Sitting of 30 November 1992

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

    Benefits Uprating
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the recent uprating in benefits.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The uprating of benefits in line with the annual increase in prices has been widely and warmly welcomed.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following a particularly tough public expenditure round in which public sector pay has been significantly constrained, his decision to uprate the pension in full has been greatly welcomed? Does he feel that that decision provides an eloquent contrast to that taken by the Labour party, on two separate occasions, to slash the annual Christmas bonus to pensioners? Which party is really the friend of the pensioner?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the uprating statement. The day of the statement revealed graphically the answer to his question, because we saw the gloom on the faces of Labour Members as they welcomed the good news of the uprating
    2
    and that contrasted with the warm welcome that the rest of the country gave it. The fact is that we try to help the poor and needy, whereas the Labour party tries to exploit them.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Can the Secretary of State tell us who exactly "warmly welcomed" the uprating, because I have not encountered anyone engaged in that warm welcome? Is not it the case that the Secretary of State just deludes himself and that what he did was minimalist—it was the least he could do and what he had to do under the statute—and that this afternoon he is engaged in empty cant?
    Mr. Lilley: I think that the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he moves in narrow and exclusively socialist circles. If he ventured forth, even so far as to read the columns of The Guardian, not a paper normally noted for its warmth of welcome towards me, he would know that it said that the decisions I had taken on that day deserved praise.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what chance he has had to study the recent Joseph Rowntree Trust report, which clearly showed that the level of benefits made available to recipients simply left them short, in some cases by between £30 and £40, of what they needed to live a decent, ordinary life?
    Mr. Lilley: I always study documents from that quarter closely. I could not help noticing, however, that the trust thought that the amount of money required to maintain a modest standard of living was about the same as the point at which those on the Opposition Front Bench think that punitive taxation on the rich should start. Obviously that affected my understanding of the whole report.

    Delayed Payments
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward regulations to ensure that interest accrues on social security payments due to claimants that are delayed in the Benefits Agency.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Secretary of State has no power under existing legislation to bring forward such regulations.
    Mrs. Jackson: As the customers charter states that all citizens have the right to expect that their benefits will be processed efficiently, accurately and promptly, does the Minister think it right that my constituents should receive just sweet, apologetic phrases from Mr. Bichard of the Benefits Agency when benefit payments of more than £2,000 are outstanding? Is it right that they should receive no compensation? February of next year is coming up very quickly, which means that it will be a year since the new benefits came into force, but many people will still be left waiting after that year for payment. Does the Minister agree that claimants should be entitled, automatically, to receive compensation or interest accruing after the 30-day period that the Secretary of State set in that customers charter?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady completely ignores the considerable measures that have been taken to speed up the payment of disability living allowance. I do not share her pessimistic view of the numbers that may be left at the end of the year. However, it is crucial not to presuppose that it is an ordinary standard, and therefore make arrangements for compensation, but to make all possible efforts to ensure that the system works. That is why we have drafted 800 additional staff and made 400 extra computer terminals available, which is a far better solution. I shall take no lectures from the Opposition, whose idea of speeding up claims was to phase in mobility allowance over four years.
    Mr. Willetts: How long, on average, does it take from first applying for income support until the receipt of an income support payment, and how does that compare with past performances?
    Miss Widdecombe: Against a current national target of five days, income support is often paid within 2·5 days and the overwhelming majority of local offices are well within target.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How many of the delayed payments were for people with life-threatening conditions, like my constituent, Mr. Ken Vince, for whom payment was made more than eight months after his claim and two months after he died? Is the Minister aware that bereaved families are not consoled by posthumously word-processed sympathy and that my late constituent's case came to me 13 weeks after all the distress and expense of phoning the Benefits Agency, sometimes 20 times a day, without response?
    Miss Widdecombe: I entirely echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State four weeks ago in the House in saying that we deeply regret the problems that arose. They happened because of the policy's huge success and the large number of claims that it generated. We have now taken all possible measures to ensure that that does not recur. I am very sympathetic to the distress suffered by the right hon. Gentleman's constituent and his family.

    Child Support Agency
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): We expect that, in the long term. absent parents will contribute some £600 million to the maintenance of their children, a cost currently borne by taxpayers.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the establishment of the Child Support Agency. It is a relief to the average taxpayer—every father and mother in this country—who takes strong exception to paying to support other people's children. What estimate, for the average family, does the Child Support Agency make in asking absentee fathers to support their children?
    Mr. Burt: Current information is that average maintenance awards for families are between £25 and £30 a week. We hope that that will rise to £45 a week. Maintenance is a helpful source of income, not just for the present but for the future. I recognise that many single mothers will want to go out to work, and the portable income that maintenance will provide should assist that.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of the Child Support Agency is not only to achieve the benefits that he mentioned but to target help effectively on lower-income families? Will he give the House an assessment of how much such families have benefited since the social security reforms of 1988?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since 1988, we estimate that some £750 million extra has been provided to low-income families by way of the changes. In 1979, some £1·5 billion was spent at current prices on benefits for lone parents. That figure is now £4·3 billion.
    Mr. Wicks: Notwithstanding the fact that two Conservative Members have had the creativity to ask the same question about savings, does the Minister agree that the purpose of the Child Support Act 1991 should be to support children, not to produce Exchequer savings? Does he agree that more than seven out of 10 families with children in that position will receive no extra money as a result of the child support legislation? Is not it appropriate that the Minister should change the policy so that a pound for a pound is not withdrawn, for child support, from income support and that we have a reform so that children and not just the Treasury are supported by that measure?
    Mr. Burt: As so often with the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. There is no saving to the Treasury. The saving is to the many millions of mothers and fathers who currently pay through their tax for other people's children. The point about the Child Support Agency is that the money goes to support the children. In future, many mothers will want to go out to work and the portable maintenance income will assist them to do that. I do not see any reason to change the current policy on income support.
    Mr. Dewar: We shall carefully monitor the work of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister accept that real fears have to be addressed in cases where there has been a record of violence or no continuing relationship between, probably, the father and the mother and child? The Minister almost managed to give the impression that the cash that would come in from the work of the Child Support Agency would be ring fenced specifically for child benefit or some other relevant benefit. That is not true. Is he prepared to look again at some form of disregard for those on income support so that a parent paying maintenance has the satisfaction of knowing that the family will benefit and so that the parent, very often the mother who has custody of the child, has a real and positive incentive to co-operate?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are maintenance disregards for in-work benefits such as family credit and housing benefit. Maintenance disregard will assist. As I explained to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), there is no maintenance disregard for income support, which is not an in-work benefit. The availability of maintenance to the mother will help not just at present but in the future because that mother will not stay on income support for ever. For her, it is the acquisition of maintenace that is most important.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition would monitor the work of the Child Support Agency. We shall also do that, to ensure that what we have said about special care and consideration for women who are worried about violence is well met. We shall do our best to reassure the voluntary agencies and those who advise them and who may be worried about approaching the Child Support Agency. We would not want such fears to put people off approaching the agency. There is buffer protection for them and assistance for those who are worried. We hope that our reassuring work currently being carried on around the country through presentations will ease many of the fears which, I appreciate, are quite justifiably held. Equally justifiably, we say that we can reassure people.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend recall irresponsible demands a short time ago to withdraw the Child Support Act 1991? Will he join me in inviting Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to condemn the resolution passed at the last Labour party conference that that legislation should be withdrawn? Now the Opposition seem to want to monitor it carefully. What a change!
    Mr. Burt: As always, my hon. Friend is the champion of those who resist irresponsible demands. He is right to condemn the last Labour party conference on its callous attitude towards mothers who require proper maintenance from fathers, I invite the House to support my hon. Friend's attitude in this matter rather than the attitude adopted at the Labour party conference.

    Blind People
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the extension of the severe disability premium to those living with a blind person, as announced in his benefit uprating statement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr Lilley: We estimate that this improvement will cost £1 million a year.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that in principle the premium ought to be available to everyone who qualifies medically? Will he undertake to deliver that principle over time? If he will not do that, will he at least adopt the shorter version, by accepting the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that the premium should be extended to those who are over the age of 75 and living with someone?
    Mr. Lilley: I fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of those who recently lobbied the House. I met people from my constituency and elsewhere who would like to see the severe disability premium applied universally. In a tight financial settlement we obviously thought it right to take this small step which helps those who live with blind people. That has been warmly welcomed by the organisations for the blind who came to speak to me. To go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes could cost several hundreds of millions of pounds.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that help is channelled towards those with a disability through the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance, which are disregarded in calculating the other disability and pensioner premiums in income support. Therefore, we try to channel support to people who are not living alone as well as to those who, through this premium, get support because they are living alone.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 Government spending on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by 173 per cent. in real terms? Is not that an impressive record, of which the Government should be proud?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have given priority to help for the sick and disabled, and the House recognises and welcomes that. The amount of help has grown far faster than that for other benefits, and it way outstrips that provided under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Bradley: May I press the Secretary of State about the care of the over-75s? Does he realise that the Social Security Advisory Committee recognises that where the carer is over 75, it is unreasonable to expect him to deliver that care, and that it has to be bought in, but that no extra financial support is given in those circumstances? The committee said that the cost of extending the severe disability premium to the over-75s was only £17 million and it had to compare that with the likelihood that the severely disabled person would have to go into residential care, at a much greater cost through income support than extending the severe disability premium. Will the Minister look at the real needs of families where the carer is over 75 and consider extending the severe disability premium, to ensure that those people do not suffer even greater hardships?
    Mr. Lilley: I look closely at the recommendations from my committee. The proposal that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned, for assistance for those living with blind people, came from that committee and we were able to adopt it. There is some uncertainty about the costings of the other proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but when one is talking of tens of millions of pounds, that is a significant sum.
    Mr. Bradley: I talked of £17 million.
    Mr. Lilley: That is still tens of millions of pounds. A significant cost is involved, and we should have to consider whether it would always be well targeted. Some over-75s are very fit—I am happy to say that my mother is—and others are not. We have tried to focus assistance more accurately, while continuing to give help to those living with other people through the method that I have suggested, which channels considerable sums to help them.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what review he has made of the adequacy of the administration of claims for disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am, as the hon. Member will know, fully aware of, and concerned about, the problems that have complicated the introduction of DLA in its early stages and I continue to take a close personal interest in its administration and delivery.
    I have had extensive meetings with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who is responsible for the administration of DLA, and have discussed the substantial progress that has been made through the programme of recovery, as well as any remaining problems.
    I also recognise the immense dedication and effort that staff of the Benefits Agency and, in particular, those who deal with claims to the benefit, have contributed to achieving this progress.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that there are thousands of unanswered claimants' application forms lying in the DLA office, and that it is virtually impossible for a desperate claimant to make any sort of telephone contact with the office? Is he aware that Mrs. Mullen of Clinkham Wood, St. Helens, in my constituency, rang the DLA office on 17 November in an attempt to find out what had happened to the application that she had made in July? At 2.30 she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 3 pm, her phone went dead and she immediately rang back. Again, she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 4.50, her phone went dead again. Is not this a disgraceful way to treat impoverished people? Is not the answer that the agency was deliberately underfunded when it was set up?
    Mr. Scott: Clearly, it is impossible for me to respond on the Floor of the House to individual cases of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he would like to write to me with details, I will certainly follow it up.
    I shall be visiting the disability benefits centre at Fylde on Friday to check on present progress. I am told that the improvements that have been made to our central inquiry line, to the benefits inquiry line and to the dedicated line for Members of Parliament have produced excellent results in solving the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the difficulties with inquiries, can the Minister confirm that the awards will be backdated where necessary and, therefore, that applicants will not continue to lose out?
    Mr. Scott: I can certainly given my hon. Friend that assurance. What is more, I can say that general rules on benefits provide that compensation is available when a
    8
    benefit has not been paid for 12 months since the date of claim or when some delay has led to an interruption of the benefit for three months. Some 76 such claims have already been met.
    Mrs. Golding: Can the Minister tell us why a constituent of mine received a letter about disability living allowance from the Benefits Agency on 1 November saying that if she wants her benefit to continue after 1 May next year—that is six months later—she should claim straight away, and that if she delays, the Benefits Agency may not have time to deal with the claim before it ends on 1 May? Why does the agency need six months to be certain of renewing a claim?
    Mr. Scott: The present target for the Benefits Agency is to clear 60 per cent. of claims in 30 days. Half the disability benefit centres are meeting that target. [Interruption.] If I may say, the proper way for the hon. Lady to deal with the matter is for her to write to me, and I shall take it up with the chief executive.

    Maxwell Pension Funds
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what success his Department has had in tracing money owed to the Maxwell pension funds.
    Miss Widdecombe: My Department's Maxwell pensions unit is actively assisting the trustees, liquidators and administrators of the Maxwell schemes who have responsibility for tracing and recovering the missing assets.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hundreds of my constituents in Aylesbury still live daily with uncertainty and fear for the future because of the robbery of their life savings by Mr. Maxwell? What assurance can she give those constituents today about the future payment of their pensions? When can we finally expect to see the distribution of the assets in the common investment fund which seem to have been held up in legal bureaucracy for far too long?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has correctly identified the single biggest measure that could be taken to restore peace of mind to the Maxwell pensioners—the distribution of the £123 million which exists, unlike the money that has yet to be recovered, but has not yet been allocated. The trustees of those funds have now had almost a year of discussions on the allocation of the money. It is our earnest hope that they will be able to make rapid progress towards a solution.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give an assurance that other firms such as British Coal which want to do a Maxwell—British Coal has pinched £735 million from the miners' pension fund—will not be allowed to do so in the future? In order to ensure that we get the money back for the Maxwell pensioners, perhaps the Minister will drop a line to Lord Walker who received £440,000 and a Mercedes car out of Maxwell just before he finished. The £440,000 came out of the pockets of the Maxwell pensioners, and Lord Walker should pay it back to those people.
    Miss Widdecombe: I think that there are rather a lot of people in the other place to whom one could drop a line. Some of them sit on the same side as the hon. Gentleman. He has no good evidence that other firms are trying to do

    9
    what he describes as a Maxwell. Nevertheless, he will be aware of the existence of the Goode committee which I hope will address such outstanding concerns and on which we will take appropriate action.
    Mr. Madel: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. There is an equally serious problem in my constituency with Maxwell pensioners. Former Maxwell employees who were entitled to a deferred pension are extremely worried about whether they will get their pensions. Can the Minister say anything more today to reassure them?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes. Through the emergency measures that the Government have taken to secure funding for the Maxwell pensioners, deferred pensioners whose pensions are now falling due will receive their pension in the same way as other pensioners. For those deferred pensioners whose pensions are due not now, but in the longer term, the solution lies, initially, with the allocation of moneys from the common investment fund.

    Disability Allowances
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to consult disabled people and their representatives on the design and promotion of the new disability living allowance and disability working allowance.
    Mr. Scott: The design and promotion of DLA and DWA were developed in close consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. Following the introduction of those new benefits, we continue to consult widely both formally and informally.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the increased resources that his Department has allotted to the handling of the disability living allowance, there has been a substantial improvement in the speed at which claims are processed? Will he confirm that the Department remains committed to increasing the speed at which claims are handled?
    Mr. Scott: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is so. The backlog of claims—in excess of what we would normally expect for in-hand claims—has now been removed. We are also ensuring that claim forms and letters associated with benefits are kept in a constant state of review and improved as necessary.
    Mr. Rooney: From where have the 800 additional staff been brought, and what impact has that movement had on claimants in other sectors of the system?
    Mr. Scott: Because of the relatively low take-up of the disability working allowance in its early days, we were able to move a number of people who were previously dealing with that benefit, and people from other parts of the Benefits Agency, on to clearing the backlog of DLA. A substantial amount of the work has also been achieved by the introduction of considerable amounts of overtime during the week and at weekends.

    Low-Income Families
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of low-income families facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. (a) in 1978–79 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Lilley: In 1985, the earliest year for which information is available, 70,000 families had marginal deduction rates of more than 100 per cent.
    As a result of the reforms of social security, this year almost no families have marginal deduction rates of 100 per cent. or more.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has organised successful campaigns since 1989 to increase public awareness about the take-up of family credit? Does he agree that those campaigns were most useful in spreading awareness and increasing the take-up of that vital benefit?
    Mr. Lilley: I can, indeed, confirm my hon. Friend's point. Family credit is a unique benefit, with little or no counterpart elsewhere in Europe. It serves a valuable function in helping people back into work, when they have only a relatively low earning ability initially. We want the benefit to be widely known and recognized—it is in the interests of families, as well as taxpayers, for people to shift from full-time reliance on income support into work, with family credit.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, for households in low-paid work, receiving assistance with housing costs and community charge costs, the marginal rate of withdrawal of benefit has risen from 62p in the pound in 1979 to a current rate of 87p in the pound? How can the Secretary of State justify the deep poverty trap into which he has plunged hundreds of thousands of households. Will he say how many have been affected by that totally unjust poverty trap?
    Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we wish, as he does, to see any disincentive effects of the social security system diminish. That was the prime objective of my right hon. Friend's reforms in 1985–86. It was one reason why we moved from assessing income on a gross basis to a net-of-tax basis. The tax changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, particularly the 20 per cent. band for the lowest paid—previously, the band was up to 33 per cent.—has resulted in a reduced disincentive effect on their earnings combined with benefit. All those factors have reduced the number of people facing the highest rates of effective tax when on low incomes. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, not wish us to go back to a system under which many people suffered withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been more than 2·5 million successful claims for family credit since it was introduced in 1988? Is that not powerful evidence that that important benefit, which supports people in work, is supporting many thousands of low-paid workers in this country?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's facts are entirely correct. The recent figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the take-up rate has been improving, and

    11
    that those who do not take up the benefit are predominantly those who have the lowest entitlement to the money and, therefore, lose least by not taking it up.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposed new medical control procedures for invalidity benefit from April 1993.
    Mr. Scott: The changes announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November will streamline controls that already apply to all claims for incapacity benefits. Better use of our medical resources will help to ensure that invalidity benefit is properly paid.
    Mr. Jones: Is not streamlining another way of saving money for the Treasury? What qualifications does the Minister have to entitle him to overrule doctors who have responsibility for judging the invalidity of claimants?
    Mr. Scott: At present, the majority of claimants are dealt with on the basis of judgments made by general practitioners. I see no reason why that should not continue once we have streamlined the proceedings. About 50,000 claimants a year fail to appear for subsequent medical examinations by our medical services. Those people will be given more notice of the dates of their examinations. They will be expected to give reasons if they are not to attend. I believe that the improved reports by the examining doctors will reduce the number of people who have to attend for a second examination, as about 50,000 now have to do.

    Pensioners Charter
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will now meet pension associations to discuss the implementation of a pensioners charter.
    Miss Widdecombe: Pensioners already have a charter, the citizens charter, which works towards making the service to pensioners more accessible, accountable and responsive to their needs and expectations.
    Mr. Skinner: The pensioners whom I have met throughout Britain do not rate that charter. They take the view that it will not do them any good. They are concerned about their own charter during this winter. They want to ensure that those pensioners who might well die of hypothermia will be able to use some of the 46 million tonnes of coal that we have in stock to keep themselves warm. Similarly, they want to be sure that those who are at risk of hypothermia will have enough food to ensure that they do not starve during the winter. They want the £20 back that the Tory Government took off them when they broke the link with earnings and prices. They want all pensioners to have a television licence.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question, and he is well capable of doing so.
    Mr. Skinner: They want included in the charter the abolition of standing charges for pensioners. Unlike—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to ask a question. I want a question, not comment.
    Mr. Skinner: To follow up the charter, I hope that the Minister will introduce a Bill to abolish standing charges for pensioners. If she cannot find the money to enable that to happen, she should go to the Treasury, which has paid out £4,500 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, "We want the money for the pensioners of Britain."
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants the money and he has the money. That is what was said in the autumn statement not long ago. Pensioners do not want to see their savings eroded by inflation, which is what happened during the 1970s under the Labour Government. They want to be able to rely on their Christmas bonus and not miss it for two years because there is an incompetent Labour Government. They want to ensure that the value of their incomes rises by 34 per cent., as it has under this Administration, and not by the miserable 3 per cent. that it rose under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that people in glass houses should not throw stones? Does she agree that the only real threat of means-testing the basic state pension came from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?
    Miss Widdecombe: All real threats to pensioners come from the Opposition. It is true that the only serious suggestion of means-testing state pension came from the Leader of the Opposition when he was setting up what he deemed to be the commission for social justice. I do not know what social justice is involved in means-testing the pension.
    Mr. Winnick: Means-testing was in fact suggested by a Tory pressure group two years ago. Why is it that Britain's pensioners are among the poorest in the European Community? This winter, hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country will be fearful of heating their homes properly because they know that they would be unable to pay their fuel bills. Would not money be better spent on pensioners, rather than paying the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bill in respect of what was essentially a private matter?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the Labour party draws its policy from Tory pressure groups. Far from Britain's pensioners being the worst-off in Europe, they are among the best-off. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only Britain and Spain supply free prescriptions to pensioners; that in any study of pensioners on half-average earnings, Britain's pensioners come out first or second; and that, unlike some other countries in Europe, we do not take into account children's income when assessing pensioners' rights? Should not the hon. Gentleman be ashamed? I recommend that he reads the good article that appeared in yesterday's Sunday Express.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Women Priests
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate has been made of the numbers of ordained clergy resigning posts within the Church of England in the next three years and of the consequential effects on payments of stipends.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The possible cost of making financial provision for ministers of religion who resign in opposition to women being ordained as priests are set out in a report published by the General Synod, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Ministers of religion are entitled to such provision only if they resign after the promulgation of the relevant canon, and that is unlikely to be before November next year, and will possibly be later.
    The Commissioners have made no estimate of the numbers likely to resign, but the gross cost to the commissioners per 100 men are estimated to total £4·6 million of income, spread over a period of up to 20 years. That could be offset by savings to the Church of more than £2 million as a result of reduced stipend costs, re-employment, and so on. The statutory charge on the commissioners' general funds must be paid and will therefore reduce the sums available for other purposes.
    Lady Olga Maitland: In view of the personal anguish suffered by priests who feel that they are being pushed out of their churches, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that their pensions will not be aflected—particularly bearing in mind the fact that the commissioners will find themselves in deep financial crisis trying to cope with the changes?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend may have heard of the substantial sums that have been notionally set aside. However, it is not a question of individual clergy being forced from their churches, but of their withdrawing or resigning voluntarily. Considerable sums will be made available in the form both of compensation and housing assistance. Pensions will not of course arise in the case of a number of younger men who retire before reaching pensionable age.
    Ms. Quin: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the financial implications for the commissioners of the proposal of the General Synod to open the priesthood to women.
    Mr. Alison: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I have just given my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
    Ms. Quin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no consideration of costs should interfere with that welcome decision, and that it would be disgraceful if the House took an opposing view of the decision already agreed by the General Synod? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that equal pay and equal opportunity legislation will fully apply in the case of women priests?
    Mr. Alison: On the hon. Lady's last point, there is no question but that a woman priest would receive exactly the
    14
    same stipend and allowances as a male incumbent at the same level and of the same status. There will be absolutely no discrimination in terms of sex. As to the vote that might be taken in the House, it would be rash of me to lay down how right hon. and hon. Members in any part of the House ought to vote when the expediency or otherwise of the motion in question is debated. Certainly it is traditional that the House does not attempt to overturn the majority, as appropriately reached, in the General Synod. The hon. Lady will have heard that no financial considerations will in any way be put in the path of the ordination of women. We are making good and reasonable compensation terms for those who want to retire.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the commissioners have made of the financial effects of the proposals of the General Synod to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood.
    Mr. Alison: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) a few moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the financial implications of the measure—if it is passed by both Houses of Parliament—to enable women to be priests is that potentially a huge additional resource will be available to the Church of England in terms of qualified, ordained personnel and that once all the women who want to be ordained are in place the Church of England will be at a great advantage in reaching new congregations and bringing in new income?
    Mr. Alison: I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, though he went slightly wider than the financial implications of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. He is right that the admission of women to the priesthood in the Church of England would very much increase the scope and outreach of the Church of England, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of those who might be ordained as women priests are already deacons and to that extent already receive quite substantial pay, so the net increase in cost to the Church of England is unlikely to be as great as it might at first sight appear.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the new proposals concerning eligibility for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I have received a number of such representations.
    Mr. Hughes: Is there not something rotten in the state of Britain when, within one month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can announce proposals that will make 10 million people ineligible for legal aid and yet can be allowed to spend £4,000—his own private legal aid scheme—on paying his own private bill for an entirely private

    15
    matter? What has Britain come to, and is there any integrity left in Cabinet Ministers and Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. Taylor: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's references to 10 million people. I do not know how the calculation was made. Last year, 250,000 people litigated with legal aid, which makes claims of about 10 million people look pretty silly. The hon. Gentleman wholly improperly seeks to make a connection between my right hon. Friend's legal expenses on the one hand and legal aid on the other. They are quite different issues.
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not alone in making that connection. Given the difficulty that increasing numbers of our fellow citizens, of modest means and with just causes, have in obtaining legal aid, can the Minister tell us what was the basis on which legal aid was granted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own seemingly less than deserving case? Furthermore, will the Minister publish the guidelines upon which legal aid was granted? If there are no such guidelines and if the Lord Chancellor's Department has not been consulted upon them, why not? As the profession's friend in these matters, will the Minister also point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he must instruct a solicitor at public expense there are other solicitors to whom he might go who are considerably cheaper?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, I used to be one of those cheaper solicitors myself. The hon. Gentleman wrongly referred to resources placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as legal aid. It was not legal aid of the kind that the hon. Gentleman and I refer to. The then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury decided at the time that it was reasonable to meet a small proportion of the Chancellor's legal fees, including covering the cost of putting out an initial statement and handling subsequent press inquiries. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in this conclusion: we ought to bear it in mind that the provision of legal aid and assistance at public expense is almost unique in this country. It is infinitely the best provision that is made anywhere in the world. The authority for that is Lord Williams of Mostyn, chairman of the Bar Council, who speaks for the Labour party in another place.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he intends to take to ensure the efficient administration of justice in magistrates courts.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government's plans for the future of the magistrates courts service were set out in the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice". One of the objectives of the plans, which are in line with the guiding principles of the citizens charter, is to yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister had the misfortune of attending a magistrates court as a witness, as I did in October, having had my car stolen in September? When I arrived at the due time, none of the three defendants were present. There were, however, four other witnesses besides
    16
    myself, including three public-spirited men from the village where the alleged thieves came from. The case had to be postponed, which must have caused much expense. The Lord Chancellor's Department should be making effective proposals to ensure that such events do not happen. Does he know how much the non-appearance of defendants is costing?
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not invite me to the Dispatch Box to discuss his case, but rather the kind of difficulties that it represents. The White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" tries, above all, to achieve not merely best practice between different magistrates benches but the co-operation of all the agencies involved in court cases. It is only fair to bear it in mind, however, that it is extremely difficult to sustain a case when the defendant does not turn up because he is involved in a simultaneous court case somewhere else and does not bother to tell the court. Little can be done about that until magistrates courts are linked by a computer network, and it is our intention that they should be.
    Mr. Barry Porter: As an even cheaper solicitor than my hon. Friend and, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, an even better one, may I ask whether he has taken into account the views of the Bar Council that magistrates courts should sit at night, for some reason that is not entirely clear to me? Does he realise that if that suggestion were implemented, the solicitors' branch of the profession would have to work 12, 14 or 16 hours a day, unlike the more elevated and elegant members of the Bar? I hope that he will take that into account.
    Mr. Taylor: I will not follow my hon. Friend in the terms and idiom that he put his question, but I am prepared to take a close interest in and look at the suggestion of evening sittings to see whether it would advantage the court user, whose needs should be first and foremost.
    Mr. Cohen: The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that the administration of justice in poll tax cases—[Interruption] is nothing short of a national scandal. Magistrates have the power to insist on means inquiries and to waive charges where hardship is proven but are not using either of them. Will the Minister look at this as a matter of urgency because many people are suffering?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the working of the Children Act 1989 in the courts. A provisional review of the Act's workings show that it is broadly satisfactorily, but I share the hon. Gentleman's suspicion that some magistrates courts are working better than others. That is why fewer things could be more urgent that the introduction of an inspectorate of magistrates courts to achieve best practice in all magistrates courts.

    High Court (Commercial Division)
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on delays in the Commercial Division of the High Court.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Commercial Division has reached a relatively stable position and has been able to allocate trial times for parties who are ready for trial. Recent promotions to the Court of Appeal have, however,

    17
    had a temporary effect on waiting times, although I am confident that when new appointments are made, matters will improve rapidly.
    Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is aware of the reputation of the Commercial Division for the international resolution of disputes. Is he also aware that 90 per cent. of cases heard in the Commercial Division involve at least one foreign party, and that that generates an income running into hundreds of millions of pounds, which helps our balance of payments by way of invisible exports? Is not it short-sighted in the extreme to underman that court by a shortage of commercial judges which, I understand, will continue into next year?
    Mr. Taylor: No. At the beginning of the current legal term, only five judges were available to sit in the Commercial Division although lists are planned on the basis that six judges are available to sit. A further nomination can be expected very soon.

    York Crown Court
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to hold additional Crown court sittings in York.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The work load of the Crown court at York is increasing. Some cases from York are currently being transferred to Leeds. Two court rooms at Hull will be utilised also to contain York's existing work load. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that exploratory discussions are taking place between my Department and York city council concerning the possibility of incorporating a new court building into a proposed development near the existing Crown court building in York.
    Mr. Bayley: What reassurance can the Minister give a constituent about whom have written to his Department? She was attacked by a man and had to spend 46 weeks living with him at large in the community, as he was remanded on bail between the date of committal and the date of the trial, at which he was found guilty. Will the Minister take action in the interim, before building a new court, to look for premises in York in which he could open a temporary third court to shorten the waiting time? After all, the courts charter published last week says that 16 weeks should be the maximum time between committal and trial.
    Mr. Taylor: It is certainly true that there has been an unusual surge of case load in the York area which has been against the national trend. I cannot comment on the individual lady's case, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will ensure him a proper reply.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the number of applicants who will be denied access to legal aid in consequence of the proposed changes to the legal aid scheme.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: We estimate that around 2 per cent. of households will no longer be eligible for legal aid as a result of the measures announced recently. In
    18
    addition, the decision not to uprate the income limit from next April will result in a further 8 per cent. of households not being restored to eligibility.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that access to justice is one of the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society? How can he justify steps that will deny that right to a substantial number of our fellow citizens who are on modest incomes, especially when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a handout for his legal action?
    Mr. Taylor: It is very important to remember that our legal aid system is probably the most generous in the world. Its cost has doubled in the past four years, yet, even so, it is destined under the autumn statement to go up by 10 per cent. in each of the next three years. Even after the changes announced, it will still be available to 48 per cent. of households, and one fifth of households will receive legal aid without any contribution. It remains targeted at the poorest people, as it should be.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that if someone needs legal aid to defend a position, he is justly entitled to receive it if he qualifies? By the same token, there are people who are absolute scoundrels and who take on people through litigation. Some people have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the case while the others get legal aid although they are not really entitled to it. We are the custodians of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Taylor: Once again, that is a powerfully expressed view on the subject, with not a little of which I agree. I am at pains to say while I am at the Dispatch Box that the effect of the recent changes on criminal legal aid is likely to be small, although some people will have to pay more in contributions; I think that they should.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Law Society since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement? Why is there such an extraordinarily large discrepancy between what the Minister has said this afternoon and the estimate of the Law Society which claimed that 10 million more people are ineligible as a result of the Chancellor's announcement?
    Mr. Taylor: I have noticed that the solicitors' estimate is similar to that of the Liberal party and I cannot account for either.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements there are to ensure that legal aid is available to all those who need but cannot afford legal advice.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: All people whose disposable income is below £6,800 and whose disposable capital is below £6,750 will still be eligible for civil legal aid. For personal injuries cases the limits are £7,500 and £8,560. Those whose disposable income does not exceed income support level will be eligible for legal aid without a contribution.
    Mrs. Jackson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in the opinion of Sheffield law centre for example, cuts in eligibility for legal aid will have a particularly serious effect on women who try to get support from the courts against violent men in their own homes or outside? Contrary to stereotype, the majority of such women are not on income support. What arrangements will the

    19
    Government make to ensure that women who are in that threatening situation are encouraged to take up the legal protection to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Taylor: In addition to the services of the legal profession, valuable contributions are made by law centres and citizens advice bureaux. Women in the plight
    20
    described by the hon. Lady are very much the concern of the Lord Chancellor's Department which is inquiring urgently into questions of domestic violence and how they affect women. Before long, it may be possible to legislate in that area to alleviate a very real grievance which is admittedly and very largely a women's issue and one that rightly claims the full attention and concern of society.

Market Power (Green Paper)
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, I should like to make a statement about possible options for strengthening the law to curb anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.
The Government are already committed to improving the law against price fixing, market sharing and other cartels. Following extensive consultation in 1988, the Government set out their proposals in the 1989 White Paper, "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices". Our manifesto confirmed our intention to legislate on this basis.
I am today publishing a Green Paper which looks at whether changes to the law on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviour should be made at the same time as changes to the law on cartels. Copies of the Green Paper, and a summary of it, are available in the Vote Office.
The Green Paper addresses the behaviour of companies that abuse their power in the marketplace. This includes such practices as refusal to supply or driving out competitors through loss-making pricing. It also covers companies that use their market power to take unfair advantage of their customers, for example, by excessive prices or refusing to sell one product unless one buys several others.
The current law on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviour is largely effective and has served us well, but it has shortcomings. In particular, there is a lack of deterrence against anti-competitive conduct. There are no penalties for past misconduct and no scope for interim relief for injured parties. Competitors can—and do—go out of business before action can be taken.
The Green Paper sets out three possible ways in which the law might be improved. The first option is to strengthen the existing legislation. That would involve strengthening the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the anti-competitive provisions of the Competition Act 1980.
The second option in the Green Paper would be to replace the current legislation with a prohibition system. That would be consistent with our proposals for dealing with cartels. By making abuse of market power unlawful, such a system would permit penalties for past misconduct. That would strengthen deterrence and encourage vigorous, but fair, competition. The third option would be to introduce a prohibition, while at the same time retaining key elements of the current legislation.
Most companies compete fairly and should benefit from these possible changes. Small firms in particular, should welcome more effective powers to prevent suppliers and others from abusing their market dominance.
The regulated utilities and nationalised industries operate in a somewhat different environment from the rest of industry, 'with their own statutory and regulatory framework. The Green Paper therefore proposes arrangements under which they should be as fully subject to competition legislation as is consistent with this framework.
The Government are looking for a wide-ranging and genuine consultation on the three options in the Green Paper between now and mid-February. We are
22
particularly inviting industry's views on the likely compliance costs and benefits of the legislative options, in line with our commitment to keeping regulatory burdens to a minimum.
Competition policy is good for industry, good for commerce, good for small firms and good for consumers. It stimulates enterprise and innovation. It promotes efficiency and encourages wider choice and lower prices. Our proposals are designed to meet those objectives and do so in a more responsive way than the present regime. My announcement today concerns the publication of the Green Paper on the abuse of market power. This is an important consultation document. We await the views of industry, consumers and others and I commend the Green Paper to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: There will be a broad welcome for the document, which, on the basis of the statement, appears to fill a gap in the Government's original proposals on restrictive practices which were identified in many of the responses to the 1988 Green Paper. There will be a particular welcome from small businesses if the proposed measures oblige suppliers to treat them on the same footing as major outlets and end practices that end up with small businesses having to pay higher prices than enterprises that have larger economies of scale.
On the options as outlined today, the President of the Board of Trade would not want the House to anticipate consultation by closing down those options. Our present preference would be for a prohibition system. So that we may establish whether that preference is misplaced, will the President of the Board of Trade clarify what deterrence will be provided by the first option, which involves strenthening existing legislation, particularly as he himself rightly identified a major criticism of present competition policy as the absence of suitable deterrence?
The House will be impressed that the President of the Board of Trade attaches such priority to competition policy that he felt moved to make an oral statement on it. As he has volunteered the statement on competition policy, may I press him to express a view on one issue that has caused considerable controversy on competition policy, particularly as I can tell him that an exhaustive three-hour research has failed to produce previous guidance on the point?
The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that the Tebbit guidelines for referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have attracted considerable criticism. He will be aware that they have attracted widespread criticism that they are too narrow, that they have prevented referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of takeovers that were against the public interest, and that they have permitted takeovers that were destructive in their impact on both the industry that was taken over and the broader economy. The President of the Board of Trade will be aware also that, in December, the Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended that the public interest should be considered in referrals to the MMC.
As we have not detected any previous statement on the issue from the President of the Board of Trade, before we lose the opportunity provided by this statement, may we press him to tell us whether he intends to accept and abide by those guidelines, or whether, in keeping with his many statements about the need for a partnership with industry,

23
he accepts that that would require a broader view to protect from takeovers by creditors industries that are vital to national technology and vital also to regional employment?
Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given the Green Paper. He is absolutely right in reflecting the mood that generally will attend upon our announcement. It is the case, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that the need to address the abuse of market power flowed from the discussions that were associated with the White Paper which dealt with cartels. "Abuse of Market Power" deals, of course, with individual companies. I am sure that that is a logical step forward.
As for preferences, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be quite wrong now to anticipate the consultation that we are launching today, but a number of things could be done in pursuit of option 1. One could strengthen powers in respect of penalties, and one could introduce powers to deal with interim relief, for example. There are things that could be done, but they do not go as far as the introduction of a general prohibition.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Tebbit guidelines, of course I have not made any suggestion that they should be changed. They are not as restrictive as has sometimes been suggested. Significant powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State, but they are procedures through which matters must progress before they can be exercised.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for strengthening the Government's competition policy? Does he agree that one of the prime aims of that policy is, or should be, to strengthen the formation and growth of private businesses? The British economy, which has been over-concentrated, will benefit from such changes. The abuse of market power within the United Kingdom can be dealt with effectively by the United Kingdom authorities if the changes are made, as the powers are similar to those of the European Commission within Europe. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. Articles 85 and 86 put powers in the hands of the European Commission to deal with restrictive practices and the abuse of market powers. Among the proposals that we are considering is the option to move domestic practices into line with those that are open to the Community, where there is intra-national trading. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the proposals. I have no doubt that they represent a climate of opportunity for small companies to innovate, to come into the marketplace and to be able to resist, with a certain degree of confidence, pressures to drive them out again.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Are we not entitled to treat the welcome statement as a plea of guilty for all the private monopolies that the Government have created, and for all those cases in which they have failed to act on behalf of the consumer? Will the Green Paper deal with the position of regional electricity distribution companies, which have a monopoly and can charge consumers what they like for electricity that is generated by more expensive means than coal? Will it address the
24
issues raised by the failure to refer the British Airways-Dan-Air takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is it not the case that too many of the Government's best friends are monopolists and that some of them owe their licence to print money to the Government?
Mr. Heseltine: That is a rather mean intervention by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and out of keeping with the broad welcome that the proposals I announced have attracted. On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, I agree with the view of the Director General of Fair Trading that the merger of British Airways and Dan-Air raised concerns about competition. However, taking into account all the circumstances—in particular the likely consequence for services at Gatwick if the merger were not allowed to proceed—I agree that the public interest would be better served by not referring it to the MMC. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's dismissive view of the transfer of large public organisations to the private marketplace. That has proved to be attractive to customers and to the British economy and we shall continue with that policy.
Mr. David Harris: Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about how the Green Paper proposals might help small businesses? Would he care to say whether the excessive discounts given by some suppliers to supermarkets—to the detriment of small traders—will be within the scope of his review, as well as the practice of some supermarkets to delay payments to their suppliers, especially to farmers? Will the measures cover banks' charges to small companies, which many of us regard as unfair practices?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the reasons why the proposals could be extremely interesting in the wider context of competition policy. Excessive discounts are exactly the sort of issue that can make it extremely difficult for small businesses to compete and they could be considered if they were improperly applied. Delays in payment and bank charges are matters to consider in the light of the consultation and the final proposals.
Mr. Ken Purchase: I welcome the statement because it is important that we attack monopolies wherever we find them. It would have been interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether banks are to be included in the review, because, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, small companies are frequently the innovators in manufacturing, but they face considerable difficulties in obtaining from the banks the long-term finance that helps that innovative process.
It would also have been helpful if the President of the Board of Trade had referred to last week's statement from the Engineering Employers Federation, which called on the Government and, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman to be a better champion of industry. The west midlands knows a great deal about the problems caused by not having a proper champion for industry, because, for 13 long years, we have suffered from redundancies and the slimming down of industries. The Engineering Employers Federation said that without a proper industrial strategy, strategic thinking and basic information, market forces—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is at last coming to market forces, so perhaps he would also come to the question, which I have not yet heard.
Mr. Purchase: The question of market forces is central to the debate. The Engineering Employers Federation stated categorically that market forces cannot be expected to function as intended without the broader view that an industrial strategy would provide. Would the President of the Board of Trade please come to the House, post haste, with an industrial strategy for the recovery of manufacturing in this country?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members who I could mention, might have failed to notice that the Chancellor reduced interest rates to save industry about £10 billion a year. We have also seen the introduction of extra capital allowances, increases in capital expenditure and more flexible public sector rules governing how to deal with private money in the public sector. All those changes are part of the industrial strategy of the Government.
Mr. Robert Adley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the matter and the manner of his statement. May I ask him specifically whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I—I should declare an interest in this matter—have tried and failed to persuade Yorkshire Water to honour the original quotation given by its predecessor, Yorkshire water authority, relating to connection charges to an hotel in Leeds? That quotation has increased from £3,000 to £208,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that matter is entirely within his remit and that it would be an appropriate example for the imposition of penalties for past misconduct, as suggested in the Green Paper?
I also commend the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage last week, who also produced a Green Paper. Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that many of his hon. Friends welcome the proposition of producing Green Papers for genuine consultation? Will he commend that practice to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to the future of railways?
Mr. Heseltine: I will ensure that the views of my hon. Friend are made available to those of my right hon. Friends to whom he has drawn my attention. Long experience of my hon. Friend, however, has meant that I have discovered that he is rather good at making sure that his views are known without any intervention by myself, but he has my assurance that I will use my intervention.
As to how the public utilities will be affected by the Green Paper proposals on the abuse of market power, broadly speaking, they are not caught if they are carrying out their responsibilities as required either by statute or by licence. The sectoral regulators, however, will, under certain of the proposals, he given concurrent powers with those of the Director General of Fair Trading. It will be possible for private actions to be brought against the public utilities in the event that it is felt that an abuse has taken place. If such an action is brought by a private individual or a private company, the sectoral regulator will have the right to be heard in any proceedings.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In strengthening competition policy, will the President of the Board of Trade ensure that an investigation is held into the
26
geographical cartels that currently control the wholesale distribution of newspapers? As part of that investigation, will he guarantee that all small businesses that want a regular supply of newspapers can receive them?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is already examining that issue. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper—Hansard readers may like to know that it is fluorescent green. How does he see monopoly policies being developed in a European context? On 1 January, we shall have a completely free market, and the way in which we legislate on monopolies needs to be brought into line with our European partners' proposals. Do we intend to proceed in a communautaire way with those proposals?
Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted that my hon. Friend confirms that the Green Paper is in the Vote Office. One of the nightmares of Ministers making a statement to the House is to say that the document is there, only to discover that it is not. I am reassured to discover that the document is there.
On the relationship between domestic and European Community practices for monopoly legislation, one of the arguments for moving in the direction of either option 2 or option 3 of the Green Paper is that they bring the practices for domestic purposes closer to those of articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. Many in industry perceive that as a useful streamlining.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the President of the Board of Trade responded to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), he said that the issue of late payment by large organisations to small companies could come within the scope of the consultation. Does he envisage the possibility of a legalistic framework ensuing from the consultation period, whereby payments by those large organisations can be enforced? Late payments have been very much to the detriment of small companies and are surely one of the biggest abuses of power in the marketplace.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady touches on the essence of the issue: those matters are now subject to consultation as a result of our Green Paper. However, it would be necessary to put such a process under way to establish the fact that it was an abuse of market power and an exercise of a dominant position, with the purpose of restricting competition. The announcement that I made today is not without constraints, although they are clear constraints.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by many of my small business constituents in Plymouth, many of whom have suffered the burden of anticompetitive practices by large companies? Is he further aware that they will be heartened to learn that the review's scope will include the practice of high street banks, many of which have now become less popular than estate agents? Will he say a little more about the sanctions that he has in mind? He will be aware that the current deterrents and sanctions set out by the Fair Trading Act 1973 are

27
toothless and that often, by the time an anti-competitive practice is spotted, it is far too late for the small business that has already gone to the wall.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I must make a qualification to his first point. I have not said that the arrangements will enable the banks' practices to be examined. That matter will flow from the consultation and the ultimate decisions. However, I note what he said in the context of a wider message.
The sanctions are set out for consultation in the Green Paper and the possibility of fines in certain circumstances is envisaged, ranging from up to 10 per cent. of turnover with a ceiling of £1 million; it is possible to go beyond that provided that certain circumstances are fulfilled. So there is an escalating set of procedures through which fines can be imposed in the event of conviction.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I should like to ask about anti-competitive practices, especially the practice of refusing to supply, about which the Director General of Fair Trading has not been too good in recent years. Will the review look specifically at the refusal to supply to shopkeepers hi-fi equipment, white goods, furniture, textiles and clothing, and chemists' supplies? Anti-competitive practices are clearly being exercised in relation to those goods and too often in the past the Office of Fair Trading has taken no action.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman enables me to clarify that under a prohibition system, if we choose that option, everybody, including Government, local government, industry and commerce, is covered. With certain exceptions that I have mentioned in terms of the nationalised industries and the regulated industries, which would not be excluded but subjected to certain disciplines, that prohibition will give comprehensive cover. Therefore, the proposals are comprehensive.
Mr. John Spellar: Will the Minister say something stronger about the disgraceful failure of the banks cartel to pass on the reduction in interest rates to small business? Will he amplify his statement about loss-making pricing?
Will compulsory competitive tendering be covered, because there is a suspicion that some companies are pricing themselves into work in order to put the direct labour organisations out of business so that later profits can be made?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently met the Governor of the Bank of England to make sure that the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House were clearly expressed. I have no doubt that that message from my right hon. Friend and from many other quarters was clearly heard.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on direct labour organisations of the competitive environment in which they now trade. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my satisfaction at the considerable improvement in efficiency that has been achieved by the new competitive pressures.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the President accept that there is no greater abuse of power than that
28
which is exercised by the regional electricity companies, which have shares in gas and are using it to provide electricity which will undoubtedly be much dearer in a few years than electricity generated by coal? Will he answer the question that has been put to him about this matter? Will he ensure that in future the regional electricity companies will not be able to abuse their power? The Government and the Minister himself hold 40 per cent. of the shares in the electricity companies and could stop that abuse of power if they decided to exercise their tremendous strength.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will look forward as keenly as I do to the findings of the inquiry that is now under way and, of course, to the coal review about which I shall report to the House in the new year.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the President recognise that small firms will be at a considerable disadvantage if they have to have recourse to the civil courts on matters arising from an abuse of power or an anti-competitive practice? Will he confirm that the arbiter of whether there has been an anti-competitive practice or an abuse of power will continue to be, initially, the Office of Fair Trading and, ultimately, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Heseltine: When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to look at the document, he will see that in many instances there is a concurrent power. However, it is considered likely that in many cases small firms will go to the director general because he provides a free service, whereas court actions are likely to cost such firms a significant amount. The hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own representations when he has read the Green Paper.
Mr. Bill Olner: Will the Secretary of State reinforce his intention to ensure that the current malpractice of the banks cartel against large, medium and small manufacturers will cease as a result of the Green Paper? Will he also assure the House that local authorities will operate on a level playing field so that they are able to compete more fairly with private companies for the supply of services needed by consumers?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may feel that the concerns that have been expressed about the banks should be addressed a great deal more speedily than they would be by the flow of any legislation arising out of the consultation process that we are unleashing today. That does not in any way query the purpose that he put to the House, but the timing would be too delayed for the urgency with which some people have raised that matter. As to level playing fields in local authority provision of services, my experience is that the level playing fields are denied to the private sector, and not to the public sector.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the President of the Board of Trade recognise that many members of the public are taken for a ride, particularly with regard to the repair of electrical goods, by having to pay excessive call-out charges and because, in many cases, small independent repairers are not able to get parts? Will he ensure that, as a result of the consultation, that monopoly is broken down so that the consumer is able to get the best possible repair at the cheapest possible price?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will want to consider carefully whether that is an abuse of market

29
power, and therefore would come within a regulatory system of the sort that we are talking about. As I have said, the prohibition proposals would cover the entire spectrum of services and we shall explore the extent of that as the Committee examines any legislation that we introduce.

Bosnian Refugees
4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): With permission, I should like to make a statement about further arrangements that the Government are making to accept in the country ex-detainees from former Yugoslavia.
In his statement on 5 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary confirmed the willingness of the Government to receive from Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia people with special humanitarian needs whom the international organisations judge should be evacuated. We had already advised the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we are prepared initially to accept 150 former detainees from camps in Bosnia and in due course their dependants.
In the light of the plans made to receive the first group of 150, we have now informed UNHCR that we are willing to receive over the next few months additional groups of former detainees to a total of 1,000, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all.
Arrangements have already been made to receive the first group of 150 ex-detainees as soon as UNHCR confirms that they are ready to depart. The size of further groups and the timing of their arrival has still to be discussed with UNHCR. That will be dependent in part on the speed with which the international organisations are able to bring the detainees out of detention to transit camps in Croatia or elsewhere, and to complete such screening and documentation as UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross consider necessary.
We have asked the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to provide initial reception support and accommodation for the former detainees, both the initial group and subsequent groups. The first group will be taken to three locations, a former mental hospital in Surrey, an existing Refugee Council hostel in London, and a former residential care home owned by the British Red Cross in Cambridge. Arrangements for accommodating subsequent groups of arrivals are being developed. After an initial period in reception accommodation, the evacuees will be rehoused in more permanent accommodation in the community arranged by the Refugee Council.
The British Red Cross will liaise with the ICRC to trace the dependants of the former detainees, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Department and voluntary organisations to bring them here.
Once rehoused in the community, the evacuees, and their dependants when they arrive, will be entitled to receive the range of statutory benefits and services which are available to the rest of the population.
I am sure that we all hope that these evacuees will be able to return in due course to their own country. They will be admitted to this country exceptionally outside the immigration rules for six months initially. We shall obviously wish to review the position in the light of individual circumstances and the on-going situation in the former Yugoslavia.
The Government will be meeting the cost of transport of the former detainees and of their dependants to this country. They will reimburse the costs incurred by the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross in providing

31
initial reception support and accommodation, and they will fund the Refugee Council to provide the necessary on-going support.
Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the greater generosity shown to Bosnian refugees. It has rightly been forced on the Government by the strength of feeling in the country about the need for Britain to do more.
Let us be clear about the rules that will govern entry by refugees into Britain. Is the Minister accepting, as we have pressed, that there is a category of refugees who may not fall within the strict definition of the United Nations convention because they are not individually the subject of persecution but whose lives are nevertheless in serious danger because of ethnic cleansing and civil war in Yugoslavia? Therefore, is it not time that we properly defined that group, so that they can be distinguished from mere economic migrants? Once the group has been properly defined, would it not then be right to agree with the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross on a proper process of certification for those who are, in the broadest sense, refugees, and publish the terms of the agreement so that we may debate them?
On the broader issue that the Minister raised, is it not more important that Europe keeps its nerve at present? Although we can all unite against bogus refugee claims, we must not be stampeded into a fortress Europe policy which will not simply shut the door on genuine refugees who fear for their lives but be a serious betrayal of Europe's long-term future? Does the Minister agree that it is better for policy in Europe and Britain to be determined by balancing calmly practical reality with humanitarian causes, not by bending in the wind of racially motivated attacks, whether in Germany or elsewhere?
We know that there is a meeting of immigration Ministers today and a meeting of the so-called Trevi group tomorrow. Is the Minister aware that in many other countries the agenda for such meetings is published and debated before their Parliaments? Is it not high time that the secrecy surrounding such meetings ended and we were given the same opportunity to discuss such vital matters in the open as our other European partners are?
Mr. Wardle: The additional number of ex-detainees will be received on precisely the same basis as the 150 to whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State previously referred in answering a private notice question. They will be received outside the immigration rules and given exceptional leave to enter. The selection of the ex-detainees to come here will be a matter for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
There is no such thing as a fortress Europe. Some half a million people a year seek to enter western Europe. Immigration Ministers are meeting today, as the hon. Gentleman said, against a background of increased ethnic tension in Germany. There is nothing illiberal in seeking to establish firm but fair controls. There is certainly no hidden agenda. The agenda for today's meeting was made available to the press days ago, and has been available. My right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that a detailed account of the meeting is made available to the House in the usual way—in the form of a written answer.
32
Up to 2·5 million people have been displaced by the terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) ducks any sense of responsibility by refusing to say whether he would turn anyone away. We must ensure that an effort is made among the international community, working with the UNHCR, to establish that the most needy humanitarian cases are brought outside the former Yugoslavia.
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right to exemplify the arrangements that have been made with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to define how the temporary admission procedure will enable the entry of 4,000 more people from Bosnia or the associated areas of the former Yugoslavia. Does my. hon. Friend agree that the entry of those people imposes a substantial burden on some local authorities, notably in central London and in other parts of southern England? Will he ensure that there are proper arrangements to share the burden of the increasing number of people whom we welcome into the United Kingdom, and that accommodation is available for them outside the inner-city areas?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend's description of the self-selected groups that arrived here until recently—until the visa regime was imposed—is absolutely right. On the arrangements for ex-detainees selected by UNHCR, I have already outlined the initial accommodation for the first group of 150, and plans are in train to make arrangements for following groups. The Refugee Council will be asked to seek accommodation after the initial reception period, in districts where there is less pressure on local services and where support can be given by voluntary organisations. What my hon. Friend has said about the pressure on some local authorities will be carefully taken into account.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does not the Minister realise that it is unacceptable to be told that statements were made to the press days ago and that the House of Commons will be informed by means of a written answer? What are the determinations of the Ministers in the councils that are meeting today and tomorrow in London? Why has the Secretary of State not tabled in the House a proposal to share the burden of refugees from former Yugoslavia which he is prepared to place before his colleagues in the councils and which are being tabled before the Dutch Parliament, and debated there? What proposals is the Secretary of State putting forward on behalf of hon. Members and of many people in this country who are more concerned about the plight of the refugees than the Government appear to be?
Mr. Wardle: I have already made it clear to hon. Members that there is no hidden agenda. The draft agenda for the immigration Ministers' meeting was made available to the press some time ago, and is a matter for general publication. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear before, and has done so at the immigration Ministers meeting today, that he favours as open treatment as possible of the matters considered by the immigration Ministers. Any text agreed at today's meeting will be published, and my right hon. and learned Friend will take the earliest opportunity to make available to the House in the normal fashion a detailed account of what was agreed at the meeting, as has been the practice in the past
Mrs. Angela Browning: I know that my hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by many of my constituents. Will he outline the response that we can make to constituents such as those from whom I have recently received letters, who have accommodation in their homes and are asking if there is any way in which they can help when people arrive here, complete the counselling process and have been seen by the authorities?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to say that many members of the public are willing to help in a most thoughtful and responsible fashion. However, the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council have advised the Government against the idea of dispersal into family units. They think that it is much more important to provide mutual support by placing people in larger groups in rented accommodation, whether from the private sector or from local authorities. I am sure that there will always be a role for voluntary organisations to play in supporting refugee groups when they have been so placed.
Mr. Greville Janner: As all four of my grandparents found refuge in this country, and as the rest of my family who remained in Europe were wiped out by a previous ethnic cleansing process, I welcome the modest increase in national humanity shown by the Government. Will the Minister give the House and the country an assurance that, in addition to those who are to be admitted now, genuine refugees—people who are escaping from death and persecution—will continue to be admitted to this country in that great tradition of which so many of us are so proud?
Mr. Wardle: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there have already been 20,000 applications for asylum this year. The Government stand, as previous Governments have consistently done, by the terms of the Geneva convention—there is absolutely no question about that. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a modest increase. I hope that he will bear in mind the all-round humanitarian effort made by the Government to assist in the terrible problems of the conflict in former Yugoslavia, and will recognise that, by making an increased offer to the UNHCR, the Government hope that other members of the international community will do likewise.
Mrs. Judith Chaplin: I am sure that many will welcome the additional numbers coming into the country, but is my hon. Friend concerned that the provision of housing and other benefits for the group with which we are concerned may seem unfair to the refugees who are already here and who are not able to obtain such benefits, such as those in my constituency?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend points precisely to the reason why it is important to turn to UNHCR and to obtain the assistance in this country of the Refugee Council and British Red Cross, and properly to organise the placement of the ex-detainees and their dependants. As I have already said, the Refugee Council will be encouraged not to seek rented accommodation to which ex-detainees will move after the initial phase in parts of the country where there is already undue pressure on local services.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the United Kingdom carry a special responsibility for the
34
situation that exists in Yugoslavia, in that it was the European Community, with the support of this country, that recognised the break-up initially? In those circumstances, we should be desperately concerned about the plight of refugees. We should not continue to adhere to a policy that essentially means that refugees must return and be dealt with almost entirely inside Yugoslavia, when we have recognised the disappearance of that country.
Mr. Wardle: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I hope that he will not forget the efforts that are already being made by the British Government within Yugoslavia in terms of 2,300 troops, 200 airlift flights to Sarajevo, medical assistance, trucks and drivers and technical assistance. I hope that he will bear all that in mind. I hope also that he will remember that the United Kingdom is playing a significant part in the pressing cases which UNHCR says should be evacuated from the former Yugoslavia.
I understand that the total number of detainees in camps who have been recognised and identified so far by UNHCR is about 5,000 to 7,000. That will give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the scale of the contribution that has been made by the United Kingdom. I hope that he appreciates that it is important to take that lead but to understand that 2 million to 2·5 million remain displaced in former Yugoslavia—they face considerable problems—and to attempt to move them in significant numbers would be impracticable and would give way to the evil goal of ethnic cleansing, which I am sure he will agree we must all resist.
Mr. David Lidington: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he acknowledge that, for schools that have to teach the children of Bosnian refugees, there are additional burdens? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's policy to seek to reform section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 so that schools will be able to apply for additional funds to support the teaching of children whose first language is not English, irrespective of whether those children come from Commonwealth countries or elsewhere?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend makes a clear case for his views about the need for revision of section 11. I am sure that his concern has been heard.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Minister aware that we can understand why he appears to be extremely embarrassed about making such a pitiful statement on behalf of the Home Secretary? Is it not shameful that even today he cannot name a date when the 150 refugees will be received here? If the 1,000 are received on the same basis, it will be well into 1993 before they arrive. Was the gesture of receiving 1,150 refugees accepted by the EC immigration Ministers today? Am I right in thinking that the Home Secretary will be making a full statement on that meeting tomorrow or, at the latest, on Wednesday?
Mr. Wardle: I have said already that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be providing a detailed account of today's meeting and tomorrow's meeting of the Trevi group in the normal fashion.
As for the 1,000 ex-detainees that are to be selected by UNHCR, the hon. Gentleman should understand that the Government have stood ready to accept the first 150 since 5 November. We wait upon the UNHCR to select those

35
ex-detainees and to make arrangements to transport them, and stand ready, with the assistance of the British Red Cross and of the Refugee Council, for their reception. The date of the departure of each group is a matter for the UNHCR.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measured and reasonable nature of his announcement makes the Opposition's initial accusations look—in the light of the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—like institutionalised idiocy? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the arrangements that he outlined, the burden of caring for refugees coming to this country will not fall, as before, on any one housing authority but will be shared on a reasonable basis?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend expresses himself in colourful fashion, in referring to the views held by Labour Members. He is right to point out that, with the help of the Refugee Council and of the British Red Cross, dispersal plans for ex-detainees will be such that undue pressure will not be imposed on any one local authority.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Is the Minister aware of the large quantity of mail that all right hon. and hon. Members have received expressing the public's horror at the limit placed on the number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia allowed to enter this country? Why was the Minister's statement confined to former detainees? Although one recognises that they are a most deserving category, there are others whose lives are genuinely in danger because of their political views, ethnic origin, and so on. Does not the limit to which I referred illustrate the Government's illiberal attitude?
Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the British Government, in common with other members of the international community, turned to the experts—and it is the UNHCR and the ICRC that point to the need to bring ex-detainees, as the most urgent humanitarian cases, out of the country. It is still open to other individuals to apply for a visa. If they refer to an interest in asylum, their cases will be considered outside the immigration rules. If there is a direct family link with this country, this country will consider their asylum applications.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my hon. Friend accept that it is prudent and necessary to take account of the rising tide of hostility to incomers to the European Community, but that making the argument of it the cause of restricting immigration can fuel that horrible habit? Does he agree that the European Community must make much greater efforts in terms of education, legislation and law enforcement to stamp out the growing tide of xenophobia and racism?
Mr. Wardle: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's observations, and I am sure that he joins me in wishing well all those brave Germans who made it absolutely clear in their national protests that they find utterly unacceptable any expression of racism or ethnic hostility in their country. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that, with some half a
36
million people seeking to enter western Europe every year, there must be an organised basis for firm but fair immigration controls.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to that statement, what advice does the Minister have for the family in my constituency whose relatives are stranded in Germany and probably at risk of racism attacks, and who have even been refused a visa to visit this country? Will he be more sympathetic and allow a long-term visit of perhaps three or six months until things settle down, and see what happens then?
Mr. Wardle: I do not know the circumstances of the family to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he will bring them to my attention, no doubt we can discuss the matter. It should be absolutely clear to the House that it would be wrong to suggest that every asylum applicant or ex-detainee in Germany is under some form of threat. I am sure that is not the case, and that the German Government have made that entirely clear.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Can I suggest to my hon. Friend that the generosity of approach in his statement will be greatly welcomed by many of my constituents, who have been much moved by the suffering in the former Yugoslavia and who are anxious that our Government should do all that they realistically can to help, both here and in the Balkans?
Mr. Wardle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that he and his constituents will bear in mind the fact that the most caring and effective way to offer help to ex-detainees is to do it through the offices of the UNHCR and the ICRC in order to make sure that we identify the most pressing humanitarian cases and then arrange a well-organised reception in this country so that continuing support and care is provided in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that his statement is inadequate in a number of ways? He has not yet conceded that it was wholly wrong and inhuman to introduce the visa regime for people coming to this country from the former Yugoslavia. The imposition of a specific numerical limit on the number of people seeking political asylum from the former Yugoslavia seems to suggest that others will be denied access unless they can obtain visas, although the Government know full well that it is impossible to apply for a visa to visit this country from any part of the former Yugoslavia, because of the travelling difficulties.
Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that visa issuing is now possible in our offices in Zagreb, so every effort is being made to make visas available to those who make individual applications. The hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind, I am sure, the fact that it would have been impractical and irresponsible simply to countenance the uncontrolled flow of arrivals. He will note that Britain was among the last of the European countries to apply a visa regime. Having done so, the Government have turned to the UNHCR to provide a properly caring and organised programme to make sure that the most urgent humanitarian cases are received and treated in this country.
Mr. Robert Banks: I believe that there is great sympathy in this country for, in particular, the plight

37
of families who have fled from Bosnia. A mother and her three young children are, happily, living in my constituency and are well supported by local people, but her husband, the father of her children, is living in Crete. Will my hon. Friend give priority to reuniting that family?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will be aware that applications from people with direct and close family ties are given priority. If he will give me the details of that case, I shall give the matter the closest attention. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that his constituents, and others, feel strongly that to put our reception of ex-detainees on a properly organised basis is the responsible way of going about helping, at this end, with the humanitarian effort that is so badly needed because of the terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister accept my gratitude for the efforts by his private office to trace the head of a family, which I visited in Slovenia, who is believed to he in this country? Does he recognise that there is a sharp contrast between the limited response of the British Government and the generous response of the British people? Does he not acknowledge that the people in my constituency, for example, are already organising lorryloads of goods to go to Slovenia to aid the refugees there, that that poor benighted country, small though it is, is overwhelmed with refugees, and that the British Government's response has been extremely limited?
Mr. Wardle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the efforts of my private office. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the Government's widespread efforts in the former Yugoslavia to provide both aid and technical assistance and to put in hand a programme that, as I have described, is earmarked to receive about 1,000 of the between 5,000 and 7,000 ex-detainees already identified by the UNHCR is a significant contribution, by any standards, by the British Government.
Lady Olga Maitland: As t come from a family of Yugoslav refugees, may I give a warm welcome to the announcement, which follows in the finest of British traditions? The Government have already accepted 35,000 Yugoslav visitors to the United Kingdom. Would my hon. Friend be willing to repeat his guidelines to charities such as Leeds European Refugee Trust to ensure that refugees go through the proper authorities and thereby prevent queue barging? Will he say when he will review the next intake?
Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the need for a properly organised basis for receptions. I am sure that that is well understood and appreciated by the many well-intentioned voluntary organisations that have done so much already to help with the problems in Yugoslavia. I am sure that their efforts are much appreciated by the House. My hon. Friend is aware that some 40,000 people from former Yugoslavia have entered this country in the first 10 months, some of whom have undoubtedly already returned, but, by the end of October, 4,500 had applied for asylum. If she adds that to
38
the 4,000 ex-detainees and their dependants who are likely to be included in this programme, she will appreciate that the Government are making a considerable effort.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that, however limited his announcement is, it is certainly welcome? Although Opposition Members were bitterly attacked by the Home Secretary and his supporters at the time, is it not clear that they reflected the generous spirit of the British people—who, as they have in the past, recognised that, although we cannot do all we would like, we can help those who are fleeing from persecution and terror?
When the Minister meets his German counterpart, will he tell him that many British people do not believe that the German authorities are taking enough action against the fascists, racists and hate-mongers? To some extent, that is not surprising, because in the past 50 years German authorities have been reluctant to bring many Nazis to justice. Perhaps their reluctance explains their continued ambiguity towards the extreme ultra-right in Germany.
Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will have been heard and noted in the House. I hope that he will agree with what I said a few moments ago about the commitment and integrity of the many members of the German public who demonstrated in the past few days to make it absolutely clear that there is no public appetite for racism or the kind of ethnic tension that seems to have surfaced. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words of welcome to the expansion in the programme of the reception of ex-detainees. He spoke of the attitudes of Opposition Members, but I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that it is equally important to make it clear that it is impossible and wrong to seek the removal of between 2 million and 2·5 million people, because that would be succumbing to ethnic cleansing. We must operate on a carefully organised basis, working with UNHCR.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to ensure that the voluntary organisations and charities, particularly in my part of the world, such as the Tertia trust and the Leeds-based trust, ALERT, are given clear guidelines on the role he sees for them to ensure that we avoid a repetition of the unfortunate situation that developed just a few weeks ago? Will he ensure that a press release or statement is released detailing governmental responsibilities and the charities' responsibilities so that those who want to play a part in voluntary organisations can assist with this project?
Mr. Wardle: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that many of those organisations have made considerable efforts. I agree that it is most important to have clear-cut guidelines for co-ordination. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he advises the voluntary groups with which he is in touch to approach the Refugee Council to talk about that form of co-ordination.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear first an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Solicitors (Payments from Public Funds)
4.35 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the questionable circumstances surrounding the payments to Carter-Ruck, solicitors, from public funds.
The matter is specific because the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be brought to the House to answer the public concern over the use of public funds for a private legal bill. He should specifically explain why the British taxpayer should pay at all when he hired his own libel lawyer to protect his own personal reputation in respect of a commercial tenancy of his own private home in what was ultimately a private matter, which in no way arose from his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The matter is specific because the rules make it absolutely clear that public funds can be justified only in the conduct of public duties that involve official responsibilities. The press handling of a private eviction is not such a case.
The matter is important because, when talking about the rules governing payments from public funds, it has become clear from the National Audit Office this afternoon, not only that the payments were not to be announced to the public, but that the expenditure was never separately itemised in Treasury accounts. It was included only under the broadest of headings entitled "Treasury running costs", was never drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office as a special feature and has never been investigated by the National Audit Office, which should now happen. The Chancellor must come to the House to explain why the secret arrangements were such that the public were never to know that the payment had ever been made.
The matter is important because the Treasury now suggests that the reason for incurring the expenditure was to retain full confidence not only in the office of Chancellor, but in the person holding that office—in other
40
words, guidelines that could permit public funds to be used to resist legally almost any attack on any Minister. That interpretation of the rules is so wide and so liable to abuse that it cannot be allowed to continue.
The matter is also important because there is no published precedent for the payments. There is a huge difference between the Treasury covering the legal expenses of a Chancellor sued because of actions taken in the direct exercise of his public duties, as in the case of Johnson Matthey, and a Chancellor who is simply involved in legal action because of his own private dealings.
The matter requires urgent consideration because members of the public will not understand the use of public money in that way, making the Chancellor the only man in Britain to escape legal aid cuts. The guidelines must be fundamentally rewritten. The credibility of Government is once again the issue, unless Ministers are prepared to come to the House to explain themselves.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker!
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats until I have given a decision on the matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We are worried about Michael Brown.
Madam Speaker: There is no need to worry about anything but hearing the Speaker at the moment.
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said. As the House knows, I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. I do not consider that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House. I have no doubt that there are points of order. I call Mr. Rowe, who was first on his feet.

Points of Order
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that this is a subjective matter. It was not only during the excitable indignation of the shadow Chancellor that I felt that the volume in the House this afternoon was very high—almost uncomfortably so. Could you, Madam Speaker, regulate it so that it is a little less noisy?
Madam Speaker: I will look into that matter.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take one from each side. I call Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are not allowed to tell us why you have turned down the application under Standing Order No. 20. You will appreciate that I made an application earlier today. I am wondering about the role of the Official Solicitor. I would like you, Madam Speaker, to tell me why he is not being used in a case like this. You will recall that 20 years ago the Official Solicitor had to be used in an individual case which arose out of a civil action. His intervention, which was used by the Government because it was a public matter, enabled the matter to be resolved.
The fact that the Official Solicitor was not used suggests to me that this was a private concern and a private investment by the Chancellor. He wanted to line his pockets. He got the highest bidder—Miss Whiplash—and he wants the public to pay the bill.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his submission. His knows very well that the Speaker does not indulge in such exchanges across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Michael Brown: This is the first time that you, Madam Speaker, have been in the Chair since the general election that I have felt it necessary to raise a point of order with you. Do you not agree that there has been an abuse of proceedings in so far as Back Benchers are concerned? The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought leave for an emergency debate under a procedure which we Back Benchers value very much. I suspect that he did that having already submitted a private notice question to you. I am not sure whether he did that, but I once sought, after having submitted a private notice question which the Speaker did not accept, to raise the matter in the way that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East raised the matter. For very correct reasons, I was not allowed to do that.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has been muck-racking and making much of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the matter has nothing to do with the Chancellor. It was a decision of the permanent secretary to the Treasury to make the minute available to the general public in the way he did. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has been muck-raking, and we will do that if that is what he wants.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. It is for the Speaker of this House to determine whether a private notice question is
42
heard or whether an application under Standing Order No. 20 is heard. The House might leave that decision to me.
Mr. Max Madden: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. During the exchanges on the statement on refugees made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, you will have heard that European Community immigration Ministers are meeting today and tomorrow to discuss policies, including those concerning refugees. You will have heard during those exchanges that there was dissatisfaction about the fact that we are to be told about the outcome of those important meetings only by way of a reply to a written question.
Will you permit me, under Standing Order No. 20, arising from the exchanges made on the statement, to apply for an emergency debate on a matter that is important, urgent and specific—namely,
"the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning refugees"?
That would allow us to call the Home Secretary to account for the meetings held today and tomorrow, to explain the Government's refugee policy and to say whether we support the establishment of safe havens in Bosnia. For all those reasons, I should very much like to submit such an application, and I hope that you would grant a debate.
Madam Speaker: I have heard no basis on which the hon. Gentleman may submit an application under Standing Order No. 20 today. However, of course, every hon. Member—and certainly the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—is perfectly entitled to make an application to me under Standing Order No. 20. I will consider such applications most carefully, as I always do.
Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that I am not, and never have been, one to indulge in the points of order racket. However, I seek your guidance. You will recall as I do, because we were in the House at the time, that when Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was Prime Minister he sought to sue a pop group called The Move over a song called "Flowers in the Rain". Can you confirm whether, quite properly, he received public funds in that connection and whether Mr. Speaker at the time allowed a debate on the subject?
Madam Speaker: I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman has asked: my memory is not as good as that. Even if it were, I doubt whether I would do so across the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify the standing of the House. We have had an explanation from the Treasury about the sum in question which was the subject of the Standing Order application by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Officials of the Treasury have given their explanation. As Speaker of the House, can you tell me what opportunity exists for hon. Members to question Ministers? If we table written questions, presumably a Minister will answer them.
While we have had an explanation from Treasury officials, surely at the end of the day Treasury official take their instructions from Ministers. Any payment that was

43
authorised was authorised by Ministers. What opportunity is there for the Chancellor to come here and explain and justify his conduct and be subject to questioning? We are not interested in questioning officials. We want to ask the Chancellor whether he was justified in receiving the money. We want to hear his explanation.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I cannot require any Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. The Speaker of the House does not have such authority. The hon. Gentleman is a very long-standing Member of the House. If he puts on his thinking cap, he will know full well that there are various methods by which he might pursue what he is seeking to do through normal parliamentary procedures.
Sir John Wheeler: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a fact that the then permanent secretary to the Treasury authorised the payment of £4,700 without any application to him for that funding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Hon. Members: How do you know that?
Madam Speaker: Order. These are barely points of order for the Speaker. This is not within my remit. I have answered the points of order and the Standing Order No. 20 application. I will take no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Madam Speaker: If there are points of order that do not relate to that matter, I am willing to hear them.
Mr. Tony Banks: I need your protection, Madam Speaker. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may think that my point is flippant, but it is not. A very unfortunate rumour is going around the press lobby at the moment that I know somewhat more than I have so far said about the appearance of a small Hitler moustache on the portrait of Baroness Thatcher that was hanging at I, Derby gate. As you have responsibility for works of art—although it is
44
rather difficult to describe said portrait as a work of art—I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that I know nothing whatsoever about the incident. I did not put the Hitler moustache on the portrait—nor, as someone else has said, were I the chairman of the Greater London arts committee would I have considered the artist for a grant.
Madam Speaker: I know about the vandalism that has taken place, and I deprecate it. I have asked for very thorough investigations to be carried out. Does the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wish to raise a point of order, or are points of order finished? I am not prompting one.
Mr. Corbyn: I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. My point of order is this: will you ensure that guidelines are issued to all hon. Members about what they can claim in the way of legal expenses from any problems they get into in future because of their membership of the House?
Madam Speaker: That was a very back-door method of trying to get at me.

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.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  BUILDING SOCIETIES (EFTA STATES)
  That the draft Building Societies (EFTA States) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  COMPANIES (DISCLOSURE)
  That the draft Oversea Companies and Credit and Financial Institutions (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COPYRIGHT (COMPUTER PROGRAMS)
  That the draft Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.48pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): It gives me no pleasure to follow the little debate that was initiated by my old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for whom I used to have some respect until he demeaned himself and the Opposition Front Bench by descending into the gutter with the gutter journalists from whom he gained his material. He and they will be judged by the company that they keep.
  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two main purposes: first, it introduces a 1 per cent. additional rebate for personal pension holders aged 30 and over, as promised in our manifesto; secondly, it provides for a Treasury grant into the national insurance fund.
  Before explaining the detailed provisions in the Bill, it may help if I recall the background on personal pensions. The present arrangements were established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in the Social Security Act 1986, which came into force in 1988.
  Critics, not least on the Opposition Benches, predicted that the personal pension scheme would be a flop and that, to the extent that personal pensions caught on, it would be largely at the expense of occupational pensions. In fact, personal pensions have been an enormous success. Nearly 5 million people have taken them out since their introduction in 1988. That is 10 times as many as was originally projected. The 5 million personal pension holders are largely additional to the 11 million members of occupational pensions schemes. Indeed, the number of people covered by occupational schemes has actually risen over the same period. The success of personal pensions has generated a committed flow of funds for investment amounting to £8 billion over the period.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No.
  That is one of the great strengths of private pensions. They are invariably fully funded, setting savings aside to be invested in industry to build up assets which will pay the pensions in the future.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State now give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Not to the hon. Gentleman, if that is the correct epithet—[interruption.]—which I trust it is.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman should make a rather more graceful withdrawal than merely to say that he hopes that it is the right epithet. I thought that we were all hon. Members, whatever we may think of each others' opinions.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I hope that the House will settle down and that we will extend courtesies to each other. That applies, of course, to both sides.
  Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Personal pensions, as I have said, are invariably fully funded.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Are you disputing the Chair again?
  Mr. Dewar: I am not disputing the Chair, as the Secretary of State is suggesting. It is quite an important point. There are proprieties in the House. Sometimes people see them as a little artificial, but most of us see them as important safeguards. In respect of a specific innuendo, if it is said that an hon. Member will never get in on a point of information, because, by implication—indeed, it is explicitly suggested—he is not an honourable Member, that is quite a serious charge and it should be withdrawn.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That was not my understanding of the situation that arose. I make it plain to the House that we should observe the highest standards of courtesy, not how much we can get away with.
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assumed that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was criticising his hon. Friends for their use of innuendo.
  By contrast, state schemes——
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chamber heard the Secretary of State refer to an hon. Member as a gentleman, not an hon. Gentleman. He followed that with a comment about whether that was the correct term to use. That is the thrust of what he said. On two counts he has violated the proper standards of conduct in the Chamber and is yet to accept your advice on how to put right that conduct. He does not have the decent grace to do it. I insist that he be brought to order. It is not proper.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that I do not regard the exchange that has taken place to be of such a kind that it requires an apology. The observation that I have made is that I hope that both sides will observe the highest standards of courtesy. I suggest that we get on with the substance of the Bill.
  Mr. Lilley: I will adhere to the spirit of that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  By contrast, state schemes are pay-as-you-go. This year's contributions are used to pay this year's pensions. Nothing is saved and invested in industry to create assets to pay for future pensions. The success of personal pensions also means that a substantial future burden is lifted from the Exchequer.
  Personal pension funds have taken off so well because, for the first time, they give many people, especially those with no access to occupational schemes, an alternative to the state earnings-related pension scheme, and because they offer complete portability when people change jobs, with no loss of pension rights. That is particularly attractive to young people and mobile employees. Personal pension funds give people the chance to make additional provision above the level of the state earnings-related

  47
  pension scheme. About one and a half million investors have already done just that. Finally, of course, the 2 per cent. incentive of those contracting out of SERPS has succeeded, as was its aim, in getting the new concept off to a flying start.
  In 1986, when my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister was taking the Social Security Bill through the House, he said that the Government wished to extend personal pensions as widely as possible. In Committee my right hon. Friend said:
  "We expect that people of 40 and under will be most attracted to personal pensions".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 6 February 1986; c. 44.]
  His intentions have been amply fulfilled.
  It is especially encouraging that so many young people have personal pensions. More than half of personal pension holders are under 30. More than 80 per cent. are under 40. The flat-rate nature of the current rebate arrangements means that the advantages of personal pensions are greater for younger people than for older ones—although I must admit that it is disappointing to discover that the older generation now begins at 30—because the benefits from a personal pension depend, among other things, on the return on investment, accumulating compound. By contrast, entitlements from SERPS are increased in relation to the growth of average earnings, as there is no investment fund.
  Historically, the return on investment has outstripped earnings growth. As long as it continues to do so, personal pensions will have an advantage over SERPS for younger people. At the same time, with a flat-rate rebate for contracting out, it becomes advisable for personal pensioners to consider contracting back into SERPS as they get older. Therefore, people in their 20s are more likely to be well advised to contract out of SERPS than people in their 50s. If older personal pension holders decided to contract back into SERPS, that would not merely undermine the healthy development of personal pensions but would increase the financial burden on SERPS and on the Exchequer. That is why we propose to introduce a 1 per cent. addition to the contracting-out rebate for those over 30. It will apply to those who are 30 or over next April, and of course to those who are over 30 before the beginning of any future tax year.
  We estimate that about 2 million personal pension holders will benefit. The cost for the first year is estimated to be £165 million. However, the incentive is paid out a year in arrears, so 1994–95 will be the first year in which that cost falls on the national insurance fund. The 1 per cent. additional rebate will ensure that the majority of personal pension holders continue to find it worth while to maintain their pensions in the immediate future. But that is only a temporary measure. In the longer term, as we promised in our manifesto, we will be considering proposals for an age-related rebate structure to replace the temporary 1 per cent. additional rebate from April 1996. I intend to consult fully with all interested parties on the way in which that might be achieved.
  The ending of the 2 per cent. incentive will make it all the more important that people are sold only pension arrangements that are appropriate to their circumstances, and at a competitive cost. That requires that full and clear information should be available to potential customers and that pension providers should be firmly and effectively
  48
  regulated. To improve the availability of information, we will be working closely with interested parties, including the relevant consumer bodies. We would hope to bring out new material that explains the range of pension choice in as simple language as possible. It could highlight the questions to ask and the points to watch.
  The Securities and Investments Board has made proposals to improve the transparency of information relating to costs. Those proposals are being considered by the Office of Fair Trading, whose task is to ensure that such rules are not anti-competitive. The office is expected to report to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor shortly, and we look forward to its report. We are also working closely with the regulators to ensure that the regulatory system works effectively for personal pensions, especially in the changed environment from next April.
  Officials and Ministers have held a series of meetings with their counterparts in the SIB, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association to discuss issues and to share information.
  The regulators intend to issue further guidance to pension providers and advisers before next April, which will highlight the categories of people for whom pensions are likely to be suitable and unsuitable. I welcome evidence of the regulators' determination to use disciplinary powers when firms are not giving the best advice, tailored to investors' circumstances.
  Our aim, with Parliament's consent, is that the Bill should receive Royal Assent by February. To ensure that the details are considered fully in the time available, we propose to take the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, which will allow time for the Department to explain fully the changes to all involved, and for it to make the necessary adjustments to systems, so that personal pension holders will receive their rebates promptly.
  The national insurance fund is the second aspect of the Bill. The balance in the fund depends on the state of the economic cycle. An economic slow-down adversely affects incomings and outgoings. The detailed position is set out in the Government Actuary's report, which was published and placed in the Library last Thursday and—I hope—received by Opposition Members.
  In 1993–94, the expenditure from the fund is likely to exceed its income by about £4·8 billion. After taking account of the balance carried forward from 1992–93, the fund is likely to be about £1·2 billion short of its commitments. There is also likely to be a shortfall in future years. Legislation makes no provision for the fund to go into deficit. Without legislation of the sort proposed, it would, therefore, have been necessary to curb entitlement to benefit or to increase contributions.
  The House will know that, despite the tight financial position, I announced on 12 November that all benefits are to be uprated in line with inflation. I also announced that we had decided to make no change in employers' or employees' national insurance contributions, except the normal adjustments for inflation. That was warmly welcomed by everyone, except Opposition Members. However, it means that we have to draw on the Exchequer to keep the national insurance fund in balance.
  We therefore propose to help the fund by a new grant, to be paid from the Consolidated Fund into the national insurance fund in 1993–94, which will be available—if needed—in future years. It is not a new idea to support the

  49
  fund through a transfer from the Consolidated Fund. The national insurance fund was originally set up with income from employers, employees and the state.
  The former Treasury supplement, which we abolished in 1989, was inflexible. We had to pay it whether or not we needed to, even when the fund was in surplus. The proposed grant is a more sensible mechanism, allowing more prudent management of the fund: it is flexible; it is not automatic; and it will be called on only when it is needed. In that way, we can be more responsive to the cyclical nature of the economy.
  Let me turn to the amounts involved. The grant will vary according to the need at the time. The payment that we intend to make in 1993–94 will be up to 20 per cent. of benefit expenditure from the fund—up to £8 billion. That is a high initial amount because of the need to recover ground lost by the fund in 1992–93. For subsequent years, the payment will be made only if the Secretary of State decides that it is needed. We plan to keep a balance of two months' benefit expenditure, using expenditure estimates made by the Government Actuary and published in his report.
  The Bill also sets a maximum for subsequent years—17 per cent. of benefit expenditure, or about £7 billion on current forecasts. On each occasion, an order will be made after consultation with the Treasury and with its consent. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The House will be able to debate the issue fully. That gives us maximum flexibility with maximum accountability. The measure represents a transfer of money within the public sector. Therefore, it has no effect on overall public spending. The House will have an opportunity to debate the re-rating proposals when we place the draft order before it in due course.
  The measures in the Bill raise questions about what the Opposition would do when faced with similar issues. They have criticised the proposal to introduce the national insurance fund grant. I want to know whether they are still critical of it, or whether they accept the need for it. At the last election they proposed a major increase in national insurance revenues. Indeed, a major plank of their policy was to increase the national insurance burden on a large number of people. That would reduce the need for a grant, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East appears to have renounced that policy. We wish to know whether the Opposition will repudiate his renunciation.
  The Labour party appears simultaneously to be proposing to consider means-testing pensions and discouraging private pensions. Will the hon. Member for Garscadden therefore confirm that the promise of Its right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that none of the universal benefits would be excluded from his review, still stands? Will he also repudiate the remarks of his predecessor, who said just before the election:
  "The election of a Labour Government will turn the pensions market on its head. The traffic in transfers will be all one way—back into SERPS"?
  Do they still propose to discourage people from taking out personal pensions, while threatening to means-test state pensions? The House has a reason to seek answers to those questions and this is an excellent occasion for them to be given.
  As hon. Members will be aware, today is the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Beveridge report. I believe that the
  50
  Bill is in keeping with the spirit of that report. Beveridge considered that the state should, in establishing a national minimum, provide room and encouragement
  "for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."
  Our measures on personal pensions are designed to help to do just that. Our new grant maintains the national insurance fund on a sound basis and is more flexible than previous arrangements. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I regret the Secretary of State's petulant opening. I can only assume that he is extremely defensive about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). If the Secretary of State is worried about bad manners in the House, perhaps he will read the opening of his speech tomorrow and reflect upon it.
  I must comment briefly on the Secretary of State's repeated remarks on the means-testing of the state retirement pension. He knows that he is inventing, and that there is no justification for that charge. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter, so he knows where I and the Labour party stand. Of course, we said that the commission on social justice would be open-minded and that it would be prepared to consider all the options. That is different from immediately assuming that one possibility, which is in his mind but no one else's, is about to become reality. It is scaremongering of the cheapest sort and the right hon. Gentleman—I use the words "right hon." because I realise that it is the proper means of approach—knows that.
  Mr. Lilley: I shall read what the hon. Gentleman said in Hansard tomorrow and consider whether it meets the high standards that he has set for others.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in a debate at the Oxford Union, I made remarks similar to those in my speech today. I challenged him to repudiate the suggestion about means-tested pensions. I sat down and waited for him to do so, but he refused and let it stand. If he thinks that I have made a cheap suggestion, why did he not take the even cheaper option of saying then that he would not consider the means-testing of pensions?
  Mr. Dewar: I have given the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am not interested in cheap options. I remember the debate at Oxford extremely well, which was held only a week after the Conservative party conference. Quite properly, I repeatedly asked for the statistical base for the right hon. Gentleman's charge about women who became pregnant to avoid the housing queue. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer that question, and said that that was all sanctimonious rubbish. I must confess that I think that the rubbish came from him, and it does still. I regret that.
  Mr. David Willetts: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred to the fact that the Labour party commission struck the right balance between universal and selective benefits. In the light of that statement, how can the hon. Gentleman rule out the option of means-testing the pension?
  Mr. Dewar: All that my right hon. and learned Friend said was that there would be an open-minded approach to

  51
  the evident problems of the current benefits system. How that claim to such an approach could then be translated into the type of charges made by the Secretary of State—except through malice—passes my imagination. The right hon. Gentleman is guilty of stirring of the lowest and stupidest kind, and I like to think that it will be counter-productive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rule out means-testing, then."] I have already made it clear that we have no plans to means-test the state pension, and I shall not be shifted from the common sense expressed in previous remarks.
  The Bill is significant because it raises a number of important matters about the future of the pensions system. I was interested in the proposal to reinstate tripartite funding of the national insurance fund. The Secretary of State will remember that, when the Government abolished it back in 1989, they did so with considerable pride. They were the Government who believed in good housekeeping; they were the Government who could balance the books. There was no need any longer for any sort of balancing payment from the Exchequer. Of course, that balanced budget approach is now a dream and a mirage.
  I was interested by what the Secretary of State said when he referred to the economic cycle. One would have expected a confident Cabinet Minister, who believed what the Chancellor told him, to say that we needed the funding for the national insurance fund this year because of particular difficulties posed by the recession, but that, within three years, those difficulties would represent a bad patch in the past. The right hon. Gentleman was very careful—I can understand why—to say that a continuing subsidy would be required. He said that that subsidy might fluctuate and that at some future date it might not be necessary, but he was quite specific that it would be necessary for some years to come. The right hon. Gentleman's thinking provides an interesting insight into his confidence in the financial management of the Chancellor and the Government.
  In 1993–94, the Exchequer grant will represent nearly 20 per cent. of the national insurance fund payments. That is a remarkable figure. In 1988–89, there was a surplus in the national insurance fund of about £3 billion, but in 1993–94 there will be a deficit of nearly £5 billion. That deficit will occur despite the fact that there has been a transfer of responsibility for industrial injury benefits and statutory sick pay and maternity pay, worth about £1·7 billion per year, to the Treasury. The deterioration in the fund has been sharp and significant, and the Government cannot escape the fact that that is a comment on the financial difficulties faced by the country.
  I notice that the Government Actuary said in his report of December 1991—not the one that appeared last week, for which we are grateful—that the balance of the fund in 1992–93 would be estimated at 17 per cent. He said that that would be just above the minimum, and that it was obviously.a cause for some concern.
  From the Government Actuary's most recent report—no doubt the Secretary of State is very familiar with it—the right hon. Gentleman will note that, in paragraph 24, the figure for 1992–93 is not 17 per cent., as estimated, but 10 per cent. It has fallen well below the recommended minimum. That fall reveals a sad tale; and it is awesome evidence of the way in which the recession has bitten.
  52
  We all know that unemployment is the ABC of the debate. If 100,000 people are added to the unemployment total, that costs the Department of Social Security about £330 million. If unemployment increases, contributions fall and benefit liabilities increase. I am interested to discover what will happen in the next three years. Perhaps the Minister who will reply to the debate can help us on that matter.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe) indicated assent.
  Mr. Dewar: I take it that the hon. Lady will be replying to the debate, given that she is gesturing at me with her head.
  Miss Widdecombe: I was nodding.
  Mr. Dewar: The Under-Secretary assures me that she was merely nodding, but she sometimes has a somewhat aggressive manner. I am relieved to have that assurance.
  The Under-Secretary will be aware that the Government Actuary, when making forward projections, works on a number of assumptions. They are not assumptions that he picks, because the House will be familiar with paragraph 10 of his report, in which he said:
  "The assumptions I have been instructed to use for the purpose of the above estimates were set out in the following terms … the number of unemployed (Great Britain) averages 2·74 million in 1992–93 and 2·8 million in 1993–94 … the increase in average earnings on a year earlier is … 5 per cent. in 1993–94."
  Those assumptions are interesting, because it is on that basis that the Government Actuary calculates the balance in the fund, as expressed as a percentage of the pay-out of the national insurance fund in a given year.
  We are on common ground, however, because if he is wrong about the unemployment projections, his figures may be in trouble. If he is also wrong about his assumptions on earnings, his figures may be blown out of the water. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether the DSS, which has an interest in this matter, expects unemployment in Great Britain to average at 2·8 million people in 1993–94. If she and her Secretary of State do, they are the only people in this country who now expect unemployment to remain at about 2·8 million people.
  I do not believe that the Chancellor imagines that that will happen, because, although the autumn statement was noted for the right hon. Gentleman's bullish presentation, if anyone in the House or outside had bothered to read the actual figures, he would see that the Chancellor is suggesting that growth will be 1 per cent. in the coming financial year, or 0·75 per cent. if one excludes activity in the North sea. Certainly, if growth is as low as that, unemployment will rise markedly. I notice that the Society of Business Economists, which was reported extensively on the front page of the Financial Times recently, has suggested that the growth rate may be only half of even the modest figure predicted by the Treasury.
  Even if the Chancellor is right—I suppose, by the laws of average and the laws of chance, he is likely to be right sometimes—unemployment will rise. In today's edition of The Guardian—I use it because it provides the latest estimate available to me—the Employment Policy Institute has suggested that, by April 1994, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure will stand at 3·32 million. If we take the figures in the Government Actuary's report, which suggest that an extra 100,000 people will be in the

  53
  unemployment queue in 1993–94, that contributory income will be £150 million lower and that expenditure for benefits will increase by £100 million, and apply that to the estimate made by the Employment Policy Institute—having removed Northern Ireland from that estimate—the result is a £450 million-plus drop in expected income to the fund, and an increase in expenditure of £300 million.
  I paint that picture because I want the Under-Secretary to give me an assurance—I am sure that she will be glad to do it—that she takes those projections seriously. Mr. Daykin, the Government Actuary, is already estimating that, in 1993–94, there will have to be a £7·5 billion subvention to the fund—the Secretary of State has already mentioned that. He reckons that the Exchequer subvention will be 19·6 per cent. of benefit expenditure. He must keep within 20 per cent. under the Bill, so there is little room to play with between 19·6 per cent. and 20 per cent.
  The Under-Secretary argues for considerably less than a 5 per cent. increase in earnings—that is the whole point of the Government's policy—which will also have an adverse effect on the figures and calculation. Given the likely course of events relating to unemployment arid pay, is she saying that she can hold to that 19·6 per cent. and, if not, what will happen?
  The Secretary of State showed a remarkable interest in whether we would vote against the Bill. One of the reasons why we shall not vote against it is that we do not dispute the necessity for a Treasury payment to the national insurance fund. It would be silly if we did, because a substantial gap would then have to be met by cutting benefits, which would be unacceptable to us, or raising national insurance contributions.
  Given the sad state of the economy and the depth of the recession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East has made clear, we could not advocate such a course. Clearly, there must be a subvention, but let us leave room for doubt: it is a defeat for the Government and a monument to the failure of their economic policies in the past two or three years.
  I am not sure whether I appreciate the full significance of clause 1(3), which is composed somewhat obscurely. I make no complaint, because it is highly technical, but it deals with the reimbursement from the national insurance fund to the Treasury of the small sum of some £6 million—small compared to the right hon. Gentleman's total budget. I am not clear why that is necessary. The Under-Secretary will no doubt make it clear when she sums up the debate.
  I tried to take advice on the matter, and found that the detail has passed many people by. Perhaps unauthorised payments that should have been made over a period were not made, and this is therefore a wiping-the-slate-clean exercise because someone has nodded or slept. The Secretary of State will say that such things never happen in a well-run Department and certainly did not happen in his, but we should have an explanation. We may be able to return to the matter later in the proceedings.
  The main part of the Bill deals with the incentive and the new 1 per cent. provision. In 1988, a 2 per cent. incentive over and above the contracting-out payment was introduced in an attempt—the Secretary of State makes no bones about it—to encourage people to leave SERF'S and take up personal pensions. The Government are in a good position to discuss prejudice and rigid political views,
  54
  because, from the very beginning, the Secretary of State's intention has been to sink SERPS, and ultimately to see it off the map altogether.
  The contracting-out mechanism is familiar to all hon. Members. National Insurance contributions were reduced this year by 5·8 per cent. and will be reduced by 4·8 per cent. in 1993–94, which is 3 per cent. for the employer and 1·8 per cent. for the employee. The money is then gathered and that percentage is paid to the pension provider. In addition, we get the 2 per cent. incentive to personal pensions and to contract-out money purchase schemes in the occupational sector.
  Anyone who has looked even superficially at the matter will recognise that it has been an expensive exercise. According to the National Audit Office, at April 1988 prices cumulatively until the end of 1993—the end of the
  2 per cent. period—the cost is some £9·3 billion. That is probably an underestimate. In cash terms, it would clearly be considerably higher—I am advised, more than £12 billion.
  The theory is that, when people contract out, SERPS will not need to be paid some 20 or 30 years later. However, the best estimate, endorsed by the National Audit Office, is that savings will be about £3·4 billion, so there is a gap of about £6 billion. It is an expensvie way to encourage private pensions.
  It may be worth reminding people who sometimes complain about the amount of money that goes on benefits of other kinds, such as those for people who are in trouble, suffering from illness, unemployment or disability, that there is another form of benefit, of which this is one example, and mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—is another. One would not necessarily oppose those, but they should at least be taken into the balance when considering how we run our affairs.
  Ultimately, whatever the savings—far short of the cost—in a pay-as-you-go scheme, which we now run in the public sector, revenue forgone is a considerable burden.
  Mr. Willetts: Having studied the National Audit Office report on the cost of the incentive for people to contract out from SERPS, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the savings figure of £3·4 billion—which, as he rightly points out, is considerably below the cost of the rebating incentive—is so small only because it assumes that everyone who takes out a personal pension will go back into SERPS in 1993. Does he not recognise that that is an absurd basis on which to cost the incentive for people to take out personal pensions?
  Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that argument. I shall come, in a different context, to the question when, how and whether people should be encouraged to return to SERPS—the hon. Gentleman raises an issue of real significance. But even if he would wish to quarrel with the National Audit Office, he will agree that the overwhelming professional view is that there is a significant gap. I repeat my last point: that the gap is extremely substantial in terms of revenue forgone and the immediate problems of managing the national insurance fund.
  In any event, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we now have a different situation—an incentive of 1 per cent. for people over 30. I should not complain, because it is in the area of propaganda, but the issue was oddly presented in the Tory party manifesto as a major improvement. It was given star billing; but if one read the print carefully,

  55
  one noticed a coy qualification at the end about the 1 per cent. when existing incentives end. However, most people will have seen it as an important advance for those interested in the private pensions sector.
  Will the Under-Secretary say a word or two about whether we are to have another review on that matter? It is important, because it concerns age-related principles applied to the contracting-out sector, which is a matter of acute interest to many people. She will remember that the 2 per cent. was available not only to personal pension funds but also to COMP schemes in the occupational pensions sector. The 1 per cent. scheme is available only for the private personal plan and not for COMP schemes, which are excluded.
  That has been a matter of concern to the occupational pension scheme's joint working group, which has been in correspondence with the Secretary of State. I carefully read the bits of that correspondence available to me, and I must confess that I was none the wiser about why that change had been made—[Interruption.] No, I am not even better informed. I recognise that the Secretary of State sees himself as a latter day F. E. Smith, and I shall look out for F. E. Smith jokes later in our exchanges.
  I was neither better informed nor wiser, because no obvious or adequate explanation was offered. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not like occupational pension schemes either. I understand the ideological drive to downgrade SERPS, and I think that in a sense it is motivated by malice, but I do not understand why that approach is being extended to occupational pensions—which is clearly happening, given the decision to exclude COMP schemes. There is great anxiety about that among professional bodies.
  There must be clarification of the age-related principle. The Leader of the House, when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, said:
  "We intend to examine the scope for the age-related rebates".—[Official Report, 27 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 1132.]
  I do not know how much further we have gone down that road, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can tell us. She will have seen the front-page story in the Financial Times of 25 November under the byline of Norma Cohen:
  "The Government has announced plans to encourage personal pension holders to stay out of the state pension plan."
  That is an extremely interesting sentence. I understand that that report is not accurate, and I accept that there has not been a formal announcement. However, given the speculation and the fact that the Government are examining the age-related principle, perhaps the Minister will tell us when there will be a decision. If the Government have plans in that direction, how will the scheme operate?
  Am I safe in assuming—it is probably dangerous to assume anything with this Government and this Department—that, within a contracting-out percentage, which has been fixed by the Government Actuary on the current balance of calculation, the distribution to the pension providers would be weighted according to the age of the person in whose name the pension has been taken out? Is it the intention that there should be an increase in the contracting-out percentage or will it remain the same if there is a move towards an age-related scheme?
  56
  That is probably a misleading term, because the percentage will fall as the scheme matures. Will that be allowed to continue, or will the process be distorted to help with the scheme's introduction? The principle is worth exploring.
  My questions are detailed, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that they are important and it would be helpful if he were to answer them. The incentive as presently drawn favours the young. There is cash in the scheme for many years. It has not been anything like as advantageous for those over 40, and I suspect that the 1 per cent. has been dragged out of the Treasury simply to stop people following the self-evident good advice to opt back into SERPS. We need to know more about the Government's intentions.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the security and viability of any of the personal portable pension schemes? Examinations in the Select Committee of the viability of pension schemes, as opposed to portable pension schemes, showed grounds for concern about their viability to pay out in the long run. Is my hon. Friend concerned about portable schemes? I should have liked to put those questions to the Minister.
  Mr. Dewar: I should not like anyone to think that I was talking to the Secretary of State. I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. He raises a key issue, which I shall deal with later.
  Pensions have been in the news recently, often for the wrong reasons. On Second Reading, I cannot go into detail about occupational pensions. We all await the Goode committee report, and I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises the enormous pressure to move speedily when those recommendations are available.
  There is a strong case for saying that pensions are a form of deferred pay, and that there must be a substantial shift in the balance of power among trustees of occupational pension funds. There must be control of surpluses and contribution holidays. As I understand the law, there must be provision for limited price indexing before surpluses can be raided, but contribution holidays do not have even that protection. That underlines the need for early action.
  At Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), spoke about the common investment fund and an unallocated £123 million. I hope that she does not think I am being difficult when I say that earnest hopes that the matter will soon be resolved are cold comfort for Maxwell pensioners who are living with anxiety. The Government could play a more forward part in trying to push through a satisfactory ending to this financial labyrinth.
  As far as they go, I welcome the Under-Secretary's assurances about deferred pensions, and hope that they implied that the temporary fund set up to allow the continuing payment of pensions while the investigation and gathering of funds continued will be extended for as long as is necessary. I understand from those who are involved with the Maxwell pensioners that they fear that the fund will be exhausted in the spring. The hon. Lady clearly implied that it would be extended if necessary, but perhaps she will put the matter beyond doubt.
  I shall now deal with the balance between SERPS and private pension provision. We must not underestimate what SERPS has achieved. It has been responsible for a

  57
  significant growth in pensioners' incomes. Paragraph 17 of the Government Actuary's report shows that SERPS added about £300 million to benefit expenditure this year compared with last. We should all welcome that, because many of the people who benefit are in low-paid jobs and, for a variety of reasons, would be unable to make private provision and unlikely to be working in an industry with a good occupational scheme. SERPS is a remarkable social measure, and I am sorry that Ministers constantly understate its achievements.
  The debate is dominated by the fact that, despite the raid in 1986 when SERPS was damaged by the decision to downgrade the percentage from 25 to 20 and to apply not just the best 20 years' earnings but lifetime earnings, for almost everyone over 30, SERPS is still the best buy. I suspect that the 1 per cent. incentive is an attempt to hide that fact.
  Mr. David Shaw: The hon. Gentleman spoke about surpluses. No doubt he shares the general concern among hon. Members about the way in which surpluses are used. However, how can he reconcile saying that employers cannot utilise surpluses with the problem of what would happen with deficits? If employers have surpluses removed from their control, should they also lose responsibility for deficits? Who would he responsible for deficits in pension funds?
  Mr. Dewar: I accept that a balance must be found. Not long ago, the hon. Gentleman and I shared a platform on related matters. We were on the same side on that occasion. I hope that, in the technical debate on the Goode report, we shall continue to argue a common cause, even if that separates the hon. Gentleman from some of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Whatever his view, there is a clear case for getting away from the present system under which contributions holidays can be declared for an employer at his instance and surpluses used, not necessarily for dishonest purposes but certainly in ways which had little to do with the interests of those who at that time or in the future would depend on the pension fund. That must be put right, and that is why the balance of control must be radically altered.
  At the moment, there is a good deal of evidence and financial opinion showing that it is sensible to stay in SERPS and not to opt out, despite the 1 per cent. incentive. Hon. Members may have seen an article in The Guardian by Teresa Hunter on 28 November, headed:
  "Beware opting out of state pension scheme".
  In an interesting article in the Financial Times in July 1992, Mr. Barry Riley pointed out the dangers of assuming that personal pension plans would continue in the 1990s with the same high returns that were achieved during the 1980s. He concluded by saying:
  "Most people who are in good occupational schemes or in Serps should stay there."
  The danger is that they may be tempted by the blandishment of the I per cent. to act in a way that is not in their best interests.
  I know that the Secretary of State is always happy to have information, so I shall help him by saying that the only criterion is how we produce the best practical pension system that secures a comprehensive provision that has previously been available only to those who are better off. I believe—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend
  58
  the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—that safeguards and standards are the responsibility of Government and are important in that respect.
  Independent advice and adequate regulation are also important, and I am glad to hear that there are positive proposals before the Office of Fair Trading. We shall look at them in an open-minded way. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should not have used the phrase "open-minded", because it is viewed with great suspicion. I presume that my use of it will convince the Secretary of State that I shall oppose those proposals. However, I assure him that by "open-minded", I mean what I say; we shall view them on their merits.
  Mr. Lilley: I assume that, for the first time, "open-minded" means that the Opposition are in favour of competition. That is a great step forward, which we welcome unreservedly.
  Mr. Dewar: That is a clever point—I use the word "clever" in a pejorative way. The Secretary of State is fond of clever points. We shall see what we shall see when the proposals appear. There must be more effective regulation, if only because while professional ethics are a fine and important thing, if one lives on commission, it is undoubedly sometimes difficult to give advice that one knows is against one's own best interest. Many people do so, but there are cases in which it does not happen and an enforceable code of practice and an explicit statement of the commission that is being charged are important safeguards.
  I notice—again because it is so current—that, on "Your Money" page of the The Independent on Sunday of 29 November, there was a feature under the byline of Maria Scott. The paper asked three companies to quote transfer values three years from now on their standard personal pensions contracts. They assumed that the policy was taken out by a 29-year-old man, paying £50 a month and planning to retire at the age of 65. The quotes assumed an investment growth of 10·75 per cent.—rather generous.
  All the policies were on the same terms, and the total premiums paid over three years would, in each case, be £1,800. Allied Dunbar quoted a value of £1,140, Norwich Union quoted £1,490 and Friends Provident £1,270. I use this as an example of the remarkably different end product from the same amount paid, and apparently on the same terms and conditions. That rather underlines the need for safeguards. Competition is a useful economic tool in many circumstances, but, as the Secretary of State must realise, there are cases in which it is necessary to have safeguards.
  I have taken my due time, but I should not finish without mentioning a couple of points to which we shall return in Committee. We have another day to look at these matters. A guaranteed minimum pension is demanded in certain parts of the occupational sector. There must also be a guarantee of the SERPS equivalent in the COMP schemes—the contracted-out money purchase schemes. We should be considering whether that should be extended into the private sector.
  I know that it will run into considerable difficulty with the pension providers, but there are a number of ways to achieve it—for example, by target benefits or by recognising that, if there is high inflation, a ceiling must be imposed on the revaluation of the guaranteed minimum

  59
  pension. There is a strong case for looking at those matters, and I hope that we shall find ways, perhaps ingenious ways, of doing so during the progress of the Bill.
  We said that we would give the Bill a fair passage. I recognise that there are time constraints if the new scheme is to get into place, and we are prepared to co-operate. There is no great room for positive amendment in a spare technical measure. I give the Secretary of State fair warning—I am sure that he will accept it—that there will be a major debate over many months about every sector of the pension world. We intend to pursue the issues that matter, whether in the occupational pension, the private pension or state pension sectors, because there is demonstratably a great deal to be done if there is to be security and peace of mind for those at work and those who have reached retirement age.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was the first occasion in my brief time in the House that I have seen an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman empty half the Opposition Benches. There were only four Labour Members here at the beginning to hear him, and now there are only two, so that puts his speech in context.
  I welcome the transfer from the Treasury into the national insurance fund. A few years ago, many of us welcomed the abolition of the transfer from the Treasury into the national insurance fund, but we now recognise that we are operating in different circumstances. I see two advantages in the transfer. First, it is a fluctuating grant—this year 20 per cent. is the maximum and, after that, it will be pegged to 17 per cent., so there will not be the overpayments and surpluses that have congregated in the past. Secondly, and most importantly, it avoids, at this time of recession, putting additional pressure on employers and employees when they are least able to afford it.
  Conservative Members are most able to appreciate that point because we are aware of the commitment made by the two major Opposition parties during the general election campaign that they would be raising national insurance contributions. It is not now clear where the Labour party stands on this issue. Shortly after the election, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said:
  "I am prepared to defend … the principle … that National Insurance should be taken from everyone on the same basis."
  He seemed, not unreasonably, to be defending the platform on which the Labour party had fought the election. However, within six months, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was saying:
  "The situation has so deteriorated … that we are not prepared to raise NIC or income tax at this stage."
  Perhaps the Labour party would do the House the honour of telling us where it now stands. Does it believe that national insurance contributions should be raised to help us out of recession—Conservative Members would consider that to be barking mad—or would it raise national insurance contributions only when we have come out of the recession, thereby penalising people for dedication, hard work and eventual success?
  60
  I agree with the three objectives that lie behind the Bill. First, we must support those who have been hit most by the recession. Secondly, we should be targeting additional support on those most in need. Thirdly, we should be keeping our election pledges, and the pledges made before the election, to the elderly, the families and others most in need.
  In common with my colleagues, I shall never forget the faces of Labour Members during the autumn statement and the uprating statement. They had been sitting there, willing the announcement of cuts. There was ever-greater dismay on their faces and an ever-growing sense of frustration when those cuts did not materialise and they gradually realised that the scare stories that they had used so brutally to worry the elderly, the sick, the disabled and others were being put into a well-deserved political grave.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman completes his litany of alleged misdemeanours by Opposition Members, can he confirm that, since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, all pensioners have been robbed of £15 per week by the break of the link with earnings that was made in 1980, and the substitution, instead, of the link with the retail prices index?
  Mr. Hendry: Of course, that is the greatest fraud of all perpetrated by the Labour party. The reason why the Labour Government increased pensions in line not with the retail prices index but with incomes was that prices were increasing faster than incomes. Therefore, the Labour Government were cheating pensioners when they were in office.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend recall that the former Secretary of State for Social Security, Lord Ennals, when asked why his Government had passed legislation and then promptly broken it, said that it is the Government's responsibility to take such matters into consideration, but it is not their responsibility to get it right.
  Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend has reminded the House of an important contribution—one which the Labour party would do well to remember.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Hendry: I shall not give way—the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) tried to make his point, but failed, as did many of the Labour Government's policies.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to the policies of the last Labour Government. He was incorrect; the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 arranged that pensions should be increased each year in line with either the increase in earnings or the retail prices index.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The accuracy of observations made in debates are not a matter for the Chair—thank goodness!
  Mr. Hendry: When we hear such scare stories it is hard to realise the sheer magnitude of the social security budget. Next year the social security budget will go through the £80 billion barrier, the £83 billion barrier the year after and the £87 billion barrier the year after that. When I was a special adviser in the Department of Social Security, £1 billion a week was spent on benefits. We now spend £1·5 billion a week on the most needy in our society. That is the

  61
  clearest possible demonstration of the Government's determination to look after those who are in need. We are right to increase all those benefits, which should be uprated in line with inflation by the retail prices index figure of 3·6 per cent.
  In recession it is only right that those in work should make some sacrifices for those who are not in work. Those who have lost their jobs, often through no fault of their own, those who are unable to work and those who are retired need to be protected during the hard times. It is only reasonable that those of us who at least have a secure income and some job security should make our contribution towards that protection.
  I recognise that life is not easy for many of those who are employed, but in difficult times we must recognise our responsibilities. In that context, I still cannot believe that more than 100 Labour Members trooped into the Division Lobby last week, suggesting that, with incomes of £31,000, they constituted a special case and were in special need.
  I remember a Labour party conference about 10 years ago. I was not at the conference, but I well remember its coverage. At that conference one of the trade union leaders, Clive Jenkins, made a speech.
  Mr. Frank Field: Which clause is that in?
  Mr. Hendry: It is relevant to the debate and the attitude that the Labour party has taken. If the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had been present a few minutes ago, he would have heard me talking about the importance, under the Bill, of people who are in work making their sacrifice for those who are out of work. It relates directly to the transfer of money into the national insurance fund from the Treasury. Had the hon. Gentleman been present at the outset, he would have understood that.
  During his speech at the Labour party conference 10 years ago, Clive Jenkins referred to people in the union movement having their snouts in the trough. Ten years later, it seems that the snouts of Opposition Members are snorting around after truffles as eagerly as they were all those years ago. I hope that that is a lesson that the people outside will take to heart.
  Mr. Corbyn: How much moonlighting is done by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Member for Islington, North would like me to forward his curriculum vitae to any companies, I shall gladly pass it on so that they will be aware of his credentials.
  Mr. Corbyn: I shall not forward my curriculum vitae to the hon. Gentleman. I am not looking for alternative employment; neither do I think that any other hon. Members should do so. Being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job and hon. Members should not receive private income from any other source—unlike the vast majority of Conservative Members.
  Mr. Hendry: I hope that that also applies to research assistants.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman explain——
  Mr. Hendry: I have not given way; I am still on my feet.
  The Bill and the Treasury transfer mean that we can do much more to help those who have been hit by the recession. It means that we can focus more help on those
  62
  who are in need. We can target an extra £300 million to the least well-off pensioners, as was done recently. The measure accurately reflects and recognises the difficulties that many older pensioners face. Although nine out of 10 pensioners have income from savings, occupational pensions or personal pensions, that is not the case for all of them. Indeed, 78 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have income from savings; 69 per cent. have income from occupational pensions; and 71 per cent. of current employees have occupational pensions or personal pensions.
  We need to target help—the Government have rightly done so—at older pensioners who never had the opportunity to build up resources while they were in employment. Perhaps occupational pensions did not exist when they were in employment, or savings were eroded during the probationary period. That makes it so much harder to understand why some political parties have a continual hatred of personal pensions, which make such a vital contribution to the living standards of so many older people. When the Government cut interest rates, which obviously helps the economy, the Opposition say that that is never enough. Perhaps Opposition Members will also spare a thought for pensioners who say that their savings, and the income from savings, are important contributions to their living standards. Although we want interest rates to be lowered, it is important to recognise the income that people derive from savings.
  Through the Bill we will be able to give another boost of £700 million to people who live on income support, when the council tax comes into play next year. Those who currently pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax will not pay any contribution to the council tax. It would have been possible to claw back from them the money that they had been given to pay the poll tax. I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen not to do that but have allowed people to keep the income so that they could have a better standard of living.
  Contrary to the scare stories that we have heard so often in the Chamber and outside, the Government have a uniquely impressive record on social security. Pensioners' incomes, which went up by a measly 3 per cent. in the five years of the last Labour Government, have increased by a third—34 per cent. Over the past 13 years social security spending on families, which fell by 8 per cent. under the Labour Government, has increased by 65 per cent. under this Government. Spending on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by 173 per cent. in real terms or an extra £14 billion.
  In this Bill and through our other work in social security, we are giving people more control over their lives and the opportunity to take responsibility for their lives and the issues which affect them most. I believe that 13 years ago we started by setting free those people who were itching for an opportunity. We simply lifted off the lid and people went out and took advantage of that. It was not a small proportion of the population. For a small incentive such as that given on personal pensions and share incentives, a more important group was also willing to take the step and become part of the opportunity society.
  That leaves a large number of people who have never taken a risk in their lives because they are frightened of taking such risks. I refer to people who cling, understandably, to the benefits that they receive. It has been suggested that, if the tree of benefits is shaken, people will fall off like ripe apples. However, they will not fall off

  63
  trees like ripe apples—the benefit system is the only thing which those people know, and they cling more tightly to the tree to preserve their security.
  We are trying to lead people gradually to a position in which they have more confidence and in which they find it easier to make their own decisions. I welcome the Bill as an important contribution to that process.
  6 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: An important part of the Bill relates to the national insurance fund, about which I shall speak exclusively. To bring in again an Exchequer contribution to the fund must raise questions about the future of national insurance, and the importance of national insurance remains. According to the public expenditure White Paper, contributory benefits account for about half of total expenditure on social security. By 1993–94, it is estimated that £40 billion will be spent through the national insurance fund. It is clear that national insurance is still a major part of our national insurance system.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the historical occasion tomorrow of the 50th anniversary of the Beveridge plan. It is worth reminding the House of what William Beveridge had to say about national insurance and the contributory principle. When explaining these matters in his plan, he asserted that a key view was that benefits should be gained in return for contributions rather than as free allowances from the state. He took the view that that is what the people of Britain desired. Towards the end of my remarks, I shall raise questions about the future of national insurance and whether—I am open-minded about this—it has a future in Britain as we approach the year 2000.
  We can all agree, I think, that since the time of Beveridge there have been major social and employment changes. These have made Britain in 1992, 50 years on, a very different country from the one of 1942 when the great plan was first published. The Secretary of State said that his proposals were in the spirit of the Beveridge plan, and I welcome that. I recall—I was not present at the time—that the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was rather more cagey and hesitant before accepting the plan.
  Things have changed, and we must ask ourselves whether national insurance today is relevant and matches the needs and changes that we have seen. For example, Beveridge assumed a world in which, despite the different circumstances and experiences of war time, a woman's place was in the home and a man's income was a bread-winning wage. He concluded that social security should be built around those assumptions.
  I suppose that he would have looked back to the census of 1931, social statistician that he was, and noted that, in those days, only 10 per cent. of married women were in employment. In 1961, the percentage had increased threefold to 30 per cent. In 1991, it was 59 per cent. Against that background, we must ask ourselves whether the fund, which we seek to reform, is relevant to the changing needs of our world, and especially to the needs of those who are in part-time work.
  Many married women with children work part-time. In fact, they are engaged in full-time work—part-time at home and part-time at the workplace. They pay national
  64
  insurance contributions, but what are they paying for? Will they receive decent benefits in future? How do our proposals take account of the major social insecurity problem of the strong association between women and poverty? Many of our poor people are women, and the national insurance debate is relevant to that.
  Since the time of the Beveridge plan, we have seen develop—he considered this in part, but he could not make a full estimate for the future—a rapid increase in family breakdown. We have witnessed the rise of the one-parent family, and with it a growth in poverty that has been caused by the accompanying social circumstances. This is important.
  It was 50 years ago that Beveridge toyed with the idea that marital breakdown, because of its association with poverty, might be an insurable risk. For reasons that perhaps we can understand, he shied away from making marital breakdown such a risk in his social insurance plan. Perhaps he was wrong to do so, and hon. Members may have views about that.
  Today, 37 per cent. of recent marriages are at risk of divorce. There has been a rapid increase in the number of children living in one-parent families. We know that all too often—in about seven out of 10 cases—those one-parent families depend on social security in the form of non-contributory income support benefits, not on contributory benefits.
  Another major change has been the aging of our population. Beveridge considered the pension implications of aging and welcomed the idea of a national health service for the future, but if we were thinking now about a modern national insurance fund and the risks that we might wish to insure against, we would consider care in old age as well as income.
  More and more of us, despite experiences in the House, may live to a ripe old age; we may continue into our 80s and 90s. Many of us will become frail and in need of care. We shall not need full medical treatment and the full technology of a modern hospital, but we shall need to be looked after because of frailty, which means care in the community.
  The answers are manifold, and perhaps they lie with other parts of the social security budget and not with national insurance. If Beveridge was producing his plan today and the Secretary of State was responding to it, Beveridge might say that one of the insurable risks in a modern society should be the need for care. That should be on our agenda as we reflect on the national insurance fund while considering the Bill.
  We must carefully consider the national insurance fund in the context of the Bill and employment assumptions. Underlining the Beveridge plan was the clear assumption of full employment. Undermining social security now is the reality, not the assumption, of unemployment.
  We are discussing the Bill in part because economic recession and rising unemployment are putting pressures on the national insurance fund, and these call for the reinstatement of an Exchequer contribution. That, in part, is what the Bill is all about. It is fair, therefore, to ask Ministers to set out their employment or unemployment assumptions. If they are saying that about a 20 per cent. contribution is more or less right, what are their estimates of unemployment in the financial year 1993–94 and in the years beyond that?
  Actuarily speaking, what assumptions are being made about unemployment? I do not understand how the

  65
  House, on Second Reading or in Committee, can consider the adequacy of the percentage proposal without being given some insight into the Government's projections on unemployment.
  More importantly in the longer term, we must know whether we are in a society in which we accept unemployment as a phenomenon to which our social security system adjusts. If so, is the fund adequate to meet that task, or do we as a society still have a goal of full employment? What is the Government's view? Is it that we must return to an attack on mass unemployment?
  I note the Secretary of State's remarks on what is so nearly the golden anniversary of the Beveridge plan. He claimed that the proposals in the Bill are in the spirit of Beveridge, and I welcome that, but I am slightly sceptical. Beveridge waxed lyrical about social security, in a language which we seldom capture today in the technicalities and jargon of social security benefits. He talked about five giant evils that we needed to attack in the post-war period-want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The last evil, idleness, is a rather old-fashioned term now, but not a bad one. Beveridge meant unemployment.
  William Beveridge said that idleness was the largest and fiercest of the five giant evils, and the most important to attack. He added, in words that are more relevant:in 1992 than in 1942, that unless we attack the giant of idleness, all our aims of post-war reconstruction will be out of reach.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether she agrees that idleness is the largest and fiercest of the giants. If she does, how will the Government attack it? What are the implications for social security, the Bill, employment training and many other things? We must know about the Government's unemployment—or, I hope, employment—assumptions before we can fully master the Bill and debate it adequately.
  Sadly, national insurance—if we use the term properly—does not work for many families and others in society. It is right that on this historic occasion we should remember that Beveridge was clear that there was a role for income support—it was called public assistance in his day. However, he envisaged it as only a minority role. He thought that, with full employment and national insurance at a decent level, only relatively few people would, from time to time, need public assistance. He said in his report:
  "The proposals in this Report … will make the permanent scope of assistance much less than that of public assistance and of the Assistance Board at present."
  He said "much less"—not the same, and certainly not more. What is the reality today?
  Mr. Willetis: The hon. Gentleman accurately reports Beveridge's observations, but he must accept that Beveridge's claim that the level of national assistance would reduce in significance was not supported by the figures and analyses in his report. There was nothing in it to show how contributory benefits would be of greater value than national assistance. Beveridge's assertion was not supported by his calculations.
  Mr. Wicks:Others read the Sunday newspapers; the hon. Gentleman and I obviously spent the weekend re-reading the Beveridge report.
  I take his point, but if we think about Beveridge's ambitions rather than simply the details in his report, we see that he envisaged means-tested benefits playing only a minor role. He was anxious to promote jobs and national
  66
  insurance. The detailed arithmetic in the report was done in the midst of war in 1942, when the Nazi threat was ever present—more difficult circumstances than we face today—so immediate implementation of his social security plan might not have been possible.
  In 1948, shortly after the war and when the legislation was beginning to take effect, only one in 33 people were dependent on means-tested public assistance. In 1990, the figure was one in eight. Whatever else has happened to the Beveridge plan and to the social security system, we have not attacked means-testing and dependence on public assistance. More of our citizens, including too many of our children, depend on means-tested income support than was the case during the period of the Beveridge plan.
  I am reminded of what Gandhi said when he first visited this country many years ago. He was in his native costume, surrounded by Fleet street's finest, when he was asked by a reporter from one of what we would now call the tabloids, "Mr. Gandhi, this is your first visit to England—what did you think of English civilisation?" Mr. Gandhi replied, "I think it would be a good idea." Perhaps today we should say that the Beveridge plan would be a good idea—especially if we think of the term "social security" as something with a real meaning rather than a technicality.
  I want to discuss the insurance principle because, in part, we are today discussing the national insurance fund. I hope that, at some stage, hon. Members on both sides of the House will more fundamentally debate the fund and its future. I am open-minded on the matter and I have no hidden agenda. Indeed, I have not made up my mind on this important matter. Should we consider abandoning national insurance and the idea of contributions and benefits, or should we consider revitalising the national insurance system?
  The last test of public opinion on that matter was during the 1985 social security reviews. Perhaps hon. Members will correct me if there has been a more recent test. During those reviews, people were asked what they thought about national insurance contributions, which were then a matter of political controversy. Some 35 per cent. said that they thought that they were just like income tax. However, 52 per cent. thought that they were very different—that they were contributions, in return for which people received pensions and other benefits.
  I wonder what public opinion would be today. Public attitudes to how we contribute to the Exchequer—whether through income tax, VAT, council tax or national insurance—are important to the acceptability of taxation.
  We need to re-evaluate the national insurance concept and to consider key questions. We need to examine the current nature of social insecurity in the Britain of 1992 and up to the year 2000 and compare it with the past. Like Beveridge, we must question the risks that people face during their life cycles.
  I have mentioned the new challenge of the care of the elderly. We must compare the new risks with those of the past. We must question which risks should be insurable and how that can be achieved. There may be a difference of opinion on the role of the public and private sectors and on the right mix. On the other hand, we must also question which risks should be covered by non-contributory benefits.
  There might be a need for a reinvigorated social insurance system, although I am not absolutely sure about that. However, such a proposal would not come to the House through a technical Bill on a quiet Monday

  67
  afternoon. If that were to be the way of the future, it would be the subject of a new Beveridge-type plan, which would arouse the public excitement and public debate which, although it may seem surprising today, met the original Beveridge plan.
  We are 50 years on from Beveridge, and it is a golden anniversary—and "golden" is an appropriate word for that historical figure. I believe that there is a real opportunity for the House to debate a new Beveridge-style plan.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: Thank you for calling me to speak in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is especially apposite as it takes place on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Beveridge report. I congratulate whichever powers in Mr. Speaker's Office or the usual channels managed to arrange for the debate to take place at such an apposite time—[Laughter.] Labour Members have a surprisingly cynical view of the workings of the House.
  The origins of both features of the Bill—the national insurance fund top-up from the Treasury and the opting-out procedures for personal pensions—can be traced back to the Beveridge report. It is not often understood, although I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) understands, that William Beveridge took the insurance principle seriously. Indeed, he took it so seriously that his original proposal was for benefits at a fixed rate—there was no additional second pension in his scheme—and contributions at a fixed amount. Indeed, at one point in his report he refers to the contributions as being by way of a poll tax. In all the arguments about poll tax during the last few years, it is surprising that no one pointed out that most of our social security budget from the late 1940s to 1961 was financed by precisely such a tax.
  The structure of a fixed sum contribution—analogous with paying fire insurance, for example—and fixed benefits severely constrained how much could be raised. It was manifest that as national insurance contributions were to be a fixed amount, there would be considerable constraints upon what people were prepared to pay. That led to two crucial features of the social security system introduced after the Beveridge report. Beveridge himself acknowledged—though his figures were even more dramatic than his prose—that a hefty Treasury contribution would always be necessary to finance insurance benefits. On Beveridge's figures, by 1965 about 50 per cent. of all expenditure on national insurance benefits was to come from the Treasury. That so-called tripartite system was in fact heavily slanted towards the taxpayer, with employer and employee contributions between them being much more modest.
  Mr. Frank Field: Was not the figure 67 per cent.—I do not have the table, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find it if I intervene long enough—and did not Beveridge realise that if a poll tax was to be introduced, it must be covered with an enormous coating of sugar? Did not the former right hon. Member for Finchley learn that lesson when she introduced another poll tax?
  Mr. Willetts: I do not have time to identify the source of the hon. Gentleman's figure of 67 per cent. but I am happy to bow to the experience and knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, on whose Select Committee I am honoured to serve.
  The structure of national insurance as envisaged by Beveridge had two consequences. A hefty Treasury contribution was necessary. We must debate its exact size, but it was certainly more than 50 per cent. Also, pressure rapidly built up to change the system so that contributions would no longer be at a fixed rate but progressive, as a percentage of income between the upper and lower earnings limit.
  Within a few years, the Treasury started asking, "Why can't we have a progressive tax structured in this way, so that we can raise more money from national insurance?" The consequence in turn of that argument was that it was thought that a progressive contribution rate would have to be matched by benefits that similarly rose as people paid in more. In other words, we were driven to a second, top-up, contributory pension not because of enormous desire for one but because that was the only way of legitimising the financial pressure to have a progressive, not fixed, national insurance contribution scheme.
  Beveridge left us with a system heavily dependent on Treasury finance, and the only way of escaping that was to introduce progressive contributions—which in turn meant a second, top-up pension. It is therefore ironic that, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of Beveridge, the proposal for a Treasury grant to cover some of the costs of the national insurance fund is in many ways taking the fund a tiny step back to the sort of model that Beveridge envisaged.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, the origins lie in the effects of the economic cycle, with both the expenses of the fund rising in recession and contribution income falling. The Government have held national insurance contribution rates constant since 1983. One might ask why the option of changing them has not been pursued. On reflection, clearly it is undesirable to increase contributions in a recession if that can possibly be avoided. I am sure also that during the boom years of the late 1980s, Ministers felt that it would be undesirable to cut contribution rates having gone through the political trial of increasing them in the first place.
  We are therefore left with a Government policy that can be described only as purposeful immobilism. There is no intention to move contribution rates either up or down, and as a result it is the Treasury contribution which must be adjusted. That will be done in accordance with the economic cycle, and I personally welcome the extra flexibility in the new system of Treasury grants, which is far superior to the rigid formula on which the old Treasury supplement was calculated.
  The Treasury contribution that we may expect next year is in the order of £8 billion, which places in context the figure for the extra incentive for people to take out personal pensions—the 1 per cent. proposed in the Bill, which the Government Actuary tells us will add up to about £165 million. We heard briefly from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) the standard rigmarole of criticisms of the incentives offered to those who contract out of SERPS and subscribe to a personal pension. It is worth re-examining the figures, because so much mischief and misleading information has been generated on the basis of bogus calculations.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: How much does the hon. Gentleman think will be saved?
  Mr. Willetts: The National Audit Office set out calculations on a basis that I find difficult to accept, and I will return to that point later.
  The contract-out rebate of 5·8 per cent. is available to all who contract out of SERPS—it does not matter whether they are new to a personal pension, have subscribed to a personal pension for some time, or are members of an occupational pension scheme. Over the five years from 1988 to 1993, that rebate adds up to £6·9 billion. The 2 per cent. incentive that aroused such controversy when it was introduced adds only £2·4 billion, to make a grand total of £9·3 billion.
  We are all familiar—the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned this—with the argument that the rebate is a grotesque subsidy that is way out of line with the savings accruing to the Exchequer. It ought to be remembered that, over that five-year period, total national insurance receipts ran to about £220 billion, so as a proportion of the fund's total income the rebate is rather paltry—some 4 per cent.
  The National Audit Office says that the savings accrued to the Exchequer by people leaving SERPS and thereby reducing the Government's future liability were merely £3·4 billion. Those calculations were set out on a very precise basis, and one that seemed to be ignored when the Opposition started making hay with the figures. The assumption was that everyone who opted out of SERPS would return to it in 1993—that the policy had only a short-term effect, and that in 1993 the 5 million people who had so successfully been encouraged to leave the state scheme would re-enter it.
  That was a manifestly absurd assumption. It is not correct to assume that people who were given the incentive to leave SERPS would all pile back into it straight away. As soon as one accepts that many would remain out of the state scheme much longer, the savings to the Exchequer from the Government's incentive scheme become more considerable.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am closely following the development of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he touches on a most important point. If he thinks that the National Audit Office calculations were wrong, will he venture a figure himself as to the likely savings and a cost-benefit analysis of that expenditure?
  Mr. Willetts: I asked the Institute of Fiscal Studies but it has not made any calculations on its own basis. The National Audit Office appears to be the only body in a position to make such calculations, because it has access to information on 1 per cent. of all those who opted out of SERPS. The NAO is the only organisation that has the hard, empirical data on which to draw, because it knows the characteristics of the people concerned. As far as I am aware, the NAO has only made its calculations on the one assumption that I mentioned, and I much regret that it has not been commissioned by the Public Accounts Committee or anyone else to examine the figures on another basis.
  Even if one accepts the extraordinary assumption that people who were given a 2 per cent. incentive to leave SERPS would all pile back into it in 1993, that seems a good argument in favour of continuing the incentive so that they do not do so. It points to the need to continue the
  70
  incentive, and I welcome the proposal in the Bill for a further 1 per cent. incentive for those who stay out of SERPS over the next five years.
  During the past few years there have been many arguments about the future of the state earnings-related pensions scheme. I regret that they have focused so much on cost. I shall turn away, therefore, from cost arguments to other arguments for encouraging people to contract out of SERPS. The Government have relied too heavily on the cost argument and insufficiently on a variety of other arguments that point towards encouraging as many people as possible to leave SERPS.
  There are four arguments that I shall put before the House. First, SERPS is, in effect, a negatively means-tested benefit. It is worth more to people on higher earnings—those between the lower and the upper earnings limit. It is not sensible for the state to run an enormous second pension scheme which, in effect, mimics what the commercial sector would do anyway.
  As I tried to point out in my observations on the Beveridge report, we ended up with such a structure for the second pension because it was the only way that Ministers and officials in the 1950s and early 1960s thought that they could justify the shift from a flat-rate contribution to a progressive contribution. It is not right for the state to run such an enormous scheme. After the conclusion of the social security review, I understand the reasons which led my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) to decide that complete abolition was not possible, but it makes sense to encourage as many people as possible to make provision for their own pension rather than to be trapped within a negative means test.
  My second argument, which is unashamedly ideological in its nature and not one which I expect Opposition Members to accept, is to examine the way in which people, currently of working age, are to make their claims on resources when they retire. There is no way in which those resources can now be set aside: we are talking about legal mechanisms whereby people who are working now can have a claim on the output of the economy in 2010 or 2020.
  If we look at the way in which those claims on future resources should be levied, I unashamedly believe that as many of those claims as possible should be in the nature of private sector contracts and that as few as possible should rest on the state's future power to tax. It is good for the economy and it is good for people's sense of having a personal stake in the economy that as many as possible of those claims should be through assets—such as share dividends and income from property. That is the most flexible and sophisticated way in which future pensioners can have a claim on future assets. That is far better than a system that rests on the state's power to tax.
  The third argument, to which insufficient attention has been given, is that although people have debated the future of SERPS they have ignored the extraordinary position of occupational pension schemes. Many more pensioners now retire with an occupational pension—and a good thing, too. I salute the performance of occupational pension schemes. However, we are so preoccupied with the increasing number of pensioners who retire with occupational pensions that we ignore the fact that there has been no increase since the mid-1960s in the net number of employees who are members of occupational pension schemes.
  Having reached 50 per cent. of the work force, they got stuck at 50 per cent. of the work force. An increasing

  71
  number of people were employed in the public sector, but the number of members of occupational pension schemes who were employed in the private sector went down. The explanation appears to be that, although occupational pensions do a very good job for certain categories of future pensioners, there are others for whom they do not appear to be well suited. They do not appear to be well suited to women or part-time workers; they do not seem to be well suited to small firms; they do not appear to cover many employees in the services sector. Therefore, we must look increasingly at the provision of personal pensions to cover people in those employment categories who cannot enjoy the benefit of occupational pension schemes, which have remained static while the number of such employees has risen.
  The fourth argument for encouraging personal pensions and for encouraging people to opt out of SERPS is a crude, simple, political argument: that if one conducts any research into what people want, one finds that they want a personal pension. One only has to look at the results of opinion polls. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) referred to the research carried out for the Fowler review in the mid-1980s.
  If people are asked what sort of pension they would like, they say that they would like a pension that gave them a personal, direct stake in it. The Government are undoubtedly going with the grain of human nature. They are meeting the aspirations of the majority of our fellow citizens. Therefore, I welcome the 2 per cent. incentive for personal pensions during the first five years of the policy between 1988 and 1993. I welcome also the 1 per cent. incentive that will be in place from 1993. When the Minister replies to the debate I hope that she will address certain questions that I shall put to her regarding various aspects of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was not alone when he asked why this incentive applies only to personal pensions. He was wrong when he implied that it should apply to all occupational pensions, but it is odd that it does not apply to contracted out money-purchase schemes, unlike the current 2 per cent. incentive, and that it does not apply to group-run personal pensions. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government's thinking about a provision which, on the face of it, is a little odd.
  Secondly, I support the Government's clear commitment to moving, in the longer term, to more age relating of the structure of incentives for people leaving SERPS. Although it is rational that people in their twenties or thirties should opt out of SERPS into personal pensions, there is a cross-over date. Learned experts may differ, but it is probably when people are in their mid-forties that it becomes rational for them to go back into SERPS. That is not a sensible basis upon which to plan pensions. I hope that the Minister will set out in more detail how the Government intend to improve the sensitivity of the rebate system and relate it to the age of the person involved.
  Thirdly, I am slightly concerned about the role of the Occupational Pensions Board. Several hon. Members have asked about the future security of personal pensions. I very much hope that the 5 million people who have taken out personal pensions will continue to contribute to them and will enjoy the benefits of their personal pensions in retirement. The Occupational Pensions Board, however, is
  72
  under a clear responsibility to supervise and monitor personal pension schemes to the highest possible standards. Some people in the personal pensions industry take the view that too many people on the Occupational Pensions Board are Department of Social Security officials who were moved to the board and that they do not have a feel for the way in which the personal pensions market operates, or a feel for how the pensions industry is changing. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in her speech.
  My final point is that it is always difficult to strike a balance between wishing to encourage personal pensions but not wishing to do anything to deter employers from contributing to their own occupational pension schemes. Some people with grandiose plans for forcing employers to do this or for obliging them to do that ignore the fact that many employers will at some point say, "This is too much trouble; I'm not going to carry on with this. I'll close down my occupational pension scheme." Every person who has an interest in pensions policy must bear that crucial point in mind.
  Nevertheless, is it not possible to think of additional ways by which employers could be encouraged to make contributions to personal pensions as well as to occupational pensions? Is it impossible to expect employers to make contributions to personal pensions if they are in any case making a much larger contribution to occupational pension schemes? If we believe in personal pensions—all my hon. Friends strongly believe in them—we must ensure that by their behaviour employers do not provide a disincentive to people who wish to take out personal pensions.
  The Beveridge report, to which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West referred, is fascinating reading. I did not reread my copy last weekend, but it has melancholy traces of sun tan cream on it—I shall not name the sun tan cream involved—which remind me of the happy days of the summer. One brief passage sets out a philosophy for social security, which I am sure would command the support of the majority of hon. Members, and certainly Conservative Members. Beveridge said:
  "The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."
  I believe that the Bill is a modest contribution to achieving the objectives that Beveridge set out.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I begin by apologising to the Minister and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for not being able to listen to their words of wisdom, because I was attending an important meeting elsewhere in the House.
  I was impressed by the speeches of the hon. Members for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) who, despite being new Members, brought new and welcome experience and knowledge to the subject. I can now claim to be the longest serving social security spokesman of the major parties, but it is always good to see fresh faces, who no doubt have fresh ideas. I look forward to their contributions, to the remaining proceedings on the Bill and to other debates on this important subject.

  73
  The Bill mentions the new Treasury grant. I hope that, in future uprating and autumn statements, greater care will be taken to dampen speculation—of both kinds. I see that the Under-Secretary is raising her eyebrows and hands in horror, but despite the ethic of secrecy that suffuses Departments to a ridiculous extent, it must be possible to be more open about the options in a way that will quell some of the speculation. I hope that the Government will try to be more objective in press announcements made before statements.
  The Bill offers us the opportunity—the hon. Members for Croydon North-West and for Havant referred to it—of considering the principle of national insurance contributions. For some years, Liberal Democrats have been considering abolishing it. I accept that it would require much public discussion, because it would be a fundamental step, but there is a prima facie case for abolishing it. The national insurance contribution system is now so shot through with anomalies and piecemeal reforms that we should start from scratch.
  There is an argument, on which we have been trying to work for the past few years, for integrating the tax and benefits system. Such a proposal would require careful thought, but we must bear in mind the fact that it costs £1·2 billion to administer the national insurance system. The Bill proposes extra administrative costs of about £1 million, which is not a lot in the context of the sums that we are debating, but the panoply of bureaucracy that we are employing to deliver national insurance contributions and means-tested benefits is a cause of concern. The more often we debate how we deal with such sums and systems the better it will be in the future.
  The Bill deals with the future provision of pensions. I remain convinced that the most urgent problem facing the Government is dealing with pensioners who are in pension today but who have to rely for most or all of their income on state provision. My father receives a small occupational pension from his career on the railway that takes him out of eligibility for means-tested or other benefit. Although he and his generation continue to enjoy the twilight years of their lives, they are under much financial pressure.
  The Government will say that recent measures have attempted to target benefit—I accept and welcome that; it would be churlish not to acknowledge it—but between now and the end of the century that group of pensioners will face continuing adversity unless the difference between increases in prices and average earnings is addressed. The Social Security Advisory Committee—some years ago, admittedly—expressed its opinion on that, but the Government do not accept it. Although the Government have done something recently, they must do more.
  Statistics issued by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys have caused me some concern. Its 1991 general household survey covering the proportion of people in employment by type of pension scheme showed that about 13 per cent. of the total work force were not in occupational or personal pension schemes. That hides, as the hon. Member for Havant said, the fact that 8 per cent. of men but as much as 20 per cent. of women have no cover.
  In addition, 12 per cent. of men and 27 per cent. of women have no occupational pension scheme available to them or are not in a personal pension plan. As the hon. Member for Havant said, at the beginning of the next century, when those who fall in the self-employed categories move into retirement, they will not be able to
  74
  have the kind of protection that we would all like. The Bill does not do enough to address that problem, but the Government will have to do something about it.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Havant said about the cost-benefit analysis of incentives offered now to make savings in the future. I have always been fairly relaxed about incentives, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant is only too well aware of the dangers with personal pensions that arise from the 1986 Act. They are more unpredictable than final salary schemes. We should not run away with the idea that personal pensions are a panacea, although they have a role to play.
  I come back to the question how much we are spending and for what return in terms of the long-term savings to the state earnings-related pension scheme. I am also concerned about the National Audit Office figures. The hon. Member for Havant, who has obviously studied the matter, as one would expect, was honest enough to say that the answer to the question is unknown in a sensible, statistical way. The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on the matter, and I am sure that other hon. Members also want an answer to the question.
  The Government should set in train some more objective research into what the assumptions were and what the assumptions should be so that we can try to come to an objective view about what we are saving from the future costs in SERPS. I shall return to that subject in Committee. If some thought can be given to the question between Second Reading and Committee, I shall welcome a Government statement giving more details, if that is possible.
  The age-related provisions of the Bill are rather crude. I understand that there are difficulties, and I know that the Government do not want to make things too complicated. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies took the opposite view, pointing out that other elements of the pension industry already have sophisticated age-related mechanisms which are perfectly workable and which are well understood by the people who operate them. My criticism of the age-related aspect of the Bill is that it is not sophisticated enough. There are mechanisms that we could have adopted which are not contained in the Bill.
  Like the hon. Member for Havant, I have serious reservations about whether the state should be in an earnings-related pension scheme, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman rehearsed—I will not repeat them, because he argued his case succinctly. However, we should think about that matter. I am not persuaded, in spite of the fact that the 1986 changes took some money out of the costs of SERPS, that the sums add up. I believe that, in the long term, the SERPS provisions cannot be afforded. Of course, we cannot withdraw any entitlement accrued to date, but I should be interested to consider how we could redeploy some of the resources freed by any change to deal with the problem faced by the existing generation of pensioners who are struggling so hard.
  The new Treasury grant is an interesting device. The former Secretary of State for Social Security, now Leader of the House, used always to start our debates by saying that national insurance debates dealt with enormous sums and that no one paid any attention to the fact that the House was dealing with a new Treasury grant of, for example, £8 billion. He said that we had arguments over £5 million here and £2 million there, although we were dealing with huge sums. It is worrying that we may be

  75
  having such a discussion here and that we are not giving the matter more thought. I look forward to the Committee, when we may be able to give the matter more thought.
  I repeat my apology for not having been able to be present for the opening speeches. I am certain that my next point was raised then. I believe that there is a bias in the Bill against occupational pension schemes, such as group pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes, or COMPs. The industry is worried about that bias. I do not understand why the Government have not produced a level playing field. All I can make of the Government's reasoning is that they believe that all the provisions are temporary because there is going to be a review, so they do not need to worry too much. If that is the Government's reasoning, it is not acceptable. I have no doubt that the Minister will expand on that point.
  I see no justification for the differentiation between the two systems. I understand that it is not possible to get a level playing field for occupational pensions in some respects, but it is perfectly possible to make the provisions on group pension schemes and COMPs equitable in terms of personal pension plans and occupational schemes. That is the one improvement that I should like to see included in the Bill in its remaining stages. I hope that the Minister will say a word about that when she sums up.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I declare my interest in the Waterfront Partnership.
  I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I have debated social security matters in the House several times. I have sometimes felt that the voices from the Opposition Front Bench induced hyperbole fatigue. That has its advantages at times, because if a debate comes across in that way, it makes it easier to avoid any points that one might want to avoid.
  I did not agree with all the hon. Gentleman's conclusions, which I am sure is as much a comfort to him as it is to me, but I very much valued the way in which he set out the stall. I accept that he has identified the way in which we need to approach the Bill. He made a fair point in saying that the key was the additional 1 per cent. rebate and what the motives might have been for introducing it. He also said that our debate takes place in a wider context, which I am sure is right.
  It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Garscadden doubted our motives for the additional 1 per cent. rebate. It is not up to me to speak for Treasury Ministers, but I will say that it seemed to me that the motive behind it was either to encourage people to take out their own pensions or to stop them going back into the scheme. That was a perfectly proper thing to want to do.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also said that the whole debate had to take place in a far wider context. As the Bill is rather narrow and specific, the debate so far has not concentrated on the wider aspects. It is worth while taking a moment or two to dwell on those aspects.
  We have heard how much the Department of Social Security budget is per week. I do not know whether it is a tribute to the uncertainty of Government spending or the fact that the Secretary of State's research is more
  76
  up-to-date than mine. I was minded to say that I understood that the Department of Social Security budget was running in excess of £1 billion a week. My right hon. Friend was able to say with some confidence that it was running at £1·5 billion a week. I am happy to adopt that figure.
  The figure forms part of the totality of projected Government spending for 1992–93 of £2445 billion, which is a pretty dramatic sum. The Department of Social Security budget is close on £80 billion. In a rough and ready way, one can say that one third of what the state spends is spent on social security, which is a dramatic sum. One can make the point—which, in different ways, would come as a comfort to all hon. Members and to many of our pensioners—that the sum represents an increase of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In any event, it is a pretty massive commitment.
  The question then immediately posed, as it was by the hon. Member for Garscadden, is whether such a level of commitment can be sustained. We must be prepared to consider that question. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) touched on an important point in questioning the continuing role of national insurance contributions. The difficulty with national insurance contributions is that there are some rather odd ideas out there about what national insurance contributions really are, as one learns if one talks to people.
  We might consider the Albert Tatlock syndrome. Devotees of "Coronation Street" over the years will remember that Albert Tatlock was a man of advanced years. In fact, he made Dixon of Dock Green look like a newcomer. Albert's great line was that he had spent three years going through muck and bullets in the first world war, and that meant that he was entitled to everything free for life and subsidised pints of beer down at the Rover's Return.
  If Mr. Tatlock had been asked what he felt about his national insurance contributions, he would have said that having been through muck and bullets and returned to a land fit for heroes to live in, he had paid his dues, and that gave him the right to a decent pension. It is all very well to say that the world owes one a living—many people fairly make that claim. However, the difficulty is that the world has a nasty way of showing that it will not come up with the swag.
  The difficulty with national insurance contributions is that they are not a funded scheme. Many members of the public will say, "What's a funded scheme? And anyway, who cares?" When we participate in a private scheme, we make a judgment for better or for worse about the scheme into which we intend to contribute. The success of that scheme rises or falls in relation to the country's economic prosperity, the worth of the scheme and the professional judgment of those who manage the scheme.
  The private scheme is a funded scheme. The money one contributes is invested and, at the end of the day, one receives a pension, annuity or contribution. The national insurance scheme is not funded. The scheme reflects one's moral right to be supported by future generations. In a sense, it gives a legal right for one to be supported by those generations.
  One can pay one's dues whether one is Albert Tatlock or a Member of this place, but whether one obtains a pension from the state which will sustain one—or, as was said earlier, would sustain our parents in a state in which

  77
  we would want them to be sustained—depends not on one's own contributions but on the ability of future generations to meet the moral obligations that one has in mind.
  It is relevant to consider the number of people who will be available to make those contributions. In 1990, there were 10·3 million over the state pension age. By 2030—many of us, with some confidence and perhaps a little hope, expect to be alive then—there will be 14·1 million people over the state pension age. That is an increase of 40 per cent. It is good news. It shows that people are living longer and can write more letters of complaint to their Members of Parliament.
  Although I do not have the precise figures, I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that the number of congratulatory telegrams sent by Her Majesty the Queen has increased dramatically over recent years. Although I cannot find the figures now, I recall that at the beginning of Her Majesty's reign she sent about 100 telegrams a year. I understand that she now sends well over 1,000. That is absolutely tremendous. However, those people must be supported.
  Between 1990 and 2030, the number of pensioners over state pension age will increase by 40 per cent. Who will support them? In 1990, there were 34·4 million people of working age. By 2030, that figure will have decreased to 33·6 million. To make the point as succinctly as I can, in 1990 3·4 workers supported a pensioner. By 2030, only 2·4 workers will be supporting a pensioner. We must consider the consequences of that.
  The question that underpins the SERPS debate is whether our children and grandchildren will be prepared to look after 40 per cent. more pensioners in a state to which they are likely to have become accustomed and to which they believe that their dues have, over the years, entitled them. I believe that our children and grandchildren probably will not be prepared to do that. Therefore, the Government are strongly encouraging people to make private arrangements, so that the burden—be it a tax burden or whatever—that the state imposes on people in the early decades of the next century will not be intolerable.
  The problem exists not simply in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe. We are a member of the European Community. Some of us greet that with more enthusiasm than others. Some of us greet it with no enthusiasm at all, but recognise that it is something that we must tolerate. France reduced its pension age to 60 in the early 1980s, but the demographic trends in France have led the Government to publish a White Paper which reopens the debate.
  Italy faces a 35 per cent. increase in its elderly population by 2040. The Italian Government are proposing to raise the pension age from 60 for men and 55 for women to 65 for both. Germany is equalising its pension age at 61 to replace the current minimum pension age of 60 for women and 63 for men. The standard common pension age in the United States is 65, and that is to be raised to 67 for both sexes by 2027.
  It seems that, in due course, all things Japanese come to us. Japan's rate of demographic change has been faster than that of anywhere else in the developed world. The proportion of people over 65 in Japan will rise from 9·1 per cent. in 1980 to 27·7 per cent. in 2040. That is a hell of a lot of Hondas.
  78
  Holland's budget deficit is directly related to its social security expenditure, and that will have to be cut by ending the earnings-related part of social security provision. Belgium, Germany, France and Denmark all face other problems.
  Debates in this House about the equalisation of pension ages are often presented in terms of equality between the sexes. That is a somewhat difficult area for Government Members to broach. If I tell a 59-year-old woman who has worked all her working life in my constituency that I have great news for her in the equality stakes and that she will now have to work five years longer than she had intended, that message would not be particularly well received. Therefore, we talk about equalisation in a fiscally neutral way at about 64 years of age.
  While we talk about the matter in terms of equality between the sexes and then, to some extent, shy away from the electoral consequences, many European countries believe that something must be done about the matter in order to discover a way to cope with the burden which would otherwise be supported by the state.
  Mr. Wicks: I do not intend to undermine what the hon. Member has said about demographic ratios because they are very important, but if we are not careful, we may verge on demographic panic. The hon. Gentleman was projecting beyond the year 2000 and 2020. If we can produce hundreds of motor cars in that time—let us be optimistic and suppose that we will still produce motor cars in this country then—simply through technology and by using robots, without any workers, surely we will still be producing wealth.
  That wealth can help future pensioners even if the ratio between the number of workers and elderly people appears to be poor. I do not dismiss the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that national wealth, and not necessarily ratios, is the key ingredient.
  Mr. Nicholls: One man's panic is another man's foresight. Inevitably, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made a fair point when he said that the wealth of the nation is important. Ultimately, the wealth of the nation is reflected in tax revenue. That makes it possible to pay pensions. If fewer people produce that tax, and there are more people to live off it, there would be a problem that must be addressed.
  I cannot say precisely what the position will be in 2030, but we can make projections and it is clear that we will have to have some regard to the consequences. While I have tried to set the matter in the overall context, this is not 2030 but 1992, and I want to examine some of the consequences for our current pensioner community.
  During the election campaign, I received a visitation from a new political party called the Pensioners Protection party. I am delighted to say that it did not stand in Teignbridge; it stood in Thurrock, and it obtained a perfectly respectable result. I should like to think that its results will always be respectable but perhaps no more than that. The interesting point about that political party is that it was first suggested in a BBC Radio Cornwall programme. Its literature states:
  "Despite what they say, all the existing political parties, whether of the right, left or centre are just not interested in pensioners, treat us as second class citizens, who are powerless and unable to improve our situation."

  79
  It continues in a similar vein. I do not share that analysis, but I can certainly understand why pensioners will sometimes come to that conclusion.
  In an area such as Teignbridge, the averages that we can talk about in relation to pensioners are not particularly reflected on the ground. For example, the Pensioners Protection party quoted Hansard in its pamphlet, and it is worth mentioning. I suspect that it would no longer be entirely accurate. It is a 1989 statistic which the party produced to show that 58 per cent. of pensioner households depend on state pensions and benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income. I suspect that the position has changed for the better, but that illustrates an interesting point.
  The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that nearly nine out of 10 pensioners have some secondary form of income other than the state pension. That is good, and it is an improvement—the problem is, not around Teignbridge, they don't. There is no way in which one could expect the Minister to come up with Teignbridge-specific figures any more than one could come up with Birkenhead-specific figures, although if she has them I shall be impressed and thank her for them. One of the joys of being a constituency Member is that one develops a feeling about one's area which one cannot quantify in terms of hard statistics. One develops a feeling for the way in which a situation applies on the ground.
  Many pensioners in Teignbridge have worked hard all their lives—sometimes perhaps in not desperately exciting jobs, and certainly not in particularly well-paid jobs. They did so at a time when, under previous regimes, such savings as they had were ravaged by inflation. Now, they are at a stage in their lives when, having worked hard, they have not been around for occupational pensions and the like, and are more or less dependent on state-related benefits.
  The Pensioners Protection party suggested—I do not say this lightly, because its suggestion is very brave, and I have never seen it before—"Why don't you pay us a pension on which we would pay income tax? There would be no question of our receiving means-tested benefits as such." That party made the point that its members
  "are entitled to proper pensions, not means-tested handouts."
  Their idea is that, if their pensions could be increased, losing means-tested handouts and having to pay tax as well are things that they would be prepared to take on board. When I put it to them that that would mean they would not be able to have free television licences, which is sometimes a rallying cry in the House, the pensioners said, "Okay, if we don't get free television licences, at least we will have a choice about whether to have them or not."
  It was interesting that, when the delegation came to see me, I was not expecting to receive a delegation of like-minded people who just popped in to tell me that the Government's track record on retirement pensions was first rate, that they would not detain me—they just wanted me to tell everybody else that. My perception was entirely correct. They made the point that they had examined the matter and were concerned about trying to highlight the group of people who are not properly reflected in the idea that nine out of 10 people receive some secondary income. That group is becoming smaller, and it will continue to become smaller over the years.
  80
  In due course, the average statistic, even if it is not a reflection of the position in Teignbridge, will come to pass that ultimately almost 10 out of 10 people will have some form of income other than their retirement pension. That is extremely healthy, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, and for the reasons that I mentioned about the burden that would otherwise be represented on the state.
  In our social security policies and judgments about available resources, we have to bear in mind the fact that looking after those who ultimately are not in a position to look after themselves is one of the first responsibilities of the state. There is no doubt that the Government have a good track record on that. The state retirement pension has been fully proofed against inflation since 1979. In a particularly amicable debate—let us try to keep it that way—I will not dwell at great length on the history of earnings and incomes matters of that sort, but, behind the averages, one must consider some specific problems.
  In our desire to look forward, to understand that there is a limit to what the state can be responsible for, and to understand the implications of an increasing pensioner population and a decreasing tax-paying base, we should not lose sight of another section of society which, in the nature of things, will dwindle. If we can understand the needs of people such as members of the Pensioners Protection party in the context of a global view, we will be doing the right thing.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is clear that the Pensioners Protection party won many votes in the west country. The hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a bold bid both for its votes——
  Mr. Wicks: And for the leadership.
  Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend says, he made a bold bid for the leadership of that party.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge—I call him hon. Friend this evening because we are members of the Social Security Select Committee—as I shall not immediately pick up his points. I apologise also for not being present for the opening speeches, because I wanted to compliment both spokesmen not on their performances in the House today but on their performances on another day, as the Bill is a consequence of the autumn statement. The autumn statement was a success for the Secretary of State. When questions are asked it is difficult to put on the record the extent of one's feelings and the extent of that success. [Interruption.] That attitude makes it difficult to make constructive points.
  The Secretary of State said that we whipped up fears about cuts and so on. He did himself an injustice. He did a brilliant job of engendering such stories and then swept into the House to show us that our fears could be put to one side at a time when the public sector borrowing requirement will probably grow to about £50 billion. It was a success that the Secretary of State was able to protect his budget. Whether hon. Members will cheer him quite so loudly a year or so hence when the effect of the public sector borrowing requirement comes to roost is another matter, but this evening we should not quibble; we should pay him a compliment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) must have found the Secretary of State's

  81
  speech one of the most difficult to respond to. I was delighted with the skill and finesse with which he dealt with it.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that when we are considering pension provisions or welfare provision generally we should emphasise the successes that have occurred and should be keen about spreading successes. I am reminded of a comment by a first world war poet in a footnote to his first poem. He said that, if the British were promoted from inferno to paradise, they would still gather around and talk about the good old days. Something in the British culture wallows in failure and despises success. All three parties need to encourage success when it is there.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why there appears to be a glass ceiling on the membership of occupational pension schemes. In the post-war period, the extension of occupational schemes has been one of the big successes, linked to the size of the pensions that they are providing to an increasing number of our constituents.
  Some storm clouds are gathering over the occupational pension scheme and I shall relate them to the Bill. The hon. Member for Havant said that we must be careful when we advocate reforms of occupational pension schemes and perhaps of the legal framework in which they operate, because there is no compulsion on employers to provide such schemes. If one goes about reform hamfistedly, an increasing number of employers will wind them up and go into money-purchase schemes. That is already happening.
  I think that one of the changes that will be evident from the reports of the Select Committee on Social Security this Session—as opposed to those during the previous Session—is that Committee members will be more mindful of the difficulties facing employers when meeting occupational pension requirements. There have been changes in economic growth. We face a decade of sluggish growth, and the assets of pension funds will not grow as they have done; nor will funds get the income that they had in the past decade. Employers will take that factor into account when they decide whether to continue an occupational scheme, let alone extend it.
  There are worries about how the Barber judgment will be enforced on occupational pension schemes, and about the other non-discrimination decisions that the European Court is about to make. That time bomb is waiting to explode on the finances of all occupational schemes.
  During the recent past, surpluses in funds have been run down. The difficulties associated with sluggish economic growth and the enormous cost of implementing the Barber judgments, and others, will come at a time when pension schemes have less surplus than they had a decade ago.
  We should not consider pension reform unimaginatively. I am sure that the Goode committee will take that into consideration when it deals with any reforms of the legal framework and with whether we should try to enshrine people's expectations of their occupational schemes into legislation. If we move too fast on that front, there will be a mass exodus of employers from the provision of occupational schemes and that will be a bad move.
  The second storm cloud is one that the Government have made for themselves. They worked themselves and the House up into a frenzy and tried to get the country to share their worries about financing SERPS. Perhaps they were right to have that debate. However, we cannot now
  82
  guarantee that if people remain in SERPS they will draw a pension adequate to lift them free of means-tested assistance.
  Mr. Nicholls rose——
  Mr. Field: I shall give way in a moment. I might answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The fact that we cannot guarantee that adequate pension must be taken into account when we consider the bribes or incentives—whatever we want to call them—that the Government are offering to people to leave SERPS and to make private arrangements. One of the disadvantages of the personal schemes that people are contracting into is that they also cannot guarantee the sort of income that pensioners will have.
  I am worried that we are building up a new army of pensioners who will not receive the sort of income from the private sector that people who have recently retired—or will do so shortly—get from occupational schemes. It is not right to think that the success of occupational pension schemes will be writ large, either from SERPS or from the private pension arrangements that the Government are encouraging and we are debating.
  Mr. Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is safer for pensioners to be part of a huge state pension scheme than to be in a private occupational pension scheme? If so, he must consider that there will be a smaller number of people to supply the funds.
  Mr. Field: Both the hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Havant have put the case—or the incentive or bribe—more effectively than any Treasury Minister or Minister on the Treasury Bench, that at least if one takes out a personal pension one knows that one will have a nest egg, whatever the amount.
  When we are pensioners, we will be the majority of the electorate and we will be trying to enforce a contract on workers, who will be the minority. Pensioners will have the majority of votes and therefore it will be much easier to sway candidates—whether in Teignbridge or Birkenhead, and whether there are pension action groups or not—to support that majority view.
  The working population will be able to get back at the pensioner majority by behaving in a way which will engender inflation. The majority might be able to win through the legislative reforms to gain pension increases, but the minority will get their own back in an inflationary society by redistributing the gains that the majority have enforced on them.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is right, as is so often the case. Is it not even worse than that? Experience and sheer common sense show that if taxpayers feel that their burdens are unfair they will evade tax. They always have done and they always will do. If the working population know that they cannot win in a vote and if too much money is being taken away from them by the majority, they will evade tax, revenue will decrease and that will exacerbate the problem.
  Mr. Field: Perhaps, or they might ensure that the Government have inflationary policies, so that the real gains for pensioners are wiped away by rising prices, but they—being in the labour market—could protect their living standards by successfully negotiating wage and salary increases. We might have to face those politics.

  83
  The hon. Members for Havant and for Teignbridge made a case for the incentive or bribe more effectively than the Treasury Bench, because if the form of political struggle that I have described takes place, at least people with assets in personal pensions will be able to realise them in a way that those who remain members of SERPS will not. That is the most powerful argument that I have heard for personal pensions. I do not agree with it, but it is more powerful than the arguments that I have heard from the Treasury Bench.
  Another storm cloud over the future shape of pension politics is the fact that a new army of poor pensioners is already coming on to the rolls. That is not because an increasing number of people are going into schemes which might not provide them with an adequate pension. All constituencies now contain a large number of elderly constituents, who are below retirement age but are unemployed and have been pushed on to disability benefits. We are disguising part of our unemployment problem by so categorising them and they are not building up pension entitlements.
  It is wrong to think that the frail and elderly are the only poor pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) commented. As they die, a new group of poor elderly will come along—those constituents who do not have a job and have been classified as sick or long-term disabled, who are not building up entitlements and will be totally dependent on the minimum state pension and on income support.
  Five years ago one might have thought that the spread of occupational pensions and the generosity of some of the schemes would guarantee that an increasing number of pensioners would be lifted free of poverty in old age. That will happen to some of us but not, sad to say, to all of our constituents.
  Mr. Willetts: If, in the future, we have groups of poorer pensioners, who are not just old pensioners, and if we have a greater diversity of income between pensioners, does not it follow that an uprating, an increase in the real value of the basic pension, above inflation, would be a particularly inefficient way in which to help the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred? Has not he made the case for the poorer-pensioner package which John Moore introduced and the subsequent poorer-pensioner package that was introduced in 1990?
  Mr. Field: I hope that I would do more than what has been achieved by those limited measures, welcome though they are to the people in receipt of additional benefits. That intervention takes me on to the other part of my speech, which relates to imagining what contribution Beveridge would make to our debate today. That will make up the second and shorter half of my speech.
  Mr. Dewar: How can one have a shorter half?
  Mr. Field: I am about to embark on my actuary-unsound contribution.
  I am sure that Beveridge would draw enormous pleasure from the real successes that his report has ensured for many groups in our society. However, I do not believe that he would commend to us the idea that he came down
  84
  from Mount Sinai with that report, that everything was written on tablets of stone and that nothing should be changed.
  The House underestimates the current Secretary of State for Social Security if it does not believe that, at some stage, he will bring forward some radical plans to reshape our welfare state. The Labour party is committed to a debate, at least, about such a reform. I wish to keep alive the rumour that we will establish a social justice commission, which will think radically about what should be done.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman should give evidence to it.
  Mr. Field: Yes, I hope to do so.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that we are likely to make some changes to the welfare system in the near future, but that he would insist on everything carrying on as before? If not, would he mind telling us what changes he would like to see?
  Mr. Field: I am suggesting that if we do not think very radically, we will drift into our fifth election defeat and we will deserve that. I am seeking to keep alive the rumour that we are going to think radically. I want to propose one or two ideas and to suggest the atmosphere in which that debate should take place.
  If there is to be a debate on such changes and if one is to contribute to it, one might be persuaded by other people's views. We should therefore encourage people to give their ideas even if, by the time we draw conclusions from that debate, we may have changed our minds three or four times. One should encourage different contributions, rather than score points off people who may behave inconsistently.
  My first suggestion has already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. It is inconceivable that we should conduct our debate about a radical reform of the welfare state without being prepared to take on board the issues relating to full employment. If we talk about moving back to a time of full employment, it is clear that we will all have to entertain new thoughts in order to achieve that objective.
  That objective will be more difficult to achieve than that achieved by Keynes. He advanced his ideas, or managed to pinch others' ideas and convince people that they were his, at a time of falling prices. We are living in a time of mass unemployment, when prices are rising—they are not going up as much as before, thank goodness, but they are still rising. In those circumstances, it is much more difficult than it was in the 1930s to consider what measures one should take to try to reflate the economy. Then, the Treasury, without telling anyone, followed the policy of constructing a tariff rule and it reflated the economy behind the rule. We all know that that policy was successful well before the second world war broke out.
  When we conduct that debate and when we allow ourselves to think in a totally different way, we should not limit ourselves to considering ideas from this country. The German trade unions are equally worried about the extent of unemployment. Those trade unions are now saying that if they forgo wage increases, given the rate of productivity in society, their employers and the Government should start talking about expanding the job base as a result of

  85
  those forgone productivity increases. In other words, the German trade unions are now saying that they will break up the cartel that has operated in western society. That cartel is composed of those in work and, all too often, it operates against the interests of the unemployed.
  That idea may not work out to be the most profitable way in which to return to full employment—I accept that it is one of many such strategies. However, the German trade unions are thinking about a dynamic policy. It is not equivalent to the old crude policy of wage freezes or the policy for which we voted just the other day: to shift resources from the employed to the unemployed in a manner which would give those people a chance to work. We should consider that policy very carefully.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he subscribe to the idea of the right to work? Does he recognise that if we could institute a workfare system in this country it would, over time, eliminate unemployment? I should be interested to know whether he supports that idea.
  Mr. Field: I think that we should consider that proposal. I understand that the Cabinet has considered it, but rejected it because it would be immensely expensive. It is not a cheap scheme and it does not rely on what my constituents call "Mickey Mouse" training.
  Under such a scheme the public sector could initially create jobs that paid proper wages. On the other hand, running alongside that provision, one could build up pukka training schemes. People could opt for training, and the compulsion element would operate on the work side. Therefore, benefits would be withdrawn from those who failed to take up the work opportunities. That would be a totally different scheme from anything that has been discussed publicly in this country—I know that the Government have, privately, considered the option, but have rejected it because it would be so costly.
  I read the record of the debate that was initiated by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on the Friday before last—I was unable to be present—and I noted that the Government said that they would conduct a pilot study in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is a wily old bird and he does not need my advice on this, but I am sure that he will ensure that the jobs offered under that study are proper ones and that decent wages will be paid. I am sure that he will ensure that that study does not resemble what one might have been offered—a scheme whereby people would be given a small addition to their benefits and threatened with the loss of their benefits if they did not take up the job offered. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a healthy majority, but it will be slimmed down greatly if he does not stick to his guns, as I see them, on this point.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most radical thinkers in this House. Surely he is making a mistake by saying that the scheme that I have advanced for so many years would be so expensive. No one knows, because no one knows what percentage of the unemployed would take up the option. If there were a 100 per cent. take-up, and it was voluntary, I accept that the scheme would be expensive, but if only two thirds of those eligible took it up, many others would still be engaged in lucrative work in society, known as the black economy. Until we have tried it, nobody knows whether it will work. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman put his weight behind
  86
  trying the scheme effectively. We shall know only when we have operated, perhaps not the pilot scheme that has been promised but a true pilot scheme, such as I have been suggesting.
  Mr. Field: If the scheme is voluntary, we shall never know whether hordes of people are undertaking work on the side, because they will not volunteer for the hon. Gentleman's scheme. We would only know about that if there were an element of compulsion in the scheme. We know that the scheme that the Cabinet has considered was rejected on the ground of cost. The effort of ensuring that the jobs would pay proper wages and that there were training schemes which the hon. Gentleman and I would be prepared to go on, rather than some of those offered, is much more expensive than what is now being provided.
  I shall watch with interest to see how the hon. Gentleman boxes from his corner when the Government try to unleash that experiment in his constituency. As he says, we shall not know the true cost until the pilot scheme has been run. I hope that it will be a genuine scheme that offers proper jobs and training, not one that tries to operate on the cheap.
  Mr. Nicholls: May I return to the point which the hon. Gentleman was making a few moments ago when he said that the German trade unions might be prepared to trade off job losses for restrictive or no pay increases? Surely that would institutionalise overmanning. The hon. Gentleman will admit that one can hide unemployment in a number of ways, one of which might be with the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) has in mind. At least that would be an honest and open "hiding". What the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has in mind would institutionalise and structuralise inefficiency. I do not think that that is what he means.
  Mr. Field: No, I do not mean that. Discussions are going on among the car unions in Europe on the basis that workers should not accept lay-offs but should all accept shorter time. They would then not add to the job queues, which may lead to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. That is separate from what the German trade unions are beginning to discuss, which is a scheme whereby workers would not take a salary increase, even though increased productivity figures might show that it had been earned, provided that the job base was expanded by the wealth so created. That might lead to the inefficiency that the hon. Gentleman described, but it probably would not.
  It is an interesting debate and, if we are serious about breaking up the employment cartel to which most of us fortunately belong—people on the outside feel that it is almost impossible to break into it—those ideas must be considered. If we are to think about a new Beveridge scheme, it must be run in harness with a serious debate on achieving full employment.
  I shall end this part of my "actuary-unsound" contribution by saying that, in the 1920s, reformers were disturbed that some workers had entered the third winter of unemployment. In all our constituencies now there are households with third generation unemployed. That is how long unemployment has stayed with certain groups of people. There is no urgency in this debate about moving back to full employment and therefore offering people hope of the chance to work again. I look forward to having that debate in the next year or two.

  87
  We should rethink the welfare state. I happily pick up the challenge made by the hon. Member for Havant about pension increases and the reforms that we should at least say are on the table, even if, on balance, we decide that we do not wish to back them. At a time when an increasing number of people are retiring with occupational pensions that are substantially greater than their state pensions, it is worth debating whether we should continually increase the national insurance pension for everybody at the same rate as in the past. Should we not think of ways in which we could concentrate on to the poorest pensioners the sum it would cost to increase the state pension for everybody?
  Every time that we put regulations through the House, without a vote, to increase the national insurance rate, we are increasing our own old-age pension without knowing what our circumstances will be and whether we will need that help. When we consider the proportion of the current pensions budget to the large social security budget—it is about a third—we cannot leave undebated our approach to that topic. We may ultimately still think that the method by which we now provide benefit is the most perfect form of benefit provisions that mankind has ever devised, though I should be surprised.
  We now have a budget of £75,000 million to £80,000 million, yet many of our constituents are desperately poor. They are unemployed, do not know whether they can pay heating bills, must economise on food, and do not know how they will provide Christmas presents without getting into the money lenders' hands. Moreover, they know that it is not just this year but that, unless we come up with a full employment policy, that future may stretch on and on into the sunset. In those circumstances, it is important that we consider whether we could spend some of that £75,000 million to £80,000 million more effectively to offer a greater chance to people who have least. We must bite the bullet on that issue and realise that if we are to advocate such a policy, we shall not give increases to other much more advantaged groups of people and we must do that in an electorally successful way.
  The exercise cannot, therefore, be conducted in a purely statistical way, balancing the books. The review on full employment and welfare must be conducted within a framework that sets the public imagination alive, as Beveridge managed to do 50 years ago tomorrow. Unless one gets over the sense that those two policies are building a different Britain, it will be impossible to win electoral support to take help away from some people and give it to those who have least.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words to this debate. I am a newcomer to social security debates and I have enjoyed listening to the whole of this debate. My hon. Friends and Opposition Members have made many interesting contributions.
  It is a pleasure and a privilege, albeit a daunting task, to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose knowledge of these issues is so well known and on whose Select Committee I, too, am pleased to serve. I particularly welcome the praise which he lavished at the start of his speech on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Frank Field: I lavished praise on the Opposition Front Bench, too.
  Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—the praise which he lavished on my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends, on their performances after the autumn statement.
  I particularly enjoyed the erudite intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), whose expertise in the subject is also well known. I enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) swapping stories about Beveridge. Had I known last week that the hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Croydon, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant were so well versed on Beveridge before I spent a rather windy night with two of them earlier last week, I would have swotted up on Beveridge so that we would have had a little more to talk about late into the night.
  I enjoyed the speeches by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) both of whom brought considerable experience to the debate—certainly more than I can bring, especially as I cannot claim to be an expert on "Coronation Street". We all agree that the issue of national insurance contributions will be the subject of another debate. I look forward to playing a part in that in the House and, I hope, in the Select Committee.
  I warmly welcome the Bill's further measures to widen the personal choice that is already available to most people in providing for their retirement. The Government have shown foresight not only in safeguarding their current pension provision but in ensuring that as many people as possible will be able to seize the opportunity to provide for themselves in retirement. The Bill is part of the Government's continuing policy to promote personal pensions—one tier of their comprehensive strategy to improve living standards for all pensioners now and in the future.
  The strategy has three main strands, the first of which is to maintain at all times the basic state retirement pension, always increasing it in line with prices. The Government have done that and, as we know from the autumn statement, they will continue to do it. It is worth repeating that since 1979 social security spending has risen by more than 50 per cent. over inflation and that in 1988 the average pensioner was about 34 per cent. better off than he was in 1979, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry).
  Secondly, the Bill is part of continuing Government policy to make everybody responsible for his own pension provision where and when he is able to do so. People may make provision through occupational and personal pensions and, if possible, through savings or other investments so that they can add to income from the state pension. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, the recent falls in interest rates were warmly welcomed by all hon. Members because they are essential for recovery, but they are not always so warmly welcomed by pensioners. More than three quarters of those who have recently reached retirement age derive income from savings and the average income from those savings doubled between 1979 and 1988. Therefore, personal savings are playing an ever more important part in the life and financial considerations of pensioners.

  89
  Thirdly, Government policy focuses additional resources on those who are less well off. That is especially true in recent years for some older pensioners who have had less time to build up personal pensions or whose savings were ravaged by the inflation of the 1970s. Therefore, it is right that over the past three years special attention has been paid to those pensioners, and income-related benefits have been targeted more than ever to the tune of about £700 million a year over that time.
  As we enter the next century the number of people over pensionable age will be much higher than at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge dwelt on that at length and I shall add my example to those that he employed. On Friday evening my wife and I were fortunate enough to attend the 80th birthday party of one of the most loyal party workers in my constituency, Mrs. Edith Belcher. On that happy occasion Mrs. Belcher did not qualify for a telegram from Her Majesty the Queen, but she received many telegrams and letters from my right hon. Friends and from some of my noble Friends. She reminded me that a few years ago she held a 25th anniversary party for my predecessor, Sir Dennis Walters, and that 25 years before that she held a 25th anniversary party for his predecessor, Sir Robert Grimston. She left me with the news that she intended to hold my 25th anniversary party 25 years from now.
  Many people are now living to a much greater age, and that means that we shall have to make much greater provision for pensioners in the next century. That was why we introduced personal pensions in 1988 as part of a wider Conservative philosophy to increase choice and personal responsibility and to help to increase the freedom epitomised by other landmark Conservative legislation such as our highly successful privatisation programme and the sale of council homes.
  Since 1988 nearly 5 million people have taken out personal pensions. They are already making a massive contribution to an ever-stronger structure of pension provision into the next century. Everyone is now able to make a choice as he prepares for retirement and to do it as he best sees fit. Personal pensions are now available to almost every employee, irrespective of whether his or her employer operates an occupational pension scheme. Personal pensions also provide a crucial source of finance for industry. The schemes are almost always fully funded and provide an important stimulus to industry through investment.
  Since 1979 people of this country have voted four times for a Conservative Government. That is a resounding yes four times over for greater choice and greater flexibility—the sort of flexibility that the Bill seeks to provide. On each occasion such choice and flexibility would have been denied to people if there had been a different electoral result. So that we do not overburden the next generation, it is essential to continue to spread the message about the benefits of non-state pension schemes across the whole age spectrum.
  The advantages of personal pensions are undoubtedly greater for younger people, and that is shown by their take-up among that age group and the vigorous marketing directed at them. I understand that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the take-up of personal pensions is highest among the age groups 22 to 26 and 27 to 31.
  Clause 1 introduces the 1 per cent. additional rebate for holders of personal pensions who are over 30 years of age
  90
  and is in line with the commitment in our election manifesto. The new rebates should help about 2 million people and will be a vital incentive to those entering that age group to maintain their personal pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant spoke about that. I understand that this is to be a temporary measure and, as we know, the existing 2 per cent. rebate for those who opt out of SERPS will end in April.
  I welcome the Minister's news that a new system of age-related rebates and all options will be considered. I welcome his offer to consult widely on that so that such a system may start to operate in April 1996. The Government want to see all age ranges and groups benefit from personal pensions and not just younger people. By using clause 1 to remove the anomaly the Government fully comply with their manifesto pledge
  "of ensuring that personal pensions remain attractive across the age range."
  Clause 2 relates to the national insurance fund and ensures that the top-up grant will become available to the fund from the Treasury from 1993–94 and, if necessary, subsequently. In his absence I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the autumn statement and for rightly safeguarding, as we knew he would, all social security spending. It was welcome news, despite scaremongering in the press, that all benefits are to be uprated in line with inflation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead claimed that the stories were put about by the Government. I prefer to agree with my hon. Friends who said that the stories were put about by the Opposition.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to downgrade the achievements of the Secretary of State, who had two successes. He managed to frighten—goodness knows how—his Cabinet colleagues into agreeing his budget. At the same time he had the energy and wit to orchestrate extraordinary campaigns saying that everything would be smashed. He was able to claim those successes in the House. I was not trying to make mischief. I wanted the House to give full credit to the Secretary of State for his double success.
  Mr. Faber: Having had the pleasure in recent weeks of serving on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I would not accuse him of making mischief. I do not believe that he was doing so here. However, he credits my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with doing a better public relations job than even he would lay claim to.
  The national insurance fund is financed by contributions from employees and employers alike through national insurance payments. Therefore, as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that, at a time of severe world-wide recession, income to the fund will fall while benefits payments will rise. It would have been all too easy for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to have increased national insurance contributions the other day, thus easily increasing income to the fund, but that would also greatly have increased the tax burden on employers and employees alike, which would have been fatal in a time of recession.
  It is also worth remembering that, had the Labour party won the general election in April, we would have seen those increases in national insurance contributions, as promised in its election manifesto. However, I am a little confused—I say that in all seriousness—following a recent statement in The Guardian by the hon. Member for

  91
  Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that such rises in national insurance contributions were no longer necessary. I cannot understand why in April those rises would have stimulated recovery and growth in a recession, but for some reason they have now become dependent upon recovery and the end of the recession.
  Clause 2 will introduce a top-up grant to enable the fund to meet fully its commitments to those in receipt of all social security benefits, without hitting employers or employees in their pockets. The Bill is innovative in that, unlike the old Treasury grant, it will not be automatic, but will be used only when needed, and will not be implemented when there is no need for its provisions. That will result in greater flexibility in management as the grant will vary in each year according to need. Most important of all, it means that the taxpayer's money will not be wasted on surpluses, and there will be no effect on overall public expenditure.
  We have heard that spending on social security over the next three years will be £79·8 billion, £82·9 billion and £87 billion respectively. That is an accurate gauge of the Government's commitment to the needy, sick and elderly. We shall maintain full support for those hit hardest by the recession, while focusing additional support on the most needy and safeguarding the pledges that we made to the elderly in our manifesto. We heard from my right hon. Friend in the autumn statement that all major benefits will be increased by 3·6 per cent., fully in line with the rate of inflation. That uprating will cost us some £2·5 billion next year and real increases in disposable income for the needy will cost a further £1 billion.
  One aspect of the autumn statement and the social security uprating that has not been mentioned so far is social security fraud. In considering a top-up-grant to the national insurance fund, we should also remember the many millions of pounds that are lost every year through social security fraud. I warmly welcome the Government's plans to combat fraud and especially my right hon. Friend's reiteration in the autumn statement of his determination to step up his efforts in that direction. Total savings next year are expected to be £1 billion—a staggering amount of money—and that can only ensure that more money is available to the majority of needy claimants.
  My constituents in rural Wiltshire need no reminders of the problems of social security fraud. Year in and year out, hordes of scroungers dressed up as new age travellers descend on our farmlands, villages and famous beauty spots. Most infamous was the mass invasion of our landmark white horse between Westbury and Bratton. My constituents witnessed at first hand the mobile benefits officers dishing out money to those who had no intention of ever looking for work in their lives.
  Mr. Frank Field: I cannot understand why the Government and Conservative Members draw attention to that. Is it not a disgrace that the Government took so long to deal with the matter?
  Mr. Faber: I can only repeat what I said earlier. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have reiterated their intention to crack down on fraud, and I hope that that will be done swiftly. I also hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social
  92
  Security will get together with other Departments to try to find some lasting solution to the problems that my constituents have to face year in and year out, and which they dread.
  Mr. Frank Field: It was not just the hon. Gentleman's constituents who suffered. The Government allowed mainly women benefit officers to go there and be almost abused by some of those people. That was the other shameful part of such incidents, which continued year in and year out before the Government did something about them.
  Mr. Faber: The invasion of Bratton was three years ago and I was not then Member of Parliament for the constituency, so I did not have the opportunity to comment on it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is wrong that anybody should have to hand out allowances from mobile caravans, dishing out income-related benefits to people who had no intention of looking for work.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the full extent of the problem was found out only this summer, and at that stage my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People acted with commendable speed? Given that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is an acknowledged expert in social security matters, does my hon. Friend not find it curious that he did not bring this matter to the attention of the Government before?
  Mr. Faber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Birkenhead knows that the invasion of Bratton was one of the first of such incidents that drew the problem to people's attention. My hon. Friend is right. The problem became significantly worse, possibly last summer but certainly this summer. I welcome the speedy action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the matter.
  The Government are committed to improving living standards for the whole community, and that includes people for whom national insurance contributions make provision in their old age. We now have lower inflation and interest rates and pensioner incomes are higher than they have ever been before. Spreading the ownership of personal pensions will encourage that trend to continue, and that is the aim of the Bill. I am pleased to support the Bill and I urge the House to do likewise.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Like the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), I am not an expert on pensions. I can only relate to the House some of the things that my constituents have had to say about the present system. Pensions have become a political football. The Government often dress up ideas in such a way that they appear good and seem to benefit people, when they do not in reality do so. The Government's scheme to encourage people to leave SERPS and join private pension schemes has done more to cause confusion than to improve the situation for people who might want to retire before pensionable age. Such people believe that they have security, but they often find that private pension schemes do not give them the benefits to which they thought they were entitled. As a result, there is a long series of complaints to the ombudsman, sometimes there is redress, but sometimes there is not.

  93
  We cannot say often enough that pensioners in this country have made a major contribution to its wealth and it is not their fault or that of the unemployed That the prospects for wealth creation have been called into question. That problem is basically due to the Government's policies. The key to the problem of private and state pension schemes lies in contributions and higher insurance premiums. Wealth creation is needed in order to fund those contributions. The Opposition say that we must get people back to work to create wealth—to use a Conservative expression. We would rather see full employment, whereas Conservatives would rather see wealth creation. The Government never exactly tell us how they intend to achieve that end, despite various Budgets over the years.
  As long as there is high unemployment in this country, there will always be a generation of pensioners who miss out, primarily because they cannot afford the contributions. That is the fundamental isssue, which some of my colleagues mentioned earlier. Wealth creation and full employment should be the major topics for debate in future. The central thrust of the argument is that wherever there is segregation, whatever the economic policies, there will always be funding problems.
  I have had consultations with pensioners in my constituency. We had a meeting not long ago that 500 to 600 pensioners attended. Before we start discussing targeting, we must ensure that pensions are adequate. Many of the pensioners at the meeting wanted a minimum pension of £100 a week. I do not think that that is too much for pensioners to ask in this day and age, given the sacrifices and contributions that they have made to the wealth creation of this country. The House must consider whether the pension is enough for pensioners to be able to afford television licences.
  The Government say that they believe in consultation, but I have not heard very much from the Government about how they propose to consult pensioners to find out their views. From time to time, we hear a variety of opinions from the Government about what they believe to be pensioners' needs. We must set up the machinery so that pensioners' organisations can be consulted and their needs taken into consideration.
  I am sure that some hon. Members—at least, those in Glasgow—will have seen the Channel 4 programme some weeks ago about a number of people with young families who were out of work. They found themselves in the hands of money lenders. How many districts are there in this country where advice bureaux give financial advice to families who find themselves in such a position'? Not only do many families in this country go to money lenders, but they suffer considerable intimidation. All those who saw the programme would recognise some of the problems that seem to be hidden from the Government when they look at the needs of pensioners and those who are unemployed through not fault of their own.
  Very often, Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Westbury are more interested in the propaganda of what the Government are doing and how many people are caught abusing the system. Those abusing the system are obviously in the wrong and should be caught and brought to book, but the real issue is the level of pensions and how we see pensions in the future.
  Some 40 or 50 years ago, Beveridge predicted what would happen. Today's debate probably took place in the early 1930s—the clock has been turned back during the
  94
  past 10 to 12 years. The Labour party is not in government—the general election is over and the responsibility lies with the Conservative Government. They must stop reminding us of what happened in the 1970s and what we said during the general election, and instead deal with the injustices in society.
  An old-age pensioner in my constituency has a serious heart problem and cannot obtain the necessities of life such as a replacement cooker. Anybody who considered the injustices that I have witnessed in my constituency would realise the laborious processes involved. Those in need have to talk to voluntary organisations to see whether they can provide a gas cooker or a little bit of furniture on the cheap.
  It is time that we had a realistic debate on the problem of unemployment in this country. We do not need any more phoney training schemes; we need adequate pensions and unemployment benefit. The debate should be about how we can achieve those goals in future.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: I rise with some temerity to speak on the subject of social security, as, during the debate, many hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have spoken with the benefit of an enormous wealth of experience on the issue.
  I welcome the debate, and the Social Security Bill. I am often brought face to face with the stark reality—the comparison between now and the 1930s before we had a social security system, so many benefits, and the capacity to care for those in need. The comparison between the 1930s and now is nothing more than a stark contrast between darkness and light.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant dealt with the Beveridge report, complete with suntan oil stains. I entered the debate in the 1970s in Islington, when, as a young barrister, in my spare time in the evenings I tried to give free legal advice to those who needed it. Young barristers need to work in their spare time to gain experience and give help where they can.
  I found that we had a generation of people who had relied on the results of Beveridge and lived through the myth that Whitehall could provide for all their needs. I found people who were disillusioned by the promises of socialism. There were poor people who had never been told that their talents could provide for them if only they could be taught the confidence to use them.
  The Bill will be judged on four criteria. First, will it make people better off? It certainly will—2 million people will be £160 million better off as a result of the Bill. If we work that out as an annual payment with uprating, on a conservative estimate, each of those 2 million people will be £3,000 to £4,000 better off. I stand to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
  Secondly, will the Bill penalise other pensioners? Of course not. At Question Time today, we heard that even The Guardian welcomed the fact that this autumn, despite the recession, pensions had been uprated in line with prices.
  Thirdly, will the Bill improve choice and resolve a problem? The answer is yes to both those questions—and we have discussed that.

  95
  Fourthly, will the Bill provide a disincentive to all those people in the matrix of helping and caring for the needy to come forward? I believe not. I wish to talk about this matrix of care. A distinctive feature of what my right hon. and hon. Friends understand by care is that, beside state provision, which is the main thrust of the debate, is private care, such as care for a neighbour. That fits into the pattern of provision of every constituency.
  In Finchley, which I represent, there is everything from the Milly Apthorpe trust, which provides for the disabled when they are in need, to talking newspapers for the blind, from excellent homes for the elderly to the Finchley friends of the local hospital, who provide for the geriatric wards. We need idealism. We need a matrix and a partnership in care.
  In the past, young men dreamed dreams and old men saw visions. We on the Conservative Benches are now told that it is the middle-aged Members who mess things up. Of course we need idealism, even those of us who carry the burden of government, but we must aim higher. We have heard about the realities of demography, and to expand upon that, I tell the House that the uncle of one of my constituents recently died at the age of 118 years.
  People will live longer, and we must provide for them. Some call for the cause of euthanasia to be advanced. I vehemently oppose that, as a matter of deep conviction. Surely we want to see the quality of life after retirement improved and improved again.
  My hon. Friends and I are proud that pensioners have seen annual growth in their receipts from the Government—five times faster than that achieved during the Labour Administration. Pensions have increased in line with prices. Many argue—for example, Pensioners' Voice—that pensions should be linked to the rise in average earnings, but the entire picture needs to be put in perspective and all factors taken into account.
  Pensioners' incomes doubled between 1979 and 1988, whereas they fell by 16 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. If we set inflation alongside pensioners' savings and their income from their savings, we find a generation of pensioners who are better off. In 1986, I came across a sad case of a delightful old man who had put aside £1,000 since 1974 to pay for his funeral, which meant a great deal to him. By 1980, the value of that £1,000 had been whittled away. It was then worth only £400. He was deeply worried, because that sum would not pay for his funeral. As I have said, we must consider all the aspects of care. Inflation and the excellent increases that will stem from the Bill must be set side by side.
  We Conservatives alone have had the courage to deal with fraud within the social security system. We have provided an extra £10 million this year to tackle fraud and abuse of the system. We estimate that £100 million will be brought back to help provide for the extra benefits that will stem from the Bill. It is this approach that will make the money available, and we want to provide it for those who are in need. I ask Opposition Members to condemn fraud in the social security system, which they have not done.
  Let us compare provision in the United Kingdom with that in other parts of Europe. Taken against France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, Britain fares well. A study was published on 29 November by an
  96
  organisation called Hannan Ltd. Media Scan. It compared six individual cases, and went into its research in great detail. In every case, the United Kingdom took either first or second place, except for one in which it came third. We have a proud record in provision of care for the elderly through pensions and other benefits and allowances. The survey justifiably demonstrates that.
  Of course there is more to do. There will always be more to do to help those who are in need, including the elderly, and the Bill is a step forward. It is sensible, short and balanced. That balance continues to provide an incentive to public as well as private provision, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.25 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I welcome the Bill and the opportunity that it provides to debate yet again the merits of pensions—especially personal pensions—for the current generation.
  It is easy—perhaps this is typical of the Conservative party—to confine ourselves to present needs, but perhaps it would be more advantageous to consider the burden upon taxpayers as we move into the next century. In other words, we should consider the position of the next generation. Perhaps I should declare a personal interest: I am a member of the generation who will be pensioners to be supported by the next generation. It is probable that I shall be asking my children's generation to pay out to meet any entitlement that I may have to a state pension.
  The Government, in taking account of demography and actuarial figures, especially in relation to the state earnings-related pension scheme as it is attached to the state pension for the next century, are right to draw attention to the fact, as they have done since 1988, that it will be our children's generation who will have to earn the money and pay the taxes to provide for our generation when we receive the money at a post office or in our bank accounts.
  I hesitate to use the word "philosophy", because it has many connotations that tend to be rarefied and academic, but that is not so of pensions. When talking of pensions we are discussing the practicalities of people's lives. Many years ago, when they were asked what they most wanted in life, people in my peer grouping said that they wanted a home of their own. If we ask people in my generation—those in their 40s—to identify their aspirations, we find that they are looking forward to their years of retirement and are interested in what their quality of life will be in their 60s, 70s and 80s.
  We are asking people now to start making provision for their years of retirement during their working lives, when they are earning money and paying national insurance contributions and taxes. We know that, as people's health improves and there is the prospect of living much longer, the money available for retirement will have to last much longer. Fortunately, people often remain much fitter for much longer than hitherto. That means that their expectation of what they will be able to do in retirement is greatly enhanced when set against the expectations of previous generations.
  The average woman has a life expectancy to the middle 70s. Let us take 74 as an example. If she retires at the current retirement age of 60 and we consider her potential for making provision for her retirement, we find that the first 18 years of her life were spent in the education system,

  97
  when she was dependent on others to provide for her. We can then take six years of her life, for example, when she was looking after children and was not able to contribute to a pension. She will often be dependent on a husband with an occupational pension. When she retires, she will have a life expectancy of another 14 or 15 years. Out of a lifespan of 74 years, she would have been in a non-earning capacity for 38 years, so there were few years in which she could make provision for her retirement.
  The Government arc right to be flexible in the range of pension provision, especially for women. I want to emphasise the difficulty they face. Britain has a high divorce rate, with one in three marriages expected to end in divorce. Many women work only part-time or are dependent on their husbands' occupational private pensions for their quality of life in retirement. There is little opportunity for such women, especially if they divorce later in life, to accrue financial security. For many of them, SERPS is the one opportunity to accrue some independent financial provision during their working lives.
  The Government's approach to pension provision has been flexible right through from SERPS—I welcome the additional bonus for those who contract out—to additional voluntary contributions for those who wish to top up a company or occupational pension scheme, to free-standing pension schemes, to portable personal pensions and to a whole range of pension provision under which people can, for example, invest a single lump sum.
  That flexible approach is important, because people's working patterns have changed. Now, someone coming out of education can expect to be in employment for a few years, then perhaps to be self-employed; then later, he may have to reduce the number of hours he works. All those factors now impinge on people's life patterns, so it is right that pension options should marry, meet and fulfil their expectations.
  Previously, people in occupational pension schemes who changed their jobs had their contributions and those of their employers frozen. The effect was punitive, especially on those who changed jobs more than once. That is why the Government were right to free the pensions market and ensure that those who could make pension contributions during their working lives should have the flexibility and opportunity to do so. It can only enhance their quality of life in retirement.
  I accept that currently a group of people are not in that happy position but depend on the state pension, plus any top-up benefits to which they are entitled. I am not saying that they are well off, but there is now a growing generation of pensioners who are beginning to reap the benefits of investing in a personal pension. It is easy to recognise the enhanced quality of life they enjoy.
  That is why the Government, contrary to what the Opposition want, are right to act as an enabling body through the introduction of flexibility into pension provision—of which contracting out of SERPS is a good example—and through the tax discounts available to those who invest money in a pension. It is wise to give someone a tax break during his working life, so that the next generation will not have to pick up even higher bills to support him in retirement.
  Labour Members have a rather wry expression on their faces—[interruption.] Perhaps not; I do not want to misjudge them. It must be right to encourage investment in
  98
  personal pensions for those who have the opportunity to do so, so that when they retire they can enjoy a good quality of life.
  Of course I fully accept that the state must always provide for those who are dependent on a state pension or on benefits and for those who are widowed or divorced and whose retirement expectations will not be fulfilled. However, that should not deter those who have the opportunity to do so from investing in a pension during their working lives. It is not simply a question of capitalism and personal wealth; it is the quality of life for a whole generation of pensioners. We have to consider those, in whom I include myself, who will have to provide for that generation.
  When a range of options is available, it is important that people receive professional advice. I recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that, not just in the context of pensions but about the way that the Financial Services Act 1986 has been implemented through the devolution of power to the Securities and Investments Board, LAUTRO, FIMBRA and others.
  If self-regulation is to work, people must be able to trust the advice they receive from financial advisers. I am encouraged to learn that my right hon. Friend intends to produce a leaflet giving further guidance—[Laughter.] Before Labour Members collapse with laughter, I must tell them that I have received a personal assurance, not just from my right hon. Friend but from the self-regulatory bodies and those who have to deal with them, about certain cases that should have been picked up earlier.
  I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend is to tighten the way in which the self-regulatory bodies work because they need to be scrutinised. They must ensure that they properly exercise their devolved powers to ensure that the pensioner or other person receiving financial advice is protected. We can never stop the fraudsters and crooksters in, for example, the Maxwell case. It would have been difficult even for those with advance knowledge to have recognised what Maxwell was doing, even if it is easy with the benefit of hindsight.
  There will always be villains. The regulations should work, provided that my right hon. Friend uses his powers. I have asked him to scrutinise more thoroughly what is happening within the regulatory bodies, and he has assured me that he will do so. If he does not, I shall be at the front of the queue wanting to know why. It is important that people receive the right advice.
  The Government have put SERPS at the heart of the Bill. The Opposition have publicly criticised the provision to contract out, but they should realise that, if someone who has paid into SERPS dies before pension age, there is little provision for his next of kin, whereas, if he had contracted out of SERPS, there would be a lump sum. I think that is admirable, especially for widows whose retirement expectations would not otherwise be fulfilled. It is more beneficial to the individual, because he or she can monitor how the policy is growing.
  I support the Government's most welcome move to expand and increase the provision of private pensions. They will definitely be much more meaningful to the next generation—in the same way that the present generation of pensioners enjoy a greater quality of life because their basic state pension is topped up by private provisions. There is nothing wrong with that.
  If one asks people what they look forward to in retirement, they reply that they want time and leisure, to

  99
  go out and do things that they previously never had the time to do. We all know that costs money, and pensioners will be unable to enjoy those pursuits without the wherewithal—unless they stay at home in their gardens seven days a week.
  I support the Government's proposals in the Bill, and hope that they will continue to ensure that personal pensions are available and flexible, and that a wide choice will be available to the next generation.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Stephen Day: I apologise to the House for not being present for the first part of the debate. You knew, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of my intention to speak, but I was delayed in my constituency and then had the joys of a five-hour drive through the rain and traffic jams. I apologise also if I repeat any points that have already been made.
  Whenever I speak as a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I make a point—and I do now—of declaring my indirect interest as a parliamentary adviser to the National Association of Local Government Officers.
  Whenever Opposition Members speak on the topic of social security—this came across strongly this evening—they say that their key objective is to ensure that the level of pensions is addressed. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) also said that unemployment is rarely addressed and expressed a desire for the House to deal with that aspect, too. I have no quarrel with that, because surely right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree with both objectives. It would be a funny person who did not.
  However, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East repeated the fundamental error made by many Opposition Members, in believing that just by making such a remark, the problem will be dealt with. There are harsh realities and choices confronting this country and, I readily admit, many individual pensioners. I will try to address that aspect in the debate.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I touched on the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but followed it up by saying that the key to the pensions problem is wealth creation—or, as my right hon. and hon. Friends would put it, putting people back to work. Whether or not one is talking about a private or state scheme, the key to an adequate pension must be wealth creation. I did not glibly make that point and leave it at that. I emphasised the fact that people must be put back to work, to create the resources necesary to pay adequate pensions.
  Mr. Day: I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to explain the position. No one on this side of the House would disagree that wealth creation is the key to the future of all benefits and to any modern society. That is the heart of Conservative philosophy. Wealth creation comes first—and then one decides how to allocate that wealth among the least well-off. That is a fundamental tenet of Conservative thinking, so I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Conservatives make the same point as the hon. Gentleman, but that is not enough. Obviously we must get people back to work, but the political debate on that issue and on the Bill is how to achieve the necessary wealth.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: That political divide is obvious, but I am also saying that your polices have led to a situation in which there has been a depreciation of state benefits and pensions, because your policies are not necessarily designed to get people back into wealth creation. They are designed more to put people on the dole—and that is the political divide.
  Mr. Day: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant to blame me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I presume that his comments were directed at the Government whom I support.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) meant "your party'.
  Mr. Day: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I strongly believe that whatever provision society makes for personal pensions in the foreseeable future, for the public to believe that they can rely on the state to provide a basic pension that will meet all their needs is, in the modern age, living in cloud cuckoo land. One may be able to make a theoretical moral case for making such a provision, but it comes down to the practicalities—and of not only the present but potential economic performance of this country and of the economies that surround it. I will expand on that point later.
  That background makes it essential that personal provision is made and that choice is available to those who are able to make choices. Whatever provision the Government make, and whatever encouragement they give, I acknowledge that they cannot help everyone. Not everyone is able to make use of opportunities. I refer particularly to pensioners in the 75 to 80 age group and older. When they were youngsters, even if they could have afforded the luxury of a pension scheme, such a thing did not exist, while many others did not earn enough to exploit such an opportunity.
  Those who rely totally on existing state benefits definitely struggle. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House are right. The Opposition say that pensioners cannot manage. In the case of older pensioners who rely on state benefits, that is true. It is also true when the Government say that state pensions have risen far more under them than they did under the last Labour Government. The record of Conservative Governments in that regard surpasses anything achieved by Labour in terms of pensions, savings and retaining value.
  At the heart of the issue is whether we can deliver. The pensioners who are aged 80 or more must be looked after by the state—and the state ought to do more in respect of those people. As to pensioners generally, while those who rely on state benefits are struggling—I know that from my own constituents—I am firmly convinced that the majority of pensioners in my constituency are doing comparitively well. They have, of course, struggled in recent years and experienced difficulties—especially with the significant fall in interest rates. That brought joy to mortgage holders but despair to many pensioners in my constituency who have savings.
  In general, pensioners have savings. Many more find themselves in that situation than ever dreamed that they would at the end of the last war. There have been great advances and Conservative Members have nothing for which to apologise in that regard.

  101
  However, the realities must be faced, and I should like the Government to do more for older pensioners who rely totally on the state. They cannot make use of the opportunities for private pension provision that are now available—but it is right that such provision should be offered to those who can make use of it. That is the only realistic course to take.
  Social security, like health, creates massive problems for this country and other western societies. We all face the same demographic pressures. When we have addressed that key issue 'we may have to take some difficult decisions. Pensions have become a political football. That is unacceptable. The vast majority of people, who are not assisted by politicians who never tell the whole truth, believe that the provision of state benefits is theirs by right. That belief was fostered by years of socialism. The state is supposed to provide everything and people think that it will always be able to do so. The harsh reality is that that is not so.
  We know that health and social security issues are at the heart of the problems that face the United States of America. They were the two great issues with winch the electorate were faced during the presidential election. They are the two great issues which also face this country. New Zealand faces massive problems over its social security payments. The number of working people in the developed world with an income and the number of companies that make profits, the two things which alone create the funds for pension schemes and state benefits, has been reduced, while the number of people who want to benefit from pension schemes continues to increase. The problem is made even worse in a recession.
  The western world—the so-called first world—is in danger. A fundamental shift of economic power is taking place in the world. It is time that politicians faced up to that reality and considered what could be a realistic objective. We should stop raising people's hopes that, somehow, the state will always be able to provide pensions. We can take some steps. To some extent, the Bill takes us forward, particularly over private pensions. The problem is greater, however, than any of us is prepared to admit.
  In terms of the world's economy, the growth area is the Pacific basin. There are all sorts of reasons for that. They are newly industrialised countries. Expectations are low, so wages and costs are low and productivity is high, though workers in this country would not accept the working conditions in that part of the world. Nor should they have to accept such conditions. However, economic reality may force us to make changes.
  The world does not owe this country a living. It is nonsense to assume that the standard of living that I enjoyed when I was a young man and that the wealth that created it will always be there. The debate on this issue never addresses that point. People are never told that the countries of the west face a major problem. No Opposition Member has ever addressed that fundamental shift of economic power. Whether we like it or not, the truth is—my perception of the truth is—that economic—[Interruption.] It is the only valid perception of truth that anybody can have, is it not? It must be their own, certainly in this place.
  The economic facts are that economic sovereignty no longer exists. When we deal, therefore, with issues such as this we have to face the reality that we are part of a world economy and suffer from its effects. If, therefore, we are to
  102
  ensure that pensioners will be provided for by some means or other, we shall be unable to rely on the belief that private pensions are bad and that the state must provide them. It will be impossible for the state to do so. When Opposition Members say here and, by so doing, say to the people outside the Chamber that the provision of state pensions is morally correct, they mislead the House and they also mislead the nation about the fundamental problems that face any Government when trying to provide pensions for the people of this country.
  To some extent, the Bill addresses these great difficulties, but I should like the Government to address other issues that we have not yet had the courage to deal with. Since we face great demographic pressures, we must not be afraid of targeting benefits. If only a shrinking pot of money is available, we must ensure that the money goes to those who most desperately need it. The so-called first world countries will have to think about that problem.
  Let me take as an example family allowances. I supported uprating in the past. I supported, too, the principle that the allowance should be paid to the lady of the household, but the economic position is so grave that we must look again at that benefit and consider whether it is right that it should be paid to everyone, irrespective of need. We must ask ourselves whether that is the best way to use limited resources. It will be a difficult decision, but I believe that we should look at it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not under this Bill.
  Mr. Day: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill's provisions take us in the right direction, in that they provide for private pensions, but my case is that the state can never again be the only provider and that people should not be led to believe that the state will be able to provide benefits to everyone. The point that I am trying to make by mentioning family allowances is that the benefit is provided generally and that we shall have to address that issue.
  The Bill proves beyond doubt that the Government are committed to providing for those members of society who are least able to provide for themselves. The recent measure to protect social security payments was widely welcomed in my constituency not only by recipients of such benefits but by many people who receive no benefit but want fair play for those who do. The Government certainly achieved what the vast majority of my constituents wanted—fairness. Social Security Ministers fought hard in a difficult spending round and I add my congratulations to them on securing extra benefit for the least well-off members of society and on giving the firm message that the Government are committed to looking after their interests.
  There are other fundamental issues that the Bill does not address, but they must be addressed if we are to maintain the care and provision that every hon. Member wants to see.
  9 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: The Secretary of State's speech showed once again what chaos the Government are in and how badly they are managing our money. He confessed, four years after the Government said that there was no need for Treasury payments to the national insurance fund, that he will have to go cap in

  103
  hand to the Treasury for money. At the same time, he had the nerve to ask us to support giving away unnecessarily the people's money in the fund.
  What has happened since the 1988 autumn statement, when it was announced that the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund would be abolished? Only four years ago, John Moore, now Lord Moore of Lower Marsh, speaking for the Government about the supplement, said:
  "We consider that there is now no need for it at all. The £26 billion of expenditure from the fund is fully covered by contributory income, and the abolition of the supplement will have absolutely no effect on that expenditure." [Official Report, 10 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 719.]
  What has happened since? Payments to the fund have increased from £29,825 million in 1988–89 to an estimated £35,000 million in 1991–92. That takes into account changes following the Social Security Act 1990. In the same period, payments out increased from £26,744 million to £37,802 million.
  The Government have turned a surplus of £3,081 million into a deficit of £2,802 million, and things are getting worse. The Government Actuary report on the financial provisions of the Bill showed that the estimated deficit for 1992–93 has been revised from £2,850 million to £4,659 million. Paragraph 12 reads:
  "Lower earnings and fewer contributors reduce the estimated contribution income in 1992–93 by some £360 million and £750 million respectively whilst other miscellaneous changes increase income by £8 million in aggregate."
  Paragraph 13 says that estimated benefit expenditure is £991 million higher than in the uprating order for 1991 and that
  "Unemployment benefit is increased by £408 million due to an increase in the assumed average numbers employed."
  Expenditure on invalidity benefit is estimated to be £460 million higher. Minor revisions to estimates for the other benefits increased expenditure by £43 million. This has come about because lower earnings and fewer contributors have reduced the estimated contribution income. This is an example of another fine mess that the Government have got us into.
  What are the main reasons for the mess? First, there is the removal of the Treasury supplement. Secondly, there is the payment of personal pension incentives which rose from £289 million in 1988–89 to a colossal estimated £2·487 billion in 1991–92. I will deal with that later. Thirdly, there is the fact that benefit payments increased more rapidly than contributions. Who is responsible? Who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1988 when the Treasury supplement was taken away? Who was the Chancellor who watched personal pension incentives grow to massive proportions? Who is the Prime Minister who has seen unemployment grow—and grow and grow? I will not name him because he will only say that it was somebody else.
  Our people now know that the responsibility for our appalling unemployment rate and for the devastation of British industry lies with the Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Secretary of State for Social Security who, in his time at the Department of Trade and Industry, destroyed more of our factories than the Luftwaffe ever managed to do.
  Let us look at the record since the third quarter of 1990. There are 1·25 million more unemployed, 110,000
  104
  businesses have failed, 140,000 homes have been repossessed and there has been a 4 per cent. fall in output. I see it starkly in my constituency. There is the fight to survive and the battle against short-time working, there are redundancies, there is unemployment, there is the closure of factories, foundries and shops, there is the devastation of the building trade, there is the contraction of the pottery industry and now the threat of the closure of Silverdale colliery. Against that background, nobody should be surprised that the Government have had to ask for more money. As a result of lower earnings, people are paying less. Unemployed people, who should be paying into the fund, are having to be paid out of it, which is a great part of the problem.
  The national insurance fund is receiving fewer contributions than was expected because more people are losing their jobs and more firms are closing. Every day seems to bring more job losses and yet another disaster for the British economy. People are insecure, fed up and depressed. They do not expect miracles, but they do expect the Government to be doing more to get the country back to work. They do not expect the Government to introduce a Bill that asks people in work to pay their hard-earned money into the nation's insurance fund so that the money can be given to people as an incentive to opt out of the state earnings-related scheme.
  The Government have not explained what is wrong with SERPS which has led them to pay incentives to people to contract out. The Opposition have always opposed the payment of those incentives. Although we welcome the reduction in incentive payments from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. of earnings, we believe that it is unfair that the new incentive will apply only to personal pension holders. Why should people with occupational pensions now be left out of the scheme? What is so good about private pension schemes that people should be encouraged to transfer to them? Private pension schemes are a lottery. Some may be well run, whereas others may be badly run.
  People who take out private pension schemes often do not have enough information. The Opposition believe that the incentive money could be better spent providing the regulation of personal pensions and giving better information to contributors. Why are occupational pension schemes excluded? Why should workers in factories see their money used to help pension companies to undermine the state scheme? Why should working people in the state scheme pay their hard-earned money to do the pension companies' recruitment job for them? Is not it iniquitous that money from workers in the state scheme should be paid out to private schemes? What kind of fairness is that? The Government should be strengthening the state scheme, not weakening it.
  Why is it that only people aged over 30 may now apply? If 30 years is such a magic figure, why did it not occur to the Government when the scheme was first introduced? I suppose that the Government will say that the figure is ambiguous and that it is rough justice. Everything about the Government is more rough than justice.
  The Labour party is convinced that no incentive should be paid to opt out of the state scheme. We believe that it is in people's interest to stay in the scheme. The Bill is forced on the Government because of the complete collapse of the Government's economic policies. However, we will not ask Opposition Members to vote against Second Reading tonight because we know that it is not the Government who have suffered from their incompetence.

  105
  The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have not suffered. It is the people who have lost their jobs, incomes, savings and homes who have suffered and they would suffer even more if we did not support the Bill.
  Because of those people, we will not oppose the Bill tonight. However, we will examine the Bill in detail in Committee. We will urge the Government to abandon what seems to be their overwhelming desire to squander the money which belongs to the people and on the proper management of which so much of their standard of living depends.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has many questions to answer. She must be aware that our concern is that the money be properly managed because the standard of living and quality of life of so many of our people depend on it.
  9.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): This has been a well-informed and interesting debate with many detailed contributions. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on her first appearance, at least in respect of legislation, at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to more exchanges with her, perhaps even in Committee as she anticipated at the end of her speech.
  Various themes have emerged from this wide-ranging debate. I think that I should be able to touch on them at least once in the time that remains to me. The first theme to emerge was the apparent conflict of views on the two sides of the House about whether it is better to encourage dependency on the state or to encourage individuals to make provision for themselves. I thought that I detected a difference of opinion on that issue not just between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government, but between the Opposition Front Bench and some Opposition Back-Bench Members.
  It was a recurring theme in the debate that the SERPS burden was growing and Opposition Back Benchers offered various suggestions about how to reduce that burden. The main thrust of the opening and closing speeches from the Opposition Front Bench was that we should concentrate our efforts and resources on the greater promotion of SERPS, rather than on assisting people to make private provision.
  Another theme in the debate commanded great cross-party support. That was the shared concern that the personal pensions that we are determined to promote and encourage should be reliable and subject to regulatory safeguards to ensure that when people take out those pensions, what they are told they will get is what they get at the end of the day.
  There were several interesting contributions in that respect and perhaps the most interesting was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who opened the debate for the Opposition. He said that it is very difficult for people to give the best advice when they are financially dependent on the outcome, as is the case when they rely on commission. The hon. Gentleman was a solicitor before he was elected to the House. Of course, solicitors often give advice on going to law. Presumably, they must occasionally advise clients not to go to law, even
  106
  though they know that that would deprive them of their fees. Provided that the profession is properly regulated and is honourably conducted, there is nothing unique about an insurance salesman having to distinguish between best advice and his own financial interests. That principle is applied to many occupations. I shall return to the main point about reliability and safeguards.
  The third theme was the soundness of the state pension, the soundness of our general provision for pensioners and, in particular, a point that grew towards the latter part of the debate—how we best assure that soundness in the light of the growing number of pensioners and the number of pensioners who are living longer. I was even challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to state the number of centenarians. I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I can produce the figure, but I shall do so when I refer to the issues that he raised. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred—
  Mr. Willetts: We are heading for an epic speech. It is helpful to have the structure laid out so clearly before we move to the substance of my hon. Friend's speech. Will she refer to European comparisons in respect of pensioners' incomes? Many of our figures on British pension provision are not properly compared with their continental counterparts.
  Miss Widdecombe: For the benefit of those who did not read the Sunday Express, I shall be delighted to allude to the very favourable position of British pensioners.
  As I was saying before I was so helpfully interrupted, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and other hon. Members made much of the present economic situation. The hon. Lady reeled off the standard and requisite gloom and doom statistics which the Opposition always churn out with relish. As we are on the subject of Euro-comparisons, let me point out that there is nothing unique about the British recession. We are in a world recession. In the spirit in which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his triumph in protecting benefits in the autumn statement, perhaps I may also congratulate my right hon. Friend on not following a large number of our European partners in having to reduce benefit. Although our recession is not unique, our ability to handle it brings great credit on the Government.
  Mr. Dewar: My point might seem a little pedantic, but it is relevant. The Minister is talking about the excellence of the management of her Department. She knows that the national insurance fund has forecast unemployment of 2·8 million during 1993–94. Is she confident that that forecast will be held?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has a fondness for repetition. He raised that point no fewer than three times in his speech. In setting out the themes that governed the debate, I have made it very clear that I shall deal with each point. He will be delighted to know that I shall deal with that matter and with all the others that he mentioned four, five or six times because he had no others. He will get an answer, but it will be in my good time and not at his request.
  Mr. Dewar: What a gracious lady.
  Miss Widdecombe: Well, the hon. Member for Garscadden did not like it earlier when I smiled and nodded at him, so I thought that perhaps he wanted a change of approach.
  Having discussed the general themes that were dealt with during the debate, it might be as well to remind the House of what the Bill is about. It contains three specific clauses. Towards the end of the debate, I thought that we were dealing with the wider question of pension provision, rather than the three small and modest clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Dewar: Ah.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman senses that I am getting nearer to answering his questions. The clauses cover the provision of a 1 per cent. rebate for holders of personal pensions over 30, the Treasury supplement, and the technical adjustment to enable administrative expenses to be paid from the fund.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the Treasury supplement, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The thrust of both of their criticisms was that somehow we were wholly improvident when we abolished the Treasury supplement, that we did not expect that we might need it again, and that we took a risk that has not paid off.
  My right hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, when dealing with the question in the Committee stage of the Social
  Security Act 1986:
  "If the position changed dramatically a future Government could have a single clause in a social security Bill and bring it back."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1989; c. 35.]
  What a prophet he turned out to be. As the position has changed dramatically, we have produced a single clause in a Social Security Bill to bring it back. So it was not improvidence. We have provided for the situation.
  However, there is an enormous difference. Last time, the Treasury supplement was mandatory—it was there whether we needed it or not. We did not believe that that was a sensible use of public money. The difference this time is that the supplement will be flexible, and will be there for need rather than being mandatory.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that it used to be a balancing act, but it was not, because the supplement arrived whether we needed to balance or not. We are creating a much more sensible arrangement, whereby we can call on the supplement, as we always said that we might have to do, as and when we need it, rather than being tied down to it.
  Four times during the debate the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the 2·8 million figure for unemployment. Our job is not to second-guess the Government Actuary but to respond to him. That is why we have brought forward the Bill. The Government review the position each year. If, at the point of review, we decide that the projections are wrong, necessary adjustments can be made. We must make it clear—I was not even certain that the hon. Gentleman appreciated this in his opening speech—that the balance that we are seeking to maintain in the fund is simply the prudential minimum. Once that balance is restored—even if the outcome next year should be different from the forecasts—the fund will still be manageable.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I appreciate the point that she made, to which I referred in
  108
  my remarks, but I should like go back to my original question, although with some trepidation in view of her strictures. The hon. Lady says that it is not her job to second-guess the Government Actuary, but, as he made clear in his report:
  "I have been instructed to use for the purpose of the above estimates"
  the figure of 2·8 million unemployed. It is not up to the Government Actuary to second-guess. What I want to know is whether the Minister believes that the figure of 2·8 million will hold.
  Miss Widdecombe: I have already taken care of that point. One of the reasons that those on the Opposition Front Bench get so muddled sometimes is that they do not listen to what is said. They spend so much time barracking from sedentary positions, in total contravention of the Standing Orders of the House, that they do not hear the things that are said to them. I have already said clearly—I will repeat it again, because, apparently, the fashion tonight is to repeat endless points—that the figures are reviewed every year and that adjustments can be made, as necessary.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also said that the Opposition would not oppose the Bill because it was necessary to keep the fund in balance and because they rejected the only other two options—to reduce benefits or to increase national insurance contributions. I think that the House will welcome the change of heart that has apparently swept through the Opposition, especially when one considers that they fought the last election on the issue that they would raise national insurance contributions. At long last they have seen the light—
  Mr. Frank Field: We lost the election.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, the Opposition did lose and they will go on losing because every time they have a policy that looks a bit inconvenient, they change it. They do not know from one day to the next what they stand for. Tonight those on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear that they are against raising national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Not at the moment, but I may do so later.
  We are delighted to note that the Opposition have now made it clear that they are against raising national insurance contributions and we are delighted to note that they have withdrawn a policy under which 3 million extra people would have paid increased national insurance contributions.
  The Opposition also say that they are against cutting benefits—they speak one way but look the other. Let me reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at Question Time about the attitude of the Opposition when he announced that there would be no benefit reductions. When they heard that, their faces were as glum as owls. They not only want people to be dependent upon the state, but, when there is a Conservative Government in power, they want such people to be consistently worse off so that they can make political capital out of that.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman can sit down because I cannot remember what his face was like on that occasion, but I know what the overall reception from the Opposition was like. When we called out for the Opposition to cheer on what we were doing, they still sat silent and they still looked miserable. They did not want us to protect benefits on that occasion.
  Mr. Field: We were relieved.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the Opposition express relief by those gloomy looks, I should love to know how they express horror.
  Mr. Field: It is totally untrue to say that we were not relieved. Earlier in the debate a number of Conservative Members minimised the Secretary of State's two achievements. First, he defended his budget in the face of bizarre Cabinet colleagues and, secondly, having conducted art extraordinary campaign in the press that suggested that every sort of benefit would be cut, he came to the House in triumph to say that no benefits had been cut. Why do his colleagues suggest that he did not gain such achievements? Why will the Under-Secretary not accept that the Opposition were genuinely relieved when, for once, those on the Treasury Bench protected the poorest in our society?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to accept that the hon. Member for Birkenhead was relieved, because that would be in keeping with the characteristics that he has always displayed in the House. But if the expression on Opposition Members' faces on that day indicated relief, I dread to think what they look like when they are gloomy.
  Mr. Field: Will the Under-Secretary of State give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. I immediately regretted giving way last time, because the hon. Gentleman's intervention contributed little to the debate.
  I shall now jump a point in my speech to deal with a matter raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which has just been raised again by the hon. Member for Birkenhead and others—that somehow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State encouraged adverse speculation, raised fears among the dependent and weak, and generally encouraged people to think that the worst would happen simply so that he could come here and present a great triumph in the end.
  I remember sitting on these Benches and, time and again, Opposition Members stood up and asked where in the Conservative manifesto we promised to tax invalidity benefit, because that was what we intended to do. They asked whether we denied that we intended to means-test the state pension, given that that was what we intended to do. The Opposition are responsible for stirring up many fears by asking those questions time and again.
  Mr. Field: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will give the House some information. Will he name one journalist or any other source who says that his or her information came from my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that, under the wretched Lobby system of this place, that cannot be done. It would let people down. It is terrible that the Secretary of State, who has achieved so much, should now be supported by a wretched Minister——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase that?
  Mr. Field: A non-wretched Minister, who comes to this House and, under the guise of loyalty, tries to minimise his achievement.
  Fortunately, English courts do not decide whether people are guilty on the basis of what their faces look like. The Secretary of State has now cheered up, but he looked pretty glum when the hon. Lady was minimising his significant double achievement.
  Miss Widdecombe: In no way do I minimise my right hon. Friend's achievements.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: May I deal with one intervention at a time?
  Mr. Lilley: I want the hon. Gentleman to praise me, too.
  Miss Widdecombe: I know that my right hon. Friend wants the hon. Gentleman to praise him, but may I deal with one intervention at a time?
  Far from minimising my right hon. Friend's achievement, I put it on a Europewide and worldwide basis by comparing it with the non-achievement of other countries that did not protect their benefit system.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Under-Secretary deal with two brief points? First, she probably read, as I did, the reports of her right hon. Friend's speech to the 1922 Committee shortly before the autumn statement, which gave some substance to the press reports that were coming from somewhere not far from the Department about the possible content of that statement.
  Secondly, when the Minister accuses the Opposition of irresponsibility talking about the possibility of taxing invalidity benefit, does she recall that the right hon. Gentleman made it honestly and explicitly clear that he wished to tax invalidity benefit and was merely being held back by technical difficulties that he soon hoped to overcome?
  Mr. Lilley: It might help the hon. Gentleman to overcome his credulity——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on another intervention.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lilley: Would it help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to relieve the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of his profound credulity with regard to the newspapers if I told him that, as much as I should love to address the 1922 Committee, I have never received an invitation to do so?
  Miss Widdecombe: We may judge the accuracy of the second observation by the hon. Member for Garscadden by the accuracy of that one.
  I was asked about tax and invalidity benefit, although I am not sure what they have to do with the Bill. Although the policy has always been clear, the autumn statement did not say that we intended to do anything about that. It was a scare story dreamt up by the Opposition.

  111
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about age-related rebates and our overall plan on that issue. We made it clear in the manifesto that our ambition was to introduce age-related rebates by April 1996. We have no reason to depart from that at this time. Nothing will be done without extensive consultation, and when we have formed a view about the appropriate structures there will be such consultation and the necessary views will be taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about the extensive nature, as he saw it, of the 2 per cent. incentive. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a valuable point about the projection of savings. I listened carefully to the amounts mentioned by the hon. Member for Garscadden. He classified them as a net expense to personal pensions, but they include the rebates that would have been paid if they had been ordinary contracted-out occupational pension schemes. The observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the inclusion of the rebate figure closes the matter from both ends. The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again before he challenges us in Committee on the expense of the incentive.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked why we, to use his words, discriminated against company-operated money-purchase schemes—COMPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and several other hon. Members also asked legitimate questions on matters related to that, which are causing concern. There is a difference between COMPs and the operation of a personal pension scheme, which is simply an arrangement between a person and a provider. We need to examine the whole history of personal pensions and what moved us to introduce the incentive.
  The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in their call for a return to SERPS, seemed to be denigrating personal pensions, which have benefited 5 million holders. The average wage of a person taking out a personal pension is £9,750. That means that such pensions address the problems of precisely those people whom the Opposition always say they want to protect—people on modest incomes who are not able to benefit from the large structures of occupational pension schemes and big corporate plans. We wanted to encourage such people and at the same time to promote the flexibility of choice, which is not in SERPS but which exists in personal pensions. We also wanted to encourage pension portability and flexibility of ages at which a pension can be taken out and so on. All that implies an arrangement between an individual and a provider.
  COMPs operate rather differently. First, there are economies of scale. Secondly, there is inflexibility in the age at which benefits may be taken. Thirdly, and most important, there is a difference in the method of payment. COMPs generally pay monthly, but personal pension contributions are made after the end of the tax year. This reduces the burden on the employer and throws into question whether, at this juncture, it is appropriate to extend to COMPs the same arrangements as for personal pensions to employers. The point has been taken on board, given the essential differences——
  Mr. Field: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am trying to address the point seriously, because it was well worth raising and I want to get our thinking on it clear and, in turn, to make that clear to the House. Because of those essential differences in the way in which the big corporate scheme operates—it is determined by the employer, it does not give the same flexibility and, although it does not work in the same way as an occupational pension scheme, in that it is not salary-related, it works in the same sort of structure—we do not see, at this stage, the argument for extending the rebate to it.
  Mr. Field: When the hon. Lady is in the Department considering whether these rebates should operate, should not one of the considerations that the Government take into account be whether schemes will give people adequate income so that they are free of income-related assistance and, in the Government's own words, they can stand on their own two feet? Can she guarantee that the subsidies will achieve that objective?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to the regulation, safeguards and reliability of the scheme—legitimate concerns which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation of the Government's position on COMPs. Is the regime for COMPs part of the review of age-related rebates that is taking place in the Department with a view to a new structure being in place by 1996?
  Miss Widdecombe: All aspects of age relation are being reviewed, including salary-related schemes, personal pensions, COMPs and any other variety that my hon. Friend may be able to describe. Although I cannot give him an assurance as to the outcome, I am happy to give him an assurance that they will all be considered.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One of the disadvantages of a personal pension plan, which has emerged in the case of a constituent of mine, is that there appears to be no precedent for the Inland Revenue giving consent, in cases of terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than 12 months, for the fully paid-up pension to be drawn out by the person with the terminal illness. That is possible with executive pension plans and some other company schemes.
  The Inland Revenue is remarkably slow, particularly when someone has a life expectancy of less than 12 months. That seems to constitute maladministration in the affairs of government. I have already written to the Treasury, but will the hon. Lady look into the matter as well?
  Miss Widdecombe: We have recently been made aware of that subject—the hon. Gentleman may have been instrumental in that. We are exploring the matter and I hope to write to him in due course, but I cannot give him an answer now.
  Viability, reliability and safeguards are necessary to protect those who take out personal pensions. There is continual contact between the Department and the regulators. Most of the various recent initiatives have been entirely motivated by the regulators rather than the result of a request from the Department. Some initiatives have been concerned with tightening up the advice that is given and the check list of what information must be given by the

  113
  potential buyer to the person who is selling him, or not selling him as the case may be, the pension. The regulators constantly review the monitoring process. However, we accept that it is necessary for us to produce regulations that command the confidence of those who wish to take out personal pensions and we are consulting the regulators to that end. We want to see a tightening up of the present procedures, or possibly an enlargement of them, and more detailed monitoring than is currently possible, rather than an entire new regime.
  Mr. Day: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Services has been examining the matter of regulation. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that when the Select Committee is in a position to report she will take its findings closely into account? The present regulations, especially for the state earnings-related pension scheme, need investigation. The Select Committee has carried out a detailed investigation.
  Miss Widdecombe: I assure my hon. Friend that any report of the Select Committee will be examined and responded to according to normal procedures. Of course, we wish to take into account the views of the Select Committee before reaching any conclusions. I am sure that the regulators will be equally interested in suggestions such as those proposed by the Select Committee which is chaired by the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I want to give way to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. However, time is running out, and his will probably be the last intervention.
  Mr. Kirkwood: In the course of a review, will the Government consider the concern that has been expressed about the amount of commissions that are being deducted from contributions?
  Miss Widdecombe: Certainly, both the amount and the nature of the commissions—for example, front-loaded commission—will be taken into account. [Interruption.] I have been reminded by a rather helpless gesture that I am in breach of a promise, so I will allow the final intervention to come from the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney).
  Mr. Rooney: Earlier, the Minister talked about 5 million beneficiaries. Technically, people become beneficiaries when they retire. The feeling in the House is that it could be 20, 30 or 40 years before people find that they have been given bad advice. Without a meaningful compensation scheme, it is not enough simply to have a system in which people can be suspended from the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation.
  Miss Widdecombe: If we were to discover evidence of widespread difficulties or even malpractice, it would be our intention that there should be a trawl of those who have already taken out personal pensions. Therefore, I do not think that anybody will be left behind if we conclude that tighter regulation is desirable and there has been a widespread problem. I do not necessarily say that we have already reached that conclusion. However, if we come to it, the hon. Gentleman is right—we will have to consider
  114
  those who are already in the system just as much as those who have not yet entered it. I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  The subject of Mr. Maxwell and the Maxwell pensioners was raised several times during the debate, although I have no idea what it has to do with the Bill. I can only repeat what I said during Question Time today: the way forward to restore peace of mind to the Maxwell pensioners must be to achieve a distribution from the common investment fund, which, after all, has £123 million. It is not a matter of trying to recover something that is missing. Achieving a distribution from the common investment fund is essential.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made a valuable and thoughtful speech. He spent some time talking about unemployment. As I understood it, he effectively said that unless we tackled the matter of wealth creation and took measures to stimulate employment, we were talking in a vacuum because we were talking theoretically about what we would be able to do as a future contribution. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a large number of initiatives that the Government have taken to stimulate employment and counter the undoubted evil of rising unemployment and the misery which it brings.
  There have been almost 1·5 million opportunities for unemployed people this year—an increase of 500,000 on the year—through the introduction of new job plan workshops and training for jobs, and the expansion of existing successful measures. There is now the widest-ever range of opportunities for the unemployed which, together with a vast range of measures, including extra resources, and more places in job clubs and on job interview guarantee programmes, is a clear sign of the Government's acceptance of the necessity, which we have always accepted, of promoting employment and getting people back to work. It also shows our recognition that measures need to be taken and are being taken.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I made it abundantly clear that I had taken my last intervention. I reneged on that pledge one minute later only because not to do so would have meant a breach of promise.
  Another theme that was consistently raised, mainly by Conservative Members, but also by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, was the importance of not tying up occupational pension regulations so tightly that we encouraged employers to opt out of supplying pension arrangements such as salary-related schemes or even money-purchase schemes. The Government are fully seized of that issue. When the Goode committee reports we shall take account of what it says and seek to achieve a balance between keeping the confidence of the pensions industries and the confidence in pensions, however provided, of people who take them out, and ensuring that employers do not find that they are so over-regulated that it proves a disincentive to them to set up schemes.
  The subject of older pensioners and the general level of state provision was repeated by all hon. Members. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire described the cohorts who are not covered by occupational pensions and, of the 30 per cent. not covered, he differentiated between men and women. He will, of course, understand that the present figures reflect an historical influence

  115
  brought about by the fact that women have always been more likely to take part-time, temporary and low-paid work. We are aware of that. Personal pensions which are flexible, portable and "come-back-toable" would benefit women. We recognise the differential in those figures, and will take any reasonable steps that we can to address the issue.
  The subject of pensioners without secondary income—not the 30 per cent., which refers only to those without occupational income—was also raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who spoke of the Teignbridge action group.
  Another hon. Member, whose constituency I did not note and who spoke shortly after the hon. Member for Birkenhead, referred to the need to consult pensioner interest groups. I regularly meet pensioner interest groups such as Pensioners Voice, the Pensioners Convention and Age Concern, and many much smaller interest groups that ask to come to see me. I can assure the hon. Gentleman who is now absent that I take such consultation very seriously.
  Mr. Wicks: What did they say?
  Miss Widdecombe: They told me that they want savings that are protected against inflation, a reasonable state pension, a good state pension in comparison with what is available in the rest of Europe and a general rise in their incomes. I am pleased and proud to say that the Government have delivered all their wishes.
  The major concern of the groups was not whether they were linked to a theoretical earnings figure, as they were under the last Labour Government, when they saw a measly rise in their incomes of 3 per cent., but what their overall incomes would ultimately be when they had to rely on state pensions. They are not interested in theoretical links to something that does not deliver the goods.
  The issue of new-age travellers was, for a while, hotly debated across the Floor of the House. I am not sure how they come into these matters unless they have personal pensions. It seems—[interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead should not point to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), because the hon. Gentleman said that it was disgraceful that the Government had not done something sooner. The hon. Gentleman, who is always concerned to protect those who might be caught up in regulations, would have protested had we reacted to a one-off incident three years ago. Once we found that there was a recurrent problem we reacted to it. There was no question of staff going out in buses to distribute social security benefits. The forms were processed in the usual way and 159 claimants were allowed, not the many hundreds that have been suggested. We were responding to a public order situation in which we did not want a small town swamped. Nor did we want the Department's offices swamped. We responded sensibly. The interpretation that has been placed on it owes as much to the Opposition as it does to the excesses of our friends in the press.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way. He does not
  116
  understand easily. It is necessary to tell him things five or six times before he comprehends. I have taken my last intervention in this debate. Time is now pressing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) talked wisely about a matrix of care, and I shall put the policy that we are advancing into that context. My hon. Friend is right because we are looking for a partnership between the voluntary agencies—providers of care from a vast range—and the state. In promoting the Bill, we are similarly promoting that partnership. It is based on the individual providing for himself and the state making its contribution in the form of incentives and rebates. I think that my hon. Friend talked extremely wisely and caught in his words the thrust of the Bill.
  At the end of a long and interesting debate I take up the issue that was raised——
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall not ask the Minister to give way again.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear it.
  Several hon. Members talked about the reform of the state earnings-related pension scheme. It is interesting that the comments were not confined to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Opposition Members called for an examination of the nature of SERPS, on which the Government have already embarked. That was done in 1986 when we modified the provision for SERPS to take account of the changing nature of things. We have SERPS under review, as we have everything else that relates to pensions.
  I end on a happy note. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge asked how many telegrams of congratulations for 100th birthdays have been issued this year. I am delighted to report that 285 men and 2,317 women were aged 100 or over this year. That represents a 15 per cent. increase over the previous year. Perhaps women's longevity somewhat redresses the balance which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire brought to our attention.
  We believe in the provision of personal pensions. We believe in making such pensions available to people with modest incomes who would not be able to provide for themselves through an employer. We believe in a state pension that is based on sound principles and not on profligacy. That is what we have produced in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to be paid into the National Insurance Fund.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [Ways and Means]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise payments out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund in respect of administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. MacKay.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guyana) Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6th November.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1992 he made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6th November.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwich pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  PRIVATE STREETS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT
That Mr. Ian Bruce be disharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. Harry Greenway be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Nuebert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
EMPLOYMENT
  HOME AFFAIRS
  That Mr. Hartley Booth be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Dame Jill Knight be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  HOME AFFAIRS
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That Mr. Michael Bates be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Alan Duncan be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  PETITION

    Rail Privatisation
    10.1 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents who are concerned that rail privatisation will lead to a poorer service for the travelling public. The petition is signed by Mrs. V. Wellburn of Milner street, Acomb, York, and by 1,911 other York residents. It reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of rail travellers who use or are eligible to use British Rail railcards Sheweth
    That there is great concern on the part of rail travellers that rail privatisation may limit the eligibility of families with children under 16, young people and students, disabled people (with or without an escort) and senior citizens to purchase nationally recognised railcards entitling them to concessionary fares on the current full range of railway routes and services.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will enact legislation which as part of a national rail ticketing service will safeguard the eligibility of families with children under 16, young people and students, disabled people (with or without an escort) and senior citizens to purchase railcards entitling them to concessionary travel on the current full range of railway routes and services.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Macedonia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: Following the initial stages of the collapse of Yugoslavia, the British Government, in common with their European partners, set out certain principles that would guide them in granting recognition to the republics emerging from the ruins. Those conditions included internal respect for human rights, a single territory with a well-defined population under undivided control, and all the normal diplomatic standards—including a clearly popularly elected Government.
  As a result of unilateral action by Germany that the remaining countries of the EEC loyally and predictably followed, two of the emerging republics—Slovenia and Croatia—were duly recognised. A third, Serbia, has rightly been refused recognition because of its naked aggression against others, while a fourth, Macedonia—despite being itself the subject of aggression from Greece—has been left in limbo.
  Despite Macedonia's ethnically mixed 2 million population of Serbs, Albanians, gipsies, Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, and—above all and overwhelmingly—Macedonian Slays, and despite its history of being tugged in different directions by big and powerful neighbours in the form of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and now Albania, the population of Macedonia have been able to unite under their present Government. Until a recent outbreak of intercommunal violence that left at least four ethnic Albanians dead, Macedonia has enjoyed internal harmony. After all—as Macedonia's president, Kiro Gligorov, recently pointed out to the Centre for Policy Studies—Macedonia was the nation that negotiated the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army without a single bullet being fired.
  According to The Times, Macedonia is the only ex-Yugoslav republic to elect a moderate, non-nationalist Government and which has made no attempt to build up an army—yet it is the republic to which the British Government and their allies refuse recognition.
  The reasons for that refusal lie solely across the southern border. The peace-loving democratic republic of Greece, which claims in its history to have been the source of so much of that which we now regard as civilisation, has—in what can only be described as an act of war against an undefended country—imposed economic sanctions against Macedonia that are already the cause of grinding poverty. The reason? Greece does not like Macedonia's use of that name.
  I wonder what would be the reaction of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to an announcement by France that it was about to impose economic sanctions on Great Britain and seek in the world's councils for the British Government to be isolated purely because the inhabitants of Brittany objected to our use of the name. After all, those inhabitants are as entitled to use that name as we are—and probably had it before us.
  Of course that is a ridiculous argument, yet it is exactly that argument—that Macedonian Slays are not entitled to call themselves Macedonians, while the Macedonian Greeks are—that gave rise not only to Greece's
  120
  unprovoked action against Macedonia but to that country's success in dragging its allies along with it. The same Greek republic was recently welcomed into the Western Europe Union. According to its secretary-general, Mr. Wim van Eekelen, the WEU is a pillar of the North Atlantic alliance—and Greece sees WEU membership as ensuring that it helps shape future EC security and defence policy. Perhaps we should be a little more careful about our allies.
  The consequences of Greek economic aggression in a small country that is dependent almost entirely on agriculture are inevitably severe. The embargo against Serbia—which of course Macedonia does not have to join, since Macedonia does not exist, but to which Macedonia has voluntarily acceded—will cost Macedonia about 1·3 billion this year, yet according to Kiro Gligorov, if the Greek blockade continues, the people of Macedonia will face real hardships that will threaten life this winter. Are the sanctions against Serbia as severe? Is there not a real danger that while the rest of Europe cowers behind Greek prejudice, the inter-ethnic violence which, as I previously noted, is already beginning to appear will spread, as it has done in other former Yugoslav republics, including Croatia which we continue to recognise?
  Is there not at least the possibility that the nations of Europe, by treating Macedonia as a pariah, will end up carrying the responsibility for the growth of an Albanian separatist movement, a Bulgarian separatist movement—we should not forget that it was such a movement which in 1923 was responsible for the return of Bulgarian Prime Minister Stambouliisky to his capital in two separate boxes—and even, dare we say it, a Greek separatist movement? Is that what Greece is really after?
  I suggest, in all sincerity, to my right hon. and learned Friend that, while the nations of Europe continue to ignore the existence of Macedonia, their legal and moral position is at least very difficult to defend. Can we not use the remaining days of our presidency of Europe to reduce unprovoked aggression within Europe, rather than to increase it? Have there not yet been any results from the shuttle diplomacy of a British diplomat between Athens, Skopje and London? Above all, can we not, this time, follow the lead of Germany in taking notice of
  "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing"?
  10.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on raising the question of the recognition of Macedonia. He has urged the case for the recognition of Macedonia in urgent, pressing and persuasive terms, which I hope will be listened to by persons outside this House, not least by our friends and allies in Greece.
  I welcome the debate. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the Government's thinking on the matter. We ought to understand the background. Even in Tito's time, the Greeks made no secret of their dissatisfaction with the choice of the name Macedonia for this Yugoslav republic. They claimed that such a name was historically Greek and should not be used by a nation which is predominantly Slay. That was their claim, even though the Slays have been in the area since the 6th century.

  121
  On 16 December 1991, the European Community and its member states adopted guidelines for the recognition of the former Yugoslav republics, including provisions specifically to deal with Greek concerns about Macedonia. They required the adoption by the Republic of Macedonia of
  "constitutional and political guarantees ensuring that it has no territorial claims towards a neighbouring Community state and that it will conduct no hostile propaganda activities versus a neighbouring Community state, including the use of a denomination which implies territorial claims."
  The Government in Skopje decided to apply for recognition. They made amendments to their constitution to meet the Greek concerns, and they made additional statements in a form binding in international law. Mr. Badinter, the chairman of the arbitration commission attached to Lord Carrington's conference, then concluded that Macedonia did meet the 16 December conditions. Greece remained unhappy about recognition, and a decision was deferred.
  The issue was discussed by the European Community Foreign Ministers at regular meetings. The Portuguese presidency tried to negotiate agreements in Athens and Skopje to allow recognition, but without success.
  At the Lisbon European Council, the European Community heads of state and Government expressed their readiness to recognise the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia under a name that did not include the term "Macedonia". The declaration was cast in positive terms. It did not say that a change of name was a precondition. Member states realise the need to recognise this republic and wish to do so as soon as possible, but the strongly held concerns of a member state had to be taken account of.
  It therefore fell to Britain, which holds the presidency, to try to implement the Lisbon policy. My right. hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appointed Mr. Robin O'Neill as his personal representative to handle the issue. He has visited Skopje and Athens four times and has been unstinting in his efforts to find a way of allowing the 12 member states of the Community to implement their readiness to recognise the republic. He submitted his report to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is not the occasion to announce its contents. Further discussion on the issue will take place at the Edinburgh summit on 11 and 12 December.
  It is worth saying something about affairs within the republic of Macedonia, which faces severe problems. There is great concern in the republic about instability elsewhere in Yugoslavia, and in particular about the risk that could attach to Macedonia from unrest in Kosovo.
  The republic's economic problems have been worsened by the effect of United Nations sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro and by an oil embargo imposed by Greece and European Community trade licensing regulations, which cut off trade between Greece and Macedonia. It is obviously important to keep the sanctions as tight as possible, but it is also important that we ensure that Macedonia does not suffer from unintended side effects of the sanctions regime. We are seeking to address that problem.
  As hon. Members may know, a sanctions assistance mission—known as a SAM—is operating in Macedonia to help and advise on the fulfilment of the obligations under the Security Council resolutions. Security Council
  122
  resolution 787 has tightened arrangements for the trans-shipment of goods through Serbia and Montenegro. Those decisions permit the European Community to withdraw its dual licensing regime for Community exports to Macedonia. The Commission has therefore proposed that Macedonia be omitted from dual-licensing regulation.
  We have supported that, and hope that rapid agreement will be reached with our partners in Brussels. At the moment, a Commission team is in Skopje examining the most effective ways of getting oil to Macedonia if the route from Greece stays blocked.
  We have been pressing for increased European Community help for Macedonia. A proportion of the 240 mecu of humanitarian aid that the Community has commited since July has gone to Macedonia, in line with the UNHCR's needs assessment. The Commission has just commited 5 mecu of medical supplies and we shall encourage it to look at what more the Community can do.
  The position within Macedonia remains volatile and unstable. Growing tension within the ethnic Albanian community and dissatisfaction with the current status has caused trouble. Tension flared in Skopje on 6 November, which resulted in four deaths, after police acted over black market trading by Albanians.
  The Macedonian constitution is generous in its treatment of minorities and we have no reason to doubt the statement of the Government of Macedonia that they intend to adhere to their constitution. There is no doubt that the absence of recognition of the republic is exacerbating the problems to which I have referred and is leading to instability in the region.
  A solution to the problem is urgent, but we cannot ignore Greek concerns and recognise the republic irrespective of the wishes of Greece—an important power in the region—if only because to do so would lead to the kind of instability which we are most anxious to avoid.
  I very much welcome the decision to send the United Nations mission to Macedonia to review the possibility of United Nations forces being stationed in the republic. That could help to maintain stability, and we await the Secretary-General's recommendations. I am also glad that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has deployed a small team in Macedonia under a United States ambassador. The aim is to prevent a spill-over of troubles from elsewhere by diffusing tensions within the republic.
  Such circumstances are not new. In the very different circumstances of 1897, William Gladstone wrote:
  "nothing can be more deplorable and blameworthy than jealousies between Greek and Slav."
  I agree with him. He then said:
  "Why not Macedonia for Macedonians, as well as Bulgaria for Bulgarians and Servia for Servians?"
  He had rather a good point. In calling for co-operation among neighbours and asserting the right of self-determination of peoples, Gladstone was ahead of his time in anticipating the results of the CSCE. I very much echo what he said about the need for understanding between neighbouring peoples.
  We now need to find a solution that will ensure peace in the area for the 1990s and beyond, and, incidentally, settle the Macedonian question for good. The efforts of the British presidency will have gone some way towards achieving that. I very much hope that, at the Edinburgh

  123
  Council, we shall be able to find a way in which to resolve the issue which is right, meritorious in itself and acceptable to all parties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information Her Majesty's Government possess on the current operational status of(a) the Al-Qaim uranium processing factory, (b) the Qa Qaa explosives factory and (c) Samarra factory 10, in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Al-Qaim was badly damaged during the Gulf conflict and has not been repaired. The Qa Qaa explosives plant is part of the Al Qa Qaa state establishment. This is a vast enterprise covering aspects of explosives, propellant and primer production. Much of its work is not prohibited under the terms of Security Council resolution 687. The facility was extensively bombed during the Gulf conflict. Reconstruction has been taking place at the establishment which has been visited by UN inspectors on several occasions. It is believed that part of the explosives and ammunition plant was severely damaged by an explosion in late October. The Government are not aware of any facility known as Samarra factory 10.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office already has a policy on its use of ozone-depleting substances. It commits the Department to eliminating the use of such substances where they are non-essential and where acceptable alternatives offering value for money are available. It also stipulates that when such substances are replaced they should be recycled in products where no alternatives are available.

  Further policy measures, including targets for the reuse and recycling of ozone-depleting substances, will be introduced following completion of an environmental audit of the Department now being carried out by our environmental management consultants.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already taken the necessary steps to prevent leakages 2
  of ozone-depleting substances by introducing a programme of regular inspection and servicing of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. In the event that such equipment was no longer serviceable, or there was a risk of leakage, the refrigerants would he extracted and returned for recycling.

  Kosovo
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether authorisation for further United Nations monitors in Kosovo has been sought; and how many of these are British.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The monitors now in Kosovo are under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. None is British.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations monitors are in place in Kosovo; and from which countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The monitors now in Kosovo are under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. The mission is led by a Norwegian ambassador, with four monitors from Canada, Switzerland, France and Greece.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place restrictions on the export of armaments from the United Kingdom which might end up in Kosovo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations arms embargo, in place since 25 September 1991, prohibits the delivery of weapons and military equipment to former Yugoslavia. Defence exports to other destinations are considered case by case. All considerations, including the risk of diversion to prohibited destinations, are taken into account.

  EC Committee of the Regions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members the United Kingdom will have on the proposed European Community committee of the regions; and how many of these will represent(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Article 198a of the Maastricht treaty allocates 24 seats on the committee of the regions to the United Kingdom. Twenty-four alternate members will also need to be appointed. The treaty makes it clear that it is for Governments of member states to nominate national candidates to the committee and to decide how seats should be allocated. No decision has yet been made about how the United Kingdom seats will be divided between the regions of the United Kingdom.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations or from the United Nations Protection Force concerning violations of the no-fly zone in Bosnia; and when that information was received.
  3
  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  We have received from the United Nations, through the various sources available to that organisation, reports of the following numbers of unauthorised flights:

  24 from 22 October to 4 November;

  34 from 5 to 12 November;

  73 from 13 to 19 November.

  There is no evidence that any of these have been combat flights.

  Macedonia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the European Community has to render economic assistance to the state of Macedonia; and what further consideration is being given to formal recognition of Macedonia by European Community members.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia already benefits from humanitarian and technical assistance under the EC's PHARE programme and also receives a share of the EC's humanitarian assistance for the former Yugoslavia as a whole. Mr. Robin O'Neill, as the Foreign Secretary's personal representative, has regularly visited Athens and Skopje in his mission to establish how the republic might be recognised in conformity with the terms of the Lisbon declaration of 27 June. He will shortly report to the Foreign Secretary.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the declaration by the Falkland Islands Government on whale and dolphin sanctuaries within their waters.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  On 5 June the Falklands Legislative Council passed the Marine Mammals Ordinance—No. 8 of 1992—which"prohibits the killling, wounding or taking of marine mammals on land or in the internal waters, territorial sea or fishery waters of the Falkland Islands".
  This protects all cetaceans, including whales and dolphins, within the 200-mile exclusive fisheries zones of the Falklands waters.

  Passports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is being issued to British overseas posts regarding the requirements, from January 1993, on British citizens, and non-EC nationals settled in the United Kingdom, to present passports on entry to EC states, other than Denmark and Eire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Immigration procedures are a matter for the individual member states concerned. We have not been informed of any forthcoming changes in such procedures. It follows that travellers to those countries should continue to have passports, with visas where applicable for non-EC nationals, available for checking as they do now.

  Albania
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to refuse any applications for export of British armaments to Albania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Applications for exports of British Armaments are considered case by case. All relevant considerations are taken into account. In the case of Albania, a major consideration is that it remains a proscribed destination under the rules of the co-ordinating committee on multilateral strategic export controls—COCOM.

  Ascension Island (Feral Cats)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the eradication of feral cats on Ascension Island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Feral cat culling programmes continue. An eradication programme may lead to an increased bird population. We wish to assess a survey carried out in 1992 by the United States Air Force bird strike team on the likely effect of this on aircraft activity. Once we have received the team's report we shall discuss the conclusions with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other interested parties.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women (Treatment in Law)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received for establishing a royal commission on the treatment of women in law.

  Mr. Jack
  To date we have received no such representations.

  Underground Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the uses currently being made of the underground facilities pending their disposal as a result of the ending of the cold war.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The sites had one function only and are not put to other uses.

  Fire Cover, Windsor
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what alterations in fire cover including fire-fighting personnel, appliances and response time have been made in the town of Windsor over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows alterations to the establishment of the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service based at Windsor fire station over the past 10 years:
  5

  Wholetime

  Retained (part-time)

  Firefighters

  Pumping appliances

  Special appliances

  Firefighters

  Pumping appliances

  Special appliances

  1 January 1982

  29

  1

  —

  12

  1

  —

  6 April 19831

  37

  1

  1

  12

  1

  —

  1 July 19852

  41

  1

  1

  12

  1

  —

  1 February 19873

  29

  1

  —

  12

  1

  —

  31 March 1988

  29

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 January 1992

  29

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Turnable ladder and crew transferred from Langley fire station to Windsor fire station.

  2 Improvement to the crew available to mobilise the turntable ladder.

  3 Turntable ladder and crew transferred from Windsor fire station to Slough fire station.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what aproaches and representations he has received from the emergency services and police authorities over the future management of 999 calls.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on Wednesday 25 November at cols 648–49.

  Squatting
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce a Bill to make squatting illegal; and what proposals he will make to rehouse those thereby displaced.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are committed to strengthening the protection which the law gives to people whose property is occupied by squatters. We are currently considering how best this should be done, in the light of the responses received to a discussion paper on this subject. It is not possible to say, at this stage, when legislation might be brought before the House.

  Policy relating to the rehousing of those displaced as a result of changes in the law is a matter for the Department of the Environment. But consideration of individual cases will fall to be carried out in exactly the same way as those who are evicted under the law as it stands.

  HM Inspector of Constabulary
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of his Department to publish all reports of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary as soon as practical after any inspection has taken place; and in under what circumstances no report would be issued following an inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is the practice to publish all reports of inspections in England and Wales by HM inspectorate of constabulary except for any which are withheld on security grounds. The reports are made public as soon as possible after the inspection.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an 6
  equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", Cm. 1200, my right hon. and learned Friend has set in hand a review of the Department's policy on the purchase and use of ozone-depleting chemicals and of goods manufactured with these substances. The Department does not presently have sufficient information to publish targets for reuse and recycling.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department already seeks to prevent leakages of ozone depleting refrigerants through the regular servicing of its refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

  Concealed Weapons (Searches)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to reduce restrictions on conducting random searches for concealed weapons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave her on 19 November at column 347.

  Betting Offices
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to allowing betting offices(a) to open during evening hours and (b) to issue and receive pools coupons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have been considering the options for evening opening of licensed betting offices following the consultation document issued last year and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible. Proposals to amend the law on the distribution and collection of pools coupons are now being considered in the light of representations received in response to the Government's White Paper, "A National Lottery Raising Money for Good Causes", Cm. 1861.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to allow betting offices to install amusement machines with prizes on the premises.
  7
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no present plans to amend the law to allow amusement-with-prizes machines to be installed in licensed betting offices.

  Joyriding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) injured and (b) killed by joyriding in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  The term "joyriding" is generally taken to relate to the aggravated offences created by the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. This includes circumstances in which, following the taking and driving of a vehicle, an accident occurs causing death or injury of any person. Between the commencement of the Act on 1 April 1992 and June, police records show that three people have been killed as a result of accidents occurring in such circumstances. No information is held centrally on the number of persons injured in such circumstances. Full information about prosecutions resulting from the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 will become available in the autumn of 1993.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of all submissions made by the United Kingdom delegation to the Ministers Deputies conference of the Council of Europe on the subject of the European convention on minority languages.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No written submissions were made to the meeting of Ministers' Deputies on 29 June 1992 which considered the convention on regional and minority languages.

  "Summer Time" (Consultation Document)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations have taken place since the responses to the Green Paper "Summer Time-A Consultation Document", Cm. 722, 1990; and when it is intended to bring forward proposals on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Green Paper consulted on certain options for future summer time arrangements, and revealed deep differences of opinion on them; national consultation on those options has not been repeated. As I explained in the Standing Committee debate on the draft Summer Time Order 1992 on 7 July, the European Commission is reviewing its position on summer time and that may affect the options. We shall bring forward our own proposals when the Commission's approach is clear.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 528, when he will be

  Sentenced females1 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1992: by nationality and type of offence

  Nationality

  United Kingdom

  Foreign

  Not recorded

  All

  Offence

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Drugs offences

  120

  15

  125

  57

  13

  9

  258

  22

  Other offences

  570

  70

  85

  38

  60

  42

  715

  61

  Offences not recorded

  120

  15

  11

  5

  71

  49

  202

  17

  8
  making a statement regarding his Department's records relating to the wartime Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The review of files relating to this period has been completed and most of the files will now be opened to public scrutiny. The Ministry of Defence will continue to hold a small number of files on extended closure under section 5(1) of the Public Record Act 1958 on the grounds of personal sensitivity. The Home Office will also hold a few records on extended closures. Other records being released by the Home Office will be available for public inspection at the Public Record Office, Kew, from Tuesday, 1 December.

  Female Prisoners
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the country of origin of foreign female prisoners in British prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Countries of birth outside the British Isles are no longer separately identified. The only information readily available, which relates to nationality, is given in the table.

  Female population1 of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1992: by nationality Number of persons

  Nationals of

  Number

  Colombia

  19

  Ghana

  12

  India

  10

  Irish Republic

  14

  Jamaica

  50

  Netherlands

  10

  Nigeria

  77

  United Kingdom

  1,053

  United States of America

  13

  Other2

  78

  Nationality not recorded

  200

  All nationalities

  1,536

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 With fewer than five prisoners.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of foreign women prisoners are convicted for(a) drugs importation and (b) other drug related offences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Information by type of drug offence is not readily available separately for foreign women prisoners. The available information for foreign women prisoners is given in the table. Out of a total of 300 female prisoners on 30 June 1990 who had been sentenced for drugs offences, it is estimated that 250 had been sentenced for unlawful import-export.
  9

  Nationality

  United Kingdom

  Foreign

  Not recorded

  All

  Offence

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  All offences

  810

  100

  221

  100

  144

  100

  1,175

  100

  1 Including those committed to custody in default of payment of a fine. Provisional figures.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign women are held(a)

  Female population1 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June: by type of prisoner and nationality, 1989–92

  Type of prisoner and nationality

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19922

  Untried:

  United Kingdom3

  —

  —

  184

  171

  Foreign3

  —

  —

  57

  51

  Not recorded3

  —

  —

  45

  44

  All nationalities

  378

  280

  286

  266

  Convicted unsentenced:

  United Kingdom3

  —

  —

  79

  70

  Foreign3

  —

  —

  7

  9

  Not recorded3

  —

  —

  15

  14

  All nationalities

  98

  77

  101

  93

  Sentenced:4

  United Kingdom

  876

  784

  719

  810

  Foreign

  269

  291

  257

  221

  Not recorded

  134

  178

  172

  144

  All nationalities

  1,279

  1,253

  1,148

  1,175

  1 Excluding two non-criminal prisoners.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Nationality was not recorded for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners prior to 1991.

  4 Including those committed to custody in default of payment of a fine.

TRANSPORT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area of which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since the last general election.

  Mr. Norris
  Since 9 April 1992, my Department has caused a number of regulations to be put into effect. Many of these consolidate or update existing regulation.

  The main areas in which new regulations have been made include emission standards for new vehicles; changes in axle and gross weights for heavy goods vehicles; the introduction of new drink and drugs offences relating to railways, tramways and prescribed systems of guided transport; the introduction of the extended driving test for certain disqualified drivers; and the packaging of some categories of dangerous goods. Four sets of regulations have been introduced following recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch report into the loss of the Marchioness, setting out requirements for improved standards of bridge visibility, stability and construction, life-saving appliances and fire protection on passenger craft.
  10
  on remand and (b) as convicted prisoners in British prisons at the latest available date; and how many were held in each category for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: The readily available information is given in the table.

  Local Safety Schemes
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of funding for local road safety schemes for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The sum of £42·7 million was allocated to local safety schemes for 1992–93 as part of the transport supplementary grant settlement announced to Parliament on 19 December 1991 by the Secretary of State for Transport.

  This represents an increase of 38 per cent. in the amount of £31·2 million earmarked for such schemes for 1991–92 and reflects the importance which the Government attach to their target of reducing road casualties by a third by the year 2000, and their belief that local safety schemes can make a significant contribution to achieving this.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to ensure that only chemicals that cause the least depletion to the earth's ozone layer are used in the cooling system of the channel tunnel; and if he will intervene to halt the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons for this purpose.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 24 November at column 562.

  British Rail Timetables
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effects on British Rail timetables of(a) the reductions to the railway maintenance programme recently announced and (b) the citizens charter.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have provided BR with an extra £239 million external finance over the next two years. Allocation to specific programmes, including maintenance, is for BR, although I understand no final decisions have been made. It will doubtless take due account of any implications its decisions might have for its timetable.

  The standards and compensation provisions set out in the charter give BR a greater incentive to deliver the published service.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific targets have been set by his Department to modify the rail infrastructure to ensure that continental gauge freight traffic can be transported through the United Kingdom rail network; and if he will make a statement on the progress to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is currently upgrading its lines between the channel tunnel and nine regional freight terminals. This work will enable over 90 per cent of European containers and all standard European swap-bodies to be carried between the tunnel and the regional terminals.

  The Department has recently produced a paper "Moving Freight By Rail: Loading Gauge" which sets out the practical and other problems associated with further upgrading. Copies are available in the House Library.

  British Rail (Employees' Facilities)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that existing pension rights and travel facilities will be protected for employees and former employees after British Rail is privatised.

  Mr. Freeman
  Detailed arrangements to implement the policy in the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways", Cm 2012, on pension rights and travel facilities are currently under consideration. A consultation paper on pension arrangements will be published soon.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the representations received from the Labour and Conservative leaders of the West Midlands passenger transport authority concerning funding for an early go-ahead for the midland metro line 1 project.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will reply to these representations shortly.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Commissioners (Female Staff)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what proportion of the Church Commissioners are women; and what plans there are for more women to be appointed to senior staff positions.

  Mr. Alison
  Excluding clergy and ex-officio commissioners, six out of 25 elected or appointed commissioners are women. Promotion of the commissioners' staff is based on merit and I am pleased to say that women currently hold grades up to and including grade 6 (senior principal).

  Women Priests
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the latest estimate of the sum of money earmarked as compensation for clergy and others who resign following the General Synod's decision on the ordination of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what estimate he has made of the financial effects of changes in clergy numbers resulting from the General Synod's decision on ordination of women.

  Mr. Alison
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

  Pensions
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what provision the Commissioners have made for early retirement in the pension arrangements for incumbents.

  Mr. Alison
  The clergy scheme makes provision for early retirement with an immediate pension in two situations. First, clergy may take voluntary early retirement up to five years before the minimum normal pension age of 65, with benefits based on actual service but reduced for early commencement. Secondly, clergy may take ill health retirement at any age, subject to medical evidence, with benefits based on actual plus prospective service.

  Baptismal Certificates (Fees)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the percentage increase in the income of stipendaries' fees for baptismal certificates in the last five years.

  Mr. Alison
  The fee payable to the incumbent for a certificate of baptism has risen from £2·50 in 1987 to £4 in 1992, an increase of 60 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to alter the council tax multiplier to 3/6 at band A, 6/6 at band D and 18/6 at band H.
  13
  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide for an A 1 band for council tax for properties worth less than £30,000, in areas where 50 per cent. of properties are in band A.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against valuation banding are expected or planned for after 1 April; how quickly appeals will be heard after 1 April by the Inland Revenue; and what is the expected wait for a hearing on average.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Appeals against council tax banding will start life as proposals to alter banding lists. It is impossible to predict the number of such proposals which will be made after 1 April 1993, and it is therefore pointless to speculate on the length of time it will take to deal with them.

  We have, however, made administrative plans to deal with the eventuality of up to 950,000 initial proposals (5 per cent. of domestic properties), earmarking sufficient funds for this purpose in the recent public expenditure survey. We will review our plans when we have a clearer view of the likely workload.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect the proposed council tax levy on nursing and residential care homes will have on residents of these homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The council tax bills faced by care home owners will generally be modest, especially when compared to the total running costs of such homes. They will benefit from the banding arrangements, which mean that the council tax bill for the most expensive dwelling is limited to twice that for a band D home in the same area. Many care home owners will also receive reductions for disabilities, 50 per cent. personal discounts and transitional reductions. Taking account of all these reductions, the council tax is likely to add only a few tens of pence a week per resident to the costs of running a home—a tiny fraction of total costs.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his office will produce details of(a) national average council tax band D equivalent, (b) the percentage of winners and losers in each region, (c) council tax benefit tapers and (d) the transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The answer to (a) can only be calculated after local authorities have set their council tax for 1993–94 next spring. We have no intention of making any predictions of national average council taxes. Similarly, on (b), we shall be making no predictions of winners and losers in each region.

  On (c), the Secretary of State for Social Security announced the details of the council tax benefit scheme on 28 November 1991. The scheme includes a taper of 20 per cent. which means that for those with income above their appropriate applicable amount, council tax benefit will be reduced by 20p for every £1 of excess income.
  14
  On (d), the details of the transitional relief scheme were announced in the statement my right hon. and learned Friend made on 26 November.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how single person households will be better off under the council tax, ignoring transitional relief, than under the poll tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: This will depend on the council taxes which local authorities set in the spring. Local taxes are a matter for local authorities to determine in the light of their local circumstances.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding Leicester has received under the urban programme at 1992 prices for each of the last three years; how many projects have been supported; and how many people have been employed by them in jobs and in training schemes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on Leicester's urban programme is as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  UP funding (£ million) 1992–93 prices

  5·74

  5·34

  4·70

  Projects supported1

  122

  138

  112

  Jobs created/preserved1

  190

  164

  154

  Training places supported1

  1,540

  3,494

  1,875

  1Sources: Leicester UP annual report 1990–91 and Leicester IJP submissions 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  UP funding for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are actuals, adjusted by GDP deflator indices. UP funding for 1992–93 is the current allocation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of people who were employed in each of the last three years by schemes funded by the urban programme in(a) jobs and (b) training schemes; and what was the number of people whose employment depended indirectly on the existence of these schemes, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of people employed by schemes funded by Urban Programme

  1Jobs

  1Training Schemes

  1990–91

  29,660

  86,528

  1991–92

  34,242

  68,551

  1992–93

  33,973

  74,097

  1Sources: Annual reports 1990–91 and urban programme submissions 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Information is not held on the number of people whose employment depended indirectly on the existence of these schemes.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of schemes funded by the urban programme for each of the last three years; and what was the total funding at 1992 prices for each of the last three years.
  15
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on the urban programme is as follows:

  UP funding (£ million) 1992–93 prices

  1Total number of schemes funded

  1990–91

  271·4

  9,855

  1991–92

  258·4

  6,911

  1992–93

  237·2

  8,782

  1Sources: Urban programme annual report 1991 and urban programme submissions 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Urban programme funding for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are actuals, adjusted by GDP deflator indices. Urban programme funding for 1992–93 is the initial allocation, excluding district health authority projects.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had before deciding to abolish the urban programme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The urban programme has not been abolished. We have made provision of £176 million for the urban programme in 1993–94 which will enable existing commitments to be honoured and approved projects to continue. In addition, some £20 million in uncommitted urban programme resources for 1993–94 will be available in urban programme areas to promote urban regeneration through the urban partnership fund. The urban partnership fund will complement the extra power to spend capital receipts which local authorities will enjoy following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 13 November 1992.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on what provisions are being made for consideration of schemes currently funded by the urban programme when their funding comes up for renewal.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for local authorities and project managers to consider in the normal way how to fund projects when their period of urban programme support expires.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the accepted length of time before appeals lodged now with the Salford valuation office regarding business rates are heard.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  An appeal about business rates starts life as a proposal to alter an entry in a non-domestic rating list, made to the local valuation office. If the matter is not resolved within six months, it is automatically referred to a valuation tribunal as an appeal. Those proposals lodged with the Salford valuation office are referred as appeals to the Manchester, South valuation tribunal.

  Month

  Secretary of State

  Mr. Atkins

  Mr. Mates

  Lord Arran

  Mr. Hanley

  Total

  May

  14

  9

  11

  13

  16

  63

  June

  8

  11

  10

  13

  12

  54

  July

  11

  10

  11

  10

  9

  51

  August

  7

  3

  13

  10

  5

  38

  September

  13

  9

  10

  9

  11

  52

  October

  17

  8

  9

  11

  11

  56

  TOTAL

  70

  50

  64

  66

  64

  314

  16
  Valuation tribunals are independent bodies and the priority and timing of cases is a matter for them.

  Following the non-domestic revaluation on 1 April 1990, Manchester South valuation tribunal initially received about 15,800 substantive appeals. Most of these were received towards the end of that financial year. By the end of September 1992, some 18 months later, 9,300 appeals had been cleared. This is consistent with the national plan to clear original list appeals within three years of their receipt.

  Unitary Status
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Local Government Commission will examine requests from areas within existing metropolitan districts for unitary status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We intend to ask the Local Government Commission to look at boundary issues in the metropolitan counties when it has completed its programme of reviews in the shires. If the commission finds evidence that metropolitan district boundaries need to be looked at before then, my right hon. Friend can consider this in relation to the commission's programme.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what relationship or link there is between the review of local government and the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: So far as practicable, the Boundary Commission for England should avoid recommending constituencies which cross county or London borough boundaries. The Commission is due to submit its next report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by 31 December 1994 on the basis of the local government boundaries effective at 1 June 1994. We hope to implement the first changes following reviews by the Local Government Commission for England of local government structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements on 1 April 1994. The Local Government Commission is required to consult the boundary commission on its draft recommendations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nights each Minister of his Department stayed in Northern Ireland in each of the months of May, June, July, August, September and October.

  Mr. Mates
  The information is:

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many public interest immunity certificates were issued by him or his predecessors in relation to court cases in Northern Ireland since 1972;

  (2) how many public interest immunity certificates were issued by him or his predecessors in relation to coroners' inquests in Northern Ireland since 1972.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No central record is held of public interest immunity certificates issued in relation to court cases or coroners' inquests in Northern Ireland since 1972.

  Glen Road Travellers' Site
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money has been spent by the Department of the Environment (NI) on the upkeep of the unauthorised Glen road travellers' site over the past five years;

  (2) how much money has been spent by the Belfast city council on the upkeep of the unauthorised Glen road travellers' site over the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that Belfast city council has spent approximately £50,000 and the Department of the Environment has not spent any money on the upkeep of the unauthorised site in the last five years.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent by Belfast city council on the provision and maintenance of the official travellers' site at Glen road.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that provision of the official travellers site at Glen road has cost Belfast city council £915,000 to date, which will be reimbursed by the Department of the Environment, and that approximately £9,000 has been spent by the council on maintenance.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect on the timetable for the provision of Northern Ireland Housing Executive houses is being caused by the presence of the travellers on the unauthorised Glen road site.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand from the Housing Executive that no delay has been caused on the timetable for provision of houses by the executive.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the immediate plans for the unauthorised site at Glen road and the travellers currently camped there.

  Mr. Atkins
  Belfast city council proposes to move the travellers from the unauthorised site to an interim site on Glen road. The site will then be secured. lit the longer term these travellers will be reallocated permanent sites planned by Belfast city council.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of their future plans for the Glen road site.

  Mr. Atkins
  Future capital spend on the Glen road travellers site is estimated by Belfast city council as £50,000.
  18
  The estimated cost of the first phase of the Housing Executive's public housing scheme at Glen road is £2 million.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Training
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor next intends to meet the Council for Legal Education to discuss the training in the legal profession.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to meet the Council for Legal Education at present.

  Judges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will bring forward proposals to establish a review panel in order to monitor the performance of judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to do so.

  Magistrates Courts, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts have been closed in each of the counties of Wales in each of the last three years; how many are scheduled for closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not collected centrally. The decision to close a magistrates courthouse is a local decision for the magistrates courts committee concerned after consulting with its local paying authority. There is no requirement for my Department to be kept informed of closures unless a paying authority appeals to the Lord Chancellor against a magistrates courts committee's decision. A magistrates courthouse is usually owned by the paying authority, not my Department.

  Divorce Law Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will bring forward legislation to implement in full the Law Commission's proposals on reforms of the divorce law.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is considering the Law Commission's recommendations for reform of divorce law. He has no immediate plans for legislation but he welcomes any views on the appropriate response to these recommendations.

  Family Mediation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to establish and fund a United Kingdom-wide network of family mediation services.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is considering the role and funding of family mediation services in England and Wales as part of the wider review of family law announced earlier this year and has no immediate plans to establish and fund a national network of such services.
  19
  Meanwhile, local family mediation services in England and Wales are funded by the voluntary and private sectors with assistance in some areas from the probation service and local authorities. Separate arrangements operate in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Legal Aid, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates which were valid up to and including trial were issued in each of the counties of Wales for each of the last six years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board publishes statistics on the number of certificates issued in respect of civil proceedings in its annual reports (Tables "Civil 6" and "Civil 7" on pages 52 and 53 of the 1991–92 report). The number of defendants and appellants receiving legal aid in the Crown court are itemised in the Department's annual publication "Judicial Statistics" (Table 10·6 of the 1991 edition). In neither instance is it possible to distinguish between assisted persons residing in Wales or England.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is his estimate of the amount of legal aid moneys granted in magistrates courts in Wales in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92:

  (2) what is his estimate of the amount of the legal aid budget expended in Wales for each of the last four years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board records statistics on legal aid expenditure by reference to its area offices. Wales is served by two Legal Aid Board area offices, which are situated in Cardiff and Chester respectively. The Chester area office also serves parts of north-west England and the west midlands. It is not therefore possible to assess what proportion of legal aid expenditure, either generally or in relation to magistrates' courts, is attributable to assisted persons residing in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling with Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I made quite clear to the Norwegian Prime Minister our views on commercial whaling. I set out the position in the Community on whaling and the trade in whale products. We would expect Norway to apply existing Community legislation should she accede to the Community.

  Home Rule, Scotland
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for East Lothian dated 23 October concerning the case for subsidiary home rule for Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  I will reply to the hon. Member's correspondence shortly.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed that Matrix Churchill was involved in the exports of machine tools to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: As I said in my letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 23 November, which has been placed in the Library, I first became aware of the investigation into Matrix Churchill in October 1990.

  Some other papers in connection with Matrix Churchill were copied to my office at the Treasury in June and July of that year. Treasury records do not indicate whether I saw those documents, but I have no recollection of doing so. A meeting of Ministers under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was held on 19 July 1990 to discuss defence sales policy to Iran and Iraq. That meeting was attended from the Treasury by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). The public expenditure Cabinet was held on the same day and would have been my principal preoccupation at the time.

  At the beginning of August 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait, I did see a copy of a minute about the implications of the invasion for trade with Iraq, which referred to Matrix Churchill as one company with potential exports that would need to be prevented.

SCOTLAND

  Sport
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 516, what is the division of responsibility between his Department and the Department of National Heritage in respect of sport in Scotland; and what further decisions and changes have been made in respect of the relationship between the two departments since June.

  Sir Hector Monro
  While my right hon. Friend is responsible for all matters relating to sport in Scotland, the Department of National Heritage takes the lead on United Kingdom and international sports matters. My right hon. Friend is responsible also for the built heritage in Scotland, but the funding and sponsorship of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which operates on a United Kingdom basis, is a matter for the Department of National Heritage. As with arts and broadcasting, to which my answer of 16 June 1992 referred, my right hon. Friend's responsibilities for sport and the heritage were not affected by the creation of the Department of National Heritage and none of these responsibilities has been changed subsequently. The Scottish Office continues to liaise closely with the Department of National Heritage on all matters of common interest.

  Nature Reserves
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of public money was spent by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or Scottish Natural Heritage for the purchase of national nature reserves in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: The amount spent by the Nature Conservancy Council for

  21
  Scotland for the purchase of national nature reserves in 1991–92 was £124,275. It is estimated that the expenditure by Scottish Natural Heritage for this purpose in 1992–93 will be £62,350.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of grant was made by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or Scottish Natural Heritage under section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to voluntary conservation bodies for the purposes of land purchase in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: The provisions of section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 have been replaced in turn by section 134 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and, in respect of Scotland, section 9 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. The amount spent by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland for these purposes in 1991–92 was £106,592. It is estimated that the expenditure in 1992–93 by Scottish Natural Heritage on such grants will be £175,000.

  Holyroodhouse
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if sprinkler systems are installed throughout Holyroodhouse;

  (2) if he will review fire precautions at Holyroodhouse.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Extensive fire precautions are in place in the Palace of Holyroodhouse which are kept under constant review and are updated from time to time. These do not include a sprinkler system. On 23 November, the chief executive of Historic Scotland, which is responsible for the fabric of Holyroodhouse, commissioned a review of the fire precautions which will take account of the Windsor castle fire.

  Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the misuse or abuse of prescribed drugs in Scotland; what studies are currently

  Bathing Waters Directive Scottish Results

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Nairn (East Beach)

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  Cullen

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fraserburgh

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Aberdeen

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Montrose

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Arbroath

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Carnoustie

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  St. Andrews (West Sands)

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Kinghorn (Pettycur)

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Aberdour (Silversands)

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Gullane

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Yellowcraigs

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  North Berwick (Milsey Bay)

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Dunbar (Belhaven)

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pease Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sandyhills

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  Girvan

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Turnberry

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Ayr (South Beach)

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Prestwick

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Troon (South Beach)

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Irvine-Gailes (New Town)

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Salcoats/Ardrossan (South Beach)

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  22
  being undertaken; what plans he has to introduce measures to reduce the illegal sale and use of prescribed drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The misuse of prescribed drugs is a significant problem in Scotland. The Scottish drug misuse database bulletin for the year ending 31 March 1992, a copy of which is in the Library, shows that of 2,653 drug misusers seen for the first time by a range of services, 1,439 were misusing benzodiazepines and 957 were misusing buprenorphine—Temgesic. Many of those seen were misusing a number of different drugs.

  Action is being taken on a number of fronts. In particular the police are continuing their efforts to identify those who traffic unlawfully in prescribed drugs; we published a description of the harmful effects of misusing prescribed drugs in the booklet "Drugs: A Guide for Young People in Scotland", which was issued as part of the public education material in connection with European Drug Prevention Week; and the chief medical officer in Scotland has drawn the problem to the attention of health board chief administrative medical officers. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is also considering whether further measures should be recommended in respect of Temazepam, which is the most frequently misused of the benzodiazepine drugs.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the results of the current year's bathing water quality monitoring for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The bathing water monitoring results for the 1992 season and for earlier seasons are reproduced in the table. A detailed report is being prepared by my Department and will be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as it is available.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current theoretical projections used as target figures for the total numbers of acute beds for(a) orthopaedic surgery, (b) general surgery and (c) general medicine (i) for each Scottish health board and (ii) in total for Scotland for 2001.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Projected bed requirements for all surgical and medical specialties are decided by individual health boards and there is no agreed formula for calculating them. Health boards take account of local needs and priorities when formulating their planning assumptions. The total estimated requirement for Scotland in these specialties in 2001, allowing for potential increases in the use of day surgery and other developments in medical practices, is set out in the table.

  Number

  Orthopaedic surgery

  2,000

  General surgery

  2,500

  General medicine

  4,000

  Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was (i) the total cost, adjusted to 1992 prices, of the wildlife incident investigation scheme for Scotland and (ii) the proportion of the total cost contributed by the agrochemical industry levy, in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Prior to 1990 figures for the cost of the wildlife incident investigation scheme for Scotland were included in those provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  The information for subsequent years is set out in the table.

  £000 at 1992 prices

  1990–91 (covering 15 month period)

  186

  1991–92

  166

  1992–93 (forecast)

  152

  The major part of the cost is borne by the industry. The cost of other work, particularly the time of departmental staff in investigating incidents is not readily available.

  Seals
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many headless bodies of seals have been recovered in Scotland during the past 12 months; what investigations have been carried out; and with what results.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Between 1 January 1992 and 31 October 1992 there were 29 confirmed reports of decapitated seals. Only three of these have occurred since July. Police investigations
  24
  included joint surveillance with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There have been no prosecutions to date.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the funding provided by Government Departments for the support of information sesrvices for environmental education.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Information services for environmental education are supported by the Scottish Office in a number of ways; the Scottish Office provides information directly; funding support is given to non-departmental public bodies with an environmental education remit; and grant aid is provided to voluntary environmental organisations. Specific funding for information services is not separately identified.

  A working group on environmental education has been established by the Secretary of State, and it has considered the provision of information services for environmental education. The working group is due to report shortly and my right hon. Friend will carefully consider its recommendations.

  Drug Trafficking
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each police authority area(a) the number of arrests for drug trafficking, (b) the number of cautions issued for minor forms of drug trafficking and (c) the number of convictions for drug trafficking in each of the past four years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Information on the number of arrests is not collected centrally. In Scotland the police have no power to issue cautions. The information requested on convictions for drug trafficking offences, based on returns from police forces to the Home Office, is set out in the table.

  Number of convictions in Scotland where at least one charge was drug trafficking1

  Police authority area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Central

  12

  21

  26

  16

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  7

  6

  13

  Fife

  14

  22

  19

  25

  Grampian

  23

  32

  39

  47

  Lothian and Borders

  61

  42

  80

  107

  Northern

  7

  6

  14

  13

  Strathclyde

  179

  238

  296

  351

  Tayside

  36

  29

  50

  53

  Other authorities2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  HM Customs and Excise

  17

  17

  19

  15

  Total

  357

  416

  550

  640

  1 Unlawful import or export, unlawful production (excluding cannabis), and being concerned in unlawful supply and possession with intent to supply unlawfully.

  2 Includes offenders dealt with by British Transport Police and British Airports Authority.

WALES

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April;

  (2) if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Department has carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No such measures have been introduced by the Welsh Office since the last general election. Regulation and deregulation measures introduced by other Government Departments are usually applicable in both England and Wales.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  Young People Leaving Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales have established independent units for 16 and 17-year-olds leaving care; and how many young people can be accommodated in each unit.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Young people who leave care, and who do not return to their family, are generally accommodated in a range of accommodation from bedsits to supported lodging and council accommodation. I t is for individual authorities to determine the scale and range of such services and information about such provision is not held centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales which(a) employ a named person to assist young people leaving care and (b) have established telephone help-lines to assist such young people.

  Mr. Gwilyn Jones
  Those young people who leave care usually remain the responsibility of the social worker who had responsibility while there were in care. This is normal procedure in each authority in Wales. The Department is not aware of any telephone help-lines set up specifically to assist young people leaving care in Wales.

  GATT Agreement
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the consequence of the GATT agreement for his set-aside proposals in Wales;

  (2) what is the consequence of the GATT agreement for creameries and the dairy industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The EC has not yet tabled its revised sector-by-sector GATT offer; however, the Commission has firmly stated that the EC-US GATT deal is compatible with the reforms to CAP regimes agreed earlier this year.

  Housing Management Tendering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to delay the full introduction of compulsory competitive tendering in housing management until all pilot surveys are completed and their results fully evaluated.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to delay the introduction of competitive tendering in housing management until the new shadow unitary authorities are fully established and elected.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be making an announcement in due course.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current timetable for the implementation of the four new environmentally sensitive areas that he announced earlier this year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be making an announcement on the timetable as soon as possible.

  Farmers (Conservation Advice)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to charge farmers for conservation advice tendered by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service or by the Welsh Office agriculture department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  ADAS provides general conservation advice to farmers free of charge. During 1992–93 I have provided some £296,000 to meet the cost of such ADAS free conservation advice to farmers in Wales. I am considering what provision should be made for such free advice in 1993–94. Farmers obtain detailed and specific advice from a number of sources, including ADAS, al a price negotiated between the parties concerned. Advice provided to farmers directly by WOAD is free of charge.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to training and enterprise councils ensuring an early declaration of moneys to be made available to training agencies with which the councils have made annual contracts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already indicated to the training and enterprise councils in Wales an important new development under which they will be guaranteed a minimum level of funding for 1994–95 and 1995–96 for training for work and business and enterprise support. This will be introduced next year and should facilitate TECs' longer-term planning with training and enterprise support providers. Negotiation of the prices which the Government will pay TECs for training and enterprise support in 1993–94 will begin next month.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November Official Report, columns 323–24, if he will specify what proportion of the

  27
  annual departmental expenditure on printing costs is accounted for by the cost of pamphlets, leaflets and publicity material in relation to the valleys initiative; and in which financial year or years this expenditure falls.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The proportion of printing costs detailed in my answer of 19 November accounted for by the programme for the valleys is as follows:

  Year

  Proportion per cent.

  1988–89

  Approximately 5·0

  1989–90

  Nil

  1990–91

  Approximately 3·0

  1991–92

  Approximately 0·5

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce the findings of the 1992 hill livestock compensatory allowance review.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The outcome of the review together with the HLCA payment arrangements to apply from 1 January 1993 will be announced as soon as possible.

  Training
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average amount of time spent by applications for(a) youth training and (b) employment training awaiting placement on training programmes within each training and enterprise council area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on average waiting times is not collected because, with the importance of placing young people and adults in training which suits their individual needs, the speed at which a place is made available will naturally vary from case to case.

  Dairy Crest Factory, Marchwiel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an official visit to the Dairy Crest factory at Marchwiel, Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts of Government money and EC money have been made available for the construction and the development of the Dairycrest factory, Marchwiel, Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Regional development grant amounting to £74,815 was paid to the company in respect of a project at its Marchwiel factory in March 1989. No EC funds have been provided.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to create jobs for unemployed craftsmen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office and agencies operate a range of measures to increase employment opportunities. Increasingly, these are being targeted on better quality opportunities which will improve employment prospects 28
  for skilled workers in engineering industries. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer included in his autumn statement a series of measures to promote recovery in the construction sector. As a result, an additional £38 million is available for housing in Wales in this financial year, of which I have allocated £35 million for spending by housing associations. I expect them to secure additional private finance of around £15 million, taking the total value of this initiative to about £50 million.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the prospects for hill farming in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am currently reviewing the economic conditions and prospects for our less-favoured area farmers as part of the hill livestock compensatory allowance autumn review and as part of this process I have met representatives from the National Farmers Union (Wales) and the Farmers Union of Wales. The outcome of this review and the HLCA payment arrangements to apply from 1 January 1993 will be announced as soon as possible.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people working in creameries and cheese factories in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the latest available estimates, for September 1989, there were 2,300 people employed in the milk and milk products industry, which includes creameries and cheese factories.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the impact upon dairy farming of the reform of the Milk Marketing Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The ending of the present milk marketing scheme will mean that producers will be free to make their own arrangements for selling milk and to seek outlets which best suit their business requirements.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidance letter dated 9 November sent to all national health service unit managers in relation to the impact of the EC acquired rights directive on compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A copy of the Department's letter has been placed in the Library of the House. The Department is continuing to examine the legal implications.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the employment of Bechtel Corporation as liaison consultants in relation to the construction contract on the proposed barrage.
  29
  Mr. David Hunt
  Cardiff Bay development corporation has kept my officials informed on its plans to let a project management consultancy for the proposed barrage.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding the date of issuing invitations to tender for the construction of the proposed barrage; what indicative price will be specified in the invitations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I understand that the Cardiff Bay development corporation intends to issue invitations to tender for the construction of the proposed barrage in the new year. The tender documents will make it clear that the award of the contract is dependent, amongst other things, on Royal Assent for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. The development corporation does not propose to include an indicative price.

  Primary Schoolchildren
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of children of primary age being taught by one teacher in classes of (i) up to 30 pupils, (ii) 31 to 35 pupils, (iii) 36 to 40 pupils, and (iv) over 40 pupils for each year since 1986.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally. Information on the size of registered classes in primary schools in Wales is available in the Welsh Office publication "Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  North East Wales TEC
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 November,Official Report, column 144, if he will give details of the operational surpluses that the North East Wales TEC has accrued.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 232, if he will give the name and business address and the directors of the successful bidders for the Companies House future operations and role consultants.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The consultants appointed to study the future operations and role of Companies house are SRU Limited, 70–80 St. John street, London EC1M 4HR. The directors are P. B. Askew, J. Carr, N. J. Cross, C. W. Fisher, C. E. M. Gray, J. F. Krelle, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, H. D. Stevenson CBE, P. R. Wallis and R. C. Watson.

  Fast Reactor Programme
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specifically allocated financial contributions have been made in 1991–92 to 1992–93 by British Nuclear Fuels plc, Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric to the fast reactor programme.
  30
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The three companies support work for the European fast reactor collaboration. The level and nature of their contribution is a matter for the companies themselves.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the successful bids for money from the European Community's RECHAR programme made by publicly funded bodies will result in a future reduction of their funds as a consequence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 30 June 1992 at columns 525–26.

  Foreign Investors
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of United States and Japanese investment in EC countries is currently vested in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the north-east.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1991 the United Kingdom had 41 per cent. by value of the stock of Japanese investment in the EC (source: Japanese Finance Ministry) and 36 per cent. by value of the stock of United States investment in the EC (source: United States Department of Commerce). It is not possible to say how much is vested by value in the north-east, however, figures from my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau show that by number rather than value since 1981 the north-east has had 53 inward investment projects from Japan from a United Kingdom total of 302 (17·5 per cent.) and 80 projects from the United States against a United Kingdom total of 1,274 (6·3 per cent).

  The IBB figures given above are based on information provided by the companies to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many direct investment projects by foreign companies in(a) Britain and (b) the north east are currently in existence; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the total number of jobs both directly and indirectly dependent on inward investment in the north-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  According to figures produced by my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, 3,106 projects from foreign-owned companies have come to the United Kingdom since 1981, of which 285 are in the north-east creating or safeguarding 38,158 jobs for the area. The number of jobs created indirectly is unavailable.

  The figures given above are based on information provided by the companies to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest and takes no account of subsequent developments. The number of known closures in the last few years is extremely small.

  Partnerships
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the law with regard to partnerships so as to require accounts to be audited and registered for public reference; and if he will make a statement on the level of fraud arising from defaulting partners(a) among solicitors and (b) otherwise.
  31
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Disclosure of accounts is regarded as part of the price of limited liability, and I therefore have no plans to require such disclosures for the majority of partnerships in which the partners jointly and severally have unlimited liability. As regards partnerships where all the members are limited liability companies, I refer my hon. Friend to the consultative document on the EC partnerships directive which my Department issued on 10 November. Questions about solicitors are a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. I have no information about levels of fraud committed by members of partnerships.

  Retex Initiative
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which areas of the country his Department proposes should benefit from the Retex initiative.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Commission has decided that grants under the Retex initiative should be available only within areas designated for objective 1, 2 and 5(b) of the structural funds. Many of the United Kingdom's textile-dependent areas are not objective 1, 2 or 5(b) areas.

  We intend that applications for grants will be invited from textile areas in all eligible regions. Because of the limited funds available, only the best projects can expect to be successful.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long he expects Lord Justice Scott to be away from his normal duties while carrying out the current inquiry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Lord Justice Scott will be away from his normal duties for however long it takes to complete his inquiry.

  Gas and Oil Structures
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans for removal of gas and oil structures from the southern and northern sectors of the North sea in the next 50 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  On the assumption that current practice continues over the period envisaged by my hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State will, pursuant to his powers under the Petroleum Act 1987, require an abandonment programme to be submitted to him in respect of each UKCS oil and/or gas installation as it approaches the end of its useful life.

  Programmes will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the circumstances at the time and taking account of consultations with relevant interested parties, including environmental and fishing interests.

  Our requirements will be consistent with the guidelines and standards for the abandonment of disused offshore installations and structures adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in October 1989. These provide that the norm in water depths less than 75 m will be entire removal of all installations weighing less than 4,000 tonnes. After 1 January 1998 that requirement is extended to installations in up to 100 m of water. For installations standing in deeper water, partial removal is an option, subject to 55 m of clear water being left above any submerged remains.
  32
  Application of the IMO guidelines and standards to the UKCS is likely to result in entire removal of all shallow water southern basin platforms. In the central North sea, the decision whether or not to permit partial removal to 55 m below the surface will be taken on the merits of each case. The same case-by-case approach will be applied to installations in the deeper waters further north, but in the interests of safety of navigation of the large submarines operating in that area a minimum clearance of 75 m above any remains will be required.

  Oil Refining
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the oil refining sector.

  Mr. Eggar
  My policy toward the oil refining sector, as for other business sectors, is to maintain a close liaison and dialogue with the sector and thus acquire an awareness of its needs and of the influences upon its competitiveness from both at home and abroad. I aim to ensure that those needs are taken into account by Government and within the European Community. I shall continue to encourage the maintenance of open markets in the trading of oil and oil products.

  While I expect the oil refining sector to respond effectively to environmental developments, I shall ensure that the Government's environmental policies take proper account of their impact on the sector. The European Energy Council, under the United Kingdom presidency, has today invited the Commission to consult the industry fully and at an early stage in the development of environmental measures, particularly on the cost implications.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department has given to the oil refining sector in(a) Cheshire and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been no financial assistance from my Department to the oil refining industry in(a) Cheshire and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in the past three years.

  Telephone Cloning
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration has been given to the need to introduce new criminal legislation to cover the fraudulent cloning of mobile and car telephones; and if he will make a statement on the current position.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: I am not persuaded that new legislation is necessary. The police have made several arrests this year in connection with cloning offences. The mobile telephone industry is taking its own steps to reduce and minimise the practice of fraudulent cloning, and Oftel is also examining whether further action is justified.

  Power Station, Staythorpe
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to announce his decision on the inspector's report following the public inquiry into a new gas-fired power station at Staythorpe, Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend informed the House on 21 October that,

  33
  as part of the wider Government review into the coal industry, he would review the use of his consent powers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Until the review of the use of his consent powers is completed, my right hon. Friend proposes to defer his decisions on outstanding applications for his consent under section 36 for new power stations.

  LINK Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many programmes have been approved under the LINK scheme since its establishment; if he will list the organisations involved; what the expenditure was for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Thirty programmes have been announced so far under the LINK initiative; a further two have been approved by the LINK steering group and await announcement. There are over 400 companies and 200 academic research groups involved in the 315 projects under way or completed; it is not possible to list these organisations individually as the information is commercially confidential. Total Government expenditure on LINK in the financial year 1991–92 was £18 million; industry would have spent at least a similar amount as Government meets 50 per cent. of the costs of LINK projects.

  EUREKA Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new projects were authorised under the EUREKA programme in 1991–92 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: A total of 43 new EUREKA projects with United Kingdom participation were authorised in the EUREKA year 1991–92.

  This compares with an overall total of 90 new projects involving EUREKA members from the European Community and with 102 new projects in EUREKA as a whole.

  Electricity
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to alter the electricity generation regime to provide that electricity produced from new gas-fired stations is sold through the non-franchise market and to prevent favoured access to the base load of the national electricity supply by those gas-fired power stations which produce at higher prices than 2·8 pence per therm.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The coal review is presently considering the market prospects for coal and the relative costs of coal and gas-fired generation. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of that review.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what purposes the fossil fuel levy has been used since it was introduced; and what sums have been spent upon each of these purposes.
  34
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The fossil fuel levy has been used to finance the above-market element of the price paid by the regional electricity companies for electricity purchased from generators contracted under the non-fossil fuel obligation. The levy receipts paid to nuclear and renewable generators have been as follows:

  (£ cash basis)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Nuclear

  1,218

  1,284

  Renewables

  6

  15

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the appropriate regulatory authority the matter of pricing of electricity imported from France.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Enforcement of regulatory obligations is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Orimulsion
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of orimulsion have been imported in the last available year; and where it is consumed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Imports of orimulsion in 1991 were 465,000 tonnes and in 1992 to date (January to October) were 1,039,000 tonnes. Orimulsion is currently burnt at Ince B (Cheshire) and Richborough (Kent) power stations.

  Collieries
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the collieries that were assessed as being viable in the Boyd report.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The Boyd report prepared for my Department earlier this year did not assess the viability of individual collieries. It looked at the scope for productivity improvements and cost reductions in a group of representative collieries chosen by British Coal.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a direction to British Coal to grant access to Oakes and Associates to assess the viability of the Point of Ayr colliery on behalf of Clwyd county council.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend has no powers to issue such a direction.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 223, if he will set out the information on fresh nuclear fuel pins in each sections (e) and (f) of the question, which is not published in the annual plutonium figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Information on the imports and exports of civil plutonium in the form of fresh nuclear fuel pins is currently included under separated plutonium in the annual figures.

EDUCATION

  English (Key Stage 3)
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many schools are involved in the pilot scheme for the assessment of English at key stage 3;

  (2) what is the timetable for the announcement of the detailed nature of testing of key stage 3 English;

  (3) what consultation will take place following the completion of pilot tests for key stage 3 English, before a final decision on the design of the tests is announced;

  (4) who is responsible for making the decision about the nature of testing of English at key stage 3; who has acted as advisers to those making the decision; and what evidence is being used to support the decision;

  (5) what consultation has taken place on the assessment and testing of key stage 3 English;

  (6) how responses to the pilot tests of assessment of English at key stage 3 are to be collected; and what part those responses will play in determining the final shape of the tests.

  Mr. Forth
  The first national tests of English for 14-year-olds will take place in June 1993. The decision on the exact content of those tests rests with my right hon. Friend. In making his decision he will be drawing on advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) under its chairman, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach.

  Under the direction of SEAC, pilot tests were conducted in schools in 1990, 1991, and 1992. At each stage there has been careful evaluation with the views of teachers being taken into account. The lessons learned have fed into further improvement and refinement.

  This month SEAC tried out the 1993 test materials in 32 schools involving approximately 3,000 pupils. A second trial will be held in January 1993. A full evaluation of these trials, including the comments of the schools themselves, will inform the content of the national tests.

  Preliminary guidance on the 1993 tests was issued by SEAC to schools in September. Further and more detailed guidance for teachers about the nature and format of next year's tests is being distributed. More information will be sent to schools as early as possible next year.

  Pupils in one teacher classes in maintained primary schools in England by size of class

  Classes of size:

  up to 30

  31–35

  36–40

  41 and over

  January 1986

  Inner London Boroughs1

  120,505

  3,554

  36

  147

  Outer London Boroughs

  240,912

  56,950

  4,444

  508

  Metropolitan Districts

  665,406

  171,742

  17,664

  2,899

  County Councils

  1,481,240

  564,750

  59,172

  4,847

  All England

  2,508,063

  796,996

  81,316

  8,401

  January 1987

  Inner London Boroughs1

  124,900

  3,159

  0

  0

  Outer London Boroughs

  246,163

  53,952

  2,746

  372

  Metropolitan Districts

  676,861

  169,260

  16,808

  3,745

  County Councils

  1,523,464

  542,902

  52,216

  3,800

  Examination Results
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how the A-level results for students registered with one school but taught at another school under a consortium arrangement are recorded for the purposes of the publication of the examination league table.

  Mr. Forth
  All examination results for individual pupils should be credited to the school at which the pupil is registered, regardless of where they were taught. Clear instructions were given to schools as to how the results of candidates on roll at one school but taking examinations at another could be claimed back by the school at which they were on roll. Some schools seem none the less to have encountered particular difficulties in doing this in this first year of the new arrangements. We shall be examining the position to see whether it can be made easier for schools in this position to claim back their candidates' results in future.

  Schools (Concern)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority the number of schools which Her Majesty's inspectors have identified as causing concern.

  Mr. Forth
  Since HMI has never inspected all schools on a regular basis, it would be invidious to identify particular local education authorities in which there are schools known to HMI which give cause for concern. The system of regular inspections arranged by OFSTED, which come into operation from September 1993, will ensure that schools failing, or likely to fail, to give their pupils an acceptable standard of education are identified in reports published on all maintained schools every four years.

  Primary Classes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of children of primary age being taught by one teacher in classes of (i) up to 30 pupils, (ii) 31 to 35 pupils, (iii) 36 to 40 pupils and (iv) over 40 pupils in(a) inner-London boroughs, (b) outer-London boroughs, (c) metropolitan districts and (d) county councils, for each year from 1986.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of pupils taught by one teacher in classes of sizes one to 30, 31 to 35, 36 to 40 and 41 and over in maintained primary schools in England for the categories requested, for each year 1986 to 1991, the latest date for which information is available.
  37

  Classes of size:

  up to 30

  31–35

  36–40

  41 and over

  All England

  2,571,388

  769,273

  71,770

  7,917

  January 1988

  Inner London Boroughs1

  124,567

  3,089

  36

  97

  Outer London Boroughs

  249,191

  50,060

  2,584

  355

  Metropolitan Districts

  684,268

  158,734

  15,860

  2,634

  County Councils

  1,558,813

  524,199

  43,212

  3,615

  All England

  2,616,839

  736,082

  61,692

  6,701

  January 1989

  Inner London Boroughs1

  125,997

  4,316

  112

  0

  Outer London Boroughs

  248,284

  54,495

  2,541

  822

  Metropolitan Districts

  685,710

  167,894

  15,645

  2,742

  County Councils

  1,598,245

  596,597

  44,851

  3,867

  All England

  2,658,236

  733,302

  63,149

  7,431

  January 1990

  Inner London Boroughs1

  123,101

  5,819

  150

  86

  Outer London Boroughs

  253,494

  49,685

  2,490

  417

  Metropolitan Districts

  683,311

  191,698

  18,328

  3,284

  County Councils

  1,616,673

  521,370

  41,903

  4,235

  All England

  2,676,579

  768,572

  62,871

  8,022

  January 1991

  Inner London Boroughs

  131,063

  5,757

  267

  142

  Outer London Boroughs

  248,749

  64,703

  2,248

  492

  Metropolitan Districts

  681,304

  201,725

  21,837

  3,926

  County Councils

  1,605,189

  559,036

  46,514

  4,571

  All England

  2,666,305

  831,221

  70,866

  9,131

  1 Inner London Education Authority until 1 April 1990.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the average class size of primary and secondary schools in the United Kingdom for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Forth
  The average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in England for the years requested is shown in the table. Information on schools in other parts of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Average size of one teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England Position as at January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  19921

  26·4

  20·6

  1991

  26·3

  20·3

  1990

  25·9

  20·0

  1989

  25·7

  19·9

  1988

  25·4

  19·9

  1987

  25·4

  20·

  1986

  25·5

  20·3

  1985

  24·9

  20·4

  1984

  24·7

  20·4

  1983

  24·8

  20·6

  1982

  25·1

  20·7

  1981

  25·2

  20·8

  1980

  25·4

  20·9

  1 Provisional.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what will be the terms of reference of his general review of policy with regard to special schools with section 56 status, arising from the case of Scotforth house, Lancaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for a policy review arising from the Scotforth house case. However he has received a copy of the report of the inquiry and will consider carefully whether there are lessons of general applicability to be learned from it.

  Electrical Engineering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to promote electrical engineering at university level.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government have promoted science and technology subjects by setting the publicity funded fee for laboratory and workshop courses at 50 per cent. higher than the classroom rate. We are planning to widen the differential between these two fee levels further in order to increase the incentive to provide laboratory and workshop-based courses. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has been asked to consider ways to encourage continuing expansion of engineering and technology at all levels through its funding, and to provide incentives for two-year vocational diplomas. Electrical engineering can expect to benefit from all these measures.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information his Department has on the
  39
  non-completion rate for students undertaking electrical engineering courses in (a) universities and (b) other institutes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Information which is available on non-completion rates relates to all engineering and technology subjects.

  For universities, the estimated non-completion rate for engineering and technology, averaged between 1989 and 1991, was 16 per cent. (Source: University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the United Kingdom, 1992.)

  For other institutions, available data are for the first year of the course only, for 1987–88. They show that the exit rate for engineering and technology degree courses was 24 per cent. (Source: Department of Education Statistical Bulletin 9/92, 1992.)

  Text Books
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the expenditure per pupil on text books in the United Kingdom for 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  Average expenditure per pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools in England on books and equipment for 1980–81, 1985–86 and 1990–91 was £22, £35 and £57 respectively. The real terms increase on spending per pupil between 1980–81 and 1990–91 was 40 per cent. Not all local authorities separate expenditure between that on books and that on equipment. Expenditure on schools in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy that the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities should co-ordinate arrangements to ensure that further education continues to be provided in long-stay hospitals;

  (2) if the Further Education Funding Council will be responsible for the provision of further education in long-stay hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the duty to secure adequate further education provisions for adults, including those with learning difficulties, will be shared between the Further Education Funding Councils and LEAs. The scope of the funding councils' duty in relation to such provision is set out in schedule 2 to the Act; LEAs' duty is to secure adequate provision of a kind not covered by schedule 2. It will be a matter for the councils and local education authorities to determine what facilities, including those in long-stay hospitals, they should support in pursuit of their respective duties. Guidance from my Department on the Act makes clear the need for collaboration between all the agencies involved in making provision for students with learning difficulties, in order to ensure the best possible response to their needs.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of secondary schools are grant maintained.

  Mr. Forth
  Ten per cent. of eligible secondary schools have decided in favour of grant-maintained status. Six per cent. are already operating, a further 1 per cent. are approved but not yet operating, and an additional 3 per cent. have published or are publishing proposals.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have(a) held ballots on grant-maintained status and (b) opted for grant-maintained status; and of those schools which have voted for grant-maintained status what percentage of the parents who voted voted in favour.

  Mr. Forth
  To date, 726 ballots on grant maintained status have been held. Of these, 569 have resulted in a vote for grant maintained status. In those 569 cases, 77 per cent. overall of the parents who voted did so in favour of grant-maintained status.

  Women Undergraduates
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of people entering universities in 1992, from schools and as mature students, were women.

  Mr. Forman
  Information from the normal statistical sources—the USR 31 December census and the FESR 1 November census—will not be available fully until the middle of 1993, although provisional figures may be available by April.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of students who have taken up loans since the introduction of the scheme, the total that has been loaned, and the amount that has subsequently been repaid.

  Mr. Forman
  As at 24 November 1992, some 371,000 students had taken out loans, worth some £264 million, since the start of the scheme. Nearly £5 million had been repaid; this figure includes accrued interest.

  Engineering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to promote engineering within the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The national curriculum provides a broad and balanced education for all pupils to the age of 16 as a basis for a wide range of further education, training and career aspirations. A number of national curriculum subjects, including mathematics, science, technology and art, offer pupils the opportunities to acquire fundamental knowledge, skills and understanding appropriate for the study of engineering post-16. The flexibility now available in the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds will allow those who wish to pursue vocationally related courses to do so at that stage.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the total number of
  41
  (a) engineering and (b) electrical engineering graduates from (i) universities and (ii) other institutions for each year for the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Universities (United Kingdom)

  Engineering and technology of which

  8,801

  9,114

  9,349

  9,662

  9,485

  Electrical engineering

  409

  503

  499

  505

  443

  Polytechnics and colleges (England and Wales)

  Engineering and technology of which

  6,176

  6,192

  4,898

  5,357

  5,573

  Electrical engineering

  1,251

  1,363

  1,028

  952

  1,072

  Note:

  Due to a change in subject codes, graduate numbers from polytechnics and colleges for 1988 and earlier years are not directly comparable with data for 1989 and later years.

  Sources:

  University statistics, volume 2, table 3; examination results and first destinations survey, pack ref. 72/92.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to reduce non-completion rates of students on(a) engineering and (b) electrical engineering courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Universities and colleges have the prime responsibility to make their engineering courses attractive and their teaching effective so that completion rates are high. In his initial guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, my right hon. Friend asked the council to make arrangements to monitor completion rates in all subjects in higher education and to consider, in due course, whether these should be reflected in the allocation of funds to institutions.

  Unqualified Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the increase of unqualified teachers teaching specialist subjects in the United Kingdom; and what measures he plans to remedy this situation.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest secondary school staffing survey undertaken this year shows that, compared with the previous survey in 1988, there has been a small reduction in the proportion of tuition given by teachers who do not hold an appropriate qualification in the subject being taught. Only 19 per cent. of tuition was delivered in such circumstances, and of this about half was by teachers who had substantial expertise in the subject gained through teaching it for more than five years. We will continue to seek improvements in the match of qualifications to task through increased funding for in-service training and by recruiting teachers with qualifications relevant to the national curriculum.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an
  42
  Mr. Forman
  The numbers are as follows:

  equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department will develop a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy when it moves into its new premises.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department is not currently in a position to introduce a leakage prevention programme as it does not own or operate refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

  Gymnastics
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the specific financial grants made available by this Department in support of the sport of gymnastics for the current year.

  Mr. Brooke
  Most Government funds for sport are channelled through the Sports Council, which allocates these according to its policies and priorities. In the current financial year, the Sports Council has allocated a total of £398,000 in grant to gymnastics. This includes £322,000 to the British Amateur Gymnastics Association in support of the programmes identified in its four-year plan; £53,000 towards the costs of staging the world artistic gymnastics championships in Birmingham in April 1993; £13,000 to the British Schools Gymnastics Association; and £10,000 towards the costs of staging an international Brevet course in January 1993. In addition, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has provided £1,649,992 for various projects associated with the development of gymnastics since September 1991.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the English tourist board.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 13 November 1992 at columns 997–98.

  Hill Walking
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps are being taken to promote hill walking and rambling in Lancashire's hill country.

  Mr. Key
  The North West tourist board, which receives funding from my Department via the English tourist board—around £531,000 in this financial year—is responsible for the promotion of tourism in the North West region, which includes Lancashire. Its activities include the promotion of outdoor pursuits.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department will carry out and publish an inventory of the contents of the historic royal palaces, indicating what items are public property.

  Mr. Brooke
  The royal household has for some time been preparing a computerised inventory, to replace existing manual records, of all the works of art in the occupied royal palaces. These are part of the royal collection which is owned by the sovereign in right of the Crown.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if it is to be proposed that betting offices will be allowed to sell national lottery tickets.

  Mr. Brooke
  I intend to publish the Bill to establish the national lottery at the earliest opportunity. This will establish the arrangements for operation and regulation which will apply.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what duty is imposed upon English Heritage to survey and, or inspect refurbishment, rewiring and other works on grade 1 listed buildings; and what rights of access exist for English Heritage to fulfil duties in this regard.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage has a duty under section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983, so far as practicable, to secure the preservation of historic buildings situated in England. In appropriate cases, inspections could fall within the scope of this duty.

  Under section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, any persons authorised in writing by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the Secretary of State for the Environment or a local planning authority may enter on land for various specified purposes including ascertaining whether any listed building is being maintained in a proper state of repair; officers of English Heritage could be authorised under this provision. In addition, English Heritage itself has power to authorise such entry in London.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which parts of Windsor castle are listed grade 1; and what consideration has been given to listing Windsor castle as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation world heritage site.
  44
  Mr. Brooke
  Windsor castle and all the buildings within its walls are listed in grade 1.

  Windsor castle has been considered for nomination to UNESCO as a world heritage site, but as there are already a number of other strong candidates for world heritage site status I have no present plans to nominate this site.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what parts of the Chester tower at Windsor castle were maintained, redecorated or refurbished by his Department, or its predecessor, over the past five years; and what was the cost of this work to the Exchequer;

  (2) what surveys were made to the Chester tower, Windsor castle, since the fire at Hampton Court; what additional or alternative fire precautions and installations were recommended which were subsequently installed or implemented; and what was the cost to the Exchequer of those improvements.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following the Hampton court fire, a detailed survey of electrical services and fire precautions was carried out at Windsor castle, including Chester tower. In addition, in 1988 the PSA surveyed every part of the interior of the castle and recorded its findings in drawings, photographs and written reports. A photogrammetric record was also produced of the castle from Edward III tower to the Brunswick tower, including the private chapel.

  As a result of the survey which followed the Hampton court fire, a works programme costing over £20 million was started in 1988 and is now nearing completion. The Chester tower work had been completed. The fire prevention measures included:

  complete rewiring of the main castle buildings;

  automatic fire detection system;

  installation of new fire resisting doors to staircases and in corridors;

  upgrading of existing doors to provide fire resistance; infilling or upgrading of openings in staircase enclosures or escape corridors;

  replacement of combustible linings to services, to staircase enclosures;

  upgrading of enclosing elements of construction to plant rooms, store rooms, workshops, kitchens, lifts, ducts, shafts, tank rooms and access doors;

  enclosure of builders work ducts and service shafts;

  enclosure of light well features to internal corridors and state rooms;

  sealing of disused shafts, ducts and service openings;

  upgrading of floors relative to change of use;

  fire protection to exposed steel members, if newly installed;

  provision of fire breaks in some extensive voids;

  fire stopping of duct surrounds and service penetrations;

  fire sealing of the junctures of connecting cavities;

  infilling of openings or gaps in structural elements, especially in party walls;

  replacement of combustible service duct covers;

  installation of non-combustible false ceilings with cavity barriers;

  removal and replacement of combustible insulation or covers to air conditioning ductwork;

  installation of fire dampers in A/C systems;

  insulation of metal ducting in proximity of timber;

  removal of combustible waste materials from underfloor voids; and

  sealing of underfloor voids in the proximity of wall panelling.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a further statement on the effectiveness of denying direct broadcasting access to spokesmen of certain political organisations.

  Mr. Brooke
  The reasons for imposing the notices remain valid and I have no plans to announce any changes.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Personal Debts
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the latest figures available relating to the level of personal indebtedness of all adults aged 18 years and over, and as a percentage of the total population, in respect of(a) mortgages, (b) personal loans, (c) credit cards and (d) small business loans.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available statistics on lending to the personal sector do not include any information relating to the age of the borrowers. For the sector as a whole, which includes individuals, unincorporated businesses, charities and other private non-profit-making bodies, the levels outstanding as at 30 June 1992 were as follows:

  £ billion

  Loans for house purchase (mortgages)

  330·8

  Bank credit cards

  9·6

  Othere consumer credit (personal loans)

  43·1

  Other borrowing from banks

  40·6

  Total personal sector borrowing

  424·1

  The figure for other borrowing from banks is mainly that of unincorporated businesses—some of which may be relatively large—but it also includes an element of borrowing by charities and other private non-profit-making bodies classified to the sector. The figure for credit cards relates only to bank credit cards; borrowing on other cards—for example, on some store cards—is included in the figures for other consumer credit and cannot be separately identified.

  The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that the number of mortgages outstanding at the end of the first half of 1992 was 9·8 million.

  The latest estimate of the adult population of the United Kingdom in mid-1991 is 44·5 million.

  Mortgage Lenders
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for requiring mortgage lenders to offer capital and interest mortgages as well as endowment mortgages and for advising customers that alternative insurance advice should be sought when an endowment mortgage is preferred.

  Mr. Nelson
  The choice of products offered by mortgage lenders is a matter for their commercial judgment. However, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to make new quotations regulations under the Consumer Credit Act to improve consumer protection in this area. These include a requirement to ensure that borrowers taking out loans to 46
  purchase residential property are informed of their rights under the "tying in" provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act which, when brought into force, will make it an offence to refuse to grant a loan on the grounds that a prospective borrower declines another service, for example life insurance, offered by the lender or his associate.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for requiring mortgage lenders with tied insurance arrangements to display warnings that only one specified company's products are on sale in their branches.

  Mr. Nelson
  SIB and LAUTRO published detailed new rules on disclosure and standards of advice in connection with the marketing of life assurance on 22 July. These include requirement relating to prominent display of status in the premises of "tied intermediates", if customers have regular access to them. SIB and LAUTRO have stated that they will not be bringing the new rules into force until after they have been considered by the Director General of Fair Trading.

  EURO PROD COM
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what treaty or directive the EURO PROD COM inquiry has been instituted; and at which meeting the United Kingdom Government gave its consent to the EURO PROD COM inquiry.

  Mr. Nelson
  On December 1991, the EC Internal Market Council of Ministers passed the PRODCOM Regulation (No. 3924/91). The United Kingdom voted against adoption of the regulation.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many enterprises are being asked to submit returns under the EURO PROD COM inquiry; and what assessment he has made of comparability of the sampling frame and statistical base of EURO PROD COM in each country where it is pursued.

  Mr. Nelson
  So far 18,000 enterprises—24,000 contributors—have been informed that they are likely to fall within the scope of the annual and quarterly PRODCOM inquiries for the reference year 1993. Work is being carried out to establish a sample of smaller businesses to be included in the 1993 inquiries. It is expected that this will increase the number of contributors by 5,000.

  The Central Statistical Office has compared the methodology of its current product inquiries—as well as its planned implementation of PRODCOM—with that of other national statistical offices in Europe. The most up-to-date published study of product survey methods in European countries (Eurostat's "Industrial Production" booklet; Theme 4, series E) has provided a starting point on the methods currently employed. The PRODCOM regulation allows a two-year transition period during which each country must move its current product statistics inquiries onto the PRODCOM basis. The CSO continues to gather information about the latest plans of other European countries from their representatives on the Statistical Programme Committee for PRODCOM.

  Manufacturing and External Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, on the basis of July to December 1983 = 100, the United Kingdom terms of trade for finished manufactures together with (i) the volume of imports and exports of finished manufactures and (ii) the surplus/deficit on trade in manufactures at 1992 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information from which terms of trade in finished manufactures on a 1985 base may be derived is available on the Central Statistical Office databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House. Information relating to volumes is only calculated at 1985 prices. An index giving the volume of imports and exports of finished manufactures on a 1985 base is published regularly in the Central Statistical Office's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and is also available on the Central Statistical Office databank. From these the imports, exports and balances at 1985 prices can be calculated.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table showing, on the basis of July to December 1973 = 100, the increase in United Kingdom relative export unit values in dollars for each year since 1970 together with the United Kingdom share of the volume of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries;

  (2) what is his estimate of the percentage fall in the real exchange rate since the fourth quarter of 1986 and the second half of 1973 in terms of trade-weighted relative export unit values in dollars;

  (3) what is his estimate of the percentage fall in the real exchange rate against the deutschmark and the dollar respectively since the fourth quarter of 1986 and the second half of 1973 in terms of relative export unit values in dollars.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest figures for both relative export unit values and volume shares of manufacturing exports for the main manufacturing countries are available on the CSO databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect of the appreciation in the nominal value of sterling between the fourth quarter of 1986 and the third quarter of 1990 on the rate of inflation, manufacturing output and employment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The level of the nominal exchange rate is one of many factors that will have affected inflation, manufacturing output and employment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the trade-weighted reduction in the value of sterling, the dollar, the deutschmark and the yen since 1985; and if he will publish a table showing in each case to the latest available date the corresponding change in(a) the unit cost of labour, (b) producer prices and (c) consumer prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data for the effective exchange rates, consumer prices and producer prices of Germany, the 48
  United Kingdom, the United States and Japan can be found in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. Data on unit labour costs can be found in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". Figures for the United Kingdom can also be found in CSO's "Economic Trends".

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have recently signed a declaration of corporate commitment on energy efficiency on behalf of the Treasury. The Treasury's strategy for environmental good housekeeping includes a commitment to cease to use, wherever possible, ozone-depleting substances. The Treasury is making arrangements to monitor, evaluate and set performance levels and targets.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have recently signed a declaration of corporate commitment on energy efficiency on behalf of the Treasury. The Treasury's strategy for environmental good housekeeping includes a commitment to cease to use, wherever possible, ozon-depleting substances. The Treasury is making arrangements to monitor, evaluate and set performance levels and targets. We are considering the introduction of a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned by the Department.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of(a) established and (b) unestablished civil servants, including those in next steps agencies, on 1 January 1980 and on 1 September 1992, including those on short-term contracts.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of civil servants, including those in next steps agencies, was 707,620 on 1 January 1980 and 565,319 at 1 April 1992, the latest published data. We do not collect information for 1 September. Data for 1 October will be available shortly. No breakdown between numbers of established and unestablished staff is available: the concept of unestablished service was abolished with effect from 1 April 1991.

  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that building societies are passing on interest rate reductions to their customers; and if he will make a statement.
  49
  Mr. Nelson
  The setting of mortgage rates is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual mortgage lenders, taking into account a range of factors including their overall financial position and the interests of both depositors and borrowers.

  At a recent meeting with the Council of Mortgage Lenders my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that he hoped that the recent cut in base rates would be reflected in lower mortgage rates as quickly as possible.

  The building societies gave their assurance that reductions would be made as soon as possible consistent with the prudent management of the societies. The main societies have announced reductions in their basic mortgage rates to around 8·5 per cent.—their lowest level since the 1970s. The new rates already apply to new borrowers and will be implemented for most existing borrowers by 1 January 1993.

  VAT (Job Losses)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs will be lost in south east Essex by the move of the value added tax central unit from Southend.

  Sir John Cope
  Around 830 VAT central unit posts are to be relocated from Southend in phases between October and March 1995. Over the same period, some 110 Customs Directorate posts will be moved from London to Southend. This will mean that 320 posts have been moved in total from London to Southend and will complete the implementation of the Customs relocation programme announced in 1989 following a comprehensive internal study undertaken in the context of the Government's overall relocation policy.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the proceeds from privatisation for each year since 1988–89; and what is the expected figure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Privatisation proceeds since 1988–89 and the forecast for 1992–93 are shown in the attached table.

  Privatisation proceeds

  £ billion

  1988–89

  7·1

  1989–90

  4·2

  1990–91

  5·3

  1991–92

  7·9

  1992–93

  8·0

  Debt
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what initiatives he has undertaken during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community to assist the developing world to reduce its external debt.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: Following the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms initiative, the Paris Club has been giving enhanced debt relief to the poorest and most indebted countries since the beginning of this year. Twelve countries have so far benefited. The enhanced terms include cancelling 50 per cent. of the debt payments falling due over the period of the debtor's IMF
  50
  programme, and offering the possibility of a 50 per cent. reduction in the entire stock of debt after three to four years if the debtor keeps to its IMF and Paris Club agreements. The United Kingdom has consistently pressed for these terms to be made more generous still, in line with the Prime Minister's original Trinidad terms proposals, involving an immediate two thirds reduction in the entire stock of debt. At the Munich summit in July, the United Kingdom joined with the rest of the G7 in calling for the Paris Club to recognise the special situation of some highly indebted lower middle income countries on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the countries which have received debt relief under the Trinidad terms; and if he will give details in each case of(a) the debt cancelled by the United Kingdom and (b) the debt cancelled by all Paris club Governments;

  (2) what percentage of official bilateral debt owed to Great Britain by developing countries has been cancelled under the Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Twelve countries have benefited from Trinidad terms so far. They are Benin, Bolivia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Honduras, Mali, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and Zambia.

  Around £1 billion has been written off, of which the United Kingdom's share is some £65 million.

  Under the terms of the rescheduling agreements, debt payments due over the period of each debtor's IM F programme have been reduced by 50 per cent., though the United States and, on occasion, Australia, have adopted a non-concessional rescheduling option. The rescheduling agreements also include a good will clause committing the Paris Club to consider giving relief on the whole stock of debt after three to four years if the debtor adheres to Paris Club and IMF agreements.

  Figures for the actual debt owed by or cancelled for any individual country are confidential. We cannot publish these figures without the consent of the authorities in both debtor and creditor countries. For several debtor countries discussions on detailed terms are, in any case, still under way.

  Early progress is very unlikely on any of these fronts owing to the resolute opposition of other creditors, especially the United States and Japan.

  There has been a certain amount of pressure from the aid lobby for the United Kingdom to
  "deliver on its commitment to the unilateral implementation of Trinidad terms".

  But it would not be in our interests, nor really in the interests of the poorest countries, to go beyond the multilateral compromise. Debts to the United Kingdom are only 5 per cent. of the debts of the poorest, and going beyond the consensus would sacrifice leverage of the kind effectively deployed at Harare, and only succeed in marginally increasing the recoverability of other's claims at our expense.

  Debts cancelled under Trinidad terms result from insurance claims paid out to United Kingdom exporters by ECGD after a sovereign default. Debts to export credit agencies constitute the majority of developing country debts, and, unlike most aid loans, are at commercial interest rates. Many countries have forgiven substantial amounts of aid debts, including the United Kingdom.

  51
  About half of the $1 billion relief provided by the Overseas Development Administration represents the conversion of Indian hard currency debt into a local currency obligation.

  EC Trade
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected growth in United Kingdom trade with EC countries after January 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The forecast growth in the volume of United Kingdom-non oil exports in 1993 is 7 per cent. world wide. Separate forecasts for trade with individual geographical areas are not available.

  Brady Initiative
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the Brady initiative on(a) the total debt owed by developing countries and (b) the debt service payable by developing countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: As noted by the IMF/World Bank Development Committee on 21 September, arrangements for debt and debt service reduction measures have now been reached with 12 countries and account for more than 90 per cent. of the commercial bank debt of the major debtor nations. These arrangements involve a variety of debt and interest rate reduction measures which, on average, are equivalent to a debt reduction of more than one third of their commercial bank debt.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures employed by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to ensure that economic policy reforms in developing countries do not resultt in adverse social and environmental impact.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]:The Government strongly support the policy of the IMF and the World bank to pay full regard to the impact of adjustment programmes on the poor and the environment. The measures taken by the two institutions to achieve this are described in detail in their 1992 annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Table 1

  Average number of inspectors 1979–1986

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  London (East)

  13·0

  13·5

  9·5

  9·0

  8·0

  8·0

  6·0

  12·0

  London (West)

  13·0

  14·0

  12·0

  12·0

  11·0

  7·0

  8·0

  1—

  South East

  11·0

  13·0

  11·0

  9·0

  10·0

  10·0

  9·0

  6·0

  Southern

  11·0

  10·0

  8·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  5·0

  Eastern

  9·0

  11·0

  8·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  6·0

  South West

  10·0

  11·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  Midlands (East)

  11·5

  9·5

  8·0

  6·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  5·0

  Midlands (West)

  11·5

  12·0

  9·0

  10·0

  10·0

  10·0

  12·0

  7·0

  North West (East)

  11·0

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  7·0

  6·0

  80·

  6·0

  North West (West)

  10·0

  10·0

  9·0

  5·0

  8·0

  9·0

  8·0

  6·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15·0

  13·0

  10·0

  10·0

  9·0

  10·0

  10·0

  9·0

  Northern

  10·0

  9·0

  7·0

  6·0

  6·0

  7·0

  8·0

  7·0

  Scotland (East)

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  7·0

  5·0

  Scotland (West)

  8·0

  8·0

  4·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  5·0

  Wales

  7·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  4·0

  5·0

  6·0

  4·0

  1 Included in London (East) figure.

  52
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the United Kingdom Government to encourage British commercial banks to provide debt relief to those developing countries which have benefited from the Trinidad terms, and on the effectiveness of those measures.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The Government have supported and funded their share of the World bank's facility which supports voluntary arrangements on debt relief between debtors and banks. Two such operations have been agreed so far for Mozambique and Niger resulting in the retirement of $231 million of principal along with interest arrears totalling $90 million. The World bank expects that three further operations—for Bolivia, Guyana and Uganda—will be agreed shortly. Twelve other countries have expressed interest in taking advantage of this facility.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 332, when and how the Government's conclusions to the 1988 consultation document were published; and how many employer bodies are represented on the six largest councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Results of the 1988 consultation were given in a reply on 21 March 1989,Official Report, column 556. There are 43 employers organisations represented on the six largest wages councils.

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many wages inspectors there were in each region in each year since 1979; and how many there are currently.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average number of wages inspectors in each wages inspectorate division is shown in tables 1 and 2. The information is divided into two tables because of changes in divisional boundaries in 1986. The current number of inspectors is shown in table 3.
  53

  Table 2

  Average number of inspectors 1987–1991

  Divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  London

  9

  8

  7·00

  7

  5

  South East

  8

  6

  6·00

  6

  4

  Eastern

  6

  6

  6·00

  5

  3

  South West

  9

  9

  8·00

  8

  8

  Midlands

  11

  11

  10·00

  10

  10

  North West

  11

  11

  10·00

  10

  11

  Yorks and Humberside

  7

  7

  7·00

  7

  8

  Northern

  6

  5

  5·35

  6

  8

  Scotland

  8

  7

  7·00

  7

  8

  Table 3

  Division

  11992

  Southern

  7

  South West

  6

  Midlands

  9

  North West

  12

  Yorks and Humberside

  6

  Northern

  8

  Scotland

  7

  Divisions

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·48

  —

  South East

  0·88

  1·60

  1·29

  1·50

  1·42

  —

  —

  Eastern

  1·15

  —

  1·23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  —

  1·55

  1·60

  1·74

  2·18

  1·87

  Midlands

  —

  1·375

  1·20

  2·04

  —

  —

  2·30

  North West

  —

  1·60

  1·75

  —

  —

  1·50

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  1·92

  2·19

  2·00

  1·50

  1·70

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  1·91

  n/a

  1·25

  2·00

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·48

  1·60

  Car Industry
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of employees in employment in the automotive sector in total and by standard region in 1979 and at the latest available date.

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

  Employees in employment not seasonally adjusted Manufacture of Motor vehicles and parts (Class 35)

  June 1979 (000 s)

  September 19891 (000 s)

  South East (including Greater London)

  131

  69

  Greater London

  n.a

  19

  East Anglia

  15

  6

  South West

  13

  8

  West Midlands

  156

  79

  East Midlands

  12

  11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20

  16

  North West

  67

  40

  North

  10

  8

  England

  423

  236

  Wales

  23

  12

  Scotland

  17

  5

  Northern Ireland

  3

  3

  United Kingdom

  466

  256

  1 Latest date for which estimates are available at this level of detail.

  54
  Note:

  From November 1991 the London, South East and Eastern Divisions have been merged to form a new Southern Division

  1 as at 31 October 1992

  Wages Act 1986 (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the lowest level of payment for which prosecutions have taken place under the Wages Act 1986 in each region in each year since 1986.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The hourly rates of payment discovered in these cases are listed in the table:

  Shell (Stanlow)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been notified to her Department by Shell (Stanlow) since 1 November.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information given to the Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is provided in confidence.

  Oil Refining
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the oil refining sector in(a) Cheshire and (b) the north-west region in each of the last three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Statistics of Trade Act 1947 prohibits the disclosure of information which could be identified as relating to an individual employer. In the circumstances, I cannot provide the information requested.

  Training Agencies
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to provide increased support for training agencies in Ellesmere Port and the surrounding area.
  55
  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to provide support for training and enterprise through CEWTEC, the training and enterprise council for Ellesmere Port and the surrounding area. The 1993–94 contract, including the resources available to the TEC, will be negotiated between CEWTEC and the Department over the next few months.

  Domiciliary Care Agencies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her latest estimate of the number of independent sector domiciliary care agencies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is estimated that there are 1,388 licensed employment agencies which have indicated that their field of activity may include domiciliary care work.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Alcohol (Ingredients)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom presidency of the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers to ensure that a full ingredients listing is provided for still and sparkling wine.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. Ingredient listing for alcoholic drinks, including still and sparkling wines, is already the subject of a European Commission proposal currently being negotiated within the Council. The United Kingdom presidency is seeking to ensure that any measures which are eventually adopted are as comprehensive as practicable and apply consistently to all alcoholic drinks.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take action during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers to ensure that the current review of ingredients listing of beers, wines and spirits is extended to include the legalisation of voluntary unit of alcohol labelling of still and sparkling wines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The voluntary labelling of still and sparkling wines to show units of alcohol, which is currently contrary to Community legislation, does not form part of the European Commission's proposal concerning ingredient listing for alcoholic drinks. The matter of voluntary labelling of still and sparkling wines with units of alcohol is being pursued separately with the Commission.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental

  Region

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Eastern

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  3

  North Mercia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  4

  3

  South Mercia

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  2

  1

  Wessex

  —

  —

  7

  6

  7

  4

  3

  g

  9

  South West

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1

  4

  2

  56
  equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department disposes of all equipment containing CFCs and HCFCs in accordance with the Duty of Care Regulations which came into force on 1 April 1992 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These regulations put a responsibility on producers of controlled waste to ensure that it is disposed of safely and legally. Where existing equipment containing CFCs is to be renewed it is replaced by equipment which contains refrigerants which are understood to be less environmentally damaging. The Department considered but rejected replacing all sound equipment containing CFCs because on balance there was seen to be no environmental advantage in this course of action.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is fully aware of its responsibilities towards equipment containing ozone-depleting substances and has taken appropriate action to meet those responsibilities. All its refrigeration, other than small freezers and refrigerators, and air conditioning equipment is already subject to a rigorous maintenance regime, performance is regularly monitored and defects are attended to promptly.

  Badgers
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences were granted in 1991 and 1992 permitting(a) interference with a badger sett under the 1991 and 1992 Badgers Acts and (b) the entering of a dog into a badger sett; when the licences were issued; to whom; for what purpose; and for which geographical area.

  Mr. Soames
  Information on licensing has only been collected centrally since February 1992, prior to which very few licences were issued. The number of licences issued since this time is as follows:

  (a)

  licences to interfere with a badger sett under the 1991 and 1992 Badgers Acts (excluding the entry of dogs into setts)—numbers issued by month and by Ministry region:
  57

  Region

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Totals

  1

  4

  10

  9

  15

  24

  18

  19

  18

  The names and addresses of individual licence holders are confidential.

  While information on the specific purpose of each licence is not collected centrally, the majority of licences have been issued for the purpose of agricultural or forestry operations. Licences have also been issued to prevent serious damage to land, crops, livestock or other forms of property, or for land drainage purposes.

  (b) no licences have been issued at any time to permit the entry of a dog into a badger sett.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for licences to enter a dog into a badger sett his Department has received.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has received six applications for licences to enter a dog into a badget sett.

  Salmon
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to ensure the preservation of salmon stocks in English rivers.

  Mr. Curry
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for the management and regulation of salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales and has a statutory duty under the Water Resources Act to maintain, improve and develop such fisheries. The authority has extensive powers under salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation—which are subject to confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Wales, as appropriate—to make byelaws, orders and related measures, arid the duty and means to enforce them. Both the National Rivers Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which has policy responsibility for salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales—maintain extensive research programmes into salmonid fisheries.

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the action being taken in each other EC country to meet the new EC requirements on sheep premium.

  Mr. Curry
  It is for the Commission to monitor member states implementation of Community legislation on the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the additional checks and requirements that are now required to meet new European Community requirements on those applying for sheep premium in 1992; and what timetable has been imposed.

  Mr. Curry
  The principal changes to the 1992 sheep annual premium scheme requiring additional checking are the application of headage payment limits to partnerships and to shared flocks; the eligibility of leased flocks, shepherds, and employees in the context of a producer group claim; and the need for producers to keep additional records. There is no formal timetable but we aim to complete all checks and pay claims as quickly as possible.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the procedures which his Department follows in allocating quotas for the remainder of the year to a vessel which is expelled from a producer's organisation for overfishing and misconduct part through a year; and how a vessel's track record is assessed by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Producer organisations (POs) may request the suspension of the licence of a member who has persistently ignored the PO's quota management arrangements. If, after notifying Fisheries Departments of such a request, and following the full range of the PO's own disciplinary procedures, the PO subsequently expels the member, Ministers would not normally issue a fishing licence for the remainder of the quota year in question. If this procedure is not followed by the PO, Ministers may issue the expelled member with a non-sector licence. In these circumstances, a proportion of the PO's allocation based on the expelled vessel's share of the PO's track record would be transferred to the non-sector.

  A vessel's track record is its total reported landings over an agreed reference period. Vessels which are new to the fishery, or have licences aggregated onto them, during the reference period are given track records based on the vessels to which the licences were previously attached.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to administer non-producer organisation sector cod and sole quotas for 1993 on the basis of a quarterly allocation with a roll-over allowed for under fishing and a fishery closure for overfishing, in place of the monthly allocation arid annual shutdown in December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The management of quotas is not a precise science and we do not want to make the system more complicated to operate both by fisheries departments arid fishermen than is absolutely necessary. Seasonal fishing patterns may be subject to fluctuations from year to year. However, fisheries departments are considering ways of improving the management of non-sector quota allocations with particular reference to seasonal fisheries.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to consider a scheme of individual boat fishing quotas for all boats regardless of length and for all species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries departments considered in 1990 whether to introduce individual transferable quotas in order to allow market forces to operate more effectively. Such a regime would be difficult to operate in the common fisheries policy context and difficult to enforce in United Kingdom conditions. I do not believe it would be practical to introduce such a scheme presently.

  Commodities (EC)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food, pursuant to his answer of 25 November, what is the European Commission's estimate
  59
  of the overall level of reduction in each agricultural commodity arising from the assumption made in preparation of its latest GATT proposals; and how that breaks down in volume, percentage and value terms in each EC country and commodity and overall throughout the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission has prepared a note on the GATT agricultural negotations with the United States. This analyses the compatibility of the outcome with the reform of the CAP as decided by the Council on 22 May 1992. A copy of the report will be deposited in the Library of the House when it becomes available. It is not possible to assess the level of output in individual member states within the single market without making a large number of assumptions about the development of markets, except for some commodities where quotas set a limit on output.

DEFENCE

  Refit and Repair Contracts
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the Royal Navy refit and repair contracts undertaken by private yards in the latest year for which figures are available, the total costs of such contracts, and the proportion that expenditure represented of the expenditure on all Royal Navy refit and repair work, including work at the royal dockyards and the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation at Portsmouth.

  Mr. Aitken
  During the financial year 1991–92, in excess of 400 contracts were placed. Following competition, for the refit and repair of RN, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and other small vessels. Such contracts ranged from providing assistance to the RN in rectifying defects on operational vessels to the refitting of RFAs. The major contracts awarded are listed below.

  The total value of these contracts is in the order of £85 million (1992–93 price levels). This excludes those contracts awarded overseas and represents 14·7 per cent. of the total expenditure on all RN, RFA and RMAS refit and repair work. In volume terms, this represents 30·6 per cent. of the total naval production load.

  List of Royal Navy refit and repair contracts placed following competition 1991–92

  Vessel

  Contractor

  Olmeda

  Devonport Management Limited

  Olna

  DML

  Black Rover

  DML

  Regent

  Tees Dockyard Limited

  Resource

  Tees

  Fort Grange

  DML

  Argus

  A and P Appledore

  Sir Bedivere

  Appledore

  Sir Geraint

  Appledore

  Sir Percivale

  Tees

  Sir Tristram

  Tees

  Sir Galahad

  Appledore

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure in the latest financial year for which figures are available on all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary refit, repair and maintenance.
  60
  Mr. Aitken
  The total expenditure in the financial year 1991–92 on the refit, repair and maintenance of all RN, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and other small vessels is approximately £580 million at 1992–93 price levels. This covers work carried out in FMRO Portsmouth, the Royal dockyards and private yards and includes support work carried out in aid of such tasks.

  Harrier Squadrons (Support)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, by squadron or similar unit, the level of dedicated(a) Royal Engineer, (b) Royal Signals and (c) other Army support for the Harrier squadrons based in Germany in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Engineers: 10 Field Squadron based in Gutersloh and 38 Engineer Regiment (comprising 11 Field Squadron, 32 Field Squadron and 15 Field Support Squadron) based in Ripon will continue to provide this support until 1 December 1992. In future, a minimum of 1 squadron of 39 Engineer Regiment, to be United Kingdom based, will take on this role. The remaining 2 field squadrons will provide Airfield Damage Repair (ADR) to RAF Bruggen and RAF Laarbruch. In his statement to the House 10 December 1991 on the Reserve Forces the then Secretary of State announced that TA Royal Engineers would be taking on greater responsibility for ADR and support of the RAF Harrier force; a TA Regiment, 73 Engineer Regiment (V), will be available to provide ADR and combat support to the Rapid Reaction Force (Air) as well as for the Main Defence Forces.

  Royal Signals: From 1979 to 1 April 1992, 21 Signal Regiment provided one squadron to each Harrier airfield in Germany. This task is now undertaken by the RAF Tactical Communications Wing currently based at Brize Norton.

  EH101 Helicopters
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many EH101 Merlin helicopters will be carried on each of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers; how many were originally planned to be carried in this role; how aircraft carriers not to receive EH101 Merlin will carry out their anti-submarine warfare mission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to discuss numbers of aircraft deployed on individual ships. The 44 Merlin EH101 anti-submarine warfare helicopters ordered last year will enable us to set up training squadrons and introduce the first squadrons of aircraft into service with the type 23 frigate and one carrier. No decision has yet been taken on the size or timing of a second order. We currently envisage each of the aircraft carriers being provided with Merlin EH101 helicopters.

  Bosnia (Mail)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to establish a subsidy scheme to allow a reduced rate, or zero rate, postage for mail to service men and women serving in Bosnia.
  61
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Free aerogrammes can already be sent to and from service personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make arrangements to ensure that Christmas parcels can be sent out to those service personnel in Bosnia free of charge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Forces free airletters are delivered to the Bosnian region free of charge. Parcels can be sent at forces concessionary rates which are in line with the United Kingdom inland parcel rate.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the average length of time taken for an airmail letter to reach service personnel in Bosnia from the United Kingdom;

  (2) what is the latest posting date for parcels and letters to be sent to service personnel in Bosnia in time for Christmas;

  (3) how many free airmail letters can be sent and received per week by service personnel stationed in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Defence Postal and Courier Services Defence Support Agency under its chief executive, Brigadier Browne. I have asked him to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from Brigadier M. A. Browne to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 30 November 1992:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State in which you ask what is the latest posting date for parcels and letters to be sent to service personnel in Bosnia in time for Christmas.
  The latest recommended posting dates for parcels and letters to be sent to service personnel in Bosnia in time for Christmas are:

  30th November

  Economy Service Parcels

  11th December

  Airmail 2nd class letters, cards, packets and Standard Service (Airmail) parcels

  14th December

  Airmail 1st class letters, cards and Forces Free Airletters.

  Letter from Brigadier M. A. Browne to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 30th November 1992:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State in which you ask what is the average length of time taken for an airmail letter to reach service personnel in Bosnia from the United Kingdom
  At present airmail letters posted in the United Kingdom arrive at the British Forces Post Office in Bosnia within 2–3 days from date of posting. Final delivery to the individual is dependent upon his operational location.

  Letter from Brigadier M. A. Browne to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 30 November 1992:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked how many free airmail letters can be sent and received per week by service personnel stationed in Bosnia.
  There is no restriction on the number of Forces Free Airletters that can be sent and received per week by service personnel stationed in Bosnia.

  Major Peter Cory
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will return to the hon. Member for Basingstoke's constituent, Major Peter Cory (Rtd.), the 196 supporting documents which Major Cory handed to his Department between June 1962 and April 1963.
  62
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Major Cory has already been asked by my Department to write to the office of the Judge Advocate General, giving details of the documents he requires. Once the Judge Advocate General's office has these details, it will attempt to establish the whereabouts of the documents, with a view to returning them if possible.

  Cnewr Estate, Brecon Beacons
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department commenced negotiations for the use of the Cnewr estate in the Brecon Beacons national park; on what date these negotiations were completed; on what date the National Park Authority was informed of these negotiations; on what defence grounds the decision was taken to seek the use of this land; what changes he envisages as a result of his Department's environment manual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it will cost his Department to use the Cnewr estate in Brecon Beacons; how many days per year it will be used; how it will be used; what public access will be allowed on days when military exercises are not taking place; if he will compensate the national park for loss of access to the Cnewr; and what other land of his Department will be released as a result of this access.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 27 November at column 893.

  Landing Ships Logistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the three landing ships logistics that are now over 25 years old.

  Mr. Aitken
  Design studies are under way for the refurbishment and re-equipment of the three older landing ships logistic. It is our current intention to invite competitive tenders for the refit of the first of these vessels in the near future.

  Amphibious Vessels
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Britain's two amphibious LPD assault ships play in NATO's rapid reaction capability; where the two ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, are currently located; and how quickly they could respond as part of NATO's rapid reaction capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid form part of UK/NL Amphibious Force, which is primarily assigned to the defence of NATO's northern flank in Norway, but available for operations anywhere within the NATO area, including with the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. Both are currently at Portsmouth. For operational reasons we do not disclose response times.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed the evaluation of tenders submitted in respect of the new LPH amphibious helicopter carrier; and when he expects to make a decision to procure the vessel.
  63
  Mr. Aitken
  Evaluation of the tenders for the new LPH amphibious helicopter carrier, which were received in October, will be complete next summer and it is planned to place the order in the autumn of 1993.

  Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units, other than whole units that have been deployed, are currently contributing men to other units serving(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following units are currently contributing personnel to other formed units deployed in Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia:

  (a) Northern Ireland

  The Household Cavalry Regiment

  4th Royal Tank Regiment

  1 Royal Horse Artillery (Battery)

  7 Royal Horse Artillery

  47th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  156 Battery Royal Artillery

  9 Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers

  2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards

  2nd Battalion Scots Guards

  1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  The Royal Anglian Regiment

  The Light Infantry

  1st Battalion Queen's Own Highlanders

  1st Battalion the Gordon Highlanders

  1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  The Royal Green Jackets

  (b) former Yugoslavia

  2nd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  Using soldiers from one unit to reinforce another is not an unusual occurrence.

  Diego Garcia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom military presence there is on Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to page 36 of the 1992 Statement on the Defence Estimates, Cm 1901.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the details of all discussions which Ministers or officials of his Department had with International Military Services on its exports to Iraq.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: International Military Services has signed only one export contract with Iraq since 1980. Details of this were given to the House on 2 July 1991.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made by Her Majesty's Government of the effect on Iraq's military capabilities of sales of military equipment or dual-use engineering technology by United Kingdom companies following their attendance at the Baghdad international military equipment exhibition and fair in April 1989.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The Government have studied the Iraqi defence industry and its military procurement activity. Apart from case-by-case assessments of individual export licence applications, no
  64
  specific study has been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government on the effect of exports by united Kingdom companies on Iraq's military capability following the Baghdad exhibition.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of the Advanced Technology Institute in connection with military exports to Iraq.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: My Department monitors all organisations which we have any reason to suspect may be trying to procure military technology for Iraq.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by date all written, telephonic and personal communications Ministers or officials of his Department had with(a) Matrix Churchill Ltd., (b) Alliance International Group, (c) Allivane International Ltd., (d) Ordtech Ltd., (e) Autel Ltd. and (f) Consarc Ltd. in regard to Iraq since 1985.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The information the hon. Gentleman requests is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responses have been made by his Department to requests and reports received from the United Nations Special Commission of Inspection on Iraq or its executive chairman, Rolf Ekeus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The Government have made a significant contribution to the work of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq as it seeks to implement relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In response to UNSCOM's requests, we have supplied MoD personnel as part of the UNSCOM inspection teams and some specialist equipment. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information given to us by UNSCOM.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what papers or records belonging to Astra Holdings plc or its former directors or employees are held by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make these papers available to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Lord Justice Scott will have access to all relevant Government papers.

  It is not the practice of Government Departments to itemise publicly documents in their possession.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many documents having a bearing upon the health and safety of participants in Britain's nuclear test programme are being withheld from public scrutiny beyond the 30-year rule; on what grounds this has been done; and if he will now ensure that all such documents are placed in the public domain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Much information relating to the health and safety

  65
  of participants in Britain's nuclear test programme has already been released into the public domain. Those documents which continue to be withheld from public scrutiny beyond the 30-year release period of the public records Acts are properly retained on files by the MOD, under section 3(4) of the 1958 Act, for national security and personal sensitivity reasons. The number of such documents cannot be assessed without disproportionate cost, but the files in question will continue to be kept under regular review and will be progressively released as their sensitivity lapses.

  El Alamein Anniversary
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution to the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of El Alamein was made by companies; and if he will identify the companies and amounts concerned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding reply 27 November 1992]: The following companies generously provided sponsorship for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the battle of El Alamein:

  Alvis plc

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd.

  Perkins Engines (Shrewsbury) Ltd.

  Vickers plc

  VSEL

  Land Rover

  British Airways

  Sponsorship was either in the form of a cash donation or the provision of a service in kind. Individual contributions are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give full details of all official representatives of Her Majesty's Government who attended the Eighth Army Veterans Association 50th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein held at Commonwealth cemetary, El Alamein on Sunday 25 October with, in each case, their travel and expenses costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Her Majesty's Government were represented at the El Alamein commemoration ceremony by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. Calculation of their exact travel and expenses costs has not yet been finalised.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was requested from the 8th Army veterans towards expenses of their attending the 50th anniversary of El Alamein; and if he will refund it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The El Alamein commemoration events consisted of the service at Westminster abbey, a ceremony in E,gypt and the refurbishment of the El Alamein museum. The MOD El Alamein project team funded by the MOD, industry and private individuals helped to organise the events. No contributions were requested from either individual veterans or the Eighth Army Veterans Association. All veterans made their own arrangements, and paid for travel to Egypt, most booking packages with travel firms or with the Royal British Legion.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to establish a family credit helpline.

  Mr. Burt
  We will fulfil our manifesto commitment by introducing a family credit telephone helpline from March 1993. This expanded service will for the first time be available to potential family credit recipients rather then simply current recipients and will help support yet more working families.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family credit claimants, since its introduction, have sought a change in their payments arising from a change in their income during the 26 weeks for which the award has been granted.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of family credit claimants since its introduction have had a different income when they have made their second 26 weeks claim from when they made their first.

  Mr. Burt
  Since April 1988, 83 per cent. of family credit recipients, who made a successful claim for a period immediately following a previous award, had a different income at the time of their second claim.

  No comparable information is held about those whose second claim was unsuccesful, or about those whose second award did not follow immediately after their previous award.

  Source: 5 per cent. sample.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the family credit regulations to allow payments to take account of a claimant's change in income during the 26 weeks for which the award has been granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The majority of family credit claimants receive an increase in their earnings during the 26 weeks of the award. The rule therefore works to their advantage and we have no plans to change it.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage total expenditure on social security has increased since 1979 in real terms.

  Mr. Lilley
  Expenditure on social security increased in real terms by almost 60 per cent. between 1978–79 and now. Included within this total is a 33 per cent. real increase in expenditure on benefits for the elderly and additional spending on the long term sick and disabled which is one and a half times as great as in 1979. In addition—help for low income families has more than doubled-five times as many families now receive family credit as received family income supplement in 1979.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the backlog of applications for disability living allowance to be cleared.

  Mr. Scott
  Steady progress towards achievement of the Benefits Agency's national clearance times for disability living allowance is being maintained and the number of outstanding claims continues to fall.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process a disabled living allowance application.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. Clearance is measured against targets and for disability living allowance these are: 60 per cent. of claims cleared in 30 days and 95 per cent. of claims cleared in 55 days.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will benefit from the introduction of the new disability living allowance.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will gain from the two new disability benefits introduced in April.

  Mr. Scott
  Around 300,000 people are expected to gain from the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help, over and above normal upratings, he has made available to help low-income families since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  The measures we have taken since 1988 to help low income families will be worth around £1 billion extra from April next year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of low income families facing marginal reduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in(a) 1978–79 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on 3 November at column 94.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect on the level of his Department's expenditure on benefits of the proposed public sector pay norm.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are unable to identify separately numbers of potential beneficiaries who work in the public sector. However, the effect of the policy for public sector pay announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement was taken into account when assumptions about future earnings for the whole economy were made for the purpose of forecasting benefit expenditure.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Since 1979 we have introduced a wide range of improvements. They include the introduction of severe disability allowance, improvements to income support premium for disabled children, and the extension of invalid care allowance to non-relatives and married women. We have aimed to provide a comprehensive and coherent system giving priority to those disabled early in life, who have least opportunity to work and to save and to promote independence and integration. These improvements culminated in the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance in April this year.

  By the end of 1992–93 planned expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people will have risen by more than 170 per cent. in real terms to £13·7 billion.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current earnings disregard in invalid care allowance; and what was its value three years ago.

  Mr. Scott
  The earnings limit has been increased each year since 1990, rising from £12 a week in March 1990 to £40 a week in April 1992, a total increase of £28. Subject to Parliament's approval the limit will increase to £50 a week from April 1993.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects social security payments to cease to new age travellers.

  Mr. Burt
  The Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992, which come into effect on 3 December, will remove entitlement to income support from most unemployed single people and childless couples who fail to seek work actively. So-called new age travellers and others who make no effort to look for work will no longer be able to support themselves at the taxpayer's expense.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to provide information about the new Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  We are planning an advertising campaign to begin in mid-January with advertisements in professional journals. This will be followed in mid-February by television and radio advertising, and advertisements in newspapers and magazines.

  Leaflets providing a broad overview of the changes will be available on request from early December. The main leaflet will be available from mid-February; this will explain the changes in more detail and how much child support maintenance might be payable in individual cases.

  In addition, officials are holding a series of training presentations for advisers and lawyers at 23 locations in Great Britain.

  Support for Families
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for families.

  Mr. Burt
  The information follows:

  Date and change introduced

  April 1988

  Introduction of Family Credit

  April 1989

  Extra 50p in IRB child allowances

  April 1990

  £1 on Family Credit adult credit

  Extra 50p on Income Support and Housing Benefit family premium

  Extra 50p on child personal allowances in Income Support, Family Credit and Housing Benefit

  Increase in lone parent premium in Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit

  Increase in lone parent earnings disregard in Housing benefit and Community Charge Benefit

  Extra in disabled child premium in Income Support

  Extra for expectant mothers through Social Fund maternity payment

  October 1991

  Increase for families on Income Support to ensure they gain from Child Benefit increases

  April 1992

  Change in Family Credit hours rule and maintenance disregards for lone parents

  April 1993

  No clawback of amounts included in IRB for Community Charge

  Homeless Families (Cooking Facilities)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce a boarder premium for homeless households living in temporary accommodation who do not have access to cooking facilities.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of improvements in the service offered by the social security offices as a result of a computerisation of the benefits system.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 2 November at column 94.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the methods by which he plans to make savings from invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We will streamline the medical control procedures which already apply to all claims for incapacity benefits. People invited for medical examinations will be given more notice, and asked to give reasons if they cannot attend; and improved reports by examining doctors will reduce the number of people who are invited to attend a second examination. This better use of resources will help to ensure that benefit is paid only to those who satisfy the entitlement conditions laid down by Parliament.

  Pensioners (Diet)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning his Department's efforts to enable pensioners to have access to and be able to afford a better diet.

  Miss Widdecombe
  While endorsing the view that everyone should be encouraged to follow a healthy diet, the Government believe that pensioners, like other benefit recipients, should be free to spend their money as they choose.

  Direct Payments
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of his Department's regional offices currently allow direct payments for benefit claimants to water companies.

  Mr. Burt
  Direct payments for water charges are available to people in receipt of income support in England and Wales who meet the criteria in paragraph 7 of schedule 9 the Claims and Payments Regulations 1987. These are that the beneficiary has failed to budget for the charge and that the adjudication officer considers direct payments to be in the interests of the family. These arrangements do not apply in Scotland, where water is paid for through community water charge.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that charges for the emptying of cesspits which are over the normal sewerage charge levied by water companies in an area will be wholly or partially met by the Benefits Agency for households living on income support.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so. It would be administratively complex and expensive to take account of local or individual variations in the cost of such items.

  Women Claimants
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women, as a percentage of the total female population, claim(a) child benefit, (b) family credit, (c) income support, (d) housing benefit and (e) poll tax benefit; or any combination of these benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available provides that the number of women who claimed the specified benefits, as a percentage of the total female population aged 16 and above in mid-1991, was estimated to be:

  Per cent.

  Family credit

  1

  Income support

  11

  Housing benefit

  6

  Community charge benefit

  9

  Notes:

  1. Information on the numbers of women eligible to claim is not available.

  2. Female population of 23,195,000 is based upon provisional 1991 census estimates.

  3. In housing benefit and community charge benefit cases without income support, the sex of the claimant is not recorded, therefore no information in respect of these cases can be given.
  71
  4. In housing benefit and community charge benefit cases that are also in receipt of income support, only the sex of the income support claimant is recorded, which is not necessarily the same as that of the housing benefit and/or community charge benefit claimant.

  5. Figures provided are for single women and women as heads of households (i.e. claiming for a male partner).

  Recipients of child benefit number 6,717,000, the overwhelming majority of whom are women.

  Multiple-birth Children
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy, as part of a review of the payment of a higher level of child benefit only to first-born children, to conduct a study into the relative costs of raising multiple-birth children in families; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how he assesses the needs of multiple-birth children and their families in determining the levels of all benefits for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Burt
  A range of social security benefits provide increasing help for families with increasing numbers of children, whether of single or multiple births. In the case of the income-related benefits, which help less well-off families, support for children increases as they grow older. These families may in addition receive a maternity payment of £100 from the social fund in respect of each baby expected, born or adopted.

  The higher rate of child benefit applies to the eldest child for whom payment is made at any time, not just the first-born. So it underpins the role of this benefit in recognising that all families with children face additional expenditure compared with other families. We have no plans to review the present structure.

  England

  1Percentage

  Scotland

  1Percentage

  Wales

  1Percentage

  19902

  Community charge

  Nil

  0.0

  2,000

  0·4

  Nil

  0·0

  Social fund5

  284,000

  8·2

  75,000

  15·6

  24,000

  9·7

  Fuel6

  153,000

  4·4

  59,000

  12·2

  11,000

  4·4

  19913

  Community charge

  18,000

  0·5

  13,000

  2·7

  3,000

  1·2

  Social fund5

  333,000

  8·9

  84,000

  17·3

  26,000

  10·1

  Fuel6

  176,000

  4·7

  52,000

  10·7

  14,000

  5·4

  19924

  Community charge

  262,000

  5·7

  52,000

  9·9

  22,000

  7·4

  Social fund5

  495,000

  10·8

  103,000

  19·6

  38,000

  12·8

  Fuel6

  238,000

  5·2

  51,000

  9·7

  17,000

  5·7

  1 As a percentage of the total number of Income Support recipients in each country.

  2 Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1990 (except for the Community Charge figure which is based on Management Information Statistics collected by the Benefits Agency the end of May 1990). All figures have been rounded to the nearest '000.

  3 Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1991 (rounded to the nearest '000).

  4 Source: The figures used are based on Management Information Statistics collected by the Benefits Agency at the end of August 1992. These figures, which have been rounded to the nearest '000, are provisional and may be subject to amendments.

  5 It is not possible to exclude from the Social Fund figures repayments made by people not in receipt of Income Support.

  6 In compiling the figures for fuel, those cases with a deduction for both gas and electricity have been counted twice.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the benefits system so that residents in local authority residential care are treated equally with those in private residential care.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support are having deductions made from their benefit(a) for poll tax arrears, (b) fuel bills and (c) social fund loan repayments; and what percentage of the total number of claimants this represents.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest information showing the total number of income support recipients with a deduction for community charge arrears, fuel bills and social fund repayments and as a percentage of the total number of recipients is as follows:

  Recipients with deductions

  Number

  Per cent.

  (a) Community charge arrears

  337,000

  6·2

  (b) Fuel bills

  305,000

  5·6

  (c) Social fund repayments

  637,000

  11·8

  Notes:

  1. Source: The figures used are based on management information statistics collected by the Benefits Agency at the end of August 1992. These figures, which have been rounded to the nearest '000, are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  2. It is not possible to exclude from the social fund figure repayments made by people not in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support in each region and as a percentage of the total had deductions made from their benefit(a) for poll tax arrears, (b) fuel bills and (c) social fund repayments in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992 to date.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. The figures show the number of income support recipients with a deduction at the point of survey. Figures showing the total numbers who received a deduction throughout each year are not available.

  Mr. Burt
  Local authorities receive central grant funding through the revenue support grant towards the cost of the services that they provide. It would be inappropriate for people in local authority residential care homes to receive the same levels of income support as people in independent sector homes as it would be double provision of central Government funding.

HEALTH

  Ultraviolet Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to issue detailed advice to the public on the maximum lengths of time people with sensitive skins should be exposed to direct sunlight;

  (2) what material has been produced by her Department in each year since 1989 on the subject of skin cancer and the dangers of over-exposure to UVB.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on safe exposure to the sun has been included in a Health Education Authority leaflet "Are You Dying To Get A Sun Tan", and "Smart Cookies Don't Burn" produced by the pharmacy health care scheme. The chief medical officers also issued an information note to directors of public health in May 1992 which gave advice on avoidance of excessive exposure to the sun. As part of the "Health of the Nation" strategy the Department proposes to issue comprehensive guidance on skin cancer prevention in the new year. The Department will also discuss with the Health Education Authority a national public education campaign on exposure to sunlight and other sources of ultraviolet radiation. Other departmental initiatives include a review of protection standards for sun screens and sunglasses, the information available to users of sun-tanning equipment, and of research.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her reply of 19 October,Official Report, column 80, what evidence she has of changing patterns of exposure to sunlight since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department was advised on the health effects of ultraviolet radiation by the expert Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—in June this year and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 1 July 1992 at columns 637–39. COMARE's views that skin cancer risk is determined largely by patterns of exposure to existing levels of UVR was based on consideration of a number of peer reviewed reports published in the medical literature.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will remove budgeting limits for the London ambulance service to allow all overtime offered by staff to be taken up to the extent necessary to avoid shortages in rostered crews.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service has had real growth of £1 million 1992–93 with a total budget of £69·7 million for the year. The LAS is expected to operate within the resources available to it and to manage overtime levels effectively. Management and staff agree the need to review jointly the effectiveness of the current rosters in meeting the standards of service expected from the LAS and must work together to achieve that objective.

  Nurses, London
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are currently employed in each of the four London health regions.
  74
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is given in the table. The figures are expressed as whole-time equivalents and have been rounded to the nearest ten. The figures are for 30 September 1991, the latest information held centrally and exclude agency staff and include trusts within the boundary of each region.

  Numbers

  North West Thames Region

  26,480

  North East Thames Region

  32,750

  South East Thames Region

  28,280

  South West Thames Region

  21,590

  Dental Patients
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who had registered with dentists for NHS dental care have subsequently been de-registered by their dentist.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information shows that between 1 October 1990, when patients first registered with dentists, and 30 September 1992, a total of 7,632,613 patients were removed from the dental lists. During the same period there were 35,993,965 additions to the list. Removal from the list occurs for a variety of reasons, for example, dentists' retirement, patients wanting to change dentists and patients moving area. Removals from the list can be instigated by either the dentist or the patient, but are not separately identified.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by her Department; if she will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and ydrochlorofluorocarbons; if she will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if she will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities and national health trusts to operate and manage equipment in an environmentally conscientious manner. NHS Estates, an executive agency of my Department, plans to issue guidance on refrigerants and air conditioning in 1993. This guidance will address the operation, maintenance and reclamation of refrigerant equipment and will take account of developments on alternative agents.

  AIDS (Dental Equipment)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research information she has concerning the risk of infection with the AIDS virus from dental apparatus such as air and water lines and head and rotary drills; and if she will make a statement.
  75
  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Bereavement Services
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what bereavement services are funded by her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department currently provides grant aid under the section 64 general scheme towards the central administrative—core—costs of two national voluntary organisations providing bereavement services. They are Cruse—Bereavement Care which receives £114,000 per annum and the Widows Advisory Trust which receives £18,000 per annum.

  Youth Care Services
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of Government support given to young people leaving care;

  (2) what action is being taken to ensure that all local authorities are providing continuing support for young people leaving care.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities have a flexible range of powers and duties through which they may support young people who are no longer being accommodated by them, or other agencies. We are closely monitoring how local authorities are exercising their powers and duties under the Children Act 1989 as a whole, and will be reporting to Parliament on this in the new year. As part of the monitoring exercise, a separate survey on progress in implementing the aftercare provisions of the Act was commissioned. We are carefully assessing the results of this work.

  Cervical Smears
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women were given cervical smear tests during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The objective of the national health service national cervical screening programme is to screen women between the ages of 20 and 64 at least once every five years. Seventy-four per cent. of the target population in England were screened by 31 March 1991, the latest year for which figures are available. Provisional figures indicate that 80 per cent. of the target population will have been tested by 31 March 1992.

  Public Consultation Responses
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to the letter of 16 November from the hon. Member for Halifax concerning public availability of public consultation responses.

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied on 27 November.

  Deaths (Children)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths among under-fives in England for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of deaths among children under five in England for 1991 is 5,750. The figure for 1992 up to and including the end of June is 2,548. The decline in infant mortality, with deaths at the lowest level ever achieved, include the welcome reduction in sudden infant death—cot death.

  Service Contracts
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of budgets placed by health authorities with provider units to fulfil service contracts will have been used up before the end of the financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the pay review bodies dealing with the pay of NHS staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are confident that the review body system is the right way of determining the pay of those staff within their remits.

  Asthma
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria must be met before a disease or condition is accorded key area status in the "Health of the Nation" strategy; and in what respects asthma fails to meet those criteria.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Three criteria, set out in "The Health of the Nation" Green Paper, governed the selection of the key areas: the area should be a major cause of premature death or avoidable ill-health; effective interventions should be possible, offering significant scope for improvement in health; it should be possible to set objectives and targets, and monitor progress towards them. Asthma was not selected as a key area because more information is needed for understanding causes and effective interventions before realistic targets can be set.

  West Midlands Ambulance Service
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the response time for 999 calls by the West Midlands ambulance service for the last five years in each district.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir James Ackers, the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, for details.

  Community Care
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on the possible implications for the continued financial viability of residential drug and alcohol services of new community care arrangements after April 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department has received a number of representations following our decision to ring fence the whole of the community care special transitional grant. I have met the national voluntary organisations representing alcohol and drug misuse services, and with leading service providers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting representatives of the Alcohol and Drug Services Alliance today.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what method of algebra group data was used for calculating the amount of community care funding to be transferred to local authorities after April.

  Mr. Yeo
  The formula used and the assumptions made in calculating the amount of the transfer from social security are explained in the Department of Health's memorandum dated 13 November 1992. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will identify the make-up of the amount allocated for community care support and other service costs, for 1993–94, broken down into(a) costs arising from development of purchasing and contracting, (b) development of financial systems, (c) setting up of assessment and care management systems, (d) information technology, (e) the effect of alignment of charges, (f) inspection of small homes, (g) home care and (h) support to carers.

  Mr. Yeo
  The £140 million additional finance covers all the items listed except inspection of small homes, which was considered in the context of the overall personal social services settlement.

  Renal Dialysis
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 505, if she will introduce into the patients charter a specified time limit within which non-emergency renal patients on dialysis will be guaranteed the disconnect system.

  Mr. Sackville
  Whether and when disconnect dialysis is appropriate is a matter for clinical judgment and the resources available bearing in mind local health needs and priorities.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in connection with the changes which have been announced to the limited list prescribing system.
  78
  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health met the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on 19 November to discuss the implications of the autumn statement and the proposed changes to the selected list scheme.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement giving details of the changes which she has announced to the limited list system of drugs which may routinely be prescribed; what are the names of those individuals who are to serve upon the advisory committee which is to consider the changes in question; what new categories of products are to be considered for inclusion in the system; what are the reasons for including those categories; and if she will indicate the timetable by which she expects progress to be made on this subject.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 24 November at column 589 and on 26 November at columns 808–9 respectively.

  The categories listed were chosen because they covered a range of products at varying price levels and therefore offered scope for savings while enabling all real clinical needs to continue to be met.

  The Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs will in future be asked to take into account in its recommendations in all therapeutic categories the purpose for which the drugs are normally used as well as the indications for which they have been licensed.

  I expect the advisory committee to start reviewing the new categories early in 1993. I hope that changes in the list of non-prescribable drugs will be made before the end of that year.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, the medical profession and patient representatives, in connection with her announced changes to the limited list prescribing system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met the Association of British Pharmaceutical industry. Requests from other organisations to hold meetings about the selected list scheme wilt be considered in the normal way. I expect that in any case this issue will be on the agenda at many of the regular meetings which Ministers or the Department hold with professional and other organisations.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact upon the British pharmaceutical industry, in terms of profitability, employment and product development, of the changes which have been announced to the limited list prescribing system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 26 November at column 810. The relative profitability of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and decisions on product development depend on factors in both the United Kingdom and other key pharmaceutical markets. It is not possible to assess whether there will be any effect on employment in the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry until decisions on individual products have been taken.
  79
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the limited list prescribing system(a) in reducing the cost of drugs to the NHS and (b) in promoting improved patient care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1985–86 the selected list scheme saved £75 million on the drugs bill. It is not possible to make meaningful estimates for subsequent years but we have every reason to believe that significant savings continue to be made. Savings from the recently announced extension of the scheme will depend on the recommendations of the independent Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs. Drugs needed to meet all clinical needs will remain available on NHS prescription. Limiting the rate of growth of the drugs bill will ensure that the overall resources available to the NHS can be put to best use in order to provide the highest possible standards of patient care.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to publish in the form of a consultation document the details of any changes which are to be made to the limited list prescribing system prior to bringing forward the necessary order to this House.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We intend to follow the established procedures for amending the list of drugs which GPs cannot prescribe under the national health service. Recommendations on particular drugs are made by the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs, which comprises doctors, dentists and pharmacists appointed after consultation with relevant professional organisations. The manufacturers concerned are able to submit representations to the committee before it makes its recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many national health service prescriptions were written for appetite suppressant medicines in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines for appetite suppression currently available will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (2) how many national health service prescriptions were written for anti-diarrhoeal medicines in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines currently available for the treatment of diarrhoea will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (3) how many national health service prescriptions were written for medicines acting on the skin in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines acting on the skin currently available will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  Prescriptions dispensed by chemists and applicance contractors in England (Prescriptions in thousands)

  Group

  1990 total2

  Pensioners

  1991 total3

  Pensioners

  Pensioners as a percentage of total

  Appetite suppressants

  358·0

  1—

  379·3

  50·0

  13·2

  Anti-diarrhoeal

  1,498·5

  1—

  1,377·6

  480·2

  34·9

  Acting on the skin

  25,280·8

  1—

  26,607·3

  7,232·6

  27·2

  80
  (4) how many national health service prescriptions were written for medicines acting on the ear and nose in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines currently available for the treatment of ear and nose condtions will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (5) how many national health service prescriptions were written for medicines for the treatment of vaginal and vulva/ conditions in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for women aged over 60 years; and which medicines currently available for the treatment of vaginal and vulva] conditions will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (6) how many national health service prescriptions were written for contraceptives in 1990 and 1991; and which contraceptives currently available will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (7) how many national health service prescriptions were written for allergic disorders in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines currently available for the treatment of allergic disorders will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (8) how many national health service prescriptions were written for topical anti-rheumatics in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which topical medicines currently available for the treatment of rheumatism will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (9) how many national health service prescriptions were written for hypnotic and anxiolytic medicines in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which hypnotic and anxiolytic medicines currently available will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of new limited list regulations;

  (10) how many national health service prescriptions were written for medicine used in the treatment of anaemia in 1990 and 1991; how many of these prescriptions were for pensioners; and which medicines currently available for the treatment of anaemia will cease to be prescribable on the NHS as a result of the new limited list regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the prescriptions dispensed by chemists and appliance contractors in England in 1990 and 1991 for each of the categories of drug that will be added to the selected list scheme are shown in the table. Information on prescriptions issued to pensioners is not available for 1990. No decisions have been made on which drugs within each groups will cease to be prescribable on the national health service. Such decisions will be based on advice from the independent Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs.
  81

  Group

  1990 total2

  Pensioners

  1991 total3

  Pensioners

  Pensioners as a percentage of total

  Ear and nose

  5,590·8

  1—

  5,773·0

  1,442·4

  25·0

  Vaginal and vulval

  2,553·7

  1—

  2,414·2

  355·8

  14·7

  Contraceptives

  7,036·8

  1—

  7,118·1

  —

  —

  Allergic disorders

  4,901·1

  1—

  5,171·0

  952·2

  18·4

  Anti-rheumatics

  3,979·6

  1—

  4,394·9

  2,501·8

  56·9

  Hypnotic and anxiolytic

  17,634·1

  1—

  16,820·9

  9,586·0

  57·0

  Anaemia

  4,364·1

  1—

  4,229·0

  1,875·4

  44·3

  1 Not available.

  2 1990 data are based on fees.

  3 1991 data (new Prescription Cost Analysis) are based on items.

  Prescription Budgets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to her letter of 23 November to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, if her projections for the indicative prescription budgets for 1992–93 include provision for(a) third wave and (b) other general practitioner fundholders; and what estimate she has made of the provision for those fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The third wave of the fund holding scheme is not due to start until April 1993. Information for third wave fund holders is therefore unavailable. Information about existing fund holders has been placed in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect on the cost of the community care reforms of the proposal to levy council tax on nursing and residential care homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Residents and patients in residential care and nursing homes will not be counted towards the personal element of the council tax. Where a home has no resident staff, home owners will be required to pay only the property element. This will reduce the bill by 50 per cent. They are likely also to be able to claim further reductions in respect of disabled residents and should in addition benefit from the transitional relief scheme. The cost to care homes and nursing homes is therefore likely to be small and there should be no significant effect on the cost of the community care reforms.

  Payments and Services (West Midlands)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the rules governing payments and levies given to Financial Information Project Systems Ltd by the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Directions to health authorities on the maintenance of systems of sound financial control are contained in health circular HC(91)25. A copy is in the Library. The question of payments to Financial Information Project Systems Ltd is currently under investigation.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance has been made for meeting the shortfall between benefits and charges for residential care in the arrangements for community care funding with effect from April.

  Mr. Yeo
  The £140 million additional finance for community care above the £399 million transfer from social security will ensure that all authorities will be able to purchase appropriate care for people under their new responsibilities. The cost of care to individual authorities will depend on their success in obtaining good contract terms with care homes and in providing non residential services for people who could be better cared for at home.

  AIDS
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the levels of social services specific grant for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 for AIDS/HIV; how many cases of(a) people with AIDS and (b) people with HIV were reported in each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what are the current estimates for 1992–93 and 1993–94;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the level of social services specific grant for AIDS/HIV for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The level of AIDS/HIV specific grant for 1991–92 was £10·2 million and for 1992–93 £15·3 million. For 1993–94 the grant will be £12·4 million. The number of AIDS cases reported and HIV infection reports for England and Wales are as follows:

  AIDS

  HIV infection reports

  1990–91

  1,226

  2,179

  1991–92

  1,260

  2,368

  1992–93

  1756

  11,298

  1First 6 months only.

  The latest predictions are for the period to the end of 1993 and are for AIDS cases only. For 1992–93 the planning projection after adjustments for reporting delay and under-reporting is 2,150 AIDS cases.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to introduce a citizens charter for carers and users of personal social services.
  83
  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans to do so at present. Our community care reforms are fully consistent with the principles on which the citizens charter rests. They set new 84
  standards in user and carer involvement in the assessment of individual need; they promote choice; and they ensure users have access to information and the right to complain.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Lord Spens Lord Spens —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

State Pension Entitlement Age
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet come to a decision on the EC proposal that the age of entitlement to state pensions should be the same for men and women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government's intention is to announce their proposals some time next year. Over 4,000 responses have been received during the public discussion period and social security Ministers have met representatives of various interested organisations to discuss their submissions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that to my personal knowledge this matter was under discussion in British Government circles 37 years ago? Therefore, is he aware that there does not seem to be very much hurry about it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand that this matter has been under discussion for some years. It has possibly been under discussion ever since the pension age for women was reduced from 65 years of age to 60 during the war. I accept that it is very difficult and that no simple solution will satisfy everyone. That is why my right honourable friend announced a discussion period in June of last year and produced a discussion paper in December of last year. That discussion period continued until June of this year. As I said in my original Answer, we have now received some 4,000 responses and we intend, as I indicated, to announce our proposals in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in this House and elsewhere cannot see why on earth the EC should be involved in the retirement age for men and women in this country? Is it not a fact that this is a decision which should be made by the British Government, the British Parliament and the British people alone? When it is made, may I have an assurance that it will be made in a way so that men as well as women retire at the age of 60?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the second part of the noble Lord's question, I can give him no reassurance to that effect. As I said quite clearly, no decision has yet been made. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I can give him a categorical assurance
1168
that a decision will be made by the British Parliament, the British Government and the British people. EC law does specifically allow for unequal state pension ages under a derogation under its Directive 79/7.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that the question directed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was based on a misunderstanding? He was confusing the European Convention on Human Rights at the Strasbourg courts with the European Community and the Luxembourg courts.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that many of the questions coming from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, are based on a misconception. I will leave it to my noble and learned friend to correct the noble Lord on occasions. As I said, EC law does specifically allow us derogation in this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since I have been attacked—I do not want to waste the time of the House—but perhaps I may say that my question was based on no misconception at all. I understand far more about the European Community and European affairs than most other people in this place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no attack on the noble Lord was intended by me or, I suspect, by my noble and learned friend. I was merely stating, first, what the Government's position is and, secondly, that under EC law there is a derogation which allows unequal state pension ages.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, has my right honourable friend considered the question of a flexible decade for retirement for both sexes? That might solve many of the problems for both men and women which exist at the moment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall consider all possible options, including bringing the age down or taking it up or having a flexible period for retirement. Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages in every single option. I would not like to give any indication as to the way in which the Government are thinking at the moment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is clear that the present pension age benefits women, but the structure of pension provision does not. Does the Minister agree that women have interrupted contributions because they have children, they take up part-time work and very often they earn too little to pay national insurance contributions, so that most poor pensioners are women and most women pensioner households are poor? Therefore, I ask the Minister not to isolate the issue of the pension age from the wider question of financial security in old age for men and women alike.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would never want to exclude anything from our period of discussion. Certainly, we take all factors into account. I would not necessarily accept the assertions of the noble Baroness. I would stress that we have increased

1169
provision for the poorer pensioners in our extra premiums in income support quite dramatically over the past few years.

Trident
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Trident nuclear missile is less safe than its Polaris predecessor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the recent Oxburgh report on United Kingdom nuclear weapon safety states that the Trident II Strategic Weapon System has,
"safety levels that are comparable to and in some ways higher than those of Polaris".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer, but is he aware that Professor Oxburgh's rather reassuring conclusions have been challenged scientifically on both sides of the Atlantic, and that the second BASIC report (from the British-American Security Council) suggests that Professor Oxburgh has not examined the matter with sufficient care? As I understand it, he has not, for example, examined the possibility of a road accident involving Trident which, since Trident is carried by road, is a factor that should be looked into because the consequences of such an accident might well be almost beyond description.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will know as well as I do that the BASIC report is not an authoritative report and that the other reports which have been produced in this field, particularly the Drell report, make it perfectly clear that in all respects Trident is at least as safe as Polaris was and, in some respects, safer. With reference to road transport, the noble Lord will also be aware that particular attention has been paid to this subject of late. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we are entirely satisfied about the safety of road transport for Trident.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that he told the House on 16th November that a comprehensive test ban treaty would not affect the safety of the Trident system? Bearing that in mind, will the noble Viscount now take this opportunity to revise his description of the new US testing legislation as,
"unfortunate and misguided"—[Official Report, 16/11/92; col. 447.],
especially as the President elect supports it? Will he now endorse the resumption of talks aimed at banning all nuclear tests world wide by 1996?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pays so much attention to what I say in your Lordships' House. I was also much gratified to hear that in another place an attempt was made to quote me from Hansard from the very same exchange, which was slapped down at the time. I have
1170
nothing more to add to or to detract from what I said. The present American Government are perfectly clear in their understanding of the ban on future testing. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that the overwhelming reason for continuing selective testing is one of safety, and that safety would benefit greatly if we were able to continue our testing programme, which is something we intend to do until 1996.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not precisely the question of safety that we are discussing in this Question? Is the noble Viscount further aware that it is quite wrong to describe the BASIC report as "not authoritative"? Certainly it is not a government report but the membership of the research committee, which gave the evidence upon which the BASIC second report is based, is extremely authoritative and the noble Viscount should not question it. Perhaps I may suggest to him that Professor Oxburgh and his group should take a look at the second BASIC report and see what conclusions they reach.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we always take matters of nuclear safety with the utmost seriousness. We read all reports which address themselves to this subject and we take them most seriously. All that I can say to your Lordships—and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular—is that we are at present satisfied about the safety conditions governing the Trident missile system. That satisfaction is, of course, always tempered by keeping the matter under close and serious review.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, following the reply which the noble Viscount gave to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, can he say what the Government will do in 1996 when we can no longer test in the United States? Will they rely on non-nuclear tests; will they test somewhere else, such as Australia; or, at long last, will they sign a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who I think was present during the fairly recent exchanges which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will remember that we are perfectly clear that the future safety of nuclear weapons in this country would be greatly aided by an extension of the nuclear testing programme beyond 1996. However, as I think I made clear at the time to the noble Lord, this certainly does not impede the existing safety of the nuclear systems of the Trident system. We are concerned purely with the safety of future weapons systems. Although alternative technologies exist, at present they are not adequate substitutes for testing, but we shall certainly want to look further at them.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope that the Minister clearly understands that the Question that has been put to him today comes from a Member of this House who is opposed to any deterrent of any kind and that he does not speak for anybody on this side of the House except himself.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I am

1171
well aware that his history as a former Chief Whip of the Labour Party in another place makes him a far greater expert than I on the opinions of the people who were formerly under his charge.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that I do not speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are all well aware not only that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is more than able to speak for himself but certainly that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is as well.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that in all of these discussions we should never ever forget the nuclear test veterans who were seriously damaged by the very early nuclear tests? They are still waiting for adequate, proper and fair compensation.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think that your Lordships will agree that that question is outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I refer the noble Lord, if it would be of some help, to the debate raised by his noble friend Lord Parry on this very subject. I hope that he will take the time to read my reply to that debate.

The Cameroon Republic
2.50 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their position regarding the situation in the Cameroon Republic following the recent allegedly fraudulent presidential election and subsequent human rights violations.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have noted with grave concern the numerous reports of widespread intimidation and repressive measures taken by the Cameroonian authorities against opposition parties and of serious human rights abuses since the results of the election were announced. We have called on the Cameroon Government to take all possible measures to end human rights abuses and to take active measures to demonstrate their commitment to democracy.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, which on first hearing sounds quite robust. However, I think the problem is one of giving some teeth to the Government's expressed indignation. Is she aware that the National Democratic Institute of the United States, which monitored last month's presidential elections in Cameroon, concluded that,
"widespread irregularities seriously call into question the validity of the outcome"?
In view of the subsequent house arrest in Bamenda of the opposition candidate, John Fru Ndi, whom I have met both in Cameroon and in this country and who is an eminently reasonable man, and the human rights abuses which the noble Baroness has mentioned, will the Government consider terminating all development aid to Cameroon and encouraging in their presidency of the EC all other EC members to do the same,
1172
particularly their opposite numbers in the Quai ďOrsay since France has a special relationship with Cameroon? I ask this particularly because the United States has in the past two days suspended all except humanitarian aid to Cameroon for the same reason.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the report from the American National Democratic Institute. The Cameroon supreme court in announcing the result also drew attention to a flawed process. One example of the reasons for international concern was the result in South Province. Although government figures showed 190,000 people of voting age, voter turnout, overwhelmingly in support of President Biya, was given as 216,000. With regard to our aid, which is about £3 million a year, it is largely devoted to important forestry conservation projects. We are keeping the situation under review in consultation with other major aid donors.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an estimate of the number of political prisoners currently being held in Cameroon? Can she say what representations the Government have made, or whether they will make representations, to secure the release of opposition leaders who have been arrested and detained for no other reason than that they have criticised the government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, many members of the opposition have been arrested. In particular, the main opposition candidate, John Fru Ndi, is currently under detention together with around 150 of his supporters. A Cameroonian mission led by the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Francis Nkwain, visited the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 18th November. We made our views plain to this mission and have subsequently drawn a British statement issued on 19th November to the attention of the Cameroon government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is universally agreed that the human rights situation in Cameroon is particularly outrageous? If we are not prepared to withdraw aid under these circumstances, would she be so good as to tell your Lordships under what circumstances we would withdraw aid?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we are discussing this with other major aid donors.

Bosnian Refugees
2.55 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale The Marquess of Tweeddale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will revise their policy towards Bosnian refugees.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be making a Statement on this matter in another place later today, which will be repeated in your Lordships' House at a convenient

1173
moment after 3.30 p.m. I hope therefore that the noble Marquess will be content to wait until then for an answer to his Question.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which I understand.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Bosnian refugees.

Midland Metro (No. 3) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Car Tax (Abolition) Bill to be taken on 3rd December.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 2nd December
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Annan set down for 2nd December shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
2.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill, To leave out from ("House") to the end and insert ("pursuant to the Resolution of this House of 20th October last, declines to consider the Bill in Committee until such time as Her Majesty's Government have received and published the results of the inquiry into the coal industry").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat unusual procedure and I recognise that right at the outset of what I would like to say to the House. But there are unusual circumstances in relation to the Bill and the subject matter that it deals with. Not only that, I should also make it quite clear at the outset that there are indeed strong feelings on this side of the House at least about the way in which the Government have behaved in this matter.
The problem arises from the postponement of the Committee stage of the Bill on 19th October. That postponement was the first act in a series of somewhat desperate acts on the part of the Government, thrown as they were completely off balance by the storm of protest which greeted their announcement of 31 pit closures. They then tried frantically to extricate themselves from the self-created mess that they had thereby engendered.
We can no doubt appreciate why alarm bells were ringing in government circles. The Prime Minister, that great interventionist the President of the Board of Trade and the few Cabinet Ministers whom they deigned to consult on this matter had all failed to predict the depth of hostility evident throughout the country at this ill-considered policy. The Government, having underestimated the opposition to the pit closures and facing increasing disquiet, if not indeed active panic, from their own Back Benchers, then postponed the Bill, conscious of the fact that it would have to face the stormiest of passages in your Lordships' House, as it will undoubtedly have to face if it is now brought back.
On 19th October the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in withdrawing the Bill—it is important that we remember the words precisely—said:
"it has become increasingly clear to me that, since the announcement of the pit closures made last Tuesday, many of your Lordships consider that the context in which the Bill is to be scrutinised by the House has changed since the Second Reading debate".
He went on to say:
"Though it is my view that the issue of pit closures and the subject matter of the Bill are separate, I recognise that this perception may not be widely shared by your Lordships".
How right he was! He continued:
"In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the relatively short time which has elapsed since the pit closures' announcement, it appeared to me that the House would find it difficult to fulfil its functions effectively as a revising Chamber should it be asked to proceed into Committee on the Bill today. My feeling was reinforced by the fact that the pit closures policy itself is currently under legal review".
A little later he said:
"Moreover, as your Lordships have just heard, the Government have proposed further adjustments to the policy. In the light of these developments, and the uncertainty they necessarily engender, I considered that the measured consideration of legislation, in which the House plays such a valuable role in Parliament, would not be possible".—[Official Report, 19/10/92; col. 627.]
At the time, we on these Benches opposed that rearrangement of the business. We did so primarily on the grounds that we wished a discussion to take place on the pit closures programme and upon the Government's failure to consult and reach agreement with all the opposition parties. The Committee stage of the Bill was therefore not proceeded with.
The next day (20th October) the House considered a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in the following terms:
"That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to hold a thorough independent inquiry into the future of the coal industry before proceeding with either their original proposals or those announced on 19th October, and to publish the outcome".—[Official Report, 20/10/92; col. 666.]
As the House will undoubtedly recall, that Motion was carried by 125 votes to 100 votes. Apart from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, 20 Cross-Benchers voted for the Motion, as did eight Conservative Peers. It was the clear and expressed intention of the House that nothing further should be done regarding the coal industry until there had been a full and independent inquiry which Parliament was in a position to consider. Reflecting that, on that same day (20th October) the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, gave their support to a wide-ranging inquiry under the auspices of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry into the future of the coal industry and the impact of the closures, despite the fact that the day before Mr. President Heseltine had refused to countenance any such development.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Select Committee has not yet concluded its work. The decision to return the Bill is, in some ways, an attempt to prejudge that inquiry itself. It also casts doubt upon the Government's commitment to the inquiry in the first place. In the light of that background—I am sorry to have taken the time of the House to set it out, but it is important in this case that we have the framework and the parameters of the discussion clear—I find it astonishing that the Bill is now back again in front of the House.
I have three points to make. First, what has changed since 19th October? Nothing, as far as I am aware. The matter is still before the courts. The Select Committee is sitting. No doubt a White Paper is being drafted. The context—to use the words of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in which the Bill is now to be considered is essentially the same as it was on the day that it was withdrawn.
Secondly, it is impossible to argue that the Bill has nothing to do with the closure programme or the future of the industry: one has only to look at the amendments already on the Marshalled List to see that. The issues which the Select Committee is supposed to be considering are bound to be live ones and, indeed, very lively ones, if the Committee stage continues—a fact recognised by the noble Lord the Leader of the House on 19th October when he withdrew the Committee stage.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House may say that he is not responsible for the amendments. Of course, that is perfectly true, but by bringing the Bill forward now at this time, before the Select Committee has had a chance to consider the matter, and before we have had a chance to consider the Select Committee's Report, he is provoking the very discussion that he professes to wish to avoid. Of course the House will wish to consider the whole matter, not just the bits of it that the Government would like it to.
Thirdly, to commence the Committee stage now would be to fly in the face of the Resolution of the House on 20th October. We have not had our independent inquiry; we have not been given the opportunity to consider the result of one. One assumes that there will be a White Paper. Incidentally, whatever happens to this Motion today, I assume that the noble Lord the Leader of the House can assure us that no Bill for the privatisation of the coal industry will be introduced until after the White Paper has been published and until after Parliament has had a full opportunity to consider it.
It may be argued that the Bill is necessary to enable British Coal to employ consultants to advise on the sale of individual pits, and that unless those consultants are employed there is a possibility of eventual job losses. If that is an argument which is valid now, it was an argument which was just as valid on 19th October. Not only that, it was never argued on Second Reading that the Bill was necessary to give British Coal power in respect of individual pits. I find that argument extremely difficult to accept.
To employ financial consultants on the offer to the public of the whole industry in a privatisation is one thing. That may well require consultants of the highest, and no doubt of the most expensive, order in the City; but to deal with the sale of individual pits —if, indeed, any buyers can be found—seems to me to be different. Information as to their life; as to the geology of the area; and as to the costs of production is already in the hands of British Coal, otherwise it could not have taken a decision to close the pits in the first place. It is fanciful and, indeed, somewhat misleading to suggest that that has now become the object of the Bill. Of course it is not. Moreover, I note what Mr. Heseltine said in a debate in another place on 21st October:
"I have today invited Boyds, an international mining consultancy of world repute, to report to me on the viability of those pits. I also intend to appoint consultants to report on the prospects for British Coal". —[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/92; col. 455]
He at least did not feel that he needed the Bill before being able to take such consultancy advice.
That is the situation in which we now find ourselves. What should the Government therefore do in the light of that situation and the Resolution of the House passed on 20th October? Having posed the question, I shall now try to answer it. They should not proceed with the Bill's Committee stage. If they insist on continuing with rail, then coal should be severed. If they wish to proceed with a paving Bill for rail, so be it. That is a matter for them, and the House can consider it in the normal way. But to proceed with a Bill for coal is premature, ill-advised, and contrary to the specific Resolution of the House. It is premature because, essentially, nothing has changed since 19th October. The reasons for withdrawing the Bill then are just as valid today. It is ill-advised because it flies in the face of your Lordships' clearly expressed view that we should await the results of an independent inquiry before proceeding any further. Finally it is—to put it mildly —somewhat tactless to proceed in this slightly autocratic manner that so disregards the views that the House has already expressed.
For those reasons, we on these Benches have tabled the Motion which seeks to ensure that the Bill is postponed until such time as the inquiry into the coal industry is complete. We believe that that is a reasonable request, especially since the court actions have yet to be resolved. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will be able to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill, To leave out from ("House") to the end and insert ("pursuant to the Resolution of this House of 20th October last, declines to consider the Bill in Committee until such time as Her Majesty's Government have received and published the results of the inquiry into the coal industry").—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I had thought that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal might wish to speak at this stage. As he does not, I shall intervene and await his reply with interest.
I am not merely surprised, but amazed, that the noble Lord the Leader of the House did not accede to the request which was most strongly put to him last week by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and myself. That is all the more so as the vote in October indicated that there was a widespread view held right across the House on that issue. The proposition we were putting forward was that the Government should wait only until the publication in January—no longer than that —of the committee of inquiry into the coal industry before proceeding with the Bill. Even from the narrow point of view of the efficient management of government business, it would have been wise to have acceded to that request. To start the Bill in ill-feeling in December is unlikely to produce a quick or earlier outcome than to start it with good feeling in January.
I should also have thought that wise leadership in the present circumstances would have sought to win friends for the Government rather than gratuitously trying to alienate everyone in sight. The hard, incontrovertible fact is that this Government are the least esteemed government within living memory. If the noble Lord doubts that for a moment, let him pick up any newspaper, whether Conservative inclined or not. Alternatively, even more significant, let him listen to the views of people of public spirit and in positions of influence, many of whom must have voted Conservative in April, and see what is their feeling. He will find a widespread sense—and I say this deliberately —of national shame at the antics of this Government.
I cannot, therefore, easily see what are the Government's motives for ignoring a wholly reasonable request and warning from both the Opposition parties. They can hardly believe that by so doing they will achieve what is sometimes known as the "smack of firm Government". There are few sights less convincing or more pathetic than that of a weak government and of weak men trying to puff themselves up with a display of forced strength.
Then, as I understand it, the Lord Privy Seal said that the Government are concerned above all with
1178
preserving jobs in the coal industry and that they must have the Committee stage today in order to facilitate that. Have they really no sense, if not of shame, at least of the ridiculous? For the Government to say that their prime motive is the defence of jobs in the coal industry is like Richard III, after the murder of the princes in the Tower of London, opening a subscription list for the Save The Children Fund.
Then we have the proclamation of the doctrine of the mandate: a Bill which was envisaged at the time of the election is sacrosanct. What was primarily put before the country in April was that if this Government were returned, there would return with them renewed confidence, and an economic upswing would begin immediately. What was also put before the country was that the central economic strategy must be to maintain the exchange rate and our position in the ERM. In addition, a great success was to he made of the British presidency of the European Community and Britain was to be acclaimed as the leader of Europe. If I were the Lord Privy Seal, I think I should say as little as possible about the utterly discredited promises of April.
If the Government wish to ride roughshod over this House, instead of observing some decent civilities or convenances between the two sides, it is wise to make sure that they have the resources to do so. At the moment, the Government have neither repute nor authority, neither judgment nor consistency. I think that the Lord Privy Seal will come to regret his intransigence on this.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I have only a few brief points to add to the comprehensive speech made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. After the Government's announcement that a review of the coal industry would take place, any rational person would assume that nothing should be done to change the basis on which the industry exists. The Government suggest otherwise.
It is important to remember why the Government decided to undertake the review. It was decided on because of the sheer strength of opinion in the country against the proposed pit closures. People who had no connection whatever with the coal industry—people with no relatives in it, people who did not live in coal mining areas and those who perhaps did not support the miners in the 1984–85 strike—all joined in the protest against the massive scale of pit closures which had been proposed. The protest was so strong and universal that the Government did not simply say, "We had better take heed of what the people are saying", they were shocked and scared at what was happening. Even this Government, we thought, were not so incompetent and silly as to ignore what could only be described as a revolt.
I venture to suggest that if the public were aware that the Government had decided to press ahead with the Bill, there would be further protests. Of course, the public cannot be expected to know the details of parliamentary procedure. If they were able to do so, there would be cries of, "Betrayal!", because that is exactly what the Government are doing, particularly in view of the detailed information which my noble

1179
friend reiterated. There can be no justification whatever for any change since the review was announced.
This is perhaps the most important part of my contribution. Other important changes are taking place: development work at some pits has been stopped. That is blatant interference which cannot be justified in any circumstances. In my former constituency, a planning application has already been submitted to the local authority for the demolition of the entire surface workings of the two remaining pits in the area. I have a copy of that application. Perhaps I should mention that 3,000 miners will lose their jobs at Easington and Seaham Vane Tempest, if those pits are closed, to say nothing of the multiplier effect.
There has been widespread publicity about the numbers of miners who have applied for redundancy payments since the review was announced. Your Lordships should know that many of those applications are based on inaccurate and misleading information being given to miners who, understandably, are deeply concerned that they may lose their payment. That may well be the case.
Last week I met the president of the north-east area of the National Union of Mineworkers. He and his members are greatly disturbed about the matters that I mentioned and, I have to say, other matters. I hope that the Government are listening to what the miners are saying because there may well be a shortage of skilled men to operate the pits which remain.
A plea which I and others constantly make concerns the security of supply. At the present rate of extraction, this country has 200 years' supply of coal beneath the surface. That is of the greatest importance to the future of this nation and it should not be prejudiced in any way. There is abundant evidence that the British coal industry, without subsidy of any kind these days, is as efficient as any other in the world. To start paving the way to privatising it is, to say the least, speculative.
It is as certain as anything can be that safeguarding our massive reserves will not be a priority in a privately-owned coal industry. That should be a major factor, in my view the most important factor, in the review of our coal industry. The Bill is irrelevant and based on an uncertain knowledge of what form the industry will take.
The amendment before us today is not party political, it is based on simple common sense. The people of this country, if they had the opportunity, would say, "What is the argument? We were promised a review. Let's see what it produces and then we will determine whether privatisation, part privatisation, public ownership or public control is the wisest way to proceed".
I need not remind your Lordships because my noble friend made the point forcefully from the Front Bench, but this House defeated the Government's recent proposals relating to pit closures. Some of us thought and still think that the coal industry has made outstanding progress in recent years and that a review was unnecessary in any case. It was a tacit, real admission by the Government that their proposed policy was wrong. In the circumstances, there should
1180
be a review, untrammelled by this or any other Bill. Action, if any, can be taken when the results of the inquiry have been examined. In the meantime, let us get on with other more important business.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the three speeches to which your Lordships have just had the pleasure of listening have all referred to the fact that the Bill deals with the coal industry. I appreciate that it is in respect of that industry that there is real concern, not only on the Benches opposite but generally in the country. However, the Bill also deals with a much bigger and, from the British economy's point of view, more significant matter—that is the railways. If your Lordships were to adopt the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the provision for preparing the railways for denationalisation would be eliminated. This is the really important part of the Bill. It is the part of the Bill where it is extremely necessary that the British Railways authorities should be given a clear indication of what steps they are to take to prepare for privatisation. It is significant, and perhaps a little alarming, that noble Lords opposite, including the leaders of the two parties, did not feel it necessary even to mention British Rail and the future of British Rail.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be arguing a case that it would have made sense in the first place to have had two separate Bills. These are two separate industries. Why not have two separate Bills? Indeed it is perfectly possible, I believe, for that to be done now.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the fact that this Bill in its present form has already had a Second Reading. Therefore to drop it would mean that all aspects of it, including the one to which I am drawing attention, the railways, would have to start again from the beginning. I suggest to your Lordships that the really important matter is that our railways should be given the earliest possible opportunity to organise themselves for the change in ownership which I believe most opinion in most parts of the country believes in. What does the noble Lord want?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly as I do not wish to detain the House. Surely the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the railways have been preparing for privatisation for the past several years. To the outsider it looks as if they have been doing little else.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is perhaps an undue reflection on those responsible for our railways. I do not think the noble Lord can possibly controvert the view that this Bill is necessary in order that those who run our railways should be given the full authority and opportunity to get ahead with the preparations for privatisation. I regard it as very disturbing that in moving this Motion the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters did not even think this was a subject worth mentioning.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but that really is just not so. The whole passage of my

1181
speech was devoted to saying that the Government should sever coal from rail. I said that if the rail Bill came before the House, we would then consider it in the usual way. The noble Lord does me less than justice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot get away with that. In fact the Motion which he has moved would prevent your Lordships' House getting ahead with enacting the preparatory legislation in respect of the railways. Merely to say, "Oh well, you can have another Bill to do that", is to avoid the issue. What we are now concerned with this afternoon is whether we shall he able to proceed with a Bill which has already had a Second Reading and which has, as a major factor, the question of the railways and of their getting ahead with the somewhat overdue—in the view of many of us —steps towards privatisation. We heard a great deal about coal. If the Bill goes ahead, noble Lords who object to its coal aspects will be able to move amendments. I am perfectly certain that they will be able to do so. Your Lordships may agree or disagree with those amendments. But the fact that they can raise the point which really interests them—that is, the question of the coal side of this matter—is, if the Bill goes ahead, absolutely conclusive against the idea of scrapping the Bill, as is proposed by the noble Lord. I very much hope that your Lordships will reject this proposal.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the first place in response to that last remark, this is—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House, but I had thought that this was a matter of the Business of the House and that we were discussing a Motion before the House and therefore people were entitled to speak. I merely intend to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In response to his last remark, the Motion before your Lordships does not scrap the Bill. It postpones consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill until a later date.
With regard to the connection between rail and coal and the desirability of separating coal from rail, if we proceed to the Committee stage I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will agree to support the first amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. However, there is a connection between rail and coal and that is the matter of coal freight. The bounds of probability of privatisation going ahead in one way rather than another will depend on the amount of coal freight which is available to the rail industry. The noble Lord shakes his head but it is well known that the freight movement on rail is very much determined by the amount of coal which is moved. There is a connection there and it may well be that noble Lords may consider that, as there is uncertainty cast on the future of privatisation of rail as well as of coal, we should proceed on the basis of the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope very much that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will not press this Motion because it runs counter to a settled and very valuable practice of your Lordships' House; namely, that the House will let the Government, any government, get their business through. That has been of great value to Labour governments in the past and will no doubt be of value to any Labour government in the future. What this does is to postpone in the middle of a Bill the progress of government business. I desire only to say this, that that settled practice has a concomitant; namely, that government business managers allow noble Lords to have adequate time to discuss the various government businesses that are before them. That is only a corollary. At the moment the Motion strikes at the very heart of the settled practice of your Lordships' House —that is a very valuable practice indeed—namely, that your Lordships do not entertain dilatory procedures.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships if I say something at this stage. The Motion that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has moved would have the effect of delaying for both British Rail and British Coal the granting of enhanced powers to do things to prepare for privatisation. The effect of this would be different for each corporation. I intend to concentrate my remarks on the reasons why it would be detrimental for the coal industry to delay proceedings on the Bill as the noble Lord proposes. However, that is not to say I shall ignore the important points that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made about British Rail.
In inviting your Lordships to reject the Motion I do not think that I need remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the Committee stage was postponed. Suffice to say that in the light of the announcement made on 13th October by British Coal of significant pit closures, and in the knowledge of a further Statement which was to be made later that day in another place, I took the view that it would not be proper to invite your Lordships to consider the Bill in Committee on 19th October.
It is, however, interesting to recall the reaction of noble Lords opposite to my decision to postpone the Committee stage. The predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said that I was wrong. He argued that the issue of pit closures was no reason for postponing consideration of this Bill. Speaking in the debate on 19th October, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that I had:
"tried to make a case for the postponement of the Committee stage of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, but we on this side of the House see no valid argument for that".—[Official Report, 19/10/92; col. 628.1
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was of the same view, although he thought that discussion might be limited to a general debate on energy strategy on the first amendment tabled to the Bill. Now, by contrast, noble Lords opposite ask us to delay the Committee stage yet further.

1183
I appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, are seeking not to stop the passage of the Bill for all time but to delay its passage for a further period. I shall seek to argue that the agreement of your Lordships' House to such a delay, if perfectly proper in procedural terms, would be more questionable in constitutional terms. Moreover, it would in itself be highly damaging to the task of considering the widest possible range of options for saving some pits and consequently some of the jobs in the mining communities already hard hit by the inevitable run down in the coal industry.
What has intervened since 19th October to justify the call from noble Lords opposite to delay the passage of the Bill until the coal review has been concluded? I confess that I find it hard to find any such reason; indeed, in so far as circumstances have changed, they seem to me to point rather in the direction of proceeding with this Bill as fast as possible.
First, the six weeks which have elapsed have enabled everyone to approach this Bill in a different light to that engendered by the heat of the argument about pit closures.
Secondly, the Government have of course now established a wide-ranging review of the future of the coal industry. Your Lordships' House called on the Government to establish such a review on 20th October before proceeding with the pit closure proposals. The Government have already given a commitment that your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to debate the conclusions of that review before any programme of colliery closures is undertaken by British Coal, beyond the closure of the 10 pits already undergoing statutory consultation.
The amendment to the Motion now before your Lordships' House attempts to pray in aid the resolution of the House of 20th October as a reason for delaying proceeding into Committee on this Bill. I should point out to your Lordships that the resolution of 20th October had nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. It was, as I have indicated, concerned with the separate issue of pit closures. Moreover, the Bill was not mentioned by any speaker in the debate on 20th October. In those circumstances, I find it difficult to accept the proposition now put forward by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the decision of the House on 20th October can be taken in some way to justify a further delay in proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill.
On 19th October I referred to the uncertainty surrounding legal proceedings which had just been instituted as reinforcing my view that the climate was not then right for consideration of this Bill. Since then the issues involved have been clarified and I think that it is now sufficiently clear that a full discussion of matters that are relevant to the Bill need not trespass on the issues that are before the courts.
Since 19th October we have had the opportunity to absorb a number of ministerial statements on the pit closures proposed by British Coal. The review has been announced and its full terms of reference published. British Coal has withdrawn its decision on proposed pit closures announced on 13th October—
1184
the subject of the legal actions I referred to on 19th October—and begun statutory consultation on 10 of the pits proposed for closure. It has said that it will await the recommendations of the review before taking decisions on the 21 pits in the moratorium.
Perhaps I may now try to describe in practical terms what the Bill will allow British Coal and British Rail to do. It will allow the two corporations to make their proper contribution to the Government's privatisation proposals, for example by enabling them to comment on and make an input to detailed plans put to them by Government. Since the two corporations themselves have the best and most detailed knowledge of their businesses, that is absolutely essential in ensuring that the detailed privatisation plans will be effective and workable. In addition, there may be some areas where British Coal and British Rail need outside assistance to enable them to make their contribution. The Bill therefore ensures that there will be no legal obstacle to their appointing advisers—for example, to advise them on the financial and legal implications of privatisation.
The Bill does not allow British Coal and British Rail to implement the transfer of functions, property, etc., apart from those which are already possible under existing legislation. Before any such transfers could take place, Parliament would have to approve substantive privatisation legislation at a later date. The Bill has no connection with any pit closures proposed by British Coal.
Moreover, Parliament's agreement to the passage of the Bill would not in any way imply that the substantive legislation would follow immediately. Your Lordships will recall that the water and electricity privatisation Bills were, for instance, introduced in a subsequent session of Parliament to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill. Though the passage of the Bill is necessary to ensure that the Government's privatisation proposals can be formulated and implemented with the benefit of expert advice, there is no sense in which the Bill would require the introduction of privatisation legislation itself.
It is of course for British Coal and British Rail to judge the precise limits of what they can reasonably do within the framework of the existing legislation. I understand that the present position is that they have nominated some of the advisers who they would wish to assist them with the privatisation work but that they are inhibited in the work that they can properly ask the advisers to do and the costs that they can incur.
It has been argued that proceeding with the Bill could in some way pre-empt the coal review currently under way. That is not the case. I should like to give your Lordships a categoric assurance on this question. I can assure the House that there is no question of this Bill being used to further privatisation in a way which is prejudicial to the review. I can give an undertaking that no decisions on the timing of future coal legislation will be taken before the White Paper setting out the results of the review has been published and debated in both Houses of Parliament.

1185
There is also a new factor to be taken into account. It is well known that several private organisations and individuals have expressed an interest in licensing some, or indeed possibly all, of the 21 pits which are the subject of the review. British Coal must be put in a position where it is able to give full and thorough consideration to any proposals that are made in the review. It is to be a wide-ranging and thorough review. In my view, it is absolutely essential that British Coal should be put in a position where it can fully explore and develop all the options. There is no doubt that under its existing powers under the 1946 nationalisation Act, and until this Bill comes into effect, there are restrictions on the range of private sector options that British Coal is able to consider in a full and proper way.
In other words, far from prejudicing the coal review in any way, the passage of this Bill is necessary to make sure that all the options can be properly and fully considered, and so that whatever conclusions it comes to arc well informed and can be developed as speedily as possible.
It is for that reason above all that I strongly urge your Lordships not to allow the House in any way to impede the proper working out of options for the future of jobs in the mining industry.
Finally, I urge the House to consider the wider implications of agreement to any such amendment to the Motion as that moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition today. There is no question but that the amendment is entirely proper in procedural terms. However, the conventions by which the House operates are perhaps more difficult to interpret, not least for one as new to your Lordships' House as I am. Your Lordships would wish me to point out the novelty of what is proposed by the noble Lord opposite.
It is a convention of this House that the House will not oppose at Second Reading Bills introduced to give effect to manifesto commitments. As your Lordships will be aware, this Government were elected on the basis of a manifesto which included the promise of measures to transfer functions of British Coal and British Rail to the private sector. Your Lordships' House has of course given a Second Reading to the Bill. I suggest that your Lordships will wish to think carefully about the implications for the observance of the conventions of the House if it were now to agree to this amendment. Certainly, in modern times there is, I think, no precedent for such a dilatory Motion to be moved in respect of proceedings after Second Reading of any government Bill, let alone one which springs directly from a manifesto commitment.
Indeed, if your Lordships felt that they wanted to restrain British Coal in its powers to prepare for full or even partial privatisation of some or all of its operations, I suggest to your Lordships that this dilatory Motion is not the proper nor most effective way to proceed. I suggest that the right way to achieve this would be to seek to amend the Bill in such a way as to delay the implementation of the coal section of the Bill. I have to say I would see great difficulty with such an amendment for the reasons that I have already
1186
given but it would in my view be the proper way to proceed rather than by way of a dilatory Motion after having given the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment if it is pressed to a Division by the noble Lord opposite; and I hope that we can then proceed to what this House does best; namely, the detailed consideration of the Bill on its merits in Committee and at subsequent stages.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has just said. I take it that the wording that he used is meant to give the assurance that I asked him for; namely, that no Bills for the privatisation of the coal industry will be introduced until after the White Paper has been published and considered by Parliament. I see the noble Lord nodding his head. Perhaps he would confirm that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, certainly I will give the noble Lord that undertaking.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am much obliged. In that case, what concerns us now is whether it is proper to continue with this Bill.
The noble Lord makes two or three points. First, he says that there are constitutional implications. Secondly, he says that the Labour Party has changed its position. I should like to deal with that point. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel reacted first to the Statement made by the Government Chief Whip on 19th October—I hope the Leader of the House will note it—when he said:
"I can only say that the change is greeted with the greatest resentment. It has been imposed unilaterally".—[Official Report, 19/10/92; col. 603.]
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that that too is against the conventions of this House. My noble friend went on to say:
"it has not been agreed through the usual channels"
perhaps that is another little breach of the conventions of this House.
"It has deprived your Lordships of a debate on the coal industry which many of us were expecting to have at the Committee stage of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill which the Government had set down for business this afternoon".
I was absolutely accurate in my opening remarks to the House when I said that the Labour Party took the view, when the debate was taken off, that we had been deprived of the opportunity of a full debate on the future of the coal industry. In fact, we had that debate on the following day when the Motion was carried by 125 votes to 100.
Before your Lordships vote on my amendment I hope your Lordships will reflect upon what the House agreed to on 20th October. What we said collectively on 20th October was that nothing should happen to the coal industry until after there had been a full and independent inquiry, until after that had been considered. That still remains the position.
The Leader of the House presented the Motion in his usual charming way but I am sorry that he has done nothing to reassure me, nor, I suspect, any noble Lords on these Benches, that my amendment is

1187
unnecessary or tendentious, or that it should be withdrawn. I propose to test the views of the House on this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the original Question was, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill, since when an amendment has been moved To leave out from "House" to the end and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
3.44 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 165.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Barnett, L.

Rennet, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brimelow, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cross, V.

Ogmore, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Peston, L.

Dainton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Soper, L.

Stallard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

Varley, L.

Healey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Hollick, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

1188

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hood, V.

Ackner, L.

Hothfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ironside, L.

Arran, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Killearn, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barber, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Knights, L.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Bessborough, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Birdwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Manton, L.

Cadman, L.

Mar, C.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Cawley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Morris, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cox, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

De Freyne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dudley, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Effingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Prentice, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rix, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Shannon, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Priory, L

Grantchester, L.

Stedman, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Haslam, L.

Teviot, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teynham, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

1189

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wharton, B.

Vivian, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Wynford, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the Motion disagreed to accordingly.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, original Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Power to act in relation to proposals for transfer of functions, property etc.]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("the British Coal Corporation or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 53 and 54. The issue raised in the amendment was touched on in the previous debate. The object is to separate coal from rail. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his intervention a few minutes ago indicated he thought that that might be a reasonable proposition. It is clear that the privatisation of rail is more advanced than the privatisation of coal; in the case of rail there has already been a White Paper. In those circumstances it could be argued that British Rail should be in a position to consider what further steps might be proposed by the Government before its eventual privatisation.
That is not the position as regards coal. There has been no White Paper as yet but there are in train three reviews and two court cases. If I heard correctly, Mr. Tim Eggar, Minister for Energy, indicated on television last week that one outcome of the present reviews could well be special legislation addressed to coal. Is that a possibility which the Government have in mind? If that is the case and, as was indicated by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, there could be a White Paper, and that possible legislation relating to it will follow, there is an even stronger reason for deferring the consideration of coal.
The issues relating to coal and rail are different in almost every particular. Apart from the subject of timing which we are addressing today, it would be more reasonable to devote time to each of those industries in turn. Each raises major issues which are of an entirely different order. In the case of coal the issues remain of an unknown order until the promised White Paper appears.
In considering the legislation there is a strong case in practical terms to separate the two industries. As regards coal many uncertainties lie ahead. I do not wish to repeat some of the relevant points raised in the previous debate. However, I detected in some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, a suggestion that he would not consider it entirely illogical if rail and coal were separated. That is precisely what is proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Haslam: Perhaps I may introduce a slightly practical note into the discussion. I spent 40 years of my industrial career in the private sector and eight years in nationalised industries. Also I am one of the few remaining managers who has worked in both the privatised and nationalised UK coal industries. That exposure has led me to become a fervent advocate of the benefits of privatisation.
Managing a nationalised industry is more demanding and frustrating than running a comparable private sector company. Obviously many operational and strategic problems are common to both, but nationalised industries carry a raft of unique problems which in themselves can be very debilitating.
I will mention two examples. When I was chairman of the then nationalised British Steel, I was also chairman of Tate amp; Lyle, sharing my time between the two. During certain months I kept a record of the time spent in accounting for and explaining the board's activities, as distinct from engaging in creative work. In Tate amp; Lyle that accountability element never exceeded 10 per cent. of my time, involving talking to shareholders, investment groups, government and the European Commission. In British Steel it never fell below 50 per cent., involving talking to government departments, the opposition, Select and Back-Bench Committees, the MMC, the European Commission, regional and local authorities, many groups of MPs, individual MPs and so on. One month, when we closed the Gartcosh steel works in Scotland, the accountability factor rose to 80 per cent. This phenomenon is not confined to the chairman but permeates down through the organisation and in the process carries a heavy overhead cost; but the major negative is the distraction from using one's energy in a creative way. Nevertheless, it is perfectly understandable that this accountability element should be so dominating, particularly in those nationalised industries like steel and coal which in the past have had substantial financial support from government. But at the same time it has to be recognised that this factor has a marked adverse impact on potential performance.
Secondly, in my nationalised industries' period of eight years I responded to seven different Secretaries of State. In their different ways they were all very helpful and supportive, but understandably they were all anxious to put their particular stamp on the industry, which made the development of a consistent strategy somewhat elusive. That is equivalent in private sector terms to an on-going chief executive having a new chairman who has little or no relevant knowledge of the industry imposed on him each and every year. In practice, could one imagine that ever happening?
I could quote many other unique problems which are peculiar to nationalised industries and hence I can understand better than most the great sense of release which is felt by management when an industry is privatised. That release brings a surge of confidence and inevitably an improved performance. Although British Coal, since the miners' strike, has carried out the most radical restructuring of a major UK industry

1191
in recent times, accompanied by a massive improvement in productivity, I firmly believe that if British Coal had been privatised four years ago we should be looking at a much better prospect for the industry than we do today.
Turning specifically to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, even in the unlikely event that the current inquiry into the future of the coal industry does not foresee a somewhat brighter future for coal than was outlined in the original controversial announcement, I still fervently believe that British Coal, whatever its residual size and shape, should be privatised. We are now discussing an enabling Bill which would be helpful to my successors in British Coal in moving in that direction. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: This amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, approaches the problems involved in bringing this Bill before Parliament from a slightly different angle from that on which we have just voted. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said.
From the beginning it has always seemed to me odd to mix together rail and coal, which I believe are intrinsically different. Coal is an industrial commodity; rail is a public service. The case for separation was from the beginning and is now, I believe, strong. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made a basic case. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, appeared to support the case for separation. I look forward to hearing him speak on the amendment and possibly voting in favour of it.
It was odd, and has now become totally inappropriate, to proceed with coal linked with rail since the setting up of the inquiry into coal. Some of that argument has been covered as regards the previous Motion. However, it must be stated that if we believe the Government's assurances on that inquiry, all options are still open on coal policy. Therefore, it is surely illogical to deal with privatisation of coal now when we do not know what will be the shape, size, nature and market for the coal industry. Is it not terribly wasteful to spend public money on consultants when they too will not know the nature or scale of the industry on which they are being consulted? I should like to think not, but perhaps the insistence on proceeding reflects something about the Government's approach to the coal inquiry. Perhaps some in the Government do not intend to listen or to change their approach, whatever the inquiry's conclusions.
In October the Prime Minister and Mr. Heseltine stated very firmly that they were convinced of the need for closures and that there is no market for coal. I wonder whether the insistence on proceeding means that they are still convinced of that; they are proceeding with this privatisation because their minds are still closed and in their minds nothing has changed.
If the inquiry is not a sham and if the Government are genuinely willing to listen, they should put the privatisation of coal on hold until the inquiry reports. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, assured us that there will be no privatisation Bill until after the inquiry's report; that is helpful. However, that is not the point.
1192
The point is that until the inquiry has reported on energy policy, on the changes which could be made that will fundamentally affect the demand for coal, it is quite wrong to proceed with this part of the Bill.
I make the point also about the courts. That was the basic reason given by the Minister at the time for withdrawing the Bill on 19th October. It was said that the matter was before the courts. That was stated as the reason and that still applies. The matter is still before the courts today, this week. Surely if it was a reason for not proceeding then, it is a reason for not proceeding now.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, suggested in our opening discussions that the court issue is not now related to the Bill's provisions. I question that and should like further elaboration from the Minister on that. As I understand it, the matter before the courts concerns consultation. Clauses 31, 34 and 36 deal with consultation. If that was a reason for withdrawing then, that reason still exists. If that is not now a genuine reason for withdrawing the Bill, I wonder whether it was an honest and accurate reason then.
Much has changed since 19th October when the Bill was last before the House and withdrawn. Those changes, encapsulated in the inquiry, are an unanswerable reason for delaying the coal clauses of the Bill. It must make sense now, with the changes that affect coal and do not affect rail, to delay the coal provisions. I am sure that on this side we would have been co-operative on rail—that has been indicated —had the separation been made.
This is a positive amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. I am sure that many noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, and we hope some government supporters, will see the logic and practicality of what we propose, which would be a helpful move enabling the Committee to proceed constructively on the rail proposals, where much work has been done, where there has been a White Paper and where much is known. Let us have further consideration on coal, where there has been no White Paper, where we do not know the Government's policy and where we trust all options remain open until after the report of the committee of inquiry has been made.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This debate has been a somewhat quieter replay of the more animated discussion that we had on the Motion not to take the Bill into Committee. This amendment at this stage follows—which I do not think the amendment on the previous debate did—the proper procedure. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Donoughue, both referred en passant to the speech that I made on the earlier debate when I said, and I repeat, that if we wished to take coal out of the Bill this—that is, an amendment in Committee—is the proper procedure. I did not of course indicate any support for the view that we should take coal out of the Bill. Indeed, if Members of the Committee would care tomorrow to study my speech they will see that I emphasised, perhaps at undue length, the importance of keeping it in. But we are at least now having a debate in the proper procedure and not, as we frankly were on the previous round, wasting time with a wholly unnecessary Motion.

1193
I believe that on balance we must keep coal in the Bill. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said in the earlier debate, it enables the Coal Corporation to make the preparations for privatisation; and the fear that nonetheless this might be rushed through before the present difficulties have been cleared up has been dealt with effectively by the full and detailed assurances given by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Consequently this amendment seems to me to be a mistake, and I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to keep the Committee for any length of time, but I should like to say how warmly I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Haslam. He speaks with great experience. He made the point clearly that this Bill does not set out to change anything. It merely enables certain preliminary steps to be taken. I for one see no objection whatever to our proceeding with it as it is now. Indeed, I would think it odd if we did not.
Whenever a problem arises, no matter what the source, it is our instinctive knee-jerk reaction to set up an inquiry. In this instance we have two, even three, on the tapis now. That would seem to me to be an excess. One of the consequences of an inquiry is delay. Further to add to the delay by holding this Bill back would do nothing to help.
I hope that the discussion of this Bill will afford to the Government an opportunity to make clear at least some of their intentions. I do not wish to go back into history, but I have always thought that to put the privatisation of electricity in front of coal was a cardinal error. I said so at the time and so did many other people. I also thought it was a grievous error to have only two generators because it put them in a very powerful bargaining position. I felt some sympathy with the coal industry in the great disadvantages, so it seemed to me, that it faces.
The second reason why I am on my feet now is that I want to express to my noble friend the earnest hope that opportunity will be taken by the Government during the discussion of this Bill to look with favour upon any pattern that has in it an ingredient of flexibility. The rigidity that worries me now has been greatly overdone in previous privatisation measures. I think I should declare an interest here. I am president of British Alcan and we have a large smelter in the North East which depends upon a neighbouring colliery. The fate of that colliery is likely to depend upon a degree of flexibility being introduced that is now absent.
One of the aspects that I most fear is that large concerns —British Coal, no matter who it is owned by, or any large successor body and the two generators—will not consider local problems, local difficulties and local interests, with the result that quite promising enterprises could well be extinguished when they might be saved. I hope that my noble friend will have that very much in mind and keep it in the minds of her noble friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter clarify his views on this amendment. Much has happened since we were due to debate this Bill on 19th October, and much of the material has been covered by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. But as your Lordships will know, following British Coal's announcement of pit closures, the Government announced a review of the prospects of 21 of those pits in the context of their energy policy. This review is full and wide-ranging, and I am pleased to assure my noble friend Lord Peyton that it will indeed look at flexibility.
Consultation is taking place with the principal providers and consumers of energy, the trade unions and other interested parties. The evidence to the review and its findings will be published to the fullest extent possible, except where those providing information have done so in confidence in view of commercial sensitivities. Early in the new year there will be a White Paper setting out the results of the review in the context of the Government's energy policy. The White Paper will make clear the consequences for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. The White Paper will be presented to Parliament, and my noble friend assured the House that each House will have the opportunity to debate the issues fully.
There may be temptation in some parts of this Committee, reflected in this amendment, to think that it is a sensible response to such a wide-ranging review to remove British Coal from this Bill, or even to take coal privatisation off the political agenda. I think that would be a mistake.
The Government remain committed to privatisation of the coal industry. Although decisions about privatisation will take account of the review, the policy will remain in place. Whatever conclusions are reached as a result of the review, it must continue to be the case that the long-term interests of the industry will be best-served by freeing the management from the constraints of public sector ownership. I hasten to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that that does not mean that we will not be listening to and taking note of the full review. I hope that my noble friend Lord Peyton will agree that freeing the management from the constraints of public sector ownership is one of the best ways to achieve flexibility.
The Bill is a technical paving measure to give British Coal and British Rail powers to participate in the preparation process. It is not the substantive legislation which will allow privatisation transfers to take place, decisions on which will have to take account of the results of the review. I assure noble Lords that there is no question that the Bill will be used to further privatisation in a way that is prejudicial. I confirm the assurance that was given by my right honourable friend that no decision on the timing of further main legislation in respect of coal will be taken until the White Paper, which will set out the results of the review, has been debated.

1195
As my noble friend Lord Haslam so ably stated, it will be vital to the effectiveness and workability of the Government's proposals for privatisation that British Coal and British Rail are able to contribute.
If references to British Coal are removed from the Bill, it will be prevented from playing a full and proper role in commenting on and making an input to Government proposals for privatisation. British Coal would be handicapped, which would be a worse situation than delaying giving it the power. The amendment would have a greater effect than the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which proposed that the Bill be postponed until after the pit review. This amendment would remove British Coal from the Bill.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that we gave a Second Reading to the Bill as a coal and rail paving Bill. We wish to think hard about the implications of that situation, particularly in the light of the Lord Privy Seal's commitment that no decision on the timing of substantive coal privatisation legislation will be taken until the pit review has been debated in both Houses.
It is possible that options will be considered in the coal review, for example exploring the opportunity for the private sector in the production of coal. British Coal may wish to have an input in relation to that matter. The amendment could inhibit British Coal from making a full contribution to the development of such an option.
Lord Tordoff: Can the noble Baroness explain how it can be that the Bill is necessary to enable British Coal to make a contribution to the review? Is that what the noble Baroness is saying?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Without the Bill, British Coal does not have the necessary authority to have advisers, which means that it would be handicapped. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew attention to a comment made by my honourable friend on the necessity of further legislation relating to coal. It is for the review to reach conclusions and it would be wrong to rule out any situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, questioned why, if the court situation was relevant in October, it was not relevant now. I should like to point out that full discussion of matters in the Bill need not trespass on the issues that are before the courts. We have now had time to examine that issue, unlike the situation in October.
I feel sure that noble Lords would not wish to restrict the rights of British Coal. If noble Lords vote for the amendment, the effect will be to deprive British Coal of an ability to play a full part in considering options that might be helpful to coal miners and the coal-mining industry of this country.
My right honourable friend pointed out that a possible method of achieving separation would be to amend the Bill in such a way as to delay the implementation of the coal section of the Bill. However, there can be no firmer assurances than those that have been given today and I hope that in the interests of British Coal the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Donoughue: Can the noble Baroness help us all by explaining what I have never understood? What was the basic rationale in putting together a totally different industry and service? Why did we not have two separate Bills that could have been taken concurrently?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The amendments are not intended to involve debates about the industries. They concern technicalities which apply to both industries. The Bill has passed through the other place and it seemed that this was a sensible and logical way to deal with them.
Lord Ezra: I am obliged to those noble Lords who have considered the amendment and done so in a very careful way.
The noble Baroness has stated that if we were to approve the amendment it would put British Coal at a big disadvantage because it would be prevented from giving proper consideration to the various options for privatisation and it would be deprived of the ability to recruit advisers. British Coal must have changed a good deal since I was connected with it. I did not need to have a paving Bill in order to answer questions that might be put to me on strategic issues.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I should like to clarify the point. I did not intend to suggest that British Coal could not make its own decisions, but the paving Bill allows it to have advisers if necessary. If the amendment is passed it will be handicapped in that manner.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Baroness for that elucidation. I was going to say that I did not need a paving Bill in order to give my views on various strategies that the Government might think up in relation to the coal industry. There were very many strategies in my time on which I was asked to give an opinion; sometimes they took my opinion and sometimes they did not. But I never felt it necessary to turn to the outside world for advisers on the intricacies and affairs of the coal industry. It is an extraordinary suggestion that such a great industry, with an in-built knowledge of its business, with leading mining engineers of the world and with people who are particularly knowledgeable in financial and economic matters and who spend their entire time on those subjects, cannot prepare itself for possible eventual privatisation without turning to the outside world. Inevitably, any advisers who were obtained would know far less about the coal industry than those who are already involved in it.
To my mind that is not the issue. The issue is that as between the two industries there is a different case. There is a White Paper in relation to railways. The Government have indicated how their mind is working towards eventual privatisation, so as we go through the provisions of the Bill regarding the railways we can relate them to those ideas. That makes it a logical, sensible procedure.
However, in the case of coal the situation is entirely different, as we well know. There were a number of ideas floating around about the form of possible privatisation when we went up to the Second Reading

1197
stage and while the Bill was going through another place; but the whole situation has been fundamentally altered by recent events, as everybody admits. As a result of the inquiries that are now taking place, we have been promised a White Paper in the early part of next year. That is not very far away. As a result of the debates to which that White Paper will give rise, no doubt we shall get some idea about the Government's thinking regarding the privatisation of the coal industry. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to this in his speech. He said he hoped that during the course of our debate on this Bill the Government would give an indication of the way their minds were thinking. I hope I have understood him correctly.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Is there anything wrong with that? The Government will be passing legislation, and if they take away the veil which presently covers their intentions I for one would be delighted. I do not see that they would be doing anything wrong, although they may be doing something unusual.
Lord Ezra: I see nothing wrong with that at all. I was going on to say that I fully supported what the noble Lord had said. If it were the Government's intention during the course of our deliberations on this Bill to tell us the various options they have in mind for privatisation, that would certainly alter my opinion of the amendment which is now before your Lordships. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell us whether that is the intention of the Government—if so, I would take a very different view about this amendment. Are we to be told during the course of the various amendments that we shall be moving today what sort of privatisation the Government have in mind for the coal industry?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows well that this is not a debate on privatisation. It is a debate on a technical Bill to allow British Coal and British Rail to take advisers, and not about privatisation. There will be lots of scope in due course to debate privatisation.
Lord Ezra: Precisely! That is exactly the answer that I expected. So we are not going to be told anything more on privatisation of the coal industry because we cannot be told anything more. What I am trying to suggest to your Lordships is that we could have a much more sensible debate in the not-too-distant future of this paving Bill for coal if we knew as much about the Government's intentions for the coal industry as we know now about the railway industry. That is what this is all about. We are not expressing an opinion on privatisation and we are not even trying to delay privatisation, because the Government have made it clear that there is no timing attached to it. It might be quite a long time, judging by previous examples which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, quoted, before a privatisation measure comes before us. So we are not trying to delay privatisation: nor are we arguing for or against it. All we are saying is that we could have a much more sensible debate on this paving measure for coal, if we had the same sort of
1198
indication of the Government's thinking as we have for rail. It is on that basis that I have moved the amendment.
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brimelow, L.

Mar, C.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cobbold, L.

Nicol, B.

Cross, V.

Ogmore, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher. L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Varley, L.

Healey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hirshfield. L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howell, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Bessborough, E.

Aberdare, L.

Birdwood, L.

Aldington. L.

Blatch, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blyth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Attlee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Butterworth, L.

Barber, L.

Cadman, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

1199

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moyne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindesfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geddes, L.

Plumb, L.

Goschen, V.

Prentice, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Richardson, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Haslam, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Shrewsbury, E.

Holderness, L.

Skidelsky,

HolmPatrick, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hood, V.

Stewartby, L.

Hothfield, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howe, E.

Strafford, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Knights, L.

Thurlow, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakeham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wharton, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wolfson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Manton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement which has been made in another place. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House Resumed.

Detainees from the Former Yugoslavia: Asylum
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on ex-detainees from the former Yugoslavia which is now being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about further arrangements which the Government are making to accept in this country ex-detainees from former Yugoslavia.
"In his Statement on 5th November, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed the willingness of the Government to receive from Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia, people with special humanitarian needs whom the international organisations judge should be evacuated. We had already advised the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that we were prepared initially to accept 150 former detainees from camps in Bosnia and, in due course, their dependants.
"In the light of the plans made to receive the first group of 150, we have now informed UNHCR that we are willing to receive over the next few months additional groups of former detainees to a total of 1,000, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all.
"Arrangements have already been made to receive the first group of 150 ex-detainees as soon as UNHCR confirm that they are ready to depart. The size of further groups, and the timing of their arrival, has still to be discussed with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This will be dependent in part on the speed with which the international organisations are able to bring the detainees out of detention to transit camps in Croatia or elsewhere, and to complete such screening and documentation as UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross consider necessary.
"We have asked the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to provide initial reception support and accommodation for the former detainees; both the initial group and subsequent groups. The first group will be taken to three locations; a former mental hospital in Surrey, an existing Refugee Council hostel in London and a former residential care home owned by the British Red Cross in Cambridge. Arrangements for accommodating subsequent groups of arrivals are being developed. After an initial period in reception accommodation, the evacuees will be rehoused in more permanent accommodation in the community arranged by the Refugee Council.
"The British Red Cross will liaise with the International Committee of the Red Cross to trace the dependants of the former detainees, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Department and voluntary organisations to bring them here.

1201
"Once rehoused in the community, the evacuees, and their dependants, when they arrive, will be entitled to receive the range of statutory benefits and services which are available to the rest of the population.
"I am sure that we all hope that these evacuees will be able to return in due course to their own country. They will be admitted to this country exceptionally outside the immigration rules for six months initially. We shall obviously wish to review the position in the light of individual circumstances and the situation in former Yugoslavia.
"The Government will be meeting the cost of transport of the former detainees and of their dependants to this country. They will reimburse the costs incurred by the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross in providing initial reception support and accommodation. And they will fund the Refugee Council to provide the necessary degree of ongoing support".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. For once we have no complaint to make about the short notice given for us to consider a Statement, because virtually its entire text was printed in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. In accordance with their usual practice, I have no doubt that the Government will be setting up an inquiry to discover how the leak occurred.
The Statement is curious, in that it refers to "ex-detainees" at all times and never refers to "refugees". There is no indication at all in the Statement whether the Government recognise that these are civil war victims in the widest sense. Some will be ex-detainees, but many will not. Can the Minister say why it is that this particular form of words has been chosen rather than that which is most commonly used in these circumstances?
The Statement states that the ex-detainees—I believe the word "evacuees" is used—will be accepted,
"outside the immigration rules for six months".
Does that mean that they will not require visas to come to this country? Does it also mean that the announcement which was made a few weeks ago that citizens of the former Yugoslavia would require visas that could only be issued in Zagreb, Belgrade and Ljubljana no longer applies? Does it mean that visas are to be obtained? If that is so, how are they to be obtained, because many of these people are detained in Bosnia where they cannot possibly get access to Belgrade, Zagreb or Ljubljana? If visas are to be issued, will they reflect refugee status, which is the status recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?
There are doubts both about the restrictions on the categories of people who will be allowed into this country and about the status under which they will be allowed in. However, our most profound questions must be about the total numbers. The Government have indicated that the total number, including
1202
dependants, is to be up to 4,000. I say "up to" advisedly because there are to be 1,000 ex-detainees, plus their families. Each family may include up to three members. Those figures still contrast with those for Germany—do they not?—which has admitted 235,000 refugees, and with those for Sweden, a much smaller country, which has admitted over 60,000 refugees. Do the Government not accept that even with this minor concession (which we cannot say is unwelcome) this country is still lagging far behind the humanitarian aid which has been given by nearly all other countries? Therefore, although one does not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, it appears that the Statement is unsatisfactory in terms of the definition of those involved, their status and numbers.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement that was made by his right honourable friend in another place. I should also like to associate myself with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am also glad that the Government have (belatedly and not particularly generously) responded to the pressure which has been exerted upon them by public opinion both in this country and abroad.
I, too, am mystified by the use of the word "ex-detainees". I thought that we were dealing with refugees and with people who are seeking asylum. Does the use of the word "ex-detainees" mean that our reception arrangements are confined to that category of person? Does it take no account of the fact that many others in Yugoslavia (and in Bosnia in particular) are living in danger of their lives? That is the human problem that we are meant to be tackling, as opposed to making rather absurd distinctions between people on the grounds of whether or not they have been detained. The real factor is whether they are in danger. The Government should be concentrating on that. I hope that when the noble Earl answers, he will explain why he has used that particular and unusual expression.
There are other questions. I must confess that the lack of urgency is one of the things that strikes one most. I believe that it was at the beginning of this month that the Government announced that they would take the magnificent number of 150 people, but we hear that those 150 people are still waiting to come in or have still not been told that they can come in. Is that honestly the pace at which the Government think that they should respond to an emergency of massive size, scale and horror? Do they think that this is an adequate way of responding?
Why is the selection of these people to be left to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is that part of his job? I thought that it was our job—the job of our officials—to say who should and who should not come into this country. Will the noble Earl tell us what role British officials will play?
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I wonder what has happened to our visas. How many people have been let into this country since it was announced that they could get visas in one or two remote towns in Yugoslavia if they were clever enough to reach

1203
them? How many visas have been given, and are these people to have visas after six months or is that all to be forgotten?
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a drop in the ocean. It really is. The figures which he quoted for Germany, Sweden, Austria and Hungary are simply indicators of the size of the problem. To suppose that we are playing our part by taking in 4,000 people at most is frankly ludicrous. The fact is that this is a massive problem. It will be dealt with adequately only if it is dealt with on a European scale. It is no good thinking that we can deal with it on a "beggar my neighbour" basis. If there is not to be a great deal of resentment in the countries next to the areas of conflict, we must take our share. Those countries should not have to carry far too much of the burden. Although we do not behave like it, the fact is that we are members of the European Community. We get benefits from it, and we must also share its problems. I hope that this lesson will be learned ultimately by the Government.
Finally, I hope that the ex-detainees who come here will receive a word of welcome on arrival. They are people who have gone through the most appalling experiences. They have been the subject of unspeakable hostility and I think that it is important that when they arrive here they should be welcomed to a safe haven.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when I knew that this Statement was to be made, I thought that it would meet with the universal approval of your Lordships, but I wondered which noble Lord would find something disagreeable about it. Both the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Bonham-Carter, have been critical of it. I thought that it was rather a good Statement and I am sorry that they have found cause to criticise it. Both noble Lords found the word "ex-detainees" curious and asked why the Government used that expression. The fact is that that is what they are. They have been detained in detention camps and are being moved out of detention camps into transit areas from which, if they come to this country, they will come as a special group outside the immigration rules. As such, they are ex-detainees. It might very well be that when they are here they will become refugees but, at the moment of entry, they are not that. It is important—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wishes to say something—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Just to make it clear in people's minds, is he saying that this group is to be restricted entirely to those people who have been in detention and that it does not cover refugees who perhaps have been bombed, shelled, raped, pillaged and generally treated appallingly? Am I right that those people are not to be included in this group and that it will include only those people who have, as it were, the status of having been in a detention camp?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, many of the people who have found themselves in detention camps have suffered the very conditions which the noble Lord,
1204
Lord Tordoff, has described. Although I see he shakes his head, he must allow me to answer the question—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not denying what the noble Earl is saying.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he does not deny it. That is a good thing. If he could signify assent as opposed to dissent, that would be more helpful.
What he must realise—and I am sure that he does —is that one cannot operate any form of immigration policy if one allows everyone from anywhere to come in. Therefore, we have a policy of requiring visas from those who have come from the former Yugoslavia. In order to meet the problem which has been associated with this devastation, we have agreed to take people who have been put into detention camps —who, on the whole, are the ones most people would say have suffered worst. It is for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to decide which are the most deserving of moving out to another country. That is why we take that body's advice upon whom we shall receive.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about the position of our officials. The position of anyone entering this country via what used to be Yugoslavia with a visa or without a visa is exactly the same as it is for anyone else under our immigration rules. What we are doing here is to meet a special circumstance for those who have been hardly hit.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that Germany had done very much better than us. Inevitably, in crises such as this the greatest burden falls on those countries with the strongest geographical, cultural, historical and community links with the country which is experiencing the crisis. Germany, for instance, had a Yugoslav community of 700,000 before this conflict. Naturally, in times of trouble, people choose to seek help and assistance from their friends and families in such countries. The United Kingdom, by comparison, had a community of only 12,000, and naturally has attracted smaller, though still substantial, numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that Germany has taken 26,000 people compared with the United Kingdom. That may have been so in the case of the ex-Yugoslavs who have already gone to Germany but in the current situation, far from being at the bottom of the league, we are right at the top of those countries in the European Community which have agreed to assist in taking these ex-detainees. Belgium is taking 200, including the dependants; France is taking 300, with dependants; Germany is taking 1,362; Italy is taking 100; The Netherlands is taking 200; Spain is taking 1,050; Luxembourg is taking 10; Denmark is taking 100; and the United Kingdom is taking 1,068, plus dependants. Far from being at the bottom of the list, we are in fact at the top of the list to help those people who have suffered.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked how many people have been let in under the new visa

1205
arrangements. The arrangements only came into operation on 6th November and so I cannot as yet tell him what the figure is.
5.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I apologise to the House for attempting in my ignorance to speak out of turn. This is a matter with which Church leaders are vitally concerned. In general I know I speak for leaders of all denominations in expressing a warm welcome for the Statement. I know that the noble Earl will agree with us that there is incontrovertible evidence that thousands of people are in imminent danger of losing not merely their homes but their lives and also that neighbouring countries which have been very generous in provision of refuge have now reached the limit of their capacity for reception.
The Churches of this country as well as voluntary agencies have been and are doing all in their power but the problem is of such a scale that it can be solved only by the goodwill and compassionate action of governments. One should also note that the situation in former Yugoslavia is dangerously fluid and so one expresses the hope that our Government will be able to respond to future events with the same flexibility which we welcome today.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his welcome for the Statement and for what he said. It is perfectly true that the Churches are doing a great deal in this situation and we are enormously grateful for that.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether the Government would be prepared to look constantly at the situation because it is, as he said, dangerously fluid. I agree that it is and my right honourable friend has said that he is prepared to keep the matter under review. The suggestion has been made that at the moment we take the number that I mentioned. Obviously we will keep the position under review for the future.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, with the right reverend Prelate I applaud what the Government have done. That is the praise. The fact that it is too small is an allied matter but one that will crop up more in the next few weeks. The weather in that part of Yugoslavia has not yet reached its worst. When that time comes I observe that the Government will have to be clearer on status. It will not be enough to say "ex-detainees". Indeed, after the six months is up, there will have to be clarification on this point.
I wish to raise three points which are of importance to me. First, who will carry out the screening in the camps in Yugoslavia? Will they be Home Office personnel or Foreign Office personnel? What is the nature of this screening? If they are in the camps, they are in the camps, so what is there to screen? On what basis will they be allowed to come in? Secondly, who will be responsible for the camps in the United Kingdom? Who will pay for the camps here? Who will administer them? My third question is about the children and those who are older than children. Are the local education authorities primed to deal with the
1206
numbers, as small as they may be? Are they primed to deal with those who will go to colleges of higher education and so on? It is important that we are clear on these points, especially as the numbers will grow in the months ahead.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right. The position is likely to get worse for the simple reason that a good many of these detention camps are above the snow-line. As the winter gets worse, the conditions will get worse. The conditions in the camps in terms of heating, food and medical treatment are not very good.
The noble Lord asked about screening. There are at the moment some 10,000 people in detention camps. It will be for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to decide which of those are the most deserving. He will request, as I understand it, that certain ones come to this country. Obviously, those who have some form of link or language connection will be more easily accommodated here than those who may have a different language facility, if they have one, who may be better accommodated elsewhere. We intend to follow the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and not to try to suggest that we know better about the circumstances that obtain there.
The noble Lord asked who will pay for the camps. This is being done by the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross. They are making arrangements with local authorities and the expenses which they incur will be reimbursed to them. The noble Lord asked about children. I can only give a general answer. Until we have the children, we will not know exactly how they will be positioned. Once they are here all parents will have the benefit of housing allowance and income support. They will also have the benefit of being educated. That will have to be done by the education system and it will be for those who involved with taking these people in to make sure that those facilities are available. Once they have been moved into their temporary housing in the three places which I mentioned, the idea is that they will subsequently move to other more permanent housing throughout the country but that they should be kept nevertheless in groups. It is not on the whole desirable to farm people out into individual private houses because they will be lonely. They will be required to be kept fairly close together. The exact position on that remains to be seen.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I do not think it is very profitable to indulge in speculation about numbers, either actual or comparative. The question that I wish to ask my noble friend is a rather different one. It arises in part from his reference to looking at the matter again in six months' time after these individual allotments of detainee status have been agreed and carried out. It seems to me that the Statement reflected what has really been the problem before his department in dealing with the human consequences of the war in former Yugoslavia; namely, the total failure politically of the European Community to do anything to bring an end to the

1207
conflict and a failure which results from—one hears it echoed in ministerial statements—a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict.
We talk about people avoiding the distress of a civil war. We say that when the civil war is over there will he homes for them to go back to and that six months in Britain will fortify them for that experience. But this is not to a very considerable extent a civil war. It has been revealed as a war of genocidal aggression against one of the communities in Bosnia—to some extent against others but mainly against the Moslem community. There is no prospect of their going home unless there is a total revolution in terms of the situation in that country. There is no escape from facing the political consequences. It is no use saying that we will not give arms to the Bosnians as that would exacerbate the conflict. The conflict exists. It is a war. It is hard—this is why I do not criticise my noble friend or his department—for them to catch up on a year or two of constant misunderstanding and folly on the part of the European Community and its member states.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beloff takes the subject rather wide of that to which the Statement refers. He asked why the European Community did not do more to prevent the conflict. It would be inappropriate to speculate as to why that has been the case. My noble friend will be aware that a great many people have been applying their best efforts to try to bring the conflagration to an end, so far without success. As a result, many people have been deeply traumatised and subjected to the most appalling conditions. We therefore try to help, as does every other country. One country cannot automatically open the floodgates. It has to be done in a structured way. We have done it with the help of and in agreement with UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross whose members know about the refugee position. They are on the spot. They can best advise and help us.
The people will be allowed in for six months. If at the end of six months they wish to remain, they will have to apply for leave to remain under the normal immigration system. Their cases will be considered when they apply.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. The grudging nature of the comments made by the opposition parties was a pity. We are not talking just about numbers of refugees. If we measure Britain's contribution in terms of the substantial financial help that we have given through the ODA, the dedicated work of British volunteers on the spot, and the presence of our troops who are in a most difficult and unusual situation, this country need not be apologetic about its contribution in relation to other European nations. Perhaps we should all be doing more, but our total effort should be appreciated fully.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Prentice for saying that we need have nothing to be ashamed about. He is entirely correct. The United Kingdom has done a great deal to help those people. Since the beginning of the crisis, we have
1208
donated more than £70 million, bilaterally and through the European Community, to relief efforts in the former Yugoslavia. We are providing 2,300 United Kingdom troops who are protecting humanitarian convoys. We have flown about 200 air flights into Sarajevo. We have assisted the UNHCR with a £3 million programme for winter shelter in central Bosnia, based around nine centres, to house 20,000 refugees. We are engaged upon a feasibility study with the UNHCR to ensure that power and heating is maintained in central Bosnia. We have provided 15 expert field staff to assist the UNHCR. We have 31 lorries operational in Bosnia, ferrying emergency supplies, and 12 more left the United Kingdom on 16th November. We have provided £2.5 million of medical supplies to the WHO for its operation, and we have evacuated 68 wounded and sick Bosnians for medical treatment in the United Kingdom. I agree with my noble friend that we have done quite a lot.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to take up a lot of Back-Bench time but two questions, arising out of the Minister's replies to supplementary questions, have not yet been answered. The first relates to the restriction of the offer to former detainees. I understand from what the Minister said that the selection is to be made by the UNHCR. Does not the UNHCR normally consider as a prime criterion the danger in which people find themselves? Does that not conflict with the proposal to restrict admission to those who are former detainees.
Secondly, in a supplementary reply the Minister referred to the possibility that those who come here might obtain refugee status after six months. Will he enlighten the House as to the circumstances under which that might occur? Having said that, I do not wish any of our comments to show anything other than admiration of the work to which the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, and the Minister referred.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the former detainees, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the UNHCR normally dealt with danger. In this case, it is dealing with those people who have, for one reason or other, been put into detention camps. They have to be removed. They are suffering appallingly. It is those people whom we seek to help with the assistance of the UNHCR. The noble Lord also suggested that I said that they could apply for refugee status after six months. What I actually said was that they would be allowed in for six months, outside the immigration rules, and that at the end of six months they could apply for leave to remain. That is not the same as applying for refugee status.

British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
5.16 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, after ("should") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal also with Amendment No. 15. The amendment goes to the heart of our worries about this privatisation paving Bill in so far as it relates to coal. It calls basically for a statement from the Government on their energy strategy and the role of coal within that strategy. We on this side of the Committee have called for such a statement many times before. The Government have not responded. They did not have an energy strategy. I felt that at times they seemed almost proud not to have an energy strategy. They had ideological postures: privatisation was good and everything should be left to market forces.
The Government had political prejudices against the mine-workers' union, but they had no energy strategy. Today we see the consequences of that policy vacuum: the looming destruction of the coal industry at great economic and social cost with no perceiveable compensating benefits. We see 100,000 people unemployed in mining and related industries in the coming year; we see our import bill on energy rocketing; we see gas demand and prices rocketing, and why? That is what the amendment is probing—why?
The only explanation we have received is the alleged free market in coal. We know that there is no free market in coal or in UK energy. The market is structured and biased against coal, and that has been caused primarily by the botched job of privatising electricity. There I agree wholly with what was said a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
We have that policy vacuum: a free market which is not a free market but a market biased against coal. That all needs re-thinking and we need a clear statement on the Government's views. The basis of that re-thinking should be that as a nation we should not, first, abandon the long-term security of domestic energy. The underlying basis must be the long-term security which is provided by our huge coal reserves which constitute about a half of the reserves of the whole of the European Community. Prudently, we should not expose ourselves to the price fluctuations of foreign suppliers and the price rises if sterling depreciates, as we have learned it does periodically.
Surely, a small premium is worth paying to secure that, and within a few years it might not be a premium at all. It would be a premium to ensure the benefits of security of supply, the benefits of stability of price and the economic benefits that will arise for the balance of payments and for the public sector borrowing requirement. Those are the bases we hope to hear at some point are behind the Government's thinking in approaching privatisation.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the amendment also specifically refers to redundancies. I should like to ask the Minister about the number of miners currently being made redundant during the inquiry into coal. We hear quite appalling reports of pressure by the management of British Coal on the miners to take their redundancy money and run now, coupled with the threat that if they do not the terms will be reduced. This is before the inquiry has
1210
reported and I believe that it is quite outrageous. Will the Minister help us by informing the Committee how many miners have been made redundant in the 31 named pits—helpfully broken down into the 10 apparent lost causes and the other 21—since the inquiry was announced? Will she take steps to inform British Coal that it must stop intimidating miners into taking redundancies before the report has pronounced on the future of the British coal industry?
To return to the central thrust of the amendment on energy strategy, it is surely very positive and gives the Government an opportunity to set out their alternative strategy. Such an alternative strategy is perfectly possible. It should be based on the balanced mix of sources and the security of supply that I have mentioned. It should require the electricity generators to have contracts which preserve a viable coal industry for this country as part of that balanced mix of supply. It should stop the electricity distributors investing in higher cost gas generation; and it should stop the electricity distributors from passing on higher costs to the consumers. That involves the role of the regulator. Also, the regulator should be required to ensure that generators seek the cheapest source and such a strategy should have a depletion policy for our indigenous gas and oil reserves.
That seems to me the basis of such a strategy and it will, of course, have to face the fact that Britain's energy self-sufficiency ceases within a decade. It should be tailored to the European energy strategy and the Committee should note that the European Commissioner for Energy has expressed deep concern that Britain, with the largest European coal reserves and the most efficient production, is contemplating closing that down.
Such a strategy should avoid the contemplated wanton destruction of our coal industry; it should avoid the wanton depletion of Britain's gas reserves, with gas, a premium fuel, quite wrongly in my view used for bulk electricity production. It should avoid the wanton damage to the lives of all those people who work in the coal industry and related industries. Such a strategy must, I believe, be in the nation's interests and in the Government's interests.
The Minister in reply may say, "Well, all of this is before the inquiry". That would have been acceptable, and I should have spoken differently today and possibly have withdrawn the amendment if the Government had withdrawn the coal aspects of the Bill. But we must insist that, because the Government are proceeding with the Bill, it implies that they have an energy strategy, a coal strategy that lies behind it. Either they have one—and we should like them to pronounce on it—or they have a secret strategy and we should like it to be revealed. We want clarity on the energy strategy and the coal strategy for this country. The amendment presses for such clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment. I have for years felt that we should have a more coherent energy strategy than we possess at present. There is a policy for the different energy sectors, but when put together, regrettably, the policies do not add up to a strategy. There is or has been until recently a policy towards

1211
coal, but now that is being reconsidered. There is a policy towards nuclear energy; the gas electricity markets are regulated in different ways and the oil industry, of course, moves freely throughout the world. So in each sector we have a different approach.
Britain, as a major producer of all forms of energy, possessing a wide range of energy skills, should long before now have had a broad strategy. I am not talking about a detailed plan, a year by year objective or dividing up markets. I am talking about broad strategic objectives.
We hope that the coal inquiry, which has now been expanded into a general energy review, will give us some of the answers which we have sought by putting forward this amendment. Indeed, the amendment gives further support to the views which we expressed at an earlier stage when we sought to suggest—but did not obtain the vote of the House—that it might have been more sensible to come back to the Bill when we knew what the strategic thinking was. We should know that in a matter of two to three months. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will enlighten us as to the range of subjects which are likely to be covered in the strategic review and whether they encompass the issues set out in the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The amendment was tabled against a very different background from the one which exists today. Since the amendment was tabled the President of the Board of Trade has announced the terms of reference for the coal review. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the Committee that it covers the areas in which Members of the Committee are interested. I should not wish to anticipate the findings of the review. It is full and wide-ranging. It is considering views and evidence on the future of each of the 21 pits included in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and the employment prospects for the industry.
The review will decide whether the case for closure at each of the pits has been fully made and whether it is sensible to mothball some of them. It is considering whether the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed and, in consultation with the Director General of Electricity Supply, whether any company is abusing its position in the market place. The review is looking at the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and the power station, and whether plans to run them down are sensibly phased. It is considering the consequences of the switch to gas in power generation and the relative costs of gas and coal-fired generation. It is looking into the latest estimates of likely reserves of gas. It is considering the present scale of gas generated power stations in production, being built and in the planning process.
In that connection the review is examining the use of the consent powers of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Electricity Act 1989. The review is also considering the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.
The review is exploring the opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. It is
1212
considering the existing and anticipated level of imports and their wider economic implications. The review is also giving due regard to Scottish and Welsh interests and it is also giving consideration to the particular needs of Northern Ireland. I think the Committee will agree that this constitutes a comprehensive review.
In addition, I should add that the President of the Board of Trade has appointed outside consultants to report on the viability of the 21 pits; to report on the prospects for British Coal, including any alternative markets that may exist for coal; and to comment generally on the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation. The team conducting the review has been established as a new and independent entity within the DTI. As has already been said today, evidence will be published to the fullest extent possible except where the information provided is confidential for commercial reasons. The President of the Board of Trade is also giving as much assistance as possible to the inquiries of the Trade and Industry and Employment Select Committees.
A White Paper will be published early in the new year setting out the results of this comprehensive review in the context of the Government's energy policy. It will make clear the consequences of that policy for British Coal; the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. The President of the Board of Trade will present the conclusions and the Government's future decisions to Parliament, which will of course be able to debate the issues fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the specific issue of voluntary redundancies since 13th October. I understand that there have been 4,614 voluntary redundancies since that date. Of these, 1,776 were at 10 pits. I am sorry that I do not have the figures for the other 21 pits but I shall obtain them and write to the noble Lord. I heard the noble Lord's comment on the situation of the miners. I suggest that he underestimates the ability of the British coal-miner to make his own decisions. I believe that what I have just described is a sensible and constructive approach to the coal industry's needs at this stage and that the amendments before us suggest a more fixed position. I hope I may ask the noble Lords concerned to withdraw the amendment and await the results of the review in due course.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jay: Before the noble Baroness sits down I hope she will answer my following question. As she referred to the wider economic implications of these policies, have the Government seriously considered the point that I raised on Second Reading; that is, it is not merely our future balance of payments security but also our defence security that must he considered in conditions where nearly 80 or 90 per cent. of our electric power supplies have become dependent on oil rigs in the North Sea and gas installations and on oil tankers bringing oil to this country from far afield? In the light of our experiences in the past two wars—I do not propose to argue this now—has that matter been

1213
considered seriously with defence advisers as well as economic advisers either in the review or in the Government's own internal discussions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's policy to ensure adequate secure and diverse supplies of energy. The noble Lord's points on Second Reading were taken into account.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for producing the figures on redundancies, which were helpful. I believe they have not been published elsewhere. Does she acknowledge that those figures are worrying and that that number of redundancies is nearly 10 per cent. of the entire workforce? What the Minister has said is that nearly 10 per cent. of the workforce has left since the inquiry into the future of the workers was announced. If she accepts what I have said—my remarks are based upon good information from the mines—that a large number of these miners are leaving under circumstances that they consider intimidatory on the part of the Coal Board management and they are threatened that if they do not run and take their redundancy now they will receive less in future, does not the Minister agree that such a situation is intolerable? Does she not accept that the Government should publicly state that an inquiry is being held into the future of the coal industry and one possible outcome of that inquiry, we hope, is that there is a good future for British Coal and a good future for British miners in it? It is quite intolerable that British Coal's management should attempt to pre-empt the outcome of that inquiry and to secure the results of the closures that were originally intended before the inquiry was reported.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: There has been enormous media coverage of the coal issue and of the review. I do not believe that British miners are unaware of what is happening in their industry. It is not for me to comment on their individual choices.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to consider further what the Minister has said in reply to this amendment, although much of what she said was helpful and constructive. I may wish to return to this matter on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, after ("should") insert ("subject to subsection (1B) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 16, which is the amendment which sets out the essence of our case. The Government are being extremely optimistic against the weight of so much evidence from independent sources and from people with substantial consulting practices of repute as regards the merits of their proposals. What we are seeking to do here is to determine whether further information and evidence should be forthcoming from the Government before this paving Bill is adopted by this Chamber.
I have said that the Government are being optimistic and I suggest the difference between optimists and pessimists is that the optimists are not really in a position to know the facts. I do not think the Government know the facts, or have revealed the facts to the public, if they know them, about their real intentions. Our case is that the proposals of the Government for privatisation cannot be seen in a vacuum. They have to be viewed in a way that enjoins the wider issues of transport policy. The White Paper has made no effort at all to set out the role of the railways and how that role is to be fulfilled in the context of what we have called for; namely, an integrated transport policy.
I know the Minister's predecessor did not believe in an integrated transport policy. He professed not to understand what it meant. But it is something that most people in all sectors of the transport business understand perfectly well. It is known in the European Community and I hope this Minister will not share the view of the Minister's predecessor. We are saying that the objectives, including the environmental and safety ones that the Minister intends the railways to meet, should be set out. We also say that the railway programmes and projects he believes will be needed to meet those objectives should be set out.
Perhaps I may point out that there is an error in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 16, which should read "he will need to meet". I apologise if that is our fault, but I believe that it is self-evident.
The third strand of the argument is that the financial and other support which he intends to provide towards the achievement of those programmes should also be set out.
We believe that the Government have established the wrong priorities for their transport policy. The emphasis on road construction and on alterations to roads is in marked contrast to the provisions made for rail, notwithstanding—and we shall return to the argument at a later stage—the environmentally friendly nature of rail compared with road transport.
The concept upon which the Government have based the notion of privatisation is the alleged success of bus privatisation, which they constantly pray in aid. We say that we should learn the lessons of bus privatisation before we proceed with these proposals. Contrary to the Government's argument, bus privatisation augurs very badly for rail. It has resulted in poorer services, fewer passengers, greater use of older vehicles and the neglect of more remote areas. We fear that that could well be the situation in relation to rail.
We argue that this is a destructive diversion from the essential need for increased investment in a railway industry which is suffering from one of the worst investment programmes in the European Community. In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced that spending on rail was to be reduced still further over the next three years, from £2 billion this year to £1 billion by 1995–96. The recession has reduced BR's income by some £400 million, has led directly to the loss of 5,000 jobs, announced only the other day, and to some investment plans having to be deferred, if not abandoned altogether. Against that background, we

1215
are entitled to know the Minister's answer to the case that has been adduced by reputable consultants on behalf of Transport 2000. Steer Davies Gleave has concluded that there will be a risk of further reduction in investment for a number of reasons: fragmented decision-making between rail track and train operators; difficulties in buying or leasing rolling stock; higher track charges, especially for freight; and conflicts between franchising passenger services and allowing open access to the tracks. If the Minister disputes that, as presumably he will, perhaps he will tell the Committee why.
One of the most difficult areas in this connection is the position of passengers in the South East. They will bear the brunt of even larger than average fare increases on busy commuter routes into London. Despite old trains and deteriorating reliability and punctuality, and all the other inconveniences that they suffer, they are the people who effectively subsidise so much of the more profitable services run by BR. The swingeing fare increases have been described by Major-General Lennox Napier, the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, as "unreasonable and unacceptable". It is not irrelevant that against that background London Underground and bus fares are also to be increased by swingeing amounts. Travelcards will cost 14.3 per cent. more.
Worse is to follow. This is an industry which is beset by loss of income as a result of a reduction in the number of travellers. Income has fallen by £80 million over two years. The industry is unable to cash in on property sales in view of the recession presently affecting property prices.
There is a risk—which the Minister could not possibly deny—that rail fares will rise. There are a number of particularly important issues which I commend to the Government. I do not propose to rehearse them now. They have been put to him by Transport 2000. Specific policies are required to deal with those issues. If the Minister wishes to challenge me on that matter I can return to it later.
Mr. John Prescott, who leads for the Opposition on these matters in another place, described the increases as the Tory Party's rail privatisation tax. He went on to say that they are being levied to make some rail services profitable for selling off and to compensate for the £3.5 billion reduction in subsidies imposed on British Rail by the Government. I believe that he was absolutely right when he said that.
The Government claim that they are responsible for huge investment in British Rail. Like so many other claims made by this Government it needs to be viewed with a measure of scepticism. The fact is that half the funds available in the current financial year are tied to Channel Tunnel related projects. In 1990–91 only a quarter of railway investment grants came from government; the rest was raised within BR itself. Since 1983 government support for the railways did not increase in real terms: it decreased by 34 per cent. The result is a continually worsening situation, as the travelling public are best able to judge.
I turn to the White Paper, in case the Minister asserts that the White Paper provides that transport policy. In my submission it does nothing of the kind.
1216
It gives scant attention to the issues of congestion and the environment. There may be one or two words about the environment. It does not mention the question of a national rail strategy. It says nothing about the provision of rural services or those affecting peripheral communities, which we shall deal with tomorrow. It says nothing about the relationship with other modes of transport. Apart from a few comments about the Channel Tunnel, it says nothing about our relationships with European transport systems, particularly rail, and this only a few days before we complete the framework for the single market.
The White Paper deals unsatisfactorily with the problems of fragmentation of responsibility for safety and loss of the benefits of network integrity for passengers and freight. If it deals at all with the question of asset stripping it does so very unsatisfactorily, yet that is a matter of considerable importance. The document says little that is adequate about the future role of PTAs and PTEs. Again, we shall return to that issue with another amendment. There is a host of issues, including others that I have not mentioned, to which we shall have to turn specifically when we debate other amendments.
There is also another matter which is of continual concern to people who use the railways. The de-manning of stations affects safety, particularly that of women. That is an issue about which I should have thought the White Paper would have had something to say, but it does not.
We believe that there are serious doubts about the programmes which the Government wish to pursue. We fear that dramatic increases in fares and freight charges will be necessary to meet the unsubsidised fees of the rail track authority. That will lead to a greater use of road transport—the very thing that we should be seeking to avoid.
I do not propose to say very much more, except in conclusion that we believe that it is essential that the Secretary of State should publish a national rail strategy in the context of the wider issues to which I have already referred. We recognise that rail plays a crucial part, as it has for many years, in local and regional transport strategies. It provides vitally important links with rural areas. It is vital that the strength of the existing rail network should be used as the basis for further development and innovation to meet the challenges set by congestion and the deteriorating environment. The challenge and the way in which the railways can meet it should be one of the cornerstones of national rail policy; and included in that approach, and some would say central to it, is the involvement of local government. The Government have not begun to set out their policies with regard to those issues. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: Just as in the previous amendment we pressed hard for an energy strategy within which the policy for coal could be identified—and that is now to take place—so, I believe, with equal force we can press for a general transport review within which the railway strategy can be placed.
The history of the railways since the war in Britain has been a very unfortunate one, for the simple reason that, under successive governments, we could not

1217
make up our minds whether it was to be a public service or to be run as a profitable business. In the end neither objective has been clearly achieved. With the Government's plans for privatisation, a unique opportunity arises for a strategic review so that we can see where railways and the transport service of the country are to go in the future, with all the challenges that we face, at home within the single market and further afield. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us that the Government intend to produce such a strategy.
The Earl of Caithness: I was very surprised to see these amendments on the Marshalled List. At first I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had not taken note of the White Paper that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State produced in July, which, if any Members of the Committee have read it, answers many of the points in the noble Lord's amendment.
It became quite clear as the noble Lord spoke that the reason for the amendment was to have a general bleat about privatisation, make a Second Reading speech and refer very little to the amendment in front of him. He also wanted just to raise the general point that he did not like privatisation; he preferred to tell people exactly what they should do and what mode of travel they should use, which is a different philosophy from that of the Government.
He mentioned one or two other points which he said were a matter for amendments later on, which they are. It is appropriate that we consider them when they are raised later.
For Members of the Committee who took the amendments in the same way as I did, which was as seeking information about what my right honourable friend had said, I think it is worth saying that the White Paper, New Opportunities for the Railways, which was published in July, made our strategy quite clear. It is to improve the quality of rail services by creating new opportunities for private sector involvement; to ensure continuity of services; to ensure safety; and to provide value for money. We are anxious to make progress in improving the quality of service to rail customers and therefore to have in place as soon as possible the necessary legislative framework.
The Government intend to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as they are in a position to do so. The Bill before us today paves the way for that legislation and for the greater involvement of the private sector in the operation of the railways. Again, this is a point of confusion in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He still has not understood the difference between this Bill and the main Bill on privatisation. This Bill does not provide any powers for the implementation of privatisation. Doubtless the noble Lord will make the same speech when we come to the main privatisation Bill.
In summary, the key proposals for the railways are: that the existing passenger services be franchised to private sector operators; that the freight and parcels business be transferred to the private sector; for new rights of access to the rail network for private
1218
operators; for the restructuring of BR to separate out a track authority, Railtrack, and passenger service operations, which will continue to run passenger services until they are franchised; to appoint a rail regulator and a franchising authority; to provide opportunities for the private sector to purchase or lease stations; and to provide improved grant arrangements for individual rail services or groups of services.
A further important step was taken when in October my right honourable friend issued a consultation document The Franchising of Passenger Rail Services, which the noble Lord did not mention but which gave further information on how the franchising system will work and sought views from prospective franchisees about how franchising might best be carried out. A useful response has been received from a wide range of interested parties, including nearly 50 expressions of interest in running franchised services and about 10 in leasing rolling stock. My right honourable friend is now considering the responses received to that document and hopes to be in a position to announce early in the new year the first services to be franchised.
The noble Lord's amendment refers specifically to safety and the environment. Let me make it abundantly clear beyond peradventure that safety is of prime importance to us. That is why one will find in the White Paper a whole Chapter, Chapter 6, devoted to the subject of safety.
The noble Lord then went on to the subject of the environment. He said that there was precious little in the White Paper on the environment—"a word or two", he said. Perhaps I should refer him to the whole paragraph on page 16, paragraph 75.
The amendment also suggests that within a rail strategy my right honourable friend should specify railway programmes and projects to meet stated objectives. Although British Rail is subject to the constraints of a nationalised industry, it is expected to act as a commercial organisation and set its own investment priorities within the external finance limit. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to specify the detailed projects and programmes of British Rail or any other rail operator.
Finally, we come to a point on which the noble Lord did major; namely, the financial support to be provided. The Government's commitment to the railways has been underlined in recent years by record levels of investment. Investment stands at around £1 billion in 1991–92 and a further £1.5 billion is expected for 1992–93. Over the past two years Network SouthEast has invested over £850 million, and since 1986 over 1,200 new vehicles have been delivered. On InterCity, the electrification of the east coast mainline was completed last year at a cost of some £475 million.
The noble Lord sought to put into the minds of the Committee the fact that there was less money in reality for British Rail as a result of the Autumn Statement. Let me reassure the Committee that that is not the case. We have allocated to British Rail £239 million more over the next two years compared with previous plans. The investment is much higher now in real terms than it was in the late 1980s.

1219
The noble Lord referred to the question of fares, but that has been covered in oral Questions in this Chamber, and it would be wrong of me to go back over the same well worn ground.
Following BR's re-organisation, investment in infrastructure will remain the responsibility of the public sector Railtrack. The intention is that Railtrack will operate on a commercial basis, with its investment financed from charges to operators for use of the track network. However, we have said that we will be prepared to provide direct grants for infrastructure investment in the railway where, for example, a project although not earning an adequate financial return, achieves a satisfactory cost-benefit return when wider benefits are taken into account. The Government also want to encourage private sector involvement in rail investment. For passenger services, the Government are particularly keen to see the private sector investing in rolling stock—for example, through the development of a leasing market—and we are currently exploring ways that this might be achieved.
Sadly, the noble Lord did not raise the question of the leasing of rolling stock. It was a very important part of the Autumn Statement made by my right honourable friend. It offers great benefits to British Rail, and it will be able to lease £150 million worth over the next three years. Clearly a lot of what the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ezra, have sought in their amendments have been met by the White Paper. Other comments of the noble Lord will be dealt with in later amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister's response was thoroughly unsatisfactory but it was not unexpected. It is a travesty of the truth—but it is typical of the Minister because he believes it—to say that we on this side of the Committee want to tell people what to do, how to travel and so forth. We want to give people a proper choice but it must be based on an equality of standards between road and rail in terms of investment and the like. That does not exist at present.
The Minister did not begin to refute the case that I made. He does not like the amendment and is perfectly entitled not to like it. He is also perfectly entitled to be purblind about the issues and ignore all the criticisms which are being made not only by me but by many reputable organisations which have sought to make representations to his department. It is recognised that the Government are bent on pursuing this policy and having been recently elected they have a period of perhaps years in which to do so. But surely they should not be so resistant to the desire to ensure that the mistakes which were made elsewhere are not repeated in respect of this important industry. However, it appears that the Government are not prepared to encounter such arguments.
The Minister says that it is all in the White Paper. Not at all. The Minister has not rebutted the fact that the White Paper is scant on many material issues. It does not set railways in the context of a proper
1220
transport policy. The Government are absolutely blind to that and therefore they are likely to make serious mistakes.
I believe that my case and that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was corroborated rather than rebutted by the Minister's comments tonight. He insisted that there are record levels of investment in this country. However, he carefully avoided comparing those levels, whether record or not, with the situation that persists among our major competitors in the EC. There is overwhelming evidence to show that our efforts are puny by comparison. The amount of research and development and investment which has been undertaken in France and Germany puts our efforts in pure light.
As regards the leasing of stock, I am delighted that the Government have at last recognised the argument that the Opposition has been putting forward for years. We were told that that would be incompatible with the requirements of the public sector borrowing requirement. That case was argued on previous occasions by his predecessor and by the Minister. If the Minister wants to borrow our clothes that is fine if it will benefit our railway industry. However, he has chosen to be almost frivolous about the amendment and therefore it is necessary to test the opinion of the Committee.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
6.3 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Varley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Healey, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howell, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

1221

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Leigh, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Barber, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blyth, L.

Marsh, L.

Boardman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Milverton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Orkney, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranborne, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rennell, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shannon, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sharples, B.

Elton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Haslam, L.

Teviot, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hothfield, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kitchener, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, after ("should") insert ("subject to subsection (1C) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment Nos.
1222
12,14, 17 to 19 and 32. This is a rather complicated set of amendments, made even more complicated by the fact that we are dealing with two industries and there are not necessarily common denominators in each.
The first two amendments to which I shall refer are Amendments Nos. 4 and 17. Amendment No. 4 is the paving amendment and Amendment No. 17 deals with consultation requirements with members of the British Rail pension scheme, the British Rail superannuation fund committees of management representing the workforce, the appointment of advisers and the appointment of advisers with the consent of the members.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 32 deal with a requirement for transferees to guarantee the continuation of pension rights and concessionary arrangements. Amendment No. 22 also deals with that as regards changes made to the British Rail pension scheme and the line workers pension fund and so on. It deals also with a requirement that there should be laid before both Houses a statement certifying such changes for the protection of the interests of the members and beneficiaries or an enactment by statutory instrument to that effect. My noble friend Lord Donoughue will deal with that in so far as it affects coal.
Amendment No. 18 affects the coal industry. It deals with the question of consultation and is similar to the amendment to which I have just referred. That will also be dealt with by my noble friend. Amendment No. 12 deals with balloting when there is a change of scheme. My noble friend will deal with Amendment No. 14 concerning coal.
I turn to those amendments which affect the rail industry. I believe that all those amendments—as do those relating to coal—concern people in employment or who have been in employment with British Rail. We contend that those rights must be maintained, as must be the rights of their dependants. We have serious doubts about that matter.
As regards the rail pension funds, British Rail operates a number of pension schemes. In one way or another they cover almost 350,000 people. The assets of the British Rail pension scheme amount to something in the order of £7.25 billion. We are talking about substantial sums. The present benefit structure has led to a situation in which substantial benefits were paid following considerable surpluses that arose. Those matters have been dealt with generously, properly and equitably; for example, death in service payments are four times salary and all pensions are fully index-linked to the retail prices index.
While the Government have promised protection of pension benefits and the establishment of broadly similar schemes after privatisation, the fact remains —and we exercise grave doubts about the situation —that any subsequent employer seeking to reduce costs could take any or all of the following actions. Steps may be taken to end the matching of additional voluntary contributions by employers. Steps may be taken to amend the one-sixtieth accrual rate for pensions or to amend the one-fortieth accrual rate for tax free lump sums. Index-linking may be reduced to a maximum of 5 per cent. Proposals may be made to

1223
lower the death-in-service payment and there could be a reduction in the 10-year membership enhancement for early ill-health retirements. Wholesale workforce reductions may well enable the surplus earmarked for maintaining a reduced contribution rate and additional voluntary contribution matching to be used for an employer contribution holiday. I seek a reassurance from the Minister about that. Now is the time that we seek those reassurances. We do not wish people to discover later that they are in a very difficult position.
We draw little comfort from previous privatisations that have taken place; for example, some of the British Rail subsidiaries. All the companies concerned—British Transport hotels, Sealink, the National Freight Consortium plc, and so on—were required to establish their own pension schemes to protect the benefits of members following privatisation. None of those schemes has led to an increase in benefits to anything like the level presently offered by the British Rail pension scheme. Indeed, in some cases there have been substantial reductions and employer contributions holidays.
Let us take the example of the hotels. Many of those changed hands on a number of occasions and their pension schemes remain unimproved or have even been closed. Experience shows that privatisation, even within the railway industry, has not been altogether happy. The employer has frequently identified possible savings and greater company profitability by reducing pension costs. Notwithstanding all the efforts made to safeguard the situation before the businesses were sold, subsequent events have resulted in inferior pension benefits being paid and consequently, there has been less protection for employees and their families.
The situation is not unlike that in other privatisations that have taken place. We believe that workers in those industries, who in many instances have given a life time of service to them, are entitled to rather better provision than they have been given. They are certainly entitled to assurances which we hope will be forthcoming from the Government.
The only way in which the system can properly be safeguarded so far as concerns past, present and future employees is for British Rail's pension scheme to be redesigned on an industry-wide basis. There is no technical reason why that should not be done. It has been done in other cases. We should be able to proceed on that basis, and I hope that the Government will be forthcoming. We regard this debate tonight as a probing debate into the Government's intentions, and I hope that we may get a rather more satisfactory reply from whoever is replying than we did to the last debate where the reply was derisory. This is not an issue that is susceptible of being dealt with on that basis because many hundreds of thousands of people are vitally affected and involved.
To turn to advice, it is important that good, independent and objective advice should be available, and that that should be done by openly consulting with potential and actual pensioners and dependants. This should be done free of pressures and influences
1224
on the part of subsequent employers, whose interests may well be different from, or even in conflict with, their pensioners. This is a critical situation where transparency is important and the public interest is clear. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming. My noble friend will deal with some of the issues affecting the coal industry. I have not touched on those as they are not within my remit, but there are substantial common denominators. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps I may speak on the coal industry pension fund. That raises important issues just as the rail fund does, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned to us. In the case of coal, the value of the fund and the number of people affected are just about getting on for double that of the railways. It is very large indeed. The fund is currently worth about £13 billion, which is probably 10 to 15 times what the business will be worth when sold. It is much larger than the business we are talking about privatising.
There are a large number of people involved, of whom the bulk are people in receipt of pensions or with deferred pensions because of the rapid rundown, particularly in recent years, of the size of the coal industry. Therefore, it makes it a special problem. The numbers are quite stupendous. There are two schemes. In the case of the staff scheme, there are 16,500 contributing members, but there are 74,500 pensioners with another 12,500 with deferred pensions. In the case of the mineworkers' schemes, there are 35,000 serving members, 270,000 pensioners, and 260,000 with deferred pensions. We are talking about half million people in the mining schemes either in receipt of pensions or who have deferred pensions to which they are entitled.
It is obvious that in any changes that are made in these pension funds as a result of the process of privatisation there should on the one hand be full consultation (which some of these provisions are about) and full protection. I think it necessary that in this paving Bill there should be something to that effect. I should like to recall to the Committee that in the case of the electricity industry the Electricity Act 1989 gave clear statutory protection for pensioners and serving members at the time of privatisation. I should be interested to know whether it is the Government's intention in the case of railways and coal to give similar statutory protection.
Lord Donoughue: In this complex grouping there are five issues: consultation; guarantees; the ballot question; a separate fund for the already retired; and ways of changing the schemes. Regarding coal (the guarantees and the changes in the separate fund) on consultation and on advisers for coal —that is, Amendment No. 18—I will endorse the points made in relation to rail by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The same principles apply. I support the ballot amendment because it seems to me the best form of consultation.
On the guarantees—Amendment No. 19—the funds in the coal industry pension funds total in value over £13 billion. In the light of recent experiences with pension funds, I think it is accepted that we need

1225
statutory protection. We need a guarantee of existing benefits for existing retired members; we need a guarantee that currently working contributors continue to accrue rights even if those members are transferred to work elsewhere in the industry. It is important that subsequent changes of working situation should not in any way affect the rights of members. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the electricity supply pension scheme, and that seems to be a model giving statutory protection. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that that will operate here. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, when Secretary of State in another place, gave undertakings to the colliery managers that these guarantees would operate. I should like to hear that that is still the case.
It would also be appropriate to have statutory guarantees in the area of actuarial surpluses. In other words, statutorily prohibiting that the surpluses should be used for any purpose other than the benefits of the members. These surpluses are huge moneys. I think there was a surplus of £1.5 billion between 1987 and 1990. The pensions contribution was calculated on that basis by British Coal. Will that pension contribution holiday—I think it was through to the year 2,000—carry over to the private buyer? I should like to resist that. The surplus, we say, should be for the benefit of members, including improving benefits or reducing contributions.
Amendment No. 32—the provision for changes—provides some statutory protection and a proposed certification. The changes in the interests of members should extend to the changes in the governance of schemes. There it is important that the governance of these schemes should be statutorily entrenched. There is a great deal of thought being given to the model governance for pension schemes at this moment, and a number of proposals have come forward. It would be desirable for these schemes that the governance should be entrenched so that a private buyer cannot later change the governance. The chairman should certainly be an independent trustee. The employer should have less than 50 per cent. of the representatives, and the workers representatives and independents should be more than 50 per cent.
We are probing. We should like to know the Government's thoughts on the future governance of these schemes. How do we make sure that some future private buyer, who may be three purchasers along the way, does not change the governance to the detriment of members?
Finally, I should like to mention the proposal for separate schemes—Amendment No. 14—and pick up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made about the numbers. There are over 250,000 retired beneficiaries. At the time of privatisation, 90 per cent. of members will be retired beneficiaries. There is no reason to transfer their pension rights, which are calculated at £11 billion out of the £13 billion, to private owners. Those members will not have worked for or had any relationship with the new owners.
1226
There is no reason why the buyers of all or any part of British Coal should get their hands on the enormous funds involved.
It would not be a difficult matter to split the schemes. There could be one scheme for currently working members, who would represent about 10 per cent. They would have guaranteed benefits under the guarantee clause, with good governance that is entrenched statutorily, and there would be no changes without the permission of Parliament or of members, as is provided for by the various clauses. There could be a separate fund, a retired scheme, for 90 per cent. of the members. It would be separate and free-standing with the surpluses being for the benefit of the members only. Such an arrangement would be very acceptable to the industry and it would properly protect the interests of those involved.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stated, the amendments and their grouping are complicated, but they are probing amendments and I hope that I shall be able to reassure noble Lords in the course of the reply. They are important matters.
The provision of pensions and concessionary benefits, which are included in Amendment No. 19, is an important issue about which employees of the coal and rail industries are rightly concerned. Numerous assurances have been given by my honourable friends the Ministers of State for Energy and Public Transport that pension rights will be safeguarded at privatisation.
None of the amendments is appropriate as an addition to the Bill, which, as we have made clear, is solely designed to give powers to British Coal and British Rail to enable them to consider the Government's proposals and to allow them to prepare for privatisation. The Bill does not allow for the implementation of those proposals, which would require further legislation.
As was the situation with previous government privatisations, we will ensure that the pension entitlements of existing contributors and of past employees of both industries are properly safeguarded. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy has made that position clear in another place. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. There would be no circumstances in which a potential purchaser of the coal industry could be attracted by the potential of any predatory gains from the pension funds. Such an option could not be countenanced by the Government. I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments.
Similarly, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Public Transport is in no doubt about the importance of this issue in relation to the privatisation of the railways. Both he and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport have taken a number of opportunities to emphasise that point in another place. Since then, the rail privatisation White Paper has been published and it confirms that the pension rights of existing contributors and past employees will be properly safeguarded.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sure that nobody would cast doubts on the bona fides of the noble Lady or those of her honourable friend. However, past precedents do not bear out what she is saying. I could cite many examples where there have been serious distortions of the position once privatisation has taken place or after the passage of some time. That point is concerning people and I hope that the noble Lady can deal with it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am very happy to deal with that point at this stage. The noble Lord earlier raised the subject of pension rights of employees of British Rail hotels and Sealink. We are aware of the arrangements that have been made and they are being taken into account in the arrangements that are currently under consideration for the future of the pension rights at privatisation under the present proposals. Those arrangements have been noted.
The security of the rights now enjoyed by members and pensioners of the British Rail scheme is of the highest priority. The subject of pensions is a complicated issue that requires careful consideration, the more so in the case of British Coal pension funds, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, the ratio of beneficiaries and future beneficiaries to current contributors is uniquely high.
The details of any proposals are not a subject for the Bill and would require further legislation. The Bill is a technical measure and contains no powers to enable the Government to take any action on pensions. It would be quite inappropriate to make a specific reference to pensions in the Bill.
British Coal and British Rail will wish to be well advised on the crucial issue of pensions. All departments undertake inquiries to establish the professional competence of any adviser who is appointed by the Government and I have no doubt that British Coal and British Rail too will undertake such checks as they believe necessary in the appointment of their own advisers. They will wish to ensure that they are in receipt of the best possible advice—advice that will help to ensure that pension arrangements can be established which will safeguard pension entitlements. They will wish to appoint advisers in whom they and all those concerned can have complete confidence. That is a matter that must be left to them.
The mechanism for the appointment of advisers to the Secretary of State or to either of the corporations is not an appropriate matter to include in the Bill. Nor is it appropriate for representatives of the workforce to be given a power of veto, which would be the effect of the proposed subsections, in relation to the appointment of advisers by the Government, British Coal or British Rail.
I should like to add that conversion of the British Rail pension scheme into an industry-wide scheme is one of the options that is being considered. I emphasise that the disposal of surpluses declared by the mineworkers' pension scheme or the staff superannuation scheme is a matter for the trustees of those schemes.
This is not the occasion to discuss the details of pension arrangements that will be put into place at
1228
privatisation. The Government will be making their policies clear when the main privatisation legislation is introduced. There will be an opportunity to give careful consideration to this very important subject. I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that we appreciate that the subject of pensions is a crucially important matter and that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that she and her colleagues will think very seriously about these matters. She accepted that it was not an inappropriate debate because it is right to ventilate the anxieties of thousands of people, anxieties which have been expressed to us by the unions and by other interested parties. The noble Lady stated on a number of occasions that she recognised that these were important matters and that therefore it was legitimate to raise them today.
I note that the noble Baroness says that this is not the proper vehicle for that. I will carefully consider what she has to say in that regard before Report stage, along with my noble friend Lord Donoughue and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, the noble Baroness may recall, if she consults the Hansard Reports of another place and of this place with regard to previous privatisations, that very similar assurances have been given in the past on those occasions and in a number of material respects those assurances have not been fulfilled. Consequently, I was very pleased to hear her say that some of those precedents will he taken into account. That is a far cry of course from some statements that have previously been made—that everything in the garden as far as pensions were concerned was perfectly all right, "trust the Government and that is fine". I am glad that the Government will be considering those precedents and to what extent they went awry.
I was also very pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that one of the proposals that I put forward; namely, converting the BR pension scheme into an industry-wide scheme, is on the agenda. I do not think that I could ask the Minister to go further than that, and I am comforted by the fact that at least it is an option which is being considered.
I will just repeat what our two concerns are so that the position is clear beyond any peradventure in future debates. We are anxious to ensure that all future surpluses will be used for the benefit of pensioners and contributors. They should not be used for the benefit of any private buyer, who has made no previous contribution to a pension scheme. We are concerned too, whether we come back to it in the course of this Bill or in the substantive Bill in due course, to ensure that against the background of recent events, pensioners should have a much greater say so far as concerns the administration of pension funds. It is their lives that are at stake. We believe that they should enjoy majority control as trustees of their pension funds. I believe that the Government do not agree with that, and that is a point of difference between us. Certainly we do not think that events within the last year or so enable us to rest comfortably

1229
with the idea that control of much of the administration should be outside the province of the beneficiaries.
Having listened to what the Minister has said, I should like to cogitate further upon that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 8, after ("transferred") insert ("subject to subsection (1F) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. I believe that it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 6, 20 and 21. These amendments deal with questions of competing for franchises. I recognise that the Government have produced this consultation document, which is of considerable length and complexity. However, I do not believe that certain points which we are anxious to refer to have been dealt with there.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 effectively come to this: we are asking the Secretary of State to ensure that British Rail will be invited to bid for the award of any franchise alongside any other bidders. The second amendment seeks to ensure that British Rail should itself be under an obligation to compete for the award of franchises. We really want to test the Government on these issues because they are not dealt with sufficiently, if at all, in the White Paper.
There are very deep concerns here which hinge on the issue of franchises. We do not object to the idea that franchises should be awarded on the basis of competitive tendering, if we are going ahead with this idea at all. We know that InterCity operations, being profitable, will go to the highest bidders. Network SouthEast and Regional Railways, because they are loss making, will go to the companies requiring the lowest subsidies. Thereafter, franchisees will rent or buy rollingstock from British Rail, bearing the full commercial risk for their operations; so they will pay track charges, rollingstock rentals, wages and other operating charges out of fare revenues. And of course they hope that they will be left with a profit. So if franchises are to be profitable costs will need to be cut. The consultation paper says that they will be free to change the working conditions of employees once the franchise is under way. I do not know what the Minister will have to say about that, but that is what the Government have put forward and we express our concern about it.
One issue which arises directly from that is "cherry-picking". What is the position of would-be franchisees concerning competition from cherrypickers?—that is to say, from free-wheeling operators who seek to grab traffic from the franchisee's most profitable services? That is just one of a number of serious problems.
Perhaps I may refer to some specific concerns expressed in the amendments. The White Paper envisages that British Rail should not be permitted to tender for franchises of passenger services which it
1230
currently operates. I think that I am right in saying that, but I stand to be corrected if the Minister has any evidence to the contrary. If that assumption is right then I ask: why not? Have the Government previously taken the view that the public sector should always be tested against private contractors? For example, we have subsidised bus services and local authority services. The Local Government Act 1988 makes the provision that compulsory competitive tendering had as its aim to secure:
"that local and other public authorities undertake certain activities only if they can do so competitively".
When we examine that issue, the White paper says in paragraph 3:
"British Rail has made significant improvements in recent years. Its efficiency compares well with that of other European railways".
That may or may not be correct.
It goes on:
"The productivity of the BR workforce is among the highest of any European railway. InterCity services and BR freight operate without direct subsidy".
That is what the White Paper has to say. According to British Rail Board's annual report for 1991–92, staff numbers in the main businesses fell by 4,000 between 1988 and 1992, from 137,160 to 133,060, while the total train miles for passengers, freight and parcels operations rose from 255.5 million to 265.6 million. British Rail generates 3.289 train kilometres per member of staff: the average for European railways is 2.320: substantially less.
Against that background, the Government's desire for any significant private sector involvement in railway operations is, in our judgment, flawed. It is contrary to common sense and contrary to all principles of fairness that the existing efficient operator of train services should be forbidden to tender for their continued provision. We say that it is in the interests of the public that British Rail should be permitted, and indeed invited, to tender even if franchises are eventually awarded to private operators. In the absence of a properly costed bid from the most experienced provider of rail services, against what standards are private sector bids to be judged at all? That problem would be particularly serious if, as seems likely, many franchises are sought by only a single private sector bidder.
If British Rail is to be invited to bid alongside the private sector, obviously its commercial confidentiality must be protected. British Rail's present exclusion from bidding permits the Department of Transport effectively to plunder its expertise to find ways of implementing the Government's philosophy. Ending that exclusion would enable British Rail's operating businesses to devote their full managerial skills to winning franchises in a competitive environment.
British Rail is not by any means a monopoly provider of transport in this country. It has to compete with road, air, sea and canal. I believe—and this is the gravamen of our submission—that it should have a chance to prove itself in the new internal railway market which the Government seem determined to create. If British Rail is not permitted to bid for franchises, it will become an operator of last

1231
resort, leading to lower standards on the services that it does operate. There would also be no benchmark against which private sector bids could be considered.
Finally, I come to the question of requiring British Rail to bid for franchises. If it is to be given the opportunity to hid for franchises just as any private operator does, then it does not absolve the company from its statutory obligation to provide a passenger service throughout Great Britain. The requirement to tender is also essential for proper comparative assessment of private sector bids. The Government may argue that this amendment is more appropriate (I have heard this argument once or twice this evening) to the rail Bill in due course rather than to the paving Bill. But decisions are being taken—I believe that this is a point which the Government have not met—in advance of that future legislation. Indeed, that was demonstrated when the Secretary of State made an announcement at the Conservative Party Conference concerning the forthcoming sale of Red Star. So it is of great importance that British Rail's role in franchising is clarified now. I invite the Government to do precisely that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I well recall what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said as regards the first amendment. He said that his party would be constructive on the rail amendments. Yet if Members of the Committee care to look at these amendments they will see that they seek to enable—
Lord Donoughue: I said that in the context of the separation of coal from rail. What I hung before the noble Earl was a prize which the Government chose not to take. I said that I am sure that, had they separated coal from rail, we would have been very co-operative about rail. The Government were not co-operative with us.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not believe for one moment that the noble Lord would not have moved these amendments. I am sure that the noble Lord was only too keen to move these amendments whether or not coal was in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, the amendments seek to enable British Rail to prepare itself to bid for franchises on an equal footing with potential private sector franchises. That would run directly counter to the Government's policy and the objectives for rail privatisation. In effect they are wrecking amendments.
As the noble Lord so rightly said, the amendments are not appropriate for this Bill. However, it will be worth while —and I am sure that the Committee will appreciate it—if I spend a little time saying why the Government cannot agree with the amendments as tabled.
The rail privatisation White Paper states clearly that, so far as the passenger railway is concerned, the Government believe that the private sector should be given the fullest opportunity to manage and operate existing railway services. The noble Lord will find that in Paragraph 21 of the White Paper. We want to harness the fresh thinking and innovation that involvement with the private sector will bring. The objective is to improve the quality of railway services
1232
by creating many new opportunities for private sector involvement. We would not achieve that objective if BR was also able to bid for franchises. We believe that the improvements to services that all rail users want to see can be achieved only if BR's monopoly of rail service provision is ended.
However, it is an important part of our policy to enable BR's existing workforce to take a stake in the privatised rail industry. The noble Lord will find that in Paragraph 41 of the White Paper. There will be an opportunity for the staff in BR to bid for franchises. Indeed, the Government wish to encourage that so that they bring their expertise to bear on the rail industry outwith the constraints of a nationalised industry. Of course, it will be open to the franchising authority to reject all bids from the private sector should none represent value for money, in which case BR would continue to operate the service. Franchising of passenger services will be carried out progressively. BR will continue to run the services until they have been franchised, but BR's role as an operator will diminish over time.
The amendment before the Committee also suggests that BR should not disclose information that might prejudice its ability to compete for franchised services. The franchising authority will have to ensure that the same information is provided to all bidders so that the franchise competitions are fair. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it would be quite wrong to withhold information to tip the scales in favour of one bidder.
The franchising authority will obviously have to draw on information about the costs incurred by BR in providing the services in question in order to compile the invitations to tender, as well as other operational information. He will therefore have that in mind when deciding whether the private sector bids received represent good value for money.
Perhaps in conclusion I may reiterate the point with which I started. These amendments are not acceptable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It seems that the Minister forms the judgment that if he does not like an amendment then it is a wrecking amendment necessarily, which is quite absurd. As the Minister knows, the White Paper envisages that BR will be forbidden to tender for franchises for the passenger services which it now operates. He concedes that. But the Government's view hitherto has been that the public sector should always be tested against private contractors. Is the Minister saying that that is wrong? I give way to the noble Earl if that assertion is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: It has varied from situation to situation. There has been a welcome increase in market testing. That has been to the benefit of services. Equally, we believe that privatisation through franchising of British Rail passenger services will be to the benefit of the consumer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is an assumption which the Minister makes having already, in a sense, contradicted himself. What he is now saying runs completely counter—he did not meet this argument

1233
—to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. That Act introduced compulsory competitive tendering with the aim of securing that local and other public authorities undertake certain activities only if they can do so competitively.
The Government have never previously sought to deny such authorities the ability to bid for their existing work. That has never happened before. Why are they now departing from that policy? We know that this is a government who engage in somersaults on a colossal scale. What is the justification and the rationale for departing on this occasion from their proven policy in the past? The Minister has not begun to answer that point. I invite him to do so before I sit down.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that. He clearly did not listen to what I said. I spelt out exactly why the Government have taken the decision that they have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is not really satisfactory. The Minister has not answered the very specific point I made. The reason is, of course, that he has not been briefed on it, so I must not be too hard on him. But I ask him to reconsider the matter.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord is quite wrong on that. I have answered the noble Lord. I have been briefed on the amendment. I repeat that I have answered him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is now losing his cool, which is never very good in this House. The fact of the matter is that he did not answer the points about the 1988 Local Government Act, the rationale behind that Act and behind the subsequent policies that were applied. If he says that he has read his brief and if this is in his brief, I invite him to read it again and to take on board the point that I am now making, which is a point of substance. I do not propose at this stage to test the opinion of the Committee, but we may well wish to return to this issue in due course. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Is it the Committee's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
The Earl of Caithness: Not content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That the amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Donoughue moved Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 10, after ("shall") insert ("provided subsection (1H) below has been adhered to,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered also Amendments Nos. 13, 22 and 23.
1234
I shall touch briefly upon the costs-of-privatisation aspect in amendments Nos. 13 and 22, which ask the Secretary of State to publish information on the costs of the implementation of privatisation. We wish to see the true costs. This amendment has been tabled against a background in which we know that the examinations by Select Committees in another House and by the Comptroller and Auditor-General have demonstrated that the true cost of previous privatisations has been far higher than was implied at the time. We want to know the direct and indirect costs of the privatisation of the coal industry, including the triggering of historic liabilities. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the use of the word "precise" in Amendment No. 22 and the way in which that differs from Amendment No. 13.
Perhaps I can deal in a little more substance with the question of valuations, which is a matter of considerable public interest. I refer now to Amendments Nos. 13 and 22 in relation to British Coal. British Coal is a major landowner; but we do not know the actual value of the land it currently owns which, presumably, will be transferred. Attempts to get this information at Question Time have been resisted. Her Majesty's Government have refused to give either the acreage or the value of the land and have stated that this is a question for British Coal. However, British Coal has been equally unhelpful. If one examines its accounts—I have them in my hand —one sees that they are very general. Before this matter proceeds to a conclusion, we must have precise information.
We are asking for that against the controversial background —some believe the scandalous background—of the sales of Rover Group and of Royal Ordnance to British Aerospace. We recall that properties at Enfield and Waltham Abbey were valued at £5 million prior to privatisation; but after privatisation they were suddenly valued at £64 million. This scandal was criticised not only from this side of the House, but by the Comptroller and Auditor-General who, as a result, recommended the technique of clawback which is referred to in Amendment No. 23.
In this context, I should like to ask the Minister certain questions. Can she now or at Report Stage inform the House of the total acreage of land involved in the sale of British Coal? How much is agricultural and how much is urban? What percentage of that land is used for mining operations and what percentage is used for open-cast operations? What percentage of that land is available for disposal? Will there be an independent valuation? I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Amendment No. 13 specifically asks for an independent valuation of the land owned by British Coal. The noble Baroness must accept that the House and the country will no longer be happy with in-house valuations of British Coal's land which may end up, as has happened previously, as a sweetener for the purchaser. How many houses does British Coal own? I believe that British Coal is one of the largest house owners in this country. May we have the number?

1235
Underlying these questions is the thought that the value of the assets being included in the package is of great relevance. The scope for the kind of rip-off that has happened in the past relates to the value of those assets. We are in a tricky situation. The actual operations of British Coal—the mining operations—may be valued very low. Some people have referred to sums of about £250 million. It might be possible to buy the whole of British Coal for £250 million; yet potentially included are pension funds of £13 billion and thousands of acres of land and of houses which may well be worth hundreds of millions of pounds —if not billions. We need some precise numbers on all this. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend Lord Donoughue has dealt with the aspects relating to coal; but similar issues—although not precisely the same
affect railway property. The trouble is that we know that railway property could easily be exploited and given over to non-rail use. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that railways could be acquired simply to enable the sale or development of the property assets which they own. These are immense. The railways own a number of city centre sites and considerable greenfield land between cities. The land that is occupied by station sites and tracks could be worth billions of pounds if developed. Thus, the anxieties which have been expressed in relation to coal are also applicable to railway land.
If railway land were to be privatised at its nil value, this would give incentives for closing and developing railway routes. That sort of thing happened in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. It could mean station closures or resiting them to less accessible areas. It could also mean line closures or reductions in the number of tracks.
We have already observed—and the Minister has noted—that there have been difficulties in relation to previous privatisations and in other contexts. After bus deregulation, bus garages and bus stations were sold. Cheap asset sales in that and other privatisations attracted considerable criticism from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. But pricing rail land at development value would make the rail industry still less attractive to the private sector.
We believe that the implications of the Government's proposals for stations, land and property need to be explored in some detail and arrangements need to be put in place to ensure four particular objectives. First, land which has potential for future rail development should not be disposed of to meet short-term financial pressures. Secondly, the disposal and development of land adjoining rail infrastructure and stations should reflect transport and land use policy. Thirdly, developments at and near stations should not prejudice operational requirements, including possible future development. Fourthly, the interests of local authorities in land and developments that they have financially supported should be protected, the protection being based on the current value of assets rather than outstanding loan debt.
Investment in railways is obviously a long-term
1236
proposition. The advantages of sites close to railway stations are enormous. But facilities such as station car-parks can be pivotal so far as concerns transport strategies, including the promotion of rail-based park and ride schemes. It is essential that short-term pressures for realisation of capital should not outweigh longer-term operational and policy requirements. These are matters which we are asking the Government to address. We are probing the Government's intentions on these matters. It is not too early to do that. I therefore await with interest what the Minister has to say in response to the amendments.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said earlier that he had heard the argument several times that the matter under discussion was not for the Bill. I fear that he will have to hear it again. I should say at the outset that this is not the correct forum for discussion on valuations and property issues. They are not relevant to British Coal and British Rail preparing for privatisation but rather to the main sale process itself. However, as both noble Lords have wished to air these matters, perhaps I may rehearse the answers.
As the noble Lords rightly said, British Coal and British Rail hold substantial portfolios of property. They are vast and wide-ranging holdings and include everything from working pits and stations to domestic property and farm land. The proposed amendments would mean that British Coal's and British Rail's land holdings together with any other assets which are to he transferred on privatisation would have to be valued and that value published within one month of the proposal to transfer assets. The scale of such an exercise would be huge and I doubt whether it would be possible in the timescale. The cost of valuing everything from estates of land to rolling stock to miners' lamps would be a vast commitment and would run into many tens of millions of pounds. I am sure that the proposers of the amendments and I share a common ambition to obtain value for money from the sale of public sector assets. That is certainly the Government's aim and Ministers have to answer for their actions on this score to the Public Accounts Committee.
I ask the Committee to consider what the relevant value of a piece of land or property actually is. An item must be worth what one can get for it—nothing more. A coal mine or a rail freight yard is worth what purchasers, be they trade buyers or shareholders, are prepared to pay. A blanket valuation exercise is therefore very costly and unnecessary. The valuation that the market puts on an asset is the one that matters.
Certain circumstances have arisen during past privatisations when the Government have wished to make use of property valuers in order to fulfil their value for money responsibilities. They have been principally cases where the market might not work properly. There have, for example, been circumstances where the alternative use value of a piece of land is very much higher than its existing use value. A site

1237
which has been used as a warehouse would be worth more to a purchaser if its use as a supermarket site was intended in the future.
On previous privatisations the Government have sought to flag up high alternative value sites and to impose clawback provisions to ensure that they are maximising proceeds. Previous privatisations have tried to ensure that the Secretary of State participates in any windfall profits realised from the disposal of any interests in certain real properties by privatised entities. Such a windfall might occur if property prices rise sharply after privatisation.
Clawback in the past has ensured that half the capital gain on the property disposed of by the privatised entity less corporation tax is paid to the Secretary of State and requires a valuation to determine the base value of the property at the time of sale. On electricity, clawback was imposed by a mechanism imposing on the privatised entities the obligation to pay the clawback amount, if any, to the Secretary of State and providing security against non-payment. As regards the British Technology Group, clawback was imposed by means of a contract. In no previous privatisation has clawback been included by means of a statutory compulsion in the Act.
These amendments propose that valuations and the imposition of clawbacks will be required on all proposals for property transfers. I can assure the Committee that the Government will in due course consider both alternative use valuations and clawback valuations in the light of their responsibility to ensure value for money, but I cannot see that the valuation of all British Coal's and British Rail's properties as proposed by the noble Lords would be a valid use of government time and resources.
Lord Donoughue: I have obviously not quite understood the noble Baroness. Is she saying that there will not be an independent valuation of British Coal land and houses before disposal, or is she simply saying that this is not the appropriate stage to propose it? If she is saying that there will not be a valuation, that is absolutely outrageous in relation to a business where the assets are almost certainly worth far more than the going business.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I started my remarks by saying that this is not a matter for the Bill. I was trying to be helpful by rehearsing the answers to the questions, which in the first place were not relevant to the Bill. I was saying that an overall valuation of everything within a month did not represent good value for money.
I was about to suggest that there must be certain de minimis grounds to prevent clawback being imposed on the transfer of trivial items. There can be no point in retrieving windfall profits of £100 on the sale of a piece of equipment or land if the drawing up of a clawback contract costs £5,000 in solicitors' fees. Secondly, the valuation of all the corporation's assets would involve very significant expenditure. It must be
1238
right that clawback is only introduced on those items of property where the market is such that there is actually some potential for windfall gains to be made.
Lord Donoughue: Does the Minister accept that clawback, although useful, is not a substitute for a proper valuation? Apart from anything else it gives a 50 per cent. gross windfall potential. We welcome clawback, but it is not a substitute for a proper valuation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I was trying to indicate how, in some instances, the decision concerning which properties would be under question. But I would again confirm that these are decisions which must be made nearer the time of privatisation. The Government will of course have to justify their decisions in due course to the PAC.
The amendment also proposes that the cost of transferring the property to the private sector entity should be estimated and published. An estimate of the cost of transferring property would be difficult to produce and would be likely to be misleading because of the problem of identifying in advance to what extent there would be difficulties in relation to title and because it would cover only part of the sale process.
I repeat that the costs of privatisation can be considered only when the process has been completed. I remind the Committee that the Government will be asked to defend the costs before the PAC. The amendments are not relevant to the Bill and do not improve the prospects of securing value for money on privatisation. In fact, the reverse is true. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: We have heard what the Minister has said—that this is not the appropriate stage to deal with the matter. We said that these were probing amendments. We should put down a marker that these are matters that we consider to be important. Should we ever reach the stage where we both agree that it is appropriate, I trust that the Minister's answers will be more forthcoming. We shall reconsider what the Minister has said and decide what to do on Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 10, after ("include") insert (", provided the conditions specified in subsection (1K) below have been satisfied,").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. The White Paper envisages the outright sale of the freight and parcels businesses and the transfer of passenger service assets and staff to franchisees. Existing BR employees are entitled to know what kind of potential new employers they will be dealing with. Of course, no one will deny that there are many good employers in the private sector of the transport industry. Many recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. Many have properly structured career development programmes. They offer fair wages and decent conditions of service and respond positively to questions of staff and public safety. Consequently, I argue that when one comes to operators of that standard bidding for sections of the

1239
railway industry they would have nothing to fear from the scrutiny of their records by the public and potential employees.
The most prominent of the potential new operators of passenger services—I understand that negotiations based on the first proposal that was made have now ended—is Richard Branson's Virgin organisation. As an employer in the airline industry it has a good record. It is generally willing to respond constructively to requests for trade union recognition. It offers fair employment terms and salaries and is conscious of the need for safety. What would he, for example, have to fear from a disclosure of the record? However, not every employer would bear up to such scrutiny. The public and existing BR employees are entitled to know what lies in store for them.
Working conditions are linked inextricably with questions of safety. The Hidden Report into the Clapham rail disaster highlighted excessive working hours and constant overtime working as a clear minus factor in relation to safety. In consequence of that, British Rail sought to introduce its own guidelines, and when it could not immediately implement its own objectives interim arrangements were brought into force. That of course is something upon which it is entitled to he complimented.
The public is entitled to know what provisions would be made by the new service providers and to have an assurance that they would not go back on the arrangements—I shall not rehearse them at this hour —which British Rail made to balance its books. I take some comfort from what the Government have to say in the White Paper about safety, but, nevertheless, I still believe that the points I have made, which I have made at the request of a number of people, should be replied to.
I say that most particularly in the light of other assurances that were given when bus deregulation was proposed, because the situation that has been revealed in the five years since bus deregulation is inconsistent with the assurances that Ministers then proffered to both Houses. In fact, average hourly rates of pay for drivers have fallen by nearly 5 per cent., while the average increase for all industries was 8.9 per cent. Hours worked increased by 2.1 per cent compared to a national average increase of 1.6 per cent. So the auguries in that regard are not good. How do the Government propose to put those concerns at rest and how will they go about doing so in terms of the processes that they envisage in the White Paper, while taking into account the fact that their own position was debased to some degree as a result of experience in another privatised industry?
There is one other point to which I should like the Minister to give his attention; that is, the EC acquired rights directive. What effect will that directive have with regard to workers who change from being employed by a public utility to privatised companies? There is a recent ruling in the European Court of Justice which indicates that the United Kingdom regulations which put that directive into operation restricted protection to workers in commercial ventures and that that was unlawful. I understand that the Government's view is that the regulations had
1240
always covered the public sector. I should like to know what the position is and whether the Government have satisfied themselves that they can now take proper account of the view expressed by the court. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendments would require British Rail and British Coal to secure details of employment practices and records of potential transferees before—I underline the word "before"— exercising the powers in the Bill. Such an amendment would be unworkable. I do not see how the noble Lord sees it working but, given its wording, the amendment would be unworkable. There is much work that British Coal and British Rail need to carry out well in advance of the implementation of privatisation and before potential transferees will have been identified.
No powers of transfer are included in the Bill. Such powers will be included in the main privatisation Bills that will be brought forward later this Session. It is only when the main legislation has been passed that the question of potential transferees can properly be addressed. Although the amendment is not appropriate for the Bill, it raises an important issue and one that we may find ourselves discussing again—I shall change the wording to "almost certainly will find" ourselves discussing again, not just during this Bill's passage but when the main privatisation Bill is before us. We shall all be well accustomed to the arguments by then.
The Government attach great importance to the maintenance of employees' rights, and in respect of coal and rail employees. This has been underlined on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill and again today. The Government have stated repeatedly that they will ensure that pension entitlements of existing contributors and of past employees of the coal and rail industries are properly safeguarded. We have given similar assurances concerning existing concessionary fuel entitlements earned as a result of service with British Coal and concerning concessionary travel arrangements earned as a result of service with British Rail.
These assurances were also given in respect of British Rail in the rail privatisation White Paper, paragraph 86. As the Committee knows, no decisions have yet been taken on the future structure of the coal industry or on the form and timing of privatisation. So neither the Government nor British Coal can know who might be the potential purchasers of the industry.
Turning to rail privatisation, while the Government have received a number of expressions of interest in response to their franchising consultation document, it is far too early to know whether that interest will develop. Nor can it develop properly until the details of the transfer powers and other provisions in the main legislation have been considered.
The Committee will understand therefore that to require, as these amendments seek to do, employment records and practices of potential transferees to be made available before British Coal and British Rail can exercise the powers conferred on them by the Bill is not an option.
When I come to the European directive and the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment)

1241
regulations, otherwise known as TUPE, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that very serious consideration has been given to the implications of that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: As regards the last part, I wonder whether the noble Earl would undertake to write to me before the next stage of the Bill with regard to the directive. I mention it late in the day and clearly the Government must consider its implications. But it would be helpful if the Minister could give me the undertaking that he will write to me on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: If there is anything more that I can add, I shall be only too pleased to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister said that the Government were considering the implications, therefore it appears that their final decision has been made. We hope that the noble Earl will be able to write to us before the Report stage.
On the other issues, I note what the Minister said and will consider his observations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 10, after ("anything") insert ("subject to their having considered the document published in accordance with subsection (1U) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, and with it perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 33. These amendments bring us to the objectives for rail freight. I concede at once that the White Paper has dealt with this issue rather more emphatically perhaps than some of the other issues to which I drew attention in an earlier debate.
The White Paper, paragraph 45, states that:
"The industry faces the twin challenges of coping with significant restructuring in its traditional core businesses such as coal and steel, and exploiting the new opportunities offered by the Channel Tunnel and the development of intermodal technologies".
That is a fine statement; but what is the clue to the progress that will be made? We know that already there has been one unhappy experiment concerning Charterail. I ought to disclose an interest here, since the firm of solicitors for whom I am a consultant advised Charterail. It was an unhappy experiment which does not indicate that this area of policy and progress will be wholly successful. I wish to know from the Minister what his view is about the experiment and why it failed.
Paragraph 46 states:
"Rail freight will be able to meet these challenges only if it is efficient and responsive to the demands of its customers … The Government's policy is … to establish a competitive and privately owned rail freight industry in the course of this Parliament".
That is all very fine, too; but there is no hope unless rail is dealt with on—to use the frightful expression, if it can be used in this context—a "level playing field" with road transport. The situation at the moment is
1242
that there is no comparison in the treatment of the two. Overwhelmingly, opinion has been produced to the Government not simply from the Opposition but from those who are familiar with the day-to-day operations of rail freight which make that point very clear indeed.
Then the White Paper goes on to say in paragraph 47 that:
"The Government will require BR to reorganise its freight operations for transfer to the private sector"
That is fine so far as concerns the Government's policies. But we need signposts rather more clearly pointing that out than are in the White Paper.
When dealing with freight interests, people often say, "Well, should we not try to switch much more freight from road to rail?" But the Government's reply is that this would not be of assistance to the environment, because if rail freight were doubled, it would not reduce road freight by more than a small proportion. However, a good deal of research has been carried out on the issue by Transport 2000. With respect, that argument is not correct. The heaviest articulated lorries which involve the worst damage environmentally also travel the longest distances. The average length of journey exceeds that for rail. As regards short distance bulk traffic, that is also a matter which should be considered more suitable for transfer to rail and to water, where appropriate. But the Government give no indication of their thinking along those lines and how those environmentally advantageous arguments could be met.
How might the switch from road to rail and water be brought about? Clearly, a package of measures would be needed. Public funding for rail and water freight facilities, and infrastructure to put them on the same basis as road and to recognise their environmental advantages, would have to be provided. Releasing rail freight from its requirement to make an 8 per cent. return and substituting a cost benefit approach to investment would be required. Full taxation of heavy lorries reflecting the full environmental and social costs which they involve would also need to be considered. Putting lorry taxation on a mileage basis on the polluter pays principle might be something which the Government should take into account.
Strict enforcement of regulations governing lorries, including driving hours, vehicle maintenance, overloading and speeds are all matters where there are serious irregularities so far as the enforcement of the law is concerned. That too could have an effect. Local restrictions on access to urban areas by the heaviest lorries should also come within our contemplation.
If we can proceed on the basis of a policy for freight along those lines, such measures would give incentives to transfer long distance freight from road to rail and to use more environmentally friendly vehicles for local deliveries. There is no indication in the White Paper or in any other document with which the Government have provided us except aspiration. At the end of the day the Government merely hope that there will be a greater use of freight by rail. That aspiration will not be realised unless positive measures are undertaken.

1243
So we take the view that the Government ought now to spell out rather more effectively than they have done in the White Paper whether they propose to meet the requirements and whether they believe that there is any point in simply offering aspirations without the necessary infrastructure of ideas which would make those aspirations come to reality. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for raising such an important issue. If I cannot agree that the amendment tabled is either necessary or appropriate for the Bill before us, I can certainly share the spirit in which it was tabled. The Government remain committed to maximising use of the existing infrastructure and are keen to see greater use of rail for the transport of freight.
We must, of course, keep this issue in perspective. Our industry is inevitably largely dependent on road transport to meet its freight needs. Even a 50 per cent. increase in the amount of freight carried by rail is equivalent to only the year's growth in road transport between 1988 and 1989. Nor should we forget the contribution made by shipping, which accounted for 26 per cent. of domestic freight movements in 1989.
The Government have approved BR investment in preparation for Channel Tunnel freight services, and committed investment now stands at some £390 million. We have widened the assessment criteria for freight facilities grants to assist in removing lorries from environmentally sensitive roads and we are continuing to encourage companies to take advantage of the scheme; since 1979, we have awarded grant-aid equivalent to £100 million in real terms for 140 schemes. This has removed over 2.5 million lorry journeys a year from our roads and accounts for some 10 per cent. of all freight tonnage carried by rail.
The improvements we have made to the grant assessment criteria have generated a great deal of interest. There have been over 150 specific enquiries and 80 meetings with firms to discuss their proposals. And we have encouraged the development of joint ventures between BR and the private sector. The Committee will be pleased to know that some 40 per cent. of freight rolling stock is already in private hands. Of course we cannot compel people to use a particular mode of transport for the carriage of freight, so the emphasis must be on making rail more at tractive to freight customers. This is certainly one of the objectives of our privatisation proposals. To achieve this objective a more radical approach is needed, involving the development of competition between rail freight operators and the introduction of private sector financial and management freedom. This is what our policy of privatisation and liberalisation is designed to achieve.
We are currently considering a number of measures to encourage industry to consider rail for its distribution needs, and external consultants are currently working on options for the privatisation of rail freight. Their final report is due in February and the Government will publish the conclusions shortly thereafter.
I can assure the Committee that the Government are fully seized of the valuable contribution played by
1244
rail freight and the importance of encouraging its further use. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already said in another place that the Government will consult on the privatisation proposals in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked about Charterail. He asked me why it failed. Far be it from me to comment on a company such as that. I should have thought that, if anyone in the Committee should comment, it would be the noble Lord, given his firm liaison with that company.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, as regards Charterail, I was not intimately involved with that company. I wondered what the Government's reaction to its failure was. It is not a question of why it failed but of the consequences of that failure. Is it not a fact that if, in conflict with what the Minister has said, that were to establish a precedent, there would be a real danger of an even greater move from rail to road? That is the concern which is being expressed widely in the press, not simply following Charterail's collapse but also in relation to the generality of opinions that have been expressed about the need to move from road to rail. The Minister himself has expressed that view.
The trouble is that not only the Minister but also his colleagues in the Department of Transport have failed to meet the essential point, which is that there is no hope on this issue unless there is a much greater measure of parity between the way in which infrastructural costs are charged for road as against rail. The railways essentially bear their own infrastructural charges, and therein lies the real difference. I am sure the Minister is familiar with representations that have been made to him on this point not simply from the Opposition but from many other people. However, the Government seem unwilling to make any concession on this point. As long as they remain unwilling to do so, I fear their aspirations for a greater move from road to rail will founder. I hope I am wrong but I believe we have to look to a much more positive assertion of what the Government's role is in relation to this matter than we have heard tonight.
However, it was my intention simply to probe the Government on this point. I feel sure we shall wish to return to it in further stages of this Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 10, after ("which") insert ("satisfies the conditions specified in subsection (1M) below, and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 26. As regards historical records, it is quite clear that British Coal has a large, extremely valuable collection of archives which are very important to social and industrial historians. These archives also represent an important source of planning information. They disclose the locations of old mine shafts and future

1245
coal reserves. They are important as regards identifying subsidence dangers and who is responsible should subsidence occur.
What we are anxious to establish is who will hold the archives in their possession. Further, we are anxious to establish that they will be responsibly and safely maintained. That costs money. Who will be responsible for that? Further, we are anxious to establish that there will be easy access to them, most particularly as regards local authorities, as they would require that access for planning purposes.
I know my noble friend Lord Donoughue was anxious to move this amendment himself. He is a professional historian and he knows much more about this matter than I. Noble Ministers opposite will of course say, "Hear, hear!" to that. However, he could not remain in the Committee this evening as he had a prior engagement of some considerable importance. I am sure the Committee will excuse his absence. Having said all that as regards the coal industry, I should add that precisely the same arguments apply to railway archives. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure we would all agree that the rail and coal industries represent an important part of our industrial and national heritage. This has been recognised by both British Rail and British Coal, which have both made significant contributions in ensuring that relics and artefacts are preserved. One only has to look at the National Railway Museum in York to see that that is the case. I therefore understand the concern expressed in this amendment that any collections and individual items still in the possession of the corporations should not only remain intact but should continue to grow following the privatisations of the coal and rail industries. It is a concern that the Government share and I hope I can give the Committee the assurances that it seeks on this matter.
So far as our railway heritage is concerned, as the Committee may know, there is statutory provision in the Transport Act 1968 governing the transfer and disposal by BR of historical archives and relics. The Government wish to ensure that provisions for the preservation of Britain's railway heritage continue to be safeguarded in legislation. We are therefore considering very carefully the best means of achieving this in the rail privatisation Bill.
In some respects, however, the existing legislation is outdated. We believe that provision needs to be made for the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme which more closely reflects the day-to-day arrangements which have been established by British Rail and the collecting institutions and which also takes account of the fact that new rail operators will be coming into the rail industry. Although wider in scope than the noble Lord's amendment, the scheme would provide for similar safeguards against the inappropriate disposal of historical records and relics. We are, of course, consulting interested parties and will continue to do so as we develop the details of the scheme.
British Coal's records are public records. Under the Public Records Act 1958 and the Coal Industry
1246
Nationalisation Act 1946 British Coal is obliged to make plans of its workings available to the public. In addition, it is the custodian, on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, of many plans of abandoned mines, which are vital for safety reasons. The Government recognise the importance of maintaining those arrangements. The precise mechanisms for doing so will be addressed in the main privatisation legislation.
I can understand the intention behind the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that transfers of historical records and relics should require the approval of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. However, I hope that he will understand from what I have said that the measures taken by British Rail and British Coal to preserve their heritage go well beyond the requirements of any legislation for which the Secretary of State for National Heritage has responsibility. Therefore, I hope that, with the assurances that I have given as to the importance which the Government attach to preserving that heritage and our intention to ensure that it is properly dealt with in the main legislation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not sure whether I heard the Minister correctly because that was a rather rushed reply. Am I right in thinking that it is within the contemplation of the Government that, in relation to railway archives, the costs would not necessarily fall on British Rail but would be extended to other interests which would be involved in the privatised industry? I understood that to be the purport of what the noble Earl said, although I accept that, as he said, this Bill is not the right vehicle. Leaving aside vehicular arguments, am I right in making that assumption?
The Earl of Caithness: I can assure the noble Lord that the right vehicle, to which he will seek to attach his wagons in the future, will come along as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall be able to discuss the matter in the right context then.
I did not mention costs specifically, but I said that we are discussing this matter with other institutions in addition to British Rail and British Coal. I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I sought merely to raise the matter tonight. I note with interest that the Minister is taking the matter seriously, as I am sure is the Minister with responsibility for coal. In the light of what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 26 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

  ROAD PRICING
  ROAD PRICING
  GORDON'S GIN
  GORDON'S GIN
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  DIRECT SERVICE ORGANISATIONS: CONTRACTS WON
  DIRECT SERVICE ORGANISATIONS: CONTRACTS WON
  DISPENSING BY GENERAL PRACTITIONERS IN WALES
  DISPENSING BY GENERAL PRACTITIONERS IN WALES
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN: PROPOSED DIRECTIVE
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN: PROPOSED DIRECTIVE
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SUPPLIES AUTHORITY
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SUPPLIES AUTHORITY