117·3

  119·8

  119·3

  117·0

  117·0

  113·5

  120·5

  127·8

  130·0

  131·0

  Thames Valley

  228·8

  224·5

  228·5

  228·5

  232·0

  219·6

  228·9

  227·4

  233·4

  240·0

  Warwickshire

  59·0

  58·5

  58·0

  56·5

  55·5

  58·5

  61·5

  61·5

  60·5

  61·0

  West Mercia

  137·0

  140·5

  141·5

  136·0

  140·5

  136·6

  144·2

  140·6

  148·0

  144·1

  West Midlands

  385·2

  385·7

  391·2

  399·4

  420·8

  401·4

  444·0

  426·7

  458·5

  454·1

  West Yorkshire

  311·0

  306·0

  307·5

  307·5

  310·5

  319·0

  321·0

  327·5

  319·0

  329·0

  Wiltshire

  57·0

  54·5

  57·5

  57·0

  60·0

  55·0

  61·0

  59·5

  62·5

  61·5

  Dyfed Powys

  41·0

  40·0

  43·0

  43·0

  42·0

  41·0

  42·0

  45·6

  46·0

  48·3

  Gwent

  48·0

  47·0

  47·0

  47·0

  49·0

  50·0

  51·0

  53·0

  54·0

  50·0

  North Wales

  56·0

  58·0

  59·6

  62·8

  66·4

  65·9

  67·9

  65·8

  69·6

  68·6

  South Wales

  182·0

  184·5

  181·5

  183·0

  183·5

  187·0

  193·0

  200·5

  206·1

  201·0

  England and Wales

  6,488·3

  6,473·5

  6,600·9

  6,602·4

  6,743·2

  6,689·5

  6,909·3

  6,896·2

  7,152·7

  7,183·9

  Some probation areas have small areas not falling within the one police force area (eg the Metropolitan police covers part of Hertfordshire).

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funding has been provided for the probation service, in each police authority area, as at 1 October, to reflect the demands imposed by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Area

  1990–91 outturn

  Formula provision

  Hypothecated grant (BIS)

  1992–93 cash limit

  Percentage increase

  Avon

  3,539,782

  4,415,552

  71,014

  4,486,566

  26·7

  Bedfordshire

  2,043,678

  2,534,184

  52,472

  2,586,656

  26·6

  Berkshire

  3,138,288

  3,891,513

  129,462

  4,020,975

  28·1

  Buckinghamshire

  2,449,242

  2,990,295

  47,118

  3,037,413

  24·0

  Cambridgeshire

  2,201,759

  2,748,260

  —

  2,748,260

  24·8

  Cheshire

  3,240,943

  4,018,807

  23,202

  4,042,009

  24·7

  Cleveland

  2,824,295

  3,471,882

  47,448

  3,519,330

  24·6

  Cornwall

  1,387,532

  1,746,588

  —

  1,746,588

  25·9

  Cumbria

  2,324,443

  2,856,081

  77,905

  2,933,986

  26·2

  Derbyshire

  2,888,693

  3,572,137

  37,108

  3,609,245

  24·9

  Devon

  4,012,354

  4,975,365

  96,807

  5,072,172

  26·4

  Dorset

  2,465,674

  3,021,058

  59,446

  3,080,504

  24·9

  Durham

  2,556,783

  3,126,310

  25,958

  3,152,268

  23·3

  Essex

  5,074,777

  6,292,782

  16,062

  6,308,844

  24·3

  Gloucestershire

  2,130,777

  2,642,188

  —

  2,642,188

  24·0

  Hampshire

  5,015,854

  6,330,972

  38,538

  6,369,510

  27·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,536,313

  3,109,325

  45,609

  3,154,934

  24·4

  Hertfordshire

  3,264,506

  4,028,037

  36,275

  4,064,312

  24·5

  Humberside

  3,476,194

  4,310,521

  65,073

  4,375,594

  25·9

  Kent

  5,398,108

  6,711,112

  —

  6,711,112

  24·3

  Lancashire

  5,061,772

  6,276,656

  26,985

  6,303,641

  24·5

  Leicestershire

  3,018,982

  3,743,572

  51,356

  3,794,928

  25·7

  Lincolnshire

  2,151,318

  2,667,659

  55,824

  2,723,483

  26·6

  Greater Manchester

  13,473,050

  16,706,737

  196,702

  16,903,439

  25·5

  Merseyside

  9,041,311

  11,037,793

  238,994

  11,276,787

  24·7

  Norfolk

  2,136,926

  2,686,449

  88,616

  2,775,065

  29·9

  Northamptonshire

  1,879,072

  2,330,071

  —

  2,330,071

  24·0

  Northumbria

  6,861,946

  8,508,892

  118,462

  8,627,354

  25·7

  Nottinghamshire

  4,973,540

  6,167,247

  —

  6,167,247

  24·0

  Oxfordshire

  2,041,161

  2,509,837

  27,632

  2,537,469

  24·3

  Shropshire

  1,420,021

  1,760,842

  77,842

  1,838,684

  29·5

  Somerset

  2,384,044

  2,892,907

  34,200

  2,927,107

  22·8

  Staffordshire

  4,415,682

  5,365,018

  74,289

  5,439,307

  23·2

  Suffolk

  2,027,942

  2,494,900

  37,461

  2,532,361

  24·9

  Surrey

  3,054,273

  3,839,281

  30,598

  3,869,879

  26·7

  East Sussex

  2,234,020

  2,816,819

  76,443

  2,893,262

  29·5

  872
  Mr. Jack
  In 1992–93 current grant support of £276 million has been allocated to probation areas as set out in the following table. This total provides for 560 additional probation staff to take account of the estimated first-year demands placed on area services by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The information requested cannot be broken down by police area.
  873

  Area

  1990–91 outturn

  Formula provision

  Hypothecated grant (BIS)

  1992–93 cash limit

  Percentage increase

  West Sussex

  1,657,289

  2,092,069

  67,181

  2,159,250

  30·3

  Warwickshire

  1,995,645

  2,424,131

  23,928

  2,448,059

  22·7

  West Midlands

  14,073,724

  17,451,580

  322,184

  17,773,764

  26·3

  Wiltshire

  1,880,029

  2,331,258

  25,678

  2,356,936

  25·4

  North Yorkshire

  1,723,677

  2,165,394

  —

  2,165,394

  25·6

  South Yorkshire

  6,922,146

  8,510,388

  99,851

  8,610,239

  24·4

  West Yorkshire

  10,721,366

  13,294,617

  166,907

  13,461,524

  25·6

  Dyfed

  1,056,002

  1,309,455

  22,265

  1,331,720

  26·1

  Gwent

  1,497,241

  1,874,253

  —

  1,874,253

  25·2

  North Wales

  1,907,830

  2,386,566

  20,746

  2,407,312

  26·2

  Powys

  425,395

  513,721

  —

  513,721

  20·8

  South Glamorgan

  2,130,779

  2,642,191

  36,352

  2,678,543

  25·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,274,378

  2,820,255

  —

  2,820,255

  24·0

  West Glamorgan

  1,820,796

  2,257,808

  51,697

  2,309,505

  26·8

  Inner London

  21,525,437

  26,809,665

  457,172

  27,266,837

  26·7

  North East London

  5,081,522

  6,385,496

  27,831

  6,413,327

  26·2

  South East London

  3,205,182

  4,079,642

  48,283

  4,127,925

  28·8

  South West London

  2,480,301

  3,139,042

  14,959

  3,154,001

  27·2

  Middlesex

  9,123,613

  11,502,075

  111,198

  11,613,273

  27·3

  Total

  219,647,407

  272,587,255

  3,501,133

  276,088,388

  25·7

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of asylum seekers have sought judicial review of their cases in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Lord Chancellor's Department that in 1990 there were 102 asylum-related applications for leave to move for judicial review; in 1991 the figure was 95 and in the first half of 1992, 68. The information before 1990 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of cases of exceptional leave to remain given to asylum applicants have been terminated in the past three years; and under what circumstances.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information, which may not be fully reliable, is given in the table.

  Exceptional leave is given to certain asylum applicants who are found not to be refugees under the 1951 United Nations convention if it would be unreasonable or impracticable in all the circumstances of the case to seek to enforce their return to the country of origin. Leave is usually given initially for a year but applicants may apply for extensions, and for settlement after seven years with exceptional leave status. The decision as to whether to grant an extension is based on the individual circumstances of the case including where relevant, the practicability of removal at that stage.

  Refusals of applications for an extension of a grant of exceptional leave made to an asylum applicant, excluding dependants

  Number

  1989

  10

  1990

  3

  1991

  3

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about maintaining the present composition of local police authorities;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils about maintaining the present composition of local police authorities;

  (3) what representations he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers about maintaining the present composition of local police authorities;

  (4) what representations he has received from the Police Federation about maintaining the present composition of local police authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ministers and officials have discussed this subject on several occasions with various representatives of those bodies. My right hon. and learned Friend is due to meet the chairmen of the local authority associations on 7 December to hear their views about the future development of the police service.

  Drug Traffickers (Assets)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police area in England and Wales for each year since the power was introduced(a) the number of applications for an order for the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers, (b) the number of applications approved and (c) the value of assets seized in that year.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available by police area, nor in the form requested at(a). As regards (b), details of the confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 between 1987 and 1990 are given in the table.
  875

  Offenders ordered to pay confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 by amount1 England and Wales

  Offenders sentenced at Crown Court for drug trafficking

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total2

  3,372

  3,231

  3,665

  3,713

  No order made

  3,169

  2,692

  2,863

  2,842

  Under £1,000

  135

  339

  528

  568

  £1,000 and under £3,000

  39

  98

  133

  149

  3,000 and under £10,000

  15

  47

  81

  77

  £10,000 and under £30,000

  8

  18

  36

  48

  £30,000 and under £100,000

  —

  8

  14

  13

  £100,000 and under £300,000

  6

  21

  7

  10

  £300,000 and under £1 million

  —

  8

  1

  4

  £1 million and over

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total amount ordered to be confiscated (£)

  1,177,000

  8,096,700

  7,851,900

  10,142,500

  1 Source—"Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1990" Cm. 1935.

  2 Excludes offenders committed for sentence or where the sentence could have been awarded at the magistrates' court.

  As regards (c), the amount of money actually realised was £1·1 million in 1989–90 and £1·45 million in 1990–91. Recent estimates show that a cumulative total of £35 million had been ordered to be confiscated under the 1986 Act up to May 1992, of which £15 million has either been realised or is subject to receivership. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 20 October, Official Report, columns 262–63.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the shortfall between the estimated population eligible for inclusion in electoral registers and those who are on current electoral registers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on 9 November,Official Report, column 630.

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what constraints he has placed on police overtime in England and Wales during the last three months; and what circulars or instructions have been issued to police committees on the subject of expenditure since April 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is the responsibility of a police authority to allocate its resources so as to provide an efficient service. The use of police overtime is a matter for individual police authorities.

  The following Home Office circulars which bear on the subject of expenditure have been issued since April 1992:

  Circular

  Title

  41/92

  The Police (Amendment) Regulation 1990

  50/92

  Capital Expenditure etc

  55/92

  Amendment to Circular 41/92, The Police (Amendment) Regulation 1990

  68/92

  Financing of the Common Police Services

  77/92

  Police Pension Scheme

  89/92

  Special Constables Sick Pay

  92/92

  Revision of Management of Police Building Programme etc

  97/92

  Charges for Road Traffic Reports etc

  98/92

  Pay of Chief Constables etc

  Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing the total number of persons sentenced to custody in England and Wales during August, September and October 1992, and for the same months in 1991; and if he will provide the figures for each police authority in each month of 1992 to date.

  Mr. Jack
  Provisional 1991 sentencing data will not be available until the end of 1992. 1992 data will not be available until autumn 1993.

  Immigration (Carriers Liability)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the value of outstanding charges levied on carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and what steps are being taken to recover this money from the carriers concerned.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 6 November 1992, a total of £24,114,000 was unpaid. Payments are demanded as and when charges are incurred. The immigration service has recently written to 133 carriers with unpaid charges which arose before 1 July 1992 requesting payment.

  Cash Limits
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1992–93 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Home Office administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales (class IX, vote 3) will be reduced by £1,281,000 from £1,243,473,000 to £1,242,192,000 to reflect the following transfers of responsibility:

  (i) magistrates courts to the Lord Chancellor's Department;

  (ii) social work training to the Department of Education;

  (iii) juvenile remand accommodation to the Welsh Office;

  (iv) dog byelaw administration to the Department of the Environment; and

  877

  (v) broadcasting and sports ground safety to the Department of National Heritage.

  The Home Office running costs limit is similarly reduced, by £944,000 from £1,450,020,000 to £1,449,076,000.

  Forensic Science Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the annual report for the forensic science service; and if he will make a statement about the financial targets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today placed copies of the forensic science service's annual report and accounts for 1991–92 in the Library of the House. Further copies can be obtained from FSS headquarters.

  I announced on 14 May at column 207 financial and service level targets for the forensic science service for 1992–93 based on a forecast out-turn for 1991–92. The actual out-turn for 1991–92 was better than originally forecast, meaning that the unit cost and associated unit cost efficiency targets were not sufficiently challenging. I have, therefore, agreed that the unit cost target should be £456·86, with a unit cost productivity gain of 1·8 per cent. These targets are more exacting than those originally set. The other performance targets remain the same.

  Criminal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought by the police relating to criminal welfare; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table. Provisional 1991 data will be available by the end of 1992.

  Number of prosecutions brought by the police for offences relating to animal welfare by result, 1990

  England and Wales

  Offence

  Police prosecutions

  Convictions

  Cruelty to animals

  502

  374

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

  4

  4

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  388

  290

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, Sec 8

  5

  5

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to dogs) Act, 1933

  16

  11

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  1

  1

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  2

  2

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  5

  5

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

  13

  11

  Slaughterhouses Act 1974

  2

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec 1

  19

  13

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  2

  1

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  —

  —

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

  3

  2

  Badgers Act, 1973

  35

  22

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, Sec 9

  3

  3

  878

  Offence

  Police prosecutions

  Convictions

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, Sec 11

  1

  1

  Other

  3

  3

  Diseases of animals Act

  50

  47

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  74

  49

  Vehicle Marking
  Mrs. Chaplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have adopted vehicle marking schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 October 1992, column 374]: I wish to advise that vehicle watch schemes —some force-wide, some more local—are now operating in 27 police force areas in England; the four Welsh force areas are covered by the all-Wales vehicle watch scheme. A proprietary scheme called "Match Up" has been introduced in five police force areas in England; two of these forces also operate vehicle watch schemes.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Green Issues
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Lord President of the Council who in his Department has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office participates in initiatives on recycling and energy conservation. Given its size (32 staff), it would be inappropriate to devote particular posts or resources to issues of this kind.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office currently holds three volumes of Council papers dating from the early 18th century and a small number of papers relating to chartered corporations founded in the 19th century, for purposes of research. All will be returned to the Public Record Office in due course.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when testing of the warheads for missiles on the Trident submarine will be complete.

  Mr. Aitken
  The underground testing programme for development of our Trident warhead is complete, and the warhead is now in production.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear tests have been allocated to Britain in the new limited programme in the United States for 1993 to 1996; and what financial arrangements now exist between Britain and the United States of America to enable tests to continue.

  Mr. Aitken
  United States legislation provides for the United Kingdom to carry out three tests between 1 July 1993 and 30 September 1996. United Kingdom nuclear tests are carried out at the Nevada test site under the 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and United States Governments for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes.

  Tactical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether work has started at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston on the design of a new tactical warhead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Preliminary work has begun on the design of a warhead that could be suitable for a replacement for the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options, other than a tactical air-to-surface missile, are being studied for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are continuing to study a range of possible options for the eventual replacement of the WE177. No decision has yet been taken.

  Challenger II
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will authorise the release by his Department of a Challenger II prototype to take part in the contest for the Swedish requirement of 200 tanks.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is a matter for Vicker's commercial judgment to decide the allocation of priorities for the Challenger 2 prototypes.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 27 October,Official Report, column 852, if he will make a further statement on the links between the Chilean military and the British Defence Research Agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Aberporth range referred to by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) in his question of 27 October is no longer the responsibility of the Defence Research Agency (DRA). It was transferred to the newly-formed directorate general of test and evaluation (DGT&E) on 1 April 1992. Neither whilst Aberporth belonged to the DRA, nor since then, has the DRA had any formal or direct links with the Chilean military. One Chilean officer visited the site two years ago.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on procedures used in the measurement and categorisation of radioactive waste at the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  The procedures used in the measurement and categorisation of radioactive wastes at AWE Aldermaston are very similar to and of equivalent quality to the procedures used elsewhere in the United Kingdom nuclear industry.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 6 November 1992, some 1,697 pieces were on loan to the Ministry of Defence. It is not possible to list the title of each without disproportionate cost.

  The MOD, like all Government Departments, has a statutory right, under the Public Records Act, to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for its own administrative use. Records which are in the public domain but on loan to the MOD are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed. There are well established procedures to ensure that the public continues to have access whilst the records are on loan.

  RAF Bands (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the sponsorship by Superkings cigarettes of the recent concert tour of the massed bands of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The concert tour—which this year was held between 24 October and 1 November—is organised and sponsored annually on behalf of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund by the fund's commercial arm, the international air tattoo. Neither the fund nor the tattoo have any formal links with the Ministry of Defence, and make their own sponsorship arrangement for the concert tour. The international air tattoo has negotiated with 11 commercial firms for financial and other assistance to offset their costs in arranging the concert tour, which provides excellent public relations for the RAF and makes an invaluable contribution to the RAF Benevolent Fund's charitable efforts.

  Amphibious Forces
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the provisions for amphibious forces announced by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the House on 13 February.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 11 November,Official Report, column 823.

  Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet reached a decision on the future of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation, Portsmouth.
  881
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of our continuing efforts to find the most cost-effective arrangements for the support of the Fleet, we propose to cease all ship refits at the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation (FMRO) in Portsmouth. Such work will in future be undertaken in the Royal dockyards and industry. The FMRO will continue to undertake repair, maintenance and enhancement work for ships based at Portsmouth, and unprogrammed work in respect of defects in operational ships. We expect that some 400 civilian staff would be affected by this proposal. Every effort will be made to find alternative employment in the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments, but some redundancies may be unavoidable. Where that is the case, staff will be eligible for compensation under the relevant pension scheme and for counselling on alternative employment prospects.

  This proposal is the subject of consultation with the trade unions and final decisions will be taken in the light of any representations made by interested parties. A copy of the consultative document has been placed in the Library of the House.

  We also plan to market test the FMRO. This will he the subject of separate consultation with the trade unions.

  Sea Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of operational sea training for the Royal Navy and Portland naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of our continuing work to achieve the best balance between the front line and support we are proposing to transfer the Royal Navy's operational sea training (OST) base from Portland to Devonport and to close Portland naval base by April 1996.

  This proposal will save some £70 million over the next ten years and some £11 million per annum thereafter. Some 550 service and 475 civilian personnel will be affected by the proposal. While every effort will be made to redeploy civilian staff within the Ministry of Defence or with other Government Departments, some redundancies may be unavoidable. Where that is the case, staff will be eligible for compensation under the relevant pension scheme and for counselling on alternative employment prospects.

  Some 1,200 naval personnel and 200 MOD civilians will continue to be based at the royal naval air station at Portland, which will remain in operation.

  This proposal is the subject of consultation with the trade unions and final decisions will be taken in the light of any representations made by interested parties. A copy of the consultative document has been placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to publishing an explanatory booklet on Maastricht for general distribution to all United Kingdom households.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's pamphlet on the European Community and the Maastricht treaty was published on 10 November. It will not be sent to every 882
  household, but copies are being distributed to all right hon. and hon. Members, public libraries and other institutions and are available free on request. Freepost and freephone facilities are being provided.

  The freepost address is PO Box 1992, Burgess hill, West Sussex. The freephone number is 0800 778866.

  Government Publications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for each of the past 20 years the booklets or leaflets published by the Government and distributed free of charge to all households in the United Kingdom giving the publication costs in each case in 1992 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not available centrally.

  Pay Fixing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what statutory bases there are for pay fixing, other than wages councils; and what plans there are for their abolition in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  The Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) has statutory powers under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 to set wages for agricultural workers in England and Wales. Separate legislation and boards exist for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wages orders made by the AWB enable the United Kingdom to fulfil two conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and these cannot legally be reviewed until the second half of next year and 1994. Decisions on the future of agricultural wages legislation will be taken when we are able to review our ILO commitments.

  Engagements
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1992–93 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote (class XIX vote 2) will be increased by £2,000,000 from £23,647,000 to £25,647,000. This increase reflects take-up under the end year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, columns 698–702). Also, the

  883
  running costs limit for this vote will be reduced by £120,000 from £20,410,000 to £20,290,000, reflecting the transfer of certain administrative functions following the machinery of Government changes announced after the general election. All the changes are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Meetings
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he gives to Ministers in respect of the time within which a request from an hon. Member for a meeting should be acknowledged and replied to.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for Ministers in each Department to decide how such requests are handled.

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to make funding available to political parties for security costs associated with the annual party conferences.

  The Prime Minister
  Central funding for this purpose has been available to all parties since 1986. The scheme, which was extended this year to include part of the cost of issuing photographic security passes, provides for political parties to be reimbursed for specified security costs, where the chief constable concerned certifies that the expenditure was incurred on security measures which were necessary and in line with the assessed threat.

WALES

  Clinical Scientific Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an information guide for area health authorities and fund-holding general practitioners on the availability of specialist clinical scientific services outside their own geographical boundaries.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no plans to do so.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many warrant sales have been conducted in each of the last five years in each of the borough and district councils of Clwyd.

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

  Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve the welfare of live animals transported(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) to the rest of the European Community.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A new EC directive on the protection of animals during transport is due to be implemented across the Community by 1 January 1993. The Commission is to table proposals for further detailed rules to supplement the directive and during negotiations the Government will be seeking the highest possible safeguards for all animals.
  884
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the transportation of live animals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.

  Mardy Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the captial cost of establishing the elderly mentally infirm unit at the Mardy hospital, Merthyr Tydfil; and under what budget this expenditure was incurred.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The capital cost of establishing the elderly mentally infirm unit at Mardy hospital, amount to £456,000, was met by Mid Glamorgan health authority from its discretionary allocation.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage change in the number of home helps in Wales from 1979 to 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of home helps—whole-time equivalent—increased by 51 per cent. from 1979 to 1991, the latest date for which information is available.

  Local Government
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement on the future organisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement on 3 March 1992, at column 171.

  Emergency Ambulances
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of emergency ambulances in Wales, since April 1992, arrived within(a) 14 minutes in an urban area, (b) 18 minutes in a rural area or (c) 21 minutes in a sparsely populated area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information relates to the quarter ended 30 June 1992 and is as follows:

  Urban areas—91 per cent. arrived within 14 minutes

  Rural areas—97 per cent. arrived within 18 minutes

  Sparsely populated areas—92 per cent. arrived within 21 minutes

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what remaining period he expects his grade 7 official to remain on secondment with the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The grade 7 official referred to is expected to complete his agreed period of secondment in March 1993.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what powers he has to require the fluoridation of water supplies.
  885
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. Section 87(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides only that water undertakers may increase the fluoride content of water supplies at the request of a health authority.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to hospital managers to cover their operations in the period between approval as NHS trusts and commencement of actual operations as trusts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A wide range of advice has already been issued to support the preparation for formal operation as an NHS trust. The order establishing each NHS trust specifies the functions of the trust, both before and after its operational date.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received relating to the establishment of an opt-out trust at the Wrexham Maelor hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Up to and including 29 October, the number of representations received are as follows:

  Number

  In support

  9

  Opposed

  10

  Undeclared

  10

  Total

  29

  NHS trusts are, and will remain, an integral part of the national health service.

  Deeside Industrial Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 778, and his speech of 21 October, Official Report, columns 527–28, what was the source of the figure of 10,000 people employed on the Deeside industrial park.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Census of employment figures.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of the Cardiff Bay opera house feasibility study; and how much and what percentage of the total cost was spent on each of the studies by(a) Comedia on the demand, size and scope plus artistic profile, (b) Symonds and Co. on quantity surveying, (c) Ahrends, Burton and Koralek on the architectural brief, (d) Veryard and Partners on civil engineering, (e) KPMG management consultancy on economic appraisal, (f) Cooke and Arkwright on the betterment analysis, and (g) AEA on project funding.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total cost of the Cardiff Bay opera house feasibility study was £105,225·72, broken down as follows:

  £

  per cent.

  Comedia

  21,824·02

  20·7

  Ahrends Burton and Koralek

  2,460·00

  2·3

  Veryard and Partners

  7,550·00

  7·2

  886

  £

  per cent.

  KPMG Management Consulting

  31,244·40

  29·7

  AEA

  37,297·30

  35·4

  A sum of £4,850—4·6 per cent.—was paid to Grant Thornton as commissioning costs for the inception study. Symonds and Cooke and Arkwright supplied information direct to the Comedia and KPMG Management Consulting; they received no direct payment from Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the engineering and infrastructure study carried out under paragraph (b) of the terms of reference of the feasibility study on the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I arranged for the executive summary to be placed in the Library of the House on 4 November. I have no plans to publish any further documents relating to the feasibility study on the proposed opera house.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the feasibility study of the opera house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation and I have discussed the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house and I look forward to receiving further advice on this matter from the corporation in due course.

  St. Lawrence Hospital, Chepstow
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions the regional burns unit for Wales at St. Lawrence hospital, Chepstow, has been closed to admissions from(a) 1 April 1991 to 1 April 1992 and (b) since 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The operational responsibility for the burns unit at St. Lawrence hospital is a matter for the unit's management. However, I understand that the burns unit has not been closed in the period 1 April 1991 to present, although on one occasion the dependency of patients on the burns unit was such that for a 24-hour period—2 November—arrangements were made for resuscitation cases to be taken to the Frenchay burns unit at Bristol.

  General Practitioner Fund Holders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued on the parity of access to hospital treatment for non-emergency surgery and procedures between fund holding general practitioners and non-fund holding general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Health Service Management Executive for England and the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association has issued guidance on general practitioner fund holding on EL(91)84. This sets out the criteria for acceptable contracts to be agreed between general practitioner fund
  887
  holders and all national health service hospitals. It clearly states that hospitals should not offer contracts to fund holders which would disadvantage patients of other purchasers. This guidance has been issued to general practitioner fund holders in Wales.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a study into the side effects on the Welsh economy of the Severn bridge toll increases over the period 1992 to the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Evidence produced for inquiries into toll increases on the existing bridge, and research undertaken by the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers on the economic impact of the second Severn crossing, does not indicate a detrimental effect on the Welsh economy.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for changes to the cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XVI, vote 5 will be increased by £4,690,000 from £496,482,000 to £501,172,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £6,389.000 from £1,270,525,000 to £1,276,914,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 9 will be reduced by £1,174,000 from £60,297,000 to £59,123,000; and the cash limit for class XVI, vote 10 will be reduced by £2,960,000 from £2,172,936,000 to £2,169,976,000. In addition, a new cash limited vote has been introduced, class XVI, vote 12—provision for which has been set at £1,832,000. The urban block cash limitWO/UA—will be increased by £3,694,000 from £78,315,000 to £82,009,000, the local authority capital cash limit—WO/LACAP—will be reduced by £5,900,000 from £457,234,000 to £451,334,000, the running costs limit for the Department will be reduced by £1,273,000 from £74,361,000 to £73,088,000 and a new running costs limit of £1,819,000 has been introduced in respect of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, in Wales.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 represents the net effect of: (a) increases in respect of (i) the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £60,000 for running costs expenditure; (ii) a transfer of £9,000 from class VIII vote 7 to cover additional maintenance costs; (iii) an increase of £70,000 to cover the residual costs of water privatisation; (iv) a transfer of £4,220,000 from class XVI, vote 10 in respect of the annual maintenance grants of grant maintained schools; (v) a transfer of £223,000 from class XVI, vote 8 to cover the costs of medical course organisers; (vi) a transfer of £150,000 from class XI, vote 3 in respect of secure accommodation; and (vii) additional provision of £59,000 following the 1992 report of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine; and (b) reductions in respect of (i) a transfer of £59,000 to class XVI, vote 12 to cover publicity and other costs to be incurred by the new office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales (OHMCI); and (ii) a transfer of £42,000 to class XI, vote 2 in respect of social work funds.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 8 comprises the take-up of both capital, £6,352,000, and current £200,000,
  888
  end-year flexibility entitlement, and a transfer from class XVI, vote 7, £60,000, for the safe disposal of medicines; partly offset by a transfer, £223,000, to class XVI, vote 5 to cover the costs of medical course organisers.

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 9 represents the net effect of: (a) increases in respect of (i) the take-up of both running costs, £234,000, and capital £181,000, end-year flexibility entitlement; and (ii) a transfer of £184,000 from class VIII, vote 7 to cover additional accommodation costs;

  and (b) a transfer to class XVI, vote 12 to cover (i) the running costs expenditure, £1,760,000, and (ii) the capital expenditure, £13,000, of OHMCI.

  The net reduction in the cash limit for vote 10 takes account of the transfer of £4,220,000 to class XVI, vote 5 in respect of grant maintained schools, partly offset by an increase of £1,260,000 in respect of rating work services.

  The cash limit for vote 12 comprises transfers from class XVI, vote 5 of £59,000 and vote 9 of £1,773,000 in respect of the administration and associated costs of OHMCI.

  The increase in the WO/UA cash limit represents the take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement from 1991–92 of £3,694,000.

  The WO/LACAP cash limit will be reduced by £5,900,000 because provision which was made for prior-year capital grant adjustments is no longer required.

  The entitlements to end-year flexibility for WO/UA and votes 8 and 9 were announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July, Official Report, columns 698–702. So also was the increase in the Department's running costs limit which features in both vote 5, £60,000, and vote 9, £234,000.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the date of publication of the Welsh Development Agency's annual report and accounts for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Arrangements are being made for the agency's annual report to be laid before the House on 20 November together with the statement of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report thereon. The annual report and accounts will be published the same day.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his proposals are for local government revenue spending in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I propose to set a level of £2,598 million for total standard spending (TSS) in Wales in 1993–94. This figure comprises an increase of 3·1 per cent. on the TSS for 1992–93, adjusted for functional transfers, and £35·9 million in additional resources for county authorities' new responsibilities for care in the community from 1 April 1993, as announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 2 October. I propose to set central Government support for TSS through aggregate external finance (AEF) at £2,343 million. This comprises a 1·7 per cent. increase on the comparable level of AEF for 1992–93 and 100 per cent. funding for the £35·9 million community care spending.
  889
  I am still considering whether there is need for transitional arrangements to accompany the introduction of the council tax. I will announce my decision in due course. Any transitional arrangements would be funded from within AEF.

  The levels of TSS and AEF I propose take account of other changes in local government functions which take effect on 1 April 1993. Responsibility for the majority of further education services will transfer to the Further Education Funding Council and similarly residual higher education services will transfer to the Higher Education Funding Council. The phased transfer of responsibility for school inspection to the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for Wales also begins in 1993–94. I consider that £126 million is an appropriate level of funding to transfer from local authorities to these bodies in 1993–94. I have adjusted the levels of TSS and AEF accordingly.

  I consider my proposals to be realistic in the current economic climate. They give a level of settlement increase above projected inflation.

  I recognise that local government in Wales will have to make hard choices about spending priorities if authorities are to stay within my plans. They are not alone in this. The Government have had to take very tough public expenditure decisions for 1993–94. It is essential to economic recovery that we continue to keep inflation and public expenditure down. Local government must play its full part in this and Welsh local authorities will need rigorously to examine their budgetary priorities and pursue efficiency savings.

  I shall be announcing provisional standard spending assessments and council tax-capping criteria for 1993–94 in due course to help local authorities with their budgeting.

  I intend to consult the Welsh local authority associations on my settlement proposals later this month and I will announce final settlement details to the House early in the new year.

  Finally, I propose to raise the non-domestic rate poundage for 1993–94 to 44p from its 1992–93 level of 42·5p. This is an increase of 3·5 per cent. in line with the change in the retail prices index over the 12 months to September 1992. It is consistent with the statutory requirement to limit increases to the rate of inflation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes will be made to his Department's cash limit or running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 6 (Royal Palaces, Royal Parks, historic buildings, etc) will be increased by £28,000 from £190,596,000 to £190,624,000. The increase is required to cover the cost of new charges by Property Holdings for services provided to the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments for England. This increase is offset by equivalent transfers of provision from class VIII, vote 7 (Department of the Environment (Property Holdings and Central Support Services)).

  (ii) The cash limit for class XII, vote 2 (Arts) will be increased by £458,000 from £252,903,000 to £253,361,000. The increase is to meet the balance of
  890
  Government support for the European Arts Festival in 1992. A corresponding saving is being made on class XII vote 1.

  (iii) The cash limit for class XII, vote 4 (Administration) will be increased by £9,218,000 from £2,446,000 to £11,664,000 and the running costs limit increased by £4,878,000 from £5,574,000 to £10,452,000. The increase is to provide additional provision for the administration costs associated with the creation of the Department of National Heritage. A combined offsetting saving of £9,218,000 is being made on class XII, vote 1 and vote 3.

  (iv) The departmental running cost limit will be increased from £13,930,000 to £18,731,000 as a result of the reallocation of resources to meet the needs of the new department (£4,878,000 on class XII, vote 4). This increase is offset by savings of £77,000 made in the programme of consultancies which provides specialist advice to the Royal Parks division (class VIII, vote 6). There is no change to the net running cost control of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency.

  All the changes are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many(a) public libraries, (b) galleries and (c) museums he has visited in an official capacity since taking up his appointment.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The information is as follows:

  (a) I have not visited any public libraries since taking up my appointment as Secretary of State.

  (b) The Yorkshire sculpture park. I am due to visit the Tate gallery shortly.

  (c) The Royal Pavilion, Brighton, the natural history museum and the opening of the Joseph E Hotung gallery of oriental antiquities by Her Majesty the Queen at the British museum. I have also met representatives from the science museum to discuss their future plans and I have incidentally visited the pathology museum at St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what dates he met the chairman of(a) the Arts Council, (b) the Library Association, (c) the Publishers Association, (d) the Museums and Galleries Commission, (e) English Heritage, (f) the Royal Fine Art Commission, (g) the Radio Authority and (h) the Independent Television Commission, in an official capacity since taking up his appointment.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: So far, I have met the chairmen of the Arts Council (on several occasions), the Radio Authority and English Heritage, and I shall shortly be meeting a delegation from the Library Association which will include its president and its chief executive. I have met informally the chairmen of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Independent Television Commission. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the other bodies referred to by the hon. Member as soon as my diary allows.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many formal complaints he has received from parents alleging misconduct by a local education authority during the holding of a parental ballot on grant-maintained status;

  (2) how many formal complaints he has received alleging misconduct by a headteacher or governing body during the holding of a parental ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. Complaints about misconduct during GM ballots are received in various quarters. Some are made to the local authority, some to the school, some to us at the Department and some to the grant-maintained schools centre. My right hon. Friend has made clear that any complaints made to the Department will receive full consideration and, where necessary, he will call for a report from the local authority concerned.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals there are for changes to the cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Mr. Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class XI, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services, vote 2, higher and further education and vote 4, administration, will be increased. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  XI.1

  766,535,000

  +1,831,000

  768,366,000

  XI.2

  3,034,485,000

  +2,505,000

  3,036,990,000

  XI.4

  108,427,000

  +1,566,000

  109,993,000

  The increase on class XI, vote 1 includes the take-up of £1,977,000 capital end-year flexibility entitlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 at columns 698–702. It also takes account of a reduction of £ 146,000 to offset in full an increase to the cash limit on the higher and further education vote, class XI, vote 2.

  The increase on class XI, vote 2 includes the take up of £839,000 capital end-year flexibility entitlement. It also takes account of an increase of £1,392,000 in provision for the costs of extended and upgraded courses in social work, offset in full by transfers of funding from the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office; an increase of £146,000 to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council following the transfer of responsibility for the funding of the YMCA National College, offset in full by a reduction to provision for youth services on Class XI, Vote 1; and an increase of £128,000 in provision for grant-in-aid for the running costs of the Further Education Funding Council, offset in full by a reduction on the administration vote, class XI, vote 4.

  The increase on class XI, vote 4 includes the take-up of £1,543,000 capital and running costs end year flexibility
  892
  entitlement and a transfer of £151,000 from Property Holdings. It is net of the transfer of £128,000 to class XI, vote 2. The Department's running costs limit has been reduced by £7,933,000 to £95,597,000 principally as a result of transfers to the new vote for the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (class XI, vote 7) and to the Office of Public Services and Science (class XIX, vote 4).

  All the increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement today.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the actual expenditure in the financial year 1991–92 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  The actual expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial year 1991–92 and the latest estimate for 1992–93 are given in the table.

  £000s 1991–92

  £000s 1992–93 (estimate)

  Television advertising

  800·0

  —

  Radio advertising

  —

  —

  Newspaper advertising

  2,237·9

  718·0

  Other promotional material

  5,842·7

  5,822·0

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about his Department's expenditure plans for the financial years 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Patten
  The information is as follows:

  1. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement today, the Department for Education's spending programme in 1993–94 will total £9,523 million. That total is £523 million or 5·8 per cent. higher than equivalent expenditure in 1992–93.

  2. Total expenditure in 1994–95 is planned to be £10,115 million and in 1995–96 £10,497 million.

  3. Within these totals the Government have given high priority to the launch of the new further education sector so as to build up the supply of those with technical and other skills, where this country still falls short of its main competitors such as Germany and Japan. The staying-on rate at age 16 and 17 has increased sharply in the last few years. With the co-operation of the colleges, the Government's plans should over the next three years lift us towards the top of the international league table for participation in education among 16·19 year olds. The Government have also given priority to the funding of the rapidly expanding grant-maintained schools programe, and to enabling higher education participation to continue at its present record level. Against the background of the exceptionally demanding Public Expenditure Survey the Government are planning for continuing growth in their expenditure on education.
  893
  Grant-maintained schools

  4. There are currently 342 grant-maintained schools open or approved. That number is projected on present trends to rise to some 500 by next April. The Government's spending plans provide for the number of GM schools to grow to 1,500 in April 1994.

  5. The great hulk of recurrent funding for GM schools is found from within the totals for local authority expenditure. Central Government expenditure on recurrent and capital grants to GM schools is planned to rise substantially over the next three years as the number of GM schools grows. Total central Government expenditure on GM schools is planned to total £61 million in 1992–93 and £157 million, £294 million and £446 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. Capital expenditure alone will total £501 million over the next three years. The funding plans include provision for the running costs of the proposed funding agency for schools.

  Further education

  6. From 1 April 1993 further education and sixth form colleges will he funded direct by the new Further Education Funding Council, set up under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The plans provide for the launch of the newly independent sector. Total recurrent spending is planned at £2,549 million, £2,734 million and £2,943 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. That increase in funding will allow for an assumed 25 per cent. increase in student numbers between 1992–93 and 1995–96:

  Financial year

  FT student numbers (thousand)

  1992–93

  899

  1993–94

  970

  1994–95

  1,038

  1995–96

  1,121

  7. The priority being given to this expansion in numbers will be a direct contribution to enhancing the skills of the nation: those skills will be increasingly in demand to sustain and improve our competitiveness.

  8. In order to encourage efficiency in the achievement of these increased student numbers, part of the provision to be made available to the Further Education Funding Council will be directly related to actual student numbers. This funding approach will encourage institutions to compete for students and will enable the sector as a whole to improve its efficiency.

  9. Capital expenditure on FE is planned to be £152 million, £157 million and £159 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. The current level of capital spending on colleges will be sustained and the new sector will be able to begin to improve the state of its accommodation and stock of its equipment.

  Higher Education

  10. The number of students on full-time and sandwich courses in higher education has expanded even faster than the rapid rate of growth envisaged as recently as in the Government's Higher Education White Paper (Cm 1541) of May 1991, on which the Government's previous expenditure plans were based. The numbers of young people entering higher education in 1992 are already between one in four and one in three.
  894
  11. The Government have provided substantial additional funding for further education to enable the country's needs for skills to be met. Given the need to strike a balance with the rate of expansion of further education, the government envisages a period of consolidation in higher education after its recent very rapid growth beyond the levels projected as recently as May 1991. The figures underlying the expenditure plans announced today accordingly assume that the proportion of young people entering higher education will remain broadly steady in the next three years, and increase to the level of one in three at the end of the decade which has long been assumed in our forward projections.

  12. The expenditure plans provide for total FTE student numbers in higher education to rise by 13 per cent between 1992–93 and 1995–96:

  Financial year

  FTE student numbers (thousand)

  1992–93

  776

  1993–94

  842

  1994–95

  877

  1995–96

  880

  13. Total recurrent funding for teaching and research in universities and colleges in England—including grant paid by the HE Funding Council for England and related tuition fees—is planned at £3,824 million, £3,995 million and £4,024 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. I shall be inviting the Funding Council to consider its approach to funding in the light of these revised assumptions about growth.

  14. Provision for capital spending through the Funding Council will be £319 million, £322 million and £329 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. In addition the Government are ending the prohibition of borrowing by HE institutions against the security of Exchequer funded assets: this will be widely welcomed in the university world.

  15. Some of the increase above projected numbers of total students flows from the increasing proportion of students on longer courses. I have already asked the Funding Council to develop funding incentives for two year diploma vocational courses. In order to enable universities and colleges to admit as many young people as possible within the total numbers assumed, I am also asking the Funding Council to advise me on what action it can take to deter any trend towards longer courses.

  16. Many of the new vocational diploma courses will be in engineering and technology. In addition, I am encouraging the Funding Council to promote continuing expansion at all levels in engineering and technology, where recruitment in recent years has continued to be disappointing. The Government's commitment to high quality research in the humanities is reflected in an increase of 11 per cent. in the grant to the British Academy.

  Pay

  17. The Department's spending plans assume that pay settlements in 1993–94 will fall within the range 0 to 11 per cent. in line with the terms of the Chancellor's statement. I shall direct the School Teachers' Review Body to have regard to this policy. I shall hold back £50 million of the planned provision for the Further Education Funding Council and £50 million from the Higher Education

  895
  Funding Council for England against the delivery of pay settlements within this range for all of the staff of the institutions within their sectors.

  Student Support

  18. The spending plans allow for total expenditure on student maintenance in England and Wales of £1,206 million, £1,311 million and £1,360 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. The level of student loans will be increased in the academic year 1993–94 so that the average value of student support in grants and loans rises by 2–75 per cent. in line with the assumed increase in the GDP deflator. Spending on the access funds will be sustained in 1993–94.

  Capital Expenditure on Schools

  19. Total central Government provision for capital expenditure on grant-maintained and LEA-maintained schools is £598 million, £613 million and £624 million in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. Local education authorities will in addition be able to take advantage of the change which the Chancellor has announced on the permitted use of capital receipts. Taking account of that and other flexibilities, gross capital spending on schools in real terms should be at least equal to the total in 1992–93, which will reflect the 15 per cent. increase in central Government provision announced last year by my predecessor. Further details of annual capital guidelines and allocations to voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools will be announced later.

  Students (Funding)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he intends to make to the arrangements through which validation fees for higher education courses are met from student awards.

  Mr. Forman
  Following consultation with the higher education sector, I have decided that, for publicly-funded institutions, the costs of external validation by institutions with degree awarding powers for colleges without degree-awarding powers should be met by those colleges from funds made available to them, rather than through fees paid with the student award. This arrangement will enable the charge for validation and related services to be negotiated, within the public funds available, in a way which more closely reflects the range and cost of the services provided. The change will come into effect for the 1993–94 academic year. Appropriate transfers will be made

  Number of establishments in London which

  During the year

  Failed to post notices

  Percentage of total checks

  Failed to keep adequate records of wages paid

  Percentage of total checks

  Failed to keep adequate records of hours worked

  Percentage of total checks

  Were the subject of criminal prosecution under the wages act

  Percentage of total checks

  1979

  955

  2·65

  589

  16·4

  2,229

  61·9

  3

  0·08

  1980

  977

  32·7

  499

  16·7

  1,954

  65·4

  0

  0

  1981

  690

  25·2

  308

  11·3

  1,397

  51·04

  1

  0·04

  1982

  758

  33·2

  216

  9·5

  1,278

  56·0

  0

  0

  1983

  609

  27·9

  276

  12·7

  1,367

  62·7

  0

  0

  1984

  804

  28·3

  204

  7·2

  1,311

  46·1

  0

  0

  1985

  726

  33·6

  174

  8·0

  1,178

  54·5

  0

  0

  1986

  700

  24·5

  128

  4·5

  899

  31·5

  0

  0

  1987

  480

  12·7

  47

  1·3

  430

  11·4

  0

  0

  1988

  540

  14·5

  32

  0·9

  269

  7·2

  0

  0

  1989

  304

  11·9

  18

  0·7

  111

  4·4

  0

  0

  896
  for this purpose from the planned public expenditure provision for mandatory awards to that for the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and for Wales. These will be reflected in the relevant supply estimates for 1993–94 to be laid before Parliament in due course. The Mandatory Award Regulations will be amended for 1993–94 on account of the change.

  The arrangements for meeting the costs of validation fees for mandatory award holders at privately funded institutions will remain unchanged for the time being.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many checks were carried out by wages councils in London which found workers underpaid in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information for the wages inspectorate's London division is as follows:

  Year

  Number of checks which found workers underpaid

  Percentage of total checks

  1979

  680

  18·9

  1980

  754

  25·2

  1981

  710

  25·9

  1982

  685

  30·0

  1983

  780

  35·8

  1984

  678

  23·9

  1985

  655

  30·3

  1986

  608

  21·3

  1987

  270

  7·2

  1988

  317

  8·5

  1989

  229

  9·0

  1990

  172

  7·3

  1991

  294

  5·5

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments in London were (i) found failing to post wages council notices, (ii) found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid, (iii) found failing to keep adequate records of hours worked and (iv) the subject of criminal prosecutions against employers under the Wages Acts, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information for the wages inspectorate's London division is as follows:
  897

  During the year

  Failed to post notices

  Percentage of total checks

  Failed to keep adequate records of wages paid

  Percentage of total checks

  Failed to keep adequate records of hours worked

  Percentage of total checks

  Were the subject of criminal prosecution under the wages act

  Percentage of total checks

  1990

  371

  15·6

  20

  0·8

  151

  6·4

  0

  0

  1991

  672

  12·7

  73

  1·4

  310

  5·9

  1

  0·02

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the level of bureaucracy added to the labour market or to burdens on business by the wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employers are required to maintain records, keep them for three years, make sure they are available for inspection on request, display notices of proposals made by wages councils, display notices of orders made by wages councils and provide any other information to do with the enforcement of a wages order requested by a wages inspector. When negotiating pay employers are constrained by existing minimum rates and the likely timing and magnitude of wages council increases for the different councils which may affect their businesses. Administration and wages inspection cost taxpayers some £2,500,000 per year and occupies about 130 civil servants.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the employment elasticity for(a) each main wages council industry and (b) all employees in the public sector.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The margins for error in estimating employing elasticities are far greater for individual industries than for the economy as a whole, and it is not possible to provide reliable estimates for particular industries. However, it is clear that the repeal of legislation, which prevents employers from offering jobs below specified minimum rates, should lead to additional opportunities for employment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been(a) nominal and (b) real change in (i) wages council rates and (ii) rates agreed by Government for their own employees, since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 1979, the responsibilities of wages councils have changed and a number of councils have merged. It is not possible to calculate changes in rates on a comprehensive basis but the following figures are based on the average minimum rates set by six of the largest councils.

  Changes in rates of pay: 1979–92

  Minimum rates set by Wages Councils

  (a) nominal change of some 170 per cent.,

  (b) real percentage growth of about 16 per cent.;

  Pay rates of non-industrial civil servants

  (a) nominal change of 128 per cent.,

  (b) real change of minus 3 per cent.

  I regret that information on industrial grades is not available.

  16 to 18-year-olds
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds are in education and training in(a) the United Kingdom. (b) Germany. (c) Japan and (d) the USA.
  898
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Latest estimates of the percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in education and training in the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and the USA are given in the following table.

  Participation in education and training1 of 16 to 18-year-olds

  percentages

  All full and part-time2

  United Kingdom3

  1988

  69

  1989

  70

  Germany (Federal Republic)4

  1988

  92

  Japan5

  1988

  87

  USA5

  1987

  81

  1 Includes apprenticeships, YTS and similar schemes.

  2 Includes higher education for some 18-year-olds.

  3 Includes estimates for those studying only in the evening and for private sector further and higher education, including training courses with employers.

  4 Includes compulsory part-time education for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  5 Includes private sector higher education.

  Source: Department for Education.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 25,361,000 in June 1992—1,798,000 higher than in March 1983, the low-point in employment during the last recession.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those leaving employment training(a) entered further education or training, (b) entered a job club, (c) found voluntary work and (d) became self-employed in the latest year for which figures are available.

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

  Employment Training Great Britain: January—December 1991 leavers outcomes—3 months after leaving

  per cent, of all respondents

  Entered other Government training programme or full-time education/training

  4

  Entered a job club

  2

  Found voluntary work

  3

  Self-employed (including EAS)

  6

  Source: ET National follow-up survey

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the job entry rates for those leaving employment action at(a) three months and (b) six months in the latest period for which figures are available.
  899
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information about employment action outcomes is not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those attending a job interview guarantee got the job in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 12 November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the Job Interview Guarantee. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.You asked what percentage of those attending a Job Interview Guarantee got the job in the latest year for which figures are available. In 1991/92, 20% of people who went forward for an interview under this initiative were placed into jobs.I hope this is helpful.As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of those leaving employment training gained a vocational credit in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of those leaving employment training gained a vocational qualification in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Employment training

  Great Britain: January to December 1991 leavers gained a qualification or credit

  (Per cent, of all respondents)

  January to May 1991

  June to December 1991

  Gained a full qualification

  129

  26

  Gained a credit towards a qualification

  7

  Awaiting results

  2

  2

  900

  1 Information not available separately for credits and full qualifications.

  Source: ET national follow-up survey.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those leaving employment training found employment(a) immediately, (b) within three months and (c) within six months, excluding those who started self-employment, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Employment training Great Britain: January—December 1991 leavers outcomes

  (Per cent, of notified leavers)

  Leavers in full-time and part-time work

  Immediately on leaving

  119

  Three months after leaving

  224

  Six months after leaving

  325

  1 Base for calculating percentages excludes not stateds (5 per cent, of all leavers) and leavers whose destination was not known (14 per cent, of all leavers).

  2 Base for calculating percentages excludes not stateds (15 per cent, of all leavers).

  3 Base for calculating percentages excludes not stateds (4 per cent, of all leavers).

  Sources:

  Immediate destinations—ET leavers database based on training provider returns.

  Three and six month activity—ET National follow-up survey based on questionnaire responses.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those leaving employment training remained unemployed(a) three months later and (b) six months later in the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Employment training Great Britain: January—December 1991 leavers outcomes, three months after leaving

  (Per cent, of all respondents)

  1 Respondents who were unemployed

  Three months after leaving

  61

  Six months after leaving

  57

  1 Unemployed and claiming benefit, unemployed and not claiming benefit and at a job club.

  Source: ET national follow-up survey

  Sunday Working
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the role of the wages councils in determining rates of pay for Sunday working.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The wages councils have no such role. Their powers to set special rates for Sundays were removed in 1986.

  Training Review
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she has completed her review of her Department's employment and training measures for unemployed people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have concluded my review and am today announcing a new framework of employment and training measures to help unemployed people back to work. This will operate from April 1993 onwards.

  As a result of these changes, there will be half a million more opportunities on our programmes in 1993–94 than we are providing this year. The extra opportunities will be concentrated on long-term unemployed people and those who face particular difficulties in the labour market, such as people with disabilities. These are the people who are most in need of special assistance to get back to work.

  TEC-delivered programmes

  Training for Work, a new adult training and work programme, to be run by training and enterprise councils (TECs) in England and Wales and local enterprise companies (LECs) in Scotland, will replace employment training and employment action. TECs and LECs will have important new flexibilities to develop programmes of skills training, temporary work and job preparation to meet the needs of local unemployed people and local circumstances. TECs and LECs will be encouraged to use these flexibilities to make best use of their resources, for example by developing training credit schemes and expanding useful temporary work in our public services. I expect the new programme to provide 320,000 opportunities in 1993–94.

  In order to help improve performance, the funding regime will be developed to offer a progressively higher proportion of payment for results, including payments for participants gaining jobs or qualifications. This will strengthen the incentives for TECs to deliver programmes that best help individuals and meet labour market needs.

  Today's announcement incorporates most of the recommendations made by the TEC adult training working group, including the merger of employment training and employment action and the development of a new payment system based on starts and outputs.

  Employment Service Measures

  There will be a further expansion of the successful job club and job interview guarantee programmes. We will also be developing work trials of up to three weeks with employers, which give unemployed people the opportunity to prove themselves in a job, without their benefits being affected. In all, these employment service measures are expected to provide an extra 180,000 opportunities in 1993–94.

  A major point of entry into other opportunities will be the new jobplan workshops to be run by the employment service. These will advise and assess the needs of people
  902
  unemployed for a year or more, principally those who have not taken up other offers of help open to them. The successful experience of existing Restart courses and job review workshops will be drawn on, but the new workshops will offer more intensive support from workshop leaders, including one-to-one advice and guidance, new computer-aided guidance and an enhanced action plan. Those completing workshops will have priority access to other programmes. It is expected that around 300,000 people will pass through the programme in 1993–94.

  Employment service advisers will offer places in job plan workshops to all those out of work for a year who have not taken up an offer of help back to work. As is currently the case with Restart courses offered to people unemployed for two years those who do not take up places offered to them may lose their benefit for a period of time. The social security advisory committee will be consulted shortly about the benefit for non-attendance in these circumstances.

  Eligibility

  All those unemployed for over six months, including lone parents, will be eligible for these programmes, with earlier access available to all of them for people with disabilities, ex-service personnel, ex-detainees, labour market returners, people who need help with literacy, numeracy or basic English and those unemployed as a result of major redundancies.

  Unemployed people with disabilities and those leaving the new job plan workshops will have priority access to these programmes. These priorities will replace the current aim and guarantee which were designed to help certain groups of unemployed people in rather different labour market circumstances.

  Other measures

  All unemployed people will of course remain entitled to the full range of jobcentre services to help them back to work as soon as possible. There will also be an extra 10 thousand places in job review workshops for short-term unemployed people and more career development loans will be made available to enable more unemployed people to invest in their own training.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the social fund budget in total and for(a) crisis loans, (b) community care grants and (c) budgeting loans for each social security or Benefits Agency office in each year since 1988–89, in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure on crisis and budgeting loans comes from a single loans budget. Information on expenditure on grants and loans for the years 1988–89 to 1991–92 has been placed in the Library.

  Real term figures have been calculated using the current GDP deflator and may alter.

  Motability
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give details of the extent of the computer breakdown dealing with Motability claims;
  903
  (2) how many claimants from Stoke-on-Trent, North have had their Motability claims delayed; how soon he expects to deal with this backlog; what emergency arrangements have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the scheme is a matter for Motability which is an independent organisation. Any questions on the issue should be directed to Mr. K. Keen, director of Motability.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to change the cash limits or running costs limit of his Department for 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIV, vote 3 (housing benefit administration, payments into the social fund in respect of discretionary expenditure and other grants) will be increased by £4,250,000 from £365,972,000 to £370,222,000. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 4 (administration and miscellaneous services) will be increased by £1,922,000 from £2,270,076,000 to £2,271,998,000.

  The revision for vote 3 takes account of a grant to make repayable sums available to pension funds linked to the former companies of Robert Maxwell to assist in the payment of pensions (£2,500,000) and subsidies to housing and local authorities toward the costs of administering the housing benefit scheme and to charging and levying authorities towards the costs of administering the community charge benefit scheme (£1,750,000).

  Vote 4 revisions take account of the additional administrative expenditure arising from higher unemployment (£9,472,000), of which £6,496,000 is running costs, an increase of £16,528,000 (of which £10,795,000 is running costs) in respect of end year flexibility arrangements, a transfer from Department of the Environment (property holdings and central support services): civil accommodation and administration etc., class VIII, vote 7 of £2,015,000 (running costs) an increase of £60,000 towards the administration costs of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, a transfer from Department of Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) vote 3 of £437,000 (running costs) a transfer to Department of Employment: programmes and central services, class VI, vote 1 of £58,000 (running costs) and a reduction of £35,000 following the transfer of responsibility for the departmental records officer to the Department of Health. The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £26,497,000 and the balance (£1,922,000) totally represents transfers from other Departments.

  In addition to the running costs changes included above there is also a reduction of £2,906,000 to take account of expenditure previously classified running costs now being reclassified as capital and other current.

  As a result of these changes the running costs limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £16,779,000 from £2,521,125,000 to £2,537,904,000.

  All these increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had over the proposed income support regulations concerning unemployed people not actively seeking work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Following consultation with the social security advisory committee, we have today laid regulations which will remove entitlement to income support from most unemployed single people and childless couples who fail actively to seek work. Accompanying the regulations, as Cd 2099, are the social security advisory committee's report and my response. Pregnant women, the disabled and people responsible for the care of a child or young person will remain eligible for a reduced rate of income support if they would otherwise suffer hardship.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the latest plans for expenditure on the social security programme including details on the new rates of benefits proposed for April 1993.

  Mr. Lilley
  Economic recovery means keeping public expenditure under control, while preserving capital programmes. Spending on social security, therefore, which comprises one third of total Government spending, must play its part in this. In his autumn statement to the House today my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported that expenditure on social security would be £79·8 billion in 1993–94, £82·9 billion in 1994–95 and £87 billion in 1995–96. These plans reflect the Government's manifesto commitments on retirement pension and child benefit. I have also made it a high priority to protect less well-off people by increasing all major benefits in line with prices, but I have also rigorously scrutinised my programme for areas where value for money can be improved.

  Social security fraud

  Efforts to tackle fraud and abuse of benefits will be stepped up. DSS fraud teams are already saving significant sums—nearly £500 million this year—and they will be improving their efficiency. Increasing use of computer technology will weed out false claims and ensure money goes only to bona fide recipients, who make up the vast majority.

  These measures should save some £80 million extra from fraud in the first year, rising to £120 million by 1995–96. In addition, consultations will begin with the local authority associations about fresh incentives for local authorities to investigate fraud affecting housing benefit and the new council tax benefit.

  From next April, I intend that local authorities will receive direct financial reward for their increased efforts to prevent payment of benefits to those not entitled to them. These incentives will benefit local finances, and also save the taxpayer as much as £180 million next year, on top of the fraud savings already made by local authorities. By taking these measures I hope the total of fraud identified and stopped will increase to nearly £1 billion each year.
  905
  Operational resources

  There will be continued investment in information technology and further improvements in the Department's offices around the country. The public will receive a standard of service which continues to reflect my Department's full commitment to the aims of the citizens charter. Capital spending will increase by some £159 million over the next three years, bringing capital spending to over £1 billion in that period.

  My programme to ensure best use of operational resources includes action to extend and encourage the use of automated credit transfer for the payment of benefits. This will improve the method of payment on offer and also save resources. In addition, my Department will be working with the Post Office to improve efficiency and to reduce theft and fraud involving order books and giros.

  Uprating

  The uprating of social security benefits will take place for most benefits, as usual, in the first full week of the tax year—which in 1993 will he the week beginning 12 April. I have reviewed social security benefits in accordance with section 150 of the 1992 Administration Act and my proposals are set out below. The statutory instruments to implement them will he laid before both Houses for debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland. All the proposed new benefit rates are in the schedule.

  The normal basis for uprating most benefits is the annual increase in the retail prices index up to September which this yeaer is 3·6 per cent.

  Retirement pensions

  Retirement pension, which is received by 10 million people, will rise next April in line with the RPI. The basic pension for a single person will be increased by £1·95 per week to £56·10 and for couples by £3·10 to £89·80. This uprating alone will cost the national insurance fund almost £1 billion next year. Public service pensions will be increased across the hoard by 3·6 per cent.

  War pensions

  War pensions will be uprated fully in line with prices.

  The special Ministry of Defence payments to pre-1973 war widows, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will rise in line with the RPI from £46·18 to £47·84 per week.

  There are two other proposals affecting the war pensions scheme.

  I propose to introduce a threshold for claims for noise induced hearing loss, bringing the war pensions rules more into line with those for industrial injury awards. The effect will be that those with less than 20 per cent. disablement in respect of noise induced hearing loss will in future receive no award. We propose to use savings from that change to remove rank differentials in war disablement pensions.

  As a result of these changes, almost 200,000 severely disabled ex-service men will gain up to an extra £5 per week. No existing war pensioner will suffer a reduction in the cash he or she is receiving.

  The Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions will be consulted on the proposed changes.
  906
  Other benefits

  All national insurance benefits will be increased by 3·6 per cent. Unemployment benefit for a single person will therefore rise from £43·10 to £44·65 per week and the rate for couples will rise from £69·70 to £72·20.

  All disability benefits will also he uprated in line with prices. For example the disability living allowance care component at the higher rate will go up in April from £43·35 to £44·90 per week.

  Child benefit will also be fully uprated in line with prices. The new rates of child benefit will be £10 for the first or eldest eligible child, and £8·10 for each subsequent child. One-parent benefit will also be increased to £6·05. The lower rate of statutory maternity pay will be increased from £46·30 to £47·95.

  Sickness benefit and invalidity benefit will also be uprated by prices. For example, invalidity benefit for a single person will go up from £54·15 to £56·10 and for a couple from £86·70 to £89·80. I have been considering the operation of the statutory sick pay scheme—which now covers most short term sickness. The lower rate of statutory sick pay will rise in line with the RPI from £45·30 to £46·95. I judge however that an increase in the higher rate, which goes to employees earning more than £195 per week, would not be a sensible use of scarce resources, especially as most of these employees will already be working for employers who operate occupational sick pay schemes. I therefore propose to make no change in the higher rate of statutory sick pay next year.

  Changes to invalidity benefit

  There has been a significant increase in expenditure on invalidity benefit and in the numbers receiving it.

  Since 1978–79, the caseload has more than doubled and the costs have risen by nearly 140 per cent. in real terms. By 1995–96, invalidity benefit will he costing well over £7 billion.

  Against this background, in order to ensure that the benefit is focused on those for whom Parliament intended it, I plan to tighten up the administrative and medical control procedures from April 1993, operated by my Department. This will ensure that medical examinations are better targeted and that more effective action will be taken when people fail to attend for examination or are found capable of work. These changes are expected to reduce expenditure by £240 million over the survey period.

  A major research study into IVB was launched in August 1991. Some results have been received and others will be received during 1993. I will consider these results carefully as they become available.

  Income-Related benefits

  Income-related benefits are normally uprated by the retail prices index less certain housing costs—the so-called Rossi index. This year the September—September increase in the Rossi index was the same as for the RPI, that is 3·6 per cent.

  Premiums for income-related benefits for elderly people have been uprated twice in the past year as part of our policy to target benefits on the most vulnerable groups in society. From next April all the relevant income-related benefit allowances and premiums (eg for income support. housing benefit, family credit and disability working allowance) will rise by 3·6 per cent.: for council tax benefit the rates will be set at these new levels. This means for

  907
  example that a pensioner couple aged 75 or more will receive an increase in income support from £94·60 per week to £98·00 and benefit for a single person over 25 will go up from £42·45 to £44·00

  Earlier this year the Government introduced improvements to the arrangements in respect of non-dependant deductions which apply both to housing benefit and housing costs in income support. This year the three earnings thresholds which determine the appropriate level of deduction will increase by £5. However, the three lowest rates of deduction will not rise pro-rata but will remain at their present level, which will provide extra help to 295,000 households with lower paid non-dependants. The top rate deduction will increase by £3 a week from £18 to £21, which means a fairer contribution from those non-dependents with the most substantial income.

  I have also taken the opportunity to raise the levels of the earnings thresholds for non-dependant deductions and second adult rebates in council tax benefit. This will bring further small gains to around 3,000 people liable to pay the council tax.

  As foreshadowed in the social security benefits (uprating) statement made in October 1991, we will not reduce benefits to compensate for the removal of the minimum contribution to local taxes. This means a real increase in the disposable income of the least well off. For example, a single person aged 25 or over on income support will benefit by £1·60 per week, and a couple by £2·80 per week.

  Social fund

  Following my recent announcement of the allocation of an additional £8 million to the social fund discretionary budget in the current year, there will be a further substantial increase next year when I expect this budget to increase to around £340 million. This further large increase means that the budget will be 12 per cent. higher than at April 1992 and nearly 50 per cent. above its 1991 level.

  These increases have been made possible largely by the success of the loans system introduced in 1988 which enables more help to go to more people than would be possible if the same amount of taxpayers' money were only used for grants.

  Residential care and nursing homes

  From the 1 April next year, new residents requiring help with their care needs will be assessed by local authorities under the new community care arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 2 October the funding for the new arrangements including the transfer of funds from the Department of Social Security. The new limits I propose will therefore apply only to existing income support recipients in residential care and nursing homes, that is to say those with preserved rights to support under the present arrangements.

  All the limits in residential care homes will he increased by £10 a week, including those for elderly people, mental illness, mental handicap and drug and alcohol abuse. This is well above the amount which a straight inflation increase would produce. I am also able to improve the relative amount given to the lowest limit—that for elderly people. I have done this in recognition of the increasing age and frailty at which people enter care.
  908
  I also propose to increase almost all the limits for nursing homes by £10 a week. The only exception is the limit referred to as the terminal illness limit. I propose instead to steer additional help to hospices.

  Last year, my predecessor announced that additional funds of £1 million a year would be transferred from the social security budget to the NHS for the direct funding of hospices for each of the three survey years. I am pleased to announce a further £1 million transfer in 1993–94.

  The personal expenses allowance will be increased fully in line with inflation to £12·65. The total annual cost of the increases will be over £100 million. This significant increase reflects this Government's continuing commitment to elderly and disabled people in residential or nursing care.

  Other proposals

  There are also some proposals for changes which involve only relatively small amounts of money, but will be welcomed by those helped. These fall into three main categories: measures which help disabled people; those for carers; and measures which mainly affect orphans.

  First, disabled people. In income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit the severe disability premium is at present only available where the recipient is a disabled person on disability living allowance (DLA) or attendance allowance (AA) who is living independently or with someone who is also getting DLA/AA. From next year, I intend to extend eligibility to those who cannot get it now because they live with a person, and that person is registered blind.

  More resources will be given to Motability, the charity which arranges the provision of vehicles for disabled people. Their success has meant a 15 per cent. increase in business in the last year and this trend is projected to increase into the future. My Department will increase its core funding for Motability's administrative costs in line with this expansion—taking our total funding to £2.8 million in 1995–96. In addition I intend to increase on an ongoing basis the Mobility Equipment Fund which allows Motability to make charitable donations to customers who require very expensive vehicle adaptations which they cannot afford. From April 1 intend to double the amount of money available to £2 million and place the grant on a three year basis thereby replacing the existing arrangement where our funding is re-considered every year. This will assist their financial planning.

  I intend to give £45,000 per annum to the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association to assist them with the provision of specialised car components, eg gearboxes, for arm amputee war pensioners.

  For carers, I intend to introduce two measures next April. The first would increase from £40 to £50 the amount which recipients of invalid care allowance can earn before losing their benefit. This is further to last year's increase which raised the ceiling from £30 to £40. The second will introduce into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit a carers' earnings disregard of £15. Those people who presently qualify for an earnings disregard of less than £15 and who are entitled to the carer premium will now be able to earn up to £15 a week without losing any of their income related benefit. Both of these measures will help many carers who wish to keep in touch with the world of work, as well as giving them valuable additional cash.
  909
  Finally, I am pleased to announce changes which will provide significant extra help for two groups of people who, in difficult personal circumstances, take responsibility for bringing up children whose parents have died.

  Guardian's allowance will be ignored in family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance.

  Those who have to bring up a child on their own will be able to receive one-parent benefit in addition to guardian's allowance. At present—following a commissioner's decision—these benefits can only be paid together if the child whose parents have died is not the eldest child in the new family. Both these changes will be implemented from 1993.

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security Benefit Rates from April 1993

  (weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Attendance Allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Higher rate

  43·35

  44·90

  Lower rate

  28·95

  30·00

  Child Benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable

  9·65

  10·00

  Each subsequent child

  7·80

  8·10

  Child's Special Allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  See note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·85

  10·95

  Council tax benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 24

  33·60

  34·80

  25 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  lone parent—18 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  couple—one or both over 18

  66·60

  69·00

  dependent children

  under 11

  14·55

  15·05

  11 to 15

  21·40

  22·15

  16 to 17

  25·55

  26·45

  18

  33·60

  34·80

  Premiums

  family

  9·30

  9·65

  lone parent

  10·60

  10·95

  pensioner

  single

  16·70

  17·30

  couple

  25·35

  26·25

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  18·65

  19·30

  couple

  28·00

  29·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  22·75

  23·55

  couple

  32·55

  33·70

  disability

  single

  17·80

  18·45

  910

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  couple

  25·55

  26·45

  severe disability

  single

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (one qualifies)

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (both qualify)

  65·10

  67·40

  disabled child

  17·80

  18·45

  carer

  11·55

  11·95

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  13·55

  14·05

  lower rate

  10·85

  11·20

  Non-dependent deductions aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: £105·00 or more

  2·00

  2·00

  gross income: up to £104·99

  1·00

  1·00

  others, aged 18 or over

  1·00

  1·00

  Alternative maximum council tax benefit

  second adult on Income Support (per cent.)

  25

  second adult's gross income:

  up to £105 (per cent.)

  15

  £105·01 to £135 (percent.)

  7·5

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  where carer premium awarded

  0·00

  15·00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Dependency increases

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Adult Dependency Increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with:

  retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

  32·55

  33·70

  non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance

  19·45

  20·15

  sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  31·20

  32·30

  911

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  unemployment benefit

  26·60

  27·55

  maternity allowance/sickness benefit

  25·50

  26·40

  Child Dependency Increases For each child, with:

  retirement pension, widows benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and sickness/ unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  10·85

  10·95

  Note: The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardinan's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom child benefit is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less the 75p derived from the October increase in child benefit) between the rate of child benefit payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child.

  Disability Living Allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Care component

  Highest

  43·35

  44·90

  Middle

  28·95

  30·00

  Lowest

  11·55

  11·95

  Mobility component

  Higher

  30·30

  31·40

  Lower

  11·55

  11·95

  Disability Working Allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Adult allowance

  Single people

  42·40

  43·95

  Couples/Lone parents

  58·80

  60·95

  Child allowance

  Under 11

  10·40

  10·75

  11 to 15

  17·25

  17·85

  16 to 17

  21·45

  22·20

  18

  29·90

  31·00

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  Single people

  39·95

  41·40

  Couples/Lone parents

  66·60

  69·000

  Capital

  Upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  Amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  Maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  War disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  Voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  Student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  Student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  912

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Income from boarders:

  Disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  Furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  Where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Earnings Rules

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Invalid Care Allowance

  40·00

  50·00

  Unemployment Benefit (daily rate)

  2·00

  2·00

  Unemployment Benefit (maximum weekly amount)

  54·00

  56·00

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  40·50

  42·00

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,106·00

  2,184·00

  War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,106·00

  2,184·00

  Adult dependency increases with sickness benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  25·50

  26·40

  (b) over pension age

  31·20

  32·30

  maternity allowance

  25·50

  26·40

  unemployment benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  26·60

  27·55

  (b) over pension age

  32·25

  33·70

  retirement pension, invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  43·10

  44·65

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45·09

  45·09

  retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  32·55

  33·70

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  19·45

  20·15

  invalid care allowance

  19·45

  20·15

  Child dependency increases

  level at which CDIs payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  115·00

  120·00

  for each subsequent child

  15·00

  16·00

  913

  Family credit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Adult credit

  41·00

  42·50

  Child credit

  under 11

  10·40

  10·75

  11 to 15

  17·25

  17·85

  16 to 17

  21·45

  22·20

  18

  29·90

  31·00

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  66·60

  69·00

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Guardian's allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  See note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·85

  10·95

  Hospital downrating

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  20 per cent, rate

  10·85

  11·20

  40 per cent, rate

  21·70

  22·40

  Housing Benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  33·60

  34·80

  25 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  lone parent

  under 18

  33·60

  34·80

  18 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  couple

  both under 18

  50·60

  52·40

  one or both over 18

  66·60

  69·00

  dependent children

  under 11

  14·55

  15·05

  11 to 15

  21·40

  22·15

  16 to 17

  25·55

  26·45

  18

  33·60

  34·80

  914

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Premiums

  family

  9·30

  9·65

  lone parent

  10·60

  10·95

  pensioner

  single

  16·70

  17·30

  couple

  25·35

  26·25

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  18·65

  19·30

  couple

  28·00

  29·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  22·75

  23·55

  couple

  32·55

  33·70

  disability

  single

  17·80

  18·45

  couple

  25·55

  26·45

  severe disability

  single

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (one qualifies)

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (both qualify)

  65·10

  67·40

  disabled child

  17·80

  18·45

  carer

  11·55

  11·95

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  13·55

  14·05

  lower rate

  10·85

  11·20

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support aged 18 or over, not in work or gross income under £70

  4·00

  4·00

  gross income: £70 to £104·99

  8·00

  8·00

  gross income: £105 to £134·99

  12·00

  12·00

  gross income: £135 or more

  18·00

  21·00

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  8·60

  8·60

  hot water

  1·05

  1·05

  lighting

  ·70

  ·70

  cooking

  1·05

  1·05

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day single claimant

  15·20

  15·75

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  15·20

  15·75

  each child under 16

  7·65

  7·95

  less than three meals a day single claimant

  10·10

  10·45

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  10·10

  10·45

  each child under 16

  5·05

  5·25

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  1·85

  1·90

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  915

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—not in receipt of IS

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  where carer premium awarded

  ·00

  15·00

  Other income disregards maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Income support

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Personal allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate

  25·55

  26·45

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  33·60

  34·80

  18 to 24

  33·60

  34·80

  25 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  25·55

  26·45

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  33·60

  34·80

  18 or over

  42·45

  44·00

  couple

  both under 18

  50·60

  52·40

  one or both over 18

  66·60

  69·00

  dependent children

  under 11

  14·55

  15·05

  11 to 15

  21·40

  22·15

  16 to 17

  25·55

  26·45

  18

  33·60

  34·80

  Premiums

  family

  9·30

  9·65

  lone parent

  4·75

  4·90

  pensioner

  single

  16·70

  17·30

  couple

  25·35

  26·25

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  18·65

  19·30

  couple

  28·00

  29·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  22·75

  23·55

  couple

  32·55

  33·70

  916

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  disability

  single

  17·80

  18·45

  couple

  25·55

  26·45

  severe disability

  single

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (one qualifies)

  32·55

  33·70

  couple (both qualify)

  65·10

  67·40

  disabled child

  17·80

  18·45

  carer

  11·55

  11·95

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes old age

  175·00

  185·00

  very dependent elderly

  205·00

  215·00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  185·00

  195·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  185·00

  195·00

  mental handicap

  215·00

  225·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  245·00

  255·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  175·00

  185·00

  others

  175·00

  185·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  25·00

  25·00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  270·00

  280·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  270·00

  280·00

  mental handicap

  275·00

  285·00

  terminal illness

  280·00

  280·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  305·00

  315·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  270·00

  280·00

  others (including elderly)

  270·00

  280·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  35·00

  35·00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1·10

  1·10

  midday meal

  1·55

  1·55

  evening meal

  1·55

  1·55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes personal expenses

  12·20

  12·65

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  5·00

  5·20

  (b) 11 to 15

  7·35

  7·60

  (c) 16 to 17

  8·50

  8·80

  (d) age 18

  12·20

  12·65

  hospital

  higher rate

  13·55

  14·05

  lower rate

  10·85

  11·20

  local authority (Pt III)

  accommodation

  10·85

  11·20

  the Polish home Ilford Park max amount for accommodation and meals

  175·00

  185·00

  personal expenses for claimant

  16·15

  16·75

  personal expenses for partner

  16·15

  16·75

  personal expenses for dep children

  (a) under 11

  5·00

  5·20

  (b)11 to 15

  7·35

  7·60

  (c) 16 to 17

  8·50

  8·80

  (d) 18

  14·50

  15·00

  917

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Housing costs

  Deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of income support aged 18 or over, not in work or

  gross income under £70

  4·00

  4·00

  gross income: £70 to £104·99

  8·00

  8·00

  gross income: £105 to £134·99

  12·00

  12·00

  gross income: £135 or more

  18·00

  21·00

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel and water costs and fines default

  2·15

  2·20

  arrears of community charge court order against claimant

  2·15

  2·20

  court order against couple

  3·35

  3·45

  Child maintenance and arrears of

  Council Tax (planned from April 1993)

  —

  2·20

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  6·45

  6·60

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  8·60

  8·80

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  22·50

  23·50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5·00

  5·00

  higher earnings

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20)plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Industrial death benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  54·15

  56·10

  lower rate

  16·25

  16·83

  Industrial disablement pension

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100 per cent.

  88·40

  91·60

  90 per cent.

  79·56

  82·44

  80 per cent.

  70·72

  73·28

  70 per cent.

  61·88

  64·12

  60 per cent.

  53·04

  54·96

  50 per cent.

  44·20

  45·80

  40 per cent.

  35·36

  36·64

  30 per cent.

  26·52

  27·48

  20 per cent.

  17·68

  18·32

  918

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Under 18

  100 per cent.

  54·15

  56·10

  90 per cent.

  48·74

  50·49

  80 per cent.

  43·32

  44·88

  70 per cent.

  37·91

  39·27

  60 per cent.

  32·49

  33·66

  50 per cent.

  27·08

  28·05

  40 per cent.

  21·66

  22·4

  30 per cent.

  16·5

  16·3

  20 per cent.

  10·3

  11·2

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  5,870·00

  6,080·00

  Unemployability Supplement

  54·15

  56·10

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  11·55

  11·95

  middle rate

  7·20

  7·50

  lower rate

  3·60

  37·5

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  35·36

  36·64

  Maximum retirement allowance

  8·84

  9·16

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  70·80

  73·40

  intermediate rate

  53·10

  55·05

  normal maximum rate

  35·40

  36·70

  part-time rate

  17·70

  18·35

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  35·40

  36·70

  Invalidity allowances and benefits

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Invalid care allowance

  32·55

  33·70

  Invalidity benefit

  Invalidity pension

  54·15

  56·10

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·55

  11·95

  middle rate

  7·20

  7·50

  lower rate

  3·60

  3·75

  Maternity and parent benefits

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Maternity allowance

  42·25

  43·75

  One parent benefit

  5·85

  6·05

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, workmen's compensation (supplementation) and other schemes

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  88·40

  91·60

  Partial disablement allowance

  32·55

  33·70

  Unemployability supplement

  54·15

  56·10

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  11·55

  11·95

  middle rate

  7·20

  7·50

  lower rate

  3·0

  3·5

  919

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  70·80

  73·40

  intermediate rate

  53·10

  55·05

  normal maximum rate

  35·40

  36·70

  part-time rate

  17·70

  18·35

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  35·40

  36·70

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  32·55

  33·70

  based on loss of earnings over

  43·35

  44·90

  Retirement Pension

  Old Rates 1992

  New Rates 1993

  Category A or B

  54·15

  56·10

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  32·55

  33·70

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  32·55

  33·70

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  19·45

  20·15

  Additional pension

  —

  —

  Increments to basic and additional pension, contracted out deductions (from pre April 1988 earnings) and graduated retirement benefit

  —

  —

  Contracted out deductions (CODS) and increments to CODS (from post April 1988 earnings) (3 per cent. paid by scheme, RPI minus 3 per cent. by state)

  —

  —

  Graduated retirement benefit (unit) (pence)

  7·09

  7·35

  Addition at age 80

  0·25

  0·25

  Severe disablement allowance

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Basic rate

  32·55

  33·70

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  Higher rate

  11·55

  11·95

  Middle rate

  7·20

  7·50

  Lower rate

  3·60

  3·75

  Sickness benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Over pension age

  51·95

  53·80

  Under pension age

  41·20

  42·70

  Social fund

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Maternity payment

  100·00

  100·00

  Capital limit

  aged under 60

  500·00

  500·00

  aged 60 and over

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  920

  Statutory maternity pay

  Old rates 1992

  New rales 1993

  Earnings threshold

  54·00

  56·00

  Lower rate

  46·30

  47·95

  Statutory sick pay

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Earnings threshold

  54·00

  56·00

  Standard rate threshold

  190·00

  195·00

  Lower rate

  45·30

  46·95

  Standard rate

  52·50

  52·50

  Unemployment Benefit

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Over pension age

  54·15

  56·10

  Under pension age

  43·10

  44·65

  Occupational pension abatement

  35·00

  35·00

  War pensions

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Disablement pension (100 per cent. rates)

  private or equivalent

  89·00

  92·20

  non-commissioned officer

  ·00

  93·00

  officer (£ per annum)

  4,650·00

  5,081·00

  Note.—Under the further package of changes, which are to be discussed with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions the rates would be:—

  private or equivalent

  89·00

  97·20

  officer (£ per annum)

  4,650·00

  5,072·00

  Age allowances

  40–50 per cent.

  6·25

  6·50

  over 50 but not over 70 per cent.

  9·65

  10·00

  over 70 but not over 90 per cent.

  13·80

  14·30

  over 90 per cent.

  19·30

  20·00

  Disablement gratuity (base figures for calculation purposes only)

  specified minor injury

  5,870·00

  6,080·00

  unspecified minor injury

  3,228·50

  3,344·00

  Unemployability allowance

  personal

  57·50

  59·55

  adult dependency increase

  32·55

  33·70

  (a) increase for first child

  9·75

  9·80

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  10·85

  10·95

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·55

  11·95

  middle rate

  7·20

  7·50

  lower rate

  3·60

  3·75

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  70·80

  73·40

  intermediate rate

  53·10

  55·05

  normal maximum rate

  35·40

  36·70

  part-time rate

  17·70

  18·35

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  15·20

  15·70

  lower rate

  7·60

  7·85

  921

  Old rates 1992

  New rates 1993

  Mobility supplement

  33·70

  34·90

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  35·36

  36·64

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  35·40

  36·70

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  17·70

  18·35

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  higher rate

  120·00

  124·00

  lower rate

  76·00

  79·00

  Education allowance (£ per annum) (maximum)

  120·00

  120·00

  War widow's pension (private)

  widow

  70·35

  72·90

  childless widow under 40

  16·25

  16·83

  age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  8·05

  8·35

  (b) age 70 to 79

  15·55

  16·10

  (c) age 80 and over

  23·10

  23·95

  children's allowance

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for child benefit increase)

  13·75

  13·85

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  14·85

  15·00

  Orphan's pension

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for child benefit increase)

  15·30

  15·45

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  16·40

  16·60

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  68·30

  70·85

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  26·80

  27·75

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  54·15

  56·10

  Widower's pension (maximum)

  70·35

  72·90

  Widow's Benefit

  Old Rates 1992

  New Rates 1993

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  54·15

  56·10

  Widow's pension standard rate

  54·15

  56·10

  age-related

  age 54 (49)

  50·36

  52·17

  age 53 (48)

  46·57

  48·25

  age 52 (47)

  42·78

  44·32

  age 51 (46)

  38·99

  40·39

  age 50 (45)

  35·20

  36·47

  age 49 (44)

  31·41

  32·54

  age 48 (43)

  27·62

  28·61

  age 47 (42)

  23·83

  24·68

  age 46 (41)

  20·04

  20·76

  age 45 (40)

  16·25

  16·83

  Note: For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals will take effect from 6 April 1993. The levels of contributory benefit expenditure I am maintaining will mean a shortfall in the national insurance fund between income and outgoings. I propose to meet this shortfall by introducing legislation to make an Exchequer grant available; in 1993–94, the first year, this would be up to 20 per cent. of contributory benefit expenditure. This legislation will also introduce the 1 per cent. additional rebate for appropriate personal pension holders aged 30 and over.

  Employers and employees

  There will be no change to the standard rates of contributions for either employees or employers, which remain at 9 per cent. and 10.4 per cent. respectively.

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £56 a week, which is the nearest whole pound to the basic retirement pension rate for a single person from April 1993. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £420 a week, which is slightly less than seven and a half times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £54 and £405 respectively.

  Under the current structure employees whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent. of that limit and standard rate contributions of 9 per cent. on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit. For employers the reduced contribution rates of 4·6 per cent., 6·6 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. for the lower paid will continue unchanged. However, the thresholds for these rates will be raised so that from April 1993 they apply to weekly earnings which fall below the ceilings of £95, £140 and £195 respectively, compared with £90, £135 and £190 at present.

  Not contracted-out employees and their employers

  Neither the employee nor his employer will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £56 a week. Those whose earnings do not exceed £405 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay 14 pence a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £2 of their weekly earnings will be subject to a deduction of 2 per cent. rather than 9 per cent. For employees with earnings above £405 a week the maximum possible increase will be £1·21 a week. Employers' contributions will generally be unchanged although some will pay less where employees' earnings which were above the former thresholds fall below the new thresholds. There will be no increase for employers of the higher paid since there is no upper earnings limit for employers' contributions.

  Contracted-out employees and their employers

  The statutory review of the contracted-out rebate for employees and employers, the result of which was announced last February, resulted in a reduction in the rebate from April 1993. Although the main rates of

  923
  contributions remain unchanged the effect of the reduced rebate is that many employees will pay a little more. Those with earnings between £110 and £405 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay up to 59p a week more. Those who earn more than £405 will pay contributions on the next £15 of earnings from next April (ie up to £420 a week, the proposed upper earnings limit), a maximum increase of £1·67 a week. Contracted-out employees who earn £110 or less will pay the same or slightly less.

  Because of the fall in the rebate employers will generally pay more although some will pay less where employees' earnings which were above the former thresholds fall below the new thresholds.

  Self-employed people

  The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 20p to £5·55 a week.

  There will be no increase in the rate of class 4 contributions, currently 6·3 per cent. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £6,340 and £21,840 from £6,120 and £21,060 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £10·40 a year in 1993–94.

  For people with profits between £6,340 and £21,060 (the former upper profits limit) class 4 contributions will be reduced by £13·86 per year assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the new upper profits limit the annual charge for class 4 contributions will be £35·28 higher.

  Class 3 (voluntary) contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 20p to £5·45 a week.

  National health service allocation

  The allocation to the national health service, currently 1·05 per cent. from employees and 0·9 per cent. from employers, remains unchanged.

  As usual, I shall be laying a draft order before Parliament together with a report by the Government actuary describing the effects of my proposals.

  Maternity Grants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 924–27, if he will list by Benefits Agency district office the number of maternity grants paid in 1990 and 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: For 1989–90 information by office is not available. However, the number of maternity payments in the year was 173,600. As the Benefits Agency was formed in April 1991, information for 1990–91 is shown in the table by DSS local office.

  Local Office

  Payments

  Aberdare

  357

  Aberdeen North

  378

  Aberdeen South

  236

  Abertillery

  162

  Aberystwth

  167

  Accrington

  442

  Airdrie

  273

  Aldershot

  370

  Ammanford

  107

  Andover

  155

  Anglesey

  296

  Arbroath

  252

  924

  Local Office

  Payments

  Ashford

  231

  Ashington

  366

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  502

  Aylesbury

  242

  Ayr

  610

  Banbury

  224

  Bargoed

  201

  Barking

  538

  Barnet

  147

  Barnsley East

  584

  Barnsley West

  334

  Barnstaple

  297

  Barrow in Furness

  333

  Barry

  325

  Basildon

  643

  Basingstoke

  212

  Bath

  364

  Bathgate

  563

  Bedford

  438

  Bellshill

  222

  Berwick on Tweed

  59

  Bexley

  533

  Birkenhead North

  766

  Birkenhead South

  429

  Birmingham Edgebaston

  750

  Birmingham Erdington

  687

  Birmingham Handsworth

  1,000

  Birmingham Ladywood

  817

  Birmingham Northfield

  693

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  508

  Birmingham Ravenhurst

  574

  Birmingham South Yardley

  803

  Birmingham Sparkhill

  421

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  686

  Bishop Auckland

  548

  Blackburn

  1,005

  Blackpool North

  721

  Blackpool South

  282

  Blackwood

  196

  Blyth

  390

  Bognor Regis

  198

  Bolton

  1,006

  Boston

  260

  Bournemouth

  463

  Bracknell

  216

  Bradford East

  860

  Bradford South

  707

  Bradford West

  718

  Braintree

  256

  Bridgend

  476

  Bridgwater

  267

  Bridlington

  215

  Brighton

  470

  Bristol Central

  390

  Bristol East

  538

  Bristol Horfield

  248

  Bristol South

  622

  Bristol West

  148

  Bromley

  186

  Burnley

  985

  Burton on Trent

  292

  Bury

  589

  Bury St. Edmunds

  305

  Buxton

  62

  Caernarfon

  265

  Caerphilly

  291

  Cambridge

  411

  Campbeltown

  37

  Cannock

  369

  Canterbury

  303

  Cardiff Central

  370

  Cardiff East

  712

  Cardiff West

  569

  Carlisle

  376

  Carmarthen

  134

  Castleford

  273

  Chatham

  596

  Chelmsford

  260

  925

  Local Office

  Payments

  Cheltenham

  390

  Chester

  394

  Chesterfield

  644

  Chester le Street

  262

  Chichester

  127

  Chippenham

  197

  Clacton-on-Sea

  240

  Clydebank

  295

  Coatbridge

  247

  Colchester

  425

  Colwyn Bay

  309

  Corby

  235

  Coventry East

  893

  Coventry West

  515

  Cowdenbeath

  223

  Crawley

  267

  Crewe

  453

  Croydon

  683

  Cumbernauld

  359

  Cwmbran

  499

  Darlington

  615

  Dartford

  242

  Deeside

  234

  Derby Beckett Street

  467

  Derby Heritage Gate

  245

  Derby London Road

  710

  Dewsbury

  827

  Diss

  76

  Doncaster East

  507

  Doncaster West

  703

  Dover

  260

  Dudley North

  630

  Dudley South

  298

  Dumbarton

  269

  Dumfries

  329

  Dundee East

  432

  Dundee West

  453

  Dunfermline

  316

  Dunstable

  177

  Durham

  243

  Eastbourne

  319

  East Kilbride

  177

  Ebbw Vale

  285

  Edgeware

  222

  Edinburgh East

  473

  Edinburgh City

  254

  Edinburgh North

  354

  Edinburgh South

  474

  Edinburgh West

  415

  Elgin

  231

  Ellesmere Port

  316

  Epsom

  99

  Eston

  491

  Exeter

  654

  Falkirk

  495

  Fareham

  350

  Farnworth

  543

  Folkestone

  215

  Fort William

  84

  Galashiels

  222

  Gateshead

  816

  Glasgow Anniesland

  386

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  277

  Glasgow City

  223

  Glasgow Craigton

  396

  Glasgow Cranstonhill

  4

  Glasgow Laurieston

  335

  Glasgow Maryhill

  314

  Glasgow Partick

  166

  Glasgow Provan

  649

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  496

  Glasgow Shettleston

  373

  Glasgow Southside

  494

  Glasgow Springburn

  487

  Gloucester

  537

  Goole

  165

  Grantham

  234

  Gravesend

  239

  926

  Local Office

  Payments

  Grays

  370

  Greenock

  387

  Grimsby

  1,073

  Great Yarmouth

  300

  Guildford

  240

  Halifax

  773

  Hamilton

  517

  Harlow

  276

  Harrogate

  202

  Harrow

  277

  Hartlepool

  582

  Hastings

  445

  Havant

  304

  Haverfordwest

  244

  Hemel Hempstead

  203

  Hemsworth

  244

  Hereford

  365

  Hertford

  214

  Hexham

  98

  High Wycombe

  279

  Houghton Le Spring

  230

  Hounslow

  513

  Hove

  184

  Huddersfield

  782

  Hull East

  1,235

  Hull West

  934

  Hyde

  497

  Ilford

  444

  Ilkeston

  355

  Inverness

  385

  Ipswich

  609

  Irvine

  589

  Isle of Wight

  386

  Jarrow

  306

  Johnstone

  264

  Keighley

  414

  Kendal

  89

  Kidderminster

  359

  Kilmarnock

  373

  King's Lynn

  533

  Kingston

  172

  Kirkcaldy

  511

  Lancaster

  440

  Launceston

  160

  Leamington Spa

  345

  Leeds East

  809

  Leeds North

  729

  Leeds North West

  555

  Leeds South

  431

  Leeds West

  499

  Leicester Burleys Way

  329

  Leicester Lower Hill Street

  581

  Leicester Norton Street

  517

  Leicester Yeoman Street

  761

  Leigh

  430

  Lerwick

  35

  Leven

  203

  Lewes

  202

  Lichfield

  501

  Lincoln Newland

  418

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  533

  Liverpool Belle Vale

  370

  Liverpool Bootle

  611

  Liverpool Breckfield

  689

  Liverpool City

  295

  Liverpool Crosby

  442

  Liverpool Edgehill

  567

  Liverpool Garston

  371

  Liverpool Huyton

  777

  Liverpool Kirkby

  748

  Liverpool Norris Green

  379

  Liverpool Toxteth

  550

  Liverpool West Derby

  175

  Llanelli

  308

  London Balham

  418

  London Battersea

  403

  London Bloomsbury

  154

  London Brixton

  421

  927

  Local Office

  Payments

  London Camberwell

  506

  London Canning Town

  277

  London Chelsea

  172

  London City

  108

  London Cricklewood

  205

  London Crystal Palace

  466

  London Ealing

  1,359

  London Edmonton

  505

  London Euston

  930

  London Finsbury Park

  482

  London Fulham

  124

  London Greenwich Park

  218

  London Hackney

  585

  London Harlesden

  451

  London Hendon

  274

  London Highgate

  265

  London Hither Green

  34

  London Hoxton

  404

  London Kennington Park

  375

  London Kensington

  136

  London Lewisham

  762

  London Leytonstone

  484

  London Mitcham

  239

  London Neasden

  454

  London Oval

  248

  London Paddington

  106

  London Peckham

  370

  London Plaistow

  474

  London Poplar

  586

  London Shoreditch

  403

  London Southwark

  440

  London Stepney

  514

  London Stoke Newington

  341

  London Streatham

  321

  London Thames South

  3

  London Tottenham

  665

  London Walthamstow

  470

  London Wandsworth

  194

  London Westminster

  130

  London Wimbledon

  256

  London Woodgrange Park

  636

  London Wood Green

  394

  London Woolwich

  877

  Loughborough

  383

  Lowestoft

  277

  Luton

  672

  Macclesfield

  140

  Maidstone

  337

  Manchester Central

  182

  Manchester Cheetham

  645

  Manchester Chorlton

  405

  Manchester Failsworth

  620

  Manchester Longsight

  655

  Manchester Middleton

  439

  Manchester Openshaw

  608

  Manchester Rusholme

  505

  Manchester Sale

  562

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  724

  Mansfield

  660

  Merthyr Tydfil

  431

  Middlesbrough

  1,117

  Milton Keynes

  572

  Morriston

  320

  Motherwell

  446

  Neath

  224

  New Forest

  248

  New Malden

  102

  Newbury

  159

  Newcastle East

  540

  Newcastle St. James

  623

  Newcastle West

  516

  Newcastle Staffs

  351

  Newport Gwent

  878

  Newtown

  197

  Northampton

  741

  North Shields

  335

  Northallerton

  172

  Northwich

  342

  928

  Local Office

  Payments

  Norwich Chantry

  371

  Norwich Mountergate

  547

  Nottingham Castlegate

  587

  Nottingham David Lane

  695

  Nottingham Shakespeare Street

  793

  Nottingham Station Street

  701

  Nuneaton

  502

  Oban

  48

  Oldham

  1,002

  Orpington

  175

  Oxford

  655

  Paisley

  597

  Pembroke Dock

  185

  Penrith

  62

  Penzance

  256

  Perth

  352

  Peterborough

  892

  Peterhead

  170

  Peterlee

  451

  Plymouth

  541

  Plymouth Crownhill

  581

  Pontefract

  311

  Pontypridd

  281

  Poole

  382

  Port Glasgow

  160

  Portsmouth North

  471

  Portsmouth South

  344

  Port Talbot

  212

  Porth

  221

  Porthmadog

  177

  Preston North

  743

  Preston South

  580

  Reading

  428

  Redcar

  367

  Redditch

  436

  Redhill

  196

  Rhyl

  488

  Rochdale

  745

  Romford

  308

  Rossendale

  234

  Rotherham North

  278

  Rotherham South

  879

  Rugby

  187

  Salford North

  578

  Salford South

  515

  Salisbury

  254

  Scarborough

  340

  Scunthorpe

  547

  Seaham

  205

  Sheffield North East

  244

  Sheffield North West

  630

  Sheffield South East

  466

  Sheffield South West

  410

  Shrewsbury

  475

  Sittinghbourne

  336

  Skegness

  159

  Skelmersdale

  516

  Skipton

  50

  Slough

  405

  Smethwick

  772

  Southampton

  941

  Southend on Sea

  527

  Southport

  192

  South Shields

  495

  Stafford

  237

  St. Albans

  244

  Stanley

  418

  St. Austell

  399

  Stevenage

  414

  St. Helens

  893

  Stirling

  462

  Stockport North

  450

  Stockport South

  374

  Stockton

  946

  Stoke on Trent North

  717

  Stoke on Trent South

  558

  Stornoway

  58

  Stranraer

  113

  929

  Local Office

  Payments

  Stroud

  253

  Sunderland North

  1,006

  Sunderland South

  671

  Sutton

  201

  Sutton in Ashfield

  442

  Swansea

  672

  Swindon

  511

  Taunton

  346

  Telford

  695

  Thanet

  507

  Tonypandy

  253

  Torbay

  629

  Trowbridge

  207

  Truro

  506

  Tunbridge Wells

  214

  Twickenham

  114

  Uxbridge

  389

  Wakefield

  500

  Wallasey

  387

  Wallsend

  320

  Walsall East

  547

  Walsall West

  762

  Warrington

  730

  Watford

  240

  Wath on Dearne

  440

  Wellingborough

  457

  West Bromwich

  815

  Weston super Mare

  223

  Weymouth

  334

  Whitehaven

  229

  Wick

  153

  Widnes

  828

  Wigan

  785

  Wilmslow

  72

  Winchester

  176

  Woking

  228

  Wolverhampton North

  880

  Wolverhampton South

  619

  Worcester

  521

  Workington

  217

  Worksop

  432

  Worthing

  312

  Wrexham

  606

  Yeovil

  262

  York

  586

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaties
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the treaties which Her Majesty's Government have either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "Refugees".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Treaties under the side heading "Refugees" either signed or ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1 January 1962 are listed. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.

  REFUGEES
  Multilateral agreement

  European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees

  Signed at Strasbourg on 20 April 1959

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 032/1969 Cmnd 3922

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Reducation of Statelessness

  Signed at New York on 30 August 1961 and 31 May 1962

  930

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 158/1975 Cmnd 6364

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

  Signed at New York on 31 January 1967

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 015/1969 Cmnd 3906

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol relating to Refugee Seamen

  Signed at The Hague on 12 June 1973

  Definitive date of entry into force on 30 March 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: The Netherlands Government

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 018/1973 Cmnd 5381

  Treaty Series/Command No. 038/1975 Cmnd 6035

  Multilateral agreement

  European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees

  Signed at Strasbourg on 16 October 1980

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 December 1980

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc 003/1981 Cmnd 8127

  Treaty Series/Command No. 050/1987 Cmnd 222

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the treaties Her Majesty's Government either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "Conservation";

  (2) if he will list the treaties Her Majesty's Government either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "Animals".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Treaties under the side heading "Conservation" and "Animals" either signed or ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1 January 1962 are listed. Current indexing practice combines "Animal" and "Conservation" side headings. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.

  ANIMALS AND CONSERVATION
  Multilateral agreement

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport

  Signed at Paris on 13 December 1968

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 031/1974 Cmnd 5613

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

  Signed at Washington on 3 March 1976

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 101/1976 Cmnd 6647

  Multilateral agreement

  Revised Appendices I, II and III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

  Adopted in March 1979

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 033/1980 Cmnd 7857

  Multilateral agreement

  Revised Appendices I, II and III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

  Adopted in March 1981

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 077/1981 Cmnd 8395

  ANIMALS AND CONSERVATION
  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat

  Adopted at Ramsar on 2 February 1971

  Definitive date of entry into force on 21 December 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: UNESCO

  Published text: Misc 027/1973 Cmnd 5483

  Treaty Series/Command No. TS 034/1976 Cmnd 6465

  Multilateral agreement

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes

  Signed at Strasbourg on 10 March 1976

  Definitive date of entry into force on 10 September 1978

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 028/1976 Cmnd 6614

  Treaty Series/Command No. 070/1979 Cmnd 7684

  Multilateral agreement

  European convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter

  Signed at Strasbourg on 10 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 June 1982

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc No. 002/1980 Cmnd 7776

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

  Signed at Bonn on 23 June 1979, closed on 22 June 1980

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 November 1983

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Federal Republic of Germany

  Published text: Misc Series No. 11 (1980) Cmnd 7888

  Treaty Series/Command No. 087/1990 Cmnd1332

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

  Signed at Berne on 19 September 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 June 1982

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc Series No. 003/1980 Cmnd 7809

  Treaty Series/Command No. 056/1982 Cmnd 8738

  Multilateral agreement

  Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport

  Signed at Strasbourg on 10 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 7 November 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc Series No. 22 (1980) Cmnd 8040

  Treaty Series/Command No. 034/1991 Cmnd 1540

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to amend the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat

  Adopted at Paris on 3 December 1982

  Signed at Paris on 3 December 1982

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 October 1986

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositories: UNESCO

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 001/1984 Cmnd 9113

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol concerning Co-operation in Combating Oil Spills in the Wider Caribbean Region

  Signed at Cartagena de Indias on 24 March 1983

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 October 1986

  932

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of the Republic of Colombia

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 019/1983 Cmnd 9022

  Treaty Series/Command No. 038/1988 Cm 399

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region

  Signed at Cartagena de Indias on 24 March 1983

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 October 1986

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of the Republic of Colombia

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 019/1983 Cmnd 9022

  Treaty Series/Command No. 038/1988 Cm 399

  Multilateral agreement

  Agreement establishing an International Foot and Mouth disease Vaccine Bank

  Signed at London on 26 June 1985

  Definitive date of entry into force on 26 June 1985

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom

  Treaty Series/Command no. 043/1985 Cmnd 9602

  Multilateral agreement

  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

  Signed at Strasbourg on 18 March 1986

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 January 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 004/1986 Cmnd 9884

  Multilateral agreement

  Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe

  Signed at London on 4 December 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositories: Government of the United Kingdom

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series 001/1992 Cm 1830

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Protection and the Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

  Signed at Helsinki on 17 March 1992

  closed on 18 September 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United NationsPublished text: Miscellaneous Series publication in hand

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents

  Signed at Helsinki on 17 March 1992

  closed on 18 September 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Finnish Government

  Published text: Certified copy of the Convention awaited

  Multilateral agreement

  Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas

  Signed at New York on 17 March 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series publication in hand

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Biological Diversity

  Adopted at Nairobi on 11 May 1992

  Signed at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992

  closed on 14 June 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series publication in hand.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the treaties
  933
  which Her Majesty's Government have either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "'Human Rights".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Treaties under the side heading "Human Rights" either signed or ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1 January 1962 are listed. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Political Rights of Women

  Signed at New York on 31 March 1953

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 101/1967 Cmnd 3449

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, conferring upon the European Court of Human rights competence to give Advisory Opinions

  Signed at Strasbourg on 6 May 1963

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 104/1970 Cmnd 4551

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Article 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention

  Signed at Strasbourg on 6 May 1963

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 106/1970 Cmnd 4552

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950

  Signed at Strasbourg on 16 September 1963

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Miscellaneous Series No. 006/1964 Cmnd 2309

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention

  Signed at Strasbourg on 20 January 1966

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 048/1972 Cmnd 4963

  Multilateral agreement

  International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

  Signed at New York on 7 March 1966

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 077/1969 Cmnd 4108

  Multilateral agreement

  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  Signed at New York on 19 December 1966

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 006/1977 Cmnd 6702

  Multilateral agreement

  European Agreement relating to Persons participating in Proceedings of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights

  Signed at London on 6 May 1969

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 044/1971 Cmnd 4699

  Multilateral agreement
  934

  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

  Adopted at New York (UN) on 18 December 1979

  Signed at New York (UN) on 1 March 1980

  Definitive date of entry into force on 3 September 1981

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations Secretary General

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 001/1982 Cmnd 8444

  Treaty Series/Command No. 002/1989 Cm 643

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Council of Europe No. 108)

  Signed at Strasbourg on 28 January 1981

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 October 1985

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Secretary General of the Council of Europe

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 019/1981 Cmnd 8341

  Treaty Series/Command No. 086/1990 Cm 1329

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

  Adopted at New York (UN) on 10 December 1984

  Signed at New York on 4 February 1985

  Definitive date of entry into force on 26 June 1987

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations (UN)

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 012/1985 Cmnd 9593

  Treaty Series/Command No. 107/1991 Cm 1775

  Multilateral agreement

  European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [ETS No. 126]

  Signed at Strasbourg on 26 November 1987

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 February 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc. No. 005/1988 Cmnd 339

  Treaty Series/Command No. 054/1991 Cmnd 1634

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Rights of the Child

  Adopted at New York (UNGA) on 20 November 1989

  Definitive date of entry into force on 2 September 1990

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Misc. Series 017/1991 Cmnd 1668

  Treaty Series/Command No. 044/1992 Cmnd 1976

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950

  Signed at Vienna on 19 March 1985

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 January 1990

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc. No. 009/1985 Cmnd 9556

  Treaty Series/Command No. 051/1990 Cmnd 1136

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol amending the European Social Charter

  Signed at Turin on 21 October 1991 closed on 22 October 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc. Series 005/1992 Cmnd 1940

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level

  Signed at Strasbourg on 5 February 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 008/1992 Cmnd 1964

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol No. 10 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

  Signed at Strasbourg on 25 March 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Council of Europe

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 012/1992 Cmnd 2031

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the treaties Her Majesty's Government either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "Disarmament".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Treaties under the side heading "Disarmament" either signed or ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1 January 1962 are listed. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.

  DISARMAMENT
  Multilateral agreement

  Treaty banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water

  Signed at Moscow on 5 August 1963

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 003/1964 Cmnd 2245

  Multilateral agreement

  Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

  Signed at London on 1 July 1968

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 088/1970 Cmnd 4474

  Multilateral agreement

  Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof

  Signed at London on 11 February 1971

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 013/1973 Cmnd 5266

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

  Signed at London on 10 April 1972

  Definitive date of entry into force on 26 March 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom [Multidepositary]

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 025/1972 Cmnd 5053

  Treaty Series/Command No. 011/1976 Cmnd 6397

  Multilateral agreement

  Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water

  Signed at Moscow on 5 August 1963

  Definitive date of entry into force on 10 September 1963

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom [Multidepositary]

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 010/1963 Cmnd 2118

  Treaty Series/Command No. 003/1964 Cmnd 2245

  Multilateral agreement

  Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (With Final Recommendations of the Helsinki Consultations agreed on 8 June 1973)

  Signed at Helsinki on 1 August 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of Finland

  Published text: Prime Minister Cmnd 6198

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD)

  Signed at Geneva on 18 May 1977

  Closed on 31 May 1977

  936

  Definitive date of entry into force on 5 September 1978

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 021/1977 Cmnd 6985

  Treaty Series/Command No. 024/1979 Cmnd 7469

  Multilateral agreement
  Agreement among the United States of America and the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Italy, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding Inspections relating to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles

  Signed at Brussels on 11 December 1987

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 June 1988

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United States of America

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 004/1988 Cm 312

  Treaty Series/Command No. 031/1991 Cm 1535

  Bilateral agreement with Soviet Union
  Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Inspection Rights relating to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles

  Signed at London on 21 December 1987

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 June 1988

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text: Soviet Union No. 001/1988 Cm 311

  Treaty Series/Command No. 030/1991 Cm 1534

  Multilateral agreement

  Charter of Paris for a New Europe (with Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States)

  Signed at Paris on 21 November 1990

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of the French Republic

  Treaty Series/Command No. Cmnd 1464

  Multilateral agreement

  Treaty on Open Skies

  Signed at Helsinki on 24 March 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Governments of Canada and Hungary

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 013/1992 Cmnd 2067

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects

  Approved at Geneva on 10 October 1980

  Signed at New York on 10 April 1981

  closed on 10 April 1982

  Definitive date of entry into force on 2 December 1983

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 23/1981 Cmnd 8370

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the treaties which Her Majesty's Government have either ratified or signed since 1962 published with the side heading "Pollution".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Treaties under the side heading "Pollution" either signed or ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1 January 1962 are listed. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.
  937

  POLLUTION
  Multilateral agreement

  Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954

  Signed at London on 21 October 1969

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 021/1978 Cmnd 7094

  Multilateral agreement

  International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties

  Signed at Brussels on 29 November 1969 and 31 December 1970

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series Command No. 077/1975 Cmnd 6056

  Multilateral agreement

  International Convention on the establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage

  Signed at Brussels on 18 December 1971

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text:

  Treaty Series/Command No. 095/1978 Cmnd 7383

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973

  Signed at London on 1 June 1978 and 31 May 1979

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 027/1978 Cmnd 7347

  Multilateral agreement

  Agreement for Co-operation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil.

  Signed at Bonn on 9 june 1969

  Definitive date of entry into force on 9 August 1969

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Federal Republic of Germany

  Treaty Series/Command No. 078 (1969) Cmnd 4205

  Multilateral agreement

  International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage

  Signed at Brussels on 29 November 1969

  closed on 31 December 1970

  Definitive date of entry into force on 19 June 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Published text: Misc. No. 8 (1970) Cmnd 4403

  Treaty Series/Command No. 106 (1975) Cmnd 6183

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft

  Signed at Oslo on 15 February 1972

  closed on 15 August 1972

  Definitive date of entry into force on 7 April 1974

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Norwegian Government

  Published text: 021/1972 Cmnd 4984

  Treaty Series/Command No. 119/1975 Cmnd 6228

  Multilateral agreement

  Final Act of the Inter-governmental Conference on the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea

  Adopted at London on 13 November 1972

  Signed at

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom [Multidepositary]

  Published text: Misc. No. 054/1972 Cmnd 5169

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter

  Adopted at London on 13 November 1972

  938

  Signed at London on 29 December 1972

  closed on 31 December 1973

  Definitive date of entry into force on 30 August 1975

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom [Multidepositary]

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 054/1972 Cmnd 5169

  Treaty Series/Command No. 043/1976 Cmnd 6486

  Multilateral agreement

  Resolution to amend Articles XI, XIV and XV of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 29 December 1972 (adopted by the Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties at London on 12 December 1978)

  Adopted at London on 12 October 1978

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries : International Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO)

  Published text: Misc. No. 011/1979 Cmnd 7570

  Multilateral agreement

  Amendments to Annexes I and II to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (concerning Incineration at Sea)

  Approved at London on 12 October 1978

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 March 1979

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositories: IMCO

  Treaty Series/Command No. 071/1979 Cmnd 7656

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Long-Term Financing of the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP)

  Adopted at Geneva on 28 September 1984

  Open for signing on

  Definitive date of entry into force on 28 January 1985

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations (UN)

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 008/1985 Cmnd 9537

  Treaty Series/Command No. 075/1988 Cmnd 521

  Multilateral agreement

  Amendments to Annexes I and II to the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, done at Oslo on 15 February 1972

  Adopted at Mariehamn on 13 June 1985

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 May 1990

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of Norway

  Treaty Series/Command No. 081/1990 Cmnd 1315

  Multilateral agreement

  Decision concerning amendments to the Agreement for Co-operation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and other Harmful Substances, 1983

  Adopted at BONN on 22 September 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of the Federal German Republic

  Multilateral agreement

  Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer done at Montreal 16 September 1987

  Adopted at LONDON on 29 June 1990

  Definitive date of entry into force on 10 August 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: UNITED NATIONS

  Terminated? No

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 012/1991 Cmnd. 1567

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary air Pollution concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes

  939

  Adopted at GENEVA on 18 November 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: UNITED NATIONS

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 010/1992 Cmnd 1970

  Multilateral agreement

  Final Act of the International Conference on Marine Pollution 1973 including International Convention for The Prevention of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973 and Resolutions of the Conference.

  Signed at London on 8 October 1973 closed on 2 November 1973

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Published text: Misc. Series 026 (1974) Cmnd. 5748

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973

  Signed at London on 2 November 1973 closed on 31 December 1974

  Definitive date of entry into force on 30 March 1983

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Published text: Misc Series 012/1975 Cmnd. 6038

  Treaty Series/Command No. 027/1983 Cmnd. 8924

  Multilateral agreement

  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 with Final Act of the Conference (MARPOL)

  Adopted at London on 2 November 1973

  Signed at London on 14 January 1974 closed on 31 December 1974

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMO

  Published text: Misc 026/1974 Cmnd. 5748

  Bilateral agreement with Soviet Union

  Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in the Field of Environmental Protection

  Signed at London on 21 May 1974

  Definitive date of entry into force on 21 May 1974

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Treaty Series/Command No. 058/1974 Cmnd. 5778

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources

  Signed at Paris on 4 June 1974 closed on 30 June 1975

  Definitive date of entry into force on 6 May 1978

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: French Government

  Published text: Misc Series 001/1975 Cmnd. 5803

  Treaty Series/Command No. 064/1978 Cmnd. 7251

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, with Final Act of the Conference.

  Signed at London on 19 November 1976

  Definitive date of entry into force on 8 April 1981

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 026/1977 Cmnd. 7028

  Treaty Series/Command No. 026/1981 Cmnd. 8238

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to the International Convention on the Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971

  Adopted at London on 19 November 1976

  Signed at London on 1 February 1977

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMO

  940

  Published text: Misc. No. 027/1977 Cmnd 7029

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage resulting from Exploration for and Exploitation of Seabed

  Mineral Resources (with Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage from Offshore Operations 20–31 October 1975 and 13–17 December 1976)

  Signed at London on 1 May 1977, closed on 30 April 1978

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Kingdom

  Published text:

  Misc. Series No. 008/1977 Cmnd 6791

  Multilateral agreement

  Optional Annex V to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto

  Signed at London on 1 June 1978, closed on 31 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 31 December 1988

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMO

  Published text:

  Misc. Series No. 027/1978 Cmnd 7347

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPROT: XIX 1069)

  Signed at London on 1 June 1978, closed on 31 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 2 October 1983

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 027/1978 Cmnd 7347

  Multilateral agreement

  Optional Annex III to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto.

  Signed at London on 1 June 1978, closed on 31 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 July 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMO

  Published text: Misc. Series No. 027/1978 Cmnd 7347

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

  Adopted at Espoo (Finland) on 25 February 1991

  Signed at Espoo/New York on 25 February 1991, closed on 2 September 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Multilateral agreement

  Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

  Signed at Geneva on 13 November 1979 closed on 16 November 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 16 March on 1983

  UK signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 010/1980 Cmnd 7885

  Treaty Series/Command No. 057/1983 Cmnd 9034

  Multilateral agreement

  Amendments to Annexes I and II to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter concerning Lists of Substances

  Approved at London on 24 September 1980

  Signed at Approved at London on 24 September 1980

  Definitive date of entry into force on 11 March 1981

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: IMCO

  Treaty Series/Command No. 20 (1982) Cmnd 8555

  Multilateral agreement

  941

  Agreement for Co-operation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances

  Signed at Bonn on 13 September 1983

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 026/1983 Cmnd 9104

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol Amending the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft

  Signed at Oslo on 2 March 1983

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 September 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Norwegian Government

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 12/1983 Cmnd 8942

  Treaty Series/Command No. 059/1989 Cm 889

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol of 1984 to amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971

  Adopted at London on 25 May 1984

  Signed at London on 1 December 1984

  closed on 30 November 1985

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 007/1986, Cmnd 9926

  Multilateral agreement

  Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

  Adopted at Vienna on 22 March 1985

  Signed at Vienna and New York on 22 March 1985 closed on 21 March 1986

  Definitive date of entry into force on 22 September 1988

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations (UN)

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 013/1985 Cmnd 9652

  Treaty Series/Command No. 001/1990 Cm 910

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol of 1984 to amend the International Conventaion on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969

  Adopted at London on 25 May 1985

  Signed at London on 1 December 1985

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

  Published text: Miscellaneous No. 008/1986, Cmnd 9927

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol Amending the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources

  Signed at Paris on 26 March 1986

  closed on 30 June 1986

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: French Government

  Published text: Misc No. 003/1987 Cm 87

  Multilateral agreement

  Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

  Adopted at Montreal on 16 September 1987

  Signed at Montreal on 16 September 1987

  Definitive date of entry into force on 1 January 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 001/1988 Cm 283 Treaty Series/Command No. 019/1990 Cm 977

  Multilateral agreement

  Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

  Adopted at Basel on 22 March 1989

  Signed at Berne/New York on 23 March 1989

  closed on 22 March 1990

  Definitive date of entry into force on 5 May 1992

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 004/1990 Cm 984

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol [further] amending the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, done at Oslo on 15 February 1972

  Signed at Oslo on 5 December 1989

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: Government of Norway

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 010/1990 Cm 1039

  Multilateral agreement

  Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes

  Signed at Sofia/New York on 31 October 1988

  closed on 5 March 1989

  Definitive date of entry into force on 14 February 1991

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: United Nations

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series 016/1989 Cm 885Treaty Series/Command No. 001/1992 Cm 1787

  Multilateral agreement

  Optional Annex V to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto

  Signed at London on 1 June 1978

  closed 31 May 1979

  Definitive date of entry into force on 31 December 1988

  UK Signatory? Yes

  Depositaries: International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

  Published text: Miscellaneous Series No. 027/1978 Cmnd 7347

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends to put forward for the future government of the dependent territories; and when they will be implemented.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) to his question of 29 October,Official Report, column 793, which referred to the Caribbean dependent territories. Implementation of these changes has already started. No other changes are planned.

  Ahmadi Muslims
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have on several occasions expressed to the Pakistani Government our concerns about discrimination against Ahmadis. In 1984 a presidential ordinance made it a criminal offence for an Ahmadi to call himself a Muslim or to preach and propagate his faith. Members of the Ahmadi community have individually suffered from discrimination, although many in the community have prospered in business arid the professions. We believe that a recent decision by the Pakistani Government that a citizen's identity card should indicate his religion could make discrimination against Ahmadis and other minority religious groups easier. We have expressed our concern to the Pakistani Government.

  Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps in concert with Her Majesty's Government and their partners in the EC to include on the agenda of the current session of the United Nations General Assembly proposals for concrete measures to exert pressure on the Iranian Government to improve human rights.

  Mr. Hurd
  In my speech of 22 September at the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the European Community and its member states, I made it clear that Iran's human rights record will affect the extent to which closer relations with and confidence in Iran can be developed. The United Nations Secretary-General's special representative on human rights in Iran, Mr. Galindo-Pohl, will present a report to the United Nations General Assembly later this month. Together with our EC partners, we will work to ensure that his report's findings are fully reflected in any resolution adopted at the General Assembly.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he or his Department has had with the head of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi's private office.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our ambassador in Abu Dhabi had a meeting with the chairman of Sheikh Zayed's private department on 30 January 1992.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi concerning the 17 British citizens who have been detained there concerning the Bank of Credit and Commerce International issue; and if he will make a statement on the conditions under which they are currently being held.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made numerous representations to senior officials in Abu Dhabi asking for the detainees to be charged or released. Eight detainees entered Abu Dhabi on British passports. There are a further two dual United Kingdom/Pakistan citizens and one Canadian citizen whom we are helping. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised their case with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates on 16 May 1992.

  They are being held at the police club, which is comfortable and air-conditioned. They are housed two to a room and have the run of one wing. Food is brought in daily from a nearby hotel. The detainees are visited regularly by a doctor.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government are doing to urge the Azerbaijani authorities to agree to a negotiated settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When he met President Elchibei during his recent visit to Baku, the President of the Board of Trade expressed British support for a general ceasefire 944
  which would enable the Rome talks to reconvene. He gave President Elchibei a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which also made this point. Separately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been in touch with the Turkish Foreign Minister to suggest that Turkey use its influence in the region to help bring about a peaceful settlement.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government are doing to alleviate the suffering caused by the continuing dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are concerned at the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh where humanitarian needs during the forthcoming winter will be considerable. The Government therefore are contributing £250,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross which has representatives in Nagorno-Karabakh and is distributing aid there. This money will be used to help Armenian and Azeri victims of the conflict alike.

  Indian Ocean
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's security interests in the Indian ocean outside the Gulf.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we have a general interest in peace and security in the Indian ocean region. More specifically, we retain sovereignty over British Indian ocean territory in which military facilities are located in Diego Garcia.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  About 140 items are on loan to the Cabinet Office and Cabinet Office (OPSS) under the provision of the Public Records Act 1958, section 4(6) of which gives Government Departments a statutory right to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use. This number changes from day to day as records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, for each local authority area in south Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Office of Public Service and Science does not own any residential properties in south Yorkshire.

  Charter Marks
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to encourage public organisations to apply for the charter mark awards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The charter mark scheme was publicised in both the local and the national press following its launch in January this year. Interested organisations were invited to contact a freefone number to obtain further details of the scheme. Additionally, the scheme was brought to the attention of the relevant bodies by Departments.

  We are currently conducting a review of all aspects of the charter mark scheme, and have commissioned some research which will, amongst other things, identify the best ways of publicising the scheme in future years.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the text of his letter to Sir David Phillips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, seeking the board's advice on the allocation of the science budget in 1993–94 and later years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following is the text of my letter: Sir David Phillips KBE FRS

  Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils PROVISION FOR SCIENCE 1993–94 to 1995–96
  I am writing to let you know the outcome of this years' Public Expenditure survey, and to seek the Board's help in allocating the funds now available for the science budget for 1993–94 and later years.
  As you know, this has been an exceptionally difficult survey. All existing plans for public expenditure have been reviewed to ensure that we meet our over-riding economic objectives. The resulting provision for the science budget will be £1,164·6m in 1993–94, £1,231·5m in 1994–95 and £1,264·7m in 1995–96.
  These figures are lower than the previous planning figures announced last November. They take account of the reduction since then in the expected level of inflation, as measured by the reduction in the GDP deflator. After allowing for the dual support transfer, the revised figures provide for at least level funding in real terms throughout the planning period. In the circumstances, I believe that they represent a good settlement for science.
  I nevertheless recognise that the lower level of provision now available will require a reassessment of priorities as compared with previous plans. There have also been changes since the Board's advice was submitted last May which affect the position of individual funded bodies.
  Before deciding on the distribution of the funds available for 1993–94 and later years, I would find it most helpful to have the Board's assessment of the impact of such changes on individual funded bodies, and its judgment of what our priorities should now be. I am asking the Chief Scientific Adviser, as my representative on the Board, and my officials in the Office of Public Service and Science to work with you to this end.
  Since the Science Budget is a matter of considerable Parliamentary and public interest, I propose to follow precedent by publishing the text of this letter in the fonn of a Parliamentary Answer.

  Office of Public Service and Science
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what expenditure will be incurred by the Office of Public Service and Science in the period 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Spending on the areas covered by the new Office of Public Service and Science (OPSS) will rise 946
  in real terms next year. The programme totals will be £1,255 million in 1993–94, £1,321 million in 1994–95 and £1,349 million in 1995–96.

  Planned expenditure on public service functions is £85 million in 1993–94, £84 million in 1994–95 and £78 million in 1995–96.

  Provision for science, including expenditure financed by EC receipts, is £1,170 million in 1993–94, £1,237 million in 1994–95 and £1,271 million in 1995–96.

  These figures include sums transferred from higher education funding of £125 million, £154 million and £157 million respectively, to cover the additional responsibilities of the research councils for the projects which they support in higher education institutions.

  Within these totals, the sums available for distribution on the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will be £1,165 million, £1,231 million and £1,265 million. Total science provision for each year will be 3·7 per cent., 7·5 per cent. and 10·5 per cent. higher in cash terms than the estimated outturn in 1992–93, excluding the sums transferred.

  I am inviting the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to work with the chief scientific adviser and my officials to consider how these sums should be distributed so as to achieve the best value from the resources available.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1992–93 cash limit or running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £3,293,000 from £38,459,000 to £41,752,000. The Department's running costs limit will be increased by £15,046,000 from £49,098,000 to £64,144,000.

  A total of £2,774,000 of the increase in cash limit is required to take forward the work of the citizens charter and £519,000 is required to meet certain costs arising from the creation of the new Department. The additional running costs reflect the transfer of certain functions from HM Treasury (class XVIII, vote 1) to the Office of Public Service and Science and, also, covers additional provision for the transfer of functions which resulted from the machinery of government changes announced after the general election. All the changes are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he intends to make to his Department's cash limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Gummer
  The cash limit for class III vote 4 (agricultural, food and fishing services) will be reduced by £18,200,000 from £368,256,000 to £350,056,000. Within this limit expenditure will be reduced by £16,871,000 on agricultural schemes and by £600,000 on sea fishery support. These reductions reflect a predicted decrease in demand and delay in implementation in further areas of these schemes. Expenditure on civil defence will be reduced by £529,000 reflecting a further reduction in the size of the
  947
  emergency food stockpile. The remaining reduction (£200,000) reflects two transfers of funds to other Government Departments, to ODA £150,000 as part of the United Kingdom Aid to the St. Petersburg seed potato project and to the Cabinet Office £50,000 as part of the United Kingdom support for science in the CIS.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of birds, by species, whose cause of death was from ingesting grain which had been treated with pesticides in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested, based on confirmed incidents in England and Wales reported through the wildlife incident investigation scheme is as follows:

  Cases

  Feral pigeon

  1985

  3

  1986

  4

  1987

  2

  1988

  4

  1989

  3

  1990

  4

  1991

  5

  Wood pigeon

  1986

  2

  1987

  3

  1988

  1

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  Collared Dove

  1986

  1

  Pheasant

  1986

  3

  1987

  1

  1988

  1

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  2

  Red-legged Partridge

  1986

  1

  Mallard

  1986

  1

  1987

  1

  1989

  3

  1990

  1

  Greylag Goose

  1986

  1

  Bewick's Swan

  1985

  1

  Moorhen

  1989

  1

  Magpie

  1985

  1

  1987

  1

  Jay

  1986

  1

  1991

  1

  Jackdaw

  1985

  1

  1986

  1

  948

  Cases

  1990

  1

  Rook

  1986

  1

  1990

  4

  Blackbird

  1986

  2

  1987

  1

  1989

  1

  Robin

  1986

  1

  1987

  1

  Blue Tit

  1988

  1

  House Sparrow

  1986

  3

  1987

  1

  1989

  1

  Greenfinch

  1987

  1

  Chaffinch

  1988

  1

  Corn Bunting

  1986

  1

  Yellowhammer

  1986

  1

  1988

  1

  Domestic Fowl

  1986

  1

  1988

  1

HEALTH

  Dewsbury Health Authority
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive directors and non-executive directors will be paid, and at what remuneration, as members of the Dewsbury health authority for the year 1993–94; and if she will specify their precise responsibilities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All district health authorities comprise a chairman and up to five non-executive members and five executive members. The non-executive members currently receive annual remuneration of £5,000. Details of the remuneration of executive members and the precise responsibilities of both executive and non-executive members are matters for the health authority itself.

  Staff Relocation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what costs will be incurred by her Department from the relocation of staff working for the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, Sheffield, to Victory house, London, including(a) the additional salary costs and (b) additional business rate payments;

  (2) what plans she has to move national health service staff from regional locations to Victory house, Tottenham Court road, London; and if she will make a statement.
  949
  Mr. Sackville
  No costs would be incurred by the Department. The proposals are being considered by the English national board as part of a cost savings programme and would involve only employees of the ENB.

  Dentists, Coventry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Coventry family health services authority have withdrawn from NHS services for adults and for children.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No dentists in the Coventry family health services authority's (FHSA's) area have asked for their name to be removed from the FHSA's dental list.

  Hospital Waiting Lists, York
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long on average a patient in the York health authority area has to wait from the date of referral to the date of being seen by a hospital specialist in each specialty at(a) the latest date for which figures are available and (b) 12 months earlier.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 29 October 1992 at column 848.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in the York health authority area had been waiting for an ordinary admission in each specialty for 0 to 11 months, for one to two years, and for more than two years at(a) the latest date for which figures are available and (b) 12 months earlier;

  (2) how many patients in the York health authority area had been waiting for day surgery in each specialty for 0 to 11 months, for one to two years, and for more than two years at (a) the latest date for which figures are available and (b) 12 months earlier.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by district health authority is published in "Hospital Waiting List, In-patients and Day Cases", copies of which are available in the Library. Day case figures were first published in September 1991.

  Homeless People (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homeless people, including street homeless in London, have received psychiatric treatment within each of the last five years; and what proportion this represented in each year of the total population of homeless people in London.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Child Psychotherapy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child psychotherapists are in practice in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1991, 198·06 whole-time equivalent child psychotherapists were employed within the national health service in England.950
  Information about the number of child psychotherapists in practice outside the national health service is not collected centrally. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on national health service waiting lists in March 1990; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional figures for September 1992 show that there was a total of 939,846 people on national health service waiting lists compared with 958,976 in March 1990, a reduction of 2 per cent. More significantly, the number of patients waiting 12 months or more fell by more than 80,000 to 7·5 per cent. over the same period.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limit of her Department in 1992–93.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XIII vote 1 (hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be reduced by £54,991,000 (from £18,564,499,000 to £18,509,508,000). This decrease allows for transfers to class XIII, vote 4 (family health services (part) and national health service trusts external financing etc., England) of £37,399,000 reflecting an increase in the NHS trusts' aggregate external financing limit and £18,492,000 for the unallocated element of the original estimate of GP fundholders' drug budget requirements. These reductions are partly offset by a transfer from class XIII, vote 2 (family health (part) and other services, England) of £900,000 for the safe disposal of drugs. The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £958,000 (from £822,481,000 to £821,523,000). This reduction allows for a transfer of £735,000 to class XI, vote 2 (Department for Education higher and further education) and £223,000 to class XI, vote 3 (Department of Education student awards, loans and compensation payments) for the conversion of social work training courses.

  Pay Review Body
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will be presenting evidence to the pay review body for nurses, midwives and health visitors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Written evidence was submitted on 18 September.

  West Midlands Health Authority
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 185, on meetings with the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority, which other members of her ministerial team met Sir James Ackers on 28 October; and what matters were discussed.
  951
  Dr. Mawhinney
  A meeting of the NHS policy board was held on 28 October, at which a wide range of matters concerning the NHS were discussed. The meeting was attended by, amongst others, the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Health my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville).

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions have been made in the funding of voluntary overtime offered by the crews of the London ambulance service(a) from January to October and (b) since 1 November last.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service (LAS) must provide its services within the resources agreed with the South West Thames regional health authority. In common with all ambulance services the LAS manages staff expenditure including overtime within their annual budget. The LAS have therefore established a unit to co-ordinate overtime against expected demand on a pan-London basis.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers she has to instruct the South West Thames regional health authority to cease budget capping of emergency ambulance crews of the London ambulance service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service (LAS) must provide its services within the resources agreed with the South West Thames regional health authority. In common with all ambulance services the LAS manages staff expenditure including overtime within their annual budget. The emergency service which is provided by the LAS must be managed from within the total budget available to the service. My relationship to the management of the LAS is no different than with any other directly managed unit within the NHS. We have asked the chairman of the South West Thames regional health authority, the accountable management authority, to take immediate action on a number of matters to improve the performance of the LAS.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidelines on the parity of access to hospital treatment for waiting list surgery between fund holding and non-fund holding general practices; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In June last year, the national health service management executive and the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association issued guidance on GP fundholding in EL(91)84, a copy of which is available in the Library. This sets out the criteria for acceptable contracts to be agreed between GP fundholders and all NHS hospitals. It clearly states that hospitals should not offer contracts to fundholders which would disadvantage patients of other purchasers.

  Victory House, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much office space for which her Department is responsible was empty in Victory house, Tottenham Court road, London on 31 October.
  952
  Mr. Sackville
  None. Victory house is occupied solely by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—a non-departmental public body.

  Audit Commission Reports
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers she holds to require a regional health authority to publish the reports it has commissioned into a district health authority;

  (2) what powers she holds to require a regional health authority to publish reports it has commissioned from the Audit Commission.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has power to give directions to regional health authorities concerning the functions that they discharge on her behalf. This would include the power to direct the publication of a report commissioned by an authority into its exercise of those functions.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 348, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, if she will list the major reports commissioned from the Audit Commission or outside consultants in respect of the West Midlands health authority or its constituent districts which have (a) been completed and (b) been received in draft.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  West Midlands regional health authority referred the matter of its regional supplies organisation to its independent statutory auditor who reported in July 1992 under section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The findings were published on 10 September 1992. The statutory auditor has also decided to carry out audits of West Midlands RHA on Healthtrac and the maangement buy-out of the Management Information Services Division by Qa Business Services. The timetable for completion of this work is a matter for the Audit Commission. Details of reports carried out by outside consultants on behalf of West Midlands RHA or its constituent districts are a matter for the RHA and the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir James Ackers, the chairman of West Midlands RHA, For details.

ENVIRONMENT

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to seek the amendment of article 3 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species' regulations so that species are included in annex B in instances when trade is deemed incompatible with species survival;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek the amendment of article 4 of the CITES regulations to allow imports only when benefits to conservation have been proven.

  Mr. Maclean
  Good progress is being made under the United Kingdom presidency in discussion of the proposed EC CITES regulation. One of our key objectives is to strengthen protection for species in which any trade would be incompatible with their survival. Our policy is that such species should be listed in annex A so that they can be given the highest level of protection. Annex B, which
  953
  affords less protection, should, however, include species whose survival would be threatened only in certain places or by trade at particular levels.

  Imports of annex A specimens should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, generally when they would be of conservation benefit. Such strict restrictions would not be appropriate for species listed on other annexes in which trade is not incompatible with their survival.

  The general approach of the Government to this proposal was set out by my noble friend the Lord Strathclyde in his letter of 14 September to the Lord Moran. The letter is available in the Library of the House together with copies of representations received by the Department in response to a consultation exercise carried out earlier this year.

  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on how many of those homes repossessed because of mortgage arrears in the last three years were bought under the right-to-buy scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in England and Wales are at present on council waiting lists for housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities in England report the number of households on their council housing waiting lists in their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns.

  The figures, as at 1 April 1992, are in column B5 of the "1992 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the research report commissioned by the Housing Corporation into the level of rehabilitation activity by housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The research in question was commissioned by the Department of the Environment. The report is due to be published next month, and copies will be placed in the Library at that time.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, West's request for a meeting about pensions for retired local government officers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  "Competing for Quality in Housing"
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses have been received by his Department to the consultation paper "Competing for 954
  Quality in Housing"; and how many were (a) against and (b) in favour of proposals to amend section 105 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 431 responses have now been received to the consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing". The majority of those which referred to the proposal to amend section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 were not in favour. However, that was before respondents had the opportunity to consider the detailed provisions now included in the Housing and Urban Development Bill, which give tenants enhanced powers to influence practically and constructively the ways in which their houses are managed.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the number of former council properties that have been re-sold following purchase under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  An estimated 200,000 households owned different accommodation in 1991 having previously bought a dwelling from a local authority as sitting tenants, whether through voluntary sales by the local authority or under the right-to-buy legislation. Purchasers from a local authority who were no longer owner occupiers are not covered by this estimate.

  This figure is the most recently available and is from the 1991 Labour Force Survey housing trailer. The LFS is a sample survey and so the estimate is subject to sampling error.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) houses and (b) flats have been sold by councils under the right-to-buy legislation in each London borough, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  Tables showing the available information on total right-to-buy sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1980 and a cumulative total to June 1992 were recently placed in the Library. In addition, the tables give data on total sales and on the number of flats sold.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the level of finance available for those seeking to purchase their council properties;

  (2)what meetings officials from his Department have had with representatives of lenders and lending institutions concerning lending practices with regard to former council property;

  (3)what information he has concerning the availability of mortgage finance for the purchase of former council property in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Council tenants exercising their right to buy have at present the right to a mortgage from the landlord. Most tenants, however, prefer to take out a private loan. Currently only 4 per cent. of sales by value are financed through a mortgage from the landlord.

  When a right-to-buy property is resold, subsequent buyers do not have the right to a mortgage from the landlord but must obtain private finance. Following reports that some prospective purchasers of ex-council

  955
  flats were having difficulty obtaining mortgages, I met representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and some of the major building societies. They assure me that it is their policy to consider every mortgage application, including those for former council properties, on its merits.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of former council properties awaiting sale.

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is held by the Department on the number of former council properties awaiting sale.

  Stockton-on-Tees
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered Stockton-on-Tees borough council's response to the notice served on the authority on 12 August under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has given careful consideration to the response which Stockton-on-Tees borough council has made to the notice served on the authority on 12 August 1992, and has today given a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 in respect of refuse collection work. The direction requires the council to retender the contract and to seek the Secretary of State's consent before awarding the work to its direct service organisation.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his proposals for housing revenue account subsidy entitlement for 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  My Department is tomorrow consulting local authorities about my proposal for the management and maintenance allowances and rent guidelines to be used in calculating authorities' entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy next year. I will place the consultation papers in the Library with a list of proposed guidelines and allowances for each authority.

  I propose an average increase in guideline rents of £2·12 a week within a range of £1·50 to £3·00, giving a new average guideline rent of £29·40 a week; at 5 per cent. above inflation, this is a smaller increase in cash terms than for 1992–93.

  On management and maintenance, I propose an overall increase of 1 per cent. above inflation, enabling further progress to be made towards targeting allowances according to relative need. For 1994–95 and 1995–96, I am proposing further increases in guideline rents of 5 per cent. above the underlying rate of inflation in each year, and in the overall national management and maintenance allowance of 1 per cent. above the underlying rate of inflation in each year. I will review these guidelines and allowances each year after taking into account the relevant matters known to me at the time.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to vacate 2 Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  On 2 June I announced that the Government proposed to relocate some 2,000 staff of the 956
  Department of the Environment to docklands. I did so in the light of advice that exceptional value for money was available there. I made it clear that I intended to secure fully commercial terms giving value for money to the taxpayer. I fully expected to be able to do so.

  Subsequently, it emerged that rents elsewhere in London were falling rapidly and sharply. In pursuit of value for money my Department commissioned a further study to look at other locations, including the future availability of sites on the existing Government estate. Steps were also taken to establish the feasibility of remaining in Marsham street beyond the end of 1993 and precisely how much it would cost.

  The further work led us to conclude that taking account of falling rents and the considerable and continuing staff related costs involved in a move to docklands, such a move did not now represent best value for money for the Department. Nor, given the present severe constraints on public spending, could I now justify the substantial one-off costs of a move in 1993–94. The study of 2 Marsham street has shown that it is both safe and affordable to remain there for a period although the building will, in due course, have to be pulled down.

  The Government has therefore decided that the Department of the Environment should remain in Marsham street for about three years, and use the intervening period to find the most suitable accommodation at the best value for money for the taxpayer.

  Poll Tax Arrears
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current poll tax arrears for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer given on 6 November to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), Official Report, column 370.

  Street Lighting
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are currently provided for the improvement of street lighting in the interests of safety for women.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Road lighting is generally installed to conform with British Standard codes of practice. Earlier this year the BS published BS 5489: Part 3: 1992 code of practice for lighting subsidiary roads and associated pedestrian areas. This code requires an assessment to be made whether the crime risk is high, average or low. The recommended lighting design is then related to the crime risk.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Howard
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Record Acts to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for
  957
  their own administrative use. My Department currently has 28 records out on loan, as listed. Some of these are with the Department of National Heritage, for whom my Department continues to provide a records management service. Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  File Titles of Records temporarily withdrawn from Public Record Office

  1. Caravan sites; Certificates of exemptions; policy.

  2. Interdepartmental committee on atomic health and safety.

  3. Stanton Drew: Acquisition or preservation.

  4. St. John's Lodge: Proposals for future use.

  5. St. John's Lodge: Lease of Bedford College.

  6. Duck Island Lodge: Works.

  7. Longford River: Diversion.

  8. Temporary Cenotaph: Disposal of original model.

  9. Scope of Metropolitan Statues Act.

  10. Green Park: Three plans by Barry.

  11. Procedure in the event of death of Sir Winston Churchill.

  12. St. Just, Cornwall.

  13. Silchester, Hampshire.

  14. Dewsbury, Yorks: Moot Hall.

  15. Tower of London: Crown Jewels (two records).

  16. Tower of London: Jewel House Site.

  17. Aycliffe Development Corporation.

  18. Hatfield: Town Centre revised development proposals.

  19. Dawley (Telford DC) Development Corporation: Appointment of members.

  20. Letchworth Garden City Development Corporation: Appointment of members.

  21. Water Undertakings: Welsh National Water Development Authority.

  22. Town and Country Planning Act 1947: Mineral Regulations (two records).

  23. Dolomite: Doncaster.

  24. Extension of existing spoil heaps.

  25. Wellington museum (two records).

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current statutes and regulations governing tree preservation orders in England and the dates on which they took effect.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Came into force

  Primary legislation

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  24 August 1990

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991, section 23

  6 January 1992

  Regulations

  Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1969

  10 February 1969

  Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) (Amendment) and (Trees in Conservation Areas) (Exempted Cases) Regulations 1975

  12 March 1975

  Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) (Amendment) Regulations 1981

  13 January 1981

  Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) (Amendment) Regulations 1988

  30 June 1988

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each local authority area in South Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by 958
  location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 2 (miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be reduced by £11,090,000 from £285,894,000 to £274,804,000. This decrease reflects a reduced requirement for expenditure on Housing Action Trusts (HATs) as a result of delays in the programmes for the four prospective HATs (Liverpool, Birmingham, Brent and Tower Hamlets) and slippage and economies in the programmes of the two established HATs (North Hull and Waltham Forest).

  (ii) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 5 (central environmental services etc.) will be increased by £1,855,000 from £315,272,000 to £317,127,000. The increase includes provision for the new UK Ecolabelling Board; additional grant-in-aid to the Countryside Commission resulting from the partial take up of the end year flexibility entitlement, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, columns 698–702); additional grant-in-aid to English Nature; increased expenditure on international contributions; and increased grant for water supply and sewerage in assisted areas. These increases are partially offset by reductions made elsewhere on the vote. The cash limit change also reflects certain other minor adjustments to subheads within the Vote and makes provision for transfers to class VIII, vote 4 and the Overseas Development Administration to fund African elephant conservation projects.

  (iii) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: administration) will be reduced by £600,000 from £211,622,000 to £211,022,000 and the Department's running costs limit will be increased by £283,000 from £201,616,000 to £201,899,000. The changes include various inter departmental transfers; the start-up costs of the relocation unit which is being funded from within existing provision; savings resulting from the dissolution of the Local Government Boundary Commission and reduced receipts from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It is the Department's intention to seek Parliamentary approval for these changes in a spring Supplementary Estimate for class VIII, vote 8.

  (iv) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 9 (revenue support grant, payment of non-domestic rates, valuation office rating services, etc., England) will be decreased by £7,037,000 from £29,530,333,000 to £29,523,296,000. The decrease reflects a change in the timing of payments of the council tax preparation grant; 66 per cent. will now be paid in 1992–93 with the balance paid in 1993–94.

  (v) The DoE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £28,354,000 from £989,095,000 to £1,017,449,000. This includes an increase of £12,100,000 for Olympic preparations; it also includes increased grant-in-aid of £15,555,000 to the London Docklands development corporation for work on extensions to the Docklands light railway and associated administration costs. This will he offset in part by a reduction of £1,900,000 in the

  959
  Department of Transport's cash limit for class VII, vote 2. A further £14,190,000 is required for the Bristol spine road, land purchase in Leeds, reclamation and workspace provision in Merseyside and to increase the resources for local authority sector derelict land grant. £3,800,000 is being made available for assistance following colliery closures. There have been savings of £11,391,000 from city grant and derelict land grant as well as a £4,000,000 increase in derelict land grant receipts.

  (vi) the Doe/HC non-voted cash limit will be increased by £700,000 from £1,706,500,000 to £1,707,200,000. This increase results from the full take-up of end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, cols 698–702).

  (vii) the DoE/LACAP non-voted cash limit will be increased by £6,540,000 from £2,908,289,000 to £2,914,829,000. This increase reflects the transfer to the Estate Action programme of £6,294,000 of the savings on Housing Action Trusts; £1,403,000 full take-up of end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992 (Official Report. cols. 698–702); and an increase of £310,000 in estate action grant. It also reflects savings of £1,467,000 in the revenue element of slum clearance and renovation grants.

  (viii) the DoE/OES non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £40,117,000 from £149,133,000 to 109,016,000. The reduction reflects lower than expected take-up by local authorities of supplementary credit approvals for certain waste initiatives and takes account of an increase in payments on class VIII, vote 4.

  (ix) the national loans fund cash limit for housing action trusts (HATs) will be reduced by £2,004,000 from £2,004,000 to zero. This decrease reflects a reduced requirement on HATs as a result of delays in the programmes for the four prospective HATs (Liverpool, Birmingham, Brent and Tower Hamlets) and slippage and economies in the programmes of the two established HATs (North Hull and Waltham Forest).

  These changes are reflected in the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the cash limit on the Property Services Agency services vote in 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limt for class VIII, vote 12 will be increased by £55,109,000 from £128,885,000 to £183,994,000. The increase will not constitute a claim on the Reserve as it will be netted of the proceeds from the Government's privatisation programme.

  The estimate is sought to secure provision, mainly for the subscription of shares, so that the sale of PSA Projects may proceed as planned in December 1992. The cash asset reflects the currently estimated net liabilities of PSA Projects at end November 1992. These are £5,331,000 greater than those on which all prospective purchasers based their bids in the knowledge that, in the event of any under-or over-estimation, the sale consideration would be adjusted pound for pound. The impact is to increase the negative consideration payable at completion to £55,109,000. A completion statement will be prepared to quantify the actual liabilities at the date of sale and the sale consideration will be subject to further adjustment for any
  960
  difference between the estimated and actual net liabilities whether in favour of the vendor or purchaser. Parliament will be advised of the final position at that time.

  The consideration will also be subject to adjustment depending on the number of transferred staff in the business a year after the sale.

  Expenditure on advisors fees incurred in preparing for the BM sales and in completing the Projects sale may be subject to revision in a spring supplementary estimate depending on progress of work and bills tendered.

  The increase in this cash limit is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the appropriate level of aggregate local authority spending in 1993–94; and what is the level of central support for that spending.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the consultation paper on the Government proposals for revenue support grant for 1993–94.

  Mr. Howard
  I propose that total standard spending for 1993–94 should be £41.142 billion for England. This represents an increase of £1.224 billion (3·1 per cent.) compared with this year's figure after adjustments for changes in local authority functions, including the transfer of most responsibilities for further education from authorities to the Further Education Funding Council on 1 April 1993. The total also includes the amount of £539 million for the transitional community care special grant announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 2 October.

  This is a realistic increase when account is taken of falling inflation, public sector pay restraint in line with the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor today, and the extensive opportunities which authorities have to improve efficiency and value for money.

  I propose that the level of aggregate external finance distributed to local authorities in 1993–94 should be £33·518 billion. This represents an increase of £1·167 billion (3·7 per cent.) after allowing for functional changes. It also includes the special grant for community care. This level of aggregate external finance means that the amount which authorities need to raise from local taxpayers in 1993–94 should be less in real terms than is being raised by the community charge this year.

  I also propose that the national non-domestic rate multiplier for 1993–94 in England should rise by 3·5 per cent. to 0·416, in line with the rate of inflation. This will ensure that once again businesses will benefit from the Government's success in reducing inflation.

  I shall announce proposals for the distribution of Government grants in 1993–94 later this month. At the same time, I intend to announce my capping proposals. I shall also set out my proposals for a scheme of transitional assistance to those households which face a significant increase in their local tax bills following the introduction of the council tax.

  In the present difficult economic climate, both central and local government need to play their part in restraining expenditure to a level that the country can afford. Against that background, these proposals for total standard

  961
  spending, aggregate external finance and the national non-domestic rate multiplier provide a sound framework for the funding of local authority services in 1993–94. Provided that authorities act responsibly, this settlement should allow them to maintain the services they provide next year.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the consultation period for the vehicle inspectorate beyond 30 November and extend the list of organisations consulted to include all those concerned with road safety and traffic-related environmental issues.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The consultation paper on options for the future of the vehicle inspectorate (VI) allowed ample time—11 weeks—for comment, and was sent to a broad range of road safety and environmental interests.

  Okehampton Bypass
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many acres of land have been obtained, and at what cost, as public open space to compensate the loss to the public of open space as a result of the compulsory purchase order and the building of the Okehampton bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of 5·2 acres of land is being acquired under compulsory purchase powers in exchange for open space land at Bluebell Woods taken for the construction of the bypass. The purchase price is confidential between the Department and the vendor.

  My Department has also used its best endeavours to make other purchases of land in mitigation of the effects of the bypass, but has no compulsory powers to do this; 6·2 acres of land have been purchased from British Rail, near Okehampton station; this land is now known as Station Wood and is available to the public. Negotiations with another landowner concerning land near Okehampton castle have proved unsuccessful.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes that his Department should vacate 2 Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  I have decided on value for money grounds that my Department will remain in 2 Marsham street for around the next three years. This decision follows a study of the options for relocation conducted during the summer.

  My decision takes account both of the constraints on public expenditure and the results of a study by consultants which concluded that 2 Marsham street could continue to provide affordable and safe working conditions for several more years.

  In the longer term, the building will have to be demolished and my Department will therefore be seeking suitable accommodation when a move becomes necessary.

  Clapham Junction Accident
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the recommendations in the Hidden report into the rail accident at Clapham junction have now been implemented.

  Mr. Freeman
  All the recommendations for British Rail and the British Transport Police have either been or are being implemented. The board's 1992 safety plan demonstrates the current safety initiatives underway, and the considerable resources BR is devoting to maintaining and improving its good safety record. Copies of the safety plan are available in the Library of the House.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current external financing limit for the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Norris
  The CAA's EFL for 1992–93 has been reduced by £1·1 million to £65·6 million. This is a technical adjustment reflecting the receipt of a European regional development fund (ERDF) grant for £1·1 million. The funds available to the CAA for investment will not be affected by this change.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making an exemption from toll charges of disabled drivers crossing the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Section 8(5) of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 already exempts from tolls at the Severn bridge vehicles registered for use by disabled persons and exempt from vehicle excise duty, and vehicles being driven by disabled persons, or being used for their carriage, on which a current orange badge is displayed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the factors affecting the permitted increase in the Severn bridge tolls from 1 January 1993; and what is their relationship to the retail prices index.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Section 9 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 sets out the method by which the tolls at the Severn bridge are to be fixed, including the adjustments to be made in respect of changes in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had in relation to the increase in the level of tolls on the Severn bridge from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies that have expressed an interest in his rail privatisation proposals; and if he will make a statement on the extent of private sector interest in his proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Before the issue of the consultation document on 12 October we had received expressions of
  963
  interest about running franchised passenger railway services from around 50 companies. These approaches and subsequent ones arising from the consultation document are being treated as confidential. It would be inappropriate for me to list the companies or indicate the extent of their specific interests at this stage.

  Chelsea-Hackney Railway Line
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line has been safeguarded; and when progress will be made on building it.

  Mr. Norris
  Safeguarding directions for the line were issued by the Secretary of State for Transport in exercise of the powers conferred by articles 14(1), 18(3) and 30 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. Initial directions were issued on 7 February 1991 and revised directions issued on 12 November 1991.

  I cannot say when the line will be built. Decisions will be taken in the context of future public expenditure rounds.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  London Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on changes to the capital programmes of London Transport following the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport will have to reassess its investment plans in the light of the funding announced in the autumn statement. Subject to that, I believe the settlement is sufficient to allow London Transport to invest £1·75 billion in the existing bus and underground system over the coming three years. This is some £0·5 billion higher, in real terms, than investment over the past three years. The funding is also sufficient to allow preparatory work on Crossrail to continue. And provision has been made for the Jubilee line extension, so that it can go ahead if the administrators of Olympia and York can meet our conditions on the provision of private finance by them.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limit and running costs limit for his Department for 1992–93.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limits in class VII will be changed as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current Cash Limit

  Changes

  Revised Cash Limit

  VII, 1

  2,124,258,000

  121,000

  2,124,259,000

  2

  211,882,000

  133,323,0O0

  215,205,000

  4

  171,657,000

  4112,000

  171,769,000

  5

  438,781,000

  11,070,000

  439,851,000

  964

  1 Take up of entitlement under the end year flexibility arrangements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, columns 698–702).

  2 Increases of £914,000 in respect of certain customer budgets from class VII, vote 2, £180,000 from property holdings (class VIII, vote 7) for repayment services and an additional £2,819,000 for the design and building costs of motorway service areas. These increases are offset by the transfer of £817,000 to class VII, vote 2 in relation to some running cost functions and transfer of additional maintenance costs and by the transfer of £4,000,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution service to facilitate the implementation of the Road Traffic Act (£1,750,000 to class X, vote 1, £750,000 to class X, vote 2, £320,000 to class X, vote 5 and £1,180,000 to class X, vote 6). The running cost limit has been increased by £600,000 to allow my Department to bring in house certain consultancy work on the design and build of motorways and trunk roads.

  3Increases of £220,000 in respect of repayment services from property holdings (class VIII, vote 7), £196,000 from Department of Environment (class VIII, vote 8) and £350,000 in respect of the privatisation of British Rail, partially offset by reductions following the transfer of small ships register responsibilities to class VII, vote 4 (£38,000) and of Docklands light railway sponsorship to Department of Enviroment class VIII, vote 8 (£26,000).

  4 Including an increase of £74,000 arising from the transfer of repayment services from property holdings (class VIII, vote 7).

  My Department's gross running costs limit has been increased by £2,381,000 from £391,077,000 to £393,458,000.

  All the increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of public sector borrowing for the current financial year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement in the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be giving a new forecast in his autumn statement later today.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations he has made for bringing together the autumn statement with the Budget for 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Preparations for the first unified Budget in December 1993 are well in hand. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make further announcements on this important change in his spring Budget statement.

  Whisky
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of duty on British whisky in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries; and how much it has gone up in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries since 1988.

  Sir John Cope
  In seven states the duty has remained nearly static, in four states, including the UK, the duty hs gone up at around the rate of inflation. Greece has put up duty more substantially.
  965

  Current EC whisky duty rates and percentage change since 19881

  Pence per 70cl bottle at 40 per cent. abv2 3

  Percentage change since 1988

  Belgium

  337

  12·1

  Denmark

  1,036

  1·2

  France

  250

  0·2

  Germany

  278

  15·2

  Greece

  35

  4533·0

  Ireland

  574

  2·8

  Italy

  44

  -1·7

  Luxembourg

  202

  0·1

  Netherlands

  309

  0·1

  Portugal

  62

  43·1

  Spain

  89

  -0·2

  United Kingdom

  554

  25·6

  1 Rescaled from 75cl bottle (EC regulations no longer permit the use of 75cl bottles).

  2 Rates of exchange as at 10.10.92.

  3 abv-alcohol by volume.

  4 A range of taxes is applied to spirits in Greece. This increase relates to the excise duty element only and the VAT element has been significantly reducd to offset this.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there have been in economic policy since 20 October in the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Menzies Campbell).

  Financial Services
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to consider reforms in the area of financial services compliance in the short or medium-term future.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to reform the current system of professional regulation within a statutory framework, with a strong practitioner input.

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what review he has undertaken of the effectiveness of measures to protect the pound by intervention in the financial markets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effectiveness of market operations is kept under review.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has had, and what studies he has commissioned, to evaluate the full cost-benefit financial effects to the United Kingdom economy of closing coal mines.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have had a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the future of the coal industry.

  Unit Wage Costs
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the rate of unit wage cost growth in the United Kingdom; and what is the corresponding information on Japan and Germany.
  966
  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1992 Q2 unit wage costs in manufacturing in the United Kingdom were only 1·4 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The corresponding figures for Japan and Germany are 8·6 per cent. and 3·8 per cent. respectively.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the financial effect on a household with a typical mortgage of the changes in mortgage interest rates over the last two years.

  Sir John Cope
  When the latest base rate cut feeds through to mortgage rates on 1 December, interest payments on an average £33,000 mortgage will have fallen by over £110 a month, compared with payments two years ago, and by over £130 a month compared with the mid-1990 peak.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received calling for protection of social security payments in the current public expenditure round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of such representations.

  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing gross domestic fixed capital formation by region on(a) vehicles, ships and aircraft, (b) plant and machinery, (c) dwellings, (d) other new building work and (e) in total, for each year from 1989 at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest information available relates to 1989, and was published in the November 1991 issue of Economic Trends, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Estimates for 1990 on a current price basis, together with any revisions for 1989, will be published in the December 1992 issue of Economic Trends.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing United Kingdom gross domestic fixed capital formation on(a) vehicles, ships and aircraft, (b) plant and machinery and (c) in total for each year from 1989 at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The series requested are available at constant (1985) prices, or at current prices, but not at 1989 prices. The latest estimates are available on the CSO database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant database identifiers are:

  Constant (1985) prices

  Current prices

  (a) Vehicles, ships and aircraft

  DFEH

  DFEJ

  (b) Plant and Machinery

  DFCY

  DFCX

  (c) Total1

  DFDM

  DFDC

  1Total gross domestic fixed capital formation includes expenditure on new dwellings and other new buildings and works.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total trade deficit in manufactured goods since May 1979 at current prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the balance for manufactured goods is published regularly in the Central Statistical Office's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and is available on a monthly basis since 1980, and on a quarterly basis for 1979 on the Central Statistical Office databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing annual growth in gross domestic product for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European Community and (c) the OECD for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Volume index numbers of gross domestic product, from which these growth rates can be derived, are available on page 11 of the October edition of "Main Economic Indicators" published by OECD.

  Copies of this publication are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Retail Financial Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the introduction of statutory regulation for retail financial services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Financial Services Act 1986 provides a statutory framework for the regulation of retail and other financial services.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from the clearing banks concerning the proposed formation of the personal investment authority;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the formation of the proposed personal investment authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  The recognition of self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act is primarily a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to give the Securities and Investments Board the power to exact civil penalties as an alternative to criminal prosecutions;

  (2) what plans he has to modify the powers of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. A wide range of powers has been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board under the Financial Services Act. These include powers to institute civil proceedings where appropriate.

  IMF and World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that the voting records of the United Kingdom directors of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank are made publicly available.

  Sir John Cope
  The proceedings of the IMF and the World bank are confidential so as not to inhibit full and frank discussion. Within this constraint, the United Kingdom welcomes the greater openness recently shown by these institutions.

  Company Car Tax
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of responses to his consultation paper on reforming company car tax were broadly in favour of the Government's proposed price banding system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The consultation period does not end until 13 November and a detailed analysis of the representations is therefore not yet available.

  Treasury
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proposals he has for changes in the running costs limits of the Treasury in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's running costs limit for 1992–93 is being reduced by £11,312,000 from £92,203,000 to £80,891,000 following the transfer of CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—and Chessington computer centre to the Office of Public Service and Science. The change will be reflected in a token supplementary estimate which will be presented for parliamentary approval in due course.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for changes in the cash limit and running costs limit for 1992–93 for the Department for National Savings.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 10 (expenditure of the Department for National Savings on administration, publicity costs and certain other expenses) will be increased by £2,611,000 from £195,066,000 to £197,677,000. The increase comprises of £1,616,000 take-up under the end-year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure, £814,000 take-up of end-year flexibility for running costs (as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992(Official Report columns 698–702)), and £181,000 for sums payable to the Department of the Environment (Property Holdings) in respect of buildings maintenance.

  As a result of these changes, the running costs limit for the Department for National Savings will be increased by £995,000 from £184,714,000 to £185,709,000.

  The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.
  969
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for changes in the cash limit and running costs limit for Customs and Excise for 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 5 will be increased by £6,856,000 from £815,159,000 to £822,015,000 and the running cost limit by £2,458,000 from £697,352,000 to £699,810,000. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  The increase in the running cost limit arises from the full take-up of entitlement to end-year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 Official Report, columns 698–702, and additional maintenance provision transferred from Property Holdings. The increase in the cash limit also includes the full take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement on capital expenditure.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for changes in the cash limit and running costs limit for 1992–93 for the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cash limit for class XVIII, vote 6 (Inland Revenue administration) is being reduced by £43,300,000 from £1,615,071,000 to £1,571,771,000. The running cost limit is also being reduced by £25,300,000 from £1,526,077,000 to £1,500,777,000. The reduction is being made to reflect a lower expectation of the number of repayment claims following the abolition of composite rate tax, reduced provision for pay and slippage on some capital projects. The reductions are partially offset by extra work arising from the 1992 Finance Act and take up of end-year flexibility for running costs.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government were first informed of the costs of the liquidation of BCCI.

  Mr. Nelson
  I was first informed of the costs of the liquidation on 5 November.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury last met Mr. Brian Smouha of the liquidator of BCCI; and what was the purpose of the meeting.

  Mr. Nelson
  I met Mr. Smouha on 5 November. The purpose of the meeting was to acquaint myself with developments on the liquidation of BCCI in advance of the debate in the House on 6 November,Official Report, columns 523–94.

  National Savings
  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the minimum deposit or purchase for national savings products.

  Mr. Nelson
  Small value transactions are expensive to administer so we regularly review the minimum deposit or purchase levels. As part of the survey of public expenditure priorities for the next three years I have decided that the following changes should be made:

  Ordinary account minimum for each deposit—from £5 to £10.

  970

  Investment account minimum for each deposit—from £5 to £20.

  Premium bond minimum purchase for children under 16—from £10 to £100.

  Amendments to regulations to effect these changes will be brought before Parliament shortly.

  I propose that these changes will come into effect from 1 February 1993.

  The changes are expected to produce running cost savings on the Department for National Savings budget of just under £5 million in a full year.

  Investors' Compensation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer(1) what action he will take to help those persons who receive compensation from the investors compensation scheme in cases where this compensation does not meet the debts incurred from interest rates and legal cost, following the quantification date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what additional assistance he can offer to clients of Fisher Prew-Smith Ltd. who have not received compensation under the Financial Services Act 1986 sufficient to cover their mortgage debts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The rules of the investors compensation scheme are a matter for the Securities and Investment Board.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the clients of Fisher Prew-Smith Ltd. do not lose their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Borrowers should contact their building society to discuss interest and repayment arrangements as the societies have made clear that they want to enable borrowers to stay in their homes.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the involvement of the West Bromwich Building Society in the affairs of Fisher Prew-Smith Ltd.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The prudential supervision of building societies is a matter for the Building Societies Commission.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will undertake an investigation into the conduct of Fisher Prew-Smith Ltd.; what action he will take to assist persons who have lost money as a result of home income plans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will investigate the conduct of Ruben Walter Investment Management Ltd. in their handling of investments following the collapse of Fisher Prew-Smith Ltd.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The regulation of investment businesses is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the recognised bodies under the Financial Services Act. Where the investors compensation scheme has declared firms in default, private investors may be eligible for compensation in respect of their losses arising from investment business conducted by the firm.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much financial support Her Majesty's Government have given to the coal industry in each year since 1979, indicating what proportion in each year was to fund assistance for redundancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Grant aid made available to the coal industry from 1979–80 to 1991–92 inclusive is set out in the table which follows. All payments under the RMPS and about 90 per cent. of restructuring grant payments can be classified as assistance with redundancies.

  £ millions

  Financial Year

  RMPS1

  Restructuring grant

  Other grants

  Total grants

  1979–80

  15

  251

  266

  1980–81

  15

  254

  269

  1981–82

  48

  575

  623

  1982–83

  80

  520

  600

  1983–84

  190

  1,145

  1,335

  1984–85

  200

  2,414

  2,614

  1985–86

  563

  563

  1,126

  1986–87

  610

  882

  1,492

  1987–88

  295

  435

  242

  972

  1988–89

  171

  255

  42

  468

  1989–90

  128

  619

  6,624

  7,371

  1990–91

  93

  141

  0

  234

  1991–92

  69

  457

  0

  526

  Total

  2,477

  1,907

  13,512

  17,896

  1 Redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  In addition to Government financial support, British Coal has been benefiting from the high margins, over and above world market prices, that the electricity generators pay for their coal supplies from the corporation. Under present contracts, which have been operating since April 1990, this assistance amounts to about £1 billion annually.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what will be Lord Walker's salary for administering assistance measures to areas affected by colliery closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made for the remuneration of Lord Walker for his work in connection with pit closures; and what are the full terms and conditions of Lord Walker's contract.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his statement on 21 October, if he will announce the terms and conditions of the appointment of Lord Walker to assist and advise on the creation of alternative job creation in pit closure areas; and what relationship it will have with his appointment, and the terms and conditions thereof, as chairman-elect of the urban regeneration agency.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the relevant experience and qualities of Lord Walker leading to his appointment as the person to lead the review of the impact on the mining communities of the proposed pit closures.
  972
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms, including salary, he has appointed Lord Walker to co-ordinate action to regenerate areas where coal mines are to be closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his statement of 19 October,Official Report, column 207, if Lord Walker's post as adviser to his Department is to be remunerated.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what salary will be paid to Lord Walker for his work in overseeing the Government's proposed aid to the coal mining areas.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what salary, per diem, or other emoluments Lord Walker will receive whilst fulfilling his duties in respect of assistance to the communities affected by coal closures.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answers 22, 23 and 29 October 1992]: The Government intend to see that measures of assistance for coal closure areas are effectively targeted and that any wasteful duplication is avoided. Lord Walker will be an adviser to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I see his role as being wide-ranging and will want him to look at any issues relating to the facilitation and co-ordination of the regeneration of the coalfield areas. In addition I have asked him to advise me on the broader implications of this for the delivery of my Department's regional policy and inward investment measures. He will liaise closely with bodies promoting regeneration and will advise me and my right hon. Friend on any measures which could be taken to promote economic revival of the areas. Lord Walker will carry out his work on coalfield regeneration in addition to his role as chairman designate of the urban regeneration agency. He will do this work without remuneration.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what office staff and transport facilities will be provided for Lord Walker for his duties as co-ordinator for the coal fields; and what is the estimated annual cost of staff and office costs for this purpose.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: My Department and the Welsh Office will provide all the back-up support which Lord Walker may need. Other Departments concerned will also be closely involved in this work. This support will be provided from within existing resources.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now introduce legislation to reverse the Caparo judgment.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 2 (support for industry, international trade,
  973
  statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration) will be increased by £25,707,000 from £778,524,000 to £804,231,100. The cash limit for class V, vote 3 (administration) will be reduced by £23,789,000 from £43,295,000 to £19,506,000. Following a transfer from Property Holdings for building maintenance, the running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by £311,000 from £305,362,000 to £305,673,000.

  The supplementary estimate for £25,707,000 on class IV, vote 2 includes an increase of £1,657,000 in departmental and research establishments' capital expenditure as a result of take-up under the end-year flexibility arrangements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, Official Report, columns 698–702.

  A transfer of administrative expenditure and receipts totalling £23,789,000 from class V, vote 3 is being made, mainly following amalgamation of central divisions previously on that vote. The remaining net adjustments include the £311,000 property holdings transfer referred to above and a transfer to the Office of Science and Technology of £50,000 as a contribution to the Royal Society's programme of support for CIS scientists.

  There is a rise of £3,173,000 in gross provision for consumer and investor protection, reflecting increased expenditure on company investigations and £1,900,000 in gross provision for the consultancy initiatives as a result of higher than expected demand for the scheme. These increases are wholly offset by reductions in gross provision and increases in appropriations in aid elsewhere on the Vote. There are adjustments to inter-departmental payments following machinery of government changes to the Department of Environment (class VIII, vote 8), HM Treasury (class XVIII, vote V) and Department of National Heritage (class XII, vote 5).

  There are some other changes in the allocation of provision. These include adjustments made between measurement and technolgoy support and the National Physical laboratory in respect of depreciation policy and Warren Spring laboratory for repositioning. All the changes are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement today.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to meet a delegation of creditors and ex-employees to discuss BCCI.
  974
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 10 November 1992,Official Report, column 734.

  Office of Gas Supply
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what changes are proposed in the 1992–93 cash limit and running costs limit for the Office of Gas Supply.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit on the office of Gas Supply vote (class V vote 8) will be increased by £262,000 to £3,203,000. The increase provides for the estimated additional costs incurred by the Office in overseeing the development and implementation of a new gas transportation and storage regime, in the referral of British Gas to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and in the urgent relocation of the Office of Gas Supply to larger premises. In addition receipts under section 8 of the Gas Act 1986 have been reclassified from appropriations in aid to extra receipts payable to the Consolidated Fund. As a consequence of this the running costs limit has increased by £88,000 to £2,783,000. These increases are within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  EC Coal Subsidy
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in his capacity as President of the EC Industry Council, he intends to initiate a Council discussion on differing levels of coal subsidy in the EC.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: I expect there to be a discussion at the next meeting of the Energy Council on 30 of this month of the coal industry throughout the Community.

  Home Equity Share Losses
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by his Department to speed up the payment of compensation by insurance companies in respect of home equity share losses.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply. The regulation of investment business carried on by life insurance companies is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation. They and the other bodies helping to obtain appropriate redress for clients of unsuitable home income schemes are aware of the need to deal with cases as quickly as they can.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Boundary Commissions Act,

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act,

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act,

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Act,

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act.

Tributes to Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am sure that the House would not wish the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to pass without paying tribute to his many years as Leader of the Opposition. Of course, when the noble Lord was elected Leader in 1982 he already had decades of experience as a parliamentarian and a Minister. That depth of experience has been invaluable in helping this House to run smoothly over the past 10 years as the noble Lord has drawn on his typically Welsh virtues of charm and common sense. The work of the party leaders in the Lords, both in expressing the sense of the House and in serving the domestic committees of the House, is in a very real sense a partnership.
The noble Lord has proved himself both a generous and pragmatic partner as well as a challenging adversary across the Floor. The whole House will be very grateful for his years of service and will, I am sure, join me in hoping that we will continue to benefit from his contributions to our debates. Perhaps I could also use the opportunity to welcome to the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join the noble Lord the Leader of the House in extending congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. It is nearly 27 years since the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I first sat in a Cabinet together. Since then, I have regarded him as a friend and, on nearly every issue, an ally. I hope that I shall not be introducing too controversial a note if I say that my
318
mind goes back to the referendum campaign of 1975 when, as vice-president of Britain in Europe, he secured the notable and almost amazing result of a 72 per cent. affirmative vote in Gwynedd. That was a great tribute to his local influence.
In your Lordships' House for the past 10 years, the noble Lord has exercised great national influence. While reading something totally separate this morning, it so happened that I came across a tribute which John Morley had drafted—not to Gladstone, whom one might think, but to a nearly equally notable leader—in which he referred to a leader's,
"strong sense in council, power in debate and consummate mastery of all the habit and practice of public business".
I thought that those words were by no means inappropriate to the noble Lord, Lord Penrhos—I mean, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
On a more personal note, I must say that I shall greatly miss the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, among the leaders. Apart from anything else, with the thrusting presence of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, his absence from the Front Bench will make me feel something of the loneliness of age. However, the noble and splendid Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster will keep me company in that respect. Nonetheless, I shall greatly miss the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I pay tribute to the notable contribution which he has made to the standing and effectiveness of your Lordships' House over the past 10 years.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross Benches are very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wishes to retire as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords. We shall miss his knowledgeable, wide experience, his wise and balanced advice and his unfailing good manners. We thank him for being so approachable to all of us. We wish him every happiness in whatever he decides to do now.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, those who sit on these Benches sometimes have a detached view of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, but we do have a particularly advantageous view of those who sit on the opposite Benches. So often we have seen the noble Lord, Lord Penrhos—I am sorry, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; I do not think that I should follow the Liberal Democrats so slavishly—climb up to his eyrie at the Dispatch Box and always oppose firmly but without a contentious tenor. It has been a great study to see the way in which a Leader of the Opposition does his duty without, as I said, introducing a contentious tenor.
The noble Lord has shown enormous friendship and kindliness towards bishops in a way that only the son of a Free Church minister of Wales could do, for at no time has he ever been under any bishop's jurisdiction. Therefore, from these Benches, I wish him every happiness and repeat our thanks to him for his friendliness and encouragement to us.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and the right reverend Prelate for the generous words that they have

319
expressed about me. It has been a great privilege to occupy this office for 10 years. I was reminded this morning that I was elected to the position exactly 10 years ago yesterday. The time has passed by very quickly.
I am particularly grateful, as the House will understand, to my noble friends on these Benches for the consistently loyal support that they have given me throughout that period. I remember with affection the many friends who worked with us here and who have passed away since 1982. I am also conscious of the kindness and friendship that I have received from noble Lords and Ladies in every part of the House. That is part of the character of this House: we can argue and we can disagree, as we should. The chief objective of a Leader of the Opposition is that he should oppose. That I have sought to do but I have at the same time valued the friendship which I have enjoyed with Members of all parties and those on the Cross Benches.
I can only say that I do not feel I have deserved the kind things that have been said, but I value them, and I look forward to the companionship of my friends here over the years that remain to us. Finally, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard upon his election as my successor and wish him equal happiness during his tenure of office.

Inland Revenue Staff: Pay Arrangements
3.11 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the pay of staff of the Inland Revenue is now dependent on the amounts they extract from the taxpayer.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am relieved to hear that Answer, because his right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a speech on 2nd October said that the performance of every member of staff of the Inland Revenue would be measured against clear objectives and that they would have their pay adjusted to reflect that? Further, Mr. Lamont, the Chancellor, decided in July to delegate responsibility for Inland Revenue pay to its management, reducing the Treasury's role to setting standards of service. Is the Minister aware that that looks like the start of a move towards the privatisation of the collection of taxes? When we have a government who can introduce a medieval tax such as the poll tax—admittedly they repealed it—that raises the great terror in the minds of thinking people that the Inland Revenue will be encouraged to harry this country's valuable businessmen and other individuals more than it, of necessity, does now. I should like a categorical denial from the Minister that there is any intention so to privatise.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord is relieved. I wonder whether his
320
anxiety was generated by the remarks he read out or by speculation in the press, which, as usual, was erroneous. Yes, there will be a link of pay to individual performance, but that does not involve targets of tax yield.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a trifle puzzled by the Minister's Answer. I had assumed that he was going to say, "Yes, in part". Am I to understand that in determining the performance of the Inland Revenue collecting tax will not be defined as part of that performance? I should have thought that at the very least one of its tasks would be to collect Her Majesty's revenue. The answer "No" just seems a little strong to me. Will he clarify that Answer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord missed out the vital words, "tax yield".
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the matter, but will the Minister confirm that getting in the taxes will remain one of the Inland Revenue's tasks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the correct amount due: no more and no less.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister concede that his original Answer was incorrect in the sense that many of us are dependent upon the Inland Revenue collecting taxes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I must say that on this occasion the noble Lord has fooled me.

Immigration
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that 53,900 immigrants were accepted for settlement in 1991; and what steps they will take to limit immigration in future.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, yes. The immigration rules already severely restrict the numbers who can come from outside the European Community to work and to settle in the United Kingdom. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill which is now before Parliament will lessen the exploitation of the asylum procedures by applicants whose claims are unfounded.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into force over 30 years ago, that ever since increasing numbers of people have been accepted for permanent settlement and that last year's number of nearly 54,000 was one of the smallest? Is he also aware that all immigration adds to our unemployment, housing, education and health problems and to the increase in the amount of social security that has to be paid out? Does he therefore realise that it is in the national interest and in the interests of all the people already here that those annual increases should be reduced?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has listed some of the problems which result from immigration.

321
Obviously immigration produces disadvantages as well as advantages. My noble friend is not entirely correct in so far as the figure for this year, which was 53,900, is 700 higher than that for last year, and 8,000 higher than the figure for 1987, which was 45,900, but considerably lower than for 1975 when it was 82,000. I believe that my noble friend will accept that there has been an overall decrease in immigration. To return to the first point he mentioned about disadvantages, I point out to him that two-thirds of those accepted for settlement in 1991 were made up of spouses and children of people who were already settled here.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of us are deeply worried about the Government's negative attitude towards refugees? Is he aware that over 100 women and children, who it is hoped are on their way from Bosnia as refugees to Britain, are held up because they cannot obtain their visas? How can genuine refugees obtain visas? What provision is his department making to ensure that genuine applicants can obtain visas if they are fleeing from oppression?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the forms have already gone to those people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, refers, but he will understand that under any system there must be a form of regulation. We have tried to ensure that the people who come to this country have visas so that they do not suffer from the disadvantage of coming here only to find that they cannot be taken in.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, does the Minister know, first, how many illegal immigrants entered this country in the past year; secondly, the number of schools where parents may have voted or suggested that they should become all Moslem; and, thirdly, how many cases of shigella flexneri have been brought into this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may take those questions in reverse order. The answer to the last one is no. The answer to the middle one is no, and, oddly enough, the answer to the first one is no. By the very nature of things, one does not know how many people are in this country illegally.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that of those immigrants who came to this country in the year in question, 74 per cent. were people joining their families—husbands joining their wives, wives joining their husbands, or children joining their families? Is not that something of which we should be glad rather than deplore? Does he also agree, as the membership of your Lordships' House testifies, that this country has benefited enormously from immigration over the centuries, and is benefiting from the immigration which has occurred over the past 40 years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is perfectly correct; 74 per cent. of those who came in during the past year were spouses and close relatives of those who were already settled here. In that respect, we adhere to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which
322
guarantees a respect for family life. The noble Lord is also right to say that the country has benefited greatly from those people who have come here.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, irrespective of numbers, it is essential that we should keep control over immigra-tion policy? Will he confirm that from 1996, under Article 101c of the Treaty of Maastricht, immigration will be decided not by this country but by a qualified majority of the European Council of Ministers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that it is important that we should keep control of our immigration and those who come to these shores. I therefore hope that he will not hesitate to support the Government in their immigration and asylum Bill when it comes forward. As regards the future, we intend to ensure that immigration remains the province of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that emigration exceeded immigration in every year between 1946 and 1978 and that in the following 12 years the net inward flow was 26,000? Is it not also unwise to pay too much attention to the figures for any one year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seeks to compare emigration with immigra-tion. I do not think that the two are comparable; it is rather like comparing Piccadilly Circus with Tuesday afternoon.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that we on this side of the House reject the underlying philosophy which was contained in the Statement which he made last Thursday, particularly in relation to Bosnian refugees? Will he inform the House how many asylum-seekers have sought refuge in this country over the course of the past year, compared with Holland, Austria and Germany? How many asylum applications are current this year compared with the comparable period in 1991?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that information, particularly about other countries. But I shall see what information is available and let him know.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in that case will the noble Earl accept that the number of current applications has virtually halved compared with last year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knew the answer to the question, I cannot think why he asked it in the first place.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the Government propose to limit immigration when immigrants to any of the EC states will have the right to move to and work and live in any other EC state? That includes the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the matters over which Her Majesty's Government have been

323
concerned to retain control—that those who come to and through this country should have the approval of the United Kingdom so far as is necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, speaking as a descendant of immigrants myself, even though they happen to have come here 600 years ago, I must declare an interest in the Question. May I therefore tempt the noble Earl to go a little further in dissociating himself from the assumption in the Question that immigrants are always bad? May I ask him, even if he has to declare an interest himself, whether he will agree with the statement once made by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead that we should acknowledge our debt to all those of us who cannot claim to be Ancient Britons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is bad luck when some of your Lordships cannot claim to be Ancient Britons and I sympathise with the noble Earl. I do not think that the Question which my noble friend Lord Renton put down—though of course he will have to answer this himself—inferred that all immigrants were bad. I think that the purpose behind it was to ensure that this country is able to contain those immigrants who are here.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I take the noble Earl a little further on his comparison between Piccadilly Circus and Tuesday afternoon? In what way is emigration not comparable with immigration? Is it not the reverse process with people leaving the country for good and people coming to the country for good?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think so, my Lords, because those who come to this country, and where they come from, have a marked impact on this country's ability to take them when they may possibly form a large proportion of a section of the community. Those who emigrate leave this country and although they may be sorry to leave it, they do not cause the country the same kind of problems as immigration may cause.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was particularly pertinent in the light of a well researched article in The Times on Monday by Mr. Bernard Levin? In it he forecast that within the next few years many tens of millions of people from the former Soviet Union, from Eastern Europe and from every part of the African continent will be trying to get into Western Europe, legally or illegally.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is perfectly correct to draw attention to that. That is why it is necessary to have a proper immigration policy. Much as one may feel sympathy for many people, we cannot allow the country to open its arms without any form of control. Regrettable and sad though it may be for some people, control is necessary.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Earl back to the reply he gave my noble friend Lord Stoddart who asked about the Maastricht Treaty, Article 101c. In order that Britain should
324
retain control over immigration policy, as the noble Earl said, will he now be advocating that that part of the Maastricht Treaty be renegotiated or deleted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Question has nothing to do with the Maastricht Treaty; it concerns how many people have come into the United Kingdom in the past year. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, knows perfectly well the United Kingdom's attitude to it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although the Question has nothing to do with the matter, the answers of the noble Earl have everything to do with it. Is he not entirely incorrect in refusing to compare immigration with emigration? Do we not have a balance of trade? Do we not compare our exports with our imports? It is exactly the same and I believe that the noble Earl's refusal to accept the comparison is quite wrong.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly simple to compare numbers, but it is not so easy to compare individuals, where they come from and the ability of a country to absorb them, as opposed to the ability of a country to adjust when people leave.

Vehicle Clamping
3.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the remuneration of contractors (and those employed by contractors) to clamp vehicles in public places as agents for police authorities is in any way linked to the number of clamps attached by them to such vehicles.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, private companies, which are employed by the Metropolitan Police to carry out the physical task of clamping illegally parked vehicles, are paid a fixed sum for each clamp which is applied. Individual employees of those companies are not. The authority to clamp a vehicle can only be given by a police officer who is attached to a clamping unit. Police officers do not have any quota of vehicles which they are expected to clamp.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which could well be reassuring if the procedure which he has described operates in practice. However, does it? No doubt the clampers stalk the prey and then seek permission to trap it. Are instructions issued by the Home Office or by the police authorities as to the implementation of the procedure which my noble friend the Minister has described? If so, could copies of these instructions be put in the Library unless, of course, they are in statutory instrument form? Furthermore, do these instructions require the name, rank and service identity number of the authorising officer who authorises the clamping to appear on the document left by the clampers on the vehicle after fitting the clamp? There is an element of supervision, there is an

325
element of instruction and there is an element of concern because the public are not fully aware of the true position here.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said that these people prey on and then trap motorists. That is a slightly exaggerated point of view. The enforcement of parking restrictions is an operational matter for the Commissioner. Enforcement policy is determined by the Metropolitan Police and is set out in the form of operational guidelines which are issued to all police officers and traffic wardens who are engaged on these duties. The police officers are instructed not to clamp vehicles indiscriminately, for example where clamping might exacerbate an obstruction.
My noble friend asked me whether I would place the operational guidelines in the Library. I refuse to give way to that temptation because, as soon as my noble friend knew who or what was going to be clamped where, he would obtain an unnecessary advantage. However, I can assure my noble friend that if he abides by the law and does not park illegally he need have no fear of clamping. If he were not to abide by the law and find himself clamped, he would find that the information card which is fixed to the vehicle when it is clamped gives details of the identity number or the warrant card number of the authorising officer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as the important question here is the fact that a large number of complaints have arisen and have been echoed by noble Lords throughout the House on numerous occasions when we have raised these issues, can the Minister indicate what monitoring is being undertaken by his department to ensure that the number of complaints is mitigated, if not altogether eliminated?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord can tell me of a method of preventing the public from complaining about something I would be delighted to hear about it. However, I can assure him that the Metropolitan Police consider objections. In fact 4,000 wheel-clamping fees were refunded by the Metropolitan Police in the year ending April 1992.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether the police are always thoughtful in their clamping duties? I am thinking particularly of overseas visitors, who are amazed to find when they leave theatres and other places of entertainment in our cities, particularly in London, that their cars have disappeared altogether. Those cars have been put into a pound or they have been clamped and if it is the visitors' first time in this country they do not know how to deal with the situation. Is it really necessary to clamp vehicles very late at night when the traffic flow is not in any way affected? Is it also necessary to clamp vehicles situated in cul-de-sacs and other such places where clamping has no beneficial effect whatsoever? Such a practice is highly irritating to the poor motorist whose car is clamped, who is divested of his means of transport and who cannot reach his hotel or other accommodation. I believe this practice of clamping
326
could be undertaken in a more humane fashion. I hope my noble friend will take that factor into consideration.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to decide where and when clamping should be done. I can only repeat that clamping is carried out only where a vehicle is parked illegally. As regards whether it is unfortunate to clamp the vehicles of foreign tourists, I sympathise with such tourists, but of course the police officer who authorises the clamping is not to know whether the driver of the clamped vehicle is from this country or not.

Indonesia: Human Rights
3.34 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
On the first anniversary of the Santa Cruz cemetery massacre in Dili, East Timor, whether they have made representations to the Indonesian Government about continuing human rights abuses in East Timor and Aceh, Sumatra; and if so, what form the representations have taken.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): No, my Lords. the Indonesian Government are fully aware of our concerns about human rights. These concerns were most recently expressed to Foreign Minister Alatas during the visits of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Manila and of my right honourable friend the Minister of State to Jakarta last month.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but I must admit it was a little disappointing. Is she not aware of the reports from Amnesty International and Tapol, the Indonesian opposition group, that there are widespread deten-tions without trial in East Timor and disappearances and extra-judicial killings in Aceh? In view of that is it right that we should continue to sell weapons—as far as I am aware that is done openly in this case—to Indonesia, when the only enemy of the military government in Indonesia is their own people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are aware indeed of reports that Indonesians continue to detain Acehnese without trial. However, it is difficult to substantiate the reports of ill-treatment, let alone of condemning people to death, as the noble Lord indicated. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been able to visit Aceh. I gather the committee intends to continue doing so. We have made representations to the Indonesians on human rights related not only to Aceh but to the whole of Indonesia. We believe that that must continue to be done. However, as regards the other question of the noble Lord, the problem that exists in Aceh and the problems generally that exist with regard to human rights in Indonesia are not in any way related to Indonesia's determination to buy arms—not neces-sarily from this country—in order to have its own defence force.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, remembering what my noble friend Lady Chalker said last night on the subject of aid and the fact that it was to be linked to human rights performance, and given the fact that Indonesia receives in excess of £10 million a year from our own aid budget, will my noble friend withdraw that aid as the Indonesians are renowned for not having great respect for human rights?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have considered this matter carefully. Indonesia is a developing country with a well-deserved reputation for good economic management and for making effective use of aid. If I thought that cutting aid would improve the human rights situation in Indonesia I would take that step. However, it is far more likely that cutting aid to Indonesia would harm the very island communities that it is intended to help. Many of our Community partners, as well as other aid donors, share that view. We have to continue to persuade the Indonesian government to improve their record on human rights, but I do not believe that that would be achieved by cutting off necessary aid.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is it not the case that the Indonesians are extremely sensitive about this matter? Would it not be practical to persuade them, as a mark of regret for the events that have occurred, to place a memorial to show that they regret those events?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we certainly know that they very much regret the incident. The incident in Dili occurred 12 months ago today. I cannot say whether the Indonesians will erect a memorial to those who died in that incident. However, I would say to my noble friend that the Indonesian response was unprecedented. The con-cerns which we share with other donors are put to the Indonesians on a regular basis and we are seeking to improve the situation and prevent anything even minutely like the terrible incident of last year from ever happening again.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have said they will not only be discriminating as regards aid but they will be equally, if not more, discriminating about the arms trade? In the latter case does it not appear that the practice does not follow the principle? The Government may in principle be against aiding repressive regimes but in practice they do not appear to follow the principles they express.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, to whom I should apologise for not seeing earlier, will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister advocated at the United Nations more than a year ago now the register of arms sales. This was done in an attempt to reduce all arms sales. However, all sovereign states enjoy the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to defend themselves. That is why applications to export any British defence equipment are carefully scrutinised. We will not allow the export of arms and equipment that are likely to be used primarily for repressive purposes against civil
328
populations. In the case of Indonesia this also extends to the possible use of such equipment against the civilian population in East Timor. However, I do not believe that an embargo on defence sales to Indonesia would be appropriate or effective in influencing the Indonesians.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm estimates, which have come from normally responsible sources, that since the Indonesians invaded East Timor its armed forces have killed approximately one third of the population, that is to say, 200,000 people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do not believe that Indonesia has practised genocide, but we are profoundly concerned about the reports of large numbers of deaths over the years. Some of the quoted figures are definitely exaggerated, but it is a matter which we are still following up. We are also asking the Indonesian Government to investigate every such report, to take appropriate action against offenders and, indeed, to ensure that the world knows what is happening and that extra-judicial killing, if it is continuing, stops. It is totally unacceptable wherever it occurs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is now genuine confusion? She has stated that the aid programme will be linked to human rights. This is one of the most brutal regimes in the third world. Will the noble Baroness now explain to the House what she means by saying that the aid programme will be linked to human rights? Are we using the threat of withdrawing aid as a means of leverage or are we just making polite diplomatic representations to the Indonesian Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed we are.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what types of armament we are sending to Indonesia and whether the Government consider that Indonesia's expenditure on military affairs is justifiable?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we wish that all defence spending which is not truly defence spending—I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is getting at—would cease. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that there should be a register of arms sales: so that the whole matter could be monitored. However, one cannot interfere with the sovereign right of a government. I explained that in answer to an earlier question. What one can do is to ensure that that government knows what the donor world, in terms of the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expects. We shall do all we can to decrease arms sales. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made his proposal to the United Nations.

Business
3.42 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat the Autumn Statement that is to be made in another place. At a convenient time thereafter my noble friend Lord Henley will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on social security.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Unstarred Question in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has been postponed. It is expected that the Question will be tabled for next Thursday, 19th November.
Lastly, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, proceedings after the Third Reading of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event the two European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Orders will be taken during the adjournment. The Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 will be postponed, with the leave of the House, until the conclusion of the proceedings after Third Reading of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill.
Dinner will be available as usual in the Barry Room.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about milk marketing; to make provision about potato marketing; to provide for the payment of grants in connection with the marketing of certain commodities; to terminate national price support arrangements for wool and potatoes; to amend the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 in relation to agriculture; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Howe).
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Midland Metro Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That the proceedings of Wednesday 4th November be vacated.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Bill received its Third Reading I omitted to move the usual privilege amendment before the Bill was sent to the
330
Commons. Such an amendment is necessary because of the financial implications of the Bill. The purpose of the Motion, therefore, is to enable the error to be corrected by giving the Bill another Third Reading and including the privilege amendment before the Bill is finally sent to the Commons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings of Wednesday 4th November be vacated.—(Baroness Lockwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Persons to whom this Part applies]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert:
("() An order made under this section shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the parliamentary control of delegated legislation. It is a matter with which your Lordships have frequently been preoccupied in your role, in a very real sense now, of watchdog of the constitution.
There has been an agelong and perfectly understandable tension between the Executive and Parliament. Naturally the Executive wants to minimise as far as possible the interference and control of Parliament, and also of the judiciary although to a lesser extent, but that does not concern us in the context of this amendment though it does in the Bill itself.
If possible the Executive very naturally wishes to enact legislation by regulation rather than by statute, and if by regulation, to minimise the parliamentary control; in other words, where possible to have negative resolution procedures rather than the affirmative. The advantage to Parliament of the affirmative resolution procedure has again to be stated in the context of this amendment.
Under the affirmative resolution procedure the Minister has to introduce and explain what the regulation means and what it does. Under the negative resolution procedure he has merely to reply to such points as can be raised in the preceding debate. There is another extremely important advantage to Parliament in the affirmative resolution procedure: the Government have to find time for the discussion of the regulation. On the other hand, under the negative procedure the debate frequently never takes place, particularly in the other place, because time has expired for praying against the regulation before an opportunity can be found for the resolution to be tabled.
The Bill gives a blanket negative resolution procedure for all the regulations under the Bill, whether they are important, trivial or consequential. Unfortunately, that is by no means unique. In another Bill currently before Parliament—the Criminal Justice

331
Bill—there is again a blanket negative resolution procedure, notwithstanding that the Bill gives the Minister power to create new criminal offences or to remove criminal offences from the ambit of the Bill. Naturally that aroused considerable consternation and there was a promise to reconsider it. So the provision in this Bill must be regarded in the wider context of a continual, executive, bureaucratic aggrandizement at the expense of parliamentary control.
At Report stage an amendment was tabled to make all the provisions subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That was a probing amendment because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was offered the opportunity, as is usual on such occasions, to discuss which should be affirmative and which negative. Unfortunately he did not respond to that opportunity. Not only that, he did not deal at all with the argument that had been put forward in support of the amendment. There was quoted in summary form the perfectly clear criteria laid down by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1971–72. My noble and learned friend did not even advert to that in the brief that he read out. I can only assume that those criteria had been entirely lost sight of by those advising him.
All that my noble and learned friend said was that the similar provisions in the 1981 consolidation Act were subject to the negative resolution procedure. In view of that, after the debate I wrote on 30th October to my noble and learned friend, setting out in full the criteria that the Joint Select Committee had laid down. I ought to add that the report was considered in both Houses of Parliament without a word of demur to those criteria. In each House a Minister, in fact the Leader of the House, replied to the debate.
My noble and learned friend replied to my letter on 9th November, so that I received it two days ago. He accepted that the Joint Select Committee laid down criteria, but so far as concerns the one that is material to this amendment, he said that what the Joint Select Committee was referring to was what is now known as the Henry VIII provision. In view of that reply, I feel that I must read out to your Lordships the short passage in the Joint Select Committee's report. It said that the first thing that should be subject to the affirmative procedure is:
"powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament".
The report goes on to say that:
"Everything turns on the word 'substantially'. The view of your Committee is that when important issues are involved, whether because of the nature of the enactments which are the subject of the power or the extent of the power to operate them, it is likely to be obvious that the affirmative procedure should be used, if indeed it is appropriate for the amendment to be made by order at all, and not by the Bill. Conversely, there will be cases where the amendment is of a trivial or tidying-up character, or is consequential on provisions expressly agreed by Parliament: in such cases the affirmative procedure need not be adopted".
Your Lordships will note, first, that there is not a word in that passage about Henry VIII provisions. The nearest that it comes to it is a reference to whether the regulation should be made at all or whether the provision should not be made in the Bill.
My noble and learned friend's letter further implied that the Henry VIII provision had been current usage in 1971–72. The Joint Select Committee would have used that; it was then current. It had been current before and was repeatedly used in the Donoughmore Committee report of 1932. It had been current ever since. As I said, the nearest thing to it is the reference to whether indeed the provision ought to be made at all by regulation and not in the Bill.
But such provisions go far beyond Henry VIII clauses. Indeed, if the Joint Select Committee had wished to restrict its recommendations to Henry VIII provisions, it would not have had the slightest difficulty in making plain what was intended. Indeed, as your Lordships will recollect from what I have read out, it was made quite plain that "substantially" stood in contradistinction to trivial, tidying up or consequential. So the question is this: is the provision trivial, is it tidying up or is it consequential? If so, the negative procedure is appropriate; if not, it should be the affirmative procedure.
The provision in the Bill to which this amendment is primarily directed appears in Clause 1(8):
"The appropriate Minister may by order amend ‖ Part of Schedule 1 to this Act by adding offices to those for the time being there specified".
In other words, the Minister is given power to amend the schedule.
What is astonishing is that that is quite plainly a Henry VIII provision and my noble and learned friend's letter did not refer to it at all. It referred to Clause 26(4), which is indeed a Henry VIII provision but quite an innocuous one. This provision is a very serious one. It adds to the schedule judicial offices to which the Bill applies. The provision allows a Minister to operate by regulation. It was pointed out on Report that it was quite unnecessary to do that by a Henry VIII provision. On the analogy of parliamentary disqualification, the Bills creating the office could have amended the schedule. It seems a piece of gratuitous bureaucratic aggrandisement. In those circumstances, in my respectful submission, the case is perfectly clear for affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is the first of a series of amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to introduce the affirmative procedure throughout the Bill. Whether that is a particularly suitable subject matter for debate on amendment on Third Reading is perhaps a matter of opinion. It certainly goes against the view often expressed in this House that amendments on Third Reading should relate only to matters of substance. With great respect, that provision is not a matter of substance.
It is in fact a very sensible provision in the Bill. For example, if a new authority, tribunal or other body is set up, the Minister would be able by order to have those who served on that body treated as existing members of other judicial bodies are treated. That seems perfectly sensible. It is not a dramatic Henry VIII type of clause. It is simply a sensible and practical provision.

333
My noble and learned friend entirely ignores the fact that no one proposes to deprive Parliament of concern with those matters. If such addition is done by regulation subject to the negative procedure, it is perfectly possible to put down what in another place we used to call a prayer, a Motion to annul the regulation. I know enough of the character of your Lordships' House to be aware that if any silly or oppressive regulation is made, it is certain that at least one noble Lord will put down a Motion to annul the regulation. On the other hand, if we are to have every one of those orders taken by affirmative procedure, with all the expenditure of the time of the House involved, dealing very often with matters, such as this, of no very earth-shaking importance, we shall clog the parliamentary machine with unnecessary procedure and thereby diminish its effectiveness over things that matter.
I hope very much that your Lordships will reject the amendment and its successors.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I so often agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in what he says about Henry VIII clauses and his desire for greater parliamentary control through affirmative resolutions rather than the negative procedure, I believe that in this case we are dealing with a relatively minor matter, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. We have to bear in mind that any order made under Clause 1(8) would have to be within the terms of the Long Title of the Bill. That relates specifically to "judicial, and related, offices". It is right that the Lord Chancellor should have the opportunity, without troubling Parliament too much, of adding, for example, the chairman of any newly-created statutory tribunal.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am forced briefly to oppose the amendment. It serves as a convenient vehicle for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to deal with his preoccupation with Henry VIII clauses, to which we have listened with great patience on many occasions in your Lordships' House. However, in this particular context your Lordships may feel that it really is making the proverbial mountain out of the proverbial molehill. It is proposed by virtue of an order to add to a schedule in an Act. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, that is not a Henry VIII situation. He may say that it is; I say, with great respect, that it is not. It makes a nonsense of the argument to require the amendment to be accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway for their view that the amendment should not be supported. Since we are to have a number of such amendments, I should set out in a little detail what I believe the position to be. The Joint Committee, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred, concluded that the affirmative resolution would normally be appropriate, first, for powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament; secondly, for powers to impose or increase taxation or other
334
financial burdens on the subject or to raise statutory limits on the amounts which may be borrowed by, or lent or granted to, public bodies; and, thirdly, for powers involving considerations of special importance not falling under either of the two preceding heads. That is paragraph 78 of the report.
The provision to which the amendment is directed, which my noble and learned friend has read out, is a power not to take things out of the schedule but to add offices to the schedule. It does not seem to me therefore that it comes under the first heading. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, the Joint Committee concluded that the affirmative procedure was unnecessary if the amendments that could be made were of a trivial or tidying up character or consequential upon provisions expressly agreed to by Parliament. None of the powers in the Bill, in particular, this one, seems to fall under the second heading.
That leaves the third heading. The minutes of the evidence heard by the Joint Committee contain a reference to "Judicial Rules and regulations" as being a class of instrument not usually subject to affirmative or negative control although it is not clear what might be the limits of such rules and regulations.
The Joint Committee itself recognised that it was not desirable to formulate precise rules for determining the level of parliamentary scrutiny. That aspect was picked up in the government response to the First Special Report from the Joint Committee, 1977–78. The Joint Committee has been critical of the lack of criteria for deciding whether certain instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972 should be subjected to the affirmative or negative procedure. The government response was that it was not practicable to lay down precise criteria for determining the choice between the various procedures. The procedure needs to be determined in the light of the wishes of Parliament and the circumstances of the particular case.
It seems therefore that one has to consider the particular power in question and take account of general considerations. One of those considerations undoubtedly must be, as the Joint Committee warned, the needless consumption of parliamentary time. It seems to me to be an utterly unnecessary consumption of parliamentary time if an office is added to the schedule in respect of which there is no real dispute. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, the negative procedure would enable a dispute to be aired and considered if it arose.
In my submission, it is not a power which should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore invite your Lordships not to accept the amendment. In the light of the discussion, my noble and learned friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, one is bound to ask where we are going constitutionally. We are concerned here with a power given to the Minister to enact a provision which could perfectly well be in a Bill creating the judicial office. But this goes out of its way to allow the Minister to do it by regulation. Moreover, my noble and learned friend appears to be

335
suggesting that a schedule is substantially affected if it is derogated from; if something is taken out of it. Of course that is not the case at all. It is substantially affected—in other words, it has a different operation —if something is added to it.
My noble and learned friend did not deal with the point—nor, with great respect, did the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in saying that there were powers to deal with the negative resolution procedure—that in the other place the negative motion is more frequently than not never reached at all. I regard it as particularly serious that it should be the Lord Chancellor's Department which is taking this line. One cannot altogether divorce it from the provision which was in Clause 25 and which aroused such constitutional protests. It remained in the Bill until the week before the Report stage; that is the power given to the Lord Chancellor to prolong the position in office of a particular judge thereby enabling him to earn his full pension.
I do not suggest for one moment that the Lord Chancellor's Department is particularly malign. It is merely a repository of power and, like all repositories of power, the power tends to corrupt. The first way in which power corrupts is by creating an avidity for more power. Therefore, the provisions in the Bill demand particular constitutional scrutiny.
However, after some 35 years in Parliament I would be unrealistic to believe that I should get anywhere by pressing the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Autumn Statement
4.13 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the Autumn Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make my Autumn Statement. As usual, the main public expenditure figures and the full text of the Industry Act Forecast will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed Autumn Statement will be published next Wednesday, after which there will be a full debate in this House.
"Following the announcement I made in my Budget, next year the Autumn Statement will be brought together with our proposals for taxation in one annual Budget Statement. This is a long overdue reform. For one final year, however, I shall bow to tradition and leave my Budget proposals until the spring.
"But this Autumn Statement will also be the first occasion on which the Treasury's economic forecast will be presented alongside others. Two weeks ago I announced my intention to establish a new panel of independent forecasters. That will be in operation for next year's Budget. But in the
336
meantime the forecast I am publishing today will include some details of how the Government's own economic forecast compares with the view that other organisations have taken. I am sure this change will be widely welcomed.
"This year's Autumn Statement has been drawn up against a background of continuing recession at home and renewed weakness abroad. Despite exceptionally low interest rates, confidence in the United States remains depressed. Industrial production has fallen sharply in Japan. And the countries of continental Europe face the prospect of continuing high interest rates and a marked slowdown in Germany. It is not surprising, therefore, that here in Britain the recovery that nearly all forecasters expected at the time of the Budget has still not become established.
"There has been an encouraging increase in retail sales. But the housing market remains depressed and confidence has taken a severe blow from the turmoil in the foreign exchange markets that led to sterling's suspension from the ERM.
"Against this difficult background a strategy that brings renewed confidence and a return to growth is more essential than ever. But the Government have no intention of engineering a short-lived boom that would lead swiftly to higher inflation and higher interest rates. Our objective is sustainable, long-term growth. And our strategy to achieve that is based on three principles.
"First, with the pound floating, a completely new framework is required for monetary policy. Interest rates are now set according to British monetary conditions—to meet the target I have established for inflation. Underlying inflation will be kept within the range of 1 to 4 per cent; and our aim is to get it down to the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. Low inflation is the key to sustainable growth and a lasting reduction in unemployment.
"I have set out clearly the indicators that will guide my assessment of how far we are on track to meet our inflation objectives. The exchange rate, asset prices and the growth of MO are all taken into account. And today I can announce the monitoring range I intend to use for the broad measure of money, M4. For the second half of this financial year that range will be 4 to 8 per cent.
"As I have explained to the House before, in the last few months of our ERM membership monetary policy was tighter than was needed to deliver our inflation objectives. It is crucial that monetary policy should not be so lax that the private sector faces higher inflation. But nor should it be so tight that money demand is inadequate.
"Outside the ERM I have been able to rebalance policy by cutting two percentage points off interest rates. This in itself will provide a significant boost to the economy without re-igniting inflation. Despite the fall in the exchange rate I expect underlying inflation to be below 4 per cent. by the end of next year. And in common with most

337
economic forecasters I expect GDP to rise next year by about 1 per cent. following a fall of a similar magnitude in 1992.
"My second principle is that there must be an appropriate balance between fiscal and monetary policy. Above all, public spending must be kept under firm control. The Government therefore put in place last July a clear medium-term strategy for the control of public spending designed to ensure that public expenditure declines as a share of GDP over time. The new system is based on a top-down approach. Clear and affordable limits are set for the total level of public expenditure and the Government can then settle their priorities through a process of collective discussion involving first a new Cabinet Committee and then the full Cabinet itself.
"The third key principle of the Government's strategy is that the best way to increase the long run growth rate in the economy is to make markets work better. So we will be pressing ahead with our policies on privatisation, deregulation, cutting out waste and keeping the tax burden on companies and individuals as low as we can. We must also fight for the interests of British business in world markets and provide them with the best environ-ment in which they can compete and succeed. And in the short term that means securing a successful outcome to the GATT round.
"Low inflation, tight control of public spending, open markets, competition and a vigorous supply side policy—these are the principles of the Government's strategy and they provide the right framework for economic growth. I do not believe that governments can spend their way out of recession. It is individuals and companies in the private sector that are the engine of economic growth.
"But, that does not mean that once the right economic framework is in place, the Government's task is complete. The Government too are investing for the future, in the nation's infrastructure and the development of human capital. And, as I said in my Mansion House speech, the Government have also been looking at specific policies to ease the path to recovery. I shall be announcing later in my Statement, a series of measures to rebuild confidence, to help industry and strengthen the economy.
"Taking account of these measures, I expect the PSBR in the current year to rise to around £37 billion. Of course that is high, but borrowing is bound to rise in a recession; and it would be damaging to seek to prevent it from doing so. As the economy recovers it is absolutely vital that borrowing is brought back towards balance. We have made an excellent start today with a tight overall settlement for public spending.
"Much of the recent increase in the PSBR reflects the rapid growth in expenditure on social security benefits, and this has also damaged the financial position of the National Insurance Fund.
"In normal circumstances, it would have been necessary to raise national insurance contributions,
338
to reduce that shortfall. But, given the current weakness of the economy, I do not believe this would have been appropriate.
"Accordingly, while the upper and lower earnings limits and the thresholds of the bands for the employers' contribution will be indexed as usual, the rates for national insurance contributions will remain unchanged. And I have agreed with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that the fund should receive a Treasury grant to make up the shortfall.
"Madam Speaker, let me now turn to the Government's public spending plans.
"In this Survey, the priority was clear. It was vital to put the needs of the economy first. So within a tight overall settlement, we have sought, wherever possible, to protect programmes, especially capital programmes, that will promote recovery and Britain's longer-term prospects.
"At current levels of borrowing, the amount we have to pay in debt interest is rising rapidly, diverting billions of pounds a year away from spending on services. Against that background, the Cabinet decided in July to set a remit for the public spending round which would keep expenditure under firm control.
"That remit had two elements. For next year, we set ourselves the objective of sticking to existing cash plans. And, for the three survey years as a whole, our aim was to hold the growth of the New Control Total down to 1½ per cent. or less, to keep the overall growth in public spending to a rate below that of the economy as a whole.
"Although our target for next year of £244.5 billion allowed a real increase of 4½ per cent., the pressures for more spending have been intense. And we have had to consider carefully whether the original targets were achievable.
"But I can now announce to the House that we have indeed hit our target. The planning total for next year will be £244.5 billion. As a result of certain definitional changes, I should warn the House that the number which actually appears in the printed document will be slightly different. It will, in fact, be £2 billion lower.
"I can also announce that the new totals for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are fully consistent with the remit agreed in July. Despite the pressures that have emerged since the summer, the real growth in the NCT over the next three years will average just under l½per cent. a year, half the rate of growth over the last three years.
"I am sure that honourable and right honourable Members on this side of the House will welcome the meeting of the remit; and let me at once pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary for his skill, perseverance and hard work in making this possible.
"Madam Speaker, to meet our objectives we have had to look very carefully at every single programme and particularly at current spending. The biggest single budget is of course social security. Indexing the social security benefits in the coming year would cost £2½ billion. And if we are

339
to protect capital spending it is to areas of current spending such as social security that we must look first. But, I can now tell the House that despite the many claims on the available resources the Government have been able to meet in full their commitment to index pensions and other benefits.
"The other major claim on current public spending is public sector pay.
"The earnings of public sector staff have risen on average by 20 per cent. over the last two years—compared with just 13 per cent. in the private sector. But if the gains in competitiveness from the recent fall in the exchange rate are not to be lost it is vital that all employers keep tight control over their paybills. The public sector cannot be sheltered from the difficulties faced by the private sector, where pay awards are now the lowest in a generation.
"I have therefore decided that in the coming year pay settlements in the public sector should be restricted to a maximum of 1½ per cent. This is of course consistent with a lower growth in paybills. The aim must be to keep the growth in paybills in each area of the public sector as low as possible.
"The restriction will apply to the whole of the public sector and related bodies without exception, regardless of whether pay is negotiated, recom-mended by the review bodies or subject to formula calculations. It will apply to all offers made from today, though formal offers already made will be honoured. The Government will in due course bring forward a resolution on MPs' pay, consistent with this policy. Ministers will receive no increase at all.
"Given the overall objective of restraining the growth in public spending, this Survey has involved some difficult decisions. If some items are to be increased, it means that others must be cut back.
"Our tough decisions about public sector pay will lead to savings of £1.5 billion a year. That will permit higher levels of service to the public and higher capital programmes.
"Nonetheless, in some programmes we have made reductions in the baselines set out last year. But in many cases, expenditure still remains on a rising trend.
"What is more, the progress we have made on inflation will help to ensure that reductions in baselines are consistent with continuing improve-ments in public services.
"Even so, individual programmes have faced searching scrutiny and hard choices have been made.
"Over the next few years, defence expenditure will continue to fall in real terms. The benefits of the Options for Change Review will be secured and some further savings, consistent with the policies which underlie it, will be made.
"The legal aid budget is a demand-led programme that has been putting immense pressure on the public finances. The Lord Chancellor is announcing changes to restrict its growth, and they are fully reflected in the Survey.
340
"And at a time when tight control over public expenditure is needed at the national level, the same discipline should be applied locally. Central government support for local authority revenue expenditure in England will therefore rise by 3.7 per cent. next year, and total standard spending by 3.1 per cent. In addition, there will be a special grant of £539 million in England to help local authorities meet their new responsibilities for community care.
"This settlement should be fully adequate to meet local authorities' requirements. The proposals assume that local authorities implement in full our policy of pay restraint. Provided that they do this, the savings made will enable them to ensure proper provision of services without exerting upward pressure on the council tax. The Government will not hesitate to use their capping powers as necessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a full announcement later this month.
"Full details of the new plans for local authorities in Scotland and Wales and for other programmes are being made available separately.
"The population-related formulae, which largely determine changes to expenditure provision more generally in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have been updated. Expenditure plans for the territories will be announced by their respective Secretaries of State at a later date.
"Madam Speaker, at the time of the General Election, the Government made clear that education and health would be amongst their key priorities for the longer-term. Rising spending in these areas is fully justified, not just in terms of immediate needs, but as a contribution to the country's human capital.
"The education programme is therefore planned to rise to a level £1½ billion higher in 1995–96 than the equivalent spending this year. There will be some important changes over this period. The proportion of children staying on at school beyond 16 is expected to go on rising. The Government are providing for a higher proportion of school leavers to take up YT places. And we shall finance a sharp increase in the number of students attending further education or sixth form colleges—25 per cent. up over the Survey period.
"At the same time we have earmarked enough finance to maintain the present record level of participation of young people in higher education. All this is an important investment in our young people which will improve the quality of the country's human capital and benefit the economy in the longer run.
"There will also be increases in the level of real resources provided to the National Health Service in each of the next three years. Spending in the NHS will rise by nearly 3 per cent. in real terms next year compared with this year's plans. That means an increase of over £1.9 billion.
"This is a very tight settlement overall. At the beginning of the spending round, there was widespread speculation that the Government would take the easy way out by letting current

341
spending rise and cutting capital spending instead. But what we have done is take the tough, but necessary, decisions to put the needs of the British economy first.
"Restraint on current expenditure has made it feasible to provide more protection to capital. We have done so across a whole range of programmes. Next year there will be a significant increase in the volume of road building. We have maintained the national roads programme at a time when construction prices have fallen.
"Our new plans will ensure that in real terms, compared with 1979, we will have a doubling next year of the combined capital spending of British Rail and London Transport. Next year health capital spending in England alone will be at the record level of nearly £2.1 billion. The new plans should more than deliver our election commitment to provide, through the Housing Corporation, 153,000 homes over three years.
"One major project for which we have expressly reserved provision is the Jubilee Line extension. Subject to satisfactory completion of negotiations, the line will be able to go ahead. This will create many thousands of jobs and give an important boost to the construction industry.
"The Government have taken seriously their pledge to do what they can for capital projects. But there is yet more that can be done. I said in my Mansion House speech that I was examining ways to increase the scope for private financing of capital projects. Obviously, we have to protect the taxpayer. But I also want to ensure that sensible investment decisions are taken whenever the opportunity arises. I am now able to announce three significant developments.
"In the past the Government have only been prepared to give the go-ahead to private projects after comparing them with a similar project in the public sector. This has applied whether or not there was any prospect of the project ever being carried out in the public sector. I have decided to scrap that rule. First, in future, any privately-financed project which can be operated profitably will be allowed to proceed. This should be widely welcomed, particularly by the construction industry.
"Secondly, the Government have too often in the past treated proposed projects as either wholly private or wholly public. In future the Government will actively encourage joint ventures with the private sector where these involve a sensible transfer of risk to the private sector. We may be prepared to consider such an approach, when the time arises, for projects such as the East-West Crossrail, the Central Scotland Fastlink, the Birmingham western orbital road and perhaps also the Channel Tunnel rail link.
"Thirdly, we will allow greater use of leasing where it offers good value for money. As long as it can be shown that the risk stays with the private sector, public organisations will be able to enter into operating lease agreements, with only the leasing payments counting as expenditure and without their capital budgets being cut. In addition,
342
British Rail will be allowed to lease some £150 million of new rolling stock in the next three years. The new leases will be undertaken with a view to developing the leasing market for rolling stock which will facilitate privatisation.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will publish a Green Paper early next year on the scope for motorway charging. If, in the light of consultation, the Government decided to proceed with charges for inter-urban roads, that would create significant new opportunities for private finance. As a possible transitional step, private contractors might be invited to design, build and operate roads for which they would receive payments from government relating to the use of their roads. Money contributed by the private sector under these arrangements will not contribute towards public spending. It will represent additional resources in the area concerned.
"These changes are only a beginning. I have asked my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to carry forward and develop our policy in this area, encouraging the private sector to bring forward proposals, and to help us identify any obstacles which frustrate its success.
"Many of the measures I have announced so far today will take time to have their full effect. I therefore propose to introduce a supplementary package of time-limited fiscal measures. These will be aimed at sectors of the economy which have been hardest hit by the recession, helping to rebuild confidence and so foster recovery.
"Housing and construction have faced par-ticular difficulties in the past two years. But home buyers now have some of the lowest mortgage rates since 1978. The Government have responded in a number of other ways, most recently with measures to help those with negative equity who wish to move. Today, I propose to go further.
"The overhang of empty properties in the owner-occupied sector is holding back activity in the housing market. I therefore propose to make available an extra £750 million to be used before the end of this financial year to buy up some of these properties. I hope that the Housing Corporation will be able to achieve a substantial contribution on top of this from private sector lenders. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will introduce parallel measures. This measure should reduce the overhang of empty properties by over 20,000 over the next few months, so providing a helpful stimulus to activity. It will also increase the available stock of subsidised housing by a similar amount and make a real contribution towards housing families in need.
"Many honourable Members will be aware of the representations by many local authorities to persuade the Government to relax the rules on local authority capital receipts. Many local authorities have accumulated a stock of these receipts rather than use them to pay off debt as the Government

343
wished. That remains the Government's wish, and I do not intend to reward those who have ignored it.
"I propose instead to allow a time-limited relaxation of the rules governing local authorities' use of their future capital receipts. The existing rules allow them to spend only 25 per cent. of housing receipts and 50 per cent. of other receipts. With certain exceptions, local authorities will now be entitled to spend all the capital receipts they realise between tomorrow and the end of December 1993.
"This measure is expected to stimulate extra capital spending by local authorities, of over £1.75 billion in the next three-and-a-half years. The Government hope that local authorities will make early and effective use of the additional spending power before the end of this financial year across the range of local authority capital programmes, including housing, education, schools and roads. Any receipts not spent this year or next will provide an ongoing stimulus to house building and construction in 1994–95 and 1995–96 as well.
"The availability of these extra receipts will be taken into account in distributing credit approvals between local authorities. In this way, virtually all local authorities should receive some benefit. There will be separate measures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"The reduction in the exchange rate has offered immense opportunities to exporters. But our exporters of project equipment and other supplies requiring medium or long-term finance rely heavily on the guarantees provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I now intend to make available a further £700 million of ECGD cover and to ease some of the constraints on cover for individual countries. That will enable these exporters to compete more effectively in the increasingly difficult situation they now face.
"I have also considered the position on capital allowances. It remains my view that the reform of business tax by Lord Lawson in his 1984 Budget was the right one. Low tax rates and a broad tax base provide the best framework for the medium term. However, in present circumstances, I am prepared to allow some changes which should help to bring forward private sector investment.
"Accordingly, for a limited period of 12 months, I propose to raise from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. the allowances available in the first year for investment in plant and machinery, excluding cars. I also propose to introduce an initial allowance of 20 per cent. for expenditure on new industrial and agricultural buildings for which contracts are placed before 31st October 1993 and which are brought into use before the end of 1994. I propose to legislate for these changes, with retrospective effect to 1st November, in the next Finance Bill.
"I have one final measure to announce. The motor industry lies at the heart of British manufacturing. In recent years, it has seen a renaissance, with large increases in inward
344
investment. However, the recession has brought a more difficult climate. I have considered what might best be done to help. Any action in this area will, of course, have to be paid for in my next Budget by higher motoring taxes after 1992–93.
"I have decided nevertheless to continue with the tax reform begun in my last Budget and to abolish car tax altogether from midnight tonight. This will mean a saving of about £400 on a typical family car. This measure will require a simple Bill, which I shall bring forward shortly. It will provide a direct boost to the motor industry and will of course benefit business more widely. I am sure it will be warmly welcomed.
"The measures I have announced today should provide an immediate boost to confidence and welcome relief for some of the most hard-pressed sectors of the economy. Taken together they will add some £4 billion to borrowing over the next three years, but with no increase in the PSBR over the medium-term.
"And these measures come on top of the Government's new spending plans for the next three years and the proposals I have announced to liberalise the rules on private finance.
"Finally, there is the significant relaxation in monetary policy since Britain left the ERM just two months ago. Britain already has the lowest interest rates in the European Community; and the pound is trading at a level that gives British industry a sharp competitive edge in foreign markets.
"That relaxation of policy has been possible because of the dramatic progress we have made in getting inflation down; and it is precisely because our inflationary prospects remain excellent that today, Madam Speaker, I can go further.
"Alongside the tight public expenditure plans I have announced I believe it is appropriate now to make a further reduction in interest rates. The governor and I have agreed that the Bank will tomorrow set the minimum lending rate at 7 per cent. That reduction is, in my judgment, fully consistent with the Government's inflationary objectives.
"Today's reduction takes British interest rates down to their lowest level for nearly 15 years; it means that our interest rates have been cut by fully 8 per cent. over the last two years; it takes a further £1 billion off industry's costs on top of the £9 billion fall in interest payments we have already seen; and it will provide further help to all those with mortgages.
"British business now has the opportunity it has been looking for—to bring the country out of recession; to increase sales, expand production and invest for the future. And industry can now seize the new opportunities, safe in the knowledge that the Government will play their full part. We have a new monetary framework that will deliver low inflation over the medium-term. We have a new system for controlling public expenditure that will deliver annual spending increases which the country can afford. We have new spending plans, which protect the poorest in society and offer hope,

345
help and opportunity by switching resources to programmes that support the long-term prosperity of the country. We have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. And we have a carefully targeted set of measures designed to lift confidence and get the country back to work.
"This is a clear and comprehensive strategy. It is a strategy for growth. I commend it to the House.
" My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for reading the Statement of his right honourable friend. I particularly thank him because, as he well knows, I did not get to know anything about the Statement until he just read it. I appreciate there may be difficulties with this, but it does not seem to me to be an appropriate way to engage in the serious business of your Lordships' House if one actually has to come to respond to something like this with no forewarning. I understand that there are one or two commercially sensitive matters here; but, nonetheless, I should have thought that the main Opposition spokesmen could have been trusted with a sight of the document in order to help in its consideration.
That leads to me a second point. I have listened as closely as I can to the noble Earl, and I must say I find it very difficult to see how the figures add up. On the one hand, he tells us that a large number of things are going to increase; and, on the other hand, he tells us that the Chancellor is going to stay within his total budgetary framework. I am not foolhardy enough to try to do all the calculations in my head as I go along. I have to tell him that he may have said this is a simple Statement but I found it very difficult to follow. I assume that the reference to having a full debate about these matters will refer to the other place; but if we are to explore these issues fully we must have an opportunity to look at them in some detail. As noble Lords will be aware, my own view, although I shall have to be rather "broad brush" today, is that it is the detail that is interesting and that really matters.
This is the last Autumn Statement that we shall ever have, so one ought to say farewell to Autumn Statements as well as other things. As I understand it, the noble Earl is not backtracking, nor is his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the new budgetary position we are going to have. That is the sensible position of getting a statement of expenditure plan, then a statement of taxes to finance that and later a statement of how we are going to finance the difference if there is, as there is at the present time, a government deficit. That is the correct way of doing it, and I take it that from now on that is what we are going to have and that I am right in being reassured by the noble Earl's statement that there will be no backtracking by the Treasury, which might be fearful that people might wish to discuss taxation at the same time as they discuss expenditure. My view is that that is always the sensible way to do it, and then the people who want more expenditure should be asked to say how they are going to pay for it. That is
346
something that I am willing to do, and I believe the Liberals also feel that this is the right way of doing things.
Is this the same Chancellor of the Exchequer that we had a few months ago? I have some difficulty sometimes on that matter. Is this the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 27th November, 1991, virtually a year ago:
"History, I think, shows that we have seen continuing depreciation of sterling, what you call a temporary fillip to exports, which has been bought at the price of continuing inflation".
He also said:
"It seems to me that the real challenge is that costs and prices have to adjust to the exchange rate rather than the other way round".
I would have thought that in his Autumn Statement the noble Earl's right honourable friend might have explained to us why he has said exactly the opposite today. A year ago he said that depreciation of the currency would lead to inflation. There is no suggestion that he believes that today: quite the contrary. I assume that this is the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who as recently as in the Budget said that GDP would grow by 2 per cent. per annum this year. For those of you who read these things, he actually said that GDP would grow by 3¼ per cent. next year. As it is, the Statement says that we shall get minus 1 per cent. this year, and the definition of recovery next year, as I understand it, is plus 1 per cent.
I have two problems here. The first is that I should have thought that the Chancellor might have wished to say, "I did get it wrong by an incredible order of magnitude". The other thing that one has to ask oneself is, given that he and his forecasters got it wrong last time, whether there is any reason to believe they will get it right this time. There is talk about bringing in these outside experts, and your Lordships will have heard my view last week on adding more outside experts to the failed experts that we currently have. It does not seem to me to be the right way of doing things at all.
Perhaps I may mention one of my puzzles about the figures adding up. This is a Statement regarding the total sum of 1 per cent. that the Government put forward much earlier, and they are now sticking to it. Presumably when this Statement was invented, the unemployment and social security benefit side of it would have been based on a forecast of the real economy, related then to a forecast of unemployment, which would be used to forecast unemployment benefit. But now that the real economy is depressed, unemployment is higher and so much more unemployment benefit must be forecast because more people are getting it. What I cannot see, again, is where the cuts come to finance that benefit in the Statement. It is a sort of magic trick—that somehow you will spend a lot more money here, but you are not going to reduce anything else there. Or perhaps I anticipate. Maybe unemployment benefit is going to be paid out of the reduction of legal aid, which I gather we are going to be told about later in the day.

347
That is one of my puzzlements at what is happening. The second refers to public sector pay. I saw the 1½ per cent. figure. Can the noble Earl say whether that 11 per cent. is included in the calculation —meaning that what had been thought to be the public sector pay bill a year earlier will now be raised by 1¼ per cent.? Is the whole pay bill forecast to go up by 1½ per cent. or is there some other figure for the whole pay bill? I am a bit lost on that as well.
On the economics of it, the public sector pay side is the wrong area in which to operate. If one is concerned about expansion, efficiency and costs, what matters is the private sector pay bill. The public sector pay bill merely adds to aggregate demand. It does not impinge directly on cost matters at all. I think that the concentration on public sector pay is purely ad hoc. I suppose that it has just been thrown in because, in abandoning all their other policies, the Government think that they might as well have a public sector incomes policy as well as everything else.
The reduction of 1 per cent. in the interest rate, which I take it is the reason that I was not supposed to know about these things, is of course welcome. It will benefit industry by lowering the cost of borrowing and it will be of some benefit to consumers who have to borrow to spend. However, on the economics of interest rates, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that interest income is an important part of quite a lot of people's income. As rates are cut, their income will be lowered and they will spend less. Therefore, the notion that, on the economics of it, a cut in interest rates is unequivocally expansionist simply is not the case.
What really staggers and intrigues me is the fact that we have seen the final demise of monetarism in what the Government have done today. This is as clear as can be from the supplementary package. Essentially, the Government have abandoned "monetarism" by which I mean, as I think serious monetarists also mean, two things. The first is to have a financial strategy that is stuck to while secondly, within that, one tries to control the money supply, however defined, and then let the economy get on with it. What one did not have if one was a monetarist—or what one did have if one was a Keynesian, like me —is what is called the supplementary package. "Supplementary package" are just two words for the one word "Keynesianism".
I do not object to many of these things, but I wish that the Government themselves would at least recognise that they have thrown away both the previous 12 years of their own history and the previous 12 years of their own arguments. I do not oppose the supplementary package, but I expect some noble Lord on the other side to get up and make the proper speech that a Conservative noble Lord should make and say that such supplementary packages distort and destabilise the economy, that they cannot work—the Chancellor himself has said that in the past —and that he cannot possibly support the Government on this.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl one or two detailed questions about the supplementary package. I take it that the relaxation of the rules on local
348
authority housing is hypothetically forward-looking. If I understand the noble Earl correctly, it amounts to saying, "If you sell some more housing in the future, you will be able to use a larger share of the capital receipts. Therefore, despite the fact that you may have accumulated large sums in the past, you cannot spend them." I should like the noble Earl to clarify that so that I understand what he is saying.
The export bit is particularly disingenuous. Of course, devaluation offers a great opportunity to exporters, but we need to bear in mind the fact that it also offers a great opportunity to people who wish to push up prices and add to inflation.
On capital allowances, I agree with the Government entirely. They should have done this long ago. However, I hope that the noble Earl remembers on how many occasions capital allowances were rejected by spokesmen from the Government Front Bench, again as distorting and destabilising the economy and being essentially short term, with no long-run effect. Although I am not about to buy a new car, the same goes for the abolition of the car tax. I heartily approve of it, but I do not quite see how the Government find an intellectual underpinning for it.
All this is like shooting fish in a barrel—and I get tired of it. However, there is one other figure that I should like to ask about before I sit down. The Government often talk about the ratio of government expenditure to gross domestic product, which the Government are committed to reducing. Although it may well be in one of the government documents that I have not yet got and this is a difficult Statement to follow, I have not seen any specific statement about the ratio of government expenditure to GDP. Am I to assume that, at least for the moment, that has simply gone as an objective? Again, one could change Keynes's dictum of, "In the long run we're all dead", to a new dictum of "In the long run, all the figures come out right, but in the short run, they go all over the place." I should certainly like to know the Government's position on these matters.
To conclude, like every noble Lord I want to see the British economy recover. I want to see our people prosper. I want us all to get going again. I shall be interested to see the reaction of the markets, but my difficulty is that, given the speech that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is so different from anything that he has said before, and given that we all agree that confidence is of the essence, why should anybody believe a word that he says this time, compared with last time?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for reading out the Statement. I reiterate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, contrary to normal practice, Front Bench spokesmen were not able to have a glimpse of the Statement beforehand. As it is such a lengthy and complex Statement, this has put us in some difficulty.
Rarely has an Autumn Statement been awaited with such interest as this one. I should like to start by saying that I welcome its contents relating to stimulating growth. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, having heard the Statement I find it difficult to see how the figures can be precisely

349
reconciled. There seems to be much more being expended on the growth side than is being saved in expenditure in other directions, but no doubt the noble Earl will explain that.
I wish to ask in particular about the new framework for monetary policy and the indicators that are to be pursued. How frequently are we going to be informed about the result of this monitoring? Will there be a monthly statement to tell us how things are going? Obviously, the big risk with the new policy for growth is a trend towards renewed inflation. We shall want to know whether that risk is serious or not, quite apart from the regular announcements about inflation.
I should like to refer to one or two matters in relation to the specific measures for growth. In the case of British Rail and London Transport, those of us who have always pressed for more infrastructure investment will be pleased to hear about additional resources. However, how do the additional sums which are being made available compare with the sums that have been requested by those two organisations? Are their additional requirements for investment being met by these figures, or is there still a gap?
On the question of private projects for the public sector, can we be clear about the regime to be followed in future? Hitherto, the Treasury has been very restrictive on any services rendered by the private sector to the public sector which contained a capital element. That capital element has hitherto been charged against the public sector, thus inhibiting this type of service even though it was financially advantageous. Am I to understand that from now on any capital project or any capital element in any service rendered by the private sector for the public sector will not count against the public sector's capital budgets?
Next, on export credits, we are all very pleased to hear about the additional amount being made available. However, there are also export services which, to judge by the accounts of the British Overseas Trade Board, have been progressively cut over the years. Is there now to be a review of those export services which finance visits abroad, provide information on export opportunities and so on? Are these now to be reviewed, as I believe the President of the Board of Trade hinted? We should like to hear clearly whether that is intended so as to take advantage of the new export opportunities.
The increase in capital allowances is certainly very welcome. But, as the noble Earl may be aware, we had a debate in the House yesterday on small firms. His noble friend Lady Denton may have informed him of its outcome. A number of suggestions were made about ways in which small firms in particular could be helped in the present difficulties. Do the Government intend bringing forward any measures specifically relating to small firms in addition to the measures that they have announced today?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, said in reply to the Autumn Statement. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was in particularly gloomy mood today. I expected him to
350
receive the Statement with slightly more welcome than he managed to conjure up from the depths of his gloom. Like him, I should like to bid farewell to the Autumn Statement, but I would hate to bid farewell to the chance of discussing economic matters with him across the Floor of the House. I am sure that we shall have plenty of opportunity for that. On that particular point, he raised the request for a debate. As he will have noticed, my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal and the Chief Whip were listening to him at that time and I shall leave it to the usual channels in accordance with the tradition of this House.
Both noble Lords were right to say that it was difficult to pick up a Statement of this length and complexity just by listening to what I was repeating. I know that the whole House will want to study the figures in detail and I am sure that that would solve many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me. He again chided us about forecasts when, as an economist, he will know that forecasts are not always as accurate as he would himself sometimes have wished. However, I remind him that the Government's forecast was in line with the average of the independent forecasts at the time of the Budget.
Perhaps I may clarify the situation with regard to pay. There will be a limit of 1.5 per cent. for all public sector employees for the next year. With regard to capital receipts, that is for the future only. There will not be anything retrospective with regard to the receipts already received. It would be quite wrong to penalise those authorities that have done the right thing; namely, having got the receipts, to have removed the debt overhang and therefore to have benefited their chargepayers. The noble Lord will have heard me say that in the long term we wish to reduce expenditure as regards GDP. We got it down very successfully in the 1980s and we wish to get it down again.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked me whether the settlement that has been reached for British Rail and London Underground met their aspirations. It is impossible to meet everyone's aspirations. There is always a good case to spend more money. However, it is right that there should be a firm control over public expenditure. That is what my right honourable friend has announced today. He meets the target of £244.5 billion that was set in July and that is to be welcomed.
With regard to capital allowances, I note what the noble Lord said and I was grateful for his welcome on that point.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Autumn Statement will be warmly welcomed in commerce and industry generally and that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary is to be congratulated on containing public expenditure within the target range, but at the same time protecting capital investment and particularly the Jubilee Line? Although capital allowances were changed under my noble friend Lord Lawson when he reduced corporation tax to the lowest in the world at the same time as changing capital allowances, I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that it is

351
right today to look at capital allowances. I am delighted at what the Chancellor has done there and in abolishing car tax.
As regards the reduction in interest rates, perhaps my noble friend will take this point on board. We have now reduced the base rate from 15 per cent. to 7 per cent., which is a great achievement, but in many cases the reduction in the interest rate has not immediately been passed on by the banks and building societies. Will my noble friend urge my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impress on both the banks and the building societies that the reduction in the base rate should be passed on in its entirety to the borrower?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend, with his great experience, said. I am delighted that he believes this Statement will be welcomed by industry. That is exactly what it is designed to be, but I should also add that at the same time we have been able to look after those least able to look after themselves. That is also an important part of the Statement.
With regard to interest rates, we have no evidence that banks are not passing on interest rate cuts to their customers. As we all know, some banks have had a floor. NatWest had a floor of 8 per cent., but yesterday cut that to 6 per cent. However, if my noble friend has any specific point in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there will be great outrage among public sector employees that their pay increases will be restricted to 1.5 per cent? That means a wage cut of 2.1 per cent. for them and it is a wage cut imposed on some of the lowest paid people in the country. Irrespective of what the Statement said about public sector pay having risen by 20 per cent. while private sector pay has risen by only 13 per cent., I hope that he will recognise and accept that that 20 per cent. includes the catching up increases which were given to nurses and teachers, among others. The comparison is therefore unfair and public sector employees are being made to pay for the Government's mistakes. It is quite deplorable and will upset the people in the public sector no end. I do not know what their reaction will be. We may well have some trouble from them and we may be looking forward to a winter of discontent.
Perhaps I may also ask the noble Earl how this is to be enforced. It is not clear in my mind exactly how that will be done. If local authorities refuse to do it, will it fall upon their chargepayers because the government grant is restricted? How will it be done?
Finally, in relation to Scotland and Wales, the basis on which the grant is made has been updated. Will the noble Earl say exactly what that means? Does it mean that Scotland and Wales will receive more or less from central funds? I feel sure that that is what it is all about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the sentiments behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Nobody said that it would
352
be very nice to limit public sector pay to 1.5 per cent. on a range of 0 to 1.5 per cent. It is not very nice not to have an increase. It is not very nice for many people in the private sector to have their pay reduced, but in the present economic circumstances I think that the action taken by my right honourable friend is very justifiable.
At the end of his comments the noble Lord asked me some detailed questions about Scotland and elsewhere. As I said when I repeated the Statement, further Statements will be made and it would be wrong for me to say anything without having the full benefit of that. I am sure that the noble Lord will also wish to see those Statements.
With regard to enforcement, I think that I should write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Earl referred very briefly to defence expenditure. He indicated that there would be some reductions. Will he tell us what the new level of defence expenditure decided upon is?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the estimated outturn for 1992–93 in defence will be £23.8 billion whereas the new plans will be £23.5 billion, £23.75 billion and £23.22 billion.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Statement. However, I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, appeared to be referring to the reduction in interest rates as being regrettable as regards the impact it would have on those who are in receipt of interest income. Does my noble friend believe, as I do, that those on the Benches opposite have been pressing for a reduction in interest rates for a long time past?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I knew that it would not escape the notice of my noble friend that on this as on many other occasions the noble Lord and his noble friends opposite have been pressing for many measures, but that when such measures are announced by the Government they say that it is all terrible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, let me first say that the Autumn Statement is actually very disappointing. Much information had been passed on before claiming gloom and doom. What we now have is a claim that the spending limits have been observed and that public sector pay will be frozen. But, for all that, we are getting a miserable rate of growth predicted for the next year—minus 1 per cent. for this year and plus 1 per cent. for the next year. That "plus 1 per cent." has redeemed the margin of forecast error which is 1.5 per cent., so anything could happen.
When the ERM strategy was so ignominiously abandoned, we were promised after some delay that we were going to "dash for growth". Can the noble Earl say where is that dash for growth? Where is the growth supposed to be dashing? A one percentage point growth rate is not even a recovery; it is actually quite akin to stagflation. Although the inflation rate will not rise very much it will be higher next year than it was this year, therefore we are dashing from deep recession to, perhaps, low stagflation.

353
So far as I can see, the balance of payments figures have worsened from £12 billion to £15 billion. The PSBR outcome this year is 6.25 per cent., but if you exclude privatisation proceedings it is 7.5 per cent. Therefore, from all viewpoints I say that the Government have done neither one thing nor the other. They have neither kept to their path of fiscal rectitude and monetary discipline, nor have they dashed for growth. They have dithered on one hand and on another and ended up with having neither rapid growth nor any prospect that inflation will be brought down as we were promised in past years.
The only welcome part of the Autumn Statement is the small consolation that overseas aid—a subject which was debated yesterday—has not been cut in nominal terms. But, obviously, given the devaluation and inflation, there is a cut in real terms in overseas aid and that I must deplore.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, does not like the Autumn Statement that I repeated and that he does not think that the growth was good enough. The words "dashing for growth" were not those of the Government; indeed, they may have been written by some people in the media. I explained very carefully on previous occasions—and repeated it in the Statement—that this is a very clear and comprehen-sive strategy for growth. It is the right strategy which takes account not only of the economic situation in the country but also, as the noble Lord will be aware, of the economic situation in the world which has declined markedly in recent months. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about the overseas budget. I can tell him that, compared with the 1992–93 plans, the new plan provides for cash increases in all years and a 2.5 per cent. real terms increase in 1993–94.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, whatever noble Lords opposite may say, does my noble friend agree that the Autumn Statement will be widely welcomed by business and commerce in the country? In particular, I was delighted to hear the news about the Jubilee Line, which, as my noble friend will be aware, I was pressing for just the other day. My noble friend said that that would go ahead subject to successful negotiations with the administrators of Canary Wharf. Although I appreciate that my noble friend will perhaps not be able to tell me, I wonder whether he can say how close those negotiations are to reaching a conclusion.
Further, the industry will be delighted that the road building programme is to be maintained. It will also be delighted that private finance will now be able to enter more easily into such major capital projects and especially that British Rail will be allowed to lease provided, of course, that the risk is taken by the private sector.
As regards local authority capital receipts, does my noble friend agree that if local authorities wish to spend money on housing or building using their capital receipts, some of them are in an excellent position to raise capital by privatising their local authority airports? Does he also agree that they should keenly pursue that aim?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of my noble friend. I am glad that he, too, believes that the Statement will be welcomed by industry. So far as concerns the Jubilee Line extension, I know that he will agree with me that it is most important to pursue the negotiations with the administrators as quickly as possible. We have made it clear that if acceptable terms can be negotiated and agreed, then there is provision within the allocation for the extension to proceed now. As my noble friend knows only too well, if that project can be proceeded with quickly, it will benefit many thousands of people; indeed, it will create many jobs.
My noble friend also mentioned the good news on roads. That is most important as 90 per cent. of our goods in this country are transported on roads. It will benefit industry if we have a very good road system. It will also benefit the environment if we do not have traffic jams with cars and lorries causing much pollution. I thoroughly agree with my noble friend on the question of local authority airports. He will recall that we said in our manifesto that we would encourage local authorities to move their airports into the private sector which is the only place where the necessary money to maintain the airports is available. We have given exactly that encouragement today.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without prejudice to anything that I may be permitted to say to your Lordships when I have examined the papers, possibly in a later debate, I should like immediately to congratulate the Government on becoming converted to a view that I have been pressing upon them for the past four years in relation to floating exchange rates. As the noble Earl has criticised me on many occasions for having advanced the view that he now holds, it would do him no harm to make some suitable amends for the rather terse observations that he has made in the past.
There is something about the Statement which puzzles me. As noble Lords would expect, I examined, albeit cursorily—and I reserve the right to come back to it later—the estimated expenditure of the United Kingdom out of the Consolidated Fund on the European Community. Over the past few weeks, the Treasury has provided us with figures concerning the net expenditure of the UK in the European Community which amount to about £2.5 billion. However, according to the papers that I have just seen, a billion seems to have been lopped off. I should like to find out where it is. But that will be a matter for a later stage.
As regards the expenditure estimates, can the noble Earl say whether an allowance has been made for the extra contribution that the United Kingdom will have to make to Community funds if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified? It seems to me that the expenditure totals will be about £2 billion to £3 billion short of what is actually required, should that unfortunate eventuality take place. The noble Earl paid tribute to the virtues of the floating exchange rate to which I referred. Perhaps he would care to examine Articles 109j(1) and 109m of the Maastricht Treaty in which he will find

355
that, on ratifying the latter, he will be compelled to enter the ERM again. Of course, that is exactly contrary to the Government's present philosophy.
I trust that in due course the noble Earl will be able to explain such matters. But, in the meantime, the verdict from the country as a whole must be that the Autumn Statement has done nothing to remove the fears that lie over the United Kingdom; that is, the fear of unemployment and the fear of continued insecurity. Until the Government address themselves to the removal of such fear throughout the land, they will not have any success whatever.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, for 95 per cent. of what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was saying, I was sitting happily ready to reply; for the last 5 per cent., I thought that he was not quite his normal self. Of course he did not mention the important points like the provision of the Jubilee Line extension; the road projects that will go ahead; NHS capital spending; local authorities' spending; and capital allowances for businesses, which are the type of things that counteract what he said in the last 5 per cent. of his comments.
As regards the previous 95 per cent., it is good that he and I are on much more level terms. I am sure that we shall find reasons to diverge again in the future, but it is always on a harmonious basis. Perhaps we both need to look at the precise figures in detail. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to find his missing money.

Social Security
5.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"Madame Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement on social security following directly from my right honourable friend's Autumn Statement.
"As the Chancellor has announced, spending on social security in each of the next three years will be: £79.8 billion, £82.9 billion and £87 billion. That is a gauge of this Government's commitment to the needy, the sick, the elderly and to families.
"Despite the intense pressure on the social security budget, we will maintain support for those hit by the recession; we will focus additional support on the most needy; and we will keep our pledges to families, to the elderly, and to disabled people.
"I can today announce that all major benefits will be increased fully in line with inflation. Subject to parliamentary approval, benefit rates will therefore go up by 3.6 per cent. next April. The basic retirement pension for a single person will increase by £1.95 a week to £56.10. That for a couple will rise by £3.10 to £89.90. Unemployment
356
benefit will increase by £1.55 for a single person and by £2.50 for a couple, and I propose to make no other changes to that benefit. Child benefit will be £10 for the first and £8.10 for each subsequent child. In addition, by uprating all benefits, we will keep our promises to focus increased support on those in greatest need.
"Last month the Government boosted the income support rates for pensioners by £2 for a single pensioner and £3 for a couple. From next April there will be an increase in the real value of income support. Thereafter nobody on income support will be required to contribute a minimum of 20 per cent. of the local government taxation charge, as they have up to now.
"But the increase in basic income support levels introduced to match that liability will be maintained. This is worth on average £1.40 a week for a single person under 25, £1.60 for a single person over 25, and £2.80 for a couple. That means: the disposable income of a single unemployed person over 25, on income support, will actually increase by an average of £3.15 next April, and the disposable income of an 80 year-old couple on income support will be £9.35 more, on average, than it was last April, taking their income support over £100 a week for the first time. The uprating itself will cost £2½ billion next year. And the real increase in disposable income for those on the income-related benefits is worth a further £1 billion.
"It has only been possible to meet these commitments, in full, as a result of a searching scrutiny for savings in all of my department's programmes. My first priority has been to find savings which do not involve curtailing entitlement to benefit. I have therefore subjected my department's running costs to rigorous examina-tion whilst maintaining my department's full commitment to the Citizen's Charter, and enhancing capital spending, which will rise by £159 million over the next three years, bringing total capital expenditure to over £1 billion in that period.
"A major component of running costs is the payment of benefits by order book or giro. That is markedly more costly than payment through the banking system. I therefore propose to encourage more customers to accept payment of benefits directly into their bank or building society accounts. In addition, my department will be working closely with the Post Office to improve efficiency and reduce theft and fraud involving order books and giros. This along with fraud elsewhere in the system can involve very substantial sums of money. I have already announced my determination to tackle fraud and abuse of benefits. Those who defraud the system have nothing in common with the vast majority of honest and genuine claimants. And every pound lost through fraud means less for those in real need. I therefore plan to step up the fight against fraud.
"I am increasing our investment in fraud work by £10 million a year. This, aided by better use of our existing resources and new techniques, will have an expected annual return of £100 million a

357
year. I am today laying the regulations withdrawing income support from those—be they new age travellers or others—who are not even actively seeking work. And I will consult the local authority associations on a new initiative to encourage local authorities to stop fraudulent claims for housing and council tax benefits. By taking these measures I hope the total of fraud identified and stopped will increase to nearly £1 billion each year.
"But it is also necessary to look carefully at how well benefit spending is focused on those whom Parliament intended to help. There has been a significant increase in the numbers on invalidity benefit and in spending on it. There are now more than twice as many people drawing this benefit as in 1979 at a cost nearly two-and-a-half times as great. By 1996 invalidity benefit will cost well over £7 billion. Against that background, I intend to tighten up the administrative and medical procedures for controlling this benefit. This will ensure that medical examinations are better targeted and that more effective action will be taken when people fail to attend for their examination or are found to be capable of work. These changes are expected to reduce spending by £240 million over the survey period. A major research study into invalidity benefit was launched last year. Some results have been received, and others will be received during 1993. I will consider these results carefully as they become available.
"I have also looked at two aspects of war disablement pensions. Officers receive more compensation for a given disability than other ranks. In today's world there is no reason why they should. I therefore intend to abolish rank differentials for disablement pensions by moving everyone up to the rate for officers. This will benefit nearly 200,000 war disablement pensioners who will gain up to £5 per week. This will be made possible by the second change, which is to bring the rules for noise-induced hearing loss more into line with the industrial injuries scheme. As under that scheme, awards will no longer be made to those whose noise-induced hearing loss is assessed at less than 20 per cent. disablement. But I can assure the House that no existing war pensioner will suffer a reduction in the cash that he or she is currently receiving. These proposals will now be discussed with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.
"I also intend to introduce two minor savings measures: I propose to increase the top rate non-dependant deduction in housing benefit and income support, but to freeze the three lower rates. I propose also to freeze the higher rate of statutory sick pay as most employees who benefit from it are covered by occupational sick pay schemes.
"These enable me to make a number of modest, but worthwhile, improvements. I plan to increase by £10 per week all but one of the income support limits for those with preserved rights in residential care and nursing homes. I plan to extend the severe disability premium to those sharing a household with a blind person. I am increasing the amount
358
carers may earn without affecting their benefit. I am giving £1 million to help hospices, more money to help severely disabled drivers, and we are introducing improvements in the benefit arrange-ments for orphans.
"I now turn to the Social Fund. By using loans we can help far more people with a given amount of money than if it were given as grants. Improved repayments of these loans enabled me last week to announce an extra £8 million for the Social Fund discretionary budget for the current year. Together with a further small injection of cash it means I now expect next year's budget to be up 12 per cent. at £340 million. That is a 50 per cent. increase in two years.
"In accordance with my statutory duty, I have carried out a review of national insurance contributions. The National Insurance Fund is obviously affected by the state of the economy. However, the Government do not propose to make changes to national insurance contributions for next year other than normal adjustments for inflation. This reflects our determination to minimise the burdens on employers and employees. Instead, we intend to seek powers to keep the National Insurance Fund in balance by drawing as necessary on a new, limited Treasury grant. This grant will give us useful flexibility in managing the fund during a downturn in the economic cycle.
"I intend to introduce a Bill shortly to make provision for the grant. The Bill will also provide for the new age-related addition for personal pensions. Personal pensions have proved outstan-dingly popular. This addition will remove a potential distortion. It fulfils our manifesto commitment. It will ensure the continued success of personal pensions.
"Fuller details of the uprating, national insurance and other measures have been given in two written replies to my honourable friends the Members for Hertfordshire West and for Tiverton. These replies are available with the Autumn Statement briefing in the Vote Office and will be published in the Official Report. The Chancellor has set out a tough and realistic programme for public expenditure as a whole. Within that total I have sought to make savings, particularly by bearing down on operating costs and fraud. And I have sought to curb programmes which might otherwise pre-empt the resources needed to sustain recovery in the longer term.
"As a result we have been able to protect benefits for those hit by the chill wind of world recession; to channel increased support to the most needy; and to keep the pledges we made in April. I commend our plans to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. We particularly thank him because the

359
Statement is both shorter and less densely packed with statistics than was the experience of my noble friend Lord Carter, who occupied this slot this time last year.
Our first response is that we greet the Minister's Statement with relief—relief that all benefits will be up-rated in line with inflation. It is worth saying, however, that it might have been a little difficult perhaps to do otherwise, given that on the one hand both child benefit and pensions were protected by the Government's manifesto commitment just six months ago and on the other hand the national insurance benefits—unemployment benefit, widows' pensions, industrial injury, invalidity, maternity and sickness benefits—are all statute-based entitlements. They would therefore have required primary legislation to detach them from the rise in RPI. That legislation would have taken time and certainly would not have produced any immediate savings for the Government.
It is clear, therefore, that the Government, had they been seeking to make cuts in benefit, would effectively have been confined to the means-tested benefits of the very poorest; that is, those on income support, possibly family credit and the related housing benefit. It is with relief that we see that those benefits have not been cut but have been protected. It is clear that we may have the Minister opposite to thank for that rather than perhaps the Secretary of State if the reports in today's Independent are correct. It states that the Secretary of State, Mr. Lilley, was willing to offer more cuts in social security than his Cabinet colleagues thought decent, tolerable and acceptable.
I turn now to some detailed questions on the Statement. The first and obvious one is on the invalidity benefit, the only benefit signalled in the Statement as being subject to immediate and detailed review. The Minister proposes that reviewing invalidity benefit may raise £240 million. He suggests that the review will tighten up administrative and medical procedures. How, my Lords? Is the Minister seriously proposing to interfere with medical judgment as to the point at which someone on statutory sick pay may move on to invalidity benefit rather than be returned, say, to income support? Is he proposing to interfere with that medical judgment? Will he hound men and women who their doctors say should be on invalidity benefit on to income support? Does he plan to tax it in future? Will he come clean on this? May we have an assurance on the invalidity benefit that nothing will be done to tax it, freeze it or cut it until the DSS's own sponsored research due to be reported in April 1994 is before us so that we can debate it?
The second topic within the benefit range to which the noble Lord drew our attention was the Social Fund. He made much of the point that extra money —so far as I can see, about £25 million, or 12 per cent.—will come into the Social Fund. Will the noble Lord tell us how much of this is new money as opposed to recycled loans—that is, where people are simply repaying their loans faster?
We on this side of the House are not opposed to the principle of the loan option, in the sense that we accept it as a more favourable alternative to private loan
360
sharks. What we are opposed to is the policy of loans rather than grants to the neediest, especially as the Government's own sponsored research at York University showed in July that those who receive loans are the people who are poorer, those who receive grants are the better off and those who receive nothing at all because they are not eligible under the income support rules are often the poorest of all. In other words, the Social Fund is not only poorly targeted; it does not meet need. When will the Government do what every academic adviser, every professional body and their own professional advice which they financed tell them to do; that is, to reform, restructure and reshape the Social Fund, even within its own budget, to meet people's needs more effectively?
Thirdly, we notice in the Statement that the Government believe that huge savings—£1 billion—are to come from ending fraud. Needless to say, we on this side accept that money should not go to the fraudulent because if it does it is at the cost of those who are entitled to the money. However, I think we could ask questions. Over what timescale is it proposed to claw back this £1 billion? Can we be sure, for example, that it will not lead to increased harassment and prurience in the lives, particularly, of women? May we ask about the passing reference to New Age travellers? While few of us would necessarily countenance their lifestyle, can we be sure that the Government's proposals will not end up bringing children into care and increasing public expenditure as well as family misery?
I am sure that we all genuinely welcome the modest improvements and protections offered in the Statement: for example, the increase to the protected payments to those currently in residential care; the increase in earnings ceilings for carers up from £40 to £50 for the invalidity care allowance; or the earnings disregard for carers under housing benefit. We all welcome the fact that if non-dependant deductions are to increase, then at least the poorest families get some degree of protection. These are small but worthwhile gains and we are happy to acknowledge them.
We are also pleased that the Minister has not reneged on his commitment to embed full relief for the council tax. However, before the Minister makes much of the implications of that for income support and for families on income support, it is worth reminding him and the House that much of it will be paid for by those also on benefit. They will see the taper worsened, instead of 15p in the pound, by 20p in the pound, so that those who continue to receive full benefit will have that benefit partly paid for by families only a little better off whose benefit is worsened. As ever, the poor are helping the very poor and the taxpayer is not making a proper contribution. Those are detailed points.
Finally, I think our response is yes, indeed, relief but not gratitude. Gratitude we would not offer. Why should the poorest not have their benefits fully protected? After all, under this Government they have failed to enjoy any trickle down of wealth. We have already pressed the Minister on this at Question Time.
The bottom one-tenth have, if they are a couple with two children, seen their after-housing income fall

361
in real terms by 6 per cent., or £7. We have seen those on the second to bottom one-tenth of income have their income increased by only 2 per cent. at a time when the national average has increased by 30 per cent. All research shows that the absolute level of benefits remains inadequate, whether that is DSS research, Rowntree research, the research of the National Children's Home, that of the National Consumer Council or that of the National Audit Office. Every one of those bodies of research continues to emphasise that the absolute levels of benefit produce inadequate feeding and diet, inadequate clothing and inadequate warmth. That has happened because in the past 13 years we have seen some benefits cut. There have been 13 cuts to unemployment benefit since 1979.
We have seen some benefits frozen; for example, child benefit and pensions. We have seen other benefits abolished such as the right of students to vacation benefit and the right of 16 and 17 year-olds to benefit. We have seen the eating out allowance for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation ab-olished. We have seen a social fund, following the 1988 reforms, that signally fails to meet emergency need. We are still left with the problems of a poverty trap in which members of our society will still find that for every £1 they earn they will lose 95p in benefit. That is a perverse incentive to work if ever there was one. We see a benefit system that remains complex, stigmatised and hazardous.
It is true that after today the poorest are no worse off in real terms than they were yesterday. For that we are relieved, but given the economic strategy of this Government as outlined in the previous Statement unemployment will continue to rise and therefore more and more people will continue to join the ranks of the very poor where they will find the benefits as outlined by the Minister to be inadequate, grudging, complex and stigmatised. They will find themselves worse off than they would have been just 10 years ago because poverty, like wealth, is unmerited, inherited and unearned. But what it is not is accidental. It has been engineered by this Government's policies on unemployment and their failure to trickle down wealth so that those at the bottom of our society can enjoy the prosperity to which they are entitled.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for repeating the Statement. I feel I should offer gratitude—it has been a difficult public spending round—but I will admit that it is for small mercies. However if one is not grateful for small mercies in Opposition, one does not get them.
Before I get down to the detail I wish to ask my noble kinsman a couple of questions of which I have given him notice. One is about the system of new constant totals for public spending beyond which it will not be allowed to rise. I wish to know whether it has been yet decided which social security benefits will be subject to the new constant totals and which will be exempt. That is, I think, a question of quite considerable importance when we consider where we are going to be next year.
My other question is a rather technical one. It is about monetary compensation amounts under EC
362
rules. I understand those compensation amounts are to be abolished on 1st January. It has been suggested in the papers that that would mean that the effect of devaluation would feed through into food prices in one fell swoop. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in a Written Answer which reached me only a few minutes ago, tells me that the rise will not be as great as that. I am very relieved to hear it. However, if there is this sudden one-off jump in food prices in January, even if it is less than 14 per cent., has that been taken into account in calculating benefit levels? Is this a question to which we may legitimately return when we find out how much that rise is, because it could cause a considerable problem in the future and 14 months is quite a long time to wait for something like that to be put right?
I thanked my noble kinsman for mercies. I said they were small ones. He knows my view that benefit levels are at present inadequate. I shall not go into a large body of material that I have with me on that subject. I will merely remind my noble kinsman that since we last exchanged views on this subject, on 29th October, two major reports have been published arguing that view. There is the National Consumer Council's report entitled Deep in Debt that was published a week ago today and the York Family Budget Unit report by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw published yesterday, of which so far I have seen only press reports and therefore I shall not say more about it. However, my understanding is that both of those reports argue the view that it is not possible to afford an adequate diet on present benefit levels.
However, I do not wish to give my noble kinsman an opportunity to repeat the memorable line once used by the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who said that offering defence cuts to the Left was like throwing herrings to a sea lion. Therefore, I shall defer my temptation to play Oliver Twist, but I shall give my noble kinsman notice now that unless there have been some very substantial changes within the coming year, when we return to this subject I shall be looking for an increase in real terms in benefit levels. I shall also be looking for a fairly careful review of the pressure of deductions on the incomes of social security beneficiaries.
My noble kinsman always says that how people spend their benefit is a matter of choice. That is fair enough, but when there are legally enforceable deductions for loans, gas and electricity, and other such charges, and where there is a legally enforceable debt, choice stops. I know my noble kinsman will repeat that he always monitors these things with great care. I hope that during the next year he will direct his monitoring to that point. I also hope that over the next year he will look again at the justification for the lower rates of benefit for people under 25. That is causing a great deal of hardship. With all respect, having heard explanations many times, I still cannot understand them.
As regards the search for savings, I shall not pretend that I welcome everything that has been done in that regard. I entirely see why, having achieved the victory it has on benefit levels, the department had to look in that direction. Some of those measures,

363
however, I welcome quite warmly. The power to pay benefits into bank accounts is something which I have asked my noble kinsman to do in the past. I conveyed that request on behalf of a party member in a wheelchair who found getting to the bank extremely difficult. He will be very grateful for that measure and so am I.
On the question of fraud, of course all of us are against that. I would say to my noble kinsman that I hope the Government are as determined to combat fraud in other spheres as they are in this sphere. In other spheres fraud may cost the state rather more money. People are capable of fraud but I see no reason to believe that those on benefit are more capable of fraud than anyone else. Therefore, I have some hesitation in believing the investigations will yield quite as big a saving as has been suggested. Where fraud exists, it ought to be stamped out. I think we are all on common ground there.
On the question of invalidity benefit, will my noble kinsman say whether it is true that those who have been conducting Restart interviews have been asking people to see whether there is perhaps a more appropriate benefit for which they should apply rather than the one they are on? Has that led to a good deal of official encouragement to people to apply for invalidity benefit? Is it the case that the department has not let its left hand know what its right hand is doing?
I also wish to touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about tightening up medical procedures. We all want a just result to be reached. However, we do not want a situation where the medical examiners are briefed to look for one result rather than another. We do not want them to be asked, in effect, to find that people are not eligible rather than that they are. I hope that a certain judicial caution will be applied to that tightening up of procedures. With that proviso, we share the desire to achieve an accurate result.
In respect of war pensions I welcome the decision to abolish the differential between officers and other ranks. The reference to today's world was well taken and I was very glad to hear it.
On the question of non-dependant deductions, before reaching judgment I should like to hear a little more of what my noble kinsman proposes.
On the subject of national insurance, I do not know whether my noble kinsman recalls the debates on the Social Security Bill in 1989. There used to be a Treasury supplement to national insurance. That was removed because the fund was then in surplus. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and I both said that it might be a good thing for the Treasury to hang on to that in case of a rainy day. Here we have a rainy day and I am extremely glad that the Treasury has taken the point.
I welcome the increase in relation to the costs of residential homes. I welcome the increase in the earnings limit for carers, and I should be glad to know how much that is. In spite of the kind efforts of the department I only received the Written Answer five minutes ago so I have not managed to finish reading
364
it, for which I apologise. I welcome warmly the £1 million for hospices. I also welcome the help for severely disabled drivers and should be glad to hear a little more about it.
On the subject of the Social Fund, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I should be glad of a clearer distinction between what is new money and what is recycled loans. I should like to ask my noble kinsman, when he is looking at the question of deductions, to look very carefully indeed at the repayment rates which are being requested from the Social Fund because that is one of the factors which has brought spending on food under unacceptably severe pressure. I should like him to look at the section in the National Children's Home report which we discussed two weeks ago and which argues that there is no adequate provision for capital needs among those on benefit.
Overall, this Statement could have been a great deal worse and I should like to thank my noble kinsman and, through him, to thank the department.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a somewhat unusual experience to receive quite so many thanks and quite so much gratitude, both from the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman. I join the noble Baroness in saying how grateful I am that the Statement was considerably shorter than it has been in the past. As the noble Baroness will know and as my noble kinsman complained, all the detail will be found in two Written Answers. I am sorry that my noble kinsman only received them five minutes ago. My understanding is that they were available in the Treasury briefing pack, which would have been available to all Members of the House from the moment my right honourable friend the Chancellor sat down. May I also say to the noble Baroness that I am grateful for her personal praise, however deserved or undeserved it may be.
Perhaps I may first turn to invalidity benefit and the various remarks made by both the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman. I have to say first of all on the question of taxation—the noble Baroness asked what our policy is—that it has long been our policy to bring invalidity benefit into taxation. If the noble Baroness looks at the claim forms for invalidity benefit, which have not been changed for some time, it says that quite clearly on those claim forms. In correspondence with Members of this House and another place, for some time we have made it quite clear that that has long been our intention and that we shall do so when the time is right. The other changes which I announced —and I shall come back to the medical and administrative changes shortly—will require consider-able research. Certainly that research will require consideration as and when it comes in. As to whether that report will be published, the noble Baroness will have to wait and see.
I should also like to deal with one point made by my noble kinsman about Restart interviewers actively encouraging people to claim invalidity benefit when they were not necessarily entitled to it. I have not heard allegations of that kind before but certainly I shall be prepared to take a look at them. The problem as it relates to invalidity benefit is that there has been, as we made clear in the Statement, a significant increase in the numbers on invalidity benefit and,

365
therefore, significant increases in expenditure when one would have expected the general health of the nation to have been steadily increasing.
It is clear that some of the medical and administrative procedures are over-lax. That was made quite clear in the National Audit Office report of December 1989. I must say that the changes we are proposing certainly will not interfere in any way with medical judgment. Rather, we intend that medical resources are better applied by limiting the occasions on which claimants fail to attend for examination and by providing more useful reports for our adjudication officers to consider.
Turning now to the Social Fund, I welcome what I took to be —but perhaps the noble Baroness will deny it—a partial conversion to the concept of loans by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness shakes her head: obviously I misunderstood. I repeat that we see considerable advantages in loans. They allow the money to be recycled and therefore to achieve a great deal more. As I have said, loans have allowed an increase in the budget of some 50 per cent. in the last two years. The noble Baroness asked how much new money was coming in. In the net budget, as opposed to the gross budget, an extra £5 million is coming in. But, as I have said, through greater recycling of the money we will see yet more money available to those who wish to make use of the Social Fund.
The noble Baroness also asked about the SPRU report and comments from other bodies. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are actively considering the SPRU report and we shall respond to it in due course.
I turn to the question of fraud and the savings that we propose to make in that area. Obviously Her Majesty's Government are dedicated to, as my noble kinsman put it, uncovering fraud wherever it exists, whether it is in the social security system or elsewhere. I accept that the targets we are setting ourselves, of nearly £1 billion, are very difficult. The noble Baroness asked what period that figure would cover. It will be nearly £1 billion over one year. I did not say that we would simply abolish fraud, but our aim is to recover as much as we possibly can. I accept that these are difficult targets, but we are proposing, as was made quite clear in the Statement, yet further investment in this field and further administrative changes. We also propose changes to the way in which housing benefit subsidy is paid to the local authorities in order actively to encourage local authorities to further pursue fraud in that the local authorities will be allowed to retain certain amounts as and when they recover them.
Turning to the question put by my noble kinsman about control totals, the simple answer to what he asked, so far as I understood him, is that unemployment benefit plus income support to non-pensioners will be excluded from those control totals. Again, I should prefer to write to him to explain why Her Majesty's Treasury consider that this provides a perfectly satisfactory picture and a perfectly satisfactory forecast. I suspect that if I tried to explain from the Dispatch Box I might find myself more confused than I was when I started.
Turning to the question of monetary compensa-tion, as my noble kinsman said, he has now received
366
a reply from my noble friend Lord Howe which partly answers my noble kinsman's question. The point he is really getting at is that if there is a sudden increase in prices, of whatever kind, during the year, what remedy is there to compensate those in receipt of benefits of one sort or another? Our position is that we uprate by means of the historic figure provided by the September on September RPI. We shall continue to do that and, therefore, any increases in January, or at some other time in the year, will be taken into account by the RPI figure for September on September next year.
Turning to the new methods of payment and the further encouragement of ACT—automated credit transfer—again I am grateful for the encouragement given by my noble kinsman. Certainly we should like to see ACT extended to those benefits for which it is not yet available. But we should also like to see further encouragement given to a large number of people who have bank accounts to use ACT wherever possible. It has great advantages in terms of preventing fraud and reducing costs in paying benefits. My noble kinsman and others would be the first to agree that payment by means of order books is somewhat antiquated.
Turning to the question of non-dependant deductions, my noble kinsman asked for further explanations of our intentions there. We propose to freeze the three lower rates and only increase the rate for those earning over £135 a week. Where a non-dependant lives with someone on benefit earning over £135 a week, we propose that in future the benefit recipient would be assumed to be receiving from the non-dependant £21 a week rather than £18 a week —a £3 increase. I believe that £21 is not an unjustifiable sum, bearing in mind the average costs of rent and other matters.
Lastly, I turn briefly, because I do not think that now is the time to discuss it, to the interpretation put by the noble Baroness on the results of the HBAI figures. I believe that her interpretation is misguided. I do not accept her arguments or those of my noble kinsman about the inadequacy of benefits. I certainly do not accept that the recent Rowntree Report, which I regret I have not yet seen, provides any further proof of the inadequacy of the benefits. I look forward to examining that report in due course. However, merely from the press reports that I have read, I do not seriously believe that it can be quite as silly as is made out. After all, it seems to imply that on an income well above average income, an income which the Labour Party throughout the last election thought sufficiently high to increase tax on, one can only enjoy a modest if adequate lifestyle. That has to be the view of what one would call "champagne socialists".
6.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and unlike the noble Baroness, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister both for reporting the Statement and for his share in its admirable contents. So far not enough has been said of the very great achievement of the Government in maintaining our immensely expensive system of social security intact, developing and improving against the background of real economic

367
difficulties. That has been a considerable achievement and one for which the Government are entitled to receive a great deal of credit.
I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend's announcement on war pensions; namely, the equalising of officers' and other ranks' pensions in respect of the same injuries. Many years ago I was responsible for these matters and I always thought that it was utterly wrong and illogical that if an officer and an other rank sustained a similar wound or injury, the officer was given a larger pension. But in those days the number of war pensioners from both wars was very large and the cost of making the change, which has now been made, would have been very heavy indeed. It would not have been agreeable to some of my predecessors at the Treasury. So I am glad indeed that the Government have now taken that step.
It is absolutely right and will, I believe, be greatly pleasing both to the ex-service world and to those serving at present. It is just as bad to have a serious wound as a private as it is as a general and it is absolutely right that the quality and degree of the injury, not the rank of the man injured, should determine the pension.
With regard to the Statement as a whole, I am sure that the Government were right to maintain the general level of benefits with full allowance for inflation and seek to make the necessary economies on administration, details on the periphery and dealing with fraud. It is undoubtedly the case that a certain amount of fraud exists in respect of the immense sums of money which the national insurance fund and other social benefits involve. I am certain that quite considerable savings can be made by the determined action which I understand the Government intend to take.
It is a most interesting and important Statement. Obviously it is impossible within the limits of time to ask sufficient questions about it. I suggest to my noble friend, particularly as the Leader of the House is not present, to consider that this House could most usefully spend a day discussing it. There is no subject which matters more to the great bulk of our population and no subject on which this House could do a greater public service than to give it a full and detailed discussion, examining the arguments and criticism that have been made—for example, by the noble Baroness—and discovering whether there is any force or validity in them. To discuss all the issues that arise would be a most profitable use of the time of this House. I very much hope that my noble friend will convey that suggestion to the Minister, though he himself may have two views about it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I have two views about that, as my noble friend put it. I shall certainly convey his request or instruction to my noble friend the Leader of the House. He is certainly right that it would be useful to have at some stage a general debate on social security matters and policy. I am most grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend and his praise for the general thrust of our Statement.
My noble friend was pleased, as I sense everyone in the House was pleased, about our announcement of
368
equalisation of rank differentials in war pensions. They have been frozen for some time and it becomes easier as the years go by to dispense with them. People have argued for many years that their time has passed and I am pleased that we have now been able to find the means of removing them.
Secondly, I accept, as my noble friend said, that there is an immense amount of fraud taking place. We remain absolutely determined to tackle that fraud, recovering as much money as possible and preventing as much fraud as possible from taking place. It is difficult to know how much fraud there is. I do not believe that we shall ever find a means of adequately estimating the level of fraud suffered by social security or indeed any other body. Certainly we shall continue to examine the problem and seek to find improved methods of quantifying the level of fraud and tackling it both by prevention and cure.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, perhaps I may start by briefly confessing a matter of personal interest which may be shared by many Members of this House. I did not hear whether the noble Lord referred to the 25p addition to the pensions of the over-80s. I am totally innumerate and could not work out what the 3.6 per cent. increase in April would mean on 25p a week. I should be very glad and I am sure many people would like to know what will happen to that 25p a week. In order that we might get this sum into perspective, perhaps the noble Lord could tell us how that 25p. plus 3.6 per cent. will relate to the value of the 25p when it was first introduced.
Is it not time, when we are having a very full Statement, which was most interesting to us all, to have what some might consider a very small matter looked at again? Some of us are approaching the final winter of our lives and will be looking forward to finding the difference between 25p a week now and 25p plus 3.6 per cent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is obviously with some embarrassment that one has to rise to defend the 25p age addition. It has been frozen ever since it was introduced when I believe the state pension was at a level of £6 a week and 25p represented a quite reasonable percentage.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is 4 per cent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am advised that it is 4 per cent. It was a useful addition.
It costs very little administratively to pay it. We have never found good reason to uprate it—that has been true of both Conservative and Labour government administrations —since its introduction in, I believe (the noble Baroness might remember better) 1971. As I said, there is no intention to uprate it by 3.6 per cent. I am saved the embarrassment of calculating what 3.6 per cent. of 25p is. We can possibly work that out afterwards.
We have maintained our commitment to increase the retirement pension by the retail prices index. More importantly, for the less well off pensioners we have increased income support levels well above inflation. If one remembers, there was the RPI increase last April; there was the mid-year increase this October;

369
and there will be a further increase in line with the RPI of the premiums paid to all pensioners on income support next April. That represents our commitment to the less well off pensioner. I do not know whether or not the noble Baroness considers herself to be one. But certainly she will continue to receive her 25p.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I preface my question by warmly welcoming the change in the payments of war disablement pensions. I am always delighted to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, on this one issue I am happy to agree with him.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. Is it not the case that there is no reason for a fanfare of trumpets for uprating benefits merely in line with inflation? That takes no account of the fall in living standards of the poorest in our society of about 6 per cent. between 1979 and 1989 compared with an increase in living standards of the wealthiest of about 46 per cent.
Although the noble Lord said that there had been an £8 million increase in payments in respect of the Social Fund, he omitted to say whether that means that there is an uprating in payments from the Social Fund in line with inflation. Has there been an uprating?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's praise for the war disablement pension changes. I am grateful that he felt able to agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am sorry that the noble Lord felt that no fanfare of trumpets was due merely for an uprating. I remind the noble Lord that this has been what has been termed a very difficult public expenditure round and therefore I think that just a little fanfare of trumpets might possibly be welcome from the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about increases in the Social Fund. What I tried to make clear was that by pumping in a small amount of extra money—about £5 million—and by increased recycling of money (by getting more money back), we have been able to increase the budget of the Social Fund by over 50 per cent. over the past two years. I think that that is no bad increase.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude from the Cross Benches as well as my relief. The expressions of relief from the Opposition Benches may have been slightly churlish. I remind the noble Baroness of a famous line in Hamlet that relief comes with thanks.
"For this relief, much thanks".
I feel that wholeheartedly.
I also agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, including his warm welcome for the war pensions provisions. Apart from anything else, it will relieve my sense of guilt or embarrassment which I have now felt for almost 50 years.
Finally, I welcome the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for a full debate on the social services. I hope that it will be a full debate without a time limit because it is such an important problem. There are many aspects that need to be examined, not
370
least the Social Fund. That has now been an experiment for about three years and needs examination. In particular perhaps the Government and the noble Lord might consider not being absolutely rigid about the loan bases of the fund. Could a system of loans and grants be devised which would indeed catch those in greatest need? Quite clearly in many cases at present the system does not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the relief of the noble Lord, which has been so kindly expressed. I am also most grateful for his remarks about the war pension changes that we propose.
I note what the noble Lord said about the Social Fund. Perhaps we could reserve discussion on that for a full debate if such can be arranged. However, I must point out that there are grants already available in the Social Fund structure. It is a system of both grants and loans. I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's request—whether or not I like it to my noble friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
6.17 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
[The judicial officer's entitlement to a pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("65") to ("and") in line 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: Bernard Shaw said:
"Indifference to our fellow creatures is the essence of inhumanity",
I shall endeavour to show how pertinent that observation is as regards the provision in the Bill relating to an incapacitating illness for a judge and the way in which his widow is treated should he die of such incapacity.
For 160 years—that is since the pension legislation started in 1799—a judge who fell ill during the course of his office at any time, whether it was in the first year, the 10th year or the 12th year, automatically qualified for his full pension. There was no question of any limit because he had only served one year or two.
In 1933 the Peel Royal Commission suggested among other things that there should be a graduation in the pension payable on sickness. It was apparently not accepted by the Government for many years, perhaps because there was a note of dissent entered by Mr. Clement Davies in these terms:
"There is no doubt that many men who have accepted judgeships in the past have been obliged to make substantial financial sacrifices in so doing. The difference between the salary of a judge and the earnings of a successful practitioner at the Bar has increased rather than diminished in recent years and it is inevitable that similar and possibly heroic sacrifices will have to be made in the future. I believe that one of the several good reasons why the ablest lawyers have in the past been willing to accept a substantial reduction in their income is that the acceptance of a judgeship is in a very real, if indirect, sense an insurance against unexpected illhealth. For this reason alone I feel that it would be wiser and indeed fairer that a judge who is obliged to retire on the grounds of illness should receive his full pension as at present".
That was in 1936.
It was not until 1959 that a graduation provision in pensioning was implemented. That provided for a judge immediately on appointment to qualify for one-half of his ultimate pension. His ultimate pension was one-half of his salary and therefore he qualified for one-quarter of his salary on appointment. Thereafter he achieved an increment of one-fortieth of his salary in regard to each year that he served.
Conveniently, the provisions which existed in 1959 and which exist today in relation to the High Court judge are set out in terms at the bottom of the Marshalled List of amendments. It is in fact Amendment No. 4. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of how the provision would work today. I take the income of a High Court judge and round it off at £80,000—it is, in fact, £87,000. I ask your Lordships to assume that the judge suffered a stroke in his first year. That is an experience which we know from the immediate past can happen and has happened on occasions. It is not surprising because the judge is appointed fairly late in middle age.
Under the present position the judge will immediately receive a pension of one-half of what his full pension would have been. His full pension would have been £40,000, which is half of £80,000. Therefore, he qualifies immediately for £20,000. If he dies during that year, as he well might, his widow will be entitled to one-half of the pension that he was enjoying; in other words, £10,000. Therefore, there is £20,000 to the disabled judge and £10,000 to his widow if he does not survive that year.
For reasons which have never been explained and which have nothing to do with conformity with tax law, the consultation paper which was issued by my noble and learned friend's department decided that that situation should be decimated. Instead of the fast accrual rate in the first five years, the accrual rate should operate on the basis of one-fortieth for each year or, in relation to the widow, one-eightieth for each year. So putting the clock forward into next year when no doubt the Bill will become an Act, the new judge becoming disabled by a stroke in his first year would achieve not £20,000 by way of a pension but £2,000. On his dying in that year his widow would achieve not £10,000 but £1,000.
That matter was immediately drawn to the attention of my noble and learned friend more than one year before the Bill was introduced in this House. It was drawn to his attention first by the Top Salaries Review Body, to which the reorganisation of the pensions was not entrusted—as was the case with Members of Parliament—but, in my respectful submission, should have been. The TSRB commented as follows:
"Pension benefits calculated on the basis of pensionable pay and past service but payable immediately in the event of retirement on the grounds of ill health could be more generous. An alternative approach would be to base ill health pensions on potential service to age 65".
In a letter to the Lord Chancellor's Department the Top Salaries Review Body advised it to retain the services of an independent consultant actuary, which
372
it did. A few months later Mr. Alexander of the well-known firm of Watson and Sons wrote on this subject in these terms:
"On illhealth retirement an immediate pension is payable based on complete service. Where service is short the pension payable will be relatively small, whereas it can be urged that it is precisely such individuals who need the greatest support. This is one reason why it is more common to provide a more generous basis of calculation; in 59 per cent. of private sector schemes (see the survey of NAPF in 1990) whereby some or all of potential service to normal pension age is included, for example. A somewhat complex enhancement formula is common in public service schemes. We suggest that consideration is given to something simpler such as an inclusion of half the potential service".
That of course will be up to the age of 70.
There was no reaction to those suggestions and the Bill was published. The Second Reading drew specific attention to this case, in particular the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna. Again there was no reaction. We drew attention to the issue in our debates in Committee but there was no reaction. The Committee ended on 30th June. That gave the judges the opportunity, to which I am sorry they were ever obliged to resort, to obtain advice from an independent consultant actuary. He provided the advice by the end of the July. A copy was immediately sent to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. Time passed, and by the end of September we learnt from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he was contemplating the possibility of making some alteration. Shortly before the Report stage we were told that he hoped to introduce at Third Reading a mitigation of the present system.
What we have sought, quite simply, is that there should be deemed service to the age of 65. Therefore, if at 50 a person is disabled, albeit in his first year, he would be deemed to have served from 50 to 65. The response to that amendment, which has existed ever since the Committee stage, is that the Government were prepared and are prepared and have so found in the amendments to offer exactly half.
That is the extent to which we have extracted a little humanity from the Government, but it is to be compared with what has so recently happened in relation to Members of Parliament. Recently I obtained from the Top Salaries Review Body its report advising what should occur for Members of Parliament. It stated:
"We have examined other minor improvements in benefits for which there is a strong case on welfare grounds. The cost of these would be relatively small",
and I stress that. The report continues:
"We consider that for the calculation of ill-health retirement pensions and spouses' pensions in the event of the death of a member in service, years of potential pensionable employment to age 65 should be credited to replace the existing less favourable enhancement rules. The member would have had an expectation of pensionable employment to retirement age either in Parliament or elsewhere and there is a trend towards the adoption of the potential employment approach. The 1990 survey of the National Association of Pension Funds found that that basis had been adopted in 58 per cent. of pension schemes for spouses pensions and in 35 per cent. of schemes for ill-health retirement pension, with others having insurance schemes which supplement salary during prolonged periods of disability. The proposal would, at relatively low cost to the pension fund, correct the

373
inadequacy of the existing low level of pensions for young MPs faced with retirement due to ill health or, if they die, for their surviving spouses; perhaps the group in greatest need of support for whom there is much concern in the House. In addition to improving the existing provisions greatly, the new basis of calculation would be simplified and MPs and their spouses would know in advance what their entitlement would be in the event of ill health, retirement or death. There would be consequential improvements for children".
The recommendation thus read:
"We recommend that the grant of full years of potential pensionable employment to age 65 to replace the existing complex enhancement rules for the calculation of (1) ill health retirement pensions and (2) spouses pensions when MPs die in service".
The result of that recommendation was a provision made in the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1992 made on 9th March 1992, laid before Parliament on 10th March 1992 and which came into force on 1st April 1992. I shall not read out the actual provisions. It is sufficient for me to read from the explanatory note which states:
"Regulation 5 replaces the existing enhancement rules in relation to ill health pensions by providing for an increase in the aggregate period of reckonable service equal to the full period"—
I stress that—
"of potential pensionable employment to the age of 65".
Therefore, not many months ago it was considered proper that Members of Parliament should have exactly what we have suggested in this amendment, with only one exception; that is, that their pensions are earned by the age of 65 and judges are to be expected to do 20 years to the age of 70. Therefore, what we have sought is not deemed service to the full pension but deemed service to the age of 65.
In view of the Autumn Statement which has so recently been repeated, perhaps it is pertinent to remind your Lordships of what was said quite recently on Report. It had been urged by my noble and learned friends Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Lord Chief Justice, in relation to the debate on whether the accrual period should be 15 or 20 years, that the sad financial stringencies of the moment were irrelevant to what was being debated because we were talking of a pension scheme which would not be operating currently but, in all likelihood, would be affecting pay-outs only 15 or 20 years hence. That point was made, and stressed, by both my noble and learned friends.
In the debate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"I also agree with the view that what we are seeking to set here is the system for pension payments for the future; in other words, I shall not refer to any present aspect of the economy or anything of that sort in dealing with the matters which have been raised".—(Official Report, 27/10/92; col. 1064.)
The amendment has the enormous corroborative support of what has been so recently applied to Members of Parliament. In my submission with regard to the concession made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to which I have just referred, since we are talking of the distant future we need not have regard to the present financial stringencies. We must deal with this matter as a question of fairness. That was so well stressed by the report from the Top Salaries Review Body, parts of which I read. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I have never been able to check the reference but when Dr. Samuel Johnson moved to the Temple where the lawyers live it is reported that he said, "I do not like frogs and I do not like lawyers, and I am not going to have either of them hopping about in my chambers". Many people do not like lawyers. I know that some Members of this House find it tiresome that time is taken up on salaries and pensions of persons who are not themselves interested but who may be thought to be interested on behalf of a trade union.
I have never been a judge. I never wanted to be a judge. About 30 years ago I was a part-time judge—a recorder—at Salisbury. I showed such little aptitude and talent for that that I spent my time in a more lucrative way practising before the Bench. When I was first a law officer 30 years ago—and only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been a law officer before my time—I remember that extraordinary dislike of the bureaucrats by the lawyers. This Bill is a culmination of the triumph of the bureaucrats over the lawyers—two classes of people who are not generally liked.
I remember at that time that the law officer's department wanted to move the Attorney General's chambers from the Law Courts because it was said to be more convenient to move them away from there; and it eventually succeeded. It was said that law officers should not be in court but should be available for Cabinet and for Cabinet Committees; again, there was success in that respect. They have now become tame lawyers of the Government and the old tradition of law officers has really disappeared.
Now there is this assault—and it is an assault—on the judiciary. I have never been a judge but I know how vitally important it is that we should have the very best people as judges. Many people say that this is an unimportant matter, but it is not. It is vitally important. If the Government go rough-shod over judges' pensions, which are part of the pay and conditions, then they will not get the best judges. When Disraeli was here and asked what he thought about the place he said, "Dead but in the Elysian fields". We shall probably all be dead when the provisions of this Bill take effect. It may be said that we are sitting here going on and on about pay and conditions, and so on, but it is a more important matter than that.
I am glad that the retirement age for judges has been reduced. I gave up practising at the Bar eight years ago when I was 65 and I had to ask the judges to speak up. I thought that it was time to retire. I am glad that the provision has been introduced that judges should retire earlier than they used to; that is sensible and right. However, let us not forget that most good judges are old judges. It is important that proper pension provision should be made.
If a young man is to be asked to give up practising at the Bar to take a seat on the circuit Bench he may ask himself what will happen to him or his wife if he is ill. He may ask himself what will happen in those circumstances. Let us not be penny pinching as regards this matter.

375
When one is dealing with a Minister whom one likes very much personally and admires, I have always found it very difficult to oppose those things which he is doing, but I do oppose this measure. There was one bulwark who used to stand up for the judges. In my time they were called streetwise and by that I mean politically wise. I refer to Lords Kilmuir, Elwyn-Jones and also my noble and learned friends Lord Dilhorne and Lord Hailsham who is not here. With all the respect and affection which I have for my noble and learned friend, I beg him to stand up for the judges.
I know that the Treasury is saying to him, "Look, this is your department. This is the amount of money you have. You can only have this amount of money. The money for judges has to be reduced. You have to do something about it". I ask and beg my noble and learned friend to wag his finger and, if not, throw off his wig. I very much support the amendment.
Lord Benson: My Lords, at Report stage of this Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice asked for some tables to be issued so that the House could appreciate the effect of its own decision. Those tables were eventually provided on Tuesday of this week. They included the proposals to be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Third Reading in the amendments now before the House.
On this particular issue the tables show that as regards a High Court judge, the pension payable in the event of retirement due to illhealth, and the pension payable to the spouse if death supervenes, are less than the pensions payable to judges and spouses under the existing scheme which was settled 11 years ago. The cuts are substantial. Sometimes they are as much as £3,000, £4,000 and £5,000 per annum. There are of course some upward adjustments of the lump sum. Those upward adjustments in no way compensate for the heavy cuts to which I have just referred in the annual pension. The position as regards the circuit judges is that under certain conditions similar cutbacks take place, but they are much less serious than in the case of the High Court judges.
Perhaps I may suggest that on retirement due to illhealth and in the event of subsequent death of the spouse, there can be no possible grounds for paying lower pensions to future judges than were thought to be fair 11 years ago. Even that comparison is unjust because the scheme settled 11 years ago is now long out of date. It is very ungenerous by modern standards. So the comparisons which I have put before the House are even more savage than outwardly appears.
The situation seems even more unfair than I have described because this Bill applies to two other classes of the judiciary; the district judges and the stipendiary magistrates. In both cases, except in one curious case which is a pure anomaly, the district judges and the stipendiary magistrates receive substantial increases in pension and in the lump sum. What is the justification for discriminating against the High Court judges and to a lesser extent the circuit judges? Why should the position of those judges be debased in this way?
Amendment No. 3 would help to correct the situation as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner,
376
has pointed out. It would be transparently unfair to let this Bill go forward in its present form unamended by Amendment No. 3.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at length on this matter, but on behalf of the judiciary I wish to support the amendment. The proposal contained in the original version of this clause was nothing short of shameful. The idea that the wife of a High Court judge who dies of a stroke in his first year should receive the princely sum of £1,000 is nothing short of shameful. The amendment or improvement which has been belatedly —and one has to say grudgingly—granted by the Government may not be shameful, but it is still mean in the extreme.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has drawn a comparison between the proposal for judges and that for Members of Parliament. I seek briefly to give a different analogy. Let us compare like with like—that is to say, judges in this country and judges in other jurisdictions. I take Canada as the only example. I am informed that in Canada a judge becomes entitled on appointment to his full pension should he have to retire through sickness even in his first year. Moreover, perhaps I may add that in Canada that full pension is earned in good health in 10 years and not 15 years or 20 years.
I go further. It is a pension of full salary; not half salary. It is also index linked. Why should we be so mean to our judges when Canada, which has inherited our common law jurisdiction and seeks to follow the example which we have set in matters judicial and in the administration of justice, adopts a more reasonable and humane approach? Why should the mother country be the example of meanness in this matter? I strongly urge that this amendment be supported.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner introduce this amendment with exemplary clarity, lucidity and force. He has since been supported by great expertise and experience. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not take it amiss if I earnestly hope that he will deal with each of the arguments put forward, especially that of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, and his comparison with the pension treatment of Members of Parliament, and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth who dealt with the treatment of Canadian judges.
I intervene only in order to draw the comparison between the way it appears to the Government, particularly the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor, in 1958–59. The Lord Chancellor was Lord Kilmuir, a stalwart defender of the judiciary both individually and collectively. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was Mr. Heathcoat-Amory whose background was agricul-ture, industry and banking. In addition to that wide experience he had an instinctive feeling for the constitution. He saw at once that if a judge suffered a

377
disablement in his first year it was intolerable that he should be relegated to one-thirtieth of his salary and that if he died his widow should be relegated to one-sixtieth.
That compares rather favourably with the one-eightieth proposed in the Bill. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory saw at once that a society which treated its judges and its judges' widows in that way did not deserve a judiciary worth the name. That was a little beginning.
The way it worked out very quickly is illuminating, because two greatly loved and much respected judges were both stricken early in their careers: Mr. Justice Pritchard by a stroke and Mr. Justice Gerard by a heart attack. They were not ever to resume their places on the Bench but at any rate enjoyed a modest pension which enabled them to live in London and give very valuable service on the Council of Legal Education. They did not spare themselves. They were able to do that and, although they never spoke of it, I do not doubt that one of the reasons they never spared themselves was the reflection that if their exertions caused premature death, at least their widows would not be reduced to penury. I ask your Lordships to look on that picture and on this.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the last occasion I supported the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches in their amendment but today I have considerable difficulty in supporting Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which I may speak under Clause 2 of the Bill. Basically, I waited to hear all that was said, but I remain unconvinced, having seen the actuarial tables and tried to assimilate them —I am not very good at figures but I tried—and having seen the effect of the amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. At the moment, subject to what else may be said in your Lordships' House, I would find it difficult to support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 today. Those are under Clause 2 of the Bill concerned with entitlement to a pension.
I would speak also to Amendment No. 25 to Clause 5 of the Bill, the surviving spouse's pension. Also, inevitably, in taking the stance that I am taking, one has to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 to Clause 3 concerned with the appropriate annual rate. All those amendments, in one form or another, are designed to retain the existing accrual period for pension of 15 years—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course: at any time.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the accrual period has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment which I am proposing. The amendment I am proposing relates purely to sickness and to death resulting from sickness. The age of 65 has been put there on the basis that the accrual period remains as this Committee decided—20 years—and the retiring age too. That is why the grouping in no way touches on that clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hear what my noble and learned friend says and I am grateful for his intervention. But in any event, irrespective of the point on which he seeks to correct me, one has to consider this matter, on any showing, in the light of the amendments which have been tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and which have affected, if I may say so quite quietly from these Back Benches, my mind. They give the reason why I am perhaps changing my stance, not that I always support the Government —noble Lords in this House know that I do not invariably do so—but that I think it is fair and reasonable on this occasion to do so.
Amendment No. 5 refers to enhancement for ill health: that is Clause 2. That is all part of this group. There is Amendment No. 21, death after retirement—for surviving spouses the enhancement. That is on Clause 4 in a subsequent grouping. I am not going into detail but just outlining the position which has led me to the conclusions that I am tentatively putting forward. There are Amendments Nos. 26 to 32 to Clause 6: the special widening of scope for the children. That is a subsequent grouping. There is the question of the pension, irrespective of remarriage and irrespective of the marital status of the children: a very substantial concession, as I see it.
Finally, there is the group on Clause 10: Amendments Nos. 35 to 44, 46, 53 and 54 relating to additional voluntary contributions up to the revenue limit. As all your Lordships know, and particularly noble and learned Lords, I know nothing whatever about tax affairs. However, I have made inquiries and I am told that, since the Report stage, the Lord Chancellor's Department has made a very satisfactory arrangement with the Revenue which did not exist before to cover the basis of these amendments. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say so. I find these matters confusing and it is possible that I may have got this wrong. But I have to balance those advantages against what has been said, and indeed against what any other noble Lord will say, because inevitably I shall have an open mind until the end of this debate.
At the moment it seems that there is absolutely no point—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is with me on this—in discussing further the question of the extension of the accrual period and there is absolutely no point in discussing the reduction of the retiring age. These matters have been decided by your Lordships whether we like the result or whether we do not. That is all spate water under the bridge. Without reopening the debate, therefore, I seek to look again at the aspects of the public interest—the very same aspects which were debated at Report stage when there was a Division and I supported the amendment—but without repetition of any of those aspects. I merely noted and read again in Hansard at cols. 1066 and 1067 that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to certain proposals that he would introduce, and those are the proposals which appear in the amendments which he has tabled today.
I have sought to assimilate the paper which has been placed in the Library by my noble and learned

379
friend the Lord Chancellor, with its tables and comparative figures as between the new scheme under the Bill and the existing scheme which has been prepared with the assistance of the Government Actuary. I find it a very difficult document. However, doing my best and searching the tables with some care, I have found that it shows both advantages and disadvantages to the proposed new scheme as compared with the existing pension scheme.
Having studied these comparisons and having had the opportunity to consider the tables produced by the Government Actuary, I am no longer able to feel, as I did feel on Report, about the proposed new scheme as now put before your Lordships' House. I no longer feel that it is assuredly so that persons suitable to serve on the High Court or circuit bench may be discouraged. This may be established. I can no longer accept that the quality of justice will be substantially reduced. I can no longer accept—I am open to correction on any suggestion from any noble Lord if I am wrong—that these proposals will operate in any way contrary to the public interest, which is the only interest with which all noble Lords are concerned today. In these circumstances I find it difficult to support these amendments because I am not convinced that they will have this serious disadvantageous effect upon the public interest.
I always welcome the delightful way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell puts any case, and I totally understand the charming way in which he put the case against lawyers. We cannot dismiss that. After Report stage it was said to me, "You are one of these lawyers. What are you all doing pay bargaining in the House? The nurses and the doctors cannot pay bargain. What are all you lawyers doing conducting pay negotiations on the Floor of the House, taking up so much time when we have so much else to do? It is all lawyers speaking in lawyers' interests." I can say until I am blue in the face that we are not debating in our own interests—we are debating in the public interest, but nobody believes it. I must simply accept that that is so. It is very unfortunate, but one just accepts life as it is. It is very difficult because, once formed, the impressions made in your Lordships' House are very often not so easy to dispel.
As we enter a period of measures of financial constraint, although these matters will take root effectively some 15 years ahead, surely what really matters is what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said—that there should be fair pension provision for the judges. As far as I can see at the moment, it would be difficult to contend that the proposed new pension scheme, with the amendments that have been tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, could be said to be unfair or unreasonable if one takes into account the balance of advantage and disadvantage in the actuarial tables as compared with the existing scheme. If I have done my sums wrong, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me, but I have at least done them in good faith.
I would find it difficult to contend that the public interest would be substantially affected one way or
380
another. For those reasons, therefore, although I accept that the noble and learned Lords' amendments are sincerely motivated and have been properly put forward in the interests of that which they feel that it is totally right to support, as presently advised I cannot support them in your Lordships' House tonight.
7 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in the light of the various things which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, finds himself unable to accept, I venture to suggest that it may be useful to your Lordships to hear a voice from the practising Bar where real life is really lived. In my humble belief, this House is being asked to consider this matter without real regard to the true position.
In Committee, I suggested that people were becoming increasingly reluctant to accept judicial appointment and that the various changes for the worse contained in the Bill would enhance that reluctance. At that time, that seemed to be dismissed as being unreal, alarmist and lacking evidence. Since then, we have had dramatic proof that what I said about the increasing reluctance to accept judicial appointment is, in fact, so. Since 1st October this year, there have been two vacancies in the complement of six judges required for the commercial court. In short, that has caused chaos and has moved the learned judge in charge of that list to say that the very basis of the listing system of the commercial court has been seriously undermined. That is not a matter to be lightly dismissed.
The commercial court—its success and proper operation—is a vital part of the commercial life of this country and of the invisible earnings of the City. I am reliably informed that one of the reasons why those two vacancies remain unfilled is that the highly qualified persons who have been approached about accepting the vacancies have declined to do so. I am not saying that that reluctance is merely because they now have to start serving younger and to serve for longer in order to get their pensions, nor am I saying that it is merely because if they die young in office their dependants will receive only the miserable pittance that the noble and learned Lord is offering.
However, what I do say—and say with some force and from a real knowledge of how the potential candidates whom the noble and learned Lord or his successor will be approaching in the next few years really feel—is that each step which is taken or allowed by the noble and learned Lord which renders the Bench less attractive will make people more and more reluctant to accept appointment. The gloomy prognosis that I gave last time, has, in my view, been proved conclusively by the noble and learned Lord's inability to fill those vital places in the commercial court.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I intend to restrict myself to the amendment that was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to say that I entirely agree with the proposal and shall support it. I should like to point to the time, which is

381
10 past seven on a Thursday night. We have been restricted in time as a result of two very good Statements and we are therefore dealing with only the first of the major amendments tonight. It is important that we should consider these. I therefore intend to be very brief.
The proposal concerns the question of disability and death and the pension that is acquired on disability and death. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice when he said that in the present situation, if a High Court judge were to have a stroke in his first year and was unable to carry on, he would be entitled today to half his pension. In other words, he would be entitled to about £20,000 pension. If he died shortly afterwards as a result of that stroke in his first year, his widow today would receive a pension of approximately £10,000. If the Bill is enacted, a High Court judge who has a stroke in his first year, would be entitled to a pension of £4,000 and his widow, if he died thereafter, to a pension of £1,000. The Lord Chief Justice said that that was shameful and I agree with him. I cannot follow my noble friend who said that, having gone into the matter, he thought that it was fair. I think it is most unfair and I support the proposal.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by saying that I propose to move Amendment No. 5, the result of which will be to make considerably different and better provisions than my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir has in mind. In his earlier remarks my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice referred to the situation under the Bill as unamended. I have recognised that and have made a change. The change that I propose in my amendment is to allow half of the service up to the age of 65 as an increment which will be the basis of the lump sum and pension. The result of that is a considerable improvement on what was previously in the Bill and it leads to a variety of situations which are shown in the tables to which attention has been drawn.
I must say, first of all—this has a particular bearing on what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said—that the Bill endeavours to propose a pension scheme for the whole of the judiciary. In the present situation there are a number of different schemes for different parts of the judiciary. One of the consequences of that, of which I am sure my noble and learned friends who have spoken are aware, is that when a circuit judge, for example, is promoted to the High Court he is at a disadvantage in respect of the service which he gave on the Circuit Bench. One of my objectives in putting forward the Bill is to produce a scheme of judicial pensions that operate at all levels on the same principles; namely, by reference to the salary that the judge earns in the last year of his or her service. One of the reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, referred for querying this scheme was the fact that it produces some improvements as regards the district judges and so on. One must take account of all of those together in the arrangements.
As I said, I have recognised the need to improve the scheme in the way that I have just described and,
382
assuming that the amendment were to fail, I shall move Amendment No. 5 to put in place that provision. As the scheme was prepared, it allowed a uniform accrual over the period of 20 years. The primary reason for that, as I have often explained, is in order that the scheme should have the benefit of being tax approved and therefore that tax benefit would accrue in respect of both the contributions and the lump sum.
I have therefore proposed that the scheme should be changed to provide for enhancement in respect of benefits which arise as a result of ill health or death. The figures to which reference has been made include some improvements over the present scheme in respect of the High Court Bench, for example, in relation to the lump sum. However, I do not believe that it is fair to look at the matter purely from the point of view of one part of the judiciary. One must look at the scheme as a whole.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, it is true that Members of Parliament have a scheme under which, if they fall ill, they receive benefits on the basis of service up to the age of 65. However, on the other hand, Members of Parliament have an annual accrual rate which is less than the judges' annual accrual rate. If one looks at this matter overall, the judges receive better benefit on ill health than do Members of Parliament.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice referred to Canada. The system here is very different from that in Canada and the amendment does not seek to emulate the situation in Canada. I believe that to make effective accrual up to 65 and divide it by 50 per cent.—that is to say, to take 50 per cent. of the service that would be credited up to 65—is an appropriate way of dealing with the matter and, in particular, it considerably enhances the benefits for the people who take up appointments young. The younger the person is appointed and the earlier the ill health falls, the greater is the effect of the enhancement. I believe that that is a fair method of proceeding.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, indicated that he thought it was a difficulty as regards remuneration that prevented appointments being intimated in the commercial court. I am not sure of the precise basis of that information, but I certainly believe that I shall have distinguished appointments to the commercial court in early course. In the nature of things, those who have a busy practice in the commercial court often have substantial commitments. It is therefore difficult for them to be available as quickly as practitioners with less lengthy cases to handle. However, I can assure the noble Viscount that I certainly have the interests of the commercial court clearly in mind and that I expect to be in a position to advise on the appointment of distinguished members of the Bar who will fill those vacancies when commitments enable that to happen.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves the subject, can he please tell me, "yea or nay", whether or not it is correct that certain persons whom he has approached to accept that office have in fact declined to do so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is correct that, from time to time, I have approached people who have had particular circumstances in a situation which have made it impossible for them to accept appointment at the time. However, in my experience, the number of such people is very small. Moreover, in none of the cases that I have in mind was the question of remuneration, pension or anything of that kind the reason for the refusal. The reasons were described to me in detail and they related to the particular situation. Therefore, I do not think that I should go into any great detail on the matter. I am certainly quite clear in my own mind that the only reasons that have ever been advanced to me for anyone not accepting a proffered appointment to the High Court Bench have been personal circumstances relating to a present situation. In quite a number of those cases the personal circumstances have changed in relatively early course.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have four distinct and different points to make in reply which I shall make very quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, indicated that if the amendment of my noble and learned friend (Amendment No. 5, in regard to which we have tables) is put into effect, there will be certain cases where High Court judges and circuit judges will be worse off than they are at present. It may be interesting for your Lordships to listen to what was said 33 years ago when the Judicial Pensions Bill 1959 was moved in Committee in another place by the right honourable Sir Harry Hylton-Foster. While talking about the proposal which now exists, he said:
"The figure of one quarter"—
which is one quarter of the salary or one half of the pension—
"was arrived at because it was felt that, in the case of a judge of the High Court retiring in a period under five years owing to infirmity, which is the circumstance this subsection envisages, it would be wrong to cast him off, in effect, with a pension of less than one quarter of his last annual salary … It was felt that to treat high officers of our judiciary who were stricken and forced to retire in these circumstances, through no fault of their own less generously than that would seem to show we put altogether too low a value on our judiciary generally".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/59; cols. 1457–8].
That is precisely what my noble and learned friend The Lord Chancellor proposes to do under his amendment in regard to those cases focused upon by the noble Lord, Lord Benson.
I turn now to my second point. I can assist the noble Lord in regard to Canada by adding several examples. The first is in Australia. In Queensland, the judge who goes sick in the first five years receives 75 per cent. of his pension with 5 per cent. per annum for the next five years. The figure of 60 per cent. applies elsewhere in Australia. In the United States the percentage is 100 per cent., while in New Zealand it is 50 per cent. of the salary. All of them are substantially higher.
My third point relates to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who sought to stress the generous provisions that we shall debate at a later stage. Perhaps I may remind him of the statement on page iii of the Explanatory and Financial
384
Memorandum concerning the financial effects of the Bill which has not been updated in any way. It reads as follows:
"The difference in cost between the existing arrangements and the new arrangements will take some years to emerge, but the effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly neutral".
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell has also overlooked the reference made in past debates to Table 7 on page 60 of the latest report of the TSRB which indicates that the cost to the Treasury per year for the pension of a High Court judge is about £25,000. If the judge has now to work five years longer, then, in regard to a judge who would have retired after 15 years, the Treasury is saving a little over £30,000 in respect of those years.
Finally, I do not understand—and I am sure, with great humility, that it is my fault—the answer which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave in relation to the comparison with Members of Parliament. Of course, the accrual period is different for Members of Parliament. They do not arrive as MPs with an average minimum age of 50-plus. That is why the accrual period is different. It has been common ground throughout our debates that judges are sui generis: unlike their opposite numbers in Europe, they do not arrive on the judicial scene in their early 20s; indeed, it is almost at the end of the average person's working life that they take up the judicial position.
Perseverance keeps honour bright. I do not intend to withdraw the amendment.
7.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Annan, L.

Meston, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Avebury, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Benson, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Rea, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.[Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Brightman, L.

Russell, E.

Carter, L.

Seear, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chalker, B.

Chilver, L.

Arran, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Coleraine, L.

Cadman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Caithness, E.

Cranborne, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Carnock, L.

Elton, L.

385

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Moyne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Northbrook, L.

Goschen, V.

Orkney, E.

Hacking, L.

Parkinson, L.

Haslam, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Reay, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rodger of EarlsFerry, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Shrewsbury, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Long, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
7.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert:
("() in any case falling within subsection (3) above where, at the date of the retirement, the person has not attained the age of 65, the aggregate length of his period of service shall be increased by the addition of a period equal in length to one half of that which—

(i) begins immediately after the date of the retirement; and

(ii) ends with the day on which he would attain the age of 65;").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I explained the effect of this amendment in response to Amendment No. 2, and I have no need to detain your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 7, I should like to ask for clarification. I understood that we were adjourning for one hour, and that that was to be at 7 o'clock. We have of course passed 7 o'clock. I merely want elucidation as to whether this is a non-stop event or whether we shall have one hour for some form of nourishment. Can someone tell us that, because if the programme has been changed, it has not been announced.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we are going straight through.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is nice to know. I thank the noble Viscount.
Clause 3 [The appropriate annual rate]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises in these circumstances: the first judicial pensions Act in 1799 provided that the period which the senior judges had to serve before earning their pensions was 15 years. That accrual period has remained the same since, and was applied to county court and circuit judges when their judicial offices were created. After 200 years, that provision has been set
386
aside as a result of the failure of the amendment which was urged and divided upon on Report. Thus, hitherto, unlike our counterparts on the Continent, we have been treated as sui generis, but now it is said that that should no longer be the case.
As your Lordships will remember, it was on 27th October that the attempt was made to reinstate the 15-year period, and the House was specifically invited to support the amendment not in the interests of future judges, but in the public interest, because it was considered by those who moved the amendment that the quality of justice resulting from the calibre of judges who administer it would be diminished by the requirement that they should work on for 20 years.
The amendment, which was lost as I indicated, was of an unusual character. It was supported by the former Lord Chancellor; the former Lord Chief Justice; the present Lord Chief Justice; the former Master of the Rolls; 10 Law Lords, and two former Law Officers.
In his reply, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor took as the first important point to be borne in mind that the judiciary have an opportunity when in practice,
"so far as concerns the tax law, to make provision for their retirement with tax advantage".—[Official Report, 27/10/92; cols. 1065–1066.]
That is what is known as the retained benefits argument which earlier in the debate had been described as a red herring for four specific reasons particularised in Hansard at cols. 1059–1060.
Those four reasons could be summarised as follows. First, that the retained benefits rule (which is not in primary legislation, as I understand it, but is Inland Revenue practice) is applied to employees who, throughout their career, are in pensionable employ-ment. As they go up in the world in their employment or if they change their employment, their pension benefits have to be taken into account. That is contrary to the position of the self-employed lawyer who may or may not make pensions provision, may or may not invest any surplus he has in realty or somewhere else, or may not have the wherewithal to make any provision at all.
A further matter was pointed out that for years—certainly for the past about 40 years—where there have been tax advantages in making pension provisions, the retained benefits have never been sought by the Inland Revenue to be the subject matter of what should be taken into account.
It was suggested in the debate that there was a good reason in reality for that because if one said to the high flyers who had been able to save substantial pension benefits, "These must be taken into account in relation to any benefit which you earn as a judge", they would say, no doubt politely, but in substance, "Thank you for nothing. I shall remain at the Bar where my pension benefit will be better anyhow than I can obtain from becoming a judge". On the other hand, there would be those who have no retained benefits, and the Inland Revenue practice which it is now sought to apply to them would be quite irrelevant.
Those, in substance, were the reasons given for saying that retained benefits as an argument for supporting the rather mean treatment afforded to the judge were irrelevant.
During the debate on this amendment, particular anxiety was expressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice for the position of circuit judges who in future were likely to be appointed at under 50 years of age. Because of school fees, mortgages and other expenses, they were unlikely to have made any or any adequate pension provision before retirement. Your Lordships may remember that I specifically asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, at an early stage in the debate on Report, whether, under the new system, with the obligation to work 20 years and to retire at 70, it was likely that judges would in future be appointed earlier. He indicated that it could well be the case.
That is particularly relevant to the circuit judge because, as I have indicated to your Lordships, he is far less likely to be able to afford any retained benefits with the ordinary expenses of education and mortgages with which he has to cope. It is particularly the case when the House bears in mind that a high proportion of the income of those barristers who accept the appointment as a circuit judge emanates from legal aid, where we all know that fees are being kept heavily down, or from publicly funded work, prosecutions work, where again the difference between fees earned from that source and fees earned from the privately funded part of the Bar are quite different.
The importance of the circuit Bench was recognised specifically by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the reference which is to be found in the penultimate report of the Top Salaries Review Body's last report at page 15. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor expressed himself in these terms:
"The circuit Bench is the mainstay of the judiciary into which it is vital to attract enough lawyers of the right calibre".
Your Lordships may have seen a letter in The Times today signed by the president of Her Majesty's Council of Circuit Judges and the treasurer of that organisation. I was sent a photostat copy of the letter as sent to The Times by the council some days ago. The letter which was published is a much bowdlerized version of what was sent. I wish to quote the last paragraph of the letter as sent but which was not published, because it is particularly relevant to what we are now debating. This is how the letter ended, as sent to The Times for publication but not published:
"Circuit judges preside over the majority of both criminal and civil trials and their jurisdiction has been very substantially extended in the recent past. If, as we expect, there is a decline in the quality of the circuit Bench, its effects will be slow and insidious and difficult to measure. But when the effects upon which the quality of the administration of justice are felt, it will take many years to remedy the situation".
I stress the position of the circuit Bench because it is to them that this amendment is directed in essence.
What the amendment seeks to do is this: we lost the debate on the application of the 20-year new accrual rule. We lost it certainly for the reason first put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor because of the retained benefits advantage
388
which he stressed that he had triumphantly achieved. That justification for the 20-year rule disappears if the option is given to a judge to say, "I will give up the pensionable equivalent of my retained benefit, provided I can return to the status quo. The suggestion that I must conform to the general tax law is really, in my respectful submission, the lightest of weight." The requirement for that conformity has not been made over the past 200 years.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has on a number of occasions accepted that the judges are sui generis. The 15 year rule which has lasted over that time is not an idiosyncratic English rule. In America it is 50 per cent. less at 10 years. It is the same in Australia and in Canada. However, to be frank, I must admit that in New Zealand it is, at 16 years, one year more than our current 15 years. But the judges achieve the advantage which I am sure we all wish to achieve today; that is, a New Zealand judge receives as a pension not one-half of his salary but two-thirds, and it is tax free.
Therefore, the suggestion that there is a need for conformity is essentially a revenue-driven concept, which has no justification in history or in reality. The only justification provided is the retained benefits, and that is why I urge that those who have no retained benefits or no significant retained benefits should have the option to say, "I will give credit for the pensionable equivalent of any retained benefit that I have achieved but in exchange I should be entitled to return to the status quo and serve out 15 years, and not be obliged to serve out 20 years to gain my pension". I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I speak to support this amendment. I support the thrust of the subsequent amendments which stand in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, although I do not intend to speak to them. I begin with the simple proposition that the quality of the higher judiciary in this country is extremely high in terms of intellectual quality and rigour, political independence and financial incorruptibility. Those are not benefits that many countries enjoy.
I hope I may cast a few brief thoughts about recent history, although not the years 1933, 1953 or even 1963. I shall mention half a dozen instances that seem to me to matter. At Hillsborough there was a dreadful disaster. There was public concern. The present Lord Chief Justice was invited to report on that disaster. A large bank, BCCI, collapsed amid allegations of fraud, significant wrongdoing and inaction or negligence in high places in this country. Lord Justice Bingham was required to investigate that matter.
Further, the prisons exploded. Who was chosen to conduct an inquiry? That was Lord Justice Woolf. This week there have been suggestions of profound wrongdoing and Lord Justice Scott is to investigate that matter. Those matters are all being investigated or have been investigated at the request of the Government. The judge who quashed the certificates of public interest immunity was a circuit judge, Judge Smedley. Finally, when it was proposed to close down most of the mining industry in this country without five minutes' consultation, the National Union of

389
Mineworkers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—each of which detests the other with a vigour rarely encountered—both curiously found themselves at the same destination: the Royal Courts of Justice. I give those recent illustrations because they demonstrate a significant point—that the quality of the judiciary in this country is extraordinarily high. It is brought to that state of quality by an infinite variety of subtle mechanisms.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke of lawyers and pay bargaining. This matter has nothing to do with pay bargaining of any kind. I must declare a pure disinterest in judicial pensions. The matter we are discussing is not pay bargaining and it is not a form of esoteric outdoor relief for elderly judges. We are discussing why judges become judges and why the quality of judges in this country is so high.
I suggest the reason the quality of judges in this country is high and the reason why our judges are not corrupt in any way, politically or financially, is because they regard judicial office as honourable, fulfilling and wanted by them. If we want the best, we ought to attend to that. I believe I am the junior of your Lordships present here this evening. In that position of juniority and innocence I listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said on Report. I also listened to what was said by the former Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Those were powerful speeches and they won the argument. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said he had lost the debate on that occasion. The debate was not lost but the vote may have been.
I am not here as part of any lawyers' benevolent fund or to support the judges in all they do, but it is not in the public interest to have someone who has served as a first instance judge for 15 years clinging on to judicial office with whitened knuckles just for the pension. I hope noble Lords will forgive my levity at this time of night but we should fire judges when we see the whiteness of their knuckles. There is no useful purpose in making a judge sit on after 15 years simply for the pension. This amendment offers an alternative. After 15 years of lonely, highly stressed work, one ought to have the opportunity to say, "I have given of my best. It is time for me to go". That is the true public interest aspect of this matter, not whether or not high earning lawyers can be seduced from the Bar or from the City firms of solicitors in due time.
A judge's job is lonely, not in terms of social isolation although that is true in part, but the true loneliness lies in the absolute nature of the power that is wielded, often subject to no appeal. If a judge says in his conscience and in his heart, "15 years has been enough for me", then it has been enough for the public whose interest he serves.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, throughout the debates we have had on the various clauses at the various stages of this Bill my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has prayed in aid in each instance the retained benefits as the balancing factor for all the disadvantages to the judges that are contained in this Bill. They have been his panacea for all the
390
unfairnesses and meannesses to which attention has been drawn, clause by clause. In particular, the retained benefits have been the answer, and the only answer, to extending the accrual period from 15 to 20 years.
I and almost every other speaker, judicial and non-judicial, in your Lordships' House, have consistently argued that there are likely to be many judges, especially circuit judges, who will not have been able to store up any significant provision for retirement while practising in the legal profession. This is because they may not have been high flyers with huge earnings and because the years immediately prior to their appointment to the Bench are expensive years as they have to educate their children and meet mortgage payments and other family expenses.
This proposed option puts the argument of my noble and learned friend about the retained benefits to the test. In cases where he is right in assuming that there will be significant retained benefits, the judge in question will not wish to forgo them and will fall in with the Government's proposed scheme and its 20-year accrual period and take that option. However, where there are no significant retained benefits, and since they are the only answer given to our criticism of the government scheme, it would only be just to allow the judge to opt for 15 years and no retained benefits.
If the amendment is opposed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack it can only be because he fears that retained benefits may not be the panacea that his argument has assumed. I support the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, say that he disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and that the noble and learned Lord had not lost the debate on the accrual period when the matter was before us on Report. Against the advice of my noble and learned friend I supported the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches on that occasion. We were defeated by five votes. I thought then, as I think now, that that should have been the end of the matter, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I am sure quite rightly, has brought before us an ingenious variation on the accrual amendment. It is that variation which worries me.
It seems to me that the arguments which the noble and learned Lord put forward work very well when one considers the case of a hardworking barrister considering preferment to the Bench who has mortgage and education expenses to bear. There are other cases where they work less well. The hardworking barrister who earns less but who has managed to scrape funds together to make proper provision for his retirement will be relatively disadvantaged if the amendment is agreed. On the other hand, no doubt there will be barristers with very high earnings who have wasted their substance and who will not have put money aside for their pensions. It is they who will achieve relative advantage under the amendment. That is the first point on which I feel the amendment fails.

391
The second point is a simple one of economics. Barristers aspiring to the Bench would be presented with financial distortions which would influence their decisions as to how they invested their money. That also goes against the amendment. I hope that when he has considered all the arguments the noble and learned Lord will not see fit to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, when I first read the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I took the view that it was an ingenious device to circumvent the rules of procedure of your Lordships' House to allow us to have a re-run of the debate on the 15 or 20-year accrual period. Having listened to the speeches this evening I am now convinced that that view was entirely wrong and that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has put forward this evening is a substantially new proposition. It seems to me to have a great deal in its favour and to be an honourable compromise between the positions that have been taken up so far. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will consider it in that spirit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a fascinated interloper I intervene on a very narrow point. If my noble friend Lord Coleraine is right and this is an ingenious device to address an issue already decided by this House, that is surely not something which this House would readily do because, having decided an issue, we leave it behind us. If it is, on the other hand, an entirely new departure introduced to the House for the first time at Third Reading I should have thought that equally that was something that we do not do. I merely make that remark from the touchline, and we shall see how matters develop in the next debate and whether it will be the same.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am a little reluctant to speak because I get the impression that your Lordships are getting a little tired. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a long and penetrating analysis of tables which had come into his possession and arrived at conclusions so astonishing that I ought to put the facts before the House so that your Lordships know what the facts are.
On this issue the tables show that if a High Court judge or a circuit judge is appointed at 46 years of age, or after, and retires at 65, or if a High Court or circuit judge is appointed at 51 years of age or after and retires at 70, he will receive a materially smaller pension than he would under the existing scheme which was settled 11 years ago and was at that time thought to be fair. I do not know why it is now thought to be unfair. That materially smaller pension affects not only the judge himself; it affects in an equally unattractive way the spouse's pension and the children's pension. The reductions are substantial.
I take the tables which I have seen, which may be different from those which were used by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The very first item on the schedule relates to a High Court judge who is appointed at the age of 40 and retires on pension.
392
Under the existing scheme, settled 11 years ago and which is already out of date, he would receive £87,620 as a lump sum and a pension of £43,810. Under the scheme now proposed in the Bill before the House, the lump sum is reduced by £14,000 to £73,000. The annual pension is reduced by £11,000 from £43,000 to £32,000.
That cannot be right. The decision to reduce the pensions payable to judges in 20 years' time to a figure significantly lower than pensions fixed 11 years ago by a scheme which is now out of date seems to me totally inexcusable. I cannot see any argument in favour. I have not heard any argument in favour. I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a convincing case.
That reduction is in no way compensated for by increased lump sums. The contrary is the case. The lump sums to be paid out are lower. I have just given an example. It would be shameful for Parliament to pass a Bill which is so transparently unfair.
I again draw attention to the position of district judges and stipendiary magistrates. Those two classes of the judiciary are treated quite differently. In their case the pensions on retirement are not reduced at all. Moreover, some of the risk benefits payable to them are substantially increased whereas some of the risk payments payable to High Court and circuit judges are reduced. It is very difficult to understand why the High Court judges are discriminated against, particularly as they carry higher responsibility. Why have they been subjected to that humiliating position?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the point that we must look at the judiciary as a whole. I agree. That is exactly what I am doing. I am pointing out to him that looking at the judiciary as a whole the High Court Judges and the Circuit judges are always discriminated against. That is what happens when one considers all of the members of the judiciary covered by the Bill.
I ask also that we should look at the common sense of the situation. The judges affected by the Bill have not yet been appointed, but when they are, it will have to be explained to them that in probably around the year 2010 they will be paid a pension which will be substantially lower than a pension scheme settled in 1981, which is already out of date. It means inevitably that the best candidates are unlikely to accept those conditions, particularly in view of the other unattractive situation which arises for judges, certainly for High Court judges, who have to go out on circuit for large parts of the year and who are locked into their position and cannot change. I draw attention again to the fact that the 1981 scheme is out of date.
We have looked at those figures, which are plain for the eye to see. They have not been seen by the House as a whole and not exposed to the public. When their deficiencies are exposed to the public, as I have attempted to do, they will be ashamed of the proposals on this subject made in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may correct one point that he made. The 1981 Act was a consolidating Act. The present

393
situation has been in force for 33 years and not 11 years, which I think somewhat strengthens the point he made.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must start from what I believe is the fundamental proposition that the general tax law was changed in the provisions which were introduced in 1987 to allow tax approval only to those pension schemes which had a minimum 20-year accrual period. That means that tax alone would provide a disadvantage as regards more rapidly accruing schemes.
It is true that the Circuit Bench and the High Court Bench and above had a 15-year accrual period in the past. The lower judiciary did not. When looking for a scheme for the whole judiciary which is in conformity with the general tax law, it is inevitable that if people do not serve for the full accrual period there will be a disadvantage. But the fact is that the basic law having been changed in respect of taxation in 1987, the benefits of tax approval can only be received if there is a 20-year accrual period.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said that this tests out what I was saying about the retained benefits. But the retained benefits are by no means the whole story. There are two aspects to the matter. First, the general tax law requires that a tax approved scheme will not have an accrual period faster than 20 years as the general rule. That is fundamental. So far as concerns my noble and learned friend's amendment, if a judge opts for a 15-year accrual period, he will not have the benefit of tax relief in respect of that. It will not be an advantage to him. I submit that it will be much better for him to have the benefit of a tax approved scheme.
The general tax law is fundamental to that. I have said that the retained benefits have to be taken into account when considering other aspects of the scheme. It is in respect of those other aspects of the scheme that I have referred to the retained benefits, because the allowances of the retained benefits are in my view an important aspect of the scheme.
For example, the district judges in their response to the consultation paper that we put out said:
"We accept that continuing to leave retained benefits out of account confers an advantage on those joining a judicial pension scheme which may be of significant value to those who have actually made personal pension contributions before appointment to judicial office. We consider that any alteration in the current treatment of retained benefits could have a seriously adverse effect upon recruitment. We therefore welcome the proposal not to alter the existing position".
Those are even more junior levels of the judiciary than the circuit judges. In their response to the consultation, they attach considerable value to the retained benefit provision.
The fundamental point in this amendment is that the 15-year accrual period for which my noble and learned friend asks will have to be subject to taxation. Perhaps I ought to point out what the absence of tax privileges would mean. There would be no tax relief on contributions to the scheme and the lump sum payable on retirement would be taxable. I believe that on that basis the amendment does not produce any benefit at all to the judiciary.
394
The scheme which is before your Lordships is a tax efficient scheme which enables any money put into it to be used in the most tax efficient way. Looking at particular aspects of the scheme over and above the accrual period, there is the additional fact that retained benefits have to be taken into account in a scheme that accrues as fast as this generally. Therefore, the particular situation of the judiciary, and the fact that beforehand they have an earlier career usually in private practice, is catered for by the allowance of the retained benefits, so that in their earlier employment and in respect of what they earned there, the tax benefit is available to them.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine explained how distorting it would be that those who had not taken advantage of that available tax relief would be in a position to get out of their public service a faster accrual than would others. After all, as regards remuneration for the public sector, surely one must give equal attention to all those who are in the same situation.
According to my information, the accrual rate in the new judicial scheme, which applies to all the judiciary, is about double the level applicable to most public service employees and, as I said earlier, about 50 per cent. more favourable than the provision applicable to Members of Parliament. Two-thirds of private sector employees who are members of occupational pension schemes are subject to an accrual rate of one-sixtieth; only 10 per cent. of private sector employees enjoy accrual rates higher than one-sixtieth and only a tiny minority have an accrual rate as high as one-thirty-fourth. In broad terms, the judicial pension arrangements are worth about twice the typical provision made for either public service or private sector schemes.
I should also mention—because it is important to deal with people who have not, for one reason or another, been able to take advantage of the arrangements for self-employed pension schemes—that by my amendments to Clause 10 and Schedule 3 there is the possibility of additional tax free contributions to increase their pension entitlement within revenue limits. That is a considerable improvement on what has been available so far. I believe that it covers the situation and enables another route to be taken by those who may not have taken full advantage of the tax benefits available on pension provisions when they were in private practice. Accordingly I cannot commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to explain one matter which mystifies me. If this general tax rule of 20 years' accrual must apply to the judges, however curious it may be, and the noble and learned Lord said that it must apply to the whole of the judiciary, why is there one member of the judiciary to whom the rule does not apply? I refer to the noble and learned Lord himself and his successors. Why does the Lord Chancellor not have to serve for 20 years or else bring into account his retained benefits? Is it the noble and learned Lord's intention in due course to amend the legislation to produce that result?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister have arrangements under their particular Act for no accrual period. There is no rate of accrual. A day's service in the Lord Chancellor's Office entitles the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chancellor's pension under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act. Of course if the Lord Chancellor seeks to make use of service in other capacities as a judge to enhance that pension, then he is subject to the same rules as the remainder of the judiciary in respect of that. However, so far as concerns the Lord Chancellor, the provision is for that particular office. There is no accrual rate.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am fully aware of that. If the general rule is appropriate for the whole judiciary, why is there one member of the judiciary for which it is not appropriate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is hard to understand how one could apply a 20-year accrual. I do not believe that it is possible to apply the accrual rates to a system under which there is no accrual provision. I can understand that the general accrual rate provisions should apply to cases in which there is a rate of accrual. But I cannot see how such a rule can apply to special provisions in which there is no accrual.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, this may be a very ambitious beginning to my reply since, compared with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I am a child in matters of procedure, if not in other matters too. However, I understand that he must have in mind the Companion to the Standing Orders 1989. Under the heading "Amendments on Third Reading" the penultimate paragraph states:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a Bill should be reopened by an amendment on Third Reading".
As I understand it, in this case the procedure was that it was considered by the Public Bill Office as to whether or not the amendment raised a new issue. That office decided that it was certainly arguable. Accordingly, the Leader of the House was not asked for his view and the amendment was put down. I therefore believe that I am standing in a white sheet in that regard.
Quite apart from procedure, I should have thought that it follows as night follows day that when one puts up what is really a compromise, the compromise is the new issue. One is not re-litigating the same matter. One is trying to reach an agreement. In order that the noble Lord follows the point, the result of our amendment, if carried, would simply be this. Those who have retained benefits of any significance would have to work the 20 years. That is what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to achieve. The amendment seeks to make an exception in regard to those who have no retained benefits. They should be entitled to the status quo. That seems to me to be the clearest possible new issue. That is no doubt why those in charge of those matters raised no final objection to the amendment being put down.
396
I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I say that with humility because I made the point myself.
Lord Elton: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord has referred to me, perhaps I may make clear that I am familiar with the Standing Order to which he referred and the procedure through which I assumed that he had gone. I did not refer to Standing Orders but to the customs of the House, which on some occasions are a little narrower than Standing Orders. I stated that we shall see what happens in the next debate. It seems to me that one can have one debate on a compromise between, as it were, a ping and a pong, but if that is to be the procedure for the remainder of the lengthy Marshalled List your Lordships may find it a little tedious.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps my friend could rely on the maxim that hope springs eternal; and when we come to that which he already anticipates—without applying the usual principle of hearing the other side first—I hope to put his mind equally at rest.
I accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I made it myself on Report, when I pointed out that it was quite inequitable to apply what occurs in regard to retained benefits in the employed sector. In the employed sector as a general rule everyone receives a pension. Therefore the pension that they have achieved at an earlier employment can obviously be had regard to. The self-employed person may make no arrangement either because he is idle, he cannot afford it or he believes that he can invest his money better in other resources. That is why it is irrelevant to seek to apply a retained rule—which is only a rule of the Revenue and is not embodied in primary legislation—to a situation for which it was never intended: the self-employed person who arrives on the judicial scene aged 50 or thereabouts.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads the Official Report tomorrow he will find that he has not understood the point I made, for which I am sure I am responsible.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I turn then to the other matters which were raised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When we debated the 15-year, 20-year accrual situation, we dealt with the retained benefits as essentially the first and principal argument in relation to their retention. Perhaps I may remind the House what was said. In Hansard of 27th October at col. 1065 it states:
"My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale mentioned the previous system and my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out that for certain judges from 1799 there was a 15-year accrual.
One has to look at the position from the point of view of the present general tax law. First, people working in a profession on a self-employed basis have opportunities for laying aside money for pensions out of their earnings, with tax relief. That started off in a very modest way and has gradually improved as regards the way in which tax relief is allowed. Fortunately, we are in a tax regime which is a little more benign than it was some years ago. The basic allowances have been considerably improved over what they were when the allowance started. Therefore, the tax system of this country allows people at the cost of the Exchequer to make provision for a pension while they are working as self-employed people.

397
I submit to your Lordships that that is the first important point to be borne in mind when considering the special position of the judiciary: that they have worked in the profession with an opportunity, so far as concerns the tax law, to make provision for their retirement with tax advantage".
It was for that principal reason that this alternative suggestion was put forward. Despite the arguments that have been put forward as an answer for rejecting the option which has been put forward—which I find, with respect, quite unsatisfying—I shall not press the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, leave out lines 7 to 18 and insert:
("(a) a person's "pensionable pay" is the greater of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the highest pension-capped salary payable to him in respect of his service in qualifying judicial office in any one of the five years ending with the day on which he retires from such office, and

(ii) the highest annual average of his pension capped salary in any three consecutive years out of the ten years immediately preceding the day on which he retires from such office,

provided that where pension-capped salary is calculated by reference to any year other than the last complete year ending on the day on which he retires from such office, pension-capped salary shall be increased in proportion to any increase in the retail price index (being the index of retail prices compiled by the Department of Employment) from the last day of that year up to the said day.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on previous occasions my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he has managed to achieve a scheme which is as tax efficient and as tax effective as possible. As a result of that I raised in Committee the aspect of pension practice which is known rather dramatically as "dynamisation". The system is not as impressive as the word sounds. It means that the Revenue allows the pension to be calculated on earlier years than your last year if you believe that thereby, through the advantage of applying the variations in the retail price index, you gain a larger figure. That is all well established in the Inland Revenue practice; reference IR9/91.
The amendment seeks to provide that possibility for a judge who can point to the indexing system thus working to his advantage. It was thought appropriate in particular because the Top Salaries Review Body in its last report, which although not treated with much enthusiasm by the Government never had any of its detail contradicted, pointed out that during the past seven or eight years the private sector had risen in real terms some 40 per cent. and the senior members of the top salary earners within its remit had gone down in real terms by 3 per cent.
I therefore put the matter before my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 27th October. Basically, his answer was, "I don't think this will do you any good". I bridled somewhat because I would not have put it forward unless I were confident that from the point of view of the mathematics it was to that advantage. I so informed my noble and learned
398
friend that I should be able to establish that in relation to the High Court judges and above it would make a difference of several thousand pounds a year. I offered to send my noble and learned friend the figures and he was kind enough to say that he would be prepared to consider any material that I put before him. He also said that he was willing to look at any information that I was able to provide.
I provided that information by letter dated 5th November. Your Lordships may be interested to know that it made the following difference. As at 1st November the final basic earnings of the High Court judge was £86,095. If the dynamisation system were operated as the Revenue allow it to be operated within the private sector that figure would rise to £90,332. The salary of a Lord Justice at that date was £95,037. The dynamised figure is £99,650. The salary of a Lord of Appeal in ordinary as at that date was £99,109 and the dynamised figure is £103,854. Therefore, I have made out the case that there is a significant difference.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to write to me acknowledging my letter in the following terms:
"Dynamisation is permitted by the Revenue and I accept that there can be circumstances where the measure of guaranteed uplift it provides could be advantageous; for instance, where pay increases are staged. Revenue rules are not, however, the only consideration"—
I interpose to say that they always appear to have been throughout our debates. My noble and learned friend continued:
"Dynamisation is a cumbersome mechanism which is not available in other public sector schemes. Furthermore, it carries a cost with it for which the Government has not budgeted and which would need to be offset by reducing other benefits in the new pensions scheme".
The rest of the letter deals with other matters.
I wish to deal with the two points that my noble and learned friend made. First, he stated:
"Dynamisation is a cumbersome mechanism".
I inquired of the reactions of our consultant actuary who had produced the figures which I sent to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He said, "True, it was cumbersome when clerks used quill pens but now that we have the benefit of computers it is a matter of pressing two or three of the right buttons, which is exactly what I did for you and produced the figures you wanted". So much for that.
The other observation I found astonishing was:
"Furthermore, it carries a cost with it for which the Government has not budgeted and which would need to be offset by reducing the benefits in the new pensions scheme".
Not long ago I quoted what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had said in approving the observations made by my noble and learned friends Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Lord Chief Justice in the debate on Report relating to the 15 to 20-year accrual issue. He confirmed that he had accepted that we are not concerned with present cost problems of the current recession because we are dealing with a scheme which will not operate for 15 or more years and that, therefore, the present unfortunate situation is not one that has any relevance. I do not, therefore, understand the point:
"This will carry a cost with it for which the Government has not budgeted and which would need to be offset by reducing other benefits in the new scheme".

399
I believe that I have dealt adequately with the two suggestions put forward in the letter as to why judges should not obtain the advantages open to them were they still in the private sector. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, advise me whether his actuary took the dynamisation figure over the best three previous years of the judge's previous 10 years, which is the usual system for dynamisation in the occupational pensions schemes, or whether he referred only to the final year?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, there are a number of methods of dynamisation. I am not an expert on this subject. I think that you can take a three year period or you can go back for five years, but you must not go back more than 10 years. I cannot tell the noble Earl which method the actuary adopted; but knowing his competence, I assume that he adopted the permissible method which produced the most favourable result.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, in that case, does not the noble and learned Lord agree with me that as judges' salaries are constantly increasing, it is unlikely that any previous three years will be better than the latest three years which the judge has before he retires?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I cannot argue the toss. We have a consultant actuary who has been in agreement with the actuaries employed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Top Salaries Review Body's expert on all the contentious matters. The figures which we provided by letter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor came back uncriticised. Therefore, I assume that the government actuary or one of his minions worked on the figures, because they were easy to work upon. As I understand it there was no issue as regards the mathematics. We are concerned here with the principle.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I was not referring to the mathematics but to the simple facts. Judges' salaries are increasing all the time. Therefore, to a simple human being like me, it seems unlikely that any dynamisation could improve matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should say at once to my noble friend that the calculations which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner sent to me show that there are some circumstances in which up-rating by reference to the retail price index can produce a higher figure for the dynamised salary than for the actual salary and payment at the end. However, those circumstances do not necessarily occur; it depends somewhat upon the situation.
As I said in my letter, this method is somewhat cumbersome. It may be that an actuary's computer system may be able to deal with it. However, dealing with the ordinary pension calculations of the whole judiciary creates a certain amount of difficulty and a certain degree of haphazardness about the result.
400
I must say that the figures which my noble and learned friend have produced are for the salary. The difference to be made in pension would be half of that.
The reference to cost is a reference to the cost of the scheme as a whole, trying to balance out the various changes that have been made in respect of the judiciary. My own feeling about that is that there are some other aspects of the scheme which we have sought to improve which are more meritorious than this method, principally because of the slightly haphazardous way in which it may operate, depending on previous histories and on which three years were chosen.
Therefore, I am not in a position to agree to this amendment. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for sending me the figures because they illustrate the extent to which dynamisation could help. My earlier view was that the amount was likely to be rather small in comparison with the whole matter in issue. My noble and learned friend has shown that the amounts may be somewhat larger than I thought when I spoke previously. However, they are not of an order which would make it right to opt for this variation on other public schemes. I accept, as the letter says, that the Revenue allows this but here we have a public scheme. I believe that the benefits that I have sought to provide in the other amendments which I have proposed are more appropriate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that the oft repeated refrain of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, "I have achieved for the judiciary a scheme which is as tax efficient as is obtainable under the existing law", has a hollow, if not mocking, ring about it.
This is permitted by the Revenue. Initially it was resisted by the Lord Chancellor essentially on the basis that it was a waste of time because it did not produce anything. When we show that it is not a waste of time, that it produces something and that it should be allowed to the judge, we are told that it is too expensive. With disappointment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do now adjourn the business for one hour.
Those of us who are interested in Questions have been here since three o'clock. We had to sit through two long Statements, in which those who are interested in the Autumn Statement certainly retained their seats.
It is perfectly intolerable that your Lordships' House should be treated as though it were a sausage machine, churning through government legislation. We are now only half way through the list of groupings. I see that the noble Lord the Chief Whip and the Deputy Leader of the House are present. I give them an opportunity to justify the way in which we have been treated, particularly bearing in mind that

401
they must have known that there were two long Statements to be interposed so that we only reached the second amendment at six o'clock this evening.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn the business for one hour.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the first point that I should make as the Chief Whip is that in the usual way the usual channels discussed the best way forward. As we intend to finish the business on the Order Paper this evening, it was felt that we should continue through with the business as it stood. It is fair to say that a number of the amendments have taken a considerable period of time to be dealt with which is very much at odds with the traditions of this House on Third Reading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that a dilemma was posed by the slow pace of business. On the basis that we wish to finish our discussions on this Bill at a reasonable hour—that is, before midnight—one had to balance that with taking out an hour within which there was very little business to be done. Had there been an hour's business to be conducted during the adjournment for pleasure, it may have been useful to take an hour for it. However, the remaining business, which must be dealt with at the end of our discussions on this Bill, is very short. When I was consulted, I agreed that we should make better progress with the Bill, albeit to the discomfort of noble Lords, if we forwent the time to have a meal break. It is not a happy situation but it is designed so that we make the best progress possible with the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip and to the Opposition Chief Whip. However, I am bound to point out that the Chief Whip made no mention of the two long Statements, which he must have known would take a considerable time, interrupting the business on the Bill so that we did not reach the second amendment until six o'clock.
This Bill is of great constitutional importance. Anybody who heard the speeches on Report of my noble and learned friends the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone can be in no doubt as to its constitutional importance. A substantial number of noble Lords who listened to those three speeches from the government Benches voted for the amendment.
Naturally, the noble Lord the Chief Whip has his masses in reserve outside the Chamber who did not listen to the debate. I ask him to realise the importance and controversial nature of this Bill and not simply to drive us on hour after hour without any opportunity for refreshment. As I say, it is not treating your Lordships' House in the proper way.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may make an observation on the basis that it is my habit to be in your Lordships' House every day. I have had the privilege of serving on the Front Bench for several years. On many previous occasions, both recently and in the past, we have sat during a regime which was
402
considerably more testing than the one which has been in existence this afternoon and this evening in your Lordships' House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I certainly do not accuse the noble Lord the Chief Whip of being innovative in the burdens which he places on your Lordships' House. He is right that many times in the past we have had to suffer. There is no reason why we should go on doing so. He has not answered the main point as to how intolerable it is to keep those who are interested in this Bill waiting hour after hour without opportunity for refreshment. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord has his troops massed in reserve on the reverse side of the hill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Lump sum on the judicial officer's retirement or death]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 20, after ("him") insert ("at his election").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not here because I had prepared myself for him to pounce on me on the basis that this amendment was out of order because it had already been argued previously. I must put up with that disappointment as best I can.
Perhaps I may explain the situation. This amendment is a great deal stronger in its context than the option which I moved unsuccessfully a short while ago. The position is quite simple. In all pension schemes there is an entitlement to commute a portion of one's pension. In the private scheme it is usual for the pension to be two-thirds of the final salary, but the person who has that pension almost invariably commutes a portion of it so that he gets a half of his final salary, but three times his pension as a lump sum tax free as his pension.
Perhaps I may give an example. Assuming that his final salary was £100,000, he would take as a lump sum £150,000 and a pension of £50,000. Generally speaking, in the public sector the position is that the person does not commute. The pension provides in terms for a pension of half the last year's salary and a lump sum of three times. As regards the judges, they have been lagging behind on this particular aspect of pension provisions.
In moving this amendment we are in the unhappy position that when the scheme came forward in which the lump sum was increased (from 2 to 2.25 times, but capped—which means that anything it produced over£75,000 was taxed and in all probability at 40 per cent.) one was therefore back where one started—when the matter was put out for consultation by the Lord Chancellor's department, the Top Salaries Review Body, which is a wholly independent organisation, wrote advising the Lord Chancellor's Department that the lump sum should be three times and that 2.25 was the wrong multiplier.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor got in substance the same advice from the consultant actuary whom the Lord Chancellor's Department retained to advise it. The consultant actuary to whom

403
we went, produced the same answer. This is important: the same answer is that both in the public and private sector the right multiplier is three times. So for once we were not faced with the argument, "You are relying on the private sector and its approach; you are now in the public sector and you must conform"—a favourite word of the Government—"with what is in the public sector". Here there is unanimity between both the public and private sectors.
It could not be said that there is some quirk of the tax law that obliges the Government to accept a lesser figure than three times. The only justification put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to be found in the debate on this subject in which he said:
"the reason for this system is the retained benefits arrangements which I have described and which I believe is extremely appropriate in the case of the judges".—[official Report, 27/10/92; col. 1104.]
The retained benefits system is not "extremely appropriate" if you have not got any retained benefits. What is being suggested as regards this amendment is that if the retained benefits is the only argument—it is the only one put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor —for not allowing the judges to have the same multiplier as everybody else is entitled to have, then the option makes the situation exactly as he would have wished. Those who want the advantage of the retained benefits are to accept the smaller multiplier of 2.25 and those who cheerfully say "I will give credit for the pension equivalent of my retained benefits, if any" should be placed in the same position as the other persons either in the public or the private sector, who have no retained benefits to take into account and who are entitled to the multiplier of three.
That is not the same issue as was debated previously. It is not an issue to which the answer is, as with the 15-year or 20-year periods, "You, the judges, must now, after 200 years, conform with the ordinary tax law because you are not sufficiently sui generis to be differentiated". This is purely a question of retained benefits or no retained benefits. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has told us throughout that the main purpose of the Bill is to bring judicial pensions more into line with other pensions, especially those in the public service. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is right that his amendment would achieve similarity not only between judicial pensions and other pensions in the national service, but also with those in the private sector as well, then I should have thought that his amendment deserves great support. Of course one would be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to say, but so far it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has had logic on his side.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I should explain just a little bit more the situation about the
404
cap. Some reference was made to it on the last occasion and I am not sure that it was made absolutely clear as to how it operates.
The cap bites on benefits under Part I of the Bill by virtue of the concept of pensionable pay. The pension payable to a scheme member who completes 20 years' service is one-half his pensionable pay. Pensionable pay is determined by reference to pension-capped salary, so the pension under Part I has already been subject to the effects of the cap before we come to calculate any derivative benefits.
The lump sum under this provision is 2.25 times the annual rate of the pension and is entirely tax free, even if it exceeds the level of the cap, which is at present £75,000. This is because the cap operates on the salary by means of the definition of pensionable pay, not on the lump sum. A judge whose final salary exceeds the cap, however, will also receive a pension payment in respect of that part of his or her salary—that is the later provision. A lump sum payment which will be 2.25 times the annual rate of that part of the pension derived from above the cap will also be payable. This part of the lump sum will be taxable at the rate of 40 per cent. It would not be correct to say, therefore, that if the lump sum derived under Part I of the scheme were to exceed £75,000 it would be taxed; it would not. Only that part of the lump sum derived from the salary earned above the cap of £75,000 would be liable to tax.
The 2.25 formulation already contained in the Bill exceeds by about 50 per cent. the normal Inland Revenue maximum for lump sums where the accrual rate is such that retained benefits are not taken into account. The situation is that so far as two people in the scheme are concerned they should be treated in the same way. It cannot be right that you get more in respect of your work in the public sector if you have not taken advantage of the tax scheme for self-employed pensions when you were in the private sector than you would otherwise. That seems to be an utterly unfair comparison.
But of course if my noble and learned friend is seeking to say that he would like retained benefits to be taken into account and in that way get the three times, that is certainly a possible modification of the scheme. However, I do not believe it can be right or fair as between two members of the scheme to say, "You get a bigger pension, Judge X, or a bigger lump sum, than Judge Y", the only reason being that Judge X did not put any money away under the tax arrangements, which he could have done when he was in private practice, whereas Judge Y took advantage of those arrangements. That cannot be fair as between them. It must be one thing or the other.
So far as I am concerned, if the retained benefits are taken into account, the figure could be three, but that would have to apply to the whole scheme. If retained benefits are not to be taken into account, then 2.25 appears to be the appropriate figure.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have had the greatest difficulty in following what my noble and learned friend has said. It is not my fault, I assure him, because I have had behind me in support of my contention the expert report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor from the Top Salaries Review Body, the

405
report from Mr. Alexander of Watsons, retained by my noble and learned friend, and the report of Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, the expert actuary retained by us. All three have stressed that it is wrong to limit the judges to 2.25. They are experts on tax legislation and they are experts on the present situation, generally speaking.
The only answer my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave in Committee—and it was one which did not take us totally by surprise because we had heard it before —was, "You, the judges, have the advantage of not having your retained benefits taken into account and that is why you are being kept down to 2.25". There was nothing about this capping complication; nor could there be, because our experts, one would have assumed, would have got the point straight away.
What is happening is a gross unfairness. Let me explain why. The persons who become judges who have large retained benefits are the commercial silks, the silks specialising in patent work, in intellectual property work, who earn, as we all know, very large figures and whom one would assume would put in large sums for a pension. What is the result? They have large retained benefits and they suffer the disadvantage, on the philosophy of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, of being kept down in their lump sum to 2.25. But the wretched junior practitioner, who is usually the backbone of the Circuit Bench and who has no real retained benefits, is being sacrificed so that they can have the advantage of their retained benefits which he has not. He is thereby deprived of what he would get in the public sector and in the private sector, three times. That cannot be just. It cannot attract the argument, "You are seeking not to conform with general tax law". That is exactly what we are seeking to conform with, as requested and required by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
At this stage in the evening I will make no friends—although that perhaps in itself is not a total inhibition—and I shall achieve no success in dividing the House. However, I invite my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who has emphasised how anxious he is to be fair, to take this into account because all the experts, including the department's own expert, have advised that this is what should occur. The only answer provided is the retained benefits. They rejected that by implication because they knew the retained benefits were being allowed to be kept. We have now met what we thought was a spurious point and we are told there is some other and, as I find, unintelligible resistance to justice being done.
I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment with great reluctance largely because we have been thwarted by the two lengthy Statements from bringing this amendment on at a time when a Division would, I think, have been attended by the reasonable prospect of success, but that prospect now no longer exists. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where a person dies within five years of retirement his personal representative shall be granted a lump sum equal to five times the annual rate of pension less any annual sums paid to him by way of pension.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the payment which a widow should be entitled to receive if her husband dies within a very few years of retirement. I believe that it is now accepted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the Bill as drafted provided a provision which, in reality, was quite useless. By the time the various deductions were made as provided in the clause as drawn, the widow who experienced the disadvantage of the early death of her husband would have achieved absolutely nothing of any significance.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor appreciated this and hinted in Committee that he would think about it. By the time we came to Report he had thought about it and had decided that he would produce something which could provide the widow with a benefit of a more attractive kind. Your Lordships will see from Amendment No. 21, that that is what is now on offer. My noble and learned friend is taking out the words,
"one and a half times his pensionable pay"
and inserting,
"five times the annual rate in force in respect of that pension immediately before his death".
The difference between that and Amendment No. 16, which I am moving, which would insert the words,
"Where a person dies within five years of retirement his personal representative shall be granted a lump sum equal to five times the annual rate of pension less any annual sums paid to him by way of pension",
is that the only deductions which fall to be made from the sum which represents five times the annual rate of pension are, in my amendment, only annual sums which had been paid to him by way of pension prior to his death. We are advised that this is the modern way of dealing with this sad situation where the judge dies within five years of his retirement, leaving a widow.
What is provided in my noble and learned friend's Amendment No. 21 involves deducting not only the annual sums which have been paid to the deceased judge before his death by way of pension, but also the lump sum that he received. The result, so I understand, is this: figures have been taken on the basis that future increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, which deals with increasing the pension for inflation factors, have been taken on the basis of assumed increases under that Act of 4 per cent. per year compound. It further assumes that a High Court judge retires on 1st November with a pension of one-half of his pensionable pay. It ignores the cap and incidence of tax on the lump sum and therefore this is the most favourable approach that can be adopted.
The consequences for illustrative purposes are these: if the judge died within one year after retirement, the lump sum that the widow would receive under the provision of my noble and learned friend, which requires this extra deduction of the lump sum to which I have referred, is, in round terms, £75,000. That may be said to be some significant

407
compensation. However, if he dies two years after retirement, the lump sum which the widow receives goes down to £39,000 in round terms and, if he dies three years after retirement, the lump sum goes down to £1,500 in round terms and thereafter it disappears into thin air. So, although we have managed to persuade my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by our amendment, first put down in Committee and repeated on Report, to make some gesture which is of real value, he has produced a formula which is of significant assistance only to the widow if the judge dies one year after retirement, of not much advantage if he dies two years after retirement and thereafter one can almost forget about the value of the provision.
Perhaps I may outline the support for my amendment. It is modern in terms. It provides an effective sum for the widow because it deducts only the annual pension sums that the judge has received after retirement and while he survives. It therefore produces, as is to be expected it being an ordinary term in a modern scheme, some reasonable compensation for her loss and not one which is almost a fictional one unless he dies within two years after retirement. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of both this amendment and of my Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 21 is to alter the basis on which the additional lump sum under Clause 4(2) is calculated. This lump sum is paid to the personal representatives of a retired scheme member who dies shortly after retirement and is intended to act as a form of diminishing life cover so that the estate of a judge receives additional benefit if he dies so soon after retirement that he has received little by way of pension benefits from the pension scheme. The purpose of the proposal is to compensate for loss of pension as a result of early death.
As drafted, the Bill guarantees that, leaving aside spouses' and children's pensions, the pension scheme will pay in respect of a member at least an amount equal to one and one half times his pensionable pay following his retirement, notwithstanding the fact of his death. My amendments replace that guarantee with a better one: that the scheme will pay out at least five times the annual rate of a scheme member's pension following his retirement even if he dies shortly after it. So, if a scheme member dies before a time when the aggregate of the sums paid to him in respect of his annual pension and the lump sum paid on retirement equal five times the rate of his annual pension, his personal representatives will be paid an additional lump sum to make up the difference.
This is where my amendments differ from those of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. Amendment No. 16, which my noble and learned friend has just moved, does not require the lump sum on retirement to be taken into account in assessing the value of the benefits already paid to a retired officer
408
before his death and therefore requires the scheme to pay out a greatly increased additional lump sum in the circumstances covered by this provision.
Those of your Lordships who have seen the examples that I have circulated comparing the new scheme with the existing arrangements will have realised that the provisions I now propose constitute a significant improvement on the present scheme. High Court judges, for example, will in every case do better under this scheme as modified by my amendments than under the present arrangements. The personal representatives of a High Court judge who is appointed at or before the age of 55, retires at age 70 and dies a year later would receive an additional lump sum under the new scheme of between £57,000 and £76,000 where at present they would receive nothing.
The benefit offered by my amendments could not, therefore, be said by any stretch of the imagination to be niggardly. In the same circumstances, but if my noble and learned friend's amendment were passed, the sum would be between £131,000 and £175,000 which they would not receive under the existing arrangements, and this in addition to the lump sum on retirement of between £73,000 and £98,000 that they had received but a year earlier. I do not believe that there is any justification for this and, in any case, the arrangements that I propose are a reasonable solution to this problem, designed to cover the situation of death soon after retirement. The inclusion of the references to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in my amendments is to clarify that it is the annual rate of the pension received by the deceased at the time of death which is at the centre of the provision, not the annual rate of the pension at the time of his retirement; in other words, if the pension has been improved by the uprating provision, it is that pension which will be used for the calculation.
I submit to your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 21, which are tabled in my name, are a very reasonable improvement on the proposals in the present Bill and also on the present schemes. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to incorporate them in the Bill and that, in the light of my explanation, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just spoken. I had not intended to speak this evening but, rather like my contribution in Committee, I really think that someone should place on record the fact that some Members of your Lordships' House wonder whether we should perhaps be going into such detail about the conditions of service of a particular group of public servants, especially on a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place has announced that pay settlements in the public sector should be restricted to a maximum of 1.5 per cent. in the coming year.
I bow to no one in my respect for an independent judiciary. I have long said that members of the judiciary should be well rewarded. We all know the historical reasons why judges should be above any sort

409
of financial consideration. I have always supported that view throughout my political life, such as it has been. However, as a layman, I find it distressing to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is the head of our entire legal edifice, constantly being besieged in these proceedings by his Praetorian guard.
There is a certain unreality when examples are given of lump sums; indeed, the figure of £100,000 has been mentioned and the question of a tax rate of about 40 per cent. has been raised. My former constituents in Bristol would have been delighted to pay a 40 per cent. tax rate. It was something beyond their wildest dreams to move into that sort of tax bracket. I appeal to noble Lords who are pushing forward these amendments to consider whether it is entirely seemly to pursue such matters at this time. I made the point previously that if the mining community had had the opportunity of discussing their pay and conditions, moving amend-ments and speaking to them in Parliament, then perhaps things might have been different in recent months.
As I said, I support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I shall bring to bear any influence that I may have in that respect. I hope that his amendments are successful. As a former manager of business in another place, I must say that to suggest that the timing of particular votes has an effect on the result is not really in keeping with the dignity of Parliament.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord was present earlier in the debate when I read out your Lordships' specific agreement with my noble and learned friends Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Lord Chief Justice who stressed that the present difficult financial situation of the country had no relevance to a scheme which will not be operating for 15 to 20 years. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replied in words which I read out earlier today. He said:
"I also agree with the view that what we are seeking to set here is the system for pension payments for the future; in other words, I shall not refer to any present aspect of the economy or anything of that sort in dealing with the matters which have been raised".
I shall merely say this in regard to the figure of £100,000 mentioned by the noble Lord. He is perhaps unaware that the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is 50 per cent. lower than that paid to the senior newscaster employed by the BBC. The Lord Chief Justice, the head of the administration of law in this country, who makes vital decisions, receives £50,000 less. If one reads out the news, one receives £50,000 more.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is that I sought to point out how the formula that my noble and learned friend has put up dwindles away to virtually nothing after the third, fourth and fifth years. The formula is meant to make provision for what should happen where death occurs within five years. To point out that it produces nothing over half the period that it is meant to cover, I should have thought called for an answer; but none was available. At this time of night, at this stage in the debate, I have to content myself, which of course I do with the deepest respect, by quoting from Troilus and Cressida:
410
"Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart".
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 24, after ("pension,") insert ("including any increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I already explained Amendment No. 17 when I answered Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, the amendment is entirely to be welcomed and is very necessary. It is surprising that it has arisen only on Third Reading. It draws attention to a problem which is fairly pervasive in the Bill in relation to what are called derivative benefits. That is where one has a derivative benefit which has to be calculated by reference to the pension of a judge and which has to take account of the situation that arises when death takes place after retirement. It is necessary in such a case that the calculation should be made by reference not to the initial pension which the judge draws on his retirement but to the indexed pension which is payable at date of death. Amendments Nos. 17 and 21 deal with that point, as does Amendment No. 24 which I shall be proposing with my noble and learned friend.
One has only to state the problem to see that the amendment is necessary. The derivative benefit must be calculated in relation to the indexed pension as it actually is when the calculation has to he made. For that reason, I very much welcome Amendments Nos. 17 and 21. I hope that, in the same spirit, the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept Amendment No. 24.
It seems unsatisfactory that we should include these piecemeal references to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, here, there and elsewhere, instead of having some general provision. In the 1981 Act that situation did not arise because Section 30 contained a general reference to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. We have nothing similar in the Bill and therefore we have to insert it in relation to each situation. The noble and learned Lord has done so in relation to Clause 4, and I shall seek to do so in relation to Clause 5. It would be better and more economic drafting if, with his advisers, the noble and learned Lord could find some general formula which could be put in at the end and which would cover every case. Clause 22 contains a general power but it does not happen to fit this provision. I am happy to welcome Amendment No. 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 24, after ("pension") insert ("increased by any pension paid under section 19").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to achieve what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said he had achieved; namely, a scheme which is the most tax efficient attainable. What it is sought to do is this. At present the death benefit which is paid to the widow is capped. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe (who has just left the Chamber) for using

411
such extravagant figures; but that means that any sum over £75,000 is capped in the sense that it has to bear tax, presumably at 40 per cent.
That immediately occurred to those expert in pension provisions. It resulted in this advice being given in the following terms to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a year before the Bill was introduced. When I read it, I shall insert the correct figure which has gone up from 1½ to 2, otherwise I shall be interrupting myself. Paragraph 3.12 of the Top Salaries Review Body's observations on the consultative paper states, with my alteration:
"A death-in-service benefit of twice the pensionable pay capped is low. There is therefore no need for the cap to restrict benefits. The cap on death-in-service comes into play only when the tax-free lump sum exceeds four times the capped salary at the date of death. The cap applies to the benefit and not to the pensionable pay".
Mr. Alexander, the expert and consultant actuary from Watson's, retained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"We further note that if pay exceeds the cap, the gratuity in excess of"—
and he puts 1½ times—
"shortly to become—"
I interpose "two"—
"the cap would be paid from the unapproved scheme and would therefore be taxed. We recommend that, instead, all of the death gratuity is paid from the approved scheme, thereby ensuring that no tax would be payable. This is possible because in all cases 1½ times full pay—"
I interpose "twice times full pay" because I think it applies equally—
"will be less than the Inland Revenue maximum gratuity payable from the approved scheme of four times capped pay".
Our own expert says in his report:
"The part of the lump sum death benefit that relates to salary in excess of the cap will be taxed, as pointed out by the independent actuary".
That is Mr. Alexander.
"It is possible to enhance the benefit up to four times the lesser of the salary or the cap and so avoid the tax. This is common practice in the private sector. It seems peculiar that judges shall have such a low level of benefits and still be exposed to tax on some of it when, as in the private sector, the whole of the larger benefit is paid free of tax".
I interpose merely to say that he refers to the lower level of benefits. Mr. Alexander had suggested that the figure should be three times; we put that up at the Report stage but the amendment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it should be twice was carried.
Thus, on all sides, the TSRB, the Government's own independent consultant actuary and the independent consultant actuary to whom the judges have been obliged to have recourse make the same observation. There is no need for tax to be paid once the death benefit exceeds the capped sum.
What is happening is that the judges or their widows are being required—quite contrary to the position which would occur if they were in the private sector—to pay tax on a death benefit above the capped figure. The answer given by my noble and learned friend to this proposition on Report was quite simply, "Ah, but you have the advantage of the retained benefits". That startling piece of information would not have escaped the TSRB who were commenting on the scheme a year before the Bill was introduced. Nor
412
would it have escaped the attention of Mr. Alexander of Watsons who commented on the same scheme and nor would it have escaped the attention of the independent consultant whom we retained. All three of them knew that the retained benefits were not going to be taken into account. They merely pointed out that the way in which the scheme was being structured involved a quite unnecessary obligation to pay tax. In those circumstances if the refrain, "I have achieved for the judges the most tax efficient scheme obtainable", is not to be a hollow one, the advice given by all three experts should be applied. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I explained in answer to an earlier amendment that the cap is applied to the pensionable pay and if the lump sum is more than £75,000 as a result of the calculation, that does not mean that tax is applied above the £75,000. The Revenue's rules provide for a death in service lump sum benefit before any retirement benefits have been paid, not exceeding either four times the deceased employee's final remuneration less any retained benefits, or a maximum of twice final remuneration where retained benefits need not be taken into account. The scheme as drafted is therefore at the Revenue limits unless retained benefits are taken into account. These amendments do not, of course, seek to increase the multiple of pension used to calculate the tax free lump sum obtainable under Part I of the Bill, but increase the figure for remuneration so that it includes salary earned above the cap. This means of providing an increased tax free lump sum is, so far as I am aware, not permitted in any pension scheme, whether or not retained benefits are taken into consideration. The present draft of the Bill is, therefore on my understanding at the limits the Revenue will allow.
In respect of the death in early retirement benefit, the amendments seek to increase the level of the lump sum so that the additional lump sum will be paid to the personal representatives of a judge who dies following retirement if the aggregate of the payments of his annual pension plus any pension paid under the top-up scheme, and the lump sum paid on retirement plus any lump sum paid under the top-up scheme is less than one-and-a-half times his pensionable pay increased by any part of his salary which exceeds the pensions cap. Here too, this means of circumventing the operation of the pensions cap which applies to all other people is not acceptable. I have already explained that it is one of the purposes of the Bill to bring the judicial pension schemes into line with modern pension and tax law, and the scheme as drafted, following my own amendments to this provision, will, I believe, comply with what the Revenue allows in a modern pension scheme.
Accordingly, I must say that I am not in a position to support this amendment. However, I invite your Lordships in due course to support my Amendments Nos. 19 and 21.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, even I by now have achieved a settled, hopeless expectation that if I have even three experts on my side—and one of those is retained by my noble and learned friend the Lord

413
Chancellor—who point out that the scheme is not tax efficient but can be made so, I will not have my submissions accepted. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) the lump sum paid or payable to him under subsection (1) above,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 27, leave out ("one and a half times his pensionable pay") and insert ("five times the annual rate in force in respect of that pension immediately before his death, including any increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Surviving spouse's pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert:("including any increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to say that this amendment relies on no experts at all, and perhaps therefore I may have some limited success as a result. It is a probing amendment because it is common ground that index linking is applicable to the widow's pension. She does not receive merely one-half of what her husband received at the moment of retirement, she receives one-half of his pension as increased from time to time under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 by virtue of indexation.
It therefore occurred to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, and subsequently to me, that the words set out in the amendment should be included in the Bill. However, in a complex Bill we may have missed the possibility that the point is adequately catered for elsewhere and it may be that tucked away in this complex Bill there is sufficient clarification that the widow receives half her husband's pension, as indexed, and thereafter has the advantage of indexation. However, if that is not the case the amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words in support of my noble and learned friend's amendment. There is no dispute about what is intended. It is clearly intended that a widow should have half of the indexed pension of her husband in the sum at the date of his death, which is not the same as at the date of his retirement. There is no dispute about that. That is the law under the 1981 Act. That is how pensions are paid at present. At the Report stage the noble and learned Lord made it clear that that is the case. The only question is whether the amendment is necessary.
414
I felt that there was a difficulty in the terminology of the Bill which might produce a contrary result. I shall have to go through the hoops very rapidly, being conscious of the necessity of not boring the gentlemen in the bar at this stage.
The widow's pension is dealt with in Clause 5. On line 5 on page 7 it is indicated that it is:
"one-half of the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension".
That appears very clear. Lines 18 and 22 state that,
'"the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension' means…the appropriate annual rate of that pension".
Then one jumps back to Clause 3(1) which indicates that,
"'the appropriate annual rate' for the purposes of this Act is an annual rate equal to one-half of his pensionable pay".
As if that were not enough, one then has to turn to Clause 3(3), which states that,
"a person's 'pensionable pay' is the greater of the following…the pension-capped salary",
which means the salary of the last 12 months.
That rather strong collection of phrases seems to limit the court to giving the widow anything more than one-half of the deceased's pensionable pay in the last 12 months, three years, or 10 years, or whatever it may be, of his life.
There is no provision anywhere else in the Bill that I can find which says that she has to have the benefit of indexation. One leaves aside that her own pension is indexed by virtue of the Act of 1971. In order to get to the right starting point she has to establish that she is entitled to one-half of her husband's pension as increased by indexation.
It may be that this amendment is unnecessary. If the noble and learned Lord can tell us so, I shall be happy indeed. I hope he will not reject it out of hand. Both I and my noble and learned friend have given considerable thought to it. We believe that the point is a valid one. If he cannot agree to it this evening, I earnestly ask him to take it away, consult with his advisers and see whether in another place some provision is necessary. We all agree on what we want to do. It is just a question of the means.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for those explanations. It is absolutely clear that we all have the same desire for the end result. The advice I have received so far—I shall look at it again in the light of what my noble and learned friends have said—is that the surviving spouse receives a pension increase to which he or she is entitled. That will happen under the Bill as currently drafted. I refer in particular to Clause 22 which specifically applies the pensions increase legislation to pensions under the Bill.
The advice that I have received is that the amendment in its present form would put a pension increase on to the pension which would be derived from the judge's pension. In other words, it would provide for index linking twice. None of us has that in mind. My noble and learned friends can be assured that I shall certainly look closely at what has been said tonight to ensure that the effect is that which all of us desire.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I do not know who is entitled to reply but perhaps I may add a few words. Clause 22 does not help. It only applies indexation to the widow's own pension. That is all right. When she gets her pension, it is indexed by virtue of the 1971 Act. I cannot see at the moment that Clause 22 helps to establish the initial calculation of the figure of which the widow is to receive half.
I do not think that there is any case of double indexation, except that the husband's pension is indexed and when he dies his wife's pension goes on being indexed. That is not double indexation. It is consecutive indexation.
I have said enough. I am happy to know that the noble and learned Lord will look at the provision again. If he finds it necessary, I am sure that something like this amendment, if not identical, will be brought forward at another stage in another place.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on that basis, we both seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Grant and payment of a children's pension]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("shall,") to ("be") in line 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 to 33.
The purpose of these amendments is to extend the scope of children eligible to receive a children's pension under the Bill. I undertook, following our discussions at the Committee stage of the Bill, to look at this area further, and at Report to bring forward these amendments. Their effect is to make all children who fall within the period of full-time education and childhood in Clause 7 eligible for a children's pension if they are a natural child of the deceased or a step-child of the deceased. In respect of natural children there is no longer any requirement that the scheme member must have been married.
Natural and step-children may be included regardless of retirement. With regard to adopted children, however, the redrafted Clause 6 will still require that they be adopted before retirement unless the Treasury directs that a pension may be paid in other circumstances. This is because it would not be right for the public purse to be expected to give an open-ended commitment to provide a pension for any number of children an officer might choose to adopt following retirement.
The amendment to Clause 8 removes entirely the present requirement that the children's pension should cease if the spouse remarries unless the Treasury direct otherwise. It also replicates a provision in the 1981 Act which enables the Treasury to direct that, on a spouse's remarriage, the pension may be paid at the higher rate which would apply if there was no surviving spouse at all.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that I have taken full account of the points made in our discussion of this area of the new scheme and that the amendments I now bring forward are a significant
416
improvement to the arrangements for children under the Bill as drafted. With your Lordships' leave I shall wish to move Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 en bloc. I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, although it is late at night and we have been almost seven hours without remission, I should like to ask two questions on Amendment No. 27. They relate to the term "natural children". My first is a purely technical question. Why was it necessary to specify "natural children"? My understanding was that until 1969 children in a statute meant legitimate children. But I believe that that rule has been abrogated since 1969.
Our statute book continues to swell, becoming increasingly prolix and extensive as a result. In my submission, we ought not to put in even one unnecessary word. I suggest that since 1969 the word "natural" may be an unnecessary word.
The second question raises a rather wider social aspect: that is, whether we are not in danger of drifting almost blindly and without apprehension into recognising a status of concubinage. Many legal systems have such a status, well defined, with the children's interests properly defined. We seem to be drifting, especially in the social service code, into recognition of concubinage as if it were the equivalent of marriage to the detriment of the status of marriage. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could advert to that matter.
I hear from every side nowadays the phrase "common law marriage", a phrase my noble and learned friend would certainly never use since Scottish law recognised common law marriages up to 1939. However, there seems to be from the linguistic aspect a recognition of semi-concubinage as a status.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have used the expression "natural children" especially, and defined it for the purposes of this section in Amendment No. 32. We use the expression to distinguish between the other types of children referred to—for example, step-children and adopted children—because we did not wish to deal with them all in exactly the same way.
On my noble and learned friend's second point, of course the measure provides that any children of whom that person is the genetic father or mother will be regarded as the natural children, and therefore subject to being supported by a pension under the Bill. That seems to me to be reasonable in the circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment Nos. 27 to 32:
Page 7, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert:

("(a) any natural children of the deceased,

(b) any step-children of the deceased,

(c) any children adopted by the deceased before his retirement from qualifying judicial office, and

(d) any children adopted by the deceased after his retirement from qualifying judicial office and in respect of whom a direction is given under subsection (6) below,").

Page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").
Page 8, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert:

417

("(a) that the deceased had, before his retirement from qualifying judicial office, formed the intention of adopting the child; and

(b) that, immediately before that retirement, the child was wholly or mainly dependent on the deceased.").

Page 8, line 38, leave out ("(2) (b)") and insert ("(2) (c)").
Page 8, line 39, at end insert:
("() In this section, "step-children of the deceased" means—

(a) any natural children of any person to whom the deceased was at any time married who, at the time of the marriage, either had been born or were in gestation;

(b) any children adopted by such a person before the marriage to the deceased; and

(c) any children adopted by such a person after the marriage to the deceased in a case where the adoption proceedings were pending at the time of the marriage.

() For the purposes of this section the "natural children" of any person are any children of whom that person is the genetic father or mother.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rate of children's pension]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Where the deceased leaves a surviving spouse who remarries, the Treasury may, if they think fit, direct that subsection (1) above shall apply instead of subsection (2) above as respects any period when the surviving spouse has a spouse.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Contribution towards cost of surviving spouse's and children's pension]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, line 41, at end insert:
("() Regulations made under this section shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with the matter briefly because much of the ground was covered in respect of an earlier amendment; namely, the status of parliamentary control over our delegated legislation. Earlier I drew attention to the first criterion which was established by the joint Select Committee on delegated legislation; that is, whether the regulation made a substantial contribution to the body of legislature. This is a different point and arises under the second head to which my noble and learned friend averted; namely, powers to impose financial charge or to make other forms of financial provision. The clause deals with contributions to be made towards improved benefits for dependents by the judge himself. That is reasonable enough and has always been accepted.
Clause 9(3) provides that the contributions shall be prescribed. The only question is whether when contributions are prescribed they fall under the heading of powers to enforce financial charge. In my respectful submission it is obvious that they do so. In recent years we have come across such a provision. The most notorious was in the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, as it was introduced. That Act amended an earlier Statutory Sick Pay Act under which employers were enjoined to pay statutory sick pay to their employees and the Government were enjoined to reimburse them 100 per cent. However, under the recent Act the figure was reduced to 80 per cent. It
418
may seem extraordinary that under another provision the Minister was empowered to alter that figure of 80 per cent., obviously imposing a charge on the individual employer and affecting a charge on public funds. Even more strange is the fact that it was subject only to negative resolution, which is relevant here.
A protest was immediately made in respect of another place. The Government hastened to accept that the provision ought to be subject to affirmative resolution. In fact, when the Bill came to this House your Lordships would not have the Henry VIII provision. By a vote carried against the Government your Lordships expunged that from the Bill and the Government finally bowed to the view of this House. In this case the only question is whether the provision should be subject to affirmative resolution. That is answered by the reply to the question: does the clause confer powers to impose a financial charge? Since it does, in my respectful submission it should be affirmative. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the second head of the Joint Committee's recommendation was only as regards matters which would normally be appropriate to taxation. It states:
"powers to impose or increase taxation or other financial burdens on the subject or to raise statutory limits",
and so on. I do not believe that this is within that category. It regulates the terms of contributions by those who will be members of the scheme.
I am comforted by the fact that the corresponding provision for contributions in Section 23 of the 1981 Act, which was a consolidating Act, was subject to the negative resolution procedure. This is an area in which that type of negative resolution procedure is adequate. I have heard no suggestion that such a procedure has not worked perfectly satisfactorily in the context of the 1981 Act.
It may be very necessary to maintain a degree of flexibility about this matter. For example, at an earlier stage my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce referred to increasing benefits if one wished to pay for them. That possibility exists. I should have thought it to be very much a matter for negotiation.
In this case I submit to your Lordships that the correct view to take is that in all the circumstances the negative resolution procedure is appropriate, par-ticularly having regard to the history of the antecedent Section 23.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there are three points. The first is whether the power to levy and impose a contribution is one which imposes a financial charge. My noble and learned friend did not answer that question. It could have been answered by either yes or no. It certainly must be answered.
The second matter is the point made by my noble and learned friend that it is a negative procedure only in the 1981 consolidation Act. The lesson from that is that Parliament cannot always uniformly exercise vigilance in these matters. Formerly it was exercised to a large extent within the government by the legislation committee of the Cabinet. However, for some years that committee has abnegated that responsibility.

419
It cannot be expected that Members of Parliament should read every line of every statute to see whether there is a bureaucratic encroachment. It may be that the committee which your Lordships set up earlier this week, following the Australian institution—the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—may perform that duty. However, it is no answer to say that that has been done before. On the contrary, it shows that we must be extremely careful in passing any power of this kind which admits bureaucratic encroachment.
That leads me to the last point. Are we not in danger of seeing the progressive erosion of the criteria established by the Joint Select Committee because we can only look at single incidents? It is like examining the wavelengths on the beach, irrespective of whether the tide is coming in. A great bureaucratic tide has been invading the legislature in recent years. However, at this hour, I must bow to the superior force of the Whips and, if my noble and learned friend will allow me to say so, not to the superior force of his argument.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Additional benefits from voluntary contributions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 11, line 4, after ("benefits") insert (", whether").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 44 and 46 to Clause 10; Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to Schedule 3 and Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 to Clause 9. These amendments give effect to the undertaking I gave at Report stage of the Bill to amend the provisions of the Bill relating to additional voluntary contributions to permit these to be made up to Revenue limits provided retained benefits are taken into account.
The analogous provisions to those in Clause 10 contained in the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 have never been implemented. The reason for this is that, until recently, the view was that the 1981 schemes were so generous, particularly in their treatment of retained benefits, in comparison to other occupational pension schemes, that there was no scope for affording further tax advantages to scheme members. As I explained at Committee, it took a good deal of consideration to overcome this. I am now in a position, with the Revenue's agreement, to allow judicial officers to make additional voluntary contributions to increase their own benefits provided that they do so within the limits which apply to all other tax approved occupational pension schemes. That means that any retained benefits from other personal or occupational pension schemes of which a scheme member has been a member, will have to be declared and taken into account for the purposes of assessing the scope for each individual to make additional voluntary contributions. Such contributions will attract tax relief at the highest rate.
The amendments ensure that the regulations under this clause will be able to require a member to declare his or her retained benefits. They also enable those benefits to be valued and aggregated with the judge's
420
potential entitlement under the main judicial pension scheme, to determine whether or not there is any headroom between that aggregated figure and the effective ceiling established by the Revenue's overall limits. The regulations will also have to cover a number of administrative and procedural matters and I have taken the opportunity of making sure that the regulation-making power is adequate.
The amendments cover not only the new scheme, but also the 1981 schemes, and the analogous Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation. There will therefore be no need for judicial officers to join the new scheme when it is established in order to take advantage of this particular development. The requirement to take into account retained benefits will apply of course only to those judges who wish to make AVCs. There will be no requirement for anyone else to declare their retained benefits.
Your Lordships may remember that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, said during our discussions at Report stage that this could be one of the most important points discussed during that debate. I very much agree with that view. An effective additional voluntary contribution facility will allow those scheme members who, for whatever reason, have been unable to make adequate provision for themselves and their families before appointment, to increase that provision to the maximum level allowed by the Revenue for a member of a tax approved scheme.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, explained earlier to me that he was unable to be with us this evening, but he told me that he welcomed these particular amendments. He understood that they had also been welcomed by his contacts among the circuit judges. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend for these amendments which, I am advised, largely answer the anxieties which I expressed at earlier stages of the Bill on behalf of those judges who first took up posts as judges before the age of 45.
Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I am glad that we have been able to accommodate his anxieties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 44:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert ("or otherwise.
(1A) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of imposing, in a case where a person to whom this Part applies makes voluntary contributions, upper limits with respect to—

(a) the aggregate value of the aggregable benefits which may be paid to or in respect of any such person; and

(b) the amount which any such person may pay by way of such contributions;

and, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) above, any such regulations may, in particular, impose such an upper limit on the amount which a person may pay by way of voluntary contributions as will, so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the aggregate value referred to in paragraph (a) above will not exceed the limit prescribed under that paragraph.
(1B) Regulations may—

421

(a) prescribe the manner in which aggregable benefits are to be valued for the purpose of any such aggregation as is mentioned in subsection (1A) above;

(b) confer on the administrators of the scheme constituted by this Part power to require a person to whom this Part applies who is making, or who wishes to make, voluntary contributions to provide such information as they may require concerning any retained benefits of his;

(c) permit the disclosure by those administrators of any information which they may obtain concerning any such retained benefits—

(i) to, or to any officers of, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; or

(ii) to, or to any servants or agents of, the trustees, managers or administrators of the scheme under which the additional benefits in question are to be provided.").

Page 11, line 6, leave out ("Any such").
Page 11, line 9, after ("than") insert ("either or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) such upper limit as may be imposed by virtue of subsection (1A) (b) above; or

(ii)").

Page 11, line 26, leave out ("under this section").
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("and").
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("limit imposed by virtue of") and insert ("such limit as is mentioned in").
Page 11, line 33, at end insert:

("(c) provide for any administrative expenses incurred by any person by virtue of this section to be defrayed out of sums received by way of voluntary contributions;

(d) provide for the manner in which voluntary contributions are to be paid;

(e) make provision for, and in connection with, the valuation of a person's accrued rights under any occupational or personal pension scheme which are to be transferred into a voluntary contributions scheme;

(f) prescribe the additional benefits which are to be available under a voluntary contributions scheme and the rates and times at which those benefits are to be payable;

(g) make provision for and in connection with the making of elections between different benefits available under voluntary contributions schemes;

(h) provide for the terms on which a person may terminate his membership of a voluntary contributions scheme;

(i) provide for the terms on which surplus funds may be refunded to a person who has made payments by way of voluntary contributions to a voluntary contribu-tions scheme.").

Page 11, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
Page 11, line 37, at end insert:
("() Regulations may provide—

(a) for such additional benefits arising under or by virtue of this section as may be prescribed—

(i) to be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund, or

(ii) to be paid out of money provided by Parliament, and

(b) for payments to be made into or out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of money provided by Parliament, in connection with the operation or administration of any prescribed voluntary contributions scheme.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert:
()In this section—

"aggregable benefits" means—
422

(a) any pensions or other benefits under this Part, other than such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1) above;

(b) such additional benefits so mentioned as may be prescribed; and

(c) such retained benefits as may be prescribed;

"employment" has the same meaning as it has in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (and accordingly includes employment as a self-employed earner, within the meaning of that Act);

"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975;

"personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986;

"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations;

"regulations" means regulations under this section;

"relevant benefits" has the meaning given by section 612(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

"retained benefits", in the case of any person, means any rights retained by him to relevant benefits under any occupational or personal pension scheme which has, or which may be expected to qualify for, tax-exemption or tax-approval, being rights which accrued during some previous employment;

"surplus funds", in relation to a person and any voluntary contributions scheme, means any funds which are, or have been, held for the purposes of that voluntary contributions scheme and which fall to be returned to him in consequence of any such limit as is mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above;

"tax-exemption" and "tax-approval" have the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986;

"voluntary contributions scheme" means any occupa-tional or personal pension scheme if and to the extent that it is a scheme under which such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1) above are, or are to be, provided.

() Without prejudice to section 29(6) below, regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes or descriptions of voluntary contributions scheme.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Retirement date for holders of certain judicial offices etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("other than Circuit judge").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment and it has no effect on the substance of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 20, line 45, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) participate in the hearing and determination of any appeal, or any petition for leave to appeal, to the House of Lords, unless he is the Lord Chancellor;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 80. I am bringing forward both amendments as a result of the observations on the existing drafting made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. My noble and learned friend pointed out in Committee and again on Report that the present drafting does not achieve its purpose, which is to ensure that no one over the age of 75, other

423
than a serving Lord Chancellor, should hear and determine appeals and petitions for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House. I believe that the present amendment achieves this purpose, and Amendment No. 80 in Schedule 6 is a consequential textual amendment to the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce for raising this point and I hope that this is a satisfactory solution to it. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward this clause, which gives full effect to what I had wanted to do at previous stages. Having said that, I hope it is not ungracious to say that I would much prefer that the clause were not there at all. This whole matter of asking people to sit on after a certain age ought to be dealt with gracefully by administration, by courtesy or good sense, rather than by the heavy hand of primary legislation. However, we are set on that course and given that the present clause is much better than the previous wording, I am very happy to agree to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Completion of proceedings after retirement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert:
("(4) If and to the extent that any prohibition imposed by subsection (7) of section 26 above would not, apart from this subsection, be regarded as a prohibition on the holding of an office, it shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were such a prohibition, and references in this section to office, or to vacating or otherwise ceasing to hold office, shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment. Its purpose is to remove any doubt as to the provisions of Clause 27 which allow a judge to finish off a case even though he has vacated his office and to work in a case even where a judge does not actually vacate an office but merely becomes ineligible to take part in the proceedings. An example of this we have just considered, and that is that a person of 75 is no longer able to participate in the hearing of appeals to the House of Lords. It might be argued that he does not vacate any office; he merely becomes ineligible to take part. The amendment removes any doubt that there may be on this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Corresponding minor amendments to other pensions enactments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 35, line 35, at end insert:
("Additional voluntary contributions
.—(1) Section 33A of the 1981 Act (which confers power to make regulations entitling any member of a judicial pension scheme constituted by that Act or by the Sheriffs' Pensions
424
(Scotland) Act 1961 to make voluntary contributions towards the provision of additional benefits under the scheme) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words "under the scheme" there shall be substituted the words "whether under the scheme or otherwise".
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The regulations may make provision for the purpose of imposing, in a case where a member makes voluntary contributions, upper limits with respect to—

(a) the aggregate value of the aggregable benefits which may be paid to or in respect of any such member; and

(b) the amount which any such member may pay by way of such contributions;

and, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) above, the regulations may, in particular, impose such an upper limit on the amount which a member may pay by way of voluntary contributions as will, so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the aggregate value referred to in paragraph (a) above will not exceed the limit prescribed under that paragraph.

(1B) The regulations may—

(a) prescribe the manner in which aggregable benefits are to be valued for the purpose of any such aggregation as is mentioned in subsection (1A) above;

(b) confer on the administrators of a judicial pension scheme power to require a member who is making, or who wishes to make, voluntary contributions to provide such information as they may require concerning any retained benefits of his;

(c) permit the disclosure by those administrators of any information which they may obtain concerning any such retained benefits—

(i) to, or to any officers of, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; or

(ii) to, or to any servants or agents of, the trustees, managers or administrators of the scheme under which the additional benefits in question are to be provided."

(4) In subsection (2), in paragraph (b) (no limit on voluntary contributions, other than an upper limit corresponding to that imposed by section 594 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) after the words "other than" there shall be inserted the words "either or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) such upper limit as may be imposed by virtue of subsection (1A) (b) above; or

(ii)".

(5) In subsection (3) (regulations about valuation of benefits etc)—

(a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and

(b) in that paragraph, for the words "limit imposed by virtue of" there shall be substituted the words "such limit as is mentioned in".

(6) At the end of that subsection there shall be added—

"(c) provide for any administrative expenses incurred by any person by virtue of this section to be defrayed out of sums received by way of voluntary contributions;

(d) provide for the manner in which voluntary contributions are to be paid;

(e) make provision for, and in connection with, the valuation of a person's accrued rights under any occupational or personal pension scheme which are to be transferred into a voluntary contributions scheme;

(f) prescribe the additional benefits which are to be available under a voluntary contributions scheme and the rates and times at which those benefits are to be payable;

425

(g) make provision for and in connection with the making of elections between different benefits available under voluntary contributions schemes;

(h) provide for the terms on which a person may terminate his membership of a voluntary contributions scheme;

(i) provide for the terms on which surplus funds may be refunded to a person who has made payments by way of voluntary contributions to a voluntary contributions scheme."

(7) Subsection (4) (limitation of voluntary contribu-tions by reference to maximum entitlement of members) shall be omitted and before subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The regulations may provide—

(a) for such additional benefits arising under or by virtue of this section as may be prescribed—

(i) to be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund; or

(ii) to be paid out of money provided by Parliament; and

(b) for payments to be made into or out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of money provided by Parliament, in connection with the operation or administration of any prescribed voluntary contributions scheme."

(8) After subsection (5), there shall be inserted—
"(5A) The regulations may make different provision for different classes or descriptions of voluntary contributions scheme."
(9) After subsection (8) of that section there shall be added—
"(9) In this section—

"administrators", in relation to any scheme, means the persons entrusted with the administration of that scheme;

"aggregable benefits" means—

(a) any pensions or other benefits under a judicial pension scheme, other than such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1) above;

(b) such additional benefits so mentioned as may be prescribed; and

(c) such retained benefits as may be prescribed;

"employment" has the same meaning as it has in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (and accordingly includes employment as a self-employed earner, within the meaning of that Act);

"judicial pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 14A(2) above;

"member" means member of a judicial pension scheme;

"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975;

"personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986;

"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations;

"relevant benefits" has the meaning given by section 612(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

"retained benefits", in the case of any person, means any rights retained by him to relevant benefits under any occupational or personal pension scheme which has, or which may be expected to qualify for, tax-exemption or tax-approval, being rights which accrued during some previous employment;

"surplus funds", in relation to a person and any voluntary contributions scheme, means any funds which are, or have been, held for the purposes of that voluntary contributions
426
scheme and which fall to be returned to him in consequence of any such limit as is mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above;

"tax-exemption" and "tax-approval" have the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986;

"voluntary contributions", in relation to any member of a judicial pension scheme, means voluntary contributions towards the provision of additional benefits, whether under that scheme or otherwise;

"voluntary contributions scheme" means any occupational or personal pension scheme if and to the extent that it is a scheme under which such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1) above are, or are to be, provided."").

Page 38, line 22, at end insert:
("Additional voluntary contributions
.—(1) The following enactments (which correspond to section 33A of the 1981 Act), that is to say—

(a) section 11A of the 1951 Act,

(b) section 127A of the 1959 Act, and

(c) section 9A of the 1960 Act,

shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words "under the scheme" there shall be substituted the words "whether under the scheme or otherwise".
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The regulations may make provision for the purpose of imposing, in a case where a member makes voluntary contributions, upper limits with respect to—

(a) the aggregate value of the aggregable benefits which may be paid to or in respect of any such member; and

(b) the amount which any such member may pay by way of such contributions;

and, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b), the regulations may, in particular, impose such an upper limit on the amount which a member may pay by way of voluntary contributions as will, so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the aggregate value referred to in paragraph (a) will not exceed the limit prescribed under that paragraph.

(1B) The regulations may—

(a) prescribe the manner in which aggregable benefits are to be valued for the purpose of any such aggregation as is mentioned in subsection (1A);

(b) confer on the administrators of a judicial pension scheme power to require a member who is making, or who wishes to make, voluntary contributions to provide such information as they may require concerning any retained benefits of his;

(c) permit the disclosure by those administrators of any information which they may obtain concerning any such retained benefits—

(i) to, or to any officers of, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; or

(ii) to, or to any servants or agents of, the trustees, managers or administrators of the scheme under which the additional benefits in question are to be provided."

(4) In subsection (2), in paragraph (b) (no limit on voluntary contributions, other than an upper limit corresponding to that imposed by section 594 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) after the words "other than" there shall be inserted the words "either or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) such upper limit as may be imposed by virtue of subsection (1A) (b); or

(ii)".

(5) In subsection (3) (regulations about valuation of benefits etc)—

427

(a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and

(b) in that paragraph, for the words "limit imposed by virtue of" there shall be substituted the words "such limit as is mentioned in".

(6) At the end of that subsection there shall be added—

"(c) provide for any administrative expenses incurred by any person by virtue of this section to be defrayed out of sums received by way of voluntary contributions;

(d) provide for the manner in which voluntary contributions are to be paid;

(e) make provision for, and in connection with, the valuation of a person's accrued rights under any occupational or personal pension scheme which are to be transferred into a voluntary contributions scheme;

(f) prescribe the additional benefits which are to be available under a voluntary contributions scheme and the rates and times at which those benefits are to be payable;

(g) make provision for and in connection with the making of elections between different benefits available under voluntary contributions schemes;

(h) provide for the terms on which a person may terminate his membership of a voluntary contributions scheme;

(i) provide for the terms on which surplus funds may be refunded to a person who has made payments by way of voluntary contributions to a voluntary contributions scheme."

(7) Subsection (4) (limitation of voluntary contribu-tions by reference to maximum entitlement of members) shall be omitted and before subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The regulations may provide—

(a) for such additional benefits arising under or by virtue of this section as may be prescribed—

(i) to be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; or

(ii) to be paid out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and

(b) for payments to be made into or out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in connection with the operation or administration of any prescribed voluntary contributions scheme."

(8) After subsection (6) of that section there shall be added—
"(7) In this section—

"administrators", in relation to any scheme, means the persons entrusted with the administration of that scheme;

"aggregable benefits" means—

(a) any pensions or other benefits under a judicial pension scheme, other than such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1);

(b) such additional benefits so mentioned as may be prescribed; and

(c) such retained benefits as may be prescribed;

"employment" has the same meaning as it has in the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 (and accordingly includes employ-ment as a self-employed earner, within the meaning of that Order);

"judicial pension scheme" means a scheme constituted by this Act;

"member" means member of a judicial pension scheme;

428

"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;

"personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations;

"relevant benefits" has the meaning given by section 612(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

"retained benefits", in the case of any person, means any rights retained by him to relevant benefits under any occupational or personal pension scheme which has, or which may be expected to qualify for, tax-exemption or tax-approval, being rights which accrued during some previous employment;

"surplus funds", in relation to a person and any voluntary contributions scheme, means any funds which are, or have been, held for the purposes of that voluntary contributions scheme and which fall to be returned to him in consequence of any such limit as is mentioned in subsection (2) (b);

"tax-exemption" and "tax-approval" have the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

"voluntary contributions", in relation to any member of a judicial pension scheme, means voluntary contributions towards the provision of additional benefits, whether under that scheme or otherwise;

"voluntary contributions scheme" means any occupational or personal pension scheme if and to the extent that it is a scheme under which such additional benefits as are mentioned in subsection (1) are, or are to be, provided."").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move these amendments en bloc with your Lordships' leave.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Pensions for senior public investigative officers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 39, line 29, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 56 to 78. These are largely technical amendments to give effect to the undertak-ings that I gave at Report stage to make a number of consequential amendments in respect of senior investigative officers. They are designed to extend the provisions of Part II of the Bill to such officers, because the Bill as drafted omits to do so. They also ensure that the appropriate Minister in respect of such officers is to be a Treasury Minister. As drafted, only some of the references to "appropriate Ministers" are to Ministers in the Treasury, which has ministerial responsibility for their pension arrangements. With your Lordships' leave, I will move Amendment No. 55 and then take Amendments Nos. 56 to 78 en bloc.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 78:
Page 39, line 29 leave out ("section 19 of that Act (which provides") and insert ("sections 19, 20 and 23 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act (which provide for").
Page 39, line 31, after ("salary") insert (", appeals and transfer of accrued rights)").
Page 40, line 1, leave out ("and").
Page 40, line 1, leave out ("or) and insert (" 19 (benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) and 20 (appeals) of, and Schedule 2 (transfer of accrued rights) to,").
Page 40, line 2, at end insert ("and the power conferred by paragraph 2 of that Schedule to make regulations shall be exercisable by the Treasury.").
Page 42, line 33, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
Page 42, line 34 leave out ("section 19 of that Act (which provides") and insert ("sections 19, 20 and 23 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act (which provide for").
Page 42, line 35, after ("salary") insert (", appeals and transfer of accrued rights)").
Page 43, line 3, leave out ("and").
Page 43, line 3, leave out ("of") and insert (" 19 (benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) and 20 (appeals) of, and Schedule 2 (transfer of accrued rights) to,").
Page 43, line 4, at end insert ("and the power conferred by paragraph 2 of that Schedule to make regulations shall be exercisable by the Treasury.").
Page 46, line 38, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
Page 46, line 39 leave out ("section 19 of that Act (which provides") and insert ("sections 19, 20 and 23 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act (which provide for").
Page 46, line 40, after ("salary") insert (", appeals and transfer of accrued rights)").
Page 47, line 7, leave out ("and").
Page 47, line 7, leave out ("of") and insert (" 19 (benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) and 20 (appeals) of, and Schedule 2 (transfer of accrued rights) to,").
Page 47, line 8, at end insert ("and the power conferred by paragraph 2 of that Schedule to make regulations shall be exercisable by the Treasury.").
Page 49, line 32, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
Page 49, line 33, leave out ("section 19 of that Act (which provides") and insert ("sections 19, 20 and 23 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act (which provide for").
Page 49, line 34, after ("salary") insert (", appeals and transfer of accrued rights)").
Page 50, line 2, leave out ("and").
Page 50, line 2, leave out ("of") and insert (" 19 (benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) and 20 (appeals) of, and Schedule 2 (transfer of accrued rights) to,").
Page 50, line 3, at end insert ("and the power conferred by paragraph 2 of that Schedule to make regulations shall be exercisable by the Treasury.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Retirement provisions: the relevant offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 54, line 5, at end insert:
("President of the Industrial Court appointed in pursuance of Article 91 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81, 84 and 85. The purpose of this amendment is to add the office of president of the Industrial Court in Northern Ireland to the list of offices in Schedule 5 to this Bill. In other words, the office will become a "relevant office" so as to be governed by the retirement provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 81 provides for consequential textual amendments to the legislation affecting the
430
office; and Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 provide for transitional retirement arrangements for the existing holder of the office. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Retirement dates for certain judicial offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 55, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert:
(""but this section is subject to sections 26(7) (b) and 27 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (prohibition on participating in the hearing and determination of appeals after attaining the age of seventy-five years, except for the purpose of completing proceedings already begun)."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 64, line 3, at end insert:
("President of the Industrial Court in Northern Ireland
In Article 91 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, at the beginning of paragraph (3) (terms of appointment of president and other members of the Industrial Court) there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of the president, to paragraph (3A)," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The president shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this paragraph is subject to section 26(4) to (6) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Retirement dates: transitional provisions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 75, line 51, at end insert (", or whose arrangements with respect to retirement,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 83. Amendment No. 82 is a drafting amendment to ensure that the provisions of Schedule 7 which supply a transitional retirement date by reference to a person's standard terms of appointment work equally well when there are no standard terms of appointment but only "arrangements with respect to retirement". Amendment No. 83, which gave rise to the need for Amendment No. 82, ensures that a Social Security Commissioner who was appointed before 23rd May 1980 has, as his transitional retirement date, the last day of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 76, line 4, at end insert:
("() Social Security Commissioner appointed before 23rd May 1980;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 76, line 18, at end insert:
("() president of the Industrial Court appointed in pursuance of Article 91 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992").
Page 77, line 12, at end insert:
("() president of the Industrial Court appointed in pursuance of Article 91 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 79. With your Lordships' leave I shall take them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 89
Page 84, line 18, at end insert:

("1951 c.20 (N.I.).

The Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951.

In section 11A, in subsection (3), the word "and" im-mediately preceding paragraph (b), and subsection (4).").

Page 84, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("In section 127A, in subsection (3), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b), and subsection (4).").
Page 84, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 9A, in subsection (3), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b), and subsection (4).").
Page 85, line 10, column 3, at end insert ("In section 33A, in subsection (3), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b), and subsection (4).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, you will be aware that I have already spoken to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 35. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to take them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Amendment (privilege) made.
10.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I had wished to speak earlier on Report but as I had not made my maiden speech I could not. I have nothing useful to add this evening therefore I shall not.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, pensions are deferred pay. That is common ground. The Top Salaries Review Body—the TSRB—which was appointed over 20 years ago is required by its terms of reference to advise the Prime Minister on the remuneration of, among others, the higher judiciary and certain other judicial appointments. That too must be common ground.
When it came to reconsidering the extent to which the Judicial Pensions Act 1981—a consolidating Act—should be fundamentally altered, it was to be expected that the whole issue of judicial pensions would be referred to the TSRB. After all, that had recently been done in relation to pensions of Members of Parliament. The TSRB produced recommendations
432
which were subsequently, so I understand, accepted. Why was it that this most important aspect of judicial pay—a vital constituent of judicial independence—was confined within the Lord Chancellor's Department, which merely sought comments from, inter alia, the TSRB, but never published those comments? It took a little time for the penny to drop, but at the conclusion of the debate on the Bill the explanation is a simple but depressing one.
For some years there has been mounting pressure to reduce the retiring age of the judiciary, fixed for the first time some 33 years ago at 75 for the senior judiciary and at 72 for the Circuit Bench. This pressure has had the support of judges themselves and had ultimately to be accepted by the Government. The financial implications were immediately recognised by that venerable senior wrangler, Lord Denning, who in an interview in recent times said in his inimitable way that this was going to cost the Treasury a pretty penny. As your Lordships would expect, in his speech on Second Reading, on 16th June (col. 152 of Hansard), the noble Lord, Lord Benson, explained the matter trenchantly in accountancy terms. He said:
"if one reduces the retiring age it increases the cost"—
of a pension scheme—
"to an extravagant degree, depending on the number of people involved".
However, the Treasury had no intention of accepting that the reduction in the judicial retiring age, which from a financial point of view it no doubt viewed with scanty enthusiasm, would cost it a pretty penny or any penny. On the contrary, it was determined that it would cost nothing by the simple process of requiring the senior judiciary and the circuit judges themselves to pay for the obligation to be imposed upon them to cease to work at an earlier age. That was to be achieved quite simply in one and the same Bill by reducing the retiring age and downgrading the value of the judicial pension for such judges.
That was made abundantly clear by the statement on page 3 of the Bill where, under "Financial Effects of the Bill," it is stated:
"The difference in cost between the existing arrangements and the new arrangements will take some years to emerge, but the effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly neutral."
That is particularly significant since, in restructuring judicial pensions, certain injustices, anomalies and inadequacies relating to, among others, stipendiary magistrates and registrars, now known as district judges, required remedying. That too would prove costly.
Let me now justify my assertions. As your Lordships now know, for nearly 200 years—that is, since the first judicial pension legislation in 1799—the period which the senior judiciary and subsequently the county court and circuit judges have had to serve to earn their pension—not a generous one, being half their salary—has been 15 years. That is not an idiosyncratic feature of the English legal system. The period in the United States, Canada and Australia is 50 per cent. less; that is, 10 years. In New Zealand, as I pointed out to your Lordships, there is a slightly

433
strange compromise. It is one year longer than in England—that is, 16 years—but the judges obtain a tax-free pension of two-thirds of their salary.
There seemed during debates to be a certain reticence in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his responses to the inquiry as to what it cost the Treasury to provide the judicial pension. I found that a little surprising as it is all neatly set out in Table 7 on page 60 of the latest report of the TSRB, Report No. 33. The table is headed "Comparative Value of Public and Private Sector Pensions" and is subheaded "Cost to employer of Pension Benefits as at April 1991". In relation to the High Court judge and the circuit judge, it shows that that cost is 30 per cent. of pensionable salary; that is to say, in those days, in relation to the High Court judge, £25,000. By imposing upon the judge the obligation to work an extra five years to earn his full pension, the Treasury is in effect imposing a salary cut of one-quarter of 30 per cent.—that is to say, 7.5 per cent.—upon those judges. Expressed in another way in relation to every High Court judge who previously would have retired having served 15 years to obtain his full pension but who in future will now have to work an extra five years, the Treasury will save each year over £6,000 per judge or, over the whole five-year period on current figures, something in the region of £30,000. That is only one of the many savings.
Until now the judicial pension has been based on the current annual rate of pay. Thus a judge who retired shortly after a pay rise would receive a pension of one-half of his annual salary thus increased. Henceforth, to achieve yet another saving, the pension is to be based upon his salary as averaged over the year before his retirement. Applying a recent 4 per cent. salary increase, the judge who retires not immediately after a pay increase but half way through the year will, if he be a circuit judge, suffer a reduction in his annual pension of £650 or, in the case of a Law Lord, the sum would be £1,000. His widow's pension which is half of his pension will be proportionately reduced, as will be the lump sum he obtains on his retirement. That has nothing whatever to do with conforming to the general tax law. A yet further saving is produced by the capping of the lump sum at the current figure of £75,000. Sums above that amount will doubtless be taxed at 40 per cent.
In moving Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I have today drawn your Lordships' attention to the quite shabby treatment which the Bill sought to inflict upon disabled judges, their widows or widowers and orphans; to the strong criticism provoked from independent experts; and to the inadequate provision ultimately extracted, with difficulty, from the Government. I shall not repeat myself. In addition, there was total unanimity among the experts with regard to the Government's meanness in relation to the tax free lump sum, to the death-in-service benefits, to the out-of-date obligation upon the judiciary to pay contributions towards widows' and widowers' benefits and to their position upon remarriage.
The experts made it quite clear that what the Government were seeking to do was to enshrine in primary legislation out-of-date concepts, ignoring
434
how pension provisions have evolved over the years. A consultant actually advising the judges concluded that the saving to the Treasury amounted to between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the judicial salary, and that was without taking into account the new important basis for the calculation of the pension to which I referred earlier.
About five years ago in an important lecture which was prominently reported by the press, my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson—then the Vice-Chancellor, the head of the Chancery Division of the High Court—said that,
"the old machinery regulating the administration of justice no longer ensures the independence of that system from executive control. Judges are sitting in an environment wholly determined by executive decision in the Lord Chancellor's department, which in turn is operating under the financial constraints and pressures imposed by the Treasury. The yardstick for decision taking is financial value for money not the interests of justice. What constitutes value for money is being determined by the executive, not judicial decision. The Lord Chancellor's own position, representing as he does simultaneously both the independent judiciary and the interests of the Government, is becoming more and more difficult, since the price to be paid for obtaining funds for the administration of justice is dependent on satisfying the Treasury that any particular cause represents, in their terms, value for money".
The accuracy of those observations was illustrated vividly quite recently on 22nd October in the debate on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the continuing gross shortage of High Court judges, which, in the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice,
"will truly become a national disgrace".—[Official Report, 22/10/92; col. 879.]
Your Lordships will recall the debate on Report on Amendment No. 46 which sought to reinstate, in the public interest, the accrual period of 15 years. The alteration proposed by the Government would prejudicially affect, in future, the calibre of judges who accept the appointments and thereby the quality of the administration of justice. That amendment, defeated by 84 votes to 79, was supported by the former Lord Chancellor, the former Lord Chief Justice, the current Lord Chief Justice, the former Master of the Rolls, 10 Law Lords and two former Law Officers. I need not remind your Lordships that one of the great constitutional tasks of the court today is to control the misuse of power by government Ministers and departments; thus the quality of the judiciary has never been so important.
It cannot be disputed that since the war the Lord Chancellor no longer presides frequently over the judicial sittings of the House, but his fundamental responsibility under the constitution is, and remains, to maintain at all costs the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, in a lecture which he gave in 1989 on "The Office of the Lord Chancellor" which will be found printed in the Civil Justice Quarterly of October 1989, considered that to be the one paramount duty of the Lord Chancellor. He added:
"If he does it well, he is a good Lord Chancellor whatever his other defects. If he does it ill, whatever his other qualities, he is not".

435
for the past 18 months I have, at the instance of the British Council or the Council of Europe, addressed judges in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Moscow, Estonia and Lithuania. On some of those occasions other senior judges from Western Europe spoke. I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, was always asked to speak on the subject of the independence of the judiciary. No doubt it was thought that the common law system particularly protected that fundamental feature of justice. I must therefore confess my astonishment when I found in the Bill, in Clause 25, that power was to be taken by the Lord Chancellor, at his sole discretion, to continue the senior judiciary in office beyond the now compulsory retirement age of 70, from year to year, up to a period of five years—a system of judges on contract.
Over 50 years ago that concept was rejected by the Royal Commission, the Peel Commission, of which Sir Claud Shuster, an outstanding Permanent Secretary in my noble and learned friend's department, was a member. In the debate on Report on 29th October my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale expressed his astonishment that,
"This unconstitutional provision ever appeared in the Bill"—(Official Report; 29/10/92; col. 1262.],
in terms with which I respectfully concur. Thankfully, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had second thoughts and removed the offending clause, but not until the Report stage.
I do not belong to, nor do I sympathise with, the aprèsmoi school of thought. I have a passionate belief that a strong and independent judiciary is one of the essential foundations of our liberty, without which the rule of law could not exist. Because the calibre of the future judiciary cannot but be weakened by this mean, penny-pinching Bill, I have felt obliged to intervene in the debates much more than I would otherwise have wished. It was not how I expected spending my first few weeks of retirement. For this I therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence.
"The greatest thing in the world"—
Montaigne said—
"is to know how to be self sufficient".
In the past, the judiciary has looked for the protection of its independence to the Lord Chancellor and his department. It is quite clear that in future it must look to itself.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I say farewell to the Bill with a deep sense of frustration. Some of the terms proposed for the High Court and circuit judges are mean and penny-pinching. The inevitable conse-quence is that we shall not appoint the best men to the Bench. That is the sole purpose of my interest in the Bill.
The reason why I say that they must be mean and penny-pinching is that the existing scheme which I thought was settled 11 years ago—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has explained that it was a great many years before that—settled what was then thought to be fair. The present proposals in the Bill for the High Court and the circuit judges are below that scheme settled 11 or however many years ago it was.
436
How can this Bill possibly be fair if its terms are below the existing terms settled long ago? We must remember that retirement benefits have changed enormously in the intervening years and what was fair 11 or 20 years ago is now totally unfair, so the comparison should be on quite different terms.
I have been at pains to try to find out what are the Government's objections to the numerous amend-ments that have been made to remove the penny-pinching, mean provisions in certain clauses of the Bill. There seem to be only two. Whenever an amendment was proposed, the answer came back, "Oh, it's the retained benefits". At this end of the Chamber we got very tired of that refrain and formally asked that it should not be repeated, we were weary of it. However, we took note of the point.
Then amendments were put forward saying, "We will bring the retained benefits into charge", which removed the objections. But those have been rejected, and the rejection of what was prayed for so often has made one wonder whether the sincerity on the retained benefits was satisfactory.
The second factor on which the mean and penny-pinching clauses have been resisted is that the Bill must comply with the general law. I cannot discuss or contest questions of law with so many eminent lawyers. But I can put forward the plain, commonsense view. This general law is not some great doctrine which was settled at Magna Carta; it is two or three sections in a taxation Act passed five years ago.
The judiciary are sui generis. They have always needed an Act to deal with their remuneration and pensions, apart from any other Act which might otherwise apply. I cannot see why, if the judiciary are sui generis and need an Act of Parliament of their own, that Act must, for one special purpose only and in one particular only, comply with a section in a taxation Act passed five years ago.
As a layman, I can think without any difficulty at all of half-a-dozen situations where the general law applies to the citizen, but the general law is deliberately amended to meet particular circumstan-ces. I shall not bother to give examples which spring to mind, the many lawyers here will know dozens from their experience. But what makes me convinced that this general law doctrine, which has been thrown at us so often, is totally untenable is that this general law, this taxation section, was passed four or five years ago. But we have lived with the present scheme which is supposed to be contrary to it for five years without the smallest difficulty. No one has complained. No one has raised constitutional or legal difficulties. No difficulties have arisen in practice. There have been no problems at all. The two have worked in harness and the present Bill could go on indefinitely, contrary to so-called general law. So that does not seem to me much of an answer to the points which have been raised again and again to remove these mean and penny-pinching provisions.
But I think what has happened is the following. This was made plain to me in a letter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to send to me. We had correspondence about

437
certain parts of the Bill which I need not bother the House with and which in no way affects what I am saying. In the course of a letter of 27th October the noble and learned Lord said:
"In the current public expenditure climate, the Government did not feel able to entertain a revised scheme for the judges with overall costs which were greater than the present arrangements".
There we have it. That is really the whole problem. What happened was that the Government thought the economy was in good shape, at any rate up until about June or July. In August they discovered that the economy was in a grave mess. Then the decision clearly was made that in the current expenditure climate this Bill should be kept within the same cost as the existing arrangement. That is not administration; that is not a proper way to legislate at all. It is pure panic policy and pure panic decisions.
This Bill is not intended—as we know so well—to come into force for 15 or 20 years. To fix its provisions on the basis of the worst slump for 60 years and to say that we cannot exceed the cost of the existing scheme is really ludicrous because the existing scheme has been varied anyhow. To say that the new scheme must have exactly the same costs as the existing one when you have changed the circumstances means that you could not possibly have a fair Bill. That is exactly what has happened.
I have one other gasp of frustration before I sit down. I have been offended in another way. We have gone through four stages on this Bill extending over a period of six months. Decisions after decisions have been made and amendments after amendments have been made. Never at any time in the whole history of the Bill, until last Tuesday at midday, have we known the effect of those decisions. If one runs a whelk stall or a paper shop and one wishes to change the terms of one's customers, or indeed of one's own administra-tion, one works out the cost of doing so stage by stage, quantifies it and assesses the effects.
When we come to settle a Bill for the pensions of the highest judicial officers in the country, we do not do that. We put these amendments through without anybody knowing the cost of doing so, what the effect is and how the new provision compares with the existing scheme. The provision was eventually produced, as I say, last Tuesday. The House has never seen it. As far as I know the only people who have seen it are two or three people down at this end of the House and, I suppose, the Ministers on the Front Bench. But the idea that we should ask the House to make decisions without telling it what the effects of those decisions are, how the different amendments change the scheme, and how the new provision compares with the existing scheme, seems to me totally intolerable. I hope that this is not a way in which legislation will be conducted in future.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass generally engenders a somewhat autumnal air. Even the opponents of a measure tend to look on it a little less
438
unkindly and we try to speak well of each other. Such a balmy atmosphere is not altogether possible on this occasion.
The first reason is the way your Lordships have been treated today by the Government's business managers. There were 89 amendments covering 18 pages. Seven-eighths of those were government amendments. To get through that business on a Thursday, when business begins at 3 o'clock, would at the best of times have been exacting; but to interpolate two long statements so that the second amendment was only called at 6 o'clock, and then to refuse the promised respite so that your Lordships who were interested in the Bill were kept on these Benches from 3 o'clock until a quarter to 11 —and we have not yet finished—is quite intolerable. It is no way to treat your Lordships' House.
The second reason is that it would be idle and hypocritical to pretend that this Bill is other than mischievous. Anyone who heard the speeches of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington—who has just retired from his very distinguished tenure of the office of Master of the Rolls; as distinguished administratively as it was juristically—and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, the pre-eminent Lord Chancellor of post-war years, could not doubt that the Bill is, at the highest possible estimation, going to do great damage to the judiciary of the future and thus to the standard of judgment and therefore to the rule of law and the liberty of the citizen who depends on the rule of law.
Although I do not like to hear harsh words used of the Treasury I cannot gainsay the epithets which have been expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and my noble friend Lord Benson tonight and on earlier occasions.
It is pleasant to pass from the Bill to those who have participated in your Lordships' debates. First, there must be mention of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He has had to defend the Bill on his own against the most forceful and expert attack. If he has seemed at times to be a little less than on his best form, which is very high indeed, one must remember that the arguments that he had to gainsay were those which he must himself have been urging on his colleagues while the Bill was being prepared.
It is not for a moment to be credited that my noble and learned friend did not see the matters that were urged and did not try to persuade his colleagues to adopt a rather less harsh procedure and do less constitutional damage. Any great advocate on the whole tends to convince himself of the validity of his case as he develops it. Nevertheless, it is bound to impair to some extent dialectic and forensic performance when one realises at every stage that one is urging arguments against which one has protested at a very recent time.
Up against my noble and learned friend has been a formidable artillery and a great debt is owed by your Lordships (I am sure noble Lords will agree) to my noble and learned friend, Lord Ackner. His activity, intellectual and physical, has been quite phenomenal. He marshalled his arguments with astonishing

439
lucidity, based often on complicated figures and intricate arguments, all put lucidly forward. Noble Lords must consider themselves very much in his debt.
There is also my noble friend Lord Benson, who brings unexampled expertise on these matters of pensions, at the end of such a distinguished career as his. But there is another reason why your Lordships would wish to be grateful to him. He was chairman of the Royal Commission on the legal profession in England, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was chairman of a similar Royal Commission for the Scottish system. My noble friend Lord Benson, with great labour for three years presided over that commission, taking evidence and weighing it, marshalling the arguments and finally producing an authoritative report. That report was accepted by the Government. But in a sudden ideological spasm the Government changed their mind and brought in a diametrically opposite scheme, a scheme opposite to that of the English commission and opposite to that of the Scottish commission.
It would not have been surprising in those circumstances if my noble friend Lord Benson had then decided to wash his hands entirely of the law, having been treated in that way. We are very greatly in his debt. Not only has he brought his great knowledge and experience to the discussion of this Bill, but he continues to take a vital and a wide-eyed interest in the future of our judicial system.
I have only one other point to make and that is, I hope, a constructive suggestion. At every stage in the passage of this Bill comparisons have been made with whatever system is most unfavourable to the judicial scheme: the public sector pension scheme, private sector pension schemes and the Inland Revenue regime. Although it will not be possible to repair the substantial damage done by the Bill, I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend will be looking for ways to mitigate the injuries that it inflicts on the public interest. I suggest that when comparisons are being made, as they have been made so frequently with the public sector pension schemes, he should keep his eye open for attempts to improve on it. Comparisons have been made with those schemes because most of the public sector schemes are badly out of date. It does not require great gifts of prophecy to forecast that as soon as financial conditions are less stringent the public service trade unions will be agitating strongly for an improvement in the public sector pension schemes to bring them more into line with what the private sector is now doing, as my noble friend Lord Benson has so trenchantly shown during the debate.
I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be able to assure your Lordships that he will watch carefully the improvements that will be made in the public sector pension schemes. Wherever they are improved from a position where they have been used to the disadvantage of the judicial scheme, I hope that he will ensure that the judicial scheme is similarly improved. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give that assurance.
We pass the Bill without great enthusiasm.
440
However, if my noble and learned friend gives that assurance there is at least the knowledge that there will be some mitigation of the harm that it will do.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to speak at great length at this time of the evening. Your Lordships still have other business on the Order Paper. However, I wish to say one or two things.
Of course I shall be keeping in mind what happens both in public and private sector pension schemes as the future rolls on.
Secondly, the occasion for the Bill was the change in the tax position of pension schemes brought about under the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has referred. It was very desirable that the conformity of the judicial pension scheme to the general tax law to which I referred should be brought about in a Bill which concerned itself with the judicial schemes as a whole. Your Lordships know—I noticed that there was not much reference to it in what we heard in the latter part of the evening—that a number of different schemes affect different parts of the judiciary. One of the objectives of the Bill is to produce a comprehensive scheme that applies to the judiciary as a whole and produces a fair result for all of them.
Some reference has been made, for example, to the arithmetical costing exercise by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. However, such an approach does not take into account the pattern of the time for which judges sit. The simple calculation which he made ignores the fact that in present circumstances most judges on average hold office for longer than the time for which they need to serve in order to qualify for a full pension. A number of my noble and learned friends have done that. Therefore, the effect of the present scheme and the new scheme must take account of the pattern that is likely to emerge. It is appropriate to the new scheme to apply to the judiciary as a whole in a consistent way. That makes it much easier for people to move up the scheme without detriment. A number of anomalies in the present scheme have often been referred to and those have been removed by the new structure.
I was delighted to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, about the quality of the judiciary. I believe that he was correct and that the standard of the judiciary is as high as it ever was. I believe also that that high standard will continue and I have no reason to believe that it will be anything else.
During the course of our discussions on the Bill we have made a number of improvements. Our debates have contributed to improving the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part, whether or not they were particularly complimentary to me in their submissions. I should not wish to distinguish on such an irrelevant ground. I thank all noble Lords most sincerely for your help in improving the Bill. Assuming that my Motion is agreed to, the Bill will go to another place where what has been proposed will no doubt be discussed fully.
As I made clear at the outset, I understand that the judiciary has a different career pattern from other professions. I explained that within the structure of

441
the general tax and pension law to which I have referred the position of the judiciary was recognised as special by the particular arrangements for the retained benefits. In the old days to which my noble and learned friends and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, referred, there were not the same provisions for people making contributions for their retirement at the expense of the Exchequer.
Pension provisions for the self-employed with tax relief are a comparatively recent development. I do not believe that it is proper that where people have come into the judiciary after attaining a standard in that profession to ignore that fact. That is why I said earlier that I believed that it was an important fact. The overall importance of the tax law in this connection is primarily that to have a scheme that is tax approved it is necessary that it does not accrue faster than over 20 years for the full pension. Within these constraints, the Bill has produced a tax efficient system and it has produced a reasonable result for the judiciary. I have said already that as compared with schemes in the private sector and the public sector taken as a whole the judicial scheme is most favourable.
I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; those who are still here and those who have left. I am particularly appreciative of the extent to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has taken part in the debates. I am grateful to my noble and learned friends Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the noble Lords, Lord Benson, Lord Mishcon and Lord Wigoder and my noble friend Lord Renton. I am grateful to my noble and learned friends from Scotland, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord McCluskey and many others to whom perhaps I may refer in a more composite way. Perhaps I should mention in particular my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I acknowledge the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, so recently arrived here. I am sure that we all look forward to many distinguished contributions from him in the future.
The debates on this Bill will continue as it passes to another place. I believe that it produces a complete system for the judiciary as a whole which is fair to the judiciary in comparison with other schemes to which attention has been directed. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1992
11.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft statutory instrument is designed to extend the legal aid scheme to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences who appear before the Parole Board in specified circumstances.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 defines discretionary life prisoners as those who have received a life sentence, not required by law, for a violent or sexual offence and who have had a part of their sentence specified by the court for these purposes. Once the specified part of the sentence is served, the prisoner's case is referred to the Parole Board and, if the board is satisfied that his confinement is no longer necessary for the protection of the public, he is released. Prisoners whose cases are turned down, or who are released but recalled, may require their cases to be referred to the board at set intervals.
The draft statutory instrument would provide legal aid for such prisoners appearing before the Parole Board in these circumstances. It amends the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 by including these proceedings among those for which an eligible person may receive ABWOR; that is, advice by way of representation. The means test will be that which is applicable to all ABWOR, but the merits test will be the more generous one that is applied to applicants for ABWOR for mental health review tribunals; that is, that ABWOR will be granted unless it appears unreasonable that it should be granted.
The statutory instrument also brings the Scope regulations up to date by submitting a reference to disciplinary proceedings before a prison governor for references to proceedings before a board of visitors; this reflects changes to the Prison Rules 1964.
I should mention that remuneration for this work will not be at the ordinary ABWOR rate but at the higher rate which applies before mental health review tribunals. This is because the Parole Board hearings are modelled on and similar to those of the mental health review tribunals, the rules of which have been used as the basis for the rules for the board's arrangements. This is provided for by a separate instrument, subject to negative resolution procedure, which was laid before the House on 2nd November.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friends who cannot be here this evening have asked me to say how pleased they are at the terms of the regulations. We give them a very warm welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland) Order 1992
11.10 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft Orders in Council under consideration specify the EC

443
association agreements with Hungary and Poland as European Treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. These require ratification by all EC member states. The European Parliament gave its assent in September; another place discussed these matters on 3rd November.
The association agreements are the basic link between the EC and Poland and Hungary. Our intention is to interpret them positively and give them real substance so they can fulfil their prime function of reinforcing political stability and economic growth.
The Government hope that Poland and Hungary will join the Community as soon as they are able to assume the obligations of membership. We shall give them every possible assistance towards that goal. The association agreements are the best means of doing that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said in less than a minute what her right honourable friend Mr Tristan Garel-Jones took 11 minutes to say. It is very agreeable and acceptable. As she knows from earlier conversations, these are very small steps in the totality of the enormous problems
444
which face not only those countries but also in the attempt to bring them into closer comity with other members of the Community and whom we have supported for a long time.
As the noble Baroness knows, on another occasion both she and I would have wanted to say a great deal more. But she has said sufficient for me to say that we welcome what has been said and endorse the actions that have been taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Hungary) Order 1992
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eleven o'clock.

  FOOD PRICE SUPPORT
  FOOD PRICE SUPPORT
  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT: COSTS
  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT: COSTS
  VAT RATES IN THE EC
  VAT RATES IN THE EC
  INLAND REVENUE P11D SYSTEM
  INLAND REVENUE P11D SYSTEM
  CAA: EXTERNAL FINANCE LIMIT
  CAA: EXTERNAL FINANCE LIMIT
  BR: SAFETY
  BR: SAFETY
  NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY: UK REPRESENTATIVES
  NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY: UK REPRESENTATIVES
  COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY
  COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY
  NAGORNO-KARABAKH: AID
  NAGORNO-KARABAKH: AID
  NAGORNO-KARABAKH DISPUTE
  NAGORNO-KARABAKH DISPUTE
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE
  CFCs: REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
  CFCs: REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
  EARTH SUMMIT AGREEMENTS: NGO CONFERENCE
  EARTH SUMMIT AGREEMENTS: NGO CONFERENCE
  SCHOOL BOOKS: PURCHASE GRANTS
  SCHOOL BOOKS: PURCHASE GRANTS
  HIGHER EDUCATION: LIBRARY FUNDING
  HIGHER EDUCATION: LIBRARY FUNDING
  STUDENTS: BOOK SPENDING
  STUDENTS: BOOK SPENDING
  SCHOOL BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT: EXPENDITURE
  SCHOOL BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT: EXPENDITURE
  HIGHER EDUCATION BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT: EXPENDITURE
  HIGHER EDUCATION BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT: EXPENDITURE