Sitting of 29 October 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): The Irish Government share our determination that terrorism will not prevail and we work closely with them to ensure that co-operation on the ground is close. Much has been achieved, but more needs to be done and will be done. Both Governments are committed to securing improvements wherever possible.
    Mr. Townsend: I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Bearing in mind the increased importance of the intelligence services in London in the fight against the IRA, has co-operation with the south been improved as a result? Can he confirm to the House that intelligence from the Irish Republic has helped with the recent finds of explosives in London?
    Mr. Mates: It is obviously difficult for me to share intelligence matters with the House and my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that co-operation between the intelligence services of the republic and ourselves has never been as good as it is now and that it is getting better all the time. That is reflected in the major finds that have been made in the republic of some of the arms and explosives that went there from Libya. Most notable of all is the increase in the information that we are getting in Northern Ireland and Great Britain from the public, who are as fed up as we are with this mindless terrorism.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Have the Irish Government given any undertakings to introduce legislation to control those of their citizens who illegally reopen closed frontier crossings, particularly on the north Monaghan-south Tyrone terrorist supply route into the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Mates: We continue to have to face that problem. As far as I know, the Irish Government have no intention of legislating on it, but together we are trying to find ways of getting rid of that nuisance.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider having talks with his counterparts in the Home Office in London about the desirability of requiring all British citizens of the United Kingdom to carry identity cards and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to carry passports when they come to this country?
    Mr. Mates: I can tell my hon. Friend with some relief that both those matters are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, not for my Department.
    Mr. Madden: But the Minister must have a view on that important matter. Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to amend the common travel area agreement between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom? What effect will that have on those travelling

    1117
    between those two countries? Are there any plans to increase frontier controls between the republic and the north after the advent of the single market next year?
    Mr. Mates: I do not believe that there are any plans to change the present common travel area arrangements. To do so would be an immensely complex task, given the large number of Irish citizens who live in this country and who come and go between here and the republic, as they always have. There will be no change to border controls once the single market comes into effect. Such controls as we have are for security reasons, not for trade reasons. We shall be able to continue those in the same way as we do now.

    Higher Education
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are entering higher education in Northern Ireland this year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): It is estimated that around 14,400 new students will enter higher education in Northern Ireland institutions this year and 4,000 Northern Ireland students will enter higher education institutions in Great Britain.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, which demonstrates that the doom-laden forecasts about the impact of student loans were completely inaccurate. Is the percentage of students entering higher education in Northern Ireland greater than in the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. The total amount of money now available to students is 40 per cent. greater than in 1989–90, before student loans were introduced. The participation rate in Northern Ireland is extremely high: some 32 per cent. of those who are eligible for higher education take it up, as opposed to only 23 per cent. in Great Britain.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that £4 million per annum of United Kingdom public expenditure is provided to pay for tuition grants for students from the Republic of Ireland to attend United Kingdom universities? Will he confirm that there is no reciprocal arrangement with the Irish Republic? What steps are being taken to remove that anomaly? Does that expenditure reduce the amount of money that is available for education expenditure in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is true that, in the forthcoming year, almost 2,400 students from the republic will be educated in Northern Ireland's higher education establishments. Under European Community regulations, we offer mandatory grants to allow anybody who comes to Northern Ireland to enjoy higher education. The republic does not offer mandatory grants and therefore does not have the same obligation to pay students. Understandably, many fewer students from Northern Ireland take up higher education in the south. We in Northern Ireland uphold our obligations, and are proud to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of higher education places in Northern Ireland because of the attendance of students from elsewhere in the European Community. As our participation rate is higher, the number of people who
    1118
    participate is much higher than in other parts of Great Britain. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that student numbers are being maintained and that we shall continue our obligations.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that many students who enter secondary education come from families who can ill afford the extra necessities that that prolonged education requires? It is rumoured that the education and maintenance allowance, which the Minister knows is means-tested, is to be withdrawn. Will he confirm that that is not true and that the allowance will continue to enable students to benefit from further and higher education?
    Mr. Hanley: Although next year's funding arrangements have yet to be decided, I do not imagine that maintenance grants will be removed entirely. Indeed, that benefit for students is an important part of education in Northern Ireland. We shall continue with our obligations.

    United States
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to reduce the support received by terrorists from citizens of the United States.
    Mr. Mates: Our posts in the United States have made great efforts to reduce financial support for the IRA. The signs are that financial support to terrorist groups has declined, but our efforts continue. On the other hand, United States' contributions to bodies such as the International Fund for Ireland continue to make a major impact for good, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
    Dr. Spink: I welcome those positive statistics. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the security forces on their recent success in the east end of London? What efforts is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that terrorists' sources of financial support, wherever they may be, are cut off?
    Mr. Mates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the explosives finds, which will have brought much relief to those who feared more bombing on the mainland. Let us hope that we have put an end to that for the moment. My hon. Friend rightly said that it is vital that we cut off the terrorists' sources of finance. A special unit in the Northern Ireland Office is devoted to doing just that and the fraud squad, special branch and the Royal Ulster Constabulary are working as hard as they can to stop not only the inward flow of funds but some of the rackets and illegal activities that are taking place in Northern Ireland, by which terrorists finance their campaigns.
    Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the anti-racketeering squad of the RUC has had significant successes in reducing the flow of funds—to such an extent, we are led to believe, that the IRA is now having difficulty in financing its terrorist operations in this part of the United Kingdom. Does he agree that, in the light of that fact, it is especially important that effective action is taken in the United States, especially by United States Government agencies? In that context, does the Minister

    1119
    further agree that it is regrettable that there is a Republican candidate in the election who openly backs terrorist organisations?
    Mr. Mates: I agree with everything in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to what is taking place in the United States, we certainly must, and we will, continue our campaign to persuade United States citizens that what some of them believe is aid for humanitarian causes is nothing of the sort, but is aid to terrorists. Through our posts there, through visits by Ministers and by a general climate of persuading the United States to understand the problem in Northern Ireland, we seek to reduce that source of funds and eventually to eliminate it.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Part of Main street in Bangor, in the heart of my constituency, was blasted by an IRA car bomb last week. Fortunately, no one was killed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the victims of IRA terrorism over the past 20 years—people who have been killed or maimed—have suffered as a result of money contributed to the IRA cause by American supporters? As my hon. Friend suggested earlier, perhaps he will tell people in America that the best way to help the people of Northern Ireland is to contribute to organisations that do good and which bring peace to those people.
    Mr. Mates: I entirely agree. We have made great strides in persuading our friends in the United States that the money must be properly directed to organisations such as the International Fund for Ireland, which I have already mentioned. My hon. Friend is right to say that without funds the terrorists would not be able to wreak their havoc. That is why we shall continue to make it a top priority to cut them off from funds, from whichever source those funds come.

    Bill of Rights
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The safeguarding of human rights in Northern Ireland is a matter for consideration within the current political talks. The Government believe that substantial protection for human rights is already in place, but we are of course willing to consider proposals for further strengthening.
    Mr. Barnes: There is wide support in Northern Ireland for a Bill of Rights, and it seems sensible that provisions that give firm protection to individual rights, rather than limited and restricted measures which could be considered Mickey Mouse measures, should be written in almost as part of a constitution. Such measures—for example, access to solicitors for defendants—would give a solid defence to both Protestant and Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman and I agree that what matters is the reality of human rights—their substance and their enforceability. We believe that those tests are already well fulfilled in Northern Ireland. There are interesting controversies about written constitutions and written Bills of Rights. The hon. Gentleman and I know that some of the worst dictatorships have been in countries with written constitutions. What matters is the
    1120
    reality. The Government have an entirely open mind, and would certainly not wish to brush aside any seriously argued proposal for improvements in the human rights already established in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Ulster Unionist party has supported the introduction of a Bill of Rights since 1975? Does he agree that, if such a Bill were introduced, it should cover the whole of the United Kingdom, so that all Government Departments, no matter which part of the United Kingdom they served, were covered by it?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, I am aware of the attitude and policy of the hon. Gentleman and of his party. I note that their desire is that there should be as little distinction as possible between legislation affecting Northern Ireland and that affecting the rest of the United Kingdom, for reasons that I entirely understand. There are certain arguments about a Bill of Rights which go in the other direction and they have been ventilated in the House in recent debates. I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows that his viewpoint is represented in the present talks.

    Constitutional Talks
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest developments concerning the constitutional talks on the future of Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall continue to do all I can to achieve a positive outcome for the talks, which all the participants, under the distinguished guidance of Sir Ninian Stephen, have been and are still working hard to secure progress. The Government remain determined to find a widely acceptable basis for effecting a significant transfer of power and authority to locally accountable institutions within a framework of relationships that are stable within Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland and between the people of these islands.
    Mr. Winnick: If the talks do not succeed—if that is the case, no blame will be attached to the Secretary of State —does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it will be even more important to have the closest links between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, including on matters involving Northern Ireland? Should not those links have been there from the beginning? Now that they have been established, they should remain, for obvious reasons.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remark. I have been concentrating my attention, as has everyone taking part in the talks, on their succeeding. I have not spent very much time contemplating the possibility of their failing. If we do not reach heads of agreement within the short time remaining, that will be regarded by all as merely the arrival of another intermission in a process which has had a number of intermissions. I hope and believe that we shall take up the process thereafter, starting a good way further down the road than many believed possible.

    1121
    I agree that close links with the Republic of Ireland are desirable. We have friendly relationships with the Government of Ireland and we are in close co-operation with them on many aspects. That is very much to be encouraged.
    Mr. Riddick: But now that a deadline looms, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it will be possible to reach heads of agreement by 16 November?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that date. It is the date of the next intergovernmental conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As my hon. Friend knows, it has always been the understanding that the political talks should take place during a gap or intermission. The previous conference was on 27 April, since when there have been two further postponements. Accordingly, the two Heads of Government, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, agreed that the final extension should end on 16 November. I believe that it is practically possible for us to reach heads of agreement within that time and everyone concerned is working hard to achieve that. I will not tell my hon. Friend whether I think it probable or not. The main point is that everyone is working towards that and I believe that it is a practical possibility.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is becoming virtually impossible, irrespective of the total commitment of the Government and of the Ulster Unionist party, for any delegation to negotiate meaningfully with an Irish Government who are so acrimoniously divided by in-fighting and who are so obviously split on both political and ethical issues?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is taking an uncharacteristically pessimistic view. While not adopting or, I hope, appearing to adopt the language he used, I reiterate that I believe that it is entirely practicable for all parties, with the assistance of his own, to reach a successful conclusion within the time available.
    Mr. Hunter: Now that the constitutional talks have reached such a sensitive position, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those of us who care deeply for the island of Ireland can usefully employ our time urging party leaders to reach positive conclusions and to remember that failure to do so could well result in the furthering of the cause of men of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in the affairs of the Province, and who was there only the other day. I believe that those who lead the parties involved are well aware of the strength of public opinion. Those who have longer experience in these matters than I do tell me that there is something quite new about the strength of public opinion demanding that the politicians get something better together. That is entirely encouraging, and I believe that it is well known to those who lead the parties.
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the potentially harmful consequences if the process came to an end.
    Mr. Mallon: As one who has spent the past three years involved in the talks process—right from the time at which it was initiated by the previous Secretary of State—I think that it is time that we knew the British Government's mind
    1122
    on a fundamental question: can we ever settle the problem on the basis of partition? I should like to hear the Secretary of State's view on that. Does it accord with the view of the situation in Cyprus given by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday at column 1008 of Hansard:
    "I do not agree partition can be the basis" —
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow quotations during Question Time, but I am sure that the Secretary of State has got the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Mallon: The Foreign Secretary made it clear that he did not believe that partition could be the basis for a settlement in Cyprus and that only in the context of rule by one sovereign Government could a lasting solution be found. Is that the Government's view in relation to the other place that they partitioned—the place where I live —or does not the Secretary of State share the view of the Foreign Secretary?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has, indeed, been engaged in the talks for a very long time and, with each succeeding month, he has become more ingenious in asking questions.
    For my part, I am entirely satisfied that it is possible for us to reach a successful conclusion to the talks within the time available and within the constitutional guarantee set out in the House by my predecessor on 26 March 1991. That statement was the product of diligent consultation and discussion in which the hon. Gentleman and his party played a part.
    It was well understood by all that that constitutional guarantee would be the basis upon which the British Government entered the talks. It follows from that that, of course, we think now—as we thought then—that it is possible to bring the talks to a successful conclusion within the terms and continuity of that guarantee. That is the proper answer for me to give the hon. Gentleman, and it certainly represents my sincere belief.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in other parts of the United Kingdom, although we wish the talks well and hope that Northern Ireland will eventually have local government similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, we feel that anything beyond that could have constitutional implications of great magnitude, particularly in Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand my hon. Friend's point. At the moment, however, I am responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland. I was surprised enough to find myself in that position, and I do not propose to enlarge upon that jurisdiction for the time being.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will be aware that the whole House hopes that the talks will end on a positive note. It is for that reason that the House has exercised a self-denying ordinance over the past 18 months in quizzing successive Secretaries of State on the progress of the talks. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now undertake to make a statement to the House when the current series of talks concludes? Will he couple that statement with the publication of a statement of what appear to be the agreed positions of the parties—including, if necessary, a note of heads of agreement—to be counterbalanced by a list of areas of contention? In each case, will he state Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the problems? Finally, will he try to arrange

    1123
    with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for an opportunity for us to debate the current state of the talks before Christmas?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said and that the House has been very understanding on all sides about the need for reticence and the confidentiality which the parties to the talks have said should apply. I think that the House would be entitled to a statement from me at the conclusion of the talks—whether for good or ill. I therefore undertake to make such a statement.
    The hon. Gentleman then became rather more particular about the contents of such a statement. I believe that it will be sensible for the parties to agree what kind of public statement shall be made when the talks conclude —whether successfully or unsuccessfully. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which he asks about the particularity of the statement. However, the House is certainly entitled to a sensible account of where we are, how we got there, what has happened and, within reason, why.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that great tribute should be paid to those who have taken part in the talks? It has not been easy for some, but the talks have continued and I wish for the best in future. However, we should bear it in mind that the talks have the great support of the communities outside which wish them well. A successful outcome will guarantee economic success for Northern Ireland and attract inward investment if there is a settled future.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She takes a close interest in these matters and she was in the Province the other day with three Opposition Members. I was glad to see them all.
    I am grateful for the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to those who have taken part in the talks. Their diligence, courage and imagination reflect the desire of ordinary people in the Province—and more widely—that they should come to a successful conclusion. They will not succeed if everybody thinks that, individually, they must get the best and absolutely everything that they are looking for. They will succeed if there is a process of give and take and I believe that that is on the cards.

    Republic of Ireland (Constitution)
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he requested the Government of the Republic of Ireland to agree changes to articles 2 and 3 of the southern Irish constitution.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government's view on articles 2 and 3 is well known to the Irish Government and to the House. do not wish to break the agreed confidentiality of the talks process. I can, however, refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Rev. Martin Smyth) on Friday 3 July.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recognise that most independent observers agree that articles 2 and 3 represent one of the main obstacles to real co-operation within the island of Ireland? Is he not surprised that even at this late stage, the Dublin Government have failed to
    1124
    make any positive contribution to removing an obstacle which could, if it were removed, have brought about better co-operation?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Anybody who follows the published accounts and commentaries on the talks process will have seen that considerable importance is attached to the subject that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, I am going to resist his invitation to comment on the position of the Irish Government or, indeed, on the position of anyone else in the talks process. It is far better that we should use the short time available to negotiate privately and quietly in the way that is happening at the moment instead of making comments in public. Therefore, I am afraid that I must conclude my reply on that note.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland desire to remain part of the United Kingdom? Therefore, for good neighbourly relationships between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, it is essential to remove the offending articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Have the Dublin authorities shown willingness to have them removed and indicated that accordingly?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will recall that some considerable time ago the Taoiseach made it clear that articles 2 and 3 were on the table, along with any other constitutional matter, in the talks process. Accordingly, I am glad about that, as was my predecessor. The hon. Gentleman can be quite satisfied that full advantage is being taken in the talks of the ability to discuss all matters of constitutional issue including the one that concerns the hon. Gentleman now.
    Mr. Mallon: Possibly the Secretary of State should confirm that, over a long period, four Cabinet Ministers from the Government of the Republic of Ireland were sitting in the talks with himself and the rest of us trying to get agreement to help solve the problem. While we were doing that, other people were sitting out sniping in the wings, and one of the most prominent snipers was the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who tabled this question.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of tourism to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to improve training in tourist-related services.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): In 1991, 1.18 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, which was a 3 per cent. increase on the 1990 level. Figures for 1992 are not yet available, but it is estimated that there could be a similar percentage increase. The Training and Employment Agency is actively encouraging training in tourism and related services throughout the industry, together with the newly established Tourism and Hospitality training council, which is an industry-led body.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent answer about an expansion in tourism, despite the market

    1125
    in the United Kingdom being rather flat this year. What additional measures can the Northern Ireland Office take to encourage people to enjoy the wonderful scenery, good food and very warm welcome of which they can be assured if they visit the Province?
    Mr. Atkins: One of the contributory factors to ensuring that people come to Northern Ireland is the comment by my hon. Friend for which I and many people in Northern Ireland are very grateful. We have determined that tourism is a sector of great potential growth and that more people will visit this year than last year. If I have a message for the House, it is that the people of Northern Ireland would like to see as many hon. Members as possible take their holidays there. They would be very welcome and they would learn even more about Northern Ireland than they do from Northern Ireland Question Time.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that training the work force is as important for the tourist industry as it is for any other industry? Are the Government laying enough emphasis on training?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is essential that we realise that those involved in tourism have to offer a high-quality service so that people who come for a holiday are so impressed by the quality of service, the style with which that service is offered and the professionalism of those who are responsible for the various buildings, hotels and attractions, will come again. Therefore, the training that the Training and Employment Agency is encouraging is absolutely vital.
    Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the provision of a tourism infrastructure is a costly business. Will he ensure therefore that next year, when we have the chance to look for more EC structural funds, he will get the maximum amount and see to it that those funds are fully expended by being taken up by the various responsible bodies in Northern Ireland, rather than leaving a large part of them unexpended, as is the case this year?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that we are always interested in getting whatever extra money we can to help tourism or anything else within the Province. Clearly, however, it is not as easy as he and I would like it to be. Of course I can assure him that if there is any spare money coming from Europe which could be put to good use in Northern Ireland, I shall be more than happy to take hold of it.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Forty million Americans believe that they have Irish or Ulster ancestors. Will my hon. Friend encourage them to obtain passports and to visit Rathlin island to go to the lakes of Fermanagh, stand on the ancient hill fort of Navan looking to the twin cathedrals of Armagh, have a good holiday and contribute to peace, prosperity and justice in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is such a distinguished predecessor of mine in this job that he was invited in his own right to Rathlin island to see for himself the new electricity development there. My hon. Friend is quite right. We need to attract as many people as we possibly can in the United States and in various other parts of the world. The Northern Ireland tourist board, together with my ministerial colleagues, spend as much time as they possibly can on that task.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the tourist industry has the greatest potential for growth and development? In that light, will he give an assurance that he will take another look at the operations of the Northern Ireland tourist board to streamline and hasten its decisions, as it is the custodian not only of its own property but of the International Fund for Ireland? Will he further consider examining the planning regulations in Northern Ireland and revising rural planning to enable the enhancement of tourist facilities in the rural community?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about rural matters. Clearly, we shall be keen to encourage the use of rural houses— [interruption] in Bolsover as well as Northern Ireland. I have asked the chairman of the tourist board to consider how best we can encourage visitors to use some of the derelict or semi-derelict cottages in the rural areas of Northern Ireland, for example in the constituency of the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Such houses could be put to attractive and good use by those whom we wish to encourage to visit the Province.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my hon. Friend also consider levels of tourism from Northern Ireland? Will he take the opportunity to make it clear to the many thousands of people from Northern Ireland who visit Blackpool every year that they continue to be assured of a warm welcome in Britain's incontestably premier tourist resort?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, who is a neighbour of mine in Lancashire, speaks glowingly of Blackpool which many of us have visited for differing reasons. If we can encourage people to visit Northern Ireland in the same numbers as they currently visit Blackpool, we shall provide an enormous number of jobs and a great deal of attraction. However, perhaps Northern Ireland ought not to be so glitzy as Blackpool. I suspect that the green and clean image of Northern Ireland and its environmental attractions are as important as anything else.
    Mr. William O'Brien: I welcome the Minister's reply on the encouragement of tourism and training because the tourist industry will have a great impact on the economy of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister explain what action his Department is taking to encourage tourism from the republic into Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland into the republic?
    Mr. Atkins: The tourist board talks regularly with Bord Failte—the tourist board in the south of Ireland—with a view to encouraging joint presentations especially in the United States to encourage people to come to the island of Ireland and perhaps see both parts of the island. The more that I can do to encourage cross-border tourist activity and many other economic and industrial activities, the better it will be for both sides of the border.

    Women's Groups
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with women's groups on peacekeeping in local communities.
    Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to have had recent meetings in Northern Ireland with representatives of the Women's Education Project, the Workers Education Association

    1127
    and the Women's Support Network, where a wide range of topics, but not specifically the subject of peacekeeping, were constructively discussed.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is difficult for women's views to be heard in Northern Ireland, especially as only three women have ever been elected to any parliamentary seat in Northern Ireland? Women's groups are generally kept short of public funding which would assist them in making their views heard. Will the Minister and his colleagues follow the welcome initiative of the previous Secretary of State in hosting a reception for women at Hillsborough castle? It was the first initiative of its kind and was very welcome. I hope that progress will he made from it.
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the contribution to peacekeeping of women's groups in Northern Ireland. I was pleased to attend the reception that she described at Hillsborough castle. Women's groups in Northern Ireland make a constructive contribution but so do women in political life. There are many women local and district councillors throughout the Province. Their contribution to the talks process was extremely constructive. I for one would not be sorry to see women represent Northern Ireland in Parliament. It is just a matter of time.

    Investment
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the number of new jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland as a result of outside investment in the last three years.
    Mr. Atkins: During the past three years a total of 34 inward investment projects have been attracted to Northern Ireland, offering the prospect of 3,700 new jobs. Typically, employment builds up over a period of several years, and by the end of March this year, more than 1,200 of those new jobs were in existence.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister agree that unfortunately there are signs that inward investment is being deterred as a result of the considerable administrative and other burdens imposed on firms in Northern Ireland by the fair employment industry? Many firms leave the United States to escape the problem of quotas for virtually everything, and they do not want to receive the same sort of hassle in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: It is fair to say that a number of companies with American origins are involved in Northern Ireland industry, as the hon. Gentleman knows. They are very welcome and they are the best advertisement to their fellows back home of just how fair our fair employment legislation is. We have the toughest legislation anywhere in the western world, which gives the lie to suggestions made in certain parts of the United States that the so-called MacBride principles are in any way helpful to the interests of Northern Ireland—the creation of new jobs by inward investment from companies in the United States and elsewhere.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. O'Brien: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the chairman of British Coal told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry yesterday that the 31 pits due to close are only the beginning, and that seven more are due to close in due course, making a total of 38 pits, which will be devastating to the mining industry and to mining communities? What is the Prime Minister going to do? Is he going to come clean on that issue?
    The Prime Minister: What I believe the chairman of the coal industry actually said, although I have not yet read his evidence in detail and I must make that clear to the hon. Gentleman, was that British Coal could close more than 31 pits and have a viable industry. That is a quite separate proposition from saying that that is likely to happen, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it perfectly clear that he is reviewing the situation.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London business school survey, which showed that there would be greater reductions in air fares in Europe if there were more liberalisation, would equally apply to air fares between here and the United States of America, where there is a greater need for liberalisation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. We have sought greater liberalisation in air fares for some time. We are confident that they would produce both a better service and cheaper air fares. We think that that is a prize well worth seeking.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the publication of the Foreign Office's assessment of the Danish proposals confirm that the Prime Minister cannot possibly discharge the undertaking that he gave to the House on 24 September before the Edinburgh summit at the earliest?
    The Prime Minister: No, I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not believe that that is the case. The British presidency has the responsibility of seeking to negotiate Denmark into a position where it can ratify the treaty. We hope to be able to reach a framework upon that by December. What is clear is that the Danes have now set out how they propose to proceed, and it is also clear from the Birmingham declaration that we shall have positive decisions on subsidiarity at Edinburgh.
    Mr. John Smith: But does the Prime Minister not recollect saying in precise and specific terms in the House on 24 September that there would have to be a basis for the Danes to have a second referendum and that subsidiarity would have to be set in place? How can it be set in place before the Edinburgh summit?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wriggling because he knows that he is trying to move away from the European policy that he has always had. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he cannot keep his principles in opposition, he will stay in opposition.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that it is a bit rich to be accused of a U-turn by a Prime Minister who has done a U-turn on devaluation and the exchange rate mechanism, a U-turn on pit closures, a U-turn on economic policy and a U-turn on his undertakings to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been touched upon a sore spot. He knows that his party has had seven changes of policy on Europe already. Even Salome ran out of veils at seven. He has shed seven veils and what is revealed is less attractive than Salome.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing would help more to restore economic recovery all round the world than a settlement in the GATT round? Will he continue to do everything that he can to bring about such a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I and a number of my right hon. Friends have been in touch with the key negotiators again over the last 24 hours. I hope very much that there will be yet more negotiations over this weekened and that there will be an early settlement. It is a very great prize and I hope and believe that it will be there for the taking.

    Official Visit, Newham
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the London borough of Newham.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country. Newham is not yet included, but I am happy to consider it.
    Mr. Banks: That is very good news. I will organise a riotous welcome for the Prime Minister when he comes, but I must tell him with great respect that he is about as popular in the east end as anthrax. If he were to come to my advice surgery on Friday, he would find that 60 per cent. of my cases are housing problems and that is true of all inner city hon. Members. In 1979 my borough was spending £50,000 a year on bed-and-breakfast accommodation and this year we are spending £7 million on it. We have only 1.4 per cent. of our properties vacant.
    If the Prime Minister wants to do something about homelessness and to boost the economy, will he allow local authorities to spend the £5.1 billion of accumulated capital receipts? That would do something about homelessness and jobs, or is he only interested in his own job and his own homes?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that that is a bit rich from the hon. Gentleman. Newham borough council's rent arrears now amount to 21 per cent. of its rent roll and it has 1,000 empty properties. Newham has the lowest collection of community charge almost anywhere in the
    1130
    country and as far as its collection record is concerned, perhaps some explanation of that is that seven of the Labour councillors refuse to pay their community charge.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: If Parliament does not ratify the Maastricht treaty, can my right hon. Friend point out precisely what the alternatives would be for Britain and the consequences which would undoubtedly be encouraged if the Labour party were to abandon all principle by failing to support the Prime Minister on Wednesday night?
    The Prime Minister: On that last point, I believe that they have already announced that they have no principles, so everybody is aware of that. I believe that it would be damaging for Britain if we were unable to ratify the Maastricht treaty. We would lose influence in Europe, we would lose the opportunity to lead it in the direction that we want away from centralism into a free market towards an enlarged community and towards a decentralised community. But more than that, I think we would be sending a signal to investors in America, Japan and elsewhere that they could not rely on our commitment to Europe and 1 dare say that people who work in Sony factories in Wales, Nissan factories in the north and many other investments throughout the United Kingdom would not regard that as a sensible policy.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: As the Prime Minister has rightly just reminded the House whether the Maastricht treaty is ratified next week is a matter of great principle, and given the confusion that there has been during the past week or so, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he will personally regard next Wednesday's vote as a matter of confidence in himself and his Government?
    The Prime Minister: We will put down our motion before the end of this week. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that it will be a substantive motion and we shall invite support for it on its merits.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent raid on an IRA bomb factory was the product of painstaking and diligent work by the Metropolitan police and others, and will he congratulate all of them on that success?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. As my hon. Friend will know, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific police operations, but they have undoubtedly been very successful in their work against terrorism and have faced particular difficulties with the large number of bombs that have been placed, particularly in the city of London, in recent weeks. I know that they will continue that work.
    Q.5 Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: As the Department of Social Security has confirmed that the Prime Minister intends to tax invalidity benefit, I challenge the Prime Minister to tell us exactly where that plan to tax the sick is to be found in his election manifesto. Tell us. Which page is it on?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should stop scrabbling among newspapers and wait for the details of the autumn statement in due course. When it comes, he might also comment on the substantial real-terms reductions in many social benefits under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his success in beating inflation, now down to 2 per cent. annualised over the last six months, provides the firmest foundation for low interest rates, and that it is his policies, rather than the muddled policies of the Opposition, which will ensure that this country, as a great trading nation, gains the greatest success from the GATT talks?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. It is noticeable that even today the official Opposition are apt to disregard inflation as the important ingredient in economic well being. It is the fact that we now have low inflation, together with the increased competitiveness that increasingly is there, which will provide the basis for recovery.
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dafis: Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Welsh Office, as economic conditions in Wales certainly justify granting to Wales objective I status under the EC structural fund, will the Prime Minister support the granting of that status to Wales?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is a matter upon which my right hon. Friend will wish to comment.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming a reduction in the number of house repossession actions? Is that not a demonstration of our policies to facilitate house owners so that they do not have to leave their homes at a time of financial crisis? Finally, I
    1132
    extend to my right hon. Friend a warm welcome to my constituency of Sutton and, in particular, to his birthplace, St. Helier's, which is a NHS trust.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that invitation. I am pleased that the number of repossession actions in the last quarter were a third down and that is welcome. That is in part due to two particular factors—the package of measures on repossessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last December and the significant fall in interest rates over the past two years.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: Yesterday afternoon I spent two hours with miners from the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, one of the 21 on the moratorium list—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would now come in right away with his question.
    Mr. Hanson: They told me of run down investment in pits, job losses and everything else. Will the Prime Minister give me and my hon. Friends an assurance that there will be no run down in investment in pits on the list during the term of that moratorium?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made all those matters clear. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of what is happening during the moratorium period.
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the foundations of recovery is to maintain capital expenditure, particularly where it affects the construction industry.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that matter, as I set out in my remarks in some interviews a few days ago. As I said to the House at Question Time last week, economic circumstances outside the United Kingdom have materially changed, but in many ways that gives us new opportunities to develop our strategy for recovery. I cannot anticipate today the outcome of the public expenditure round but it is right to recognise the importance of capital projects and I know that that is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the
Housing and Urban Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Motion relating to the
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Bingham report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 4 November at 10.30 am further to consider European Community Document No. 4327/92 relating to cultural goods.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.
As the Prime Minister claims that the Maastricht treaty is the cornerstone of his foreign policy, is it not a further indication of the Government's lack of direction that they are still dithering about the wording of the motion which they propose to put before the House next Wednesday? Can the Leader of the House explain why, after an extended Cabinet meeting, they still do not know the proposition that they will put before us? Can he tell us anything further about when we shall know the wording of the motion?
May I also press the Government for an early debate on the future of the Rosyth naval dockyard in the light of the widespread publicity in Scotland today about its rumoured closure, with the loss of some 15,000 jobs—directly or indirectly—at stake?
Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange for the earliest possible publication of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report on emphysema and bronchitis, particularly among coal miners? We are told that the report has been available since the end of August. Is he aware that the entire House will be outraged at the revelation that publication of that document has been deliberately held up so that the cost to public funds can be reduced as those who might benefit from its recommendations die off one by one?
Mr. Newton: On the motion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position clear in his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I have nothing to add to that.
On Rosyth, I am not in a position to comment on speculative reports. However, I can repeat the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that no decisions have yet been made concerning the future arrangements for dockyard management. All relevent considerations will be taken into
1134
account and all interested parties consulted when making such a decision. The Government hope to be in a position to make an announcement by the end of the year.
On the industrial injuries matter, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will make an announcement about publication shortly. I know well from experience that the report's recommendations will be considered with the appropriate care.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On Wednesday's debate, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the motion draws attention to the virtually unanimous findings of the CBI that the job losses consequent on our not ratifying the Maastricht treaty depend not only on the fact that foreign investment would be reluctant to come here but that large numbers of British multinational companies would move their manufacturing abroad, with the resulting loss of thousands of jobs, not least in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request to include a certain point in the motion. That point is very much in the Government's mind when they consider their approach to these matters.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House accept that the announcement by his right hon. Friend that next Wednesday's motion will be a substantive, not a procedural, one will be welcomed by all in this House who are seriously interested in the issue of our future in Europe and by those in the country who want to know whether we are giving Europe the green light or the red light? Many of us, like the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), believe that it should be the green light.
When will we have an opportunity to debate overseas aid? The right hon. Gentleman said last week that he would think about it. Will we have a debate before the autumn statement?
Several Hon. Member rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been rather more tolerant than usual. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked two questions and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked quite a few. In future hon. Members must ask only one question, and then we will all get through as many as possible.
Mr. Newton: I note with appropriate gratitude the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments and those of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on other occasions.
As for overseas aid, I cannot add to what I said on this point on a number of occasions last week; nor can I predict the outcome of the current public expenditure discussions. I apologise, Madam Speaker, for giving a rather long answer, but I have made it clear that, unusually, the autumn statement will be debated shortly after it is made.
Mr. Robert Adley: Referring to next Wednesday's debate, which many of us are happy to refer to, will my right hon. Friend confirm one point? Am I not right in thinking that the reason we are having it has nothing to do with the bravado of the Prime Minister but is a response to the request of the then Leader of the Opposition before the House rose for the summer recess? Is it not therefore a bit rich for the hon. Member for

1135
Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to start complaining about the terms of the motion when she and her colleagues have decided not to support it before they have even seen it?
Mr. Newton: The only possible answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Bearing in mind that in the north of England we have the brick industry, the glass industry, the steel industry and goodness knows what else, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to hold a debate on the construction industry so that we can begin to put the country back to work instead of wasting so much and so many talents?
Mr. Newton: I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but I refer him to what my right hon. Friend said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) in respect of the autumn statement. The debate on that is likely to provide an opportunity relevant to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will there be a statement on the progress of the vital GATT negotiations? Does not their importance emphasise the need for involvement in the European Community and how vital it is that Britain be at the heart of it, not standing idly on the side?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is yes, but I cannot promise a statement at a particular time. My hon. Friend well knows the efforts of the Prime Minister to get further talks under way.
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worslcy): Will the Leader of the House consider next week or at the very least the week after that a debate in Government time on the shambles that is the disability living allowance? I understand that in Blackpool there are 30,000 unopened letters, and that, even when they are opened, there are no staff to process the claims of these most deserving of our citizens. It is scandalous that that has not been dealt with by the Government so far, and time should be allowed for a full debate in the House on this scandal.
Mr. Newton: I would not wish to be taken as endorsing the terms in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question, but I can fairly make the point that the Department of Social Security will be answering oral questions on Monday.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will remember that he and I heard references by the Prime Minister during the Conservative party conference to considerable help for small businesses through red tape being stripped away. We also heard some colourful metaphors by our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend very soon to bring the President of the Board of Trade to the Dispatch Box to make some announcements for which many small businesses are waiting?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I do not need to bring my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in the way that has been suggested. because he is due to be here on Wednesday for questions.
Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the concern of my
1136
right hon. and hon. Friends about the limited amount of Northern Ireland legislation in the pipeline? We have been waiting for two or three years for equivalents to Act. In the light of that, will he look again at the current legislation and apply it immediately to Northern Ireland, rather than have us hanging around waiting for years for equivalent legislation?
Mr. Newton: I was unable to be here earlier for Northern Ireland questions and am not sure whether that matter arose then. Perhaps I could treat this as an extension of Northern Ireland questions and promise to draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity to debate early-day motion 668?
[That this House notes with concern reports that the Government is considering closing one of the two remaining naval dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport; notes that the closure of either dockyard would mean the loss of several thousand jobs in the defence industry and supporting businesses; notes that both dockyards have been successful in diversifying into other commercial activities whilst improving efficiency in their core defence business; and therefore calls on the Government to consider all possible means, including, if necessary, a single combined management, by which a way can be found to keep both dockyards open and preserve at least some of the jobs dependent on them.]
A debate would give an opportunity to discuss the economic significance to Scotland of Rosyth and the political difficulties that would be faced if we were to maintain the Trident force in the Clyde but removed the jobs at Rosyth for the maintenance of those submarines.
Mr. Newton: I genuinely note what my hon. Friend says, but he will recall that the point arose at the start of business questions. I am not able to add to what I said then.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the condition of the fabric of the pits that are marked for closure and are subject to care and maintenance? A debate would allow the House to test the worth and value of the Prime Minister's reassurance that all pits would remain viable for work. It would also allow hon. Members to tell the Prime Minister and the Government that face convergence in many of those pits is fast making the faces unworkable and unviable. If the Prime Minister's reassurances have any validity, coaling must start again at Trentham colliery in Stoke-on-Trent, and in the pits in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends which are suffering severely.
Mr. Newton: I understand that British Coal will maintain the fabric of the 10 collieries during the consultation period precisely so that coaling can be restarted if closure does not finally take place.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend consider making time for a debate next week on the conduct of banks, especially the Royal Bank of Scotland? That issue is of considerable importance to a small business in my constituency employing six people who received a letter on 14 October stating:

1137
"we find that all of our major competitors have been sharply increasing their"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will quickly rethink his question. Questions must relate to next week's business and the hon. Gentleman cannot pursue his present line of questioning.
Mr. Bates: May we have a debate next week on the subject and conduct of banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland? Reducing interest rates is the progressive and courageous policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Interest rates are coming down but that bank decided to use this opportunity to increase its profits. Before replying to such a debate, the Chancellor should call in the banks and make it impeccably clear to them that the purpose of reducing interest rates is to protect small businesses and jobs and not to line the pockets of the banks.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question demonstrates how lucky the electors of Langbaurgh are to have him here to defend their interests. My safe course is to say that I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. With a bit of ingenuity, my hon. Friend might be able to put that question to the President of the Board of Trade on Wednesday.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When can we have a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests about declaration and registration?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definite date now, but I have every incentive to try to find one, as he will obviously ask me the same question every week until I do.
Mr. John Ward: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate enabling us to compare this country's record with those of our European partners in carrying out EC regulations to which we have signed up?
Mr. Newton: I have little doubt that that point will be adverted to in the course of debate next week.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the current discussions on the review of the common fisheries policy? The northern fisheries have been closed, and 25 per cent. of my constituents who are totally dependent on the fishing industry for their livelihood have no prospect of employment for the rest of the year.
This is a matter of serious importance to us. The implications are on the same level as the implications of pit closures for the hon. Members who have spoken so effectively on behalf of the mining communities that they represent. May we be given the same consideration?
Mr. Newton: I recognise that the matter is of considerable importance to the hon. Lady's constituents. I shall of course draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am rather buoyed up by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today about capital investments. Will there be time next week for an early announcement about the Jubilee line
1138
extension? Many of my constituents would benefit greatly from an early and positive announcement of what is to happen.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement about that next week, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.
Ms. Rachel Squire: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in urging the Leader of the House to arrange a debate next, week on early-day motion 668? Such a debate is surely vital, given the report in today's Scottish Daily Record, which implies that Scottish Conservatives have been told that Rosyth dockyard will close. It is vital that the Secretary of State for Defence be called to the Dispatch Box to make a clear statement to all of us.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the importance that the hon. Lady—like my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—understandably attaches to the matter; but it was raised by her hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), very reasonably, and I cannot add to the answer that I gave then.
Mr. David Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend frames Wednesday's motion, will he include a reference to the Opposition's startling U-turn so that the British people can clearly see that all that Labour said at the time of the election was a total sham? Labour is completely without principle, and its commitment to Europe is completely hollow.
Mr. Newton: I do not want to find myself drafting the detail of the motion on the Floor of the House in answer to a business question, but I nevertheless feel that my hon. Friend has made an important point.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In addition to a debate about the various reports produced by the Select Committee on Members' Interests—including that concerning the tightening of the registration of commercial lobbying interests—are we to have a Select Committee on Members' Interests, or have the Government abandoned the idea?
As the Leader of the House know, there is a Standing Order about the Select Committee in relation to our debates and the declaration of interests. Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned about the fact that many Tory Back Benchers are lining themselves up according to the "Members of Parliament for hire" syndrome, and lining their pockets with the fruits of outside business interests while we and the public have no idea what is going on?
Mr. Newton: I might find it possible to give the hon. Gentleman a more sympathetic response if he did not use business questions to make that point in the way he did.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a letter sent recently by the secretary of British Coal to various people on a list instructing them that
"there must be no contact with Members of Parliament other than through your Group Director or Managing Director."?
Apart from the question of the constitutional propriety of such a request, will my right hon. Friend consider the implications for the independence of some of the advice that the review must be given if those most closely involved

1139
cannot raise the matter through their Members of Parliament? Will he arrange a debate on the subject, or else urge British Coal to withdraw that instruction?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot promise a debate on the matter. However, I can certainly promise to reflect on what he has said and on the request that he has made and to make sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade does so also.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: I have pressing business affecting my constituents that needs to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee. Will the Leader of the House be in a position to tell us next week when that Committee is to be set up?
Mr. Newton: I shall do my best to put myself in a position to give the hon. Gentleman an answer, but I cannot do so at this moment.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on our continued policy of nuclear deterrence, the future of which is so important to the future of Rosyth dockyard?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise quite the debate for which my hon. Friend asked me—nor, to my regret in some ways, can I add to what I have already said to three or four hon. Members. However, I well understand why my hon. Friend raised the point.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a debate about Companies house? We could then examine why the President of the Board of Trade has an entry in the Companies house register regarding the Hayrnarket publishing companies and trusts. That entry does not feature in the old Register of Members' Interests. I do not know about the new one—when we get it. Is it not important that the President of the Board of Trade, who is conducting reviews of other industries, should sort out his own financial affairs before he starts to review what he should do about pit closures? It is about time that this Maxwell-type cobweb of financial trusts— [lnterruption.] —was sorted out before the President of the Board of Trade sorts out the livelihood of 31,000 miners.
Mr. Newton: In the interests of keeping the temperature down, Madam Speaker, in which I am sure both you and I have an interest, I shall merely refer once again to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade will be at the Dispatch Box next week.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or for a Government statement on the responsibilities of Ministers? An unprecedented situation has arisen under which a civil servant has been blamed for the pit closures. Ministers were previously guided by a code of conduct in these matters. What has happened reflects poorly upon us and everyone else. The respect of the public for us is the lowest it has ever been. Has there been a change? Ministers used to resign if they made mistakes. Now they do not do so; they sack their staff.
Mr. Newton: If I understand aright what the hon. Gentleman refers to, the position is that new appointments
1140
have been made that are intended to give effect to the Government's commitment to examine afresh the future of the coal industry and related matters.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Next Wednesday, at the start of business, we shall, as on every day, pray that this country be godly and quietly governed. In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of the motion to be put on the debate later in the day and have it, on the Adjournment of the House, on the subject of the situation in the European Communities? Otherwise, I fear that there will be an unholy and wholly unnecessary row?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, whose views I recognise, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about that matter. I am obviously not in a position to add anything further.
Ms. Ann Coffey: Will the Leader of the House make time available next week for a debate on the British aerospace industry? As he will be aware, a large number of people from all parts of the country have joined a lobby today because they are desperately worried about the future of their industry. They wish positive action to be taken to ensure that British Aerospace has a prosperous future and that manufacturing industry as a whole has a prosperous future. Such a debate would, I suggest, give the Government an opportunity to tell us about their manufacturing and economic strategy.
Mr. Newton: The Government's policies, including the recent further cuts in interest rates, are aimed at helping the whole of British industry, manufacturing and otherwise, including aerospace. We shall continue with policies to achieve that, but 1 cannot promise a debate next week in the terms that the hon. Lady seeks.
Mr. John Sykes: May we have a debate on why Members of Parliament who work at 7 Old Palace Yard were not consulted about the proposed move, at an estimated cost of £3 million?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but no doubt my hon. Friend will have drawn his views to the attention of the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Select Committee.
Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Leader of the House plan to table changes to local authority superannuation regulations? Under those changes, if a local authority service were privatised, its workers would not be able to keep their local authority pension. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the matter is of much concern to thousands of local authority workers, especially the hundreds of workers in South Yorkshire Transport. Does he plan to table the regulations next week?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and his implicit criticism of any such thought, to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I urge my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on the crisis in the tourism industry in the west country in general and in Teignbridge in particular? Is he aware that hotels and guest houses are particularly hard pressed? Does he agree

1141
that a debate would enable us to discuss measures that might be included in the Budget to help that hard-pressed sector?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I advert to remarks that I made in response to earlier questions about economic policy in general. The debate following the autumn statement might provide an opportunity for him to speak.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have a statement next week on the situation in Bosnia, which would allow the Government to tell us what they and the United Nations will do to airlift food supplies to the thousands upon thousands of Bosnians who are facing an extremely harsh winter on the mountains? It would further allow us to persuade Ministers that the only way to stop the partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia is military intervention.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have commented extensively on this in various ways in the past few weeks, and I cannot promise a statement next week.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a commitment that, following the Department of Trade and Industry's announcement on the areas that will achieve assisted area status, hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the issue in the House? He will know that many applications have been made, including by my own constituency, and that the future of many jobs depends on those applications. It would be helpful if he would give that undertaking.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are a little way short of concluding that review. Some advance signs have been given about the possibility of difficulties in some of the mining areas. It is a little premature to consider my hon. Friend's specific request, but I shall ensure that it is borne in mind.
Ms. Joan Walley: Does not the Leader of the House understand that, however many assurances the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have given that the 31 pits will be reprieved, as was referred to at Question Time, the reality is that, if coal production ceases at Trentham, the pit is liable to close? Why will not he arrange a full debate next week to enable hon. Members to air their concerns about all 31 pits before it is too late and before the men have been bribed with redundancy payments?
Mr. Newton: Again, I understand why the hon. Lady has raised that subject, but I cannot add to what I said on a related matter a few questions ago.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a review and an urgent statement from the President of the Board of Trade on what is happening at Coventry pit, which British Coal has said will be capped in the next few days? Capping will endanger the livelihoods of all the men who work at Daw Mill, who depend on having access to the south Warwickshire coalfield through the air shaft of Coventry pit. Does not that decision by British Coal cast into a rather odd light the commitment by the President of the
1142
Board of Trade to review overall energy policy, and not to take any action that could prejudice the future of the coal industry?
Mr. Newton: As with previous comments that have been made, I shall bring those remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that he would take appropriate action if he felt that there were a conflict such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that last Friday British Coal ended coal mining at Parkside colliery in my constituency, and that so far not one word of consultation has taken place? Is he further aware that this morning a mining inspection at Parkside colliery under section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act unanimously recommended that, unless coal was cut immediately on one face, the chances are that that face will be lost for ever? Will he arrange for a debate so that hon. Members from coal mining communities can test whether the statements made by Cabinet Ministers about genuine consultations, and about Coal Board directors protecting the fabric of the mines, were economical with the truth?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not accept any suggestion that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or any of my other colleagues were, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, economical with the truth. Once again, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, and I am sure he will give them serious consideration.
Mr. Tim Devlin: As thousands of people in the northern region are still awaiting the outcome of the public inquiry into the incineration of toxic waste, I ask my right hon. Friend to urge the Department of the Environment to make a statement as soon as possible on the future of toxic waste incineration on Tyneside and Teesside. That would be of great interest to thousands of people and to industry in the region.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request, too, to the attention of the appropriate Minister—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Leader of the House consider initiating an early debate on the National Audit Office report on accident and emergency departments in national health service hospitals? That is a matter of great concern to the people of Liverpool, who now face the disgraceful suggestion that the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital should be closed. That hospital is close to the M62, an important motorway, and it is also the hospital which services Liverpool airport whenever there is an alert.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we had a debate on health only a week ago today, and I am not in a position to promise another in the immediate future.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on opencast coal mining? The closure of the deep mines presages the ripping apart of our countryside. My constituents in Buckley wait apprehensively for decisions by the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Newton: I understand that concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents, but in

1143
view of the other exchanges which have taken place today, I also have a feeling that in our present circumstances any debate on coal mining is more likely to concentrate on deep mining than on opencast mining.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to arrange for a Minister to make a statement early next week on the crisis in the motor car manufacturing industry? That is particularly necessary in view of the fact that Ford, our leading car manufacturer, announced a halt to all car and van manufacture at two plants—including Dagenham, a plant which affects both my constituency and that of the Leader of the House. That announcement has wide implications for the whole economy of east London and Essex, and it will cause great anxiety in homes and small businesses in and around the Dagenham area—in Thurrock, in Basildon and, no doubt, in Braintree, the constituency of the Leader of the House.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister is brought to the House? There is a great fear that we are about to lose one Ford plant in the United Kingdom unless there is a halt and an intervention—morning, afternoon, or evening—by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Newton: I have said in response to many questions this afternoon that the President of the Board of Trade is due to answer questions next Wednesday. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in turn will at least acknowledge that United Kingdom car production has increased by 1.9 per cent. in the first nine months of this year compared with the figure for the similar period of 1991. The increased production, including the increased production for export, in one or two recent months has been some sign of encouragement.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the human rights violations happening daily in Indian-held Kashmir'?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on the matter. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have noted the hon. Lady's concern.
Mr. Tony Banks: The normal procedure after Second Reading is for a Bill to move into Committee. Although we have had the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—the Maastricht Bill—it has yet to move into Committee. What is the constitutional position? What is the reason for a debate on a motion next Wednesday? What is the reason other than to try to bolster the Prime Minister?
Mr. Newton: The reason, in shorthand terms, is that there were substantial requests for a debate, including one from the previous Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for lslwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House think that it would be helpful for our discussion on Monday on the continuing disgrace of the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance if the Government published in the Official Report the answers that hon. Members receive from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency? I had several letters from Mr. Bichard this morning. When will the Leader of the House publish those in the Official Report as he recently
1144
promised in a written reply? What will the arrangements be? Will the replies be published daily or weekly, and how prompt will publication be?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the fact that I have recently announced a move in precisely the direction he had urged. I will try to give him further details as soon as possible.
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman heard the business statement? I understood that he was not in his place for the statement. I can call only hon. Members who have been in place for the statement.
Mr. Anderson: My excuse is that I was listening behind your Chair, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I must take the hon. Gentleman at his word. That being the case, I will call him.
Mr. Anderson: I am the soul of honour, Madam Speaker.
Does the Leader of the House agree that now is the right time to examine the employment effect on the regions of the Government's privatisation policies for Government agencies? In my constituency, for example, we have already lost jobs as a result from the vehicle inspectorate and from the driver information technology centre. Now we have the ultimate madness. It is envisaged that the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, which was put in for regional employment reasons, will be closed as a result of contractorisation with the loss of 3,000 jobs in an area of high unemployment. When will the madness stop? Why cannot we now have a debate on the effects on the regions of the Government's agency proposals?
Mr. Newton: The Government are obviously concerned to look carefully at all the implications of their proposals. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. John McFall: Unfortunately, I find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I was at the back of your Chair, Madam Speaker, when business questions started.
Madam Speaker: I said to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I had not seen him in his place and he agreed that he was not listening to the statement in his place. I have to take hon. Members at their word and I have to honour what they say. That being the case, I call the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
Mr. McFall: Is the Leader of the House aware that the European Commission is in the process of repealing document 170/83 and establishing a new system for the conservation and management of fish stocks? Given that that must be in place by the end of December, and that white fish fishermen, particularly in the north of Scotland, have reached their quotas and face a bleak two months, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a debate ensues on the new regulations, which as yet have not even been discussed in the press, never mind in the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman said that he had been present earlier, and I have no reason to doubt that. I assume, therefore, that he heard what I said to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who asked me about the same matter.

NHS Trusts (Wales)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on what I consider to be a significant development for the national health service in Wales, which I believe will bring long-term benefits not only for patients but also for staff and local communities.
NHS trusts are now seen as the natural organisational model for delivering health care. The pace of change in Wales matches that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I look forward to Welsh trusts taking full advantage of the opportunities available to them to gear their services to the needs of their patients and to deal with the issues raised by the application process and during public consultation.
My announcement is confirmation that doctors, nurses, other professional groups and managers increasingly recognise that Government policy towards the NHS benefits patients by allowing for the provision and management of services locally. NHS trusts will remain firmly within the national health service; to suggest otherwise is a grave distortion. Accordingly, I have today signed orders to establish a further 13 NHS trusts in Wales on 16 November. The orders also provide that the trusts will commence formal operation on 1 April 1993. By that date, and taking account of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust, some 65 per cent. of acute health services, and 60 per cent. of community health services in Wales, will be based on NHS trusts.
Let me make it clear that my decision to establish further NHS trusts was reached by Ministers only after the most careful consideration of each representation received on the individual applications, all of which were subject to an extensive and wide-ranging consultative exercise lasting three months. Hon. Members from Wales were invited to comment on applications relating to their constituencies. In addition to community health councils, health authorities, family health services authorities, GP practices, local voluntary organisations, and, of course, staff at the health units and ambulance services were among the important range of interests that had the opportunity to make known their views on the proposals contained in the applications.
The views expressed during consultation have received close attention, alongside the individual merits of each application, and I have maintained my undertaking that I would not approve any application unless I was personally convinced that patients would benefit from the move to NHS trust status. My decisions reflect that commitment.
I shall shortly be announcing details on the chairmen and non-executive directors for the trusts that are to be established, and I make it clear to the House that my guiding principle is that individuals will be selected for the personal contribution that they can make to a trust.
I now refer to the application from the east unit of West Glamorgan health authority, which includes the plan for a new hospital for Neath and Port Talbot. I remain determined that there will be a new hospital on that site and I expect that the health authority will shortly let the contract for the next stage of infrastructure. Indeed, I am looking to further improvements in services in the area beyond the provision of a hospital and I am therefore inviting the authority, in consultation with the adjoining authorities of East Dyfed and Mid Glamorgan, to review

1147
the appropriate balance between primary and secondary care into the next century, taking into account the remarkable advances being seen in medical technology and medical practice.
I will be looking to the authority to take independent advice and to have the review substantially completed and to report back to me by the end of March 1993. Because of the importance of awaiting the outcome of the review, I feel it prudent to defer the application for NHS trust status. I know that that will come as a disappointment, but I stress that the application is only deferred.
Turning now to the expressions of interest which have been submitted, the fact that I have invited 14 applications carries no commitment that subsequently I will approve any application or, indeed, that any application has to be submitted. The position remains that the decision whether formally to apply to become a NHS trust is a matter for local determination. There is not, and will not be, any pressure from Ministers in the Welsh Office.
My decisions on whether to invite further applications from three of the health units in South Glamorgan is dependent upon the outcome of the authority's review of unit management structure and services. When that has been agreed in discussion with the prospective applicants, I look forward to receiving updated proposals for implementation as soon as is practicable.
The applications will need to be submitted formally in the early summer of next year and, as was the case this year, every submission will be subjected to a consultation exercise, normally for three months. No decisions will be reached until I have had the opportunity to consider the representations received, alongside the specific proposals for trust status. I would expect to announce the outcome on the applications in the autumn of next year.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Despite what the Secretary of State for Wales has said, the statement is a further step down the route towards the American health care system in this country. Everyone in Wales knows exactly what that means. Conservative Members may shake their heads and claim that that will not happen. However, they do not recognise that a growing number of Tory Members support a private insurance system of care in the United Kindgom. In the meantime, what do the Government do for the national health service? They cut public spending, with further cuts ahead. They underfund and privatise community care. They commercialise and privatise the NHS. Where there should be more care and better care, the Government offer us competition. Where there should be service, we have the internal market, the GP fund holder, a two-tier health service and nurses out of a job.
The trusts are run like private sector companies. Although it is true that they are not in the private sector now, they have the potential to be lifted into it at the whim of a Minister. It will not be long before hip replacements are advertised in the medical appliance section of Exchange and Mart.
The statement is a further nail in the aspirations of our national health service, which is still the envy of the world despite all the Government's attempts to destroy the vision and inspiration of Aneurin Bevan.
The Secretary of State for Wales is now trying to persuade the Welsh people that the trusts, which are not accountable to local people, are for their benefit. From
1148
England, we hear reports of throat-cutting commercialisation and cuts in services and staff, but not in waiting lists. The experiences of some of my hon. Friends are not happy experiences. These are the newspaper headings that are only too commonplace in their experience of trusts:
"NHS Trust mishandled injured baby case"—
not the Morning Star—
"Heart patients wait as budget runs out one month early"—
not the Morning Star, and
"Four heart patients die for lack of money".
The North Middlesex hospital NHS trust recently announced cuts of £1.7 million and told its patients that, instead of two meals a day, they would get one meal and a snack and, after 6.30 pm, no evening drink. Is that what we must expect of our more caring, more efficient, health service as trusts become the order of day, or is it simply yet another example of trusts putting financial savings before patient care?
Why must Wales always be a post office for the Department of Health? That was a finding that we made when I was a member of the Royal Commission on the national health service, the only true look into the national health service since it started. Why must we always ape England in the provision of health services? Why does the Secretary of State not deal instead with the many hospitals in Wales at which no waiting list surgery is being done, leaving patients in pain and discomfort?
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has vigorously opposed the trust in his area, has taken up the very pertinent matter of NHS trust executive directors' salary packages. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the details of salaries and other payments to senior managers and executive directors of trusts in Wales will be published in future? Certainly, the Pembrokeshire NHS trust seems to be very good for those with a passion for German sports cars but not so good for the patients in Pembrokeshire.
All who care about the NHS in Wales—that is, all my hon. Friends—will be anxious about the service that will be provided in future. We all know about purchasing and providing, but who does the strategic planning? The only strategy that the trusts seem to have is how to make money, not how to provide for the needs of the community.
The Government believe in governing by leak, just like their leaks on the pit closures. First of all, they leaked their plans to the Western Mail. The Western Mail had all the details about the trusts yesterday. That is another discourtesy to the House. Why does the Western Mail seem to have a list of the hospitals that are to be new trusts? The list in the Western Mail includes the Royal Gwent, Newport, Singleton, Swansea, West Wales, Carmarthen and the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales will provide us with the list and tell us the number.
The Government are not really concerned about discussing. Opposition Members greet with a wry smile the Secretary of State's declarations on discussion. We cannot believe that he believes in proper consultation and providing for the health needs of Wales. After all, we should not be too surprised at that because the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), with an English constituency, simply fails to

1149
understand the passion and the feeling with which we who represent the majority of the people of Wales defend our national health service.
The Secretary of State must understand that we will continue to campaign to prevent the creeping commercialisation of our national health service. We will continue to win the support of the people of Wales because they believe that health is safe in our hands. We created the national health service and we will fight to protect it.
Mr. Hunt: That was a quite disgraceful response. To attempt to be taken seriously on the national health service but to talk about throat-cutting commercialisation is to trivialise the very important issues involved.
The hon. Lady may want to go back to all the arguments that we rehearsed during the last general election when we had much misinformation about the national health service. Indeed, the Labour party thought that it would win the United Kingdom election on that misinformation. It did not win the election because its lies were exposed. The idea that the national health service was being privatised when we were talking about non-profit-making national health service trusts was seen by the public as the nonsense that it undoubtedly was. The hon. Lady should consult some of her hon. Friends. Some Labour Members work closely with national health service trusts in England. I am aware of them in my own area. I find that the trusts put the interests of patients first and improve patient care.
The 13 units are: Clwyd acute north unit, which is at Llanllwyd hospital; Clwyd acute south unit, which is at Wrexham Maelor hospital; Clwyd community and mental health unit; Powys health unit; south Gwent acute unit; Gwent community and mental health unit; Llandough hospital health unit; Ogwr health unit; west unit, which is, of course, Singleton hospital in Swansea; Llanelli/Dinefwr health unit; Carmarthen Dinefwr health unit; Ceredigion health unit; and the Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan joint proposal for the ambulance service. The hon. Lady will see from that list that the list that she saw in the Western Mail was incomplete.
The hon. Lady said that it would be possible for hospitals to transfer out of the national health service into the private sector. That is not possible under the law of this land. I make that absolutely clear. The hon. Lady also mentioned Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire has done extremely well. Its NHS treated 6 per cent. more in-patients and 25 per cent. more out-patients in the first four months of operation. That is the truth.
The hon. Lady referred to strategic planning. The national health service in Wales is proud to have not only the finest people working in the service but the finest executive of any service. It has published a strategic intent which I believe is the envy of many other parts of the United Kingdom, Europe—[Interruption.]—I was asked about the strategic intent—and the world. I recently met representatives of the World Health Organisation which complimented me—I was proud to receive the compliment as Secretary of State—on the way in which the health service in Wales applied itself to the strategic intent of putting the service in Wales on course to be on a par with the best in Europe and to go into the 21st century, adding years to life and quality life to years. We were the first part of the United Kingdom to have that strategic intent.
1150
I remember the hon. Lady being involved with the Royal Commission on the national health service. That royal commission reported in 1979 after many years of a Labour Government. What did the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the royal commission say about funding? On 25 October 1989, she said:
"The Royal Commission reported that we had a good and comprehensive health service but that it was grossly underfunded".— [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 25 October 1989; c. 88.]
That was thanks to the Labour Government. What has happened since then?
The picture is different now. At that time, my predecessor pointed out to the hon. Lady that in cash terms the funding of the national health service in Wales had trebled. I am happy to tell the House now that funding has quadrupled. We have had to put right the inequities of those years of Labour government. In 1979, less than £500 million was spent on the national health service in Wales; we now spend £1,946 million. That is a fourfold cash increase. The increase in real terms is 67 per cent.
I shall explain that in simple terms. In 1979, the national health service in Wales spent £171 for every man, woman and child. We have now increased that figure to £675. We have remedied the underfunding of the national health service to which the hon. Lady drew attention.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in some of the consultations, the responses that he has received—even from those people who may not have been convinced by some of the applications--have not shown the hostility to NHS trusts that we have heard from the Opposition Benches? Will he confirm that in the Powys area—a large part of which I represent—there is much support for what Powys health authority has done for health promotion and there is much trust in that NHS trust application?
Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for putting the record straight. One of the key criteria for becoming an NHS trust is that the application must demonstrate realistic and achievable measures to improve patient care. That is what is going to happen.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Sectetary of State recognise that there will be anger in rural mid-Wales at the dismemberment of the Powys ambulance service into some enormous centralised and independent organisation? Does he accept that he has a long way to go to persuade staff in Welsh hospitals that what he has decided for Powys health authority will benefit the patients? Will he give an undertaking that the Welsh Office will advertise for chairmen and non-executive directors of trusts, so that the selection can be made from a cross-section and is not confined largely to members of his party?
Mr. Hunt: That was a cheap point. The best possible people will have to run the NHS trusts. That is why I have been receiving suggested names from Opposition Members, and why I am considering them carefully. Everyone in Wales knows that we are looking for the best possible people. If Opposition Members think that any people are not being considered, I want to hear from them immediately.
Mr. Carlile: What about the ambulance service?
Mr. Hunt: I am just coming to that, but I must deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's cheap point. I am determined that the best possible people will be involved in NHS trusts. Approved NHS trusts are committed to improving the ambulance service. That is one of the key points in the applications before me. The NHS trusts are at the forefront of health service reforms, to make the service directly responsive to patients' needs. That is what the trusts will put at the forefront of their objectives.
Mr. Rod Richards: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the splendid decision that he announced today will be welcomed by everyone in Clwyd —[Interruption.]—by everyone who is sensible and wants the quality of the NHS to improve?
Mr. Hunt: I sometimes wonder why the clear evidence that my hon. Friend has laid before the House is not appreciated on both sides. I shall give some further statistics. In Wales, we are treating 500,000 in-patients, which is an increase of 38 per cent. during the years that we have been in Government, or another 132,750 in-patients, and the number of out-patients has risen by 29 per cent., which is another 122,700. Day cases have increased by 227 per cent. Those are excellent figures and a tribute to the quality of people working in the health service in Wales.
Mr. Nick Ainger: When the Secretary of State says, "Let's put the record straight", is he aware of what has been going on in the Pembrokeshire NHS trust during the past seven months? He does not refer to that. He says that he assumes that the staff will welcome his announcement because of the benefits that it will bring.
Is he aware that, seven months after the beginning of the trust in Pembrokeshire, not one trade union has been recognised; that the Royal College of Nursing is in dispute with the management of the trust over the application, without consultation, of a local pay spine; that the United States naval facility has entered into a contract with the trust for private ante-natal care; and that the German army has entered into a private contract with the trust for dental care? After seven months of operation, when I receive a letter from the chairman of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust, in reply to my letter concerning the car leasing agreement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred —
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret the fact that questions on the statement are becoming a debate. I remind hon. Members, as well as the Secretary of State, that we want to have questions and answers. That is what statements are all about. We are not in debate. May I have a question from the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Ainger: May I have the Secretary of State's reaction to the statement by the chairman of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust, in response to my question about the car leasing agreement and salary structures of the executive directors, that that was quite common commercial practice in relation to car leasing deals?
Mr. Hunt: The purpose of the reforms is to take decision-making closer to the people and to have decisions taken locally. I am not going to try to second-guess the national health trust in Pembrokeshire. I do not judge anyone on his or her property or on the car that he or she drives; I judge people on what they are going to do for the
1152
national health service in Wales. The Pembrokeshire NHS trust has treated 6 per cent. more in-patients and 25 per cent. more out-patients. That is a pretty good record.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from the Vale of Glamorgan on the tremendous strides that have been made in health care in the past 13 years? Will he acknowledge that we have a particular interest in the future of Llandough hospital and that we look for further improvement in that already great hospital as and when trust status is acquired?
Mr. Hunt: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to Llandough, because that is one of the applications that I approved today. If I may reiterate a point that fits in very neatly with the points which my hon. Friends are making, approved NHS trusts are committed to attacking waiting times and waiting lists, improving the ambulance service, providing local mental illness and mental handicap services, improving local hospitals, improving individual community care programmes and increasing day care facilities.
We look forward with great optimism to their achieving many of those targets in the years ahead.
Mr. John Morris: I welcome the Secretary of State's determination to have a new hospital at Neath and Port Talbot, a determination which I have long shared.
Will he expand on his cryptic Whitehallese when he referred to a further improvement over a wider area? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those are plus words and not minus words and that they mean something beyond the provision of a hospital—not a diminution in capital, the time scale or any specialty at Port Talbot or intended there? Why was Port Talbot singled out? Does this mean a cut at Port Talbot or not?
Mr. Hunt: No, it means exactly what it says. I should like to make some points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a distinguished predecessor. There is no community hospital programme in West Glamorgan —that is an important point. Elsewhere in Wales, progress is being seen in community care. That is evident. There is a significant move towards day care provision: the twofold increase in West Glamorgan compares with a fivefold increase in Mid Glamorgan and a fourfold increase in East Dyfed. So my statement means exactly what I said: I want to look at further improvements in provision of services in the area beyond the hospital provision, and that is why I have asked for this review.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who leads for the Opposition, in responding to this statement this afternoon —
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not responsible for what the hon. Lady says. The statement should be questioned.
Mr. Hawkins: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. May I rephrase the question in this way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard a great deal this afternoon which has attempted to blacken the work of the NHS trusts in England and which has been used as examples?

1153
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the experience of the trusts in England has been that waiting lists have been cut dramatically and that "commercial management", which the Opposition think are dirty words, is bringing efficiency to the NHS? The Opposition are concerned about restricted practices and preserving the jobs of those in the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees, not about improving medical standards for patients.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about NHS trusts in England, where throughput has increased, waiting lists have been cut, new equipment has been introduced early and capital expenditure is ahead of schedule. That has been a great success story and we in Wales are determined to share in that success.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister says that he wants to take decision-making closer to the people. Will he explain how 13 unaccountable quangos, packed with Welsh Office placemen, take decision-making closer to the people? If he is concerned about decision-making and the people, why, in a parliamentary answer to me last week, did he say that of 90 representations that he has received in relation to the Singleton trust, only 19 were in favour?
Mr. Hunt: I read through all the representations and I take them into account before I reach a decision. The whole purpose of creating NHS trusts is to make them more accountable and to take decision-making closer to the people. We shall see the results and the benefits as the NHS trust movement in Wales evolves.
Mr. Denzil Davies: On the subject of accountability and bringing decision-making closer to the people, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the chairmen and non-executive directors of the trusts will live in the areas that their trusts service?
Mr. Hunt: As I have said on many occasions previously, I shall take great care in selecting the people who will be involved. I shall not rule anybody out, because that would be wrong. The right hon. Gentleman's point is valid, but the important thing is to have the best possible people.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mein): The Secretary of State will be aware that, every time the Conservative party has laid its plans for hospital trusts before the people of Wales, they have been decisively rejected, both at by-elections which Conservatives lost during the last Parliament and during the general election. If the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the people of Wales want trusts, why does not he put it to the test and call for a ballot in each of the areas so that the people of Wales have the final decision on the trusts?
Mr. Hunt: Neither I as Secretary of State nor my right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to walk away from the need to make decisions in these areas. The key decision which we have made is to increase funding substantially for the NHS. I have already made it clear that, since we took office in 1979, cash for the NHS in Wales has been increased fourfold, and that is 67 per cent. more in real
1154
terms. We are determined to ensure that every penny and every pound of that money is spent to the best possible effect.
Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State knows that my constituency is serviced by Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and Ysbyty Wrexham Maelor. First, bearing in mind the likely public sector cuts thanks to the Government's handling of the economy, can he guarantee to my constituents that there will be funding for the new hospital trust that he has created from those two hospitals? Will he guarantee that neither hospital will have more private beds after trust status than before? Thirdly, as staff morale in Wrexham is poor, will he ensure that it faces no more ward closures or staff cuts?
Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is thanks to the Government that we have Wrexham Maelor hospital. It was built under this Government. I cannot preview the outcome of the public expenditure survey, but the hon. Gentleman can judge us by results. To quadruple in cash terms the funding for the NHS in Wales is a good advertisement. On the hon. Gentleman's remaining points, the whole point of NHS trusts is to take decision-making on such issues closer to the people. That is down to the NHS trust itself.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in Clwyd, there is no popular backing for trust status at the great hospitals at Wrexham and Glan Clwyd at Rhyl? Is not the right hon. Gentleman proposing a high-risk policy for which there is no backing from the people of Wales? Is it not a dark day in the history of his office that he should now be proposing this wretched measure, coming as it does after water privatisation and the poll tax?
Mr. Hunt: I have always had a lot of time and respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he has gone a bit over the top. We are proud of our record in the NHS in Wales. Wrexham Maelor hospital was built thanks to this Government providing the necessary funding —there has been a number of such examples under the Government. We have increased funding to record levels and we now want to introduce the right reforms to take management closer to the people to ensure that every penny and every pound is spent to the benefit of patients. That is the key to the reforms.
Mr. Peter Hain: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the West Glamorgan area, there is widespread fear that the new Neath and Port Talbot hospital will be a victim of the Government's capital spending cuts? Will he give us an absolute assurance that he is committed to a capital programme during the next few years which involves ring-fencing the sum of £80 million, with the specialties provided as part of the plan also being protected? Will he also confirm that, as part of his review, he intends to establish a new ambulance service trust for Dyfed and west Glamorgan, a proposal which, if carried through, will be bitterly resented by local people?
Mr. Hunt: On the first point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the representations that I received in Neath were very much to the effect that the hospital should not be built on the site, because it was felt at the time that the hospital should be in Neath rather than in Port Talbot.
Mr. Hain: They wanted a new hospital .
Mr. Hunt: They did want a new hospital, but do not let us rewrite history. As I said in my statement, I remain determined that there will be a new hospital on this site. I have made that clear. But against the background of the changing health picture in Wales, it is right to have a review, which I have asked to report to me by next spring so that I can consider the overall situation. Any future applications are a matter for the applicants.
Mr. Ron Davies: Has the Secretary of State a policy for whole district applications for opt-out?
Mr. Hunt: My policy is to look at each application on its merits.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: First, if any of the trusts gets into financial difficulty and is in debt, will the Secretary of State pick up the tab for that debt? Secondly, as the Secretary of State knows, Wales has one of the highest incidences of cardiac disease of any country in the western world. Will his announcement today affect in any way the possibility that a second cardiac surgical unit will be built in south Wales, providing 400 adult open heart operations a year?
Mr. Hunt: The need for a second cardiac centre is continuing to be reviewed for us by consultants. We are talking about units and trusts within the NHS, which will be funded in the time-honoured way through the NHS. People cannot criticise the Government for underfunding, in the way that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) criticised the Labour Government in the 1970s for underfunding, because we have substantially increased funding. We are determined to ensure that the money is spent in the best possible way for the patients.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the alien governor-general for Wales tell us, the elected representatives of the people of Wales, a little more about the most careful consideration that he gave to the representations that he received? On the three trusts for Gwent, how many people supported the ideas and how many were opposed?
Mr. Hunt: I do not recognise the description, but I shall still answer the question. I gave very careful attention to all the representations that I received.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State tell us the number of representations supporting the trust status application for Carmarthen hospital and the number opposing it? My experience over many years has been that thousands of people have queued up to sign petitions that we have organised about the trust application. The overwhelming feeling of the public is total opposition to those trusts.
Mr. Hunt: I shall supply the individual figures. We asked for responses from 5,000 organisations and individuals and received about 400. I assure the House again that I carefully considered all the responses that I received.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Ogwr health unit undertook eight public meetings in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and that the consensus was against the establishment of a trust. In the trust document and in those public meetings, two points of view were put forward by the management for the trust: first, that it would improve local accountability; and,
1156
secondly, that it would ensure that phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital would be started. That information was contained in the trust document. In my response through the Bridgend constituency Labour party, I asked whether, if the trust was to be appointed, a guarantee would be given that that capital programme would be carried out. Will the Secretary of State give us that assurance?
On local accountability, will he assure us that the people chosen to be non-executive directors will have a proven track record of interest in the health service? Will he publish the names of all those people before he makes his decisions?
Mr. Hunt: A number of questions are coming in my direction, and, if I am to deal with them all, that will take a considerable time. On representations, we sent out our request for consultation to 5,000 organisations and recipients. We received 416 responses, 192 of which opposed the proposals. I recognise that that is a majority. However, applications for national health service trust status raise complex issues and it is important for representations received to be considered by the Secretary of State, alongside the individual merits of the application document. In the main, representations focused on the general principle of national health service reform and the trusts themselves, rather than on specific issues raised in the applications.
On the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I can give no guarantees, because the exact amount available next year for capital and income is not yet known to me. I shall make my announcements in the usual way, and people in Wales will have to judge the Welsh Office and the Government on their results. The results are that we now have record funding for the national health service in cash and real terms.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As the Government's justification for trust status is that it would introduce competition into the health service, why was trust status now been given to Llandough hospital in South Glamorgan but denied to the Cardiff royal infirmary? It cannot be because of the financial difficulties of the CRI, because, although it is in difficulty with spending at 1.7 per cent. over budget, Llandough is 1.2 per cent. over budget. If there is to be competition for health care, why are some hospitals not allowed to compete? We know that the plan is to close the CRI, and it is not having a chance to compete with other hospitals.
Mr. Hunt: May I make it clear that I can deal only with applications for national health service trust status which are received by me and meet the criteria? I received an application for Llandough which met the criteria. I have not received an application that meets the criteria from the CRI. We must take into account, in the context of the review that I have explained, future health care in South Glamorgan.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State accept from me the fact that there is dismay in Clwyd at the announcement of his decision today? Will he publish for me the consultation replies of Glanclwyd and Wrexham so that we can see how many supported it and how many were against? Why is he so coy in naming chairmen today, bearing in mind that it is well known in Clwyd—I have heard from the individual himself—that

1157
one individual has already told everybody that he is to be chairman of the new Glanclwyd trust? Why does not the Secretary of State name him today?
Mr. Hunt: Because I have not yet decided who should be chairman. With the qualification that I must be careful to check that individuals were aware that their responses would be published, I shall do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's request about representations.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Secretary of State consider the nomination of Sir Anthony Meyer, Baronet, who, for some reason, is the only former Tory Welsh Member of Parliament not to have been given a quango post? As the Secretary of State will know, the proposed Morriston hospital trust will include the new burns and plastic unit transferred from Chepstow. In that new regime of purchaser and provider, will the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that he will protect the integrity of that new unit for the first years?
Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give the assurance that there will be special provision for the first two years for regional units.
I have always felt very close to Anthony Meyer. I have a great deal of respect for him, and the hon. Gentleman's move to propose him for a post is welcome. I promise to give it careful consideration.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State accept from those of us who represent Welsh constituencies and whose constituents go to those hospitals the fact that we shall watch carefully, during the five months until those trusts are formed, to see that there is no further squeeze on the finances of those hospitals? The abolition of all waiting list surgery, for example, at Llandough, Prince of Wales and Cardiff royal infirmary should not continue until 1 April so that the national health service trusts look artifically good next year and are able to say, "We are re-starting operations which we have not seen for eight months at Llandough and for six months at Cardiff royal infirmary." I am sure that the same thing will happen elsewhere in Wales regarding waiting list work.
Before the Secretary of State announces his decision on the 1994 trusts—the so-called third wave—on which he asks for an expression of interest today, will he carry out an independent evaluation on whether those hospitals are performing better than the hospitals that have already been put into the trust status framework by today's announcement? Parliament will then be able to make a proper comparison between trust and non-trust hospitals to see which perform better, before the right hon. Gentleman finally makes a commitment to put other hospitals in the third wave before April 1994.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us a little more about the appointing procedure, following the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? We are anxious to see that the procedure for the choice of chairman or chairwoman and the non-executive directors is made regardless of race, creed, sex and political persuasion. Will he give us guarantees about how that will be achieved?
On the confusing situation in South Glamorgan in particular, where the right hon. Gentleman has declared
1158
that the Llandough trust can have the go-ahead, there is a messy situation in the other major hospital groups and in the ambulance trust, where, apart from the Llandough hospital, no proper unit managers are in post. The ambulance trust manager is on extended sick leave. The Whitchurch hospital has an acting unit manager. The Cardiff royal infirmary has an acting unit manager, as does Heath hospital. Until this management chaos is put right, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no further moves are made to set up trusts?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has given on funding of the health service in Wales wholly contradict those given to me by the former Member for Pembroke, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, just before the last election? It was like drawing teeth, but Mr. Bennett reluctantly gave us the figures for the period of the last Labour Government. After allowing for the health service inflation rate, the rate of increase in real resources going into the NHS in Wales rose by 2.8 per cent. a year under Labour. Since the Government came to office, it has risen by 2.3 per cent. a year. So the real purchasing power of the NHS, on behalf of patients, rose 20 per cent. faster under Labour than under the Conservatives.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give us more details about the representations that he has received? Every time he has been asked this afternoon by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents what representations he has received and whether they were in favour of or against the formation of trusts, he has suddenly been struck dumb. Why? How many people were in favour and how many were against the formation of trusts? We who represent the people of Wales know that, apart from the accountants and managers who will do well out of this, not to mention the German sports car salesmen, who will do extremely well out of it, the overwhelming majority do not support the formation of any more trusts than the pathetic one that we already have in Wales.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to watch me carefully. I thought that he was doing that already. I am not paranoid, but I sometimes look over my shoulder when I am strolling along the road to see whether he is following me. His scrutiny is remarkably assiduous, and I pay tribute to it: he is a good parliamentarian. I sometimes think that he is listening to almost every meeting that I take part in. He is always so well informed —except that on this occasion he has got it wrong.
The hon. Gentleman ought to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley before he claims that the Labour Government did not grossly underfund the national health service.
Mr. Win Griffiths: He did not say that.
Mr. Hunt: I am so sorry. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) appears to be telling me that his hon. Friend did say that the Labour Government grossly underfunded the national health service. The two of them had better go out and get their act together, because that is what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said.
I will pay careful attention to every aspect of the applications that may be made in 1994. Of course I will look at the performance of all the hospitals in Wales when reaching a decision. I have made it clear that these trusts remain fully part of the national health service and part of the strategic intent of the health service in Wales. They are introducing new management arrangements into the

1159
family of the NHS, but they are still part of it. I am responsible for the health service in Wales, so I will pay careful attention to all these aspects.
We will make sure that we appoint the best possible people, as I have said before. No decisions will be taken on applications until there has been wide public consultation for three months and until I have been able to consider the results.
The applications have demonstrated to me—I refer to the ones that I am allowing today—that they will benefit patients and that those who made them are committed to improving services. Only time will tell whether they are able to live up to expectations. Today I am giving the trusts the opportunity to show us that NHS trusts can be as successful in Wales as they have been in England arid that we can maintain our strategic intent to put the NHS in Wales on course to be on a par with the best in Europe as we enter the 21st century. That is a good objective. With all the good people whom we have working in the NHS in Wales, I am determined to attain that objective and proudly boast it to the rest of the world.

Railways
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Madam Speaker: We now come to the debate on the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways". I must remind hon. Members that between 7 pm and 9pm this evening speeches must be limited to 10 minutes. Will Members speaking outside that period please exercise voluntary restraint? The interest in this debate is considerable and commendable.
5.4 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I am very pleased that we have this opportunity to debate the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways". The White Paper proposals are designed to make further substantial improvements in the way that Britain's railways meet the modern needs of customers, both passenger and freight. They are as significant a turning point as the nationalisation of the railways in 1948.
The Second Reading of the Bill will provide the occasion to start looking at the proposals in detail. Today I think that it would be more useful if I described the background and the thinking behind the policy, set it in the broader context of transport policy, and touched on the details of some of the more important aspects.
First let me say something about the timetable. I discussed this with the Select Committee when I gave evidence to it yesterday, but it would be right to inform the whole House.
I want to make two points clear. First, there has been growing interest among many people inside and outside the House. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and I have been addressing a number of well-attended conferences. One of the problems is that this can lead to too great an expectation of when things will begin to happen. Because people are interested in franchises they believe that franchises will come about almost immediately and they want to know all the details right now. So it is important to be clear about the timetable.
We will introduce the primary legislation towards the end of next month or thereabouts, depending on the parliamentary timetable. I do not want to be too specific about the date at this stage. Thereafter, the Bill will go through both Houses, and subject to the will of both Houses I hope that we will be able to achieve Royal Assent some time during the summer of 1993.
It will then be necessary to set up the authorities that will be established under the Bill. They are referred to in the White Paper. Then the franchising authority, in the case of passenger franchises, can start the tendering process to obtain responses on franchises. That means that it will be the spring of 1994 before the first operations begin. Those who are trying hard to know everything about every detail at this stage should bear this timetable in mind.
Secondly, I am determined to ensure that we have policies which achieve our objectives but are workable and get the best response from the market place. Anything to do with British Rail, as we know, is complex. We are doing a huge amount of work, but it is important that it be carried out in consultation with British Rail, the private

1161
sector and consumer interests. It is important that we get the practical details right, so over the months ahead we will provide a series of consultation documents which will carry forward our thinking and obtain responses from interested parties.
For the benefit of the House, I will list some of these documents. The document on passenger franchising is already published. There will soon, I hope, be a consultation document setting out how we intend to proceed in detail with the British transport police. Next month, I hope, there will be a document on leasing in the new era. Then, before the end of the year, we will release a document on precisely how we intend to proceed on consumer consultation. We have had a number of responses already from bodies interested in that.
At the end of the year, I intend to publish an important document on access and charging. Then, around the turn of the year, there will be a document on pensions. Early in the new year, I hope that we will have a document on safety, based largely on the report of the Health and Safety Executive. In February or March, we intend to have a document on restructuring the freight business. All these documents will inform the debate as the Bill goes through the House.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Since the White Paper was published, there has been a major change, in that the Government propose to close 31 pits. What advice did the right hon. Gentleman give the Government and the President of the Board of Trade on the likely financial effect on British Rail of the loss of those 31 pits? What will be the effect on manpower and on the prospects for the current proposals generally?
Mr. MacGregor: At this stage it is not possible to say, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is being carried out. We must await the outcome of that review which will be examined by British Rail in detail because it has many aspects.
Our proposals for the privatisation and liberalisation of the railways fit well into the developing process of transport policies over the years. As the White Paper makes clear:
"Our objective is to improve the quality of railway services by creating many new opportunities for private sector involvement. This will mean more competition, greater efficiency and a wider choice of services more closely tailored to what customers want."
The proposals are driven by that and not by any consideration of getting receipts for the Exchequer. We have made it clear that
"there will not be substantial proceeds for the Exchequer."
Our proposals can be best understood by standing back and looking at long term trends in transport policy, of which they are a natural and logical outcome.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, because I must make some progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
Against the background that I have outlined, the House will see that there is greater common ground than is sometimes suggested. The 1945 Labour Government extended state control and ownership to a peacetime peak. Almost all transport infrastructure—roads, railways,
1162
ports, airports and canals—was owned by the state or by local authorities. Apart from private cars, which at that time were still in short supply, most transport operations were also owned by the public sector. That included buses, trains, trams, aircraft, ferries, and even many heavy lorries. There was also extensive state control by regulation and licensing.
The bulk of those restrictions were aimed not at safety but at economic control, including preventing the entry of new operators to the market. State control and central planning of that kind did not work. Its keynote was artificial protection of certain operators, and it put the interests of the incumbent producer above those of the consumer. It could not hold a candle to the market and competition as the best ways of showing what the travelling public and freight customers want, and enabling transport operators to respond accordingly. Over the years, more and more people have come to accept this analysis. However, I am not sure about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose enthusiasm for central planning sometimes harks back to such a past.
As a result of the acceptance of that analysis, since the early 1950s and especially since 1979, the whole thrust of transport policy has been to dismantle state ownership and control and replace it with a market-led transport system. The move to a market system has been achieved in a variety of ways, principally by privatisation and deregulation. We have transferred to private ownership vital transport infrastructures such as ports and airports and coach stations, and most transport operations including airlines, road haulage, shipping and most buses. We have also removed economic controls. There is a free market in freight. Controls over the quantity of freight which road hauliers may carry have long since been swept away.
The same principles of deregulation have been applied to passenger transport. Bus operators outside London may now provide any service they choose. We lead the way in Community initiatives to liberalise all modes of transport. Our policy is also to extend the involvement of the private sector, even where privatisation is not possible. For example, support services for activities remaining in the public sector should be contracted out to the private sector wherever that offers value for money. Only the market can show where the best value for money lies, so there should be competitive testing of the market. I believe that all Conservative Members subscribe to these principles of transport policy, and I suspect that in their heart of hearts, so do many Opposition Members.
I shall now look in more detail at how these policies for the extension of market disciplines have been applied to railways and deal first with privatisation. The non-core activities of the railway have been gradually sold to the private sector. For example, all BR's ships and hotels were sold in the early 1980s. Various smaller BR support services, including station catering and advertising, have also been sold. I recently authorised BR to go ahead with the early sale of Red Star, its premium parcels business. I take it that no one now argues that the public sector can run ships, hotels or parcels services better than the private sector. If Opposition Members can agree on that, we really shall have established the common ground on which to build agreement on our White Paper proposals.
Mr. Peter Snape: The right hon. Gentleman should look behind him.
Mr. MacGregor: I am quite sure that my hon. Friends do not think that it makes sense to transfer back to the public sector hotels, ships and so on. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has demonstrated my point.
The role of the private sector has been extended in other ways, and a good example is in the freight business. Nearly 40 per cent. of all freight wagons are owned by the private sector, some locomotives have been purchased by freight customers and BR makes extensive use of the private sector in property development. It does not risk its own money, but uses private sector property companies to do this. Thus we are already involving private capital in the railways, and there can be no doubt that it is best for the private sector to take on as many as possible of these activities.
The railways have also been deregulated. As in most countries, railways in the United Kingdom were historically subject to extensive regulation. Now BR has been freed from, for example, common carrier obligations and from the straitjacket of fixed charges. All this is entirely right, because BR is in competition and should have the commercial freedoms which go with that. But BR provides public services which would not survive in a purely commercial environment: hence the continuation of socially necessary lines and considerable subsidies. In the interests of getting better value for money BR has, with the strong support of the Government, provided those services more efficiently by adopting an increasingly commercial approach. Therefore, BR looks to the market for as much of its income as possible, because the willingness of the customer to pay for a service such as that is an excellent indication of its value. The railway should not become overdependent on subsidy.
British Rail has also adopted a more businesslike structure based on the railway's markets. It is split into three passenger businesses, two freight businesses and a parcels business, each of which is responsible for its own assets, including the track of which it is the principal user. Each of these internal businesses is measured by its own profit and loss account.
That means that there has already been some privatisation, some extension of the role of the private sector, deregulation, and an increasingly commercial approach. This more market-led policy has meant an improved BR. It is still a very large transport undertaking, but it has become a more specialised business. BR. has fewer assets, but they are used much more intensively. Its financial performance, by the standards of continental public sector railways, is good. It has concentrated more and more on what it can do best, especially InterCity services, commuting and heavy freight, and no doubt there will be more opportunities to be exploited, especially with the advent of the channel tunnel.
The benefits of this move towards the market have been substantial, and have gone with the grain of the rest of transport policy. That poses the questions: why not complete the process and privatise the railways, and can and should privatisation be accompanied by liberalisation? The benefits of privatisation and liberalisation in other industries have been immense. The key test is whether we believe that turning the clock back would improve efficiency and services for the customer. Does anyone seriously believe that British Airways would
1164
perform better as a nationalised industry? One can apply that in other areas. The answers are obvious. Privatisation and liberalisation have brought such benefits elsewhere in transport that the onus of proof should rest with the opponents of railway privatisation.
British Rail passenger and freight businesses have been run as public sector monopolies since 1947. Despite all the improvements, they still have all the hallmarks of such nationalised industries. They are correctly constrained in their investment plans because public borrowing must be controlled, they are producer-led in their planning and are, inevitably, less responsive to the specific needs and demands of their customers, and management and staff have no direct equity ownership incentive to improve their performance.
These disadvantages manifest themselves in uneven performance and in the dissatisfaction of many customers. Many steps have been taken to improve performance, including now the passengers charter, but we need to solve the problems with more radical reforms.
Railways have been at the back of the privatisation queue because of their very weak financial performance. We cannot simply sell BR as a single entity—complete with its social obligations—because at the moment BR as a single entity is not financially viable. For that reason, railway privatisation is less straightforward than other privatisations. Our task has been to find other ways in which to maximise the amount of outright privatisation, and—short of that—to maximise the involvement of the private sector in a competitive framework.
As BR cannot to sold as a single entity, we must first ask which parts can and should be sold—on top of those that have been sold already. The obvious answer is the rail freight and parcels businesses. They operate in truly competitive markets. They have long had commercial remits within BR, but they have not prospered within the confines of BR ownership and public finance. Indeed, the record has been one of relentless decline. The best prospect for them, in an increasingly competitive market, is under the fresh disciplines of the market and private ownership.
In the many discussions that I have had with BR's ex-freight customers, its current freight customers and those who I hope are its potential freight customers, the same point has been made: that rail freight needs to he more commercial in its approach, more customer-oriented and more responsive. In other words, it should act like a private-sector business. Now it will have the chance.
A major study is in hand to recommend the best way in which the rail freight business should be reorganised and offered for sale. The study, and our eventual conclusions, will take full account of what is likely to best meet customer demand. The most likely outcome is competitive trade sales in 1994. It is our intention that BR will withdraw from all involvement in rail freight operations, so there will be no question of a conflict of interest with privately owned freight operations. Freight operators will not have exclusive rights. New entrants will be welcomed and encouraged. I recognise that the key question will be the terms on which freight operators will have access to the track. As I said earlier, we will bring forward proposals for changes probably around the end of the year.
We cannot create an entirely privatised and competitive structure for the passenger railway. Many services do not at present—some, perhaps, cannot ever—stand on their own financial feet, but they have to be provided for wider social reasons. However, franchising gives us a way

1165
forward. Its two main attractions are, first, that it allows the private sector to take management and financial responsibility for services—this includes, where necessary, providing the subsidy directly to the private sector operator. Secondly, it creates some competition within the market, including competition for the right to provide the franchised services, both when they are offered initially and then at the point of renewal.
Mr. Clive Betts: If we are to improve passenger services, we shall presumably need improved levels of investment. According to the Secretary of State's proposals, one body will be responsible for the track, while another body—or a number of bodies—will be responsible for the rolling stock. How, in those circumstances, will we be able to achieve a rational approach to investment decisions?
Let me give an example. The midland main line to Sheffield is in need of improvement: faster trains are needed to travel to Sheffield and other cities along the route. A rational approach would be to compare two options—improving the alignment of the track to enable traditional trains to run more quickly, and introducing on the existing track the tilting trains that are now in operation in Italy and Sweden, and under consideration in Germany.
Some organisation would have to evaluate those two investment alternatives. How can that be done if different bodies are responsible for the track and the rolling stock?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to go into too much detail, because it would take too long. Briefly, investment in the track will be the responsibility of Railtrack. Railtrack's income will basically come from charges, but —as paragraph 43 of the White Paper makes clear—there is a possibility of grants.
There will be a variety of ways in which an operator will be able to acquire rolling stock. My hon. Friend the Minister will describe them in more detail later, but we hope that the creation of a leasing market will help.
The precise relationship between the two bodies will lie in the contracts that Railtrack makes with the franchisee. That will be done through the franchising authority. We shall be happy to spell out the position in much greater detail in due course.
Let me make one thing clear, however. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) knows, although British Rail at present enjoys record levels of investment, there will always inevitably be constraints on investment in the public sector. An important part of our proposals will be to attract increasing levels of private investment over the years to come.
Mr. Robert Adley: The White Paper talks of creating a second-hand market, which is very exciting for all of us. There is, however, a problem in connection with new technology. Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that private companies will invest in new technology to try to drag our railways into the 21st century, when the trains are still running on tracks that were built in the 19th? Who will find the huge sums involved?
Mr. MacGregor: We are finding considerable sums already, as my hon. Friend knows. I have been looking
1166
into railways in other countries, and I note that they—knowing the size of the public-sector burden that they currently bear—are increasingly looking to privatisation as a solution. That, of course, is not true of all of them.
The entire structure of the railways must be tailored to customer demand. I know of my hon. Friend's passion for the railways, and of his expertise—his books are excellent —but he must not allow nostalgia about the past to cloud his thinking about the future. Pouring more and more public money into the system will not necessarily provide a railway service that meets modern customer requirements, given the many other competing demands for that money.
A Labour Government would find the same. Before the general election, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East tried to suggest that Labour would invest a great deal more in the railways, but was rapidly cut down to size by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who now leads his party.
Mr. John Prescott: When did he say that?
Mr. MacGregor: We kept asking where the increase in funding would occur, but at no point could the hon. Gentleman give us a specific answer. There was a constant conflict between his hints about what a Labour Government would spend and the tax proposals of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East. It became obvious that large increases in public spending could not be entertained, because Labour had not the tax policies to enable that—and because the tax policies that it had were rejected by the electorate.
Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State lost his way as soon as he began his challenge. The issue, clearly, was whether we could use leasing for a publicly owned industry. I note that the Secretary of State is about to talk about leasing. Many publicly owned European railways have adopted it, and we propose to do the same.
The Secretary of State said that our proposal was rejected by my right hon. and learned Friend the present leader of the Opposition, when he was shadow Chancellor. Will he now tell us exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend said, and when he said it, or else withdraw his remark?
Mr. MacGregor: We costed the programmes that the Labour party presented, and Labour kept rejecting our figures. It then became very clear that the then shadow Chancellor was sitting on those public expenditure programmes, knowing very well that they could not be entertained.
Moreover, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of leasing through the private sector for a publicly owned undertaking has one extreme disadvantage. Inevitably, that leasing must be guaranteed by the public sector—by the Government. At that point, it scores as public expenditure. It was clear from the exchanges that took place before the election that Labour had to accept that. It was said very clearly in exchanges on housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has never been able to get over that point.
Mr. John McFall: To follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) about funding, I met the director of ScotRail during the

1167
summer and put to him the case for the investment of £750 million in the west coast line from London to Glasgow, something that has been demanded by the public in Scotland for many years. I asked him, "What is the future for that line?" He said, "I can't answer, in the light of the White Paper. I have only a one-year horizon."
If British Rail and ScotRail have only a one-year horizon and no plans to upgrade that line, under what mechanism will private investors come along and invest? As for the social desirability of retaining lines north of Glasgow, most of which are unprofitable, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give Scottish commuters that the lines will be retained? That is a burning question in Scotland.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall deal with the socially necessary lines later in my speech. We have already made our position clear on that issue. We cannot give a guarantee for all time about any particular line. That has never been done. If there is no demand for a service, due to changes in market demand, the service eventually has to close. That has happened frequently since the nationalisation of the railways. However, we have given a clear guarantee that we intend to maintain the national network and to maintain the subsidies for socially necessary lines. The subsidies, through the public service obligation grants, are quite extensive. In the current year they amount to about £1 billion. We intend to continue those subsidies, either through franchisees bidding for them or through British Rail, where there are no franchisees, continuing to receive them.
Another great advantage of franchising is that it will identify the costs of providing individual services or groups of services and direct subsidy accordingly. I make no apology for that. An important advantage—one of the many advantages of our proposals—is that the subsidies going to individual franchisees will become much more transparent. Parliament and the public should know more precisely how their money, as taxpayers, is being spent.
I intend to make a few more points about our franchising proposals, for a great deal of interest has already been expressed in them. As the House will know, I have recently published a consultation document on franchising. It is being reprinted at the moment because of the very heavy demand for it. About 50 companies have already expressed an interest in taking up the franchising opportunity.
The consultation document has two main purposes: first, to give more details of the principles and broad framework of the franchising system and, secondly, to test the market to see what services the private sector would be interested in operating under franchising arrangements and how it thinks the franchising process could best be carried out. Unlike some other countries—for example, Japan and the United States where there are franchised operations—we do not have any private sector passenger operators, apart from a few in very specialised areas. Therefore, we have to build up the private sector supply side and shape franchises and the franchising process so that they take into account market concerns.
We have deliberately not prescribed a universal blueprint for franchises. They can vary considerably in size, length and the amount of risk transferred to the private sector. We intend that as much risk as possible, including revenue risk, should be transferred to the private sector. [Interruption.] I do not know why Opposition
1168
Members laugh about that. There is great advantage in having flexibility in the franchises so that they can respond to what the marketplace and customers want. We need to design franchises to match private sector interests in order to generate a proper and competitive response.
Effective competition for franchises will help to ensure that private sector bids reflect value for money. We shall not let franchises if bids do not represent value for money. That is why it is so important for us to consult widely with potential franchisees to ensure that the franchising system is responsive to the demands of the market and that it is sufficiently flexible to embrace the new ideas and fresh thinking that the private sector will bring to the running of passenger train services.
I hope to select the first pilot services—I emphasise the word "pilot"—for franchising early in the new year to enable British Rail to go ahead with all the necessary restructuring, not least of its accounts, so that some services will be ready to let in 1994. Preparations will need to be painstaking and thorough. British Rail will have to restructure its activities so that the franchised services constitute free-standing businesses that can readily be transferred to the private sector. It will also establish a track record. It does not necessarily follow that the selection of those services means that they will be the first franchised services. That will depend upon applications. However, the selection of those services will enable British Rail to start to rearrange the system so that it can respond to franchise requirements.
That is not the end of the consultative process. The franchising of passenger services will be undertaken progressively. The new franchising authority will maintain a dialogue with existing and potential franchisees to ensure that their views are taken into account in subsequent franchise competitions. That will ensure that the franchising system remains responsive to the marketplace.
Most franchisees will require subsidy to operate franchised services. We shall make sufficient funds available to the franchising authority to ensure that quality of service is maintained. The quality of service required will be specified in individual franchise contracts.
The principal way of introducing competition into the passenger market is through competition for franchises. As with freight, we also intend to provide a regime that will allow independent operators—this is an additional way of introducing competition into the passenger market through franchises—on to the system. By independent operators, I mean those who do not require subsidy. Only those going for franchises will be able to bid for subsidy. Potential commercial operators have already identified a number of market opportunities.
Private sector operators are more likely to be responsive in this way to the market. So, especially with economic growth, we can expect independent operators to expand the number of services that can be operated without subsidy and, accordingly, to move the boundary between franchised and independent services.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: There is concern in my constituency today. British Rail Maintenance Ltd., which employs 1,500 people, has announced that because of the reduced work load next year it is seeking voluntary redundancies. There is widespread suspicion that that is associated with plans to privatise BRML. Can the Secretary of State say when he will announce whether BRML will be privatised, and can he give us an assurance

1169
that no atempt will be made to run down the work in Eastleigh either before or after privatisation, if that is what is agreed?
Mr. MacGregor: What has happened today is designed to deal with current market conditions. It is not connected with the franchising process.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. MacGregor: I must get on, because many hon. Members want to speak.
The participation of the private sector in the operation of passenger services should also enable a leasing market to develop for rolling stock.
Mrs. Dunwoody: When?
Mr. Macgregor: Following privatisation. Private sector franchisees will inevitably be interested in spreading the cost of new equipment over its life, in the same way as shipping and airline companies do. With financial risks transferred out of the public sector, new rolling stock investment will be outside the constraints of public expenditure.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, 1 must get on.
There are considerable advantages in the development of such a leasing market and the stimulus that that can provide to investment and the United Kingdom railway manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport is chairing a working party that includes representatives of potential passenger franchisees, the rail manufacturing industry, financial institutions and, of course, the Government in order to make further progress in this important area. I expect to receive their advice on the development of a rail leasing industry within three months.
These policies for expanding the role of the private sector and for greater competition depend upon getting the structure of the railways right. I have already mentioned the vital role of the access and charging regime. The responsibility for allocating train paths will rest with Railtrack, which will own and operate the infrastructure. It is vital that Railtrack be neutral in that process. It will not therefore itself operate any passenger or freight services. It will also be policed by the new rail regulator who will provide a further guarantee of fair treatment for operators.
There are many other important issues with which I can deal only briefly, such as safeguarding some of the important features of the present system. We are committed to preserving through-ticketing, which the regulator will secure by means of suitable terms and conditions in licences.
I expect operators to reach voluntary agreement among themselves about the provision of other network benefits. The regulator will have a duty to promote competition and to protect the interests of users. He will have powers to require operators to participate in other joint arrangements where he considers it desirable to secure co-operation between them, but we do not want to pin
1170
down future operators simply to replicating all aspects of BR's present system. New operators will need flexibility to improve and innovate.
Other safeguards will protect the continuity of services. We have made it clear that the statutory closure procedure for passenger services will be no weaker than the present one. We have given a clear commitment, which I am happy to repeat, to continue to provide subsidy where necessary to support loss-making but socially necessary services. The aim of our policy is not to cut services or to fossilise the existing timetable but to achieve greater responsiveness to passengers, improved efficiency and a better railway.
Consideration for the safety of the travelling public and the work force has been of paramount importance to the Government. We are committed to ensuring the safe operation of the railways, and our proposals were drawn up with the expert advice of the Health and Safety Commission, which will continue to have a role in the development of proposals. It has been asked to arrange a thorough study of the safety implications of the proposals in the White Paper and to make detailed recommendations, which will be published.
Primary responsibility for safety will rest with Railtrack, as the track authority, with individual operators being responsible for ensuring the safety of their own operations. Specific standards of safety will have to be met, and the Health and Safety Executive will monitor and enforce those standards across the industry.
Mr. John Denham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. MacGregor: It is better if I deal with the many points in which people are interested and then allow individual concerns to be raised in the debate. There will be many opportunities to respond to them thereafter.
Rail operators will have to demonstrate their ability to comply with safety regulations before being allowed access, and the powers of Her Majesty's inspectorate will be extended beyond those currently allowed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure continued safe rail operation.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and I are holding meetings with rail unions to address their specific concerns. Some staff will remain with Railtrack. Arrangements will be made for other staff to transfer to successor companies as they are created. Staff transferring to new undertakings under transfer schemes will do so with their existing terms and conditions of employment, including concessionary travel and collective bargaining arrangements, protected under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations—or TUPE as they are known—and the European Community's acquired rights directive. Thereafter, any changes to terms and conditions will have to be negotiated in the normal way.
Future employment requirements will be for new employers. In this, as in any other industry, there cannot be guarantees of future levels of employment, but skilled and experienced railway men will be needed as much in the future railway industry as in the present one.
BR staff who transfer to franchised service operators, or who work in part of the railway industry that is sold outright, or who carry out support activities that have been contracted out, will have the opportunity to take part in management-led employee buy-outs. We shall

1171
encourage these buy-outs with financial assistance for groups of managers and staff, although they will of course have to bid in competition with other genuinely interested companies. BR will reimburse 85 per cent. of the first £10,000 and 75 per cent. of the remainder up to a maximum of £100,000 for each bid team. Assistance will be repayable only in the event of a bid succeeding.
I know from discussions with unions and BR management that pension rights are very important to existing employees. The pension rights of existing contributors and past employees will be properly safeguarded. BR and the Government are conducting a detailed review of pensions arrangements in the industry in connection with privatisation. The review's highest priority will be to ensure that the security of the rights now enjoyed by members and pensioners of the BR schemes is not undermined. Converting the BR pension scheme into an industry-wide scheme, which has been advocated by a number of people within BR, is one of the options being considered. I have already said that I will publish a further document on the subject.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the pension rights of British Rail employees will not be treated in the same way as those of members of British Rail Engineering Ltd. when it was sold to a private employer?
Mr. MacGregor: When we publish our document, the hon. Lady will see that we shall be able to meet fully the commitments that I have given today.
We are working closely with Sir Bob Reid and BR senior management to ensure that our proposals are implemented safely, practicably and to a timetable that is suitable and that achieves our objectives. I intend to introduce the primary legislation soon. Subject to the will of Parliament, Royal Assent in 1993 would be followed by vesting of Railtrack in April 1994 and the sale of freight businesses and the first franchises in 1994. On the access and charging regime, we shall implement the requirements of European Community directive 91/440 on 1 January 1993, as we are obliged to do. Regulations will be laid before the House shortly. Liberalisation of domestic access and the associated charging regime will be introduced from April 1994.
There will, of course, be much ground to cover in proceedings on the Bill that will be introduced shortly. Had time allowed, I should have liked to deal with many other subjects, but I believe that we have found the best way, in the particular circumstances of the railways, of introducing the private sector and competition. I have shown that the policies that we are now following are those that have been pursued in other transport sectors so successfully, especially since 1979. That is why I believe that we are opening up new and exciting opportunities for the railways.
5.46 pm
Mr. John Prescott: That was an exciting introduction to new opportunities for the railway industry. It is staggering, as we are dismantling what is supposed to be a bureaucratic system that is owned and run by the state, that it took the Secretary of State three quarters of an hour to tell us of all the bodies that will be set up to ensure that the market does not wreak its vengeance on the system. That, effectively, is what he told
1172
us. The free hand of the market and the flair of the entrepreneur will not apply. All the organisations that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—may I call them quangos?—will ensure that the market does not operate in the way in which most of us fear it will.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State describe the timetable for some of the documents that he foresees being produced. I presume that the paving Bill will have completed its parliamentary stages before he introduces the privatisation Bill. The paving Bill authorises considerable expenditure. Indeed, the appointment of the regulator and franchise officer are to be paid for out of those funds. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the paving Bill will have completed its stages before the privatisation Bill is introduced?
I have always had some doubts about whether we shall ever consider the Bill. It is almost like a British Rail timetable: it has had a colourful history and has been a long time coming. In 1988, the then Secretary of State told the Tory party conference that rail privatisation was on the way. We have had it in Queen's speeches and it has been taken out of Queen's speeches, but now we have a White Paper and the promise by the Secretary of State that it will be before us in November. We await the Bill with some interest.
I suspect that the Bill will not contain all the details. It will be an enabling Bill to give powers to bodies outside the control of the House to make decisions affecting the nature of railway services. The first thing that it will do is to remove from the control of the House any responsibility for ensuring the quality of the railway system.
The White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways" provides few opportunities, but we shall wait and see and listen to the debate. I agree at the outset with much of the White Paper's analysis of what is necessary for a railway system—I do not need to repeat that analysis, in view of the shortness of time—but I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion that a marketplace structure is necessary to produce a better railway system.
One of the strengths of our present system is the city-centre connections. A comparison with other European systems shows us that the population per mile statistics are greatly to the advantage of the British railway system. Our railways are cost-effective. The Opposition have often said that British Rail has done well compared with most railway systems. That conclusion was reached by a Leeds university study in 1979, and the economist intelligence unit confirmed it. Our railway is energy-efficient and causes less environmental damage. The conclusion which I would draw from all that is that we should ensure maximum use of the present railway system
—whereas much of the Government's policy over the past few years has seemed designed to undermine it.
I agree with the White Paper about the key to success, which is that the railway system should be of high quality, reliable and efficient. The House will entirely endorse those objectives for any railway system. I add only that the system should also be safe. That is not stated as one of the objectives, although the White Paper mentions later the idea of a safe railway system. Over the past 10 years, we have been given every reason to believe that safety should be at the top of the list.
The many terrible tragedies that we have witnessed, and the inquiry reports that have followed them, have shown that safety standards have not been high enough. A number of the inquiries have made it clear that there is a

1173
connection between that fact and the business culture which has been developed in the railway system over the past few years, together with the lack of adequate funding both for track and for the provision of reliable stock. That has all contributed to the terrible tragedies that have occurred in our railway system.
Safety should be the first object of any railway system, and over the years people in this country have come to expect that from British Rail, although the events of the past 10 years have thrown some doubt on it.
Mr. Milligan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the interesting statement recently made by Mr. Enomoto, the managing director of the East Japan railway company, which used to be part of the state network but has now been privatised? Mr. Enomoto said that the first stage of privatisation in Japan has not only increased employee morale, the standard of the service and the number of passengers using the network, but has produced a sharp increase in investment in safety.
Mr. Prescott: We could get involved in an argument about the Japanese, Swedish and German railways, which are all going through various processes involving a mixture of public and private control. But it is clear from all those systems that public subsidy is needed. None of those railways is operating without public money, whether in operating subsidies or by way of assistance with investment. Whether a railway system is publicly owned, privately owned or a mixture, public money is an essential feature.
In reply to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), I would say that the confidence in the Japanese railway system is a function of the level of investment. That is a crucial factor which I shall deal with later. Our railway system is one of the most under-invested in the developed European economies. If people have no confidence in our railway system, that is because they do not feel that there has been sufficient investment in it.
The Government solution for achieving the objectives set out in the White Paper is, of course, to introduce more competition and to end British Rail's monopoly status. They keep referring to BR as a monopoly, although BR itself does not, in the main, feel that it is one. It has to compete with all sorts of other modes of transport, and that has had an effect in terms both of freight and of passengers.
The Government argument is that privatising the industry will introduce private capital and management flair. Such criteria, indeed that very formula, were used in the 1930s. It would be instructive for the Secretary of State to analyse what happened in the 1930s. Then we had a railway system operating just as he describes, even with some of the quangos that he has mentioned. The idea of a clearing house goes back to the 1930s. I understand that the building which was used as a clearing house for co-ordination between all the private companies still exists today, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) tells me that Sealink has bought it.
In the 1930s we had a railway system which was under-invested and begging for the state to come and take it over. No profits were being made, and there were major safety concerns. The railway companies were pleading for
1174
a state takeover. That all resulted from policies such as those which the Secretary of State wants to impose on our railway system now.
We have only to examine the history of the 1930s —
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking hon. Members to agree that the privately run railway companies of the 1930s were unsuccessful? I ask him to bear in mind that the private companies of the 1930s—the Great Western, the Southern, the London and North Eastern and the London Midland and Scottish—were the pride of British industry. Their marketing was most successful.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested before that one of the problems with the Government's plans is an intention to bribe with public subsidies, but he also says that the Government will cut rural services. Which does he mean?
Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman would read history instead of making such comments he would discover that none of those companies made a profit or paid a dividend. I thought that profit was one of the symptoms of the success of privatisation. Profit is supposed to be the engine and motive that produces a railway system. There may have been wonderful steam trains in the days that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) mentions —and even the Prime Minister has been talking about bringing back the chocolate and cream carriages on the Brighton line, and about new regional railway systems. We shall be back to coal fires and close encounters next— [Interruption.] I mean brief encounters; after all, close encounters and brief encounters are not so different. The basic idea seems to be to return to the romantic age of the railways. That is no way to run a modern railway system.
The truth about the railways in those days is that they did not make a profit. There were under-invested. Outside the network of main lines which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned, the companies failed to maintain a good railway system. They were the ones begging for compensation and a takeover. They did not want to retain the system and continue to run the railways [Interruption.] That fact is not in doubt; it is a matter of history.
It is absurd to advocate introducing a similar formula —a 19th-century philosopy—to take into the 21st century our railway system, which is so desperately needed both for mobility in a modern economy and to help reduce congestion and the environmental damage being done in this country, as in all modern developed economies.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No, I am afraid I must get on. Many other hon. Members want to speak.
There is no justification for the Government's plan. Why do we want change? Let us consider the comparison with Europe. Many studies have been done on productivity, efficiency and the amount of subsidy required, and our railway seems to be one of the best in Europe. The real problem with it is that it has the highest fares, the lowest investment and the oldest stock, and it is declining in quality. That is a matter of fact. Comparisons have been made within the European Community, and a later study by the Economist intelligence unit backed up those findings.

1175
The consequences of inadequate financial support, poor investment and lack of subsidy are that, as in the 1930s, we shall have to provide money for investment. The Secretary of State has now made it clear that even under the new private system he intends to provide money for the railways.
The InterCity network proudly claims that it does not make a loss—although I believe that it makes a small loss at the moment. That claim is the result of an awful lot of creative accountancy, throwing in bits of line to make up InterCity's revenue so as to show it as making a profit. I presume—perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me whether I am right—that under the new principle not all of InterCity's routes will be taken, and when it loses some of them it will be possible that, although InterCity does not now claim a subsidy, it will become a subsidised rail network system. The profitable bits will have been pinched, if Virgin is prepared to go for a little more publicity and take more of the routes. Even the one service that claims not to receive a subsidy is now likely to be subsidised.
The argument is not only about ownership. We must remember all the other railway systems. I do not make an ideological point about whether the railways should be publicly or privately owned. I have my opinion—I 'would put the case for a publicly owned system—but I am prepared to concede that whether the ownership is public or private is not the real issue. We can run a railway provided that we are prepared to find the resources from the taxpayer to fund the network system. The railways could be publicly or privately owned.
One of my arguments against private ownership is that presumably the owners would want a rate of return. If there is a profit to be made from a service, we shall have to encourage people to come in for more than 4 or 5 per cent. rates of return—if we can achieve that in our present railway system. Someone has to pay for that. The money comes either from the fares or from extra subsidies. That is what is involved in running the railway system. The Government are involved through subsidies, as regulators or in encouraging some form of greater investment in the system.
Let us consider all the railways in Europe and in Japan. The main issue is not whether we want private or public. The real issue is how we get a proper level of investment in the railway system. In reality, we have inadequate investment in the railways.
We have often had arguments at the Dispatch Box about who put in more investment. In debate, I have made it clear to the Secretary of State that neither Conservative nor Labour Governments have put sufficient funds into railway investment. In 1979, Peter Parker, then chair of BR, pointed out in a report that we needed twice the amount of investment that British Rail was getting or which was envisaged. He even asked why British Rail could not be allowed to lease trains, just as ships and aeroplanes were leased. He made that point to suggest a way in which to get extra resources outside the public sector borrowing requirement so that the railway system could be financed.
Railways could involve companies which regularly deal with finance, and such financing is used in France and in Germany. It is only we who are prepared to say, "This is the British way of doing it." The British way does not
1176
produce sufficient resources for investment. That has affected reliability and the quality of the system, and it is one of the basic faults in our system.
There is no ideological argument about getting into agreement with private ownership. There has been private investment in wagons, in trains, in routes, in the passenger transport authorities, in the management and in the profit centres about which we are talking. That has been going on in British Rail for decades.
In the past few years, there has been concentration, there has been reorganisation and there have been cost centres, but nobody has argued about whether there is a role for a private-public mix in various operations. The Government have endorsed private sector leasing arrangements for European trains and European sleepers. Even British Rail's present stock is a leasing arrangement. It is a public company in a leasing arrangement. No major principle is at stake here. It is an argument about whether the Treasury has one way or another in which to stop the railways getting the resources. Leasing is a way in which the railways could get more money.
Whether in the organisation of capital, or in the management or operation of the facilities, there have been joint public and private operations. That is quite proper and I see nothing wrong with that if it provides a better railway and gives access to funds that may not always be available from the taxpayer.
A report by Steer Davis and Gleave was launched yesterday. I am sure that the House endorses the view that it was an excellent report. It shows various investment projects which we desperately need. Does anyone think that anyone will invest in the north-west line as a franchise service? No one will. Franchisees might want to offer trains on the east coast line, as Virgin is doing, but no one talks about new trains. The company only wants to paint old trains on a leasing arrangement and that is all it is interested in. That has a massive effect on our manufacturing capacity.
Railway manufacturing is on its knees at present and is about to be eliminated unless more orders come in. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the point made by the report. In the transitional period, while the legislation goes through the House, there will be a dearth of orders. We cannot keep manufacturing industry hanging on without orders, whether they involve the Jubilee line, the start of the north-west line or replacing and refurbishing in a number of areas. There will be a delay.
The prospect of leasing by private franchise companies will mean that companies might look for old stock rather than new stock, which will mean in turn that there is no possibility of orders in the short term. All the manufacturing capacity in this country may be eliminated, which will mean that we shall have to place our orders in Europe, as we have done in so many areas. That is common with privatisation proposals.
That point leads us directly to one of the justifications given by the Secretary of State. He has not given that justification here, but he has said it often in previous debates. He has often told us to look at the privatisation and deregulation of the bus industry. Yes, let us look at it. If that is given as an example of what will happen, everyone has reason to fear what will happen to our railway system.
There are problems in the privatisation of the bus industry. There are fewer services. It is true that the buses

1177
are running more miles, but that is because they tend to be in our city centres. Ministers should go to Sheffield and see what deregulation has done to the bus system there. Fares are higher. Investment in buses has collapsed and most of our bus manufacturers have been put out of business. The congestion and environmental damage in our cities have got so bad that even Sheffield has had to come to the Government to ask about the possibility of regulating the bus system. Many of our cities are beginning to demand that because of the congestion and environmental damage.
Those problems came directly from the deregulation and privatisation of the bus system. There is also a problem about safety. Our buses are older and more are being pulled in because they are not safe to be on the road as public vehicles. If the bus system is an example of what the Secretary of State feels will happen to the railway industry, we have every reason to feel that his proposals are the wrong approach for dealing with public transport and especially with our rail industry.
Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman is painting a scenario that many of us fear. The hon. Gentleman implied that the worst that might happen was that franchise companies would have to go to European manufacturers to get their equipment because the British companies would no longer be in existence. That is fine. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the single market, virtually every European railway manufacturer has an order book full for 10 years so that it can escape the rigours of competition which the single market will bring? There will be no possibility of getting equipment even from that source.
Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The evidence is clear.
I worry about what the period of a franchise will be. A company will want at least 10 years in a franchise agreement, as the Secretary of State said. That is interesting, because it means that he will give guaranteed subsidies to a franchise, for 10 years. Under Treasury rules and the Public Expenditure Survey Committee review, they cannot be given for more than three years. Have we begun to change our Treasury rules for the private sector when we are not prepared to change them for the public service obligation? We always discriminate against the public sector and against the quality of the system. I presume that I am right. I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State. Perhaps he can given us some information on this little detail.
Is it the intention that the franchise agreement will give franchises for more than three years? No company would touch a three-year franchise, so the franchises would have to be longer. Does that mean that the subsidies will be guaranteed for longer than the period presently guaranteed under the PESC review for the public service obligation payments?
Mr. MacGregor: There are many contracts in the public sector which run for more than three years.
Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State always has difficulty in understanding. I will make the point again. The present PSO agreements are given for three years under Treasury rules and the Secretary of State knows that
1178
well because he was a Treasury Minister—according to all the recent statements, he may want to go back to the Treasury.
Are we prepared to guarantee to the franchisees the subsidies which the Secretary of State said would have to be given to them for more than three years? Will he change the present Treasury rules to give to the private sector the subsidy guarantee of more than three years?
Mr. MacGregor: That does not change the rules. There are contracts in the public sector which run for more than three years. Yes, it is likely that franchises will run longer. A franchise may be for five years. All the details will have to be sorted out in relation to much longer franchises, if that is what we decide to do on reflection in view of the responses we get to the consultation document. Clearly—
Mr. Prescott: So the answer is yes.
Mr. MacGregor: No, let me make it clear. There will have to be consideration of exactly how the longer-term contracts are framed. For shorter franchises—yes, we should intend that the arrangements would be for more than three years. There is nothing especially favourable to the private sector in that which we are not offering in a number of contracts to the public sector.
Mr. Prescott: Again, the Secretary of State took about two minutes to say yes.
Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee on Transport yesterday. When asked the question that my hon. Friend had just asked, he said that the subsidy to franchisees would run for the length of the contract. On further questioning, he admitted that the contracts could run from five to 15 years. That is how long the subsidies will run.
Mr. Prescott: It is not only an unprecedented yes, but a welcome one. All that to get yes.
The more important point is how we are prepared to change the rules for the private sector when it takes over rather than for the public sector. That shows bias against the public sector. The rule to which I have referred is not the only rule, but it is an interesting one. It appears that the Treasury will change its own rules. Perhaps it will change its ideas from leasing next so that we can give the public, sector a chance to get more of its resources for investment.
I welcome some of the objectives set out in the White Paper, although it has to be said that the Government have spent 10 years undermining most of them. On safety, the tragedies at Clapham, King's Cross, Belgrave and the Severn tunnel might have been prevented had sufficient resources been available to provide adequate safety equipment. On quality, the Transport Users Consultative Committee has made it clear that the PSO level is far too low. It has been reduced considerably, affecting the quality of service and investment. As regards the essential passenger services, high fares prevail and there is no guarantee in respect of rural services. Systems are inadequate. As regards the desired network benefits, InterCity is already cutting its network to get a better rate of return. There is a conflict between maintaining network services and the desire to maximise revenue and profit, just as there is a conflict between the interests of safety and the business culture.

1179
I welcome some of what the Secretary of State said about opportunities for employees, including the possibility that a paper will be produced on pensions and employee benefits. In reality, however, I am not sure that previous privatisations, such as that of Sealink and British Rail Engineering Ltd. have been good for employees. Pensions, concessionary passes and some of the arrangements that the Secretary of State guaranteed would be forthcoming may remain only until someone new takes over the company concerned. If a franchising company pulls out after three months, as Stagecoach has, and if another company takes over, there is no guarantee that the pensions and concessionary passes will continue. Previous privatisations provide abundant evidence to suggest that they will not.
The Secretary of State said that, on privatisation, we would not be going back to running hotels. I see no reason why British Rail should want to run hotels, although I do not see why it should not make a commercial judgment to make a profit if it wants to. The hotels went because the Government were not prepared to allow British Transport Hotels to reinvest by way of a form of mortgages. The company was underinvested. It was sold for a song; now it is worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Sealink provides a similar example. Its 33 ferries were sold for £60 million. Its buyers went on to sell three of those ferries and Isle of Wight ports for £100 million. That is an example of the Government selling off public assets to their friends in the City.
Environmental benefits are fine, but the Government have been doing everything in their power, through high passenger fares and freight charges, to push people off the railways on to the roads, adding to congestion and environmental damage. BR now faces the loss of all its revenue from coal freight—hitherto a profitable service. Like other freight services, no doubt that service will fold. The Government's policies have worked against the railways, as I said about deregulation. Their policy is all about selling off the profitable bits and leaving the less profitable services for the taxpayer to pick up.
Let us consider the trailblazers for privatisation. Tiger Rail came in, took the Cornish clay up to Scotland and then collapsed. Who had to pick up the pieces? British Rail, as the supplier of last resort. Charterail started a profitable service with Pedigree dog food, went up to Scotland and collapsed because it could not afford the charges and went bankrupt.
What about Stagecoach, the wonderful Aberdeen-London night rail service operation on which the Minister himself travelled? We heard that he had joined that wonderful service, then discovered that he shot into the sleeper as soon as the cameras had gone. The trouble is that, when people booked, they did it thinking that they would get a sleeper with their ticket. What has happened to Stagecoach rail service. It collapsed. What about the leasing agreement? As a tour operator, it now books 20 per cent. of the places on that service. The fact that tour operators can book 20 per cent. of the seats on a service does not make that service a separate privatised service. The fact is that Stagecoach rail service collapsed.
Those are the trailblazers for the entrepreneurial flair and ability that are supposed to be coming into the system. It is just a load of nonsense. The hard reality is that we need a railway system that is regulated and subsidised.
On the question of a regulated railway, where, in all this, is the free invisible hand of the market, which the
1180
Government's laissez-faire philosophy says will produce the best for the consumer? What is proposed? We are to have a regulator to control costs and access, a franchising authority to allocate franchises and regulate fares, a rail track authority for the timetable and maintenance, the joint industrial board to co-ordinate ticketing and information, and the railway clearing house for company accounts. On top of that, we shall have the HSC, the Office of Fair Trading, the passenger transport authorities, the Department of Transport and—let us not forget it—the good old Treasury, which will have to ensure that everything fits its requirements.
Those are the bodies that will regulate the new privatised railway system—a system that is supposed to have benefits bestowed on it by the invisible hand of the market. What a load of nonsense. The system will be more regulated under the proposed arrangements than it is at present. At least the Secretary of State is accountable for the railway system under the present arrangements. In future, he will be less so and will argue that the regulator is responsible.
I should have more confidence if the regulator and the franchise officers were likely to have the benefit of knowledge and to do better than the Secretary of State. The one thing that the right hon. Gentleman has never shown in his present job is knowledge of transport. I might add that previous Secretaries of State have set a good precedent in that. Let us look at the notice in The Sunday Times advertising for people to fill the new posts. Among all the qualifications that the regulator needs, I was staggered to read:
"knowledge of railways/public transport an advantage but not essential."
Yet the regulator is the man who will run the railway system.
The Secretary of State does not understand the system himself, and now he is to appoint an adviser who need not have any knowledge of it whatever—on top of all the new regulatory bodies. Will that produce railways in rural areas and inter-city railways? Will that encourage people to get off the roads and on to the railway system? The whole thing is a load of waffle.
What will the new system cost? I wish that the Secretary of State would tell us how much the quangos will cost. How many civil servants will be involved, and what will be the extent of the bureaucracy? Some 17,000 to 20,000 people in the freight and transport services will be made redundant, and the same number of people will be employed in the bureaucracy. People who earn money and make value will be put out of work to make room for civil servants to organise the rail system so as to meet an ideological requirement and prove that it is possible to run a railway system privately—but only 5 or 10 per cent. of it, because the rest of it will have to be maintained by British Rail as the supplier of last resort.
I do not have time to deal with all the problems now. The Government have answered some of our questions and have agreed to provide some reports—particularly one on employee conditions—which we look forward to seeing. As with the buses, I am sure that we shall see a move to part-time instead of full-time labour, the de-staffing of the systems and the loss of pensions.
What will happen to the transport police? The experience of previous privatisations suggest that there will be a move to part-time policing and private security systems. We desperately need security and safety on our

1181
railway system. Unless the Secretary of State proposes to make an exception in respect of the British Transport police, their services will be got rid of.
The track authority, the regulator, the franchising body and so on are all matters that give rise to numerous questions that I certainly do not have time to ask today.
It is now accepted that the railway system will be subsidised. It will be more regulated than it is at present. There is little hope of further investment. Let us not be too sure, for example, that leasing arrangements will produce new orders and investment. It will produce old trains, tarted up to run on profitable parts of the system. After five, eight or 10 years, companies will not want to invest. A massive amount of investment is needed to replace trains. A franchisee may want to operate for 10 years without investment and then run the service down and get out having made what money it can. Who will pick up the pieces and run the service? Good old British Rail, in the name of the Government. It will be a cherry-picking system that will work to the disadvantage of the community.
The White Paper has nothing whatever to do with new opportunities for our railways, and everything to do with creating massive profits for the Government's friends in the City. The Government are selling the community's assets, cherry-picking the most profitable routes and leaving the loss-making ones to BR and the taxpayer.
Theirs is a policy designed to impose an ideological 19th century laissez-faire straitjacket on an industry about to enter the 21st century. It will mean fewer services costing more. It will cause thousands of redundancies and reduced employment conditions for the lucky few remaining. It will mean newly painted old trains instead of new rolling stock, adding to the demise of our once great rail manufacturing industry. It will mean greater pressure to maximise costs at the expense of safer railways.
Above all, the policy will cost the taxpayer more, with a needless expensive bureaucracy and quangos. That will lead to higher fares and force passengers off rail and on to roads, causing great congestion and environmental damage. That is why we reject the crazy philosophy behind the White Paper and any Bill based upon it.
6.18 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): In contrast to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I found the White Paper imaginative. It introduces some welcome and radical new thinking into the running and financing of railways. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I look forward to seeing what further progress can be made in harnessing the private sector to produce better railway services.
However, I have two very deep concerns about the potential practical implications of the proposals, particularly in relation to my constituents. My first concern relates to fares to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not refer. As far as my constituents are concerned, the bottom line will be the fare implications for them.
As I represent a constituency in Network SouthEast, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware of the pressures faced by those who use the commuter rail services on that network. In practical terms, those people
1182
have no alternative but to use the rail services to London. They have faced yearly real increases in fares, and another real increase in fares has recently been announced. It costs about £2,000, payable from after-tax income, for an annual season ticket from my constituency to London. That cost for travel to work has become the largest single item of inescapable expenditure in the household budget, with the possible exception of food, for many people.
Fare levels have already reached the limits of many people's capacity to pay. For some people in my constituency, fares have risen beyond their capacity to pay and they have had to resign posts in London and try to find alternative employment elsewhere. The fare dimensions of the proposals are critical.
Considering the history of previous privatisations, will the privatisation of the railways be a rerun of the privatisation of gas? If that is the case, then all well and good. In real terms, gas prices are about 15 per cent. below what they were before privatisation. If that happens with the railways, that will be fine.
On the other hand, will the privatisation of the railways be a rerun of the privatisation of water? Water charges are now 26 per cent. higher in real terms than they were before privatisation. If there were fare increases in real terms of that order, that would be immensely damaging financially for my constituents. I do not know which way it will go, but I have an uncomfortable feeling in my bones that it might go more the water way than the gas way. However, I earnestly hope that I am wrong.
Although I do not agree with the sentiments or philosophy of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it is worth considering that the experiences of Charterail and Stagecoach show that, when the private sector is involved, a higher rate of return may be required, with consequent fare implications for the users of rail services.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Stanley: I will give way, but I am immensely conscious of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, and I do not want to delay the House longer than I have to.
Mr. Flynn: Perhaps a more telling illustration is what has happened in respect of the deregulation of buses, which have much in common with rail services. The experience in metropolitan areas is that fares have increased by between 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. in real terms.
Sir John Stanley: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in respect of bus deregulation, which, in my part of the world, has produced a variety, range and flexibility of services which did not exist before deregulation.
The fare implications of the proposals will hang wholly on what happens in two critical areas of policy—the policy on subsidy and the policy on the degree to which fares are controlled.
The subsidy element is critical in Network SouthEast. As the White Paper states, the subsidy paid in the financial year 1991–92 was £345 million, which was approximately 28 per cent. of the network's turnover. If we consider the policy for subsidy in the proposals, the franchising

1183
consultation document says—a reference which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State effectively repeated earlier—
"The Government has said that it will continue to pay subsidy, where necessary, for as long as it is needed in order to secure the provision of socially necessary services."
The statement begs more questions than it answers. Which rail services do the Government consider to be socially necessary and therefore worthy of subsidy? Is the whole of Network SouthEast regarded as socially necessary or only part of it? If the latter is the case, which part?
The statement also begs a question to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not refer. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will deal with it when he replies to the debate. My right hon. Friend referred to subsidy being maintained. Is the commitment to maintain not merely the level of subsidy, but the level of subsidy at least in real terms? That would be the crucial issue for fares. Those are central questions about subsidy to which we still await answers.
The second issue is whether fares will be controlled by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledges in the White Paper to be monopolies [in other words, by the franchises. The documents make it clear that during the franchising period the franchising body will have the right to exercise fare control. However, it is not necessarily clear whether the franchising body will actually do so.
Paragraph 66 of the White Paper states:
"As long as London commuter services are franchised, any abuse of monopoly power will be controlled through the contracts between the Franchising Authority and franchisees."
There is a clear locus for the franchising authority to deal with the "abuse of monopoly power" and ensure that fares are constrained.
However, the franchising authority is also responsible for getting franchises off the ground and ensuring that franchising takes place. When it does that, it will clearly be interested in showing that the maximum revenue can accrue. In that capacity, it will not have an interest in fare control; its interest will he to make the degree of fare control light.
There is a direct conflict between the position of the franchising authority being responsible for, in the Secretary of State's words, preventing abuse of monopoly power when it is also the body responsible for establishing the franchises with the maximum benefit to the franchisee in revenue terms. That is a fundamental contradiction in the position of the franchising authority.
The consultation document on franchising makes an attempt to resolve that underlying conflict. It appears that the Secretary of State for Transport will act as referee between the two tensions. Paragraph 2.3 of the consultation document states:
"the Secretary of State for Transport … will provide guidance on:
in what circumstances and to what extent fares might be controlled."
The House should note that the term is "might be controlled" and not "will be controlled."
There is a guidance role that the Secretary of State will perform. That in principle might be thought to be welcome, but even the involvement of the Secretary of State, based on history, does not guarantee that the level of increase in charges will be kept down to a reasonable amount.
1184
We had exactly the same position with the water privatisation. I have with me the press release that was put out by the then Secretary of State for the Environment on 7 February 1990, in which he announced how he was going to exercise his control of water charges. Charges went up in real terms throughout the country. In my constituency in west Kent, the Secretary of State's controlled increase in year one was 20 per cent. in real terms; in year two, a further increase of 20 per cent. in real terms; in year three, a 4 per cent. increase in real terms; and in year four, a further 4 per cent. increase in real terms. That is not a very happy history for my constituents. It would be very helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport would say how the Secretary of State will exercise his intention to issue guidance on fare control in relation to franchises.
I am sorry to say that my second concern is narrowly based, but it is of the utmost significance to my constituents. It is possible that my constituents will face not merely an increase in fares, possibly of a substantial order, in real terms as a result of the proposals, but a diminishing number of commuter trains at peak periods. That could come about in this way: my constituency is astride the main existing rail link from Cheriton, the channel tunnel portal, to Waterloo, on which the through channel tunnel trains will, I hope, start to run at the end of next year or, possibly, in 1994. As the House will know, that line runs through Ashford, Tonbridge, Sevenoaks and up to the centre of London.
It has always been evident to me that a significant potential risk could occur for my constituents: those on board channel tunnel through passenger trains—for example, the Euro-officials and the Euro-business men from Paris and Brussels—would wish to arrive in London in the morning at exactly the same time as my constituents wish to arrive and would therefore compete for exactly the same train paths.
I pursued that issue at a very early stage. I am glad to say that I have a letter of 25 July 1986 in which I received a most important assurance on that point from the then Minister for Public Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). In that letter he gave a commitment that internal services —in other words, domestic commuter services—would not be curtailed on that line in order to make room for through channel tunnel trains. The House will not be surprised to know that I have been clutching that letter to my breast pocket ever since.
The relevance of that letter to the White Paper lies in paragraph 37 of the White Paper, in which the Government make it clear that privatisation is to be extended to European Passenger Services Ltd., which is the British Rail subsidiary which will operate the through passenger services from the channel tunnel as from next year or thereabouts. The White Paper states:
"The Government is considering how EPS should be transferred to the private sector."
I stress that the word used is not "whether" it should be transferred to the private sector but "how". Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a firm and unequivocal assurance that the—
Mrs. Dunwoody: Preferably in writing.
Sir John Stanley: Across the Floor of the House will be every bit as good; it will be in Hansard. Will he give a clear and unequivocal assurance that the undertaking that I was given in July 1986 that there would be no curtailment of

1185
internal domestic services to accommodate channel tunnel through train services will hold good, even when EPS is apparently to be privatised?
Until I have clear answers to my deep concerns about fares and train paths for channel tunnel trains, my position on the legislation can only be one of very guarded neutrality.
6.34 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have often wondered what the advantages of a public school education really are. I have decided that it is the ability to congratulate someone in the first instance and then knock hell out of him for the subsequent 10 minutes of one's speech. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on putting his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport firmly on the spot.
The debate has been rather frightening. I have never thought of the Secretary of State as Scarlett O'Hara, but a tremendous amount of the proposed legislation can best be summed up as, "I will think about that tomorrow," pronounced either with a southern accent or with a Scots accent. It amounts to the fact that we are actually proposing major changes in a basic transport system without any clear idea of what it entails.
The Secretary of State, even after the traumatic events of last week, did not say, "As a Department, we have estimated that, if we push through this privatisation, the job loss in manufacturing, in trains and in rolling stock as an industry will be a minimum of 30,000." He did not say, "If we push through this legislation, the job loss for railwaymen and related workers in other industries will be so great that we have not had the courage to specify the number." He said, "We think that it would be a very good idea if we privatised this system. The slight problem is that we don't know how we're going to do it. We don't know who is going to be stupid enough to pick it up, and we're certainly not going to spell out any of the implications, because the House might find them unacceptable."
The Secretary of State should have told us the answers to several basic and important questions. What is the Government's environmental policy in relation to the use of railways? Why has he not given us one indication of his vision of the use of railways on a crowded island in the 21st century? Why has he not been prepared to set out in any detail why we need a railway system, how it will be properly funded and how it will best benefit the people of these crowded islands? None of that appeared anywhere in his speech.
On top of that, the right hon. Gentleman has decided that he will say that privatisation has proved itself in the transport industry. I do not know how anyone who watched what happened to the bus industry can seriously say that we know that privatisation of basic services works. The bus industry was a classic example. The women who are standing around in the wet because the central bus stations in many of our towns have been asset-stripped by the small private companies that took them over have a clear idea of whether privatisation works. The people in rural villages for whom the provision of bus services is difficult have an even clearer view of whether privatisation works.
1186
We are talking about a system which, unlike buses, requires very specific tracks—very specific hardware—to provide a service. Oddly enough, trains do not jump in front of one another when one breaks down. Oddly enough, if individual companies are concerned, it will not be easy for someone to provide alternative services. Who will have the contingency responsibility, if for any reason any of the franchisees do not provide a service of the highest quality, to substitute rolling stock trains or other services? That is not made clear. We are simply told that employment as well as other aspects of transport such as safety will be discussed in the future. Frankly, that is an astonishing attitude for a responsible Government to take. I also find it astonishingly irresponsible.
The report that came out yesterday proved that many private industrial companies will face empty order books from the middle of next week. That shows what can happen when part of the transport industry—railways—is thrown into chaos. Unless there are full order books for new rolling stock, services will not improve. It does not matter who provides services—they will not improve. Unless there is a way of subsidising services which are socially useful, and unless that is a continuing commitment, services will not improve. Unless there are trained railway staff to provide not only safety but facilities and services, services will not improve. I would not have thought that that was a difficult concept for any Government to understand, but it appears to be beyond the understanding of a Conservative Government.
It is a disgrace for the Minister to talk about a major change, which will result in job losses that we cannot fully estimate at present, without spelling out exactly what the Government will do to replace, protect and help those people. Let me make it clear. British Rail Engineering Ltd. was sold off as part of the rage for privatisation. We were told that there would be greater efficiency and much better provision of equipment. We were also told that everyone would benefit.
On a simple matter such as pensions, which we shall discuss in dealing with the forthcoming Bill, BREL is an interesting example. The Government said that British Rail would be responsible for ensuring that its employees were protected until the change of ownership took place. Beyond that point BREL, employees immediately found that they faced a diminution of their pension rights and the loss of many of their privileges, which had been part of the calculation of their wages. Even when they bought shares in BREL, they found it extremely difficult to get any specific benefit from the sale of their own company.
Those who talk about management buy-outs should examine what happened to BREL. Only one of the original directors who fronted that management buy-out has remained with the company. Those who work for BREL have even been told that they cannot sell their existing shares, because the company that took over BREL's assets organised the sale in such a way that the shares could go only to the new company and only at a highly artificial and controlled price.
So much for management buy-outs. They have not protected jobs; we have lost jobs. They have not improved the lot of those who work in the industry, and they certainly have not in any way replaced the conditions that the employees had when the company was a subsidiary of British Rail. That is what would happen to railwaymen

1187
and women if privatisation went ahead. There can be no doubt about that. Neither their employment nor the benefits which they currently receive would be protected.
I find the debate totally obnoxious, because we cannot tell our constituents that the House will happily accept the introduction of a paving Bill which is so wide in its terms that almost any amount of taxpayers' money could be used to create a completely new set of organisations without a clear statement at an early stage of what would actually happen.
It is not clear whether the Department of Transport has worked out a method by which a system of transferring lines could take place. It is not clear whether the Department has considered that private operators will be quite happy to take tiny pieces of the lines—for example, the Victoria to Gatwick line—but they will not be happy to run services from Preston to Blackpool or anywhere else. The cost of that in terms of employment and good transport systems is absolutely indescribable.
Tonight, the Minister has presented dogma in its purest and most irresponsible form. It cannot be defended in terms of economics, politics or a commitment to provide a good service for those who use the transport system. As the Minister cannot give us any of those reasons, may we assume that he is suggesting that it would be useful for the Treasury to asset-strip the railways part of the transport system in the way that bus companies asset-stripped the bus system?
6.45 pm
Mr. Matthew Banks: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate today to make my first speech in the House. As you know, I am one of the youngest Members of the House, having been elected earlier this year at the tender age of 30. I am now 31. After the events of the past two weeks, I am not sure whether I am any wiser, hut I certainly feel a great deal older.
I have the honour and privilege to represent a delightful Victorian seaside resort. Southport is a constituency which, after three years of hard work, I managed to wrest from the Liberal Democrats. I should like very much, without further ado, to pay a fulsome tribute to my predecessor, Ronnie Fearn. As hon. Members will know, Mr. Fearn was for some time the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman in the House. Although the political complexion of my constituency has now changed, I am pleased that Mr. Fearn has been replaced by another Member who is equally interested in transport matters.
Mr. Fearn was first elected as a local councillor in 1963 and has remained a councillor ever since, including his time as a Member of Parliament. He was first elected to Southport county borough council when it was in Lancashire. Sadly, my constituency is now in Merseyside. I should like to lay down a marker today. I make it clear that in the not-too-distant future, during the passage of the Local Government Bill—sadly, my predecessor voted against it—I shall do my utmost to make sure that the Local Government Commission brings my constituency back into Lancashire as a unitary authority.
It is a tribute to my predecessor's standing in my constituency that my task in wresting the seat from him was so difficult, Indeed, I know that it is a great surprise to some hon. Members that I am here at all. My journey here was not courtesy of a first-class InterCity rail ticket;
1188
it was something more along the lines of political Network SouthEast or Merseyrail ticket. I hope that the principles behind the White Paper will satisfactorily address something along those lines.
I should also like to place on record my thanks to Sir Ian Percival QC. He represented my constituency between 1959 and his retirement in 1987 and is a former Solicitor-General. I am most grateful to him for the support, advice and the generosity of his time which he gave me in the past few years.
Finally, although it is not possible this evening for me to thank all those who have helped me and my colleagues over the past two to three years, I should like to place on record my thanks to a former Member of Parliament, Mr. Cecil Franks, who was the Member for Barrow and Furness between 1983 and 1992. He is sadly Missed on the Conservative side of the House. I should also like to pay tribute to him tonight for guiding me through some of the difficulties of the past few years.
My constituency does not appear to be on the map at Westminster at present. I seem to have a tremendous task ahead of me. Unfortunately, all too often, right hon. and hon. Members confuse my constituency with Stockport. Stockport is some 50 miles away in land locked Cheshire. With the greatest respect to Stockportonians, there is a considerable difference between the two. No prizes for guessing which one I think is the more delightful.
If I am to put my constituency on the map, I must put myself on the map first. One of the difficulties that I have faced is that I am consistently, and irritatingly, confused with my hon. Friend and look-alike the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). He is on the chubby side too, but if hon. Members bear in mind that he is the good-looking one, they will have no problems in future.
I am pleased to report that I have been able to solve one problem. I no longer receive the Refreshment Department bills of my namesake, the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks).
On the White Paper, if the objective is to create better quality services through the gradual introduction—I stress the gradual—of private sector competition, it has my 100 per cent. support. Listening to some hon. Members speak in the House and outside it, one would think that the Government were trying to privatise British Rail lock, stock and barrel. That would be a ridiculous and impractical course of action.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen carefully to the concerns—I hope that they are constructive concerns—of right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. When a Bill on that subject is tabled and is considered in Committee, I urge him to ensure that important matters such as franchising, access to track, the independent regulatory authority and safety are considered sensibly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully and, if necessary, amend his plans to ensure that those important proposals are as practical and workable as possible.
The idea of private sector competition and involvement in the railways is nothing new. About 40 per cent. of rail wagons are privately owned. I have no doubt that, in the years ahead, that percentage will rise considerably.
The White Paper is long overdue. I have been waiting to make my first contribution to debates in the House, and I wish that it had been possible for us to debate it earlier. I hope that it will not be too long before a Bill is introduced so that we can discuss the issue in greater detail. There will

1189
be occasions more important than today, especially in Committee, when hon. Members who have constructive suggestions for amendments will be able to table them.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be clear in his mind that, while there are one or two honourable exceptions on the Conservative Benches who do not believe that the proposals are workable, in principle the Government have my support and they have considerable support among my hon. Friends.
Britain's railways play a vital role in the nation's transport needs. The White Paper offers the opportunity to expand and improve on those services. I emphasise that the White Paper refers to the gradual introduction of private sector competition. It does not concern me that in 1994 only one or two companies may be running franchises. The opportunity to do so should exist, and gradually many companies will take it. I welcome the fact that many companies have expressed an interest in running services on Britain's railways.
In making my first contribution, I am mindful that I do not have the time to deal in detail with some of the matters relating to franchising, access to track, and the indpendent regulator, among others. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is no doubt that some genuine concerns exist on both sides of the House, which will need to be dealt with, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider them.
The principles in the White Paper are important and wholeheartedly support them. Given the difficulties in Britain's railways, and the enormous pressure on British Rail in the public spending round—not merely this year but any year and under any Government—it is vital that we give the private sector and the consumer the opportunity to benefit from private sector competition. In the months and years ahead, when private sector companies are operating franchises, I hope that their management and work forces will get closer to the travelling public and to the people whom they seek to serve.
Ultimately, the White Paper will provide opportunities to improve the quality of service, it will be good for choice and I sincerely believe that it will be good for my constituents in Southport.
6.55 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: Before attending to the White Paper, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on his accomplished and amusing maiden speech, and I thank him for his kind remarks about my predecessor, the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, which were appreciated on this Bench. We look forward to more contributions from the hon. Member.
I do not voice my concerns about the White Paper out of any philosophical objection to the principle of private operators on the rail network, but for fear of the practical consequences of fragmenting the network. If the ground rules were right, we could envisage a slowly growing market for private sector operators. Our argument is about the ground rules.
If I have understood the Secretary of State correctly, he has said that he expects the majority of the network to be in the hands of private operators within the lifetime of this
1190
Parliament. That is pie in the sky. He was talking about the time scale as if he were holding back a deluge of would-be operators until the spring of 1994. My fear is that, if he goes ahead on anything like the time scale that he has described, there will be mayhem on the railways.
The proposals fail to acknowledge the social and environmental contribution that the railways make to life in Britain; they do not merely reduce congestion but also mean energy savings and a reduction in CO2 emissions. The suggestion that the new track authority, Railtrack, must raise its funds "fundamentally"—I hope that I quote the Secretary of State correctly—by charging operators fails to put any value on the social or environmental contribution made by the railways.
There is no hint in the White Paper of who will pay for the vital investment needed in the rail network. Do the Government honestly believe that the would-be private operators will be able to afford the sort of infrastructure investment that successive Governments have failed to make? The fate of the two pilot operators—Charterail and Stagecoach—the difficulties that they encountered and their failure show that it will not be private operators but the passenger who will end up having to pay.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) told us earlier this week, with commendable clarity:
"Someone has to pay for the operation of the rail service —and that means either the taxpayer or the user. I am convinced that it is right that users should pay enough to cover at least the majority of the operating costs".—[Official Report, 26 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 762.]
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) compared plans for the railways with the privatisation of the water industry. The crucial difference is that the customer base in the water industry comprises just about everyone and is more or less the same as the taxpayer base—except for fortunate souls like myself who are able to use a natural spring instead of a connected water supply. In the case of rail investment, the customer base is much narrower.
I submit that the public are fed up with hearing that the Government are making a record investment in the rail industry, when they still find themselves commuting, crammed into carriages every morning like sardines, with their fares continually increasing. They know that that simply does not add up, and if one takes out investment in the channel tunnel project, they are right. Investment is nowhere near adequate.
The Secretary of State referred to Japan and Sweden. He did not mention that, before the first stages of Japanese privatisation, a massive programme of investment was carried out by the Japanese Government and all historic debts were paid off. He also failed to mention that with the Swedish system—perhaps the nearest comparison to what is proposed here—the Swedish Government actively subsidise the track.
There is a clear need for large investment on that scale in this country before there is a market for private train operators. The Secretary of State told us that, towards the end of this year, he will publish a document outlining the access and charging arrangements. We have to hope that, when he does so, he will reconsider his suggestion that the new rail track body raise its income by charging operators. It is essential that there should be some direct investment in the track itself.
I am concerned also about the future of the freight industry. What free-marketeering freight operator will opt

1191
for the rail system when he can use the roads at a much reduced cost, subsidised by the Government in a way that they simply decline to do for the railways? If only the Government had addressed that point, this White Paper might have had some use.
We welcome the slight modification on the question of a level playing field in investment in road and rail, but that is not what we are going to get, in any meaningful sense, from the proposals in the White Paper. Once a franchise is up and running, there is little to be gained from an operator carrying out imaginative market research as there were a new product. I submit that the Government plans are plans for stagnation, and they are the reverse of enterprising.
On the question of banning British Rail from bidding for franchises. there is certainly room for British Rail to improve its sense of enterprise; the fact that private operators were involved might be just the incentive that British Rail needed. Why not allow British Rail to bid for franchises? No one in the private sector has ever run any sort of railway system before. Why should private operators not have to beat British Rail in a bid? Will the bids coming from the private sector be realistic, or will we see a repeat of the channel tunnel enterprise, when the bids were phenomenally lower than the true costs? If a franchisee does take on a loss-making service, what will happen when it goes wrong? I suspect that what remains of British Rail will have to take on the service, and in one way or another the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
There is a clear clash between open access and franchising. The European Commission wants to open up rail networks so that operators from other countries can run a rival service. It sounds rather like allocating slots at Heathrow airport and then saying that anyone who wants to do so can fly in or out at any time. The potential winners of those franchises will have to beware of falling into a trap: if they bid at a particular price for a private monopoly service, they will be in for something of a shock if, at some point down the line, a French or German operator comes in and operates a rival service alongside them. Why should the franchising authority be the body that decides on the grouping of services? We have already heard about the contradiction between their role in handing out the franchises and protecting the passengers. Why is there not a passenger body to do that job instead of a Government quango?
Given the performance of the other regulators in other privatisations, what grounds for hope can there be that the rail regulator will protect the passenger from higher and higher fares? The British public want binding guarantees. I accept what the Minister says about no rail line being guaranteed for ever, but the public want stronger reassurances that the level of service will not decline, that fares will not increase unfairly and that there will not be social blight in areas such as mine in north Devon, where many people are entirely dependent on the Barnstaple-Exeter line. The new bodies must be given terms of reference that demand that present services are maintained and improved.
It is disappointing, for example, to know that the Government are planning to transfer responsibility for deciding the fate of the experimental services that were set up following the work by my predecessor in 1981, which enabled some of the old lines to re-open.
The White Paper is a missed opportunity. With a massive injection of capital along the lines which preceded
1192
the Japanese privatisation, the commercial skills of the private sector might indeed have been harnessed to run services to everyone's benefit. But the Government's conviction that, by simply decoupling themselves from the railways through privatisation, they will make the trains run on time is over-optimism in the extreme.
As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the Government should have taken more heed of bus deregulation. By committing themselves to breaking up the British Rail network, rather than allowing a small and gradual introduction of the private sector, the Government risk the destruction of the enterprises that want to operate before those enterprises have even had a chance to get going.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the time scale seriously. Earlier in the week, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) called on the Government to await the findings of the Select Committee on Transport before going ahead. There are fears on both sides of the House and among the passengers who are crammed into carriages and stranded on platforms that a time scale of one parliamentary term is too short to force the entire network into the private sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that there is now a 10-minute limit on speeches until 9 o'clock.
7.6 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said that he thought that this White Paper was a missed opportunity. I hope that he and the House will not find that it is a messed opportunity.
The maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) was one of the most fluent and splendid I have ever heard. My only advice to him would be to tell the Whips, not ask them, about his views on this matter or on any piece of legislation. Whether this will turn out to be poll tax on wheels, I have no idea, but my hon. Friend should beware of offering Southport as a sacrificial lamb to the first franchisee.
My interest in the railways is a simple one: it is in seeing a strong and successful railway. I shall judge the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by whether they will make a better or a worse railway system. I have never thought that party politics and public transport policy were anything but uneasy bedfellows. I should like to believe everything that my right hon. Friend tells me, but I cannot give blind acceptance to bland assurances. At present, that is all we have and we have rather to take it on trust.
Support for the Government's proposals—I say this modestly—does appear to be in inverse ratio to knowledge of the complexity of running a railway. The White Paper itself is a philosophical ramble. It should have been a Green Paper. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, we have had no debate about the role of the railway in our society. We should have had that first. What is expected of it, not just who runs it, should have been the debate about the future of the railway.
The background of the White Paper is clear: it has been an enduring commitment to privatisation by Conservative Governments over the past 13 years. Some of them have been good, some have been bad; with some we have not

1193
comprehended their eventual side effects. Last week, we lived through the coal tragedy, which was undoubtedly a product of the privatisation of electricity.
The Secretary of State gave us a brief history lesson and talked about the 1930s. Let no one ever forget the Railways Act 1921, brought into effect by a Conservative Government in 1923, which reduced from 112 to four the number of railway companies because of the chaotic state into which excessive competition had brought the railway system.
While my right hon. Friend was speaking, I was jotting down notes about a possible future privatisation of the Ministry of Defence. We would have Army plc, Navy plc and Air Force plc. I was wondering who would build the European fighter aircraft. That is not wholly a stupid analogy to this debate. We talked briefly earlier about new technology, but who will pay for the introduction of new railway technology in Britain? Where will our equivalent to the Shinkhansen lines, the TGV in France and the Inter-City Express in Germany come from? If we do not get that clear, in the next few years we shall be spending an endless amount of time discussing an ever-declining railway system, and that is not something that I want to see.
We have had 13 years of Conservative government and it is clear that the failure of former Secretaries of State, such as Lords Ridley, Moore and Parkinson, to produce any White Paper on railway privatisation was the result not of a lack of enthusiasm but of a lack of ability to find a workable system. The jury is still out on whether this system is workable.
Reference has been made to the Government's remarkable document "The Franchising of Passenger Rail Services". I do not propose to quote from it, but I ask hon. Members to look at the second paragraph under the heading "Important Notice" at the beginning of the document. Anyone who believes that, with those disclaimers, it is possible for prospective franchisees to put forward a business plan or any sort of serious proposal is living in an unreal world, and I say that with some years of business experience.
I refer also to paragraph 5.6 of that document. I want to read one sentence which shows the situation that we face. Let me take a deep breath. It says:
"The open access regime will continue to apply to infrastructure needed for passenger services that ceases to be operated by Railtrack because it has been sold outright or is being operated under a leasehold arrangement."
I could not say all that in one breath. For those who have any concern about the future of our railway system, that is the stuff of which bad dreams are made.
Paragraph 71 of the White Paper puts the onus for closure policy on the franchising authority. That is a proposition at which we need to look carefully. Paragraph 21 talks about the subsidy level of uneconomic services and says:
"the level will be determined by competition in the private sector."
Most of those services are run because of the social need for them. Competitive bidding alone is totally inadequate for people who want to see railway services continue in Cornwall, Scotland, Wales, right across the rural areas of England and on the commuter lines.
1194
What about through-ticketing? My right hon. Friend referred to the commitment to that, yet paragraph 5.8 of the franchising document from which I quoted refers to the possible need for more than one ticket outlet at single stations. There is some incompatibility —to put it no stronger—between the White Paper and the first of the eight subject documents that we are to see.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for North Devon. The only body to be excluded from the bidding to run trains in Britain in future will be the only body with any experience of running trains—British Rail. Even in local authority tendering, public works departments are at least allowed to tender. My right hon. Friend really must look again at that.
Why is there this dissatisfaction with British Rail? We know all about that dissatisfaction. Will my right hon. Friend do one simple thing—look at the drop in the public service obligation grant for the past four years for which figures are available? It has come down from £1,600 million to £575 million. Will he look then at the level of complaints received by the regional transport users consultative committees, which have more than doubled from 3,010 to 8,053? The fact is that the cut in the PSO grant has caused the increase in complaints, the Goverment blame British Rail and we are faced with this legislation.
To many of us interested in railways, it is the familiar pattern of closures in the post-Beeching era. The timetable is disrupted and connections destroyed, then the station is painted and the track renewed and the outcome is reduced income, increased costs and then closure. Many of us are not prepared to see that happen again to our railway system.
If things are so bad on British Rail—we can all find —
improvements—is it because of bad management, the reduction in the PSO grant, or the unfair competitive position of rail versus road? None of that is mentioned in the White Paper, and those issues need to be attended to before we come to any conclusions.
There is no mention in the White Paper of taxation policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) talked about Japan. Japan's railways are not privatised. It has six regional monopolies, all state-owned, but the success of the Japanese railways is due not just to the huge investment referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) but to the fact that 80 per cent. of travellers on commuter services have their fares paid for them by their employers and the other 20 per cent. have tax allowances on their fares. That is the exact reverse of what happens here.
If we were to use our taxation policy as the Japanese do, our railways could succeed. The Germans use tax policies to offer incentives for the use of rail freight. If we did the same, that would go a long way towards helping our railway system, but nothing like that is proposed anywhere.
My hon. Friend the Minister made a speech, to which I referred briefly in the Select Committee yesterday, about our rolling stock manufacturers. There is a serious problem here. We simply cannot go on debating in the House setting up all these quangos, while giving British Rail no continuity of rolling stock investment and allowing our manufacturers to go to the wall. Not only will our manufacturers go to the wall, but our railway services will go to pot.

1195
There is lack of vision about all this. Before I support the Bill, I shall need to be satisfied that the proposal is not a hangover from Thatcherism but a guaranteed way of increasing investment in and improving the service on our railway system. The White Paper needs a large question mark after its title. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I, too, have grave reservations about this. I give notice that I am not willing to support any legislation unless I have many more answers than I have had so far.
7.16 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: What we have in our hands is an incoherent patchwork designed to create maximum uncertainty, and uncertainty is the last thing that we need in our railway system at this time.
The White Paper has bold objectives. It says that it wants a reliable, efficient operation, offering high quality services to users, but its chosen instrument is the introduction of competition through greater involvement of the private sector. Nothing could be less relevant to the present needs of the railway system.
Railway passengers want a reliable service which gets them to where they are going on time with a smooth journey and as economically as possible. That has nothing to do with the introduction of competition through the involvement of the private sector.
Even the White Paper does not intend to move to privatisation of everything. It excludes InterCity from its first plan, except in so far as paragraph 35 says:
"The first priority is to improve the service to customers by introducing private sector management, culture, disciplines and incentives."
What on earth does that mean when it is read alongside paragraph 3, which says:
"The productivity of the BR workforce is among the highest of any European railway. InterCity services and BR freight operate without direct subsidy"?
What do the Government mean when they say that they want to introduce private sector management culture?
The only conclusion that a British Rail worker could draw is that there is an intention to ensure that, despite their high productivity, they will be pushed around more thoroughly in future. That will not improve morale on the railways.
The White Paper forecasts and wants a healthy second-hand market in trains. We saw what happened when buses were deregulated in my area. A healthy second-hand market in buses developed—but healthy for whom? It was certainly not healthy for my area, which had had a very healthy productive capacity for new buses through Leyland. Employment has gone and passengers ride in clapped-out vehicles; that has been healthy only for the short-term profits of a few. The last thing that we need is a healthy second-hand market in trains. Rather we need healthy investment in new trains.
Paragraph 4 contains a glowing account of the record of investment on the railways. From my seat in Preston, it looks rather different. GEC in my constituency has recently invested £5 million in its plant, but that plant is no longer in full use and 50 per cent. of the work force are on short-time working. Out of a work force of some 2,000, there have been 150 redundancies—55 in Trafford Park and 95 in Preston—because, having ordered 43 class 91 trains for InterCity in 1985, which were delivered on time in 1988, instead of proceeding with class 93 for the west coast line, there have been no further orders.
1196
The order for the west coast line would have produced about three years more work, but that has not happened. British Rail wanted a faster train—faster than the track could take. Nevertheless, GEC put in a bid for such a train and was then told that British Rail would not proceed with it, so we have neither a faster train nor the class 93 train. We have nothing and no work, which is good neither for those who travel to the north-west nor for those who work there.
The Networker trains also give work opportunities for the regional railways, but only 50 per cent. of that order has ever been placed. GEC has had orders for 143 sets and British Rail Engineering Ltd. has had orders for 288 sets. That work at GEC is now coming to an end and, from next January, there are no fresh orders.
We want not a Government who mess around producing a patchwork, but a coherent strategy for a railway based on investment in new trains to give good service to passengers. When, ultimately, new orders are placed and new investment is made in rolling stock, will there be a manufacturing sector in this country? I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who told us that the manufacturing companies in Europe have full order books for the next 10 years. When we finally get around to deciding that we need new trains, we may find that foreign and EC companies are too busy and that ours no longer exist. What will happen then to the reliable service for passengers discussed in the White Paper?
The White Paper is a dangerous irrelevancy. While we are considering it, more and more people in the manufacture of trains will find themselves on the dole. We shall have to pay subsidies that will go into private pockets, possibly for an inferior service and certainly for a complicated service, without through ticketing and with doubtful systems. We shall also pay to keep the skilled workers in my constituency on the dole instead of producing the trains that all our passengers need.
I stress the word "passengers". Rail passengers do not benefit from being called "customers". Nor do they benefit from being treated simply as people who will pay out to a multiplicity of companies. They want a strategic service that regards them as passengers whose main desire is to get from here to there in the shortest possible time with the most comfortable possible journey and, in doing so, benefit the environment to a great extent.
Let the Government move in that direction instead of pursuing their dogma. Let us have a coherent strategy instead of the waste and muddle of the White Paper.
7.24 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I give notice to the House that, unfortunately, I shall be unable to remain for long after I have spoken. I must return to my constituency to honour a commitment that I gave some months ago.
I was delighted to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who spoke well, confidently and with tremendous lucidity. We look forward to hearing many of his speeches in the years ahead. Indeed, I hope that he will double the record of his predecessor but one and be here for at least 36 years, by which time he will be 66 years old.
I listened to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) with great interest. She has been extremely consistent in the line that she has taken in the House over many years,

1197
in the two capacities that she has been an hon. Member. I do not agree with much of what she said but recognise the fervour with which she said it.
Unlike the two hon. Members who spoke immediately before me, I welcome the White Paper. It is long overdue and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will adhere to the timetable that he has set to bring forward legislation earlier rather than later.
I listened with respect and admiration to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). We are real friends, although in terms of philosophy we are a million miles apart. I listened to what he said about the 1923 legislation, when the then Conservative Government reduced 112 railway companies to four because of the mess that they were in at the time. The early 1920s followed a long and devastating world war and, undoubtedly, investment had not taken place in the railway companies due to a variety of factors. The Conservatives, then as today, were entirely realistic about their approach to the transport infrastructure and to alternatives.
For too long British Rail has been a sad music hall joke. It has been easy at meetings of women's institutes or political parties to make a comment about British Rail and for heads to nod. The poor people who must work there are given not the benefit of the doubt but the benefit of derisory laughter. British Rail is a Titan waiting to be freed from the shackles of the state, which is why I welcome the White Paper.
No hon. Member representing, as I do, a commuter constituency can fail to register with the House his or her concern and anxiety for the continuing deterioration and neglect of the services that our commuter constituents must cope with day after day, week after week—not just for the past year or 10 years but for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the Minister know that the Dartford loop line is a byword in lore and fable for poor service. Indeed, I would argue with any hon. Member from Essex that the Dartford loop line and not the line that runs from London to Southend—which is almost as bad—is the worst in the country.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dunn: No, because I am speaking under the 10-minute rule. Essex man must wait.
My constituents must put up with old trains. I know that steps have been taken to improve and replace rolling stock. The rolling stock is so old that the graffiti say, "Down with Ramsay MacDonald". The trains are unreliable —
Mr. Adley: That is not what my hon. Friend said last time.
Mr. Dunn: True. Last time I said it was Baldwin, actually, a different character altogether—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me.
Mr. Dunn: I thought that I was—
Madam Deputy Speaker: It did not look like it.
Mr. Dunn: The trains are dirty and covered with graffiti and there are many cancellations and delays. That has a
1198
tremendous impact on commuters. They are frustrated by the delays in getting to their place of work and it is difficult for my commuters who are late time after time, when jobs are difficult to get and hold on to, to explain themselves to managers who may not live in communities that rely on railway services to get people to work.
Of course there is an alternative in Dartford—the motor car. Unfortunately, the A2 in my constituency is being dug up yet again on both sides of the carriageway, and it has been up for road works for the equivalent of five years out of the past seven. So there is understandable frustration. There is no real choice between alternatives. Two poor alternatives face my constituents and those of other Kentish Members—
Mr. Adley: Perhaps they should get on their bikes.
Mr. Dunn: It is not a question of that. There is no facility for bikes to cycle down the A2—it was dug up by the Department of Transport.
Occasionally we feel that the Department of Transport is conducting a personal vendetta against the people of north-west Kent. No doubt the Minister will take steps to assure me that that is not so.
Now we have a White Paper which I and many colleagues fully support. It contains a coherent strategy and, importantly, it is gradualist. It will enable my colleagues in government to consult the wider interests —not least the Select Committee on Transport, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. The strategy will enable position papers to be issued from time to time so that we can evaluate the impact of the legislation on freight, on pensions, on employment prospects and on investment.
British Rail will gain in two ways—or rather, those who take over from it will. They will be accountable and in control, and they will be responsible. Dealing with British Rail at the moment is rather like dealing with the Liberal Democrats—like trying to strangle a jelly. One is passed from one person to another and time and again given standard replies. Senior management figures in British Rail have told me in conversation that they are ready and willing to take on the challenge of commercial liberalisation and the privatisation that this legislation and White Paper will offer.
The restraints of the Treasury will also be removed from the railway service. I know from our debates of a few years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch shares my firm belief that, if British Rail is to be allowed to make amends for the indifferent service that it offers from time to time, it must be free to operate within the market, and that means access to financial support from the private sector —
Mr. Adley: British Rail has that now.
Mr. Dunn: But not enough. There will probably be greater access to it in future.
The attitude struck by the Government today is wholly commendable, and thousands of commuters will welcome it, because we must put passengers first. It is the Government's responsibility to see that passengers' interests are considered and rewarded.
Many hon. Members have quoted allegedly poor examples of privatisation and of the private sector, but there is one example of private sector work about which I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr.

1199
Mackinlay)—the Dartford bridge. It was built by private money and private enterprise, and it was built on time. For south Essex and north Kent, the Dartford bridge, as an adjunct to the tunnels which were full to capacity every single day, has made a tremendous difference. That should be stressed as a major example of how the private sector can work, how it will work and how it should work. given accountability, control and responsibility.
The difficulty with British Rail is that it is a monopoly. It is not like going to the supermarket; if people do not like Tesco, they can go to Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer or Gateway. If people cannot afford a car, they have no choice but to travel on the railway. Many of our constituents do not have cars; and even if they have them, they have nowhere to park them, so British Rail is their only choice, and sometimes that is no choice at all.
Hence I welcome and wholly support the White Paper and the legislation that will follow from it.
7.34 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I should acknowledge an interest as I am sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Perhaps I should also acknowledge my paramount interest I represent the city of York. Many people claim to have railways in the blood; York has railways in its soul. People think of the minster and the city walls, but the past 150 years of York's history have been dominated by our place in the railway network. The A1 passes us by 20 miles away, but the east coast main line goes directly through York, which is why it is a modern, thriving city today.
Despite the reductions in the number of BR employees, the east coast main line headquarters and the north-east regional railways headquarters employ between them some 3,000 workers. York is the operational centre for more than 500 railway men and women. The carriage works employ 1,500 people; the national railway museum 200. There must be between 4,000 and 5,000 rail pensioners in York. York, more than any other city in the country, depends on the railways for its economic livelihood.
Rail privatisation could therefore devastate our city. I ask the Secretary of State to note this point. Privatisation could hit us harder than any other city. We could end up as a ghost town. There is no point in him claiming that for every BR job lost a private sector job will be created, because for the most part those private sector jobs will not be in York. If, for the sake of example, Richard Branson puts in a successful bid, his operation will be run from Gatwick airport or from wherever his corporate HQ are. He is unlikely to run the operation from York.
If works are contracted out to civil engineering or electrical engineering companies, the chances of York's jobs being replaced by other private sector jobs are minimal or nil.
I am not scaremongering. The railway men and women of York have given me a document written by John Welsby, chief executive of British Rail, and circulated to all managers in my region. It states:
"The medium term future for support services will lie within the private sector."
Mr. Welsby says he is talking about jobs in new works design, project management, infrastructure renewal and maintenance, train maintenance services, station plant and
1200
building services, and computer services. So thousands of York jobs are at risk. We would be left without the railway industry forming the core of our local economy.
I have with me a voluntary redundancy notice circulated to all members of staff in regional railways north-east. For those who remain, wages will be at risk. A document sent to his staff by the on-train services manager of British Rail Network SouthEast states:
"I feel it only fair to advise you that on the basis of past privatisation experiences both your basic and average earnings will reduce when this comes about."
This manager goes on to advise his employees not to enter into new credit agreements or mortgages that could get them into difficulty.
Great anxiety has been expressed to me about the security of pensions for railway pensioners. I welcomed the Secretary of State's remarks to the effect that he is considering establishing an independent, stand-alone, industry-wide pension scheme. He said three months ago that he was considering it, and I hope that he will soon confirm that that is the way the Government intend to proceed, because it would reassure thousands of rail pensioners in my constituency. Those people also want to be reassured that they will retain the travel concessions which they earned—they are not a gift—through a lifetime of service to the railways. A petition in my constituency is currently attracting thousands of signatures in favour of the retention of a national system of railcards for the elderly, the disabled, families and young people. The current proposals put railcards at risk.
York has two further special interests, the first of which is investment in new rolling stock. The Steer Davies and Gleave report, which was published on Tuesday, raises serious doubts about the prospect for investment in rail vehicles. Today I received a fax from ABB Transportation Ltd., the company that used to be called British Rail Engineering. The company confirms that the fears in the consultants' report are well founded. Over the past couple of years in York that company has invested heavily in the capacity to build modern aluminium-bodied railway carriages for Network South East. On the basis of discussions with Network SouthEast, it invested to create the capacity to build 400 vehicles a year. It is currently building 200 a year,
"because of Network SouthEast's cutbacks in ordering new trains".
The company's present work load runs out in 1994, and unless there are further orders soon, it will run into difficulties because the company needs a year to order components from its suppliers. It is the only company in the United Kingdom able to make modern aluminium-bodied railway carriages. A gap in production will put at risk the company's future and the future of our country's ability to build modern railway carriages. The ABB fax states:
"unless the ground rules are clearly defined and are designed to assist positive decision making in a 'rail' future and positive investments decisions, the onset of rail privatisation will at the very least increase the commercial uncertainties faced by ABB Transportation Ltd., and in the worst case lead the company to review its medium term productive capacity."
We cannot afford that on our railways or in British industry. Commuters in north Kent and Essex and throughout Network SouthEast cannot afford delays in the production of new carriages. The Secretary of State should give a firm commitment either to allow an increase in British Rail's external financing limit in the period leading up to privatisation to enable new orders to go

1201
through, or allow BR to do what he proposes for the private sector—to lease trains so that additional finance becomes available.
Another constituency interest was mentioned to me by the national railway museum, which has rights under section 144 of the Transport Act 1968 to claim redundant equipment from British Rail. It has been discussing with the Department of Transport the continuation of those rights which the Department says will be exercisable over future public rail operators but not over private sector operators. That could damage the rail heritage of which the national railway museum is our guardian and create an unlevel playing field, because it would be a cost for the public sector but not for the private sector competitor. Either the cost to the rail operator is minimal, in which case it can be imposed without fear on the private operator, or it is substantial, in which case the same rules should apply to the public and private sectors.
The acid test for the people of Britain is whether the service will be better or worse. The regulation proposals in the White Paper are to protect the interests of the franchise bidders, the cherry pickers. Will the Secretary of State provide a regulatory body, an "Ofrail", to protect the interests of passengers and the public? Will he look carefully at the franchise document, which I see as a 167-page cherry-pickers' charter because it lists, service by service and vehicle by vehicle, what is up for grabs by competitors? Will the new rail system provide a better or worse service than the one provided by British Rail?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have to apply the brakes.
7.45 pm
Mr. Iain Sproat:I should like to deal with two matters arising from the White Paper. First, I strongly support the Minister's determination to liberalise, privatise, and inject competition into Britain's railways. Privatisation has improved every industry to which it has been applied. The improvements have varied in content and size, but every privatised industry has got better for the customer, and that will be the case with the railways.
Britain does not have the rail system it deserves. Far too often the system, and especially passenger services, is dirty, uncomfortable and unreliable, and does not care about the needs and requirements of passengers. Of course, it also loses a great deal of money which the taxpayer has to cough up. There are exceptions, and in the past few years British Rail has made serious efforts to improve itself and has done so, but it is still not good enough. The country will not get the rail system that it deserves and needs until British Rail's monopoly has been broken and private sector competition has been introduced. That is why I strongly support the White Paper.
The second matter is an uneasiness which was increased when it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). It is that the White Paper envisages the undoubted benefits of bringing private sector methods to the railways and bringing in entrepreneurial innovation, but also proposes a vast increase in a new, extensive and complicated bureaucracy. Three new quangos—the franchising authority, the rail regulator and Railtrack—are to be created, and there is also the involvement of British Rail, which is not a private sector
1202
company, and the Government. Before the Bill is introduced, will the Minister look carefully to see whether, in our desire to control this, as we must, we do not make it too bureaucratically top-heavy and do not engage in bureaucratic overkill.
One of the quangos, Railtrack, is to be a subsidiary of British Rail. Will the Minister look again at that matter, because there are two strong objections to structuring the track authority in that way? I am not arguing against the establishment of a track authority; I am arguing against the establishment of a track authority that is part of British Rail. I do not see how a private-sector company can feel confident that a British Rail-controlled Railtrack will be able to make an independent decision between, let us say, two services that want to run on the same route at the same time—one of them being British Rail and the other being a private company.
My right hon. Friend will rightly point to the passage in the White Paper which states that the regulator will examine such matters. I have some experience of business, however, and I cannot think that any business man will believe that BR can be neutral when it comes to deciding whether to benefit another part of British Rail or a private competitor, despite the Chinese walls that will have been erected and the fact that a separate British Rail management will be involved.
It is hard to find evidence for my argument, because so far there has not been much attempted participation in British Rail by private-sector companies. None the less, I well remember being told by the chairman of Orient Express of the appalling aggravation, hassle and difficulty that he encountered when dealing with British Rail. He described how much easier it had been to deal with the French and Italian railway authorities.
We cannot expect British Rail to bend over backwards to help its competitors. We have seen a bit of the problem with Orient Express; and I understand that the Central Railways group, which is trying to run a track from Coventry down to the channel ports, is finding it almost impossible to deal with BR, which is making every conceivable difficulty. It is certainly clear—at least from the media, and we could not gain information in any other way—that BR did not bend over backwards to help Richard Branson. All our experience and common sense tells us that a Railtrack that is part of British Rail cannot take a neutral attitude to BR's competitors.
I have another objection to my right hon. Friend's otherwise splendid plans. Railtrack will be at the heart of the new system. It will be responsible for infrastructure maintenance and infrastructure investment; it will also be responsible for signalling and timetabling. That means that the old British Rail will be at the heart of the new system. If that really means the old BR culture—the old sloppy, slack, slovenly ways—I fear for the new system. What we want is a track authority that is independent.
During the summer recess, I had the pleasure of going to Sweden to look at its rail privatisation, or liberalisation, programme. The Swedes have a track authority, but it is completely independent of the Swedish national rail system. It bends over backwards to accommodate new competitors, but does so fairly; its director general came from outside the railways. I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the idea of an independent Railtrack. I do not think that it would upset his plans—indeed, I believe

1203
that it would enhance them by injecting confidence into the private sector. I want the private sector to believe that its bids will be handled fairly and neutrally.
Having said that, I must end my speech by emphasising that—despite my uneasiness about the extension of a complicated bureaucracy, and about the establishment of a Railtrack that is not independent—I strongly support my right hon. Friend's proposals.
7.54 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak—not just because I am sponsored by the RMT, but because I am a former British Rail employee and, in local government, have been responsible for the development of a number of rail-based schemes. I hope that I am a good supporter of public transport, and I feel that I have some understanding of the complexities of a railway's finances and operations. I welcome any proposals that will make the railways more efficient, effective and competitive, and improve their quality; I therefore cannot welcome the White Paper, for I see nothing in it that would do any of those things.
I recognise that I am not a member of a Government, and I know that the present Government are committed to privatisation. They have a right to press for that objective; of course they want to secure the necessary legislation and thus to implement at least one of the promises contained in the Conservative party manifesto. The White Paper suggests, however, that the privatisation objective has now become an obsession. Caution and common sense have been abandoned, and it is privatisation at any cost.
It worries me that we are debating this matter with so little information. The Secretary of State has been unable to give a full answer to any question that he has been asked. We began with a paving Bill that told us absolutely nothing; now we have the White Paper. John Harlow summed it up very well when he wrote in The Times that the White Paper consisted of
"21 pages of large headlines, white space and mission statement markedly thin on detail".
It is indeed markedly thin on detail, but the Secretary of State was very hurt by that criticism. He replied:
"It is nonsense to say that the White Paper is presentation rather than substance … Naturally we must have a Bill which will take a considerable amount of time to pass through both Houses, and it will be possible to go into more detail then."
We waited for the detail. The first bit of detail came in October—not the 21 pages that we had seen before, but 167 pages. I was relieved, until I read the document and realised that nothing after page 29 had anything to do with privatisation: it was simply a description of British Rail's existing passenger services. Not one of those 138 pages —not a single paragraph or even a single word, such as the word "privatisation"—dealt with the Secretary of State's proposals.
I thought that at least 29 pages were an improvement on the 21 that we had originally had to consider. Then I realised that two of those 29 pages constituted an introduction. When I subtracted the blank sheets and white spaces, I ended up with a total of only 16 pages. The Secretary of State's supposedly more detailed document was actually shorter than the original.
We are left with a number of questions. What on earth has the Secretary of State been doing for the past three months? Does he think that he should be on performance-related pay? That could save the Treasury a
1204
considerable sum. If he continues to work on the same basis, I suspect that by the time the Bill is presented it will be short enough to be written on the back of an envelope —or possibly a rail ticket.
I exaggerate. There is another page. It is an important one. It tells us that it is important, right on the front. It says "Important Notice". I thought that I had better read this important notice. It tells us that the information and opinions contained in the document do not purport to be comprehensive. It does not surprise us that they do not pretend to be comprehensive when the document contains only 16 pages.
It was the bit after that that got to me. It says that recipients should not rely on the document's accuracy or completeness and that no responsibility or liability is accepted by the Department of Transport or the British Railways Board, or any of their respective advisers, officials, directors, partners, or employees as to its accuracy or completeness, or the information or opinions contained within it. So the document tells me straight away that it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Nobody seems to want to take responsibility for it—not the Department of Transport, not British Rail, not its employees. I do not blame them one iota. The Secretary of State, however, will have to take responsibility for it.
I suspect that people do not want to take responsibility for that document because the advice behind the scenes is that what is contained in it just cannot work. Half an idea in the Secretary of State's head will not turn into a practical reality. He should take note of the fact that the chief officer of the ambulance service did not listen to advisers who told him something similar about something that did not work. I do not ask for the Secretary of State's resignation. That is unnecessary. I have noticed that Secretaries of State for Transport come and go and that eventually they decide to spend more time with their families. I do not know how many Secretaries of State for Transport my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has seen off, but I am certain that it is a fair number.
The Secretary of State was not sure in July about the proposals that he wanted to make. He certainly is not certain in October. Again we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. What will the size of the franchisees he? We do not know. Will they operate on single lines? We do not know. Will they operate single services? We do not know. Will there be operator networks? We do not know. Who will train the staff? We do not know. When will the leasing markets be introduced? We do not know. How will train times be co-ordinated? We do not know. How will through ticketing be achieved? We do not know. What will be the effect on fares? We do not know. What is really worrying, though, is that the Secretary of State does not know. He did not know in July, He does not know in October.
What, however, the Secretary of State does do is to respond to any question to which he does not know the answer. It is a bit like Ross Perot. I have listened to the presidential debates. Whenever Ross Perot is asked a question that he cannot answer he says, "I'll set up a task force." Whenever the Secretary of State is asked a question that he cannot answer he says, "We'll work that out later. We'll have a quango to work it out." The number of bodies that will be stitched on to this new bureaucracy grows and grows. That new bureaucracy will equal that of the Civil Service.

1205
When it all goes wrong, who will be to blame for a complex system that does not work? Will it be the Secretary of State, the new regulator, the new franchising authority, the passenger transport executives, local authorities, or British Rail's passenger and freight operators? We do not yet know how many there will be. There may be 10, or 100, or 1,000. The Secretary of State does not know. Will the Health and Safety Executive, or Railtrack, or the new joint industry boards be to blame? We do not know who will be to blame. It will be difficult for anybody else to find out who is to blame. The system will be so complicated that it will be a mess.
Many of us with an interest in the railways recognise that the railways were split up a long time before privatisation came on the scene. They were split up long before Sealink, Travellers Fare or British Rail Engineering Ltd. broke away. The railways were broken up into two parts—the railway industry, which included drivers, signalmen, the people who maintained the trains and the track—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes have come to an end.
8.4 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As a new Member of Parliament, it is somewhat dispiriting to have to listen to Opposition arguments that echo arguments that we have heard for the past 12 or 13 years regarding the merits or demerits of privatisation. This privatisation, as with all other privatisations, can only be good for the industry. It will come out of the hands of state bureaucracy and go into the hands of private enterprise which will show much greater consideration towards the people who use the railways and will try to provide the services that they want.
I have to declare an interest. I like travelling by train. I have not yet been completely put off travelling by train by British Rail's antics. During the summer recess I spent several days travelling across the United States by train. I would recommend that holiday to anybody. However, I, like other hon. Members, find that once I have ploughed through the letters that I receive about animals, the third world and many other issues, the majority of them contain complaints about British Rail. I do not intend to go into detail about the anger, frustration and despair that people feel, but the story is always the same: that British Rail's management are not delivering the service that they, as customers, require. People are not nostalgic about the trains of the past, even though they like travelling on steam trains. I used to enjoy travelling on them.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend is not old enough to have done so.
Mrs. Lait: I am of that age, I am afraid, but it is very kind of my hon. Friend to suggest that I am not. I always had a sneaking suspicion that the reason I was wearing a navy blue school uniform was so that the dirt from steam trains did not show. Today's trains have not improved significantly. They are still dirty. They are still late. Station staff are no more helpful now than they were then. We need a modern service.
I want to tease out from the Minister what is to happen to my beloved town of Hastings. It would be stuck on to
1206
the end of any franchising operation. It takes less time to get to Doncaster from London than it does to get to Hastings, which is only 65 miles from the capital. Until there is investment in the line, I do not believe that many franchisers will wish to include it, unless they are made to do so. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me by telling me how he envisages the station at Hastings being included in the franchise.
We know that there are problems about the tunnels in Hastings. They were managed by companies that were not the best run in the world. That is why there are problems; the tunnels were not properly checked and maintained. Hastings is an area of high unemployment. There is more unemployment per head of population in Hastings than there is in Newcastle and Sheffield. Our communications, therefore, desperately need to be improved. One of those communications is the line from Hastings to Ashford, which is crucial to the development of the channel tunnel and our infrastructure. Electrification of the line has been promised for many years.
Can the Minister tell me whether, on the privatisation and franchising of that line, there is any chance that electrification will go ahead before the legislation comes into force and whether Railtrack will accept private investment in a railway line such as the Hastings to Ashford line, by means of which the private sector could deliver the type of service that the people of Hastings, Rye, Ashford and beyond want and need? As with roads, we need a good quality service so that people can travel easily along the south coast and thereby benefit from the channel tunnel.
I welcome the White Paper, which will solve problems with the poor management of British Rail, and look forward to the introduction of the Bill and the help that it will offer my constituents.
8.10 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones(Ynys Mô n): The debate has highlighted the reason why the Government's privatisa-tion programme, and especially the White Paper, has caused so much concern among my constituents, Opposition Members and, rather surprisingly, some Conservative Members. The principal reason for the concern is the way in which the Government seem prepared to proceed with programmes, throwing aside the need for strategic transport planning and failing to recognise the strategic importance of railways.
It is odd that we are debating the White Paper without considering the environmental consequences of our decisions or recognising the strategic importance of railways in a European context.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), who is no longer in his place, said that he was extremely disappointed that Richard Branson was not allowed to secure some InterCity 125 sets. My constituents and I were delighted that he was not allowed to do so. The press reports that the hon. Member for Harwich mentioned suggested that Mr. Branson may have been given sets in north Wales, which would have led to the ending of InterCity services along the north Wales coast.
That is the fundamental flaw in the Government's policy. If InterCity services stopped running in north Wales, what would happen to Wales in the run-up to the single market and to our ability to get our goods to

1207
Europe? What would have happened to the Irish Republic, because its only rail access to Europe is through north Wales?
I well remember a debate in the House some years ago on the European dimension in transport matters. I recall how disappointed I was that the Government were so negative about the idea of a European integrated transport system. Countries such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are on the periphery of the European Community and can compete only if the Government understand the need for strategic transport policies.
We are concerned about the future of peripheral services, as described in the new plan for British Rail. InterCity services in Wales and main lines in the north and south of Wales are regarded as peripheral services by British Rail. There is no doubt that the introduction of franchising would place them under considerable threat.
Let us remember the valuable service that is offered by regional railways in Wales. It is a source of regret to my colleagues and me that British Rail runs Wales from Manchester, Swindon and Birmingham. Wales is not regarded as a region by the Government or British. Rail. All decisions affecting our regional railways and rural services are taken from outside our borders. There is a case for considering the future of Welsh railways in a Welsh context. As the Welsh Office is now assuming greater responsibility for administrative affairs and public finance in Wales, the future of our rail services should be considered from a Welsh perspective.
One of the difficulties with developing rail services in rural areas has been the lack of funding. We need major infrastructure investment—especially on the north Wales main line, if I may make a parochial point—if we are to compete effectively. One of the reasons why InterCity can no longer compete with the advances made on the A55 and the road network is the ease of travel. It can no longer compete because rail investment has not matched road investment. We are shifting more and more heavy cargo on to roads. We have an excellent rail service that needs proper investment so that it can shift freight, to our environmental, social and economic benefit. Investment in the north Wales line would be of immense benefit and would be better than trying to find ways of withdrawing InterCity from north Wales altogether.
I should like to put a number of questions to the Minister, the first of which is about the franchising authority. Will the authority make proposals for new passenger services? Will there be a stimulus for new services, and what criteria will it use in determining the need for the publicly supported network? Will the new private passengers service operator be required to meet the requirements of the passengers charter? Since the lack of punctuality and unreliability are the most serious interruptions to service, who will take responsibility if signalling is faulty? Will Railtrack pay compensation?
If a breakdown by another franchisee causes all services to be delayed, will the franchisee be responsible for compensation and or reimbursement of losses to other operators? Will the Government specify the standards that must be met in the Railtrack contract with operators and in the operators' ticketing terms with passengers? Will an Association of British Travel Agents type bonding arrangement be necessary so that compensation claims are met from a central pool? How realistic is it to expect that
1208
private operators will be prepared and able to pay from their revenue Railtrack's charges for maintenance, including safety costs and modernisation of the network?
What role—this is an important point—will the European regional development fund and other European Community structural funds, which are particularly important in Wales, play in continuing to support infrastructure renewal and modernisation? Will the transfer of some assets and most operations to the private sector lead to a reduction in ERDF grant aid, both in percentage grant and eligibility for grant? Many of the publicly supported transport services in mainland Europe, particularly rail, receive tremendous support from their own Governments and from the European Community. Even if the Government were to proceed with their privatisation programme, would that eligibility for grant still apply? The Government must answer those questions.
Wales will not benefit from the new proposals. We know that the north Wales line was retained for InterCity services only by the skin of its teeth. It almost went in the past few weeks, and if Richard Branson had been given sets, such services would have disappeared. We know that, in 1994, people such as Richard Branson may be in the market again. We know that they will not run services to north Wales. They will be looking to run the profitable routes or the core services of the network. Services to north, south and mid Wales and our regional railways must be retained as part of an integrated transport network. Unless assurances are given, we shall oppose the proposals in the Lobby.
8.19 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I first add my congratulations to those of my colleagues to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on a most assured maiden speech. We shall all look forward to hearing him again on this and other subjects, and on this subject it will be a pleasure to work with him in the Select Committee on Transport, of which we are both members.
I must declare an interest which is noted on the Register of Members' Interests—although I should add that my interest is closely related to freight, whereas my speech tonight will be largely directed towards passenger services.
Opposition Members have been determined to think the worst of the Government proposals, whereas I am prepared to take a rather more upbeat approach, as they offer a great deal of hope.
Mr. Mackinlay: Hope?
Mr. Haselhurst: Hope from my point of view.
I approach the proposals with certain objectives in mind. I hope that it may be taken for granted that we expect the highest safety standards to be maintained. One trusts that there will be a coherent national timetable and inter-availability of tickets. Having said that, my principal objectives are to bring about better management of our rail services, and a shift from road to rail of both freight and passengers. I want an increase in investment and an improvement in the quality of service.
I am prepared to welcome the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put before the House. I see in them the possibility that my objectives may be achieved.
It has been well demonstrated that in every case of privatisation we have been able to bring about dramatic

1209
improvements in management standards. Throughout the history of British Rail one cannot help noticing a management culture which is too inbred, which has tolerated lack of innovation, and has shown extraordinary equanimity about low standards of service, as lost revenue seems more acceptable than high costs.
There is an in-house engineering culture in which unit costs are too high, time scales are too long and attitudes too incestuous. There is a work force still affected by restrictive practices, which has a poor interface with customers. There are still byzantine accounting practices, rooted in post-war academic dogma, which discourage sensible cash management and encourage short-termism.
I have not plucked those views out of the air. I can assure hon. Members that they are informed by discussions with people within British Rail. It is recognised that that has been the blight of management over the years —I acknowledge the fact that, in recent years, with the establishment of profit centres, there has been some improvement. However, there is still enormous scope for an altogether improved management culture in our railways, which could be brought about by my right hon. Friend's proposals.
It is natural that one should hope that an improved railway system will attract more freight and passengers. I hope that, as more detail becomes available, our discussions will reach the point of maturity at which we may be able to persuade my right hon. Friend that we should have built-in targets for achieving a shift from road to rail. I should like there to be a clearly defined purpose in the legislation, not simply the hope and expectation that we may achieve an improvement. I should like that consideration to influence the charging regime for freight as well as the design of the franchises for passenger services.
It seems that the vehicle for investment will inevitably be Railtrack, and that the key to future investment in infrastructure will lie with the rules which govern Railtrack's ability to raise money, and the level of public contribution which will accompany that. The more assurances that we have that a more liberal regime will exist for the new track authority the more confident the House and the country will be.
We also want to know more about the charging system. There are so many queries for potential freight operators and franchisees of the passenger services. They want to know what sort of burdens and restrictions will apply to them. Another key factor to which much more thought needs to be given is the development potential of the stations and the land. It is proposed at present that stations and land may be sold or leased, but the wording of the White Paper undoubtedly implies that the Government are prepared to welcome suggestions.
If those assets are capable of producing considerable sums, I shall be anxious to try to find a way of ensuring that those moneys are fed back into the improvement either of the infrastructure or of services to passengers. I hope that that will be the guiding thought in determining how those assets should be handled.
The passenger franchise idea is quite ingenious in terms of achieving a better quality of service and, certainly at the outset, I rather prefer that approach to simply believing in open access and the existence of competing train services
1210
on the same set of lines. The franchise idea seems the only realistic way of getting regional railways, Network SouthEast especially, into a better state. I welcome that aspect of the proposals.
I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State says that there will be flexibility. That is good. Again, as ideas are fleshed out through the extra information which my right hon. Friend has promised the House, I hope that we shall give more specific guidelines to the franchising authority about how we expect it to determine the final shape and content of the franchises.
The analogy that comes to mind is the way in which we franchised out the television stations. We should have a distinct quality threshold which goes beyond mere reliability, safety and so on, and offers passengers the prospect of a better ride on the railway. The conditions in which many people have to commute are appalling, and even some of the more recently designed rolling stock is also the most uncomfortable. It may be cleaner but it is uncomfortable. I hope that such considerations will become a material factor. Surely they will be the key to determining the nature of future rolling stock, which, whether it is new or refurbished, should be better designed.
I see a potential conflict in allowing two operators on the same track. The question of engineering works may arise. One operator might be content with a speed restriction, whereas another might insist that a bridge be rebuilt or redesigned so that his trains can go faster. If the engineering work is carried out, would the first operator have to bear the burden of increased costs, willy-nilly?
Other practical problems will arise. How will the dividing line be drawn between operators at stations such as Stevenage and Reading, where InterCity expresses now interchange with Network SouthEast? Commuters could have the opportunity to step on to an express train run by one operator over track which is also part of the franchise.
I hope that consideration will be given to out-of-area operations, too, as part of the franchise. A franchisee may say, "I can use my capital equipment to offer a cheap, low-cost service to destinations outside my area." That would help to provide extra services for passengers and valuable revenue for franchisees. All those ideas will help to ensure that the franchisees deliver high quality.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must of course expect questions, even from Conservative Members, on the proposals. We are bound to reflect our constituents' queries on such matters. We are dealing with an industry in which expectations have been so low for too long. We all recognise that the proposals relate to a highly complex operation. The approach of the Secretary of State is innovative, so it begs questions. It is inevitable that those doubts will have to be resolved. It is time that we tackled the subject. My right hon. Friend is right to put this challenge before us.
8.29 pm
Mr. Keith Hill: I first declare two interests —as a member of the Select Committee on Transport and as an officer for 16 years, until the general election, of the National Union of Railwaymen, now the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sponsored by that union.
On the basis of that long connection with the railway industry, I turn immediately to a fundamental difficulty in the White Paper proposals. The Government plan to

1211
separate infrastructure from operations as their preferred method of privatisation. The separation of managerial responsibility for track and train operations strikes at the heart of the profession of railway management. It will jeopardise the planning of investment and the operational integrity of the system.
The greatest benefits in terms of financial returns and customer satisfaction arise when the whole of the equipment on the line—track, signalling and rolling stock —is renewed at one time. That policy, known as total route modernisation, has been pursued on the east coast main line and on the Chiltern line where passenger numbers and revenue are growing. Such modernisation schemes depend on close co-ordination between track and rolling stock at the stages of specification and implementation. If responsibilities for track and for rolling stock are separated, as the Government propose, we will face the problem of one party wishing to proceed with modernisation while the other may not be ready to do so.
Even worse. if there are several different operators on a route and one is unable or unwilling to provide improved rolling stock, will the pace of modernisation be determined by the speed of the least innovative operator? The separation of the responsibility for track and the responsibility for operations has the potential to create even more trouble on a day-to-day basis when breakdowns and failures inevitably occur.
There will be disputes about who is to take the lead in sorting matters out, and about the right of an operator to use rolling stock and train crews to minimise passenger inconvenience rather than to do what suits individual operators. Determining who is responsible for shortcomings in services will be time-consuming, bureaucratic and often inconclusive. The scope for buck-passing at the expense of the passenger will be endless.
At present, we at least know whom to blame when something goes wrong, and we often do. It is British Rail. No intensively used passenger railway system in the world separates the management of track and operations in the way proposed by the Government. I invite the Secretary of State, through the Minister, to name any respected professional railway operator or engineer who believes that such a division represents a satisfactory basis on which to run a railway.
The Government have a history of ignoring the advice of professionals and running into trouble. They did so over the poll tax. If they had listened to professional advice on electricity privatisation, they would have avoided the fiasco of the pit closure programme. Will the Minister given an undertaking to take serious heed of those with professional operational experience on the railways? Will he give a commitment that he will think again about the separation proposals in the light of advice he receives?
We have heard a great deal from various speakers in the debate about the extraordinary bureaucratic structure being proposed in the White Paper to replace the single structure of British Rail. Not only will new operators and franchisees face a multiplicity of new bureaucratic structures, each with a finger in the pie, but the chief player in the game will still be the Government in their least encouraging guise, as the Treasury.
The consultation document on passenger franchises makes it perfectly clear that
"Most passenger services would at present not be viable as stand-alone businesses."
1212
In other words, most passenger franchisees will rely on subsidy from the Government doled out by the franchising authority.
The critical issues here will be the length of franchises and the reliability of the subsidies. I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of the significance of those matters, because we discussed them yesterday during his appearance before the Transport Committee. He made a number of important commitments on that occasion. I will spell them out and I hope that they will receive confirmation before the whole House.
As the Secretary of State and the Minister know well, the normal time scale for most railway investment is a minimum of 25 years and often 30 or 40 years. The White Paper speaks of franchises of variable duration. Until yesterday, it was generally believed that the franchises were likely to be on offer for periods of five to 10 years. Yesterday, the Secretary of State referred to franchises of five, 10 or 15 years—and possibly longer.
That point is vital. A fundamental question mark hanging over the Government's proposals in relation to investment is whether franchisees would be willing to engage in the required scale of asset renewal and improvement when they are unlikely to be in business long enough to derive the rewards of their investment. The Secretary of State seemed yesterday to have answered that question, although his answer gives rise to further questions relating to competition when franchisees and/or operators will enjoy such long franchises.
There is an additional and equally important question which arises from the reliability of the level of subsidy initially agreed between the franchisee and the franchising authority. The Secretary of State yesterday appeared to give an important answer to that question. In undertaking a franchise, the private operator will be asking for long-term financing from the banking system. Unless there are firm guarantees about the level of subsidy, there is no way in which the banks can have confidence in such investment.
The subsidy will come ultimately from the Treasury, which operates on the three-year cycle of the public expenditure survey round. In practice, the Treasury often parts with money no more than one year in advance. That is the dilemma between the long-term needs of the railway and the short-term decision-making of the Treasury with which British Rail has long had to wrestle.
The potential problem for the franchisee is how to conclude successful negotiations for the leasing of assets over five, 10 or 15 years when it would appear that his guarantee of subsidy is for three years at the most. The consultation document maintains that the Government intend that the subsidy will be determined in advance for the whole period of the franchise, but it adds the ominous words:
"both grant and the service specification may be subject to periodic review."
Yesterday, the Secretary of State was reasonably emphatic that subsidy would be at a guaranteed level for the duration of the franchises. He was less than explicit on the issue this evening. We seek again from the Minister an explicit guarantee that the subsidy will be at a guaranteed level for the duration of the franchise.
The White Paper raises many more questions than it answers. The Government are embarking on an elaborate process of consultation to try to find the answers to some of the questions. It might have been more sensible to delay

1213
the commitment to privatisation until they had sorted out those questions. It would certainly have been more sensible to delay publication and proceedings on a Bill until the Transport Select Committee had completed its work.
The bottom-line question is whether privatisation will lead to the growth of investment which is so desperately needed in railways. Could that objective have been better served by a better-funded British Rail? I am bound to say that, so far, the balance of evidence does not favour the Government's proposals.
8.38 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on the excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I know that we will hear him many more times in the Chamber speaking adeptly on this issue and on many others.
I am delighted, first, to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). The hon. Gentleman spoke wittily on the subject of the latest consultation document, but what would Opposition Members have said if the document had not been a consultation document or if it had not contained a full description of the current system? They would have criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not including such a description.
Mr. Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but we are all caught by the 10-minute trap—and I did not intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
It is abundantly clear that the document is a consultation document inviting views. That is one of its great merits. I appreciated the wit of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I should point out that the section at which he most poked fun—that headed "Important Notice"—could not have been omitted. For a number of years in the early 1980s, I was the secretary of the Railway Lawyers Group, a national organisation, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman should understand that those words have enormous legal significance in relation to the investment for which hon. Members on both sides of the House argue.
If those words were not contained in a document inviting views on franchises, which are legal and financial matters, the document would not be appropriate. When poking fun at them, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that it lies ill in his mouth and in the mouths of his hon. Friends then to say that we need more investment from the private sector. Only if such matters are carefully addressed can we expect private sector investment to he forthcoming, and it is in attracting such investment that the significance of the document, the White Paper and, eventually, the Bill, lies.
The most important aspect of the White Paper is that it states that passenger safety is paramount. Hon Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that that is stated time and again in the White Paper and the consultation document, and I am sure that the concept will have all-party support.
I regret to say, however, that many Opposition Members seem far more concerned about the morale of the
1214
staff—which, I may add, I do not discount as an important factor—than about passengers who are the customers of the railways. The railways are there to serve the people. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) ought to bear it in mind that, if Opposition Members go to public meetings—not party or union meetings—and suggest that there has been nothing wrong with British Rail since the industry was nationalised in 1947–48, they will be laughed out of court.
The White Paper and the Bill seek to improve the service that is given to passengers. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—who is not in her place—complained that we should be talking not about customers but about passengers. She is missing the point. Passengers want to be treated as customers and they want better service than the service that they have had to put up with for years.
The acid test of the Government's proposals is that, with the involvement of private sector franchisees, there should be a better service for passengers. I welcome the Government's policy because I recognise that the private sector operators who will be brought into the industry will be similar to those who run airlines, whose staff take care of their customers.
I am the first to recognise that British Rail has many dedicated staff who believe in customer care. The problem lies with the minority who do not. They are at the sharp end. I am lucky: I use the north-west main line twice a week, and its staff have very high standards. Many other British Rail staff also have high standards but—no doubt like Opposition Members—I am nevertheless besieged by complaints. As the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, we know who to complain to at the moment—and we often do complain—about the British Rail staff who let the side down, who are seen leaning on brooms instead of doing their work and who cannot answer passengers' complaints. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Opposition Members may make scornful remarks but I am sure that they have to answer the same complaints in their surgeries as I do.
When I was in the United States with a number of Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for York (Mr. Bayley), we saw a shining example of the benefits of the private sector in rail transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At the Union station in Washington DC, which is the showpiece.
Anyone who has been to a British Rail station in recent years should recognise that one of the best things that has happened to customer service is the involvement of the private sector. One can now get a far wider choice of meals, and, under the new proposals, we look forward to still wider consumer choice. Opposition Members will have to answer to their constituents for the fact that they pour scorn on such improvements and defend an outmoded socialist bureaucracy that does not provide an adequate service to customers.
I believe that the monopoly must be broken, not least because BR as it is now has withdrawn the direct InterCity service on which my constituents have relied for many years. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) talked about the dangers of the private sector and what might happen to services in his constituency. He is lucky because his constituents still have a service, whereas British Rail has withdrawn the service to my constituents. The hon. Member for Preston should realise that the customers who now have to transfer from the InterCity service in her

1215
constituency—many of them disabled customers who have to negotiate a footbridge or steep ramps—are not getting a proper service.
We want to open up opportunities to people who can run a through service to the biggest tourist resort in the country, which has always had a service. Opposition Members saw that service withdrawn on the Monday of their party conference in Blackpool and ought to have been aware of the complaints.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman was not there.
Mr. Hawkins: I was there. I travelled on the last through service to my constituency, and I can tell Opposition Members that I have always been a regular rail traveller. It was Opposition Members who arrived at their party conference by car and who were not aware of the complaints of their constituents and their party members.
Opposition Members are very unwise if they pour scorn on the welcome involvement of private sector capital. They claim, in a mealy-mouthed way, that they are not against some private sector involvement, but everything that they have done and proposed is intended to deter the involvement and investment that they claim to support. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has already threatened publicly that a Labour Government would immediately withdraw the franchises. What do such threats do to encourage the private sector to bring in the investment that he claims he supports?
The Government are committed to bring in as much capital as is needed, and our proposals represent the only way to do that. I am not an ideologue. I believe in the injunction, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problem with British Rail is that it is broke, both financially and because it does not provide an adequate service to customers.
I accept that Opposition Members with real experience of the industry have made some valid points. I accept the need to ensure through-ticketing in the revised system and that safety is the paramount consideration in the revised system. I also feel, however, that our principal duty is to look after the passenger and the customer.
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for York that the country's rail heritage should be looked after.
8.48 pm
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I make no apologies for being about to pour scorn on the proposed privatisation of British Rail. However, before I do that I have a confession to make. In this debate on the new opportunities for the railways, I speak as a confirmed motorist, albeit as a motorist with a very uneasy conscience; one who uses her car knowing full well what damage that causes to the environment and the congestion that it causes in cities. I do so also as a motorist who knows that by using her car as regularly as I do I increase the likelihood of my having an accident. I deliberately choose a form of transport that is less safe than the railway service.
I am the kind of motorist who is looking for an intitiative by the Government that would persuade me to travel by rail. However, I see nothing in the White Paper to persuade me to do that. I am an occasional rail traveller whose tolerance level sinks low where rail travel is concerned. In comparative terms, I can tolerate a hold-up
1216
at junction 14 on the M62 with equanimity. However, I fuss and fume over the smallest delay or inconvenience when I travel on InterCity.
Unlike the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), I tend to get off a train infinitely more stressed than when I got on. I rage at the three classes of rail passenger when first class passengers travel in spacious luxury; when second class—sorry, standard class—passengers receive a free cup of tea or coffee; and third class [sorry, saver ticket holders—are lucky to get a seat on some trains.
If my ticket costs as much as £30 for a third class return trip, why cannot I be guaranteed a seat? Why is the food so expensive? Motorway services and BR rip off travellers quite shamelessly. Therefore, I fret and grumble about unexplained stops. Why can one never quite hear what the guard is saying just when you really want to hear? I sit in my stationary car just north of Birmingham and persuade myself that at least I have some control over my journey.
Those may be somewhat petty examples of the frustrations felt by rail passengers, but they are nevertheless genuine and deeply felt. However, it is irrational for me to rail at BR over its pricing policy when the Government's failure to subsidise BR forces it to raise revenues in the only way it can. It is irrational for me to grumble about unscheduled stops and to imagine that no such delay would have occurred had I gone by car. However irrational that may be, I cannot deny those feelings, and I thought that it was important that I should explain them to the House.
Conservatives take that experience and the real frustrations of rail passengers and they exploit them for the pursuit of their own privatisation dogma just as they have done whenever they pushed our national assets and public services into the private sector. The Government told the public that things would be better when the gas or electricity supply was run by the private sector. However, over the past few weeks we have seen the chaos that has been created in our coalfields by the privatisation of our energy industry.
The Conservative party believes that people will have more control and accountability as customers than as passengers of a public service. In the past, the Conservatives have said, "Your child will enjoy his or her school meal more if it is prepared by a private company rather than by school dinner ladies." They have said and continue to say, "Your hospital will be cleaner if it is cleaned by a private company rather than by your ward domestic who keeps stopping work to chat to you, ask how you are, make you laugh and then warn you not to burst your stitches."
In paragraph 5, the White Paper plays upon the frustrations of rail passengers and it makes the right analysis of the problems facing passengers, but it prescribes the wrong treatment. It states:
"BR's staff and management work hard to improve services. But they are limited by the structure of the industry in the public sector."
That is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong treatment for the problems facing BR. That is the Conservatives' privatisation con trick all over again. They cuddle close to rail travellers and say, "Don't worry. We know how you feel. We can assure you that your rail journey will be less frustrating if Mr. Branson runs the train than if BR runs it." However, the Secretary of State was tonight unable to reassure hon. Members when he was asked specific questions about the lack of detail in the White Paper.

1217
When passengers complain about BR, they are told that it is all BR's fault; if only it was privatised, there would be no more unscheduled stops. It is claimed that prices will come down because there will be more competition. That is just not true, as our experience of other privatised monopolies has shown. Privatisation is not a panacea for the problems facing BR.
I want briefly to illustrate the point by describing the problems that have faced water customers in my constituency. Residents in a road in Old Swan complained to the water authority that there were bits in their drinking water and were told that they were imagining it. They were told that they were the only people in the area complaining about it. They were told that their domestic pipes were the problem. One elderly woman bought a new washing machine, although she could ill afford it, when there was nothing wrong with the old one.
A survey of residents carried out by the Labour party showed that four out of five residents had experienced problems and a number of them had reported those problems. That is an example of how privatisations have not worked in many of the areas when the Government have forced them on the people of this country. I am happy to say that the water authority has undertaken to renew the mains supply, but there is no compensation for those who were persuaded that the remedy lay in their own hands.
What remedy will be available to rail travellers after privatisation? I do not know the answer to that and I have seen no remedies that will work. However, the Government will be able to say, "It's nothing to do with us now. Don't complain to us; we are no longer responsible. Go and see the franchising authority." People will be told to go to the operators and Railtrack.
The Secretary of State will no longer be ultimately responsible for passenger safety. Paragraph 79 of the White Paper states:
"The primary duty for guaranteeing the safe operation of the railway will rest with Railtrack and individual operators of trains, terminals, depots etc … Railtrack and operators will be responsible for undertaking the necessary investment which will sustain safe operation".
That is different from the present situation where the Secretary of State is responsible. Who should be providing failsafe doors to prevent further tragedies in which people fall to their deaths from trains?
For those who rely on it, the rail network is vital to their ability to get to work or for the delivery of freight essential to their work. It is a key element in the management of our economy. That reason alone is good enough for me to believe that political accountability for the operation of the rail service is essential.
I do not believe that privatised rail operators will pay sufficient heed to long-term regional planning that is so necessary, if not essential, for areas such as Merseyside and my constituency. Unless it is Government-led, how are we to see investment in a cross-Pennine rail link which would create a land bridge across Britain from Humberside to Merseyside and encourage the flow of freight and passengers to and from Scandinavia and northern Europe through Hull to Liverpool and on to Ireland?
With respect to greater choice, all I can see after privatisation for rail passengers is that the choice will be as
1218
it is now. Many of those passengers will do what I do now because the White Paper offers no hope to motorists like me who would rather travel by rail.
8.57 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: We have always known that Blackpool is famous for fresh air and fun. Clearly, something in that air lends a passion for railways among hon. Members from that part of England. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on his vigorous defence of the railways and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on his vigorous and entertaining maiden speech. He talked of his problem of being mistaken for our hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). I fear that I suffer a worse fate; I am regularly mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth).
It is probably right that I declare two modest shareholdings, for I am a shareholder in two of Britain's highly successful private railways. I am a modest shareholder in the Severn Valley Railway. Therefore, I attach great importance to the comments of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) about the possible impact of the legislation on the national railway museum. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider that matter.
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I am also a shareholder in Eurotunnel. Last week, I had the privilege of being on the first passenger train to go into the channel tunnel. Of course, the channel tunnel is a railway system rather than a tunnel. It is a very vigorous example of what the private sector can bring to transport in this country, and I congratulate all those involved in it. I unreservedly welcome the private sector's involvement in railways. Why should British Rail uniquely be disqualified from the advantages that privatisation has brought to other privatised industries—the private sector flair and capital?
Many hon. Members heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), but his views are not widely shared on Conservative Benches. However, Conservative Members share his view that the Government's objective should be a better railway, and we are convinced that the Government's proposals will provide precisely that.
I pay tribute to the present railways. I am a regular user of InterCity, of regional railways and Network SouthEast. Again, in response to the motoring hon. Member for Broadgreen, I wish that I could arrive as reliably at my destination by car as I can count on arriving by train.
I thoroughly endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the radical change in British Rail's approach and performance in the past 10 years. On most measures of business performance, BR outperforms its European competitors. InterCity remains the only main line railway in Europe to operate profitably. It also runs more trains at more than 100 mph than any other European railway. We can look with confidence to the railway staff, many of whom will move to the new private sector operators to rise to the challenge of the private sector.
However, there are problems with the network. There is poor marketing at local level, and limited access to private capital. Investment policy is determined by the Treasury, not by need and, very worryingly in some recent

1219
developments in the railways, there is no transparency of charge which enables private operators to enter the market.
In my constituency of Worcester, I see stations not fully exploited and their potential not fully explored. I see confusion, not clarity, about where to address complaints. I see timetables that are not consolidated for the benefit of the travelling public in the way that they are for bus services. It is difficult to work out how to get to London or understand the range of destinations that are served from my constituency. I see a destination—one could call it in-fighting—between the three passenger sectors of the railways to provide through services to London, and that has significantly delayed the development of a good service. I am delighted that those problems will be resolved and that we will have the new turbo trains in next May's timetable. The success of those new through services will lead to enormous pressure on Railtrack for re-dualling of the Cotswold line between Worcester and Oxford
The success or failure of the Bill will depend crucially on its detail. I am sure that the principle of franchising is absolutely right, but we must make it work in practice. In that context, I welcome the Government's clear commitment which Opposition Members have sought to criticise on many occasions and have sought to deny that we will subsidise those socially necessary services.
However, I should like to raise several details with the Minister. I realise that he will not have an opportunity to reply to all of them, but I hope that he will be able to reassure me on them in due course. I am aware of the Secretary of State's comments about not pushing detail too far at this stage. We must let the consultation process and the various detailed documents that have been promised receive their due consideration. I congratulate the Government on their approach in that regard.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) has stolen some of my thunder about the apparent conflict between the length of franchises and the need for major capital investment by operators. The new class 91 locomotives which are operating successfully on the east coast main line cost about £8 million each and have a 30-year design life. The west coast main line urgently needs new trains, which will cost between £12 million and £15 million. The InterCity 125 units which serve my constituency and many other constituencies certainly will not last indefinitely, either.
We need to be sure that the franchise periods will be sufficiently long to encourage operators to make new investments. Those new investments are important not only for the manufacturers of that rolling stock and its locomotives but for the quality of service that the new private operators will provide. I also share the view that we must be sure that the Treasury will be prepared to commit subsidy over a long time. Indeed, the public expenditure survey must not be the limit of the franchise period.
Many hon. Members share the concern that more freight should be attracted on to the railways. I am confident that private-sector practices enhance that process. I am encouraged by Ministers' frequent assertions of the importance which they attach to that process.
It has been suggested to me most forcefully that more transparency of cost might increase the costs to freight operators and lead to disputes, for example, about the level of track maintenance required, which differs wildly between the high-quality run required for the 225 km per hour passenger trains and that required for heavy freight
1220
trains. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the charging regime that is introduced will encourage the use of railways for freight transport.
I am similarly encouraged that, although it is planned that the infrastructure and the rail track will remain in public ownership, paragraph 18 of the White Paper envisages possible private sector ownership in the long term. Will the Minister reassure me that, if a proposal comes from the private sector, earlier private ownership will be possible?
I am sure that every hon. Member attaches importance to network benefits for timetabling, through-ticketing and the national discount structure operated through the railcard system. I am convinced that the application of information technology could solve the timetabling and through-ticketing problems but what about the discounts, which are so appreciated by such a wide range of groups in my constituency?
My final detailed point is on how regulation will work. Will it be overseen by people steeped in the existing British Rail management style, techniques and practices or by new brooms from other sectors? In the privatisation of the telecommunications industry we saw the crucial importance of the effectiveness of Oftel. The qualities of Professor Bryan Carsberg will be called for in the regulator of the railways. I hope that we shall also have an assurance from the Minister that we will not follow the example of previous privatisations and call the office of the regulator "Ofrail".
The principle of the forthcoming Bill is right. I look forward to its earliest possible introduction and the benefits that it will bring to all the passengers who will experience the services that will flow from it.
9.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There are many comments that I should like to make, but time, and the fact that I am a member of the Select Committee, dictate that I should reduce my remarks to several headings. I shall endeavour to do that.
Before doing so, I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you read your Hansard over cornflakes tomorrow morning, to reflect on the content of the speeches of Conservative Members. After the ritual congratulations to the Secretary of State on publishing with an innovative White Paper, there followed a catalogue of questions, followed by a litany of hope, as we heard in the speeches of the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Time after time they asked questions that are not answered in the two documents pumped out by the Secretary of State in recent weeks.
One must ask why there are so many unanswered questions. We must come back to the fact that the genesis of the documents before us today is not the present Secretary of State or Minister of State but the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, who dictated, along with her political colleagues, that British Rail should be privatised. The two Ministers inherited this chalice and have had to try to put something together. I know that they deny it, but I do not believe them.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State are decent people who have fallen among sinners. Effectively, they have had to cobble together something to present to

1221
Parliament because they inherited the policy from their predecessors. I do not believe that their hearts are in it. Nor have they been able to complete the job of presenting meaningful legislation. Consequently, we have been presented with an opaque White Paper. The Bill will be purely enabling legislation, and if it is passed and receives Royal Assent it will be a total abdication by Parliament of its capacity to control and shape the future of an important part of our transport system.
What is happening with British Rail is similar to what happened with the poll tax. We were told that the rating system was unwelcome and we needed to find alternatives. However, when it was examined, generation after generation of people realised that it could not be done easily and painlessly. Similarly, rail privatisation has a superficial attraction, but on examination one finds it cannot be done while maintaining a national service and network and ensuring swift mobility, at low cost, in our cities.
If the legislation receives Royal Assent, Parliament will have ensured that parts of our rail network will be privatised without further debate in the House. I predict that Conservative Members and their successors will greatly regret a decision taken now which means that they were unable to influence, temper or reject the privatisation of key areas of our rail network. It shall have been a profound mistake. We would be abdicating the capacity to decide the shape of our rail network and who should control it to the franchising authority, and that is unprecedented, even in terms of this Government's privatisation programmes.
I know that the Minister of State will consider that I have repeatedly probed him on the issue of the British Transport police. I continue to do so because we never get a reply. I probed the matter in the Committee of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, in the Select Committee on Transport yesterday, and I shall do so again tonight. Why are the Government unable to tell the House what they intend to do about the much-respected and appreciated British Transport police who are vulnerable, especially if the Government succeed in their objective of privatising, as distinct from franchising, some of our rail network? If I am wrong, I cannot for the life of me understand why we must wait for another paper from the Minister of State. Why is he not able to reassure us, the public and the police at the Dispatch Box tonight?
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) claimed to have the worst railway line in Britain within his constituency and dismissed my claim. I do not want to get into an auction with the hon. Member—I accept that we both have the worst railway lines within our constituencies.
The proposals before us are irrelevant to the needs of passengers and of customers, who have to try to tolerate the line from Dartford or the line which goes through my constituency, through Tilbury, Grays and Purfleet. If the proposals receive Royal Assent, these services are likely to be diminished still further. There is no prospect of either line being an attractive purchase or franchise for any sensible or prudent financial institution or individual.
I fear that there will be a temptation to give away the real estate and the service to the present managers of such
1222
lines. I underline the word "managers" as distinct from employees. Much has been unfairly said about the bulk of British Rail employees, who have to endure the irritation of many passengers who must tolerate the appalling travelling conditions on the Dartford and Tilbury lines and elsewhere. However, it is not within the employees' capacity to improve those services. The Government, the management of British Rail and the line managers are to blame. I fear that the line managers are already making dispositions to enable them to get the franchise on those lines.
I have no confidence in the line managers of the Tilbury and Southend line and nor have passengers, customers or employees. I hope that there will be no nonsense whereby the managers will be given the almost exclusive opportunity to place a cosmetic bid for those lines. That would be unacceptable and would compound the irritation of passengers and the bulk of employees.
I find it breathtaking to listen to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South bleating about the loss of his InterCity service. He is in part to blame, and I hope that his constituents will note that. He has acquiesced in a situation in which InterCity is viewed as a profit centre. It is clearly being pruned to make it attractive for privatisation. Presumably he will support that in the Lobby. I hope that he will pay dearly for it at the next general election.
Mr. Hawkins rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
9.14 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: The debate has been long and informed and—as Conservative Members always do—I have welcomed the depth of information and experience that we have heard about from Opposition Members. That is why I have been so surprised that, despite their experience of British Rail, they do not understand, as Conservative Members do, that British Rail's network was built by private money; that for two thirds of the life of that system it was run by the private sector; and that some of the great exports through this country have been railway exports under the private sector. Yet there has been no ghost of a hint by the Opposition of the fact that during that period—100 years of private sector management—there was enormous initiative.
In 1902, stenographers were provided on the railway to Broad street. Hon. Members, had they have been travelling on the trains, could have had their letters written. Such was the imagination and initiative under the private sector. None of that was heard from Opposition Members.
So what is the prospect for the future? The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) told us that he had never heard of proposals by management that the two sides of the railway, the track and the running operations, be separated. In 1947, a book was written by the management of the London and North-eastern Railway called "An Alternative to Nationalisation". They were fighting the Labour party in those days. They proposed then that the track should be separated from the operating part of the railway. It was a good idea and it is part, perhaps, of what we have seen in the White Paper today.

1223
I have only a few minutes and all of us have an agenda of questions, so I shall ask only three main questions. First, I see a danger with this privatisation at which many of us on the Conservative Benches have hinted. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is hearing these points about which we are very anxious as well as our welcome for the White Paper. The question is: if a number of different operators are bidding for a particular good service, such as the 8 o'clock on the east coast route, who will decide who gets it?
Are we to fill the pockets of more lawyers? Do we have to have an arbitration system? We have heard of "Ofrail". I hope we shall not be derailed in all this. We need to have a private sector body, a private independent body, that commands the respect of the public, to decide those matters quickly and effectively.
We also need—I refer to page 2 and paragraph 8 of the White Paper, "New Opportunities for Railways"—a reference to interchanges. In all our transport training and practice, transport has been dealt with in boxes, such as air, water, rail and road. It needs to be dealt with in interchanges. I want to see opportunities for interchanges between stations and car parks surrounding the stations and I want the airspace over railways to be used for urban regeneration and not used for the wrong purposes. I do not want the question of interchanges or airspace to be forgotten in what is proposed.
I welcome this proposal and the Government's initiative. It shows the Government's typical courage to deal with complex issues. I also welcome the Government's desire to sweep away the cobwebs of the past and their determination to enter the next century by harnessing the ideas, the money and the initiative of the private sector for the passenger—a concept that the Labour party will never understand.
9.19 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I have seldom, in almost 20 years in the House, known a Bill to be welcomed with so many qualifications. Some of the earlier enthusiasm for the Bill expressed by Conservative Members was rapidly qualified as it dawned on them that, just in their constituencies, it was perhaps not such a good thing; a case of capitalism red in tooth and claw—but not too much of it these days in Finchley, I notice, listening to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and not at all in Blackpool.
We had a tirade from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkings) about idle and slothful railway-men. Then suddenly realisation dawned that, with a majority of 1,640, or whatever it is, that was rather a risky strategy, so the idle railwaymen were not present in Blackpool any more.
The whole tenor of today's debate has been a welcome for the forthcoming Bill from those with ambitions on the Conservative Benches, albeit hedged with all sorts of qualifications in the light of the fact that their ambitions might not be realised if the Bill, as envisaged by the Secretary of State and his faithful acolyte, were implemented in the way that we think it might be. I say "think" because if ever there was an imprecise White Paper before the House, it is this one.
I do not want to harp for too long on the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South because, to be honest, I do not think that it is worth it, but he talked about a
1224
consultative document. I am no great procedural expert, but I always thought that a White Paper was an indication of what the Government intended to do—a precursor to legislation. Yet any detailed questions from either side of the Chamber today were greeted earlier by the Secretary of State saying, "Wait and see." A positive myriad of documents are to be produced early next year.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Snape: It is too early yet. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
Her Majesty's Stationery Office is already geared up. It will be working overtime all next year producing documents to explain the legislation that we here today are supposed to be discussing.
The Secretary of State and the Conservative party will have to forgive me some puzzlement about exactly in which direction this train is heading, or, looking at the two characters opposite, who is the driver and who is the fireman.
First, and in a non-partisan way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on a maiden speech which was fluent and concise. I hope that I do not blight his promotion prospects by so doing. I do not know why we have had to wait so long for a speech that was so assured. I noted with some interest that he was receiving Refreshment Department bills for his namesake, the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). He is lucky that he is not receiving them for his other namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in saying that we hope to hear the hon. Gentleman often in the future.
The concept of railway privatisation is based on a myth. Ministers continually talk about a railway monopoly, as if the only way to get from A to B in Britain were to take the train. But competition in transport exists here as elsewhere. Given the British devotion to the company car and the well-founded view within the Department of Transport that the heavy goods vehicle is a good thing, greater competition probably faces the railway industry in Britain more than anywhere else in western Europe.
The Government continually peddle another myth about the railway industry. They portray the industry as an inefficient uncaring outfit which, if it only enjoyed the bracing effect of private sector involvement, would be miraculously transformed.
As recently as yesterday, while he was giving evidence to the Select Committee, I understand that the Secretary of State referred to British Rail as a monolithic monopoly. The prospect of an intelligent dialogue with a Secretary of State as capable of self-delusion as that makes those hon. Members on both sides of the House who care about the future of the railway industry despair.
Where is the monopoly for travellers between, for example, Birmingham and London? After all, having just spent millions of pounds on the M40 motorway, presumably to allow car drivers to avoid the monopoly of the Ml, and given that British Midland airways runs an occasional—albeit somewhat expensive—service between Birmingham International and London Heathrow, where is the monolithic monopoly referred to by the Secretary of State? The fact is that it does not exist, and nothing that Conservative Members have said justifies that assertion.

1225
The problem about any rational discussion with Ministers about the future of the railway industry is that they appear to be motivated entirely by an ideology and dogma that would have seemed quaint and unrealistic even to the much-vaunted Victorians who built our railway system in the first place. The danger of the whole nonsensical exercise in the White Paper is the damage that is being done, and will be done, to a railway system already rotting away after 13 years of hostility and indifference by Secretaries of State who have come and gone faster than the Gatwick express.
The most obvious danger in the Government's proposals is their effect on the overall operation of the railway system. Despite the popular view that anyone can run a railway—a view that is obviously shared by the Thomas the Tank Engine personalities who inhabit the Department of Transport—it is an enormously complex system which operates on a 24-hour, seven-day a week basis. Many thousands of people, in a myriad different grades within the overall structure, co-operate together with the objective of providing a service to both passenger and freight for the public and the country. That system works as well as it does only because all those people share that goal and are pulling in the same direction.
It may be hard for the Conservative party to appreciate, in these cynical days, the fact that most of the people involved in our railway industry share a sense of achievement at the end of a successful working day. Those who clean the trains, often very early in the morning or late at night; those responsible for planning and the safe passage of the journey; drivers and signalmen who shepherd a train safely along its route; and those responsible for planning that and the turns of duty—all share a sense of pride in the railway industry which not even 13 years of attack by successive Secretaries of State in the present Administration has reduced.
As a former railwayman who worked on the railway until the trumpet sounded for the 1974 general election, and as the son of a railwayman, may I say with personal pride that the non-stop denigration of those who work in that great industry is extremely dispiriting. Many of them, underpaid as they are, feel strongly about the services that they want to provide and have genuine fears. They have fears not only for their jobs—such fears are human—but genuine fears which many of them express to me about the future of the railway industry if those barmy proposals are implemented.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that several Conservative Members have referred to a minority of rail employees who let the side down. I am sure that he would not wish to defend those who let the side down. We have all paid tribute to the high standards of the majority and I wish to do so again, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may make a brief intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before and we all know why—he must look over his shoulder. I shall go to Blackpool again shortly and when I meet the local branch of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—I shall say
1226
that the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about its members' welfare and job prospects. I have no doubt that they will give him the same support as they have given him in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "He got elected."] Aye, but only just. He might be a Member of Parliament in Blackpool temporarily, but I remember Blackpool when it was one of the safest Tory seats in the country. I confidently prophesy that the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be back in the Labour camp by the next general election. He will end up leaning on his broomstick on Blackpool North platform.
The core of the Government's philosophy hinges on the right of access to the railway network for private sector operators, both passenger and freight. If I can take the Conservative party no further, its members will at least agree with me about that. Whether they will seek such access depends on the price charged by publicly owned Railtrack, operating as it does under the direct control of the regulator, whose qualifications, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, do not include a working knowledge of railways.
We believe that the most likely outcome of these proposals for freight transport will be that they will bring even more joy to the Road Haulage Association, despite the fond hopes expressed by Conservative Members. It will be more expensive to carry freight by rail under the new regime, when subsidies to rail freight will be forbidden, just as they are now. Rail freight is not subsidised, although in the opinion of many of us, given railways' enormous environmental benefits, it should be. At the moment, however, freight enjoys a favourable charging regime on the railway network, although nowhere near as favourable as that granted to road operators. Where freight trains share track with passenger trains, by and large they bear only the marginal costs of the track and signalling along the route.
It is impossible to imagine that such a system will continue when a multiplicity of private operators are seeking to operate freight trains in the way the Secretary of State fondly imagines they will.
I am intrigued when I listen to Conservatives and Ministers talking about the need to attract freight from road to rail. Let us not worry about what is in the White Paper or about what may happen in future—although worry we will. Let us look at what has happened over the past year while Ministers have been telling us that freight will be transferred from road to rail—or at least, that that is their objective.
In the past 12 months, we have witnessed the collapse and withdrawal of the Speedlink wagon-load network from British Rail. The lines between Cambridge and Fendrayton, Yate and Tytherington, and Alves and Burghead in Scotland have all closed. We expect the line from Northallerton to Redmire to close later this year, and under review are no fewer than five freight lines in various parts of the country. Among the terminals closed in the past year, while the much-vaunted policy of the transfer from road to rail has been in action, have been Hawkhead in Paisley, Ridham Dock near Sheerness, the Bristol Freightliner terminal, Roseisle in Grampian, South Lyan in Norfolk, and Eccles Road in Norfolk, in the constituency of the Secretary of State himself. If that is the experience of rail freight under the current regime, how much worse matters will be once, and if, this nonsense is implemented.

1227
The whole track charging regime to which I have referred is shrouded in mist even denser than that which surrounds the Government's economic strategy. Earlier this year, the Minister of State gave a keynote address to a rail privatisation seminar entitled "Deregulation and open access", held under the auspices of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I am sorry that I was not there; I was invited, but I had another engagement. Nevertheless, I did read the Minister's speech, in which he said that Britain had
"played an active role in framing an EC directive on the development of European Railways".
I am always fascinated to hear Ministers telling us how we lead Europe and are at the heart of Europe.
The Minister went on to talk about access rights for rail freight customers under the new proposals and he asked a number of questions about how they would work. Unsurprisingly, as he could not answer his own questions —the Secretary of State still cannot answer them—he played safe. Instead of adopting a former Prime Minister's view, that one should set up a royal commission that took minutes to set up and years to report, this Government engage consultants to present these reports.
In January the previous Secretary of State appointed Coopers and Lybrand and told it to report in June. Perhaps it could not find any answers because it never reported. But that did not faze the Minister who, if nothing else, is a resourceful chap, and he appointed Mercers to carry out the same exercise. This is the Government who lecture us about the need for careful stewardship of public money. I hope that both reports will be placed in the Library. I am sure that the Minister has received the first report and that it does not match his conclusions. We can compare the two and discover what public money was spent on and the expensive conclusions.
The Government's proposals have no friends. Conservative Members have given them a muted welcome. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is not in his place, is presumably waiting to catch a train on the Dartford loop. I can hardly wait to see all the Richard Branson imitators waiting to buy the Dartford loop when the proposals are implemented. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) spoke about being at the end of a branch line and about how wonderful it would be for private enterprise. Obviously she does not know much about the history of the Hastings line. Private enterprise made such a good job of building it that the tunnels were defective and British Rail had to install signals at them. Before that the much attacked publicly owned British Rail had to build special trains to fit the tunnels. The hon. Lady appears to be digging up a few Victorians. Does she think that there will be many buyers for the Hastings line or that a comprehensive network service would operate on it?
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) also gave the proposals a muted welcome and posed some preceptive questions to which the Minister had no answer. In his winding-up speech the Minister of State will tell the hon. Gentleman, as he told the rest of us, that next year a series of documents will be produced. The House is being treated with utter contempt. The Government want to do something about the railways but they are not sure what, so they dress up dogma to look like policy and place it before the House. They have not been able to answer a single question on the vital matters that must be discussed before any legislation is presented.
1228
What about railway safety? Which of the would-be railway kings will pay for the signal protection system on which millions of pounds of public money is currently being spent? Who will pay for the safety training of railway employees? About 5,000 people per year are killed on the roads, while in three of the past 10 years no passengers were killed in a moving train accident on British Rail. Such a glittering record is expensive. Who will pay for it in future? The Secretary of State will not tell us but says that he will produce a consultative document next year. That is not much use in the context of legislation that is to appear in November.
Of course not just the working railway costs a great deal of public money. Who will pay for the maintenance of bridges and viaducts and the other structures on closed branch lines that are still owned by British Rail? We shall pay, and while we are doing so the profitable segments of British Rail will be parcelled up and sold to the private sector. Is that how the profit motive is to be demonstrated in the legislation?
No fewer than 60 rail user groups, the customers who Conservatives say they are concerned about, came together as recently as last week to attack the White Paper and the philosophy behind it. The statutory Transport Users Consultative Committee was appointed by the Government. The former leader of the Conservative party said that her first question about any appointee was, "Is he one of us?" Presumably, many of the committee's members are "one of us" in the Conservative party's terms; yet they too have condemned the proposals in the White Paper, and the likely legislation.
Let me end on a non-controversial note—I do not like controversy when it is not necessary. Let me pray in aid an organisation that rarely finds itself on the same side as the Labour party—although the more it sees of the activities of the present Government, the further it moves in our direction. I refer, of course, to the CBI, which published a press release last Wednesday headed "BR privatisation: CBI signals at amber". The CBI feared that the proposals lacked "clarity and detail"—in spades, one might add. It went on to say that they
"ought to be seen within the context of a more coherent transport strategy."
I do not want to baffle the Secretary of State by using such jargon as "transport strategy", because I know that that is a philosophy that he has long eschewed: indeed, he and his Minister of State are very anxious to avoid it.
The CBI added:
"if further reflection needed by the Government causes them to delay the timetable, so be it … the overriding concern of CBI members is not primarily one of ownership but one of how the quality and level of railway services can be improved."
I am sorry if all this bores the Secretary of State, who is yawning. If he had listened to more of the debate, he might be a bit livelier. He has probably been travelling on Stagecoach, which I understand is a pretty unsuccessful way of travelling between England and Scotland. [Interruption.] I must remind the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that Whips are traditionally silent. I am not surprised that he is making sedentary interventions: he is wasting his own party's time by provoking me in this way.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that questions of order can safely be left to me.
Mr. Snape: As long as you are in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not trust them with anyone else.
The CBI concluded:
"As the proposals currently stand, there will be a daunting array of regulators involved in the running of the railways. Far from encouraging private sector interest, there is a real danger that privatisation will be a blueprint for bureaucracy. We urge the Government to think hard before moving ahead with the legislation."
So do we—and, in their heart of hearts, so do many
Conservative Members.
9.41 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The argument advanced by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—that the Government are consulting on the detail of their proposals and should not be doing so—is unconvincing. The whole purpose of the exercise—the whole purpose of producing a White Paper and then debating it, in advance of legislation—is to enable the views of the House to be understood and, indeed, to consult widely. That is exactly what we are doing. If we had presented a cut and dried policy down to the last detail, the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to criticise us for doing so.
We have set out our principles clearly. We have not sought to set out the implications in detail, and I think that that is right. The details can be discussed in the Committee stage of a Bill that will receive overwhelming Conservative support on Second Reading. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East thinks that he can build a case for the defeat of the legislation on the speeches of two hon. Members and one right hon. Member—whom I greatly respect, and I shall deal with the points that they made —he has another think coming.
Let me correct what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of consultants. He has confused two tasks. Coopers and Lybrand was appointed to propose the new basis of track charging by Railtrack. It has not completed its work; when it has done so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish its conclusions and deposit them in the Library of the House. Mercers is examining the structure of the freight industry, which has nothing to do with track charging. As my right hon. Friend said, when we receive its report in the new year, we will bring its recommendations for sale of the assets to the attention of the House.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the railways can be privately owned, that he had no great argument about whether the railways should be public or private and that the issue was taxpayer support. We have made it plain that revenue support will continue. About £1 billion is going to Network SouthEast and Regional Railways. The Secretary of State said clearly that that regime will continue. We have also said, regarding the infrastructure, which will be Railtrack's responsibility, that Railtrack's revenue costs will be recovered by charges to passenger and freight trains but that the public sector will support Railtrack in the way that it supports any nationalised industry—through Railtrack's ability to borrow.
We have gone further than that. In answer to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), we said that we had announced a change in the appraisal rules. Everybody will broadly welcome that change. When Railtrack appraises new infrastructure investment, non-user benefits will be taken into account. The appraisal of new electrification schemes will become much more like that
1230
for road investment appraisal. That is a step forward. A grant would be provided by the Government—it would be non-repayable and non-interest bearing—for non-user benefits.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke at great length about finance and leasing. He said that it was one way of getting more money. I shall be brief about leasing; we can go into the matter in detail in Committee. British Rail already writes leases. They are called financing leases. They are for channel tunnel night stock and for deep sea container freight wagons. Those are long-term, financial leases that, rightly, are signed with the Government's approval.
British Rail, as the only operator of railways in this country, cannot at present write an operating lease for railway rolling stock because there is no other operator. If British Rail could find a financial institution that could write a lease for seven years, who would operate the trains when British Rail had concluded the lease? Without our proposals, the hon. Gentleman's leasing proposals would amount to the public sector underwriting the full amount of the commitment.
The previous Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman and asked him to clarify how he thought that the public sector would account for his operating lease suggestions for British Rail. The hon. Gentleman never replied to that letter. He could not reply to it. He knows that the shadow Chancellor would require the operating leases written by British Rail to be capitalised, shown in the balance sheet and treated as long-term debt. It is only because the Government are introducing privatisation proposals to let the private sector come in and run rail passenger franchises that we have the opportunity to develop a leasing market, which I very much welcome as it will bring more private sector capital into the railways.
Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman looks into British Rail's history and into the work of the Select Committee on the nationalised industries, he will find that British Rail, even under public ownership, operated leasing arrangements in the past. That is not new. The Treasury, however, rejected them. British Rail was doing deals with bankers; there was a taxing arrangement. The Treasury did not like it, but leasing arrangements are not new.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. If he looks at the practice of the private sector, whether it be ICI or Marks and Spencer, he will find out how it treats financing leases. He knows that a public sector state monopoly that wrote a lease without there being any other operators on the railway lines would have to treat that operating lease as long-term debt.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) raised important issues. If I cannot answer all the points raised in the debate, I shall write to hon. Members and answer their questions in more detail. My right hon. Friend asked me how the Government will ensure that train paths are controlled. A commitment has been given that commuter services in Kent will not be dislodged by European passenger trains, after they have been franchised, going through the channel tunnel. I give him the assurance, which I hope he will accept, that under the franchising mechanism my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that companies operating franchises in Kent and south-east London will provide for the allocation of those train paths. A

1231
mechanism for doing so is available simply through the regulator's power and the franchising authority's power. They will both be public sector bodies and responsible to the Secretary of State.
Sir John Stanley rose
Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me? I have only 11 minutes, in which I should like to answer some other points.
My right hon. Friend asked about fares. The conflict, to which he correctly referred, between seeking to control fares and to reduce subsidy exists already. It has always existed and it will exist in the future. The Government have said that, for all monopoly services, which include Network SouthEast rail services, we will ensure that there is control over fare levels, unlike bus services. Ultimately, a political judgment must be made about the level of fares and subsidy. I cannot give a categorical assurance about the regime that will apply to fare increases on Network SouthEast, but in due course we will, and I will write further to my right hon. Friend about that.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a number of points. She mentioned pensions and travel concessions for British Rail employees. I shall look again at the history of the arrangements that were made by BREL and Sealink, but the information currently available to me is that they have honoured their arrangements for pensions and travel concessions.
Mrs. Dunwoody: No.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady contradicts me. I give her the undertaking that I shall look carefully at what has happened in those two companies and write to her. If she tables a written question, I shall answer it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on his rousing, self-assured speech. We welcomed his contribution and look forward to him serving on the Standing Committee and making an even more valuable contribution upstairs.
The hon. Member for North Devon made a number of points. I remind him that we have introduced systems similar to cost-benefit analysis for appraising rail infrastructure schemes—something that his party has called for—and I hope that he welcomes that. From reading the proceedings of his party conference, I am not clear about the Liberal Democrats' policy on the private sector and competition. His party conference overturned the leadership's recommendation about welcoming the introduction of the private sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) made an important speech. I shall briefly give him the information that he requested about the public service obligation grant—perhaps he can be brought up to date. For 1988–89, the PSO grant was £473 million, for 1989–90 it was £501 million, for 1990–91 it was £602 million, for 1991–92 it was £892 million and this year, 1992–93, it is more than £1,000 million. That is a substantial —
Mr. Prescott: What about the zero PSO target?
Mr. Freeman: The Government, like-—I hope—the Opposition, live in the real world. In the past five years, the PSO grant has increased substantially. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was quoting facts that are a little out of date.
1232
I wish I had the certainty of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. He is doubtful, he says, that the railways will improve. I find it hard to understand how one could argue against the privatisation of rail freight services. We have the evidence of the National Freight Corporation, and we know that every other mode of transport carrying freight is in the private sector. I am not sure that the House will be persuaded by his scepticism.
We have said that the infrastructure will remain an integrated public sector obligation and responsibility. [Interruption.] On railway operations, we are simply saying to the private sector, "Can you run a service on certain lines?" The approach will be gradualist. We shall not franchise all rail services overnight. That is impossible; we do not have a private sector. We shall respond as fast as the private sector wants and introduce new franchised services. That seems a cautious, sensible and pragmatic approach.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is interested in the Japanese railway system. I recently visited Japan for a week—[Interruption]—and I was much encouraged by the experience. The railway companies may be different, but I assure my hon. Friend that there has always been a private sector in Japan, despite the fact that about 70 per cent. of rail services were nationalised some years ago. The Japanese Government will move to privatise the services fully when the stock market permits, but there is nothing in the experience of Japan— [Interrupt ion.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a view about seated interventions, but what is going on seems more like a seated commentary throughout the Minister's speech.
Mr. Freeman: That is not an unusual occurrence, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I welcome your protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friend apologised earlier to the House for the fact that he would not be here now. He welcomed the White Paper, and he will be pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself—his faithful acolyte—will travel on the new Kent link service when it is inaugurated next month. An investment programme of £700 million has been financed. We hear little about rolling stock which has already been ordered and is now being manufactured by BREL and GEC Alsthom. I can understand hon. Members' worries about 1995 and 1996, but let us give credit for the volume of investment now being undertaken. That £700 million investment has produced train services which will greatly improve the service in Kent.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and several of my hon. Friends talked about the railway heritage museum in York. I shall visit the museum soon with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and I shall see the hon. Member for York when I get there. He is mistaken—the Government have not said that we have ruled out the contribution of private sector exhibits to the museum. We are still consulting about the best way to ensure that the museum has contributions from both the public and the private sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), who is a former Transport Minister, wanted to ensure that Railtrack dealt fairly with all railway operators. He was worried that the playing field might be slightly tilted in favour of the public sector—British Rail's residual

1233
services. My right hon. Friend and I will consider further my hon. Friend's valuable contribution. We want to ensure that Railtrack operates wholly independently, and we are determined not to introduce unnecessarily bureaucratic controls to the new railway industry of the next decade or so. That would be a retrograde step.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms. Lait), who welcomed the proposals, for her contribution. Electrification of the Ashford-Hastings line will continue to be the responsibility of the public sector, in the form of Railtrack. I am well aware of the advantages of electrification. Indeed, with the lesser burdens upon the public purse which will inevitably result when the private sector plays a bigger role in investing in and ordering new rolling stock, I dare say that that valuable project, on which British Rail is so keen, will proceed. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but clearly the project is attractive.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) raised a number of points, and I shall write to him about the others, but one concerned the passengers charter. He asked who was to blame for leaves on the line. When the customer, the passenger, blames the operator, does the operator turn round and blame the track authority for allowing the leaves to stay on the line? The answer to that question is clear. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said the other day to the Select Committee, initially the passenger will complain to the operator, but the operator will have an arrangement with the track authority, because he will be paying for the use of the railway lines. Therefore, responsibility will fall correctly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) asked about the track charging regime. We shall publish our conclusions as soon as we can, and I hope that that will be towards the end of the year. We are determined that the freight industry will not be priced off the rails. If we want to expand the freight industry, we must have a user-friendly system. We must have a non-discriminatory system of charging for the use of rails. However, we shall ensure that we do not prejudice the rail freight industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) was right. He talked about the need for a demand-led industry. That is a crucial point. British Rail has been essentially a producer-led industry managed as a state monopoly for more than 45 years. The problems have been compounded by it being cash limited. We want to move to a demand-led, user-friendly railway system—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Boundary Changes
  10 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I present a petition in the following terms:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Michael Richardson, 71, Meadowfield Road, Rubery, Rednal in the County of Hereford and Worcester.
  Showeth that the proposal of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to transfer Rednal and Rubery into the City of Birmingham is against my wishes and my personal interests.
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will reject these proposals and leave the boundaries as presently drawn.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound will ever pray, etc. The petition is signed by Michael Richardson.
  I have today deposited in the Bag almost 2,400 similar, individually prepared petitions as an indication of the strength of feeling on the issue and of the concern of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Noise Pollution
  Motion mode, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise the important issue of neighbourhood noise pollution and to explain some of the work of a dedicated group of people—the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign. The group is endeavouring to improve a difficult situation which is experienced by many of my constituents and by a vast number of people throughout the country. The issue is noisy neighbours.
  We live today in an age of greater affluence and greater opportunity. In general, the vast majority of people are far better off in all respects than were their parents, their grandparents or similar people 50 or 100 years ago. We also live in an age of greater awareness which is due in the main to a better education system and to the mass media. We hear a great deal today about the environment, about pollution and the ozone layer. All those issues are widely discussed and extremely important.
  Far nearer to the lives of individuals in this country is the issue of noise pollution, which is an equally important and immediate problem. It is a problem that destroys the quality of life for many people. I will speak about neighbourhood noise pollution this evening. It was because of the problem of noise in our society and especially the noise from neighbours, either intentional or unintentional, that the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign was established.
  At my constituency surgeries in Erith town hall on a Friday evening, I regularly see people who suffer from noisy neighbours. The problems of the loud use of radios, televisions, cassette players and compact disc players are well known to us all. There there are the frequent parties which disturb neighbours and go on long into the night —perhaps all through the night; the do-it-yourself home improvement addict who seems to be drilling away at all hours of the day and night, causing noise, disturbance and problems; the dogs that bark constantly; the revving of car engines late at night; the slamming of doors; and, of course, domestic rows. All are examples of domestic noise nuisance, and cause annoyance, stress and even despair to neighbours who want only to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own homes. They do not want to hear what is going on next door or down the street. They are not only uninterested; they are annoyed by such disburbance.
  Day after day, individuals trying to live their lives in their own homes are harassed by unpleasant, unwelcome and often unceasing noise. The word "nuisance" is probably an understatement. "Nightmare" might be a better word. Quite often the noise makers are unaware of the nuisance that they are causing but, regrettably, sometimes the noise is deliberate. Other noise may be the result of mere thoughtlessness or a failure to notice the noise being made. Noisy people get used to their own noisiness. In some cases, the noisy neighbour may just not care. In highly populated urban areas such as my constituency, 'where many people live in flats and houses with relatively thin walls, the noise carries to many dwellings and affects many homes and people.
  Let me say a little about the formation of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign and its aims and about how those who, like myself, who are involved in the campaign
  1236
  are hoping for more help from my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government. No history of the campaign and its origins could begin without emphasis being placed on the work of Val Gibson, who lives in my constituency and who founded the campaign with a few friends in May 1991. She had herself been the victim of noisy neighbours and had been forced to move home because of the intolerable situation in which she found herself. She enlisted my support and that of John Cartwright, then the Member of Parliament for Woolwich, who, like me, was well aware that many of his constituents suffered a plight similar to that of Val Gibson. In addition, certain show business personalities and celebrities, such as Spike Milligan, Barry Fantoni and Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis were swift to give their support to the campaign.
  I am pleased to report that the campaign has gained backing from all sections of the local community and has spread beyond my area of south-east London across the country. It commands support from members of all political parties and people from all backgrounds.
  The first meeting of the campaign was held at Woolwich town hall in July 1991. Its aim was to see what could be done about neighbourhood noise pollution, to consider how best to campaign to highlight the problem, and—it was hoped—find some solutions. Subsequent activities have included meetings with Ministers, the promotion of a noise-free day, a noise awareness day, press campaigns and the distribution of a leaflet entitled "Everybody Needs Good Neighbours", which includes a community code listing a number of dos and don'ts to encourage harmony between neighbours: "Don't mow your lawn late in the evening. Do be co-operative if asked by a neighbour to reduce noise. Do realise that your pleasure should not lead to your neighbour's distress. Don't take a radio or hi-fi outside. Don't use domestic appliances such as vacuum cleaners or washing machines late at night. Please don't carry out DIY after 9 pm on any day and before 10.30 am at weekends. If possible, never carry it out on Sundays. Drilling into and hammering on walls are particularly disturbing." The "Good Neighbours" leaflet has been widely circulated.
  The local radio campaign in August culminated in the presentation to Radio Wyvern, the Worcester-based radio station, of the noise awareness award 1992 for being the most noise-conscious radio station in Britain. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that we had a very useful meeting with him in his Department about a year ago to discuss those issues. He was sympathetic and gave us a good deal of his time, for which we were all grateful.
  The Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign was established to achieve certain fundamental objectives. They are many and varied and I will refer only to the key objectives tonight.
  First, it has allowed people who are suffering the constant and wearing pain of noise nuisance to contact other people in the same or similar situations. People who are suffering will realise that they are not alone. The campaign can, and does, give considerable support to those people. The practical advice is greatly valued. I am aware of that from constituency cases in which people have contacted the campaign and have been put in touch with people in similar circumstances so that they can discuss the issue to discover how they can improve the situation.
  Secondly, the campaign believes that there is a need to amend the law to give the police and environmental health

  1237
  officers more powers to deal with the perpetrators of noise nuisance. I realise that I cannot press for a change in the law in this debate, but the campaign continues to urge my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department to consider the law and noise nuisance carefully to discover what can be done and how the law might be amended.
  I have pressured my hon. Friend the Minister in earlier discussions and correspondence, and I hope that he will look at the matter again and take note of our concerns. I believe that the police and environmental health officers should have more powers to help alleviate the suffering of those who are being harassed and distressed by neighbourhood noise pollution.
  The campaign's third aim, which is possibly generally accepted as the most important objective, is to raise public awareness of the problems of noise nuisance and to develop noise neighbourhood watch schemes. In particular, we need to educate the public to be better citizens and to be more aware of the noise that they make and the effect of their actions on their local environment.
  We must endeavour to get people to reduce their noise output and, for example, to turn down the volume knob on radios, stereos and televisions. I am not being a killjoy. I regularly listen to popular music and to Capital Radio. I am often disappointed to hear disc jockeys urge young people to turn up the volume without thinking of the consequences and the effect on neighbours or other people in the house. It is irresponsible for such people to encourage an increase in volume to an unacceptable level.
  I have children who enjoy music. We constantly ensure that the volume on their stereos and television is turned down to an acceptable level. I regularly play tapes—Dusty Springfield, Annie Lennox or whatever—on my way home in the evening. However, I do not allow the volume to rise too high and I do not leave my windows open and blast out noise which might be disadvantageous and unacceptable to other people.
  We have an excellent radio station in Erith and Crayford called RTM Radio on 103.8 FM which, under the financial support of Thamesmead town and the capable leadership of Rodney Collings, does an excellent job. It entertains and keeps people informed of local issues. It does not encourage listeners to turn up the volume. It is community radio at its best. It informs the community, but it does not offend it through the level of noise.
  We must be responsible and educate people to be more considerate. People should think about noise and the effect that their actions have on neighbours who may be elderly, have young children, be unwell or merely want to enjoy peace and quiet in their own homes after a demanding or stressful day at work.
  I know from personal experience in discussions with him that my hon. Friend is extremely sympathetic to victims of noise nuisance and disturbance and supports the aims of the peace and quiet campaign to encourage people to be more considerate. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to take more action. The aim must be to eliminate unnecessary and unwanted noise from our neighbourhoods so that all residents can enjoy peace and quiet in their gardens and homes or going about their daily business.
  Members of the campaign, myself included, are grateful for the Government's interest in the problem, and in
  1238
  particular for the attendance of my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde at several of our functions. We are grateful also for what the Government are endeavouring to do to reduce noise disturbance. My hon. Friend is concerned about the problem. I have already urged him to be more positive, and I do so again this evening.
  At present, there is relatively little that individual citizens can do to improve their situation in respect of noise nuisance. Regrettably, noise nuisance is an increasing problem and many people are looking to the Government to take more action to help them to deal with the problem. The Government have a very good record on environmental issues in general. I hope only that the alleviation of neighbourhood noise pollution will have higher priority in future Government policy. I call on my hon. Friend to be positive, helpful and effective.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) has raised an important topic which affects the quality of the environment for each and every one of us —that is, neighbourhood noise. Most of us at one time or another have experienced the intrusive noise problems to which he referred, such as the wild and noisy party or the inconsiderate DIY addict—the problem of noisy neighbours. It is absolutely right that people should now insist on ever higher environmental standards to contribute to an ever improving quality of life, for all people, wherever they live, are entitled too the quiet enjoyment of their own homes.
  I have met my hon. Friend on several occasions to discuss those issues and find possible solutions. My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to the work of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign in raising the profile of neighbourhood noise problems. I join him in that tribute and in his tribute to Val Gibson. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Strathclyde, attended the launch of the leaflet entitled "Everybody Needs Good Neighbours" and gave full Government support to Noise Awareness Month which the campaign ran in August in association with the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. As my hon. Friend said, it is essential that the public are aware that noise can be prejudicial to health and a nuisance. The Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign has recognised that fact and acted on it.
  We take all forms of environmental noise pollution very seriously. We paid particular attention to the specific problems of neighbourhood noise. Complaints about neighbourhood noise have increased significantly over the past 10 years and they continue to increase. It is therefore vital that continuing action is taken to tackle the problem and that people should be aware that the Government are providing the framework for successfully reducing and tackling the problem of neighbourhood noise.
  It was because of increased concern about neighbourhood noise, together with the fact that there has been no review of noise policy for some time, that in February 1990, the Government set up the noise review working party to examine every aspect of noise.
  In October 1990, the working party produced a most comprehensive review. The review devotes a whole chapter

  1239
  to the problems of neighbourhood noise. This report forms the basis of the Government's noise policy. The noise review working party made 53 recommendations, many of which have now been incorporated in legislation.
  One of those recommendations was that the duty of local authorities to investigate noise complaints should be clarified. The Government implemented that swiftly in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities are now under a duty, not only to inspect their area from time to time to detect statutory nuisances, but to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate all complaints. There is nothing more frustrating than when the constituents of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members telephone or contact the environmental health department of their local authority to find that there is no immediate response. Environmental health officers must now take all reasonable steps to investigate those complaints.
  The 1990 Act also provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise by the serving of abatement notices which, if ignored, can result in a considerable fine. Indeed, on 1 October this year, the maximum fine was increased to £5,000, plus £500 for each day the offence continues after conviction. If a local authority believes that summary proceedings in the magistrates court would not afford an adequate remedy, it may seek an injunction in the High Court which could ultimately lead to a much higher fine—or even a prison sentence in an extreme case—if the noise maker is considered to be in contempt of court by ignoring the injunction.
  I appreciate that the threat of prosecution may not always be enough to end the disturbance of, for example, a noisy party. So our first priorty must be to take measures that enable local authorities to take immediate action against neighbourhood noise disturbances. The 1990 Act provides environmental health officers with the power to remove temporarily articles such as audio equipment, hi-fi equipment and radios where a noise abatement notice has not been complied with, thereby stopping the nuisance immediately.
  I do not underestimate the practical difficulties of dealing with noisy parties. It is for this reason that a small working group was set up to consider whether there was a need for further measures specifically to tackle the problem of noisy parties. Both environmental health officers and police are represented on the group.
  In addition to the implementation of the 1990 Act, we announced in June our proposals to strengthen and extend the laws on noise. The proposals seek to give local authorities increased powers to deal with three aspects of noise pollution. First, there will be an extension of the noise abatement procedures so that environmental health officers will be able to serve notices in respect of noise nuisance in the street. This will mean, for example, that environmental health officers will be able to take action to deal with the problem caused by vehicle alarms.
  Secondly, there will be tighter controls on the use of loudspeakers in the street. Thirdly, local authorities will be able to adopt powers to require owners of domestic and commercial burglar alarms to fit mandatory cut-out devices and to notify the police of the names of keyholders. We hope that the result of this legislation will be that few, if any, burglar alarms will continue to sound for longer than 20 minutes. Provision will be made for environmental health officers to access premises where an alarm continues to sound and no keyholder can be contacted.
  1240
  Those are some of the legislative changes that the Government have made to create a framework for dealing with noise. Let me now turn to the advice and information that we have prepared in order that the legislation can be enforced to its full effect and in order to give people the fullest information on their rights.
  In July my Department issued a revised version of its booklet "Bothered by Noise: What you can do about it." This summarises the latest legislation on noise and explains in practical terms what steps can be taken by any individual to eliminate noise problems, including the procedure for taking action against noisy neighbours.
  In September we issued a substantial guidance document for local authorities on the roles of environmental health officers and the police in dealing with noisy parties. That had been a recommendation of the noise review working party.
  Recently, we prepared a draft planning policy guidance note on planning and noise, which offers advice on how the planning system can he used to minimise noise impact on people, especially when at home, in educational establishments, and in hospital. We expect that guidance to be issued early in the new year.
  I hope that the House will realise that we have taken steps to get the framework of law, advice and information right to help to reduce neighbourhood noise. We accept that we need to go further to make that effective at the practical level of repeated noisy parties, dogs that bark all day next to a worker on night shifts, and stereo systems which are turned up too loud in rooms where the windows are left wide open. As my hon. Friend made clear, people must become aware of the need to become good neighbours. That must also be tackled at a personal and local level.
  One of our initiatives to get down to that personal level was the noise awareness project that we recently sponsored in Forest Hill, a small residential area of south London, among a group of local residents. That resulted in the production by the residents, with the help of consultants financed by my Department, of a community code to help to reduce noise problems within the community. The project encouraged more co-operation between the residents, the tenants' association, the local authority and the police.
  Additionally, my Department's environmental grant fund is supporting a noise counselling and mediation scheme in Bristol. That project enables help and advice to be given in cases in which the environmental health officers may not be able to take action for one reason or another. All the parties involved in the dispute are contacted in an effort to resolve it by negotiation.
  We have also supported a research project carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to increase noise awareness among schoolchildren in Nottingham. The results demonstrate that schoolchildren are receptive to the subject, showing genuine concern about the fact that noise could be damaging their bodies without their realising it. At the end of the project, those involved showed a marked change in their attitude to noise.
  All those are examples of initiatives that may be taken elsewhere in the country. I am sure that many other areas will wish to take similar initiatives to ensure that the message of being a responsible and good neighbour is encouraged at a local level.
  My hon. Friend has expressed concern that the police have no direct powers to stop noise makers. On previous

  1241
  occasions several hon. Members have compared the situation with that in Scotland where, under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, a uniformed police officer can request a noise maker to desist. If that person refuses, he or she can be charged with an offence. Since the offence can fall within the Scottish definition of a breach of the peace, the offender may be arrested on the spot, rather than being summonsed.
  I understand that the police in Scotland exercise the right to ask noise makers to desist, but seldom use the power of arrest. The differences between north and south of the border are therefore not as great as they might at first appear. Issues of civil liberty also arise, as does the difficulty of defining an offence. How noisy must one be before one is liable to be arrested? The abatement notice procedure diminishes those problems, and it is for the courts to determine how they wish to apply the considerable fine levels available under those procedures.
  It is also important to recognise that the noise review working party considered the idea of making "deliberate, sustained and excessive" noise a criminal offence. It rejected the idea, in favour of strengthening the existing statutory nuisance procedures—a measure which was subsequently incorporated into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  1242
  We now wish to find out whether all those initiatives improve the practical application of the 1990 Act, before considering any other measures, such as extending the criminal law along the Scottish model and thereby increasing the burdens on the police force.
  The Government recognise that the problem of neighbourhood noise must be tackled quickly and effectively. We shall listen carefully to reports of problems which are encountered in using the powers conferred in the Environmental Protection Act to control neighbourhood noise. Any information that my hon. Friend or the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign have we shall carefully consider. Equally, I hope that we shall hear positive comments where the application of those powers—perhaps in association with mediation—produces positive results.
  As my hon. Friend may have noted from the second year report of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", the Government have fulfilled the majority of the commitments that they made in the White Paper with respect to noise and have committed themselves to further action. My hon. Friend, those whom he represents and those involved in the campaign to tackle the problem of noisy neighbours can rest assured that we shall continue to work towards a more peaceful local environment, keeping in touch with the views of voluntary organisations, such as the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign fishing vessels are currently applying to be registered as British.

  Mr. Norris
  Twelve.

  M25
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding his plans for the widening of the M25.

  Name of appointee

  Body to which appointed and remuneration

  Period of the appointment

  Mr. A. H. C. Broadbent1

  Dover Harbour Board

  1 May 1992–30 April 1995

  Mr. A. Worthington

  Deputy Traffic Commissioner

  —£172 per day

  18 May 1992–17 May 1994

  Mrs. M. Kendrick1

  Acting Conservator of the River Mersey

  —£8,223 pa

  1 June 1992–31 May 1993

  Mr. K. Brown1

  London Transport

  —£9,150 pa

  29 June 1992–28 June 1994

  Mrs. H. Robinson1

  London Transport

  —£9,150 pa

  29 June 1992–28 June 1994

  Mrs. M. K. Davies

  Port of Tyne Authority

  1 July 1992–30 June 1995

  Mr. R. D. Peters

  Dover Harbour Board

  27 July 1992–30 April 1993

  Sir Peter Baldwin1

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (unpaid)

  1 August 1992–31 July 1993

  Mr. J. S. Fair1

  Dundee Port Authority

  1 September 1992–31 December 1994

  Mr. B. G. Duncan1

  Dundee Port Authority

  1 September 1992–31 December 1994

  Dr. A. K. Watkins

  London Transport

  —£100,000 pa

  1 October 1992–30 September 1997

  Mr. M. J. Bealing

  Ipswich Port Authority

  1 October 1992–30 June 1994

  Mr. J. Stephenson1

  Deputy Traffic Commissioner

  —£172 per day

  1 October 1992–31 March 1994

  Mr. R. W. A. Cake

  Poole Harbour Commission

  1 November 1992–31 October 1995

  1 Reappointments.

  Remuneration of port authority appointees is a matter for the authorities themselves. It is not considered practicable or appropriate to list the many and varied qualifications of individual appointees, but my right hon. Friend will have satisfied himself as to their relevance before making the appointments.

  M27
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on his Department's study into the widening of the M27.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Final decisions on the timing of an invitation to consultants to submit bids to undertake this commission have yet to be taken.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what level of consultation he has undertaken with representatives of emergency services and trades unions concerning European harmonisation governing labelling and safety codes of dangerous substances;

  (2) what response he has given to proposals for European harmonisation of United Kingdom hazchem regulations;
  758
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Implementation of the general strategy announced on 6 September 1991 is continuing. Announcements of progress with the development of individual schemes for widening the existing carriageway to dual four-lane standard within existing boundaries are made at appropriate stages. Proposals for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 are the subject of public consultation. Decisions on the need for and feasibility of supplementary carriageways on other sections of the route remain to be taken when the studies are completed.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Norris
  Details of public appointments made by my right hon. Friend since 10 April 1992 are set out in the table.

  (3) what meetings he has had with emergency services' chief officers concerning EEC directives for harmonising current regulations governing the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the implications of the new European agreement concerning the movement of dangerous substances;

  (5) what response he has made to concerns expressed by the Fire Brigades Union regarding the replacement of the United Kingdom hazchem system with ADR;

  (6) if European harmonisation of hazchem will exclude current domestic safety codes and procedures for the protection of fire brigade personnel and the general public;

  (7) if ADR will be achieved without undermining the current system of labelling dangerous substances within the United Kingdom;

  (8) if the introduction of ADR, as a replacement of the United Kingdom hazchem system, satifies current safety criteria for civilian evacuation;

  (9) what effect ADR introduction will have on risk minimisation within the operation of emergency services.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no EC directives requiring the harmonisation of road and rail regulation for the transport of dangerous goods. However, our intention is that United Kingdom regulations for the domestic
  759
  transport of dangerous goods by road will be harmonised with the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road—ADR—from 1 January 1995. This should result in no lowering of existing safety standards. The regulations will be drafted by the Health and Safety Executive which will consult all interested parties.

  As a result of representations from the Fire Brigades Union and others, the United Kingdom is currently negotiating the inclusion of United Kingdom emergency action codes in the hazard warning panel requirements of ADR for road tankers carrying dangerous goods. These codes give an immediate indication to the emergency services of how they should react at the scene of an incident and whether evacuation of people nearby is advisable.

  Travellers Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, as part of his quality of service objectives, he will require the publication of the responses of all bodies consulted in the preparation of the travellers charter.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Central Transport Consultative Committee, the statutory consumer body which represents the users of British Rail services, were consulted in the course of the preparation of the passengers charter. Its comments on the charter are summarised in the committee's annual report for 1991–92, published on 4 August. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Preserved Railways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations concerning implementation of the Transport and Works Act 1992 in so far as they relate to preserved railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have consulted widely on all the rules, regulations and orders needed to implement part I of the Transport and Works Act. The many responses received, including those from the railway preservation movement, have been taken into account in finalising subordinate legislation.

  Schedule 7 of the Applications and Objections Procedure Rules will set out the table of fees for applications for orders under part I. The proposed fees for transport projects, such as preserved railways, which do not involve the compulsory acquisition of land are:
  £ 750 where the area of the proposed works does not exceed 1 hectare;
  £ 750 plus £ 250 for each 0.5 hectares (or part thereof) in excess of 1 hectare.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if, as part of his quality of service objectives, he will require the publication of all reports relating to the numbers of people eligible for legal aid commissioned since 1985 using public money.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Estimates of numbers of people eligible for civil legal aid were contained in the document 760
  "Review of Financial Conditions for Legal Aid: Eligibility for Civil Legal Aid: a Consultation Paper" which was issued in June 1991. There is no fixed upper financial eligibility limit for criminal legal aid.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the totals of individuals in each relevant category in the past year for which figures are available who have used their right to appeal against refusal in cases for which the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill would require a mandatory refusal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Immigration and Asylum Appeal Bill does not require mandatory refusal of any immigration-related applications. It follows that in the last year no appeals can have been lodged on any such refusals.

  Clause 10 of the Bill removes the right of appeal in those cases where dismissal of the appeal is mandatory. No separate records are kept of such mandatory dismissals and details of such cases could only be obtained at disproportionate expense.

  Clause 9 of the Bill, however, removes existing rights of appeal against refusal of entry clearance in the case of visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependents. In the year ending 30 September 1992 there were a total of 12,643 appeals registered against refusal of entry clearance for temporary purposes of all kinds except those by husbands, wives and financé(e)s. No breakdown is made of the types of appeal falling within this category, but by applying proportions obtained from a sample of cases approximately 9,607 visit visa and 1,712 student visa appeals were included in the total.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance the Judicial Studies Board will be offering to judges and magistrates on the interpretation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Judicial Studies Board has already issued guidance on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to both the professional and the lay judiciary. Judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court were given a briefing in the Lord Chief Justice's court. Judges, recorders and assistant recorders sitting in Crown courts received an 81-page guide to the sentencing provisions of the Act as part of the "Crown Court Bench Book on Sentencing" and attended conferences at which there were lectures and discussion on the Act. The board produced an 18-page introduction to the Act and a copy of this document was sent to each magistrate. A comprehensive training pack was also produced to assist those, usually the justices clerks, who train the magistrates.

  Duress
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for reforming the law relating to the defence of duress in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no proposals for reforming this area of the criminal law.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Cells
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convicted prisoners and how many remand prisoners are currently being held in police cells in England; and how many of these are in the north-west region;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ease the problem arising from holding convicted and remand prisoners in police cells; and when he expects a reduction in the numbers of such prisoners;

  (3) what steps he has taken to alleviate problems caused to families and legal representatives in gaining access to prisoners held in police cells; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 26 October, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 497 prisoners in police cells in England. Of these 346 were in police cells in the north-west, as shown in the table.

  Police force

  Number of prisoners in police cells on 26 October 1992

  Cheshire

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  Greater Manchester

  233

  Lancashire

  37

  Merseyshire

  74

  Total

  346

  Information collected centrally does not differentiate between remand and convicted prisoners, but surveys have confirmed that most such prisoners are on remand. There has been a very substantial reduction in the number of prisoners being held in police cells. On 31 March, 1,882 prisoners were held in this way in England and Wales as a whole. The total number on 26 October was 524. A new joint initiative involving close co-operation between the police and prison service management has proven to be very effective in achieving reductions in police cell use against the background of a fall in the total population in custody.

  The police are aware of the importance of legal and family visits for prisoners in police cells. The vast majority of legal visits take place without difficulty, although practical constraints may arise at individual police stations from time to time. Liaison prison governors are available to advise the police. Facilities for family visits at some police stations are limited, and there may also be special
  762
  security considerations which have to be taken into account. Guidance to the police provides that preference should be given to unconvicted prisoners to receive visits more frequently than convicted prisoners if a choice has to be made.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the retrial and subsequent release of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, he will arrange for a similar process to apply in the cases of women victims of domestic violence currently in prison for killing their partner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand that Mrs. Ahluwalia was released following a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal as a result of her original appeal to that court.

  My right hon. and learned Friend had no involvement with any of these proceedings. He is always ready to consider representations that in a particular case there has been a miscarriage of justice, and to take such action as may be appropriate including, where something new appears to touch the safety of a conviction, using his power under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal; but he has no plans to initiate a general review of the cases of women who have been imprisoned after conviction for the murder of their partner.

  Animal Experiments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will apply the code of practice for the Housing and Care of Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to breeding establishments;

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals for stricter controls of the standards for the housing and care of animals in breeding, supply and research establishments.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no current plans for amending the Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures or for applying the code as it stands to breeding and supplying establishments. However, we are considering whether the guidelines issued by the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association, currently used by the Home Office inspectorate in respect of breeding and supplying establishments should, updated as necessary, be given a more formal basis in the context of the operation of the 1986 Act.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the rights of appeal which apply to visitors, settlers and asylum seekers to the United Kingdom and other categories of applicant; and what information he has on the comparable provisions in each EC country;

  (2) if he will list the current rights of appeal which apply to visitors, settlers, asylum seekers and other immigration and nationality department categories; and what changes he proposes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Part II of the Immigration Act 1971 confers rights of appeal against virtually all categories of adverse immigration decisions. The main
  763
  rights of appeal which apply to visitors and persons seeking to settle in the United Kingdom are against refusal of an entry clearance at a British post abroad; refusal of leave to enter at a United Kingdom port—a person refused leave to enter is not entitled to appeal until he has left the United Kingdom unless he holds a current entry clearance or work permit—and refusal to vary a person's limited leave in the United Kingdom—provided that the application was made during the currency of the limited leave. The rights of appeal available to asylum seekers currently depend on their immigration status at the time of their application.

  The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill contains provisions that would give unsuccessful asylum seekers specific new rights of appeal to a special adjudicator, exercisable while in the United Kingdom. The Bill also provides that persons seeking entry as visitors, students enrolled on courses of six months or less, and prospective students would no longer be entitled to appeal against a refusal of entry clearance, or against the refusal of leave to enter if they do not hold an entry clearance; and that persons refused entry clearance, leave to enter or a variation of leave on the grounds that they do not meet certain mandatory requirements of the immigration rules would also no longer be entitled to appeal.

  The Bill does not affect the rights of appeal of persons refused entry clearance for settlement, or in categories leading to settlement; of persons refused leave to enter when in possession of an entry clearance or work permit; or of illegal entrants or persons subject to deportation decisions.

  Rights of appeal in other member states of the European Community are a matter for the Governments concerned. I understand, however, that no other member state has a specialised system of immigration appeals.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Aame-Diga Aakpa's file has been located; and when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford can expect to receive a reply to her letter of 8 October 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Aakpa's file has not yet been located. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is possible to take a decision.

  DNA
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give a DNA profile the same status as a fingerprint for the purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and what response he intends to make to the comments made by the registrar in his annual report on DNA profiles.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Royal Commission on criminal justice has been asked to examine the issues surrounding the collection, storage and use of DNA material obtained by the police during the course of an investigation. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider the need for legislation in the light of the royal commission's recommendations.
  764
  The retention of DNA profiles for research purposes by the Metropolitan police, which the Data Protection Registrar refers to in his report, is a matter for the Commissioner.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 524, to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), how many spouses have been admitted to the United Kingdom under the primary purpose rule.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is the number of persons accepted for settlement as a spouse under the immigration rules, given in table 3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 29/92 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—First and Second Quarters 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Drug Prevention Initiative
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to draw on the successful elements of the 20 drug prevention projects currently sponsored by his Department under the drug prevention initiative in order to make adequate provision of such services in each town and city in England and Wales which has a drugs problem.

  Mr. Jack
  The work of the 20 local drugs prevention teams and of the central drugs prevention unit is being evaluated. Given the innovative nature of this work, it is at present too early to consider a possible broadening of the drugs prevention initiative.

  Probation Committees
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources his Department has provided for the probation service in England and Wales and to each probation committee to meet the costs of new responsibilities under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office annual report published in February set out the actual and projected resources for the Probation Service in England and Wales as follows:

  1990–91 (actual)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Central Government support (£ million)

  228

  272

  290

  314

  338

  Total staff provision

  12,851

  13,641

  14,234

  14,713

  15,100

  Resources, which are now subject to cash limits, are allocated to the 55 individual probation areas through an agreed formula and the overall increase of 25.7 per cent. for 1992–93, compared with 1990–91 outturn, was not spread evenly because the allocation formula adjusted the proportion of national provision allocated to each area according to objective indicators of need and work load. The lowest increase was 20.8 per cent. while the highest was 30.3 per cent.

  Prisoners (Licences)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional prisoners will be supervised on licence as a result of changes contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  We are expecting a gradual build-up of cases as offenders are sentenced and released from prisons under the Act and a corresponding decrease in the numbers released under the former parole arrangements. Current best estimates are that when the transitional period comes to an end in 1996, some 5,500 more ex-prisoners will be supervised on licence. Extra probation officer resources have been provided to allow for the increased caseload and to enable longer and more intense periods of supervision with offenders on licence. The numbers under voluntary supervision are expected to fall sharply.

  Voting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will conduct a national survey into the accessibility of polling stations to disabled people with the aim of identifying problems which they encounter;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that all electors who wish to vote at their polling stations have the ability to do so.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A national survey would not be a good use of our resources in this area, which are better directed towards providing financial support. Councils have a statutory obligation to designate as polling places, wherever practicable, only places which are accessible to disabled people. We have provided guidance for returning officers to remind them of their obligations, and shall continue to do so. It is our long-term aim that all polling stations should he accessible to disabled electors but, where it is not possible to use a building affording easy access, we make grants available towards the cost of providing temporary ramps.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what local government funding is earmarked for the implementation of the Representation of the People Act 1983 towards disabled persons access to the voting system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of local authority spending on access for the disabled to the electoral process are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been undertaken to identify the number of disabled people who failed to vote in the 1992 general election; and if he will conduct an inquiry into potential obstructions presented to the disabled at polling stations and by alternative voting methods.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of electors who are disabled is not collected centrally. We are conducting a full review of electoral law and practice in the light of experience at the general election in April. That review will include all aspects of access for disabled people to the electoral process.
  766
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the postal vote system;

  (2) if he will simplify postal vote application forms and review the timetable for postal voting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A full review of all aspects of postal voting procedures is being conducted in the light of experience at the general election. We have held preliminary meetings with the political parties and the local authority associations. A working group of Home Office officials and local authority representatives to look at absent voting arrangements will begin work shortly. Another working group will look at forms.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that disabled voters have equal privacy to able-bodied voters when exercising their right to vote at polling stations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Returning officers are required to provide each polling station with a sufficient number of compartments in which electors can vote screened from observation. A number of manufacturers provide compartments or polling screens which are suitable for people in wheelchairs. We provide 80 per cent. grants towards the purchase of special polling screens.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure was devoted to publicising the right of elderly and disabled people to obtain a postal or proxy vote, during the last available financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We spent £ 11,210 in 1991–92 on a poster and leaflet campaign to let elderly and disabled people know about their right to an absent vote. In the period leading up to the general election we also spent about £ 1.5 million on television and newspaper advertising to tell people how to obtain an absent vote.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disabled people are reliant on the postal vote system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of disabled people on the postal voters list is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many electors, in the 1992 general election, voted by postal vote; and how many persons lost their vote due to late return of ballot papers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of people voting by post will be published in the "Return of the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election" later this year. Information on the number of postal ballot papers returned after the close of the poll is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the number of disabled persons voting at national and local elections has altered since the 1979 general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of disabled people voting at national and local government elections is not collected centrally.

  Asylum
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have applied for asylum; how many have had their applications accepted; how many have been granted exceptional leave to remain; and how many have been returned to safe third countries, giving the figures in each case since 1985, by year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on asylum applications and decisions in 1985–90 is given in table 1.2 of Home

  1. Summary Tables

  Table 1.2 Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, decisions and percentages, 1981 to 1991

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  1 21990

  1 21991

  Excluding dependants

  Applications received3

  —

  —

  —

  2,905

  4,389

  4,266

  4,256

  3,998

  11,640

  22,000

  44,840

  Decisions

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  1,431

  2,635

  2,983

  2,432

  2,702

  6,955

  4,015

  4,685

  Grants of asylum4

  —

  —

  —

  453

  574

  348

  266

  628

  2,210

  900

  420

  Grants of exceptional leave

  —

  —

  —

  631

  1,559

  2,102

  1,531

  1,578

  3,860

  2,400

  1,860

  Refusals5

  —

  —

  —

  347

  502

  533

  636

  496

  890

  710

  2,410

  Percentage of total decisions

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Grant of asylum

  —

  —

  —

  32

  22

  12

  11

  23

  32

  22

  9

  Grants of exceptional leave

  —

  —

  —

  44

  59

  70

  63

  58

  55

  60

  40

  Refusals5

  —

  —

  —

  24

  19

  18

  26

  18

  13

  18

  51

  Applications withdrawn

  —

  —

  —

  175

  201

  164

  200

  281

  350

  360

  500

  Including dependants6

  Applications received3

  2,425

  4,223

  4,296

  4,171

  6,156

  5,714

  5,863

  5,739

  16,776

  30,315

  —

  Decisions

  Total

  2,358

  2,942

  2,950

  2,011

  3,802

  4,045

  3,479

  3,888

  10,270

  6,265

  —

  Grants of asylum4

  1,473

  1,727

  1,185

  689

  915

  543

  464

  975

  3,335

  1,510

  —

  Grants of exceptional leave

  278

  311

  939

  802

  2,156

  2,815

  2,229

  2,289

  5,840

  3,900

  —

  Refusals5

  607

  904

  826

  520

  731

  687

  786

  624

  1,095

  850

  —

  Percentage of total decisions

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  —

  Grants of asylum

  62

  59

  40

  34

  24

  13

  13

  25

  32

  24

  —

  Grants of exceptional leave

  12

  11

  32

  40

  57

  70

  64

  59

  57

  62

  —

  Refusals5

  26

  31

  28

  26

  19

  17

  23

  16

  11

  14

  —

  Applications withdrawn

  211

  234

  217

  227

  261

  209

  252

  360

  435

  405

  —

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, percentages rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  21990 figures may understate and 1991 decision figures are likely to be incomplete because of delays in recording.

  3See footnotes 2 and 3 to Table 2.1.

  4Excluding South East Asian refugees: see Tables 3.1 and 9.1.

  5Includes refusals on third country grounds, and those under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules: see footnote 1 to Table 3.3.

  6Including dependants who applied with the principal applicant and those who arrived subsequently but before the principal application was decided.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances he uses his discretion to allow asylum applications in the country of the applicant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees defines a refugee as someone who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such a fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. Where a person falls within this definition and has such close ties with the United Kingdom as to make it the most appropriate country of refuge for them, we are prepared to grant entry clearance for the purpose of their applying for asylum in the United Kingdom. Entry clearance for this purpose would not normally be granted to a person who remained within their own country and did not, therefore, fall within the definition of a refugee.
  768
  Office statistical bulletin issue 12/92 "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1990–91", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for refusals on safe third country grounds are not separately identifiable prior to 1991. For information for 1991 and the first three quarters of 1992 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 20 October 1992, at columns 261–62.

  Colombia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates he visited Colombia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The visit between 8 and 11 September took place in an itinerary over 6 to 14 September which also included Venezuela and Peru.

  It was principally concerned with drugs and had three main objectives: to see local problems at first hand; to explore the scope for further effective bilateral co-operation; and to consider the implications for policy in the United Kingdom.

  In each of the three countries, I discussed with the President and senior Ministers the many aspects, domestic and international, of the drugs problem. In Colombia, I was able to see for myself some of the valuable results of our programme of assistance to the Colombian Government in their fight against drugs. In Peru, in addition to drugs issues, I took the opportunity to raise other matters such as human rights and the forthcoming elections.

  Police Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what salary, per diem, or other emoluments the chairman and other members of the inquiry into the role of the police officer will be entitled to receive as a consequence of the membership of the inquiry committee.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The chairman and other members of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards are entitled to receive fees in accordance with the appropriate daily rate set by HM Treasury. But the chairman and each of the members of the inquiry have waived their entitlement to remuneration.

  Immigration
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many short-term and would-be students refused(a) entry clearance and (b) entry to the United Kingdom, by country, have lodged appeals against refusal in each quarter since January 1991; and in each category how many such appeals were (i) withdrawn, (ii) granted and (iii) dismissed;

  (2) how many visitors refused (a) entry clearance and (b) entry to the United Kingdom by country, have lodged appeals against refusal in each quarter since January 1991; and in each category how many such appeals were (i) withdrawn, (ii) granted and (iii) dismissed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This subject is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department; my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, will write to the hon. Member.

  Ireland (Travel Documents)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has put to the European Commission for amending the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom under the single market from next year; whether EC nationals will be required to show their passports and to submit to spot checks prior to entry into Great Britain; whether all travellers from the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom will be required to carry passports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have made no proposals for amending the common travel area arrangements.

  Squatting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultations on changes to the law on squatting; and when he expects to introduce legislation to change the law.

  Mr. Jack
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have a commitment to strengthen and improve the law against squatting, and the Home Office published a consultation paper on this subject last October. We are still considering the best way forward in the light of the responses received and we will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the paid employments of members of the Sheehy committee of inquiry into the role of the police officer.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Sir Patrick Sheehy, chairman of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, is chairman of BAT Industries. The other members of the inquiry are Mr. John Bullock, joint senior partner of Coopers Lybrand, Professor Colin Campbell, vice-chancellor of the University of Nottingham, Mr. Eric Caines, director of personnel for the national health service and Sir Paul Fox, lately managing director of BBC Television.

EDUCATION

  Hertfordshire College of Art and Design
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make an order under section 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to incorporate Herefordshire college of art and design into the new further education sector on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Forman
  Herefordshire college of art and design will be among the colleges joining the new further education sector on 1 April 1993. A corporation will be established for the college by means of an order under section 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act as soon as possible. A draft order was issued for consultation on 26 October.

WALES

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to offer financial compensation to farmers who are actively involved in improving public footpaths through their land.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the maintenance of public rights of way rests with county highway authoriies, not with my right hon. Friend. Farmers have certain duties in relation to the maintenance of paths which cross their land and are entitled to grant assistance from the highways authorities for fulfilling part of those duties. The Countryside Council for Wales is, however, piloting projects in Wales which include an incentive payment to farmers to undertake maintenance of footpaths where it is in the public interest and it is cost effective to do so.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from district councils in Wales to date concerning the proposed changes in education; and how many representations(a) expressed objection to the extension of grant-maintained status for schools and (b) expressed objections to changes proposed for the Welsh Joint Education Committee.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Representations have been received from 12 district councils and from the Council of Welsh
  771
  Districts. Of these, five commented on our proposals for grant-maintained status and three referred to the proposals relating to the Welsh Joint Education Committee.

  Disabled Trainees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the training providers within each training and enterprise council in Wales, indicating the number of training places offered, and the number of disabled trainees currently granted placement;

  (2) if he will list the large company unit schemes offering training within each training and enterprise council area in Wales indicating the number of trainees on each scheme, and the proportion of disabled trainees on each scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally. Local training provision is the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils which are under contract to make sufficient suitable places available to meet the demand from disabled persons.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total numbers of disabled trainees currently on(a) employer led training schemes and (b) voluntary sector training schemes within each training and enterprise council area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally. The type of training provision made available locally is the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total number of trainees on youth training schemes within each training and enterprise council in Wales; how many disabled trainees there are within each area; and if he will indicate the numbers of disabled trainees according to training occupational classification.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of trainees on youth training at 13 September in each TEC area in Wales is set out in the table.

  Information on the numbers of disabled young people in training and their occupational routes is not collected separately but over the six months to September, 1.2 per cent. of those commencing youth training were disabled.

  Numbers on youth training on 13 September 1992

  TEC

  Number in training

  Gwent

  2,456

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,548

  South Glamorgan

  1,685

  North East Wales

  1,355

  North West Wales

  1,851

  Powys

  533

  West Wales

  3,803

  WALES

  14,231

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the 1989–90 and the 1990–91 trainee intake on to youth training placements within each training and enterprise council area in Wales are currently in full-time employment; and what proportion of disabled trainees over the same period are currently in full-time employment.
  772
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information as requested is not available.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the basis of his policy to support differential funding for different sectors of the education service in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's policies for the support of the education service are set out in the joint Department for Education and Welsh Office education White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", Cm. 2021, published on 28 July, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Catering
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 150, what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the suspension of redundancy notice consultations to in-house catering; when he expects to confirm decisions on the legal issues raised between the health authority and the catering workers' trades unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  South Glamorgan health authority has asked the Department for its views on the legal issues arising and these are now under consideration. A reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 150, what guidance was given by his Department to Gardner Merchant by way of clarification of tender procedures and on the minimum service standards relative to previously achieved standards required to comply with (a) the terms of the contract and (b) relevant European Community law.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department gave guidance on two specific points only in clarification of tender procedures—first, that the authority had amortised redundancy costs over the period of the contract in accordance with current guidelines; secondly, that information provided to all contractors must be accurate and current and sufficient to enable the submission of realistic tenders, that is, that all necessary details should be made readily available.

  Visual Impairment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will conduct a review into the supply and cost of low vision aids to visually impaired children and the provision of training on the use of aids within health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At present, my right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to social services departments in Wales concerning advising parents of visually impaired children on adequate lighting provision in the home.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  General guidance on services for people with disabilities was issued in 1990. It specifically
  773
  mentioned the possible need to advise the visually disabled, or their carers, about lighting equipment. Local authority social services departments' rehabilitation officers are available to provide advise about lighting requirements appropriate to the individual circumstances of those who are visually impaired.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales which have appointed a social services officer with specific responsibility for visually impaired people.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All social services authorities in Wales have such officers.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to ensure that health authorities are fulfilling their statutory responsibility of providing information to parents of a visually impaired child concerning possible sources of assistance from other statutory agencies and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Existing guidance on services for people with disabilities draws attention to their information needs. It encourages the training of staff to gve clear and accurate advice on how services provided by other agencies can be obtained. It is for health authorities where appropriate to reflect that guidance in their local strategies for health which are submitted to the Department for approval.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to health authorities in Wales on the issuing of information, medical advice, and counselling to parents following the discovery of visual impairment in their child.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  General guidance on services for people with disabilities was issued in 1990, as was the report of the working group on co-ordinating services for visually handicapped people. In 1991, the Welsh Health Planning Forum issued advice to the NHS in Wales on physical and sensory disability in the form of a protocol on health gain.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of new build local authority and housing association dwellings have been built to appropriate standards for people with disabilities in Wales in each year between 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The percentage of new local authority and housing association dwellings built for people who are chronically sick or disabled is shown in the table. Figures for 1979 are not available.

  Year

  Percentage

  1980

  0.7

  1981

  1.2

  1982

  3.0

  1983

  7.6

  1984

  7.2

  1985

  4.8

  1986

  6.7

  1987

  21.8

  1988

  6.5

  1989

  1.9

  774

  Year

  Percentage

  1990

  3.8

  1991

  4.1

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what aspects of responsibility currently held by local education authorities in Wales will be transferred to the proposed funding agency.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Details of the duties of the proposed Schools Funding Council for Wales are contained in the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to protect the right of free speech in relation to employees of the national health service concerning the quality of patient care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department has recently issued, for consultation, draft guidance which clarifies the rights and duties of NHS employees in raising matters of concern about patient services and the responsibilities of local management. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Community Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales whose draft community care plans include references to services for multiple-disabled people.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Although all local authorities' social care plans include services for physically and/or sensorially disabled people, only West Glamorgan makes specific reference to people with multiple disabilities.

  Education White Paper
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the evidence on which he based the proposals set out in the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", that a greater quality of educational provision in Wales will result from a greater diversity of type of school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The reforms that we have already implemented—more parental choice, rigorous testing, external inspection of standards in schools, local management of schools, grant-maintained schools, and the national curriculum—are helping to shape a more open, a more responsive, and a more demanding system of education. The White Paper seeks to build on these solid foundations.

  Central Control of Schools
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new central powers he will gain over the direct control of schools when the new arrangements for education governance are in place.
  775
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools" is not about increasing the powers of the Secretary of State but about rationalising certain arrangements to ensure best use of limited resources for the benefit of children and the education service generally. There are no proposals to give the Secretary of State new powers with regard to direct control of schools.

  Electronics Companies
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of components purchased by electronics companies in Wales which are produced in Wales; and what information he has in respect of individual companies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not collated by my Department. Information held on individual companies is commercially confidential.

  Nurses
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of nurses who have achieved state registered nursing qualifications in 1992 to the latest available date within the Merthyr Tydfil and Cynon health district; and how many have been employed by the health districts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  So far this year, 38 student nurses from the Merthyr Tydfil and Cynon Valley health district have qualified. Of these, 26 have subsequently been employed by the Mid Glamorgan health authority; information about the remainder is not available.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of(a) a visit by a health visitor to administer insulin to a diabetic and (b) self-administration using a Novopen, including the cost of the Novo needle.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the cost of a visit by a health visitor is not held centrally. The cost of a Novopen and needle is commercial-in-confidence. However, many diabetics use disposable syringes to inject themselves with insulin and these are already prescribable. The use of injection pens and needles entails a real additional cost to the taxpayer. This factor has to be taken into account when considering whether to authorise their prescribing by general practitioners.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that Novo needles shall be available on prescription for people who suffer from diabetes and require insulin treatment.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We are continuing to consider the case for authorising general practitioners to prescribe both insulin injection pens and needles, and a final decision will be reached bearing in mind all other priorities.

  Unitary Councils
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will set out in detail the costs of establishing the new unitary councils in the areas of(a) personnel including
  776
  recruitment and relocation, (b) property costs, (c) transference to new information technology systems and (d) shadow councils and extra election costs;

  (2) if he will set out in detail the one-off costs of setting up the new unitary councils in the Principality.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have engaged Touche Ross management consultants to advise me on the nature and magnitude of transitional costs which might arise in moving to a structure of unitary authorities in Wales. I will publish the consultants' report when it is available.

  Deeside Industrial Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the earliest likely date on which permanent employment on the Deeside industrial park will reach 10,000.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I regularly meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the proposed Severn bridge toll increase in January 1993(a) generally and (b) in relation to future validity of books of season tickets available for sale at the present time.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what duties of policy co-ordination he has given to the relevant training and enterprise councils in Wales in relation to job creation in the areas affected by proposed pit closures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have agreed with the chairmen of the TECs affected by coal closures that they should produce action plans or contingency plans as appropriate and that these plans should cover not only labour market issues but, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, proposals for job creation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Association of Welsh Training and Enterprise Councils in relation to funding earmarked for additional training and enterprise operations in areas affected by proposed pit closures in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met the chairmen of Mid Glamorgan, West Wales and North East Wales TECs on 19 October 1992 to discuss the situation regarding colliery closures. I have informed the chairmen that £ 4.8 million is being made available over the next 18 months for retraining and other services and support for enterprise in the areas affected.

  I am awaiting proposals from the chairmen on the most effective use of these resources.

  Steel
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement on 21 October,Official Report, columns 527–28, in relation to the closure of Shotton

  777
  steelworks heavy end in 1980, what is his most up to date estimate of the numbers of people employed in premises at the Deeside industrial park in each year since 1985, the numbers permanently employed at British Steel Corporation Shotton (a) prior to the 1980 heavy end closure announcement, (b) in 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) at the most recent convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on employment numbers at Deeside industrial park is not collected by my Department.

  Butetown Link Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received, and what consultations he has had, concerning the funding of the annual maintenance costs of the Butetown link road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No such representations have been received.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Longford Hall
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to ascertain that Longford hall, Stretford is being maintained in a way which does not prejudice its status as a listed building; when a physical inspection of this property was last conducted; and what were the conclusions.

  Mr. Brooke
  Officials of the Departments concerned have been in regular touch with the owners, Trafford metropolitan borough council, about the state of the building. I understand that, pending decisions on the building's long term future, the council has authorised the carrying out of repairs, and tenders are due to be submitted by 30 October.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a hid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) My Department has not yet issued any significant tenders for the supply of computer hardware and software. However, it has advertised a single major requirement in the Official Journal of the European Communities and is currently evaluating proposals. It has also purchased a number of personal computers to meet urgent interim needs.

  (b) The services required are:
  (i) the supply, configuration, installation, imple-mentation and maintenance of hardware and software to support the office-based functions of the Department;
  778
  (ii) the provision of services including system operation and administration, user support and training, system design and development and migration of existing systems.

  The Department plans to implement an integrated information system network, which will provide staff with desk-top access to a variety of services, will support specific business applications and will allow communications with external facilities.

  (c) All companies that expressed an interest by the advertised due date were invited to submit proposals in response to an "operational requirement".

  (d) Not applicable.

  (e) and (f) The contract has not yet been awarded.

  (g) 18 months with an option to extend and amend.

  Gambling
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the level of(a) satisfied and (b) unsatisfied unstimulated demand for gambling.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Net consumer expenditure—estimated at about £ 3 billion in 1991–92—provides the best indication of the level of satisfied demand for gambling. By its nature, it is not possible to estimate the level of any unsatisfied demand.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. However, summary details of appoint-ments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister, including details of remuneration, are contained in "Public Bodies" published annually by the Cabinet Office. A copy of the 1991 edition is available in the Library of the House.

  Genetically Engineered Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all food which contains items that have been genetically engineered are so labelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Not at present. The Food Advisory Committee—FAC—which is one of the Government's committees of independent advisers, considers the need for special labelling of foods produced using genetic modification on a case-by-case basis taking account of advice from the advisory committee on novel foods and processes and the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment.

  The FAC committee has developed a set of guidelines for the labelling of food produced using genetic modification that are used to assist it in deciding whether special labelling is required. These guidelines are currently being reviewed by the committee and the results of this review will be made public.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the exact ages in years and months of BSE-infected cattle, both clinically diagnosed and confirmed histologically, in the period 1 June to 30 September.

  Mr. Soames
  During the period 1 June to 30 September 1992, a total of 12,528 cattle were slaughtered or died while clinically suspected of having BSE. Of these, 8,621 have been confirmed at histopathological post-mortem exami-nation and the results of 2,334 are not yet available. The dates of birth and dates of clinical onset of disease of these animals are collected on-farm as part of the ongoing epidemiological study of the disease.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the tissues involved in the cow itself as the infective agent for BSE migrating from the intestine after ingestion to the brain.

  Mr. Soames
  More than 50 different tissues have been collected from confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathies and are being assayed for infectivity by mouse inoculation. Infectivity has so far been detected only in brain.

  The following tissues have given negative results:
  Spleen, semen, buffy coat, musculus diaphragma, musculus semitendinosus, bone marrow, placenta, prefemoral lymph nodes, milk and udder, supramammary lymph nodes, mesenteric and carcase lymph nodes.

  Other results are awaited.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the amount of infective material required to be eaten to cause BSE in cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  A study is in progress to address this question.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on new types of BSE identified during the current year.

  Mr. Soames
  No new types of BSE have been identified in the current year following the histopathological examination that is applied to all confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the age at which BSE-infected cattle first show infectivity in the brain or in any other tissue.

  Mr. Soames
  A study is in progress to indicate when infectivity can be first detected in the brain and possibly in other tissues.

  GATT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requests have been received by the Agricultural Council of the European Community from the European Commission concerning its negotiating activities as representing the Community in the general agreement on tariffs and trade; what consultations the Commission has had with the Council on these matters; and what was the last date when they provided the Commission with a negotiating mandate.
  780
  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Council regularly discusses the GATT negotiations. At the Council on 26 and 27 October, the Commission reported that it was continuing to work within guidelines approved by member states, including in particular those laid down by Heads of Government at Birmingham earlier in the month.

  Beef (Import Restrictions)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many countries place restrictions on imports of cattle, calves, or beef from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  Certification of health status is a normal requirement for international trade in animals and animal products. Recommended standards are agreed by the Office International des Epizooties, which publishes the international health code.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on experiments designed to determine whether vertical transmission of the scrapie agent can occur in sheep.

  Mr. Soames
  Evidence published in the early 1970s confirmed that the foetal membranes collected from scrapie-affected ewes were capable of transmitting infection to sheep and goats following oral challenge. Observations of scrapie incidence in well recorded flocks demonstrate a strong familial pattern of cases in female lines.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Supplies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the EC Energy Commissioner in regard to the implications for European Community fuel supply and energy policy of his pit closure programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have discussed this matter with Commissioner Cardoso e Cunha informally on several occasions.

  British Coal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in regard to the extent to which British Coal has applied the citizens charter to its operations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received no specific representations on this point. British Coal aims to act in accordance with the principles of the citizens charter by providing all its customers with cost-effective, clean and convenient products and services.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans the Government have for the building of nuclear power stations in Britain which are able to use as fuel the plutonium recovered in reprocessing;
  781
  (2) to what uses the plutonium recovered in reprocessing spent fuel from British nuclear power stations at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be put; and whether any will be exported.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is expected that the material will ultimately be burnt in reactors to generate electricity. This could involve fast reactors, as and when they are needed, or plutonium could be used as mixed oxide fuel in conventional reactors—especially light water reactors such as Sizewell B. Studies are continuing as to whether plutonium fuels could be used economically in advanced gas-cooled reactors. While it is not axiomatic that United Kingdom civil plutonium needs to be burnt in United Kingdom reactors, this material will be transferred overseas only if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that it will not be misused. The conditions for this include the application of safeguards and assurances covering peaceful use, physical protection and controls on re-transfer.

  It is not envisaged that fast reactors will be needed for a number of years. Nuclear Electric will not be granted capital expenditure approval for any new nuclear power stations beyond Sizewell B pending the outcome of the 1994 review of the prospects for nuclear power.

  Coal Mines (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the deep mine coal pits he and other Ministers in his Department visited during the recent parliamentary recess; and how many coal faces were visited in those pits.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy visited Whitemoor colliery on 17 July when he saw one production face and one development face. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, visited Silverwood colliery on 28 August when she saw one production face.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review urgently the use of orimulsion by PowerGen and proposed use of that fuel by National Power at Padiham and Peabroke for the generation of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The use of orimulsion must meet the requirements set by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, in considering the energy policy implications of the prospects for the pits concerned, need to examine the economic implications of importing fuel for electricity generation.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made by the European Commission to him concerning complaints of the dumping of Colombian coal in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the standard practice for anti-dumping complaints the Commission consulted member states including the United Kingdom as to 782
  whether they should open an investigation into British Coal's complaint, which concerns imports from Colombia, the United States and China. The Government have told the Commission that we have no objection to their doing so.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures for the average price of imported coal(a) prior to 15 September and (b) currently; and what is the percentage change.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest available information on the average price of imported coal is for August 1992, when the average price was £ 28.4 per tonne, including the cost of insurance and freight. Figures for September and October will not be available until the publication of the monthly overseas trade statistics by the Central Statistical Office on 12 November and 11 December respectively.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of VAT will be charged to customers of the Post Office's Parcelforce business following privatisation.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 15 July of his intention to privatise Parcelforce, VAT is one of the many issues which is being looked at.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount his Department took into account of the likely effects of the loss of value added tax exempt status before announcing plans to privatise Parcelforce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend's announcement to the House on 15 July was of his intention to privatise Parcelforce and took account of the key issues involved in that decision. Detailed work is now under way to establish the best way to privatise Parcelforce.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the competitive framework for Parcelforce following privatisation.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: As would be expected with a planned privatisation, a number of interested parties have made their views known to the Department on a wide range of issues. All such points are being given full consideration in the current study into the method of timing of sale.

  Miners Pension Fund
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average pension paid out by the miners pension fund; and if the Government will ensure that the surplus in that fund is used for the benefit of the miners.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the trustees of the miners pension fund.

  Electricity
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, pursuant to his undertaking of 19 October,Official Report, column 236, to

  783
  place in the public realm his memorandum of 9 June containing his response to the conclusions and recommendations in the report of the Fourth Select Committee on Energy (HC 113 of 1991–92) and the associated memorandum of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: These Memoranda are already in the public domain. They were announced by parliamentary question, placed in the Library of the House and released to the press on 9 June, and have been made available to the public on request by my Department and the Office of Electricity Regulation.

  Coal Exports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will arrange for consideration to be given to the potential for the sale and supply of United Kingdom coal to generate electricity in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere in the European Community; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will undertake discussions with appropriate Ministers representing the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding the sale and supply of United Kingdom coal to generate electricity in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Sales of coal by British Coal are a matter for the corporation. I understand that British Coal exported some 175,000 tonnes of coal to Eire in 1991–92.

  Project number

  Type of services

  Number of companies invited to tender

  Company awarded contract

  Duration of contract

  1

  Hardware

  3

  Satelcom UK Ltd

  —

  2

  Software

  2

  Ingres Ltd

  —

  3

  Hardware and software

  3

  Computacenter Ltd

  —

  4

  Hardware and software

  3

  Computacenter Ltd

  —

  5

  Hardware and software

  4

  Digital Equipment Company Ltd

  —

  6

  Hardware and software

  5

  ESRI (UK)

  —

  7

  Hardware

  1

  Satelcom UK Ltd

  —

  8

  Software

  2

  Ingres Ltd

  —

  9

  Hardware

  1

  Satelcom UK Ltd

  —

  10

  Software

  4

  Not yet awarded

  —

  11

  Software

  9

  Cedar Data PLC

  —

  12

  Hardware and maintenance

  4

  Sequent UK

  3 years maintenance

  13

  Hardware and software

  6

  Not yet awarded

  —

  14

  Hardware and software

  12

  Not yet awarded

  —

  15

  Hardware

  5

  4 GL Computing Ltd

  —

  16

  Hardware, software and maintenance

  3

  Digital Equipment Company Ltd

  3 years maintenance

  17

  Development of applications software

  1

  AMP Systems Ltd

  12 months plus 6 years maintenance

  Agencies and Trading Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, columns 276–77, if he will state the final outturn figures for 1991–92 for the agencies and trading funds responsible to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Annual reports and accounts containing full financial details for 1991–92 for the agencies for which my Department is responsible have been published and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Some financial details are also available in the Department's appropriation accounts 1991–92—volume 4: classes IV and V—trade and

  Departmental Tenders
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The Department undertakes a wide range of computer projects, some of which may result in single purchases of low value off the shelf products and others requiring major procurements following EC/GATT procedures, possibly involving development of software as well as purchase of goods.

  The provision of a tabulation covering all tenders for administrative computer systems and software cannot be made available within the existing cost limits for answering parliamentary questions. However, a more limited tabulation covering tenders for purchases exceeding £ 20,000 is set out as follows. For reasons of commercial sensitivity contract values are not shown. Procurement procedures do not allow for bids to be considered unless in response to an invitation or EC Journal advertisement. All contracts are for supply only except where stated.

  industry and energy. I shall be preparing a consolidated table of their results in the next trade and industry expenditure plans report, which is due for publication in February 1993.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to clarify the application of article 13a(1)(a) of the EC sixth VAT directive to private and privatised postal services; and if he will make a statement.
  785
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: It is not apparent that such legislation is necessary. If required, it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to article 30 of the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on European central banks what is the maximum sum in pounds sterling that the United Kingdom would be requested to contribute to the European central bank, under present conditions, under article 30 of the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on European central banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  No contribution of foreign reserve assets would be made unless the United Kingdom were to participate in stage 3 of economic and monetary union. The United Kingdom share of any initial contribution if we did participate could only be calculated nearer the time, under articles 30.1 and 29.1. This amount could also be increased subsequently under article 30.4.

  Executive Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 161 of the Treasury Minute Cm 2074, what proposals he has for amending the statutes of those executive non-departmental public bodies, where the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have the primary duty of audit nor a reserve duty of regularity and propriety audit. in order to provide such rights.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Establishing inspection rights for the Comptroller and Auditor General in such cases need not involve the amendment of statutes. Sponsor Departments will use their best endeavours to secure such rights by agreement.

  Business Expansion Scheme Lettings
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme there were in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92 in (i) the south-east and (ii) the United Kingdom; and what percentage these figures represent of (1) all privately rented property and (2) all rented property.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for new lettings under the business expansion scheme in 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows. A reliable estimate of the proportion of new lettings in south-east England in 1991–92 is not available.

  Tender subject

  Number of tenders

  Winning company

  Approximate value £

  Years

  Supply of microcomputers

  68

  Tandon/Compstand

  800,000

  3

  Asset Management System

  2

  Ground Modelling Systems

  80,000

  1

  Sun Computer System

  6

  Productivity Computers

  30,000

  1

  In all these tenders, the companies that submitted a bid were invited to tender.
  786

  New lettings as a percentage of:

  Total number

  all privately rented property per cent.

  all rented property per cent.

  1990–91

  South East England

  2,500

  0.42

  0.11

  United Kingdom

  5,700

  0.33

  0.07

  1991–92

  United Kingdom

  8,500

  0.49

  0.11

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual balance of payments position of each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country at the last available date.

  Mr. Portillo
  Data on OECD countries' current account balances for 1991 are in the OECD's "Economic Outlook", June 1992.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's balance of payments position on manufacturing goods in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the balance for manufactured goods is published in the Central Statistical Office's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and is also available on the Central Statistical Office databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The Treasury has completed three tender exercises since 9 April 1992. Some of these were started before 9 April but were awarded after that date. The table does not include tenders that were let by CCTA on Treasury's behalf or tenders let by CCTA and Chessington computer centre for their own purchases. These tenders will be part of the Office of Public Service and Science's reply to this question.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to ensure that Parcelforce, when privatised, will be on an equal value-added tax footing with its competitors.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: The various options for achieving the privatisation of Parcelforce are still under consideration. One of these considerations is the desirability of achieving greater parity of VAT treatment between competitors in the postal sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the value-added tax status of Parcelforce following privatisation.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: My right hon. Friend has received no direct representations on this subject, but I have received representations from the Association of International Courier and Express Services proposing that the privatised Parcelforce should be "fully registered" for VAT.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had or intends to have with EC finance Ministers and the Commission on article 13 a (1)(a) of the EC sixth VAT directive on exemption to public postal services; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with EC Finance Ministers or the Commission about the VAT exemption for public postal services. Although the EC Commission, like the Government, is currently considering the impact of this exemption on competition within the postal sector, it is too early yet to say if and when any discussions at ministerial level will take place.

  Magnetic Tape (VAT)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of VAT applies to the supply of magnetic tape and related apparatus to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the National Listening Library and other similar charities.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: Supplies to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the National Listening Library and other similar charities, of specially adapted magnetic tape, related apparatus, and special pre-recorded tapes for use by the blind and severely handicapped are zero-rated for VAT.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to encourage businesses to provide information on tape for use by the blind or severely handicapped by ensuring that such tapes are taxed in the same way as the supply and production of such information in printed form.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: There is already a wide measure of VAT zero-rating relief for the purchase of specialised equipment for use by blind and severely handicapped people. In addition, supplies of pre-recorded tapes to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the National Listening Library and other similar charities are zero-rated.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The details requested are as follows:

  Public appointments

  Public body and Name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  Anglo-Irish Encounter

  Sir David Goodall, GCMG

  Indefinite

  Nil

  D. M. S. Cape, CMG

  Indefinite

  Nil

  Commonwealth Foundation

  Dr. J. B. Wood

  1993

  Nil

  Commonwealth Institute

  Mr. Stephen Cox

  1996

  £45,000 pa

  Mr. R. A. Fyjis-Walker

  1993

  £15,000 pa

  Sir Mark Russell

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. D. A. Thompson

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. Stuart Maclure

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. Cy Grant

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. G. Oakes

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. C. Shepherd

  1994

  Nil

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  1995

  Nil

  Miss Diane Warwick

  1993

  Nil

  Sir Victor Garland

  1993

  Nil

  Hon. David Douglas-Home

  1993

  Nil

  Lady Reid

  1993

  Nil

  Dame J. Barrow

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. James Lemkin

  1992

  Nil

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards

  Sir Derek Day

  1994

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Frank Trew

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Sir David Calcutt

  1993

  Per diem expenses

  Sir Mark Russel

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Mrs. Jacqueline Dyson

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  Sir William Harding, KCMG CVO

  1993

  Nil

  Major John Surtees, OBE, MC

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. David Cossart

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. Anthony Hanson

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. Mark Savage

  1995

  Nil

  Imperial War Museum

  Sir E. Jackson

  1993

  Nil

  Mr. I. Smart

  1994

  Nil

  Irish Pensions Appeals Tribunal

  Dr. Gregg

  Indefinite

  £145 per diem

  Mr. R. J. Tierney

  Indefinite

  £151 per diem

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Sir Donald Tebbit, GCMG

  Indefinite

  Nil

  Miss Sheila Browne, CB

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. Sir James Ball

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. H. T. Dickinson

  1994

  Nil

  Sir Roger Bannister, CBE

  1994

  Nil

  Ms. Sue MacGregor

  1995

  Nil

  Sir Arthur Bryan

  1994

  Nil

  Dr. K. J. R. Edwards

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. Christine Bolt

  1995

  Nil

  Prof. Lord Desai

  1995

  Nil

  789

  Public body and Name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  London University School of Oriental and Arician Studies

  Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

  1997

  Nil

  Sightsavers

  Mr. A. R. Rushford

  1997

  Nil

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Sir James Spicer

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. George Robertson, MP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Sir Russell Johnston, MP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Tony Clarke

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing, MP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. Peter Frank

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Timothy Garton-Ash

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Lady Howe, JP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Gavin Laird

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Ralph Land, OBE

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls, MP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Mr. Ian Taylor, MP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Miss Carol Tongue, MEP

  Indefinite

  Per diem expenses

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Mr. Michael Kaser

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. John Drew

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. John Scates

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. Connie Martin

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Prof. Jack Spence

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. Janet Morgan

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. Bruce George, MP

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. John Lyons, CBE

  1995

  Nil

  Mrs. Liliana Archibald

  1995

  Nil

  Miss Norvela Forster

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. Robert MacLennan, MP

  1992

  Nil

  Dr. Edwina Moreton

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. John Pinder, OBE

  1992

  Nil

  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, MP

  1993

  Nil

  Sir Julian Bullard, GCMG

  1993

  Nil

  Ms. Brenda Dean

  1994

  Nil

  Wilton Park Departmental Board

  Miss Valerie Le Moignan

  1995

  Nil

  Miss Ruth Watts Davies

  1995

  Nil

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Sir Michael Caine

  1993

  Nil

  Dr. A. Sloman

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. R. A. Howie

  1994

  Nil

  Prof. B. Clayton

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. J. G. G. Ledingham

  1995

  Nil

  Mrs. D. L. Wedderburn

  1994

  Nil

  Prof. S. Marks

  1995

  Nil

  Prof. Gillian Beer

  1993

  Nil

  Dr. C. Booth

  1995

  Nil

  Dr. R. O. Iredale

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. P. Parsloe

  1992

  Nil

  Prof. A. Little

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. D. Jennings

  1993

  Nil

  Mr. R. Francis

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Prof. A. Diplock

  1994

  Nil

  Overseas Service Pension Scheme

  J. V. Kerby

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  D. S. Fish

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  C. D. Stenton

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  Miss D. R. Phillips

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  D. H. Loades

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  Indian Family Pension Scheme

  D. S. Fish

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Maj. Gen. D. T. T. Horsford

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  Major R. J. Henderson

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  790

  Public body and Name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  Lt. Col. P. Kemmis-Betty

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  Major R. Mottram

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  R. V. Fenton

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  J. M. Phelps

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  J. P. C. Coventry

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  G. E. D. Walker

  Unspecified

  Per diem expenses

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Sir Peter E. Leslie

  1995

  £12,000

  Sir Michael Caine

  1994

  £5,001-£10,000 band

  Mrs. A. E. Wright, JP

  1994

  £l-£5,000 band

  Prof. M. L. O. Faber

  1994

  Mr. M. McWilliam

  1992

  Mr. E. B. Waide

  1992

  Prof. I. D. Carruthers

  1995

  J. B. Zochonis

  1995

  Crown Agents1

  Mr. D. H. Probert

  1993

  £30,000

  Dr. A. I. Lenton

  1993

  £5,001–10,000 band

  P. F. Berry

  1994

  £65,1002

  Mrs. D. Miller, MBE, JP

  1993

  £5,000-£10,000 band

  Miss K. Mortimer

  1993

  Mr. A. K. Stewart-Roberts

  1993

  Mr. F. Cassell, CB

  1994

  Mr. J. D. Andrews

  1995

  Mr. F. I. Sumner

  1995

  ODA Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Research Overseas

  Mr. J. B. Wilmshurst

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  R. Allen, MA

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. S. Conlin

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. R. Thomas

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Ms. C. Coppard

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. A. Hall

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Prof, the Reverend Roland Moss

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Dr. C. O. N. Moser

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. A. W. Rew

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Dr. F. Stewart

  1992

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. J. F. J. Toye

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Dr. H. Afshar

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. P. Blaikie

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. K. Davey

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Ms. D. Elson

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Dr. J. Heyer

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  Prof. N. Stern

  1995

  Per diem expenses

  1 When members are appointed to this board they are also appointed to the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board.

  2 Excluding pension contributions.

  Note: For Crown Agents and Commonwealth Development Corporation, figures are taken from 1991 published accounts.

  Information on the exact period for which each appointment was made and the relevant qualifications of the appointees is not held centrally.

  There are five appointments vacant across three committees.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when a decision is to be taken on an entry clearance application made by Noreen Akhtar, born 7 February 1974 (Ref. IMM/B1438), at the post in Islamabad;

  (2) when a decision is to be taken on an entry clearance application made by Azhar lqbal, born 1 January 1968 (Ref. IMM/93512), at the post in Islamabad.
  791
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about these cases, I have asked the high commission in Islamabad for a full report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been made of the cost of the European Parliament not having a single seat.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Clearly the costs of the present arrangements for the European Parliament are higher than they would be if it had a single seat. We are not, however, aware of any single, official estimate.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he is making to the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton, North for the provision of independent scrutiny of the Government's proposed leaflet on the Maastricht treaty before its publication.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The Government's pamphlet will set out in objective fashion the benefits of Community membership, how the Community operates and the changes introduced by the Maastricht treaty.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the review of policy and management of the Caribbean dependent territories.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have reviewed our policy towards, and the management of, our business with the Caribbean dependent territories—Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Our record in assisting the economic development of these territories is good, but their economies are weak. They need to attract more sound private investment, and to develop their infrastructures, so as to stand more securely on their feet. Sustained economic progress will only come through the strengthening of good government.

  I have decided that we should make changes in our existing arrangements for these territories. As the Minister responsible, I will chair a ministerial board of management for the territories to bring together those Government Departments and agencies which have a part to play in the territories' affairs to improve co-ordination within Whitehall. A new secretariat for the territories will be set up in the region to co-ordinate all official funding programmes and provide on-the-spot support and advice for Governors and territory Governments.

  We wish to encourage the elected Governments of the territories to work closely with us in a spirit of partnership and common enterprise. Our Governors will play a vital part in achieving that aim.

  I also propose to introduce jointly agreed country policy plans for each aid-receiving territory. The Governments of the territories will have an important say
  792
  in drawing up these plans, in discussions with governors and the regional secretariat. Together they will agree the priorities for development and improvements needed in the administration of the territories over a three-year period, to be reviewed annually. These plans will represent a joint public commitment by the British and dependent territory Governments to the future development and good government of the territory.

  I believe that these measures will significantly strengthen our ability to assist the Caribbean dependent territories in their efforts to develop their economies and societies in an increasingly challenging environment.

  Solo Greenpeace
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to secure the release of Helena Sierakowski and the other crew members of the NV Solo Greenpeace ship arrested by Russian authorities in the Kara sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: The Greenpeace ship Solo was intercepted by the Russian authorities in the sea of Kara on 12 October. The ship's dinghy had allegedly entered Russian jurisdiction. The Solo was escorted into a naval bay north of Murmansk, arriving on 18 October. In accordance with Russian law, the ship was held for three days while the Russians decided whether to press charges. On 21 October, the ship was released with all crew members on board. No charges were laid.

  The Netherlands consular representative was the only consular official permitted to board the vessel, which was registered in the Netherlands and captained by a Netherlands national. He did so on 18 October, and reported to the British consulate general in St. Petersburg that all crew members were safe and well.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when it is intended that the European economic area agreement signed on 2 May will come into force.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been asked to reply.

  The agreement establishing the European economic area provides for it to come into force from 1 January 1993. Before it comes into force it will require ratification by all the EC and EFTA member states and the assent of the European Parliament. To this end the Government introduced a Bill to the House of Lords on 22 October. Subject to parliamentary progress, the Government intend to ratify the EEA as soon possible.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Bills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many amendments have been proposed to public Bills in Committee this session by(a) the Government and (b) the Opposition; and how many have been agreed to.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members currently take advantage of the payroll giving scheme by deduction from their Parliamentary salaries.

  Mr. Newton
  There are currently 41 Members who have authorised deductions from their parliamentary salaries under the payroll giving scheme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Groundwater Protection
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the widening of the scope of the proposed European Community directive on groundwater protection to include management of water catchments.

  Mr. Maclean
  The EC ministerial declaration at the Hague in November 1991 invited the Commission to elaborate proposals to improve the management and protection of groundwater in the Community. These proposals are awaited.

  EC Environment Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community, he will seek to encourage the European Community to take environmental considerations into account in its structural funds monitoring procedure; and if he will introduce a new article into the structural fund regulations guaranteeing freedom of information;

  (2) if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC to encourage the European investment bank to integrate environmental assessment into its decision-making process;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to promote the amendment of structural fund regulations so that (a) any actions affecting land use and resource consumption must promote conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in order to receive funding and (b) payments under the fund are cancelled where there is clear evidence that EC laws have been breached;

  (4) if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC to secure (a) the establishment of a European environmental agency (b) evaluation by environmental audit of each directorate general (c) environmental assessments of all new EC initiatives and regulations, with regulations to be accompanied by an environmental statement and (d) rapid progress with the proposed directive on environmental assessment for programmes and plans;

  (5) if he will take steps to ensure that the European Community's fifth action programme on the environment addresses fishery issues;
  794
  (6) what efforts will be undertaken by his Department to ensure that the EC's fifth action programme on the environment (a) addresses trade issues and (b) contains clear targets and timetables, including targets for transports.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the EC, the fifth action programme itself, as well as the initiation and enforcement of measures such as the structural fund regulations are primarily a matter for the Commission. It has undertaken, in putting forward proposals, to assess their environmental impact and the Community as a whole will promote sustainable growth which respects the environment. As presidency, we are playing our part in giving effect to the treaty obligation that environmental protection shall be a component of the EC's other policies. We are doing this through, for example, a Council resolution on the fifth action programme which will highlight the importance of the integration of the environment into other policies and of the need for effective review; in our approach to the revision of the structural fund regulations; and through discussion of the environment in a number of other policy areas. We are also seeking the early establishment of the European environment agency. The Community as a whole is committed to greater openness.

  10 Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of the refurbishment currently being carried out at No. 10 Downing street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no refurbishment currently being carried out at No. 10 Downing street. Works to improve security at Nos. 10, 11, and 12 Downing street are nearing completion. Their cost is estimated at £ 7.6 million.

  EC Habitats Directives
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being undertaken to accelerate the designation of protection areas tinder the European Community birds directive; and if he will bring forward legislation to implement the European Community habitats directive during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department and the statutory nature conservation bodies are affording high priority to the designation of special protection areas for birds and are working together on an accelerated designation programme. As a result, 21 special protection areas have been designated in the past 12 months, bringing the United Kingdom total to 61 sites. The Government are currently considering the measures necessary to implement the habitats directive; the legal framework for which is required to be in place by June 1994.

  EC Habitats Directives
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the EC to secure that agro-environmental schemes utilised by the EC are interlinked with the objectives laid out in the birds and habitats directives.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food worked together closely in pressing for the integration of agricultural and environmental objectives within the common agricultural policy during the recent reform negotiations. The reform package includes an agri-environment measure that requires all member states to operate programmes to encourage environmentally friend farming. The preamble to the agri-environment regulation—Council regulation EEC No. 2978/92—says that measures must contribute towards certain specific environmental goals set out in Community legislation, while article 4.5 provides a link between agri-environmental aid schemes and other Community provisions.

  Government Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who won the tender to supply vehicles for the Government's secure car scheme fleet; how many organisations submitted tenders; and when the tender will next be advertised.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government car service vehicles are generally purchased through Government call-off contracts with the vehicle manufacturers concerned. The advertising of the tenders for these contracts is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of vehicles by make and type that are currently in the Government's secure car scheme fleet.

  Mr. Baldry
  The GCS car fleet comprises some 180 vehicles which is made up of the following car makes and types:

  Car makes and types

  Number

  Jaguars

  14

  Rover 800 Series

  47

  Ford Sierra Sapphire 2.0 litre

  33

  Rover Montego 2.0 litre

  23

  Rover 400 Series

  48

  Range Rover

  1

  Daimler Limousine

  2

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the last 12 months the number of times a vehicle from the Government's secure car scheme fleet has been used by Government Ministers for private use.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers, except where it is justified on security grounds, do not normally use GCS cars for private purposes. For private use of a non-security nature, Ministers would be charged for the use of the car by their own Department. No central record is maintained.

  Renovation Grants
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the actual amount spent in each region on mandatory renovation grants in 1991–92; and what is the expected outturn by region on mandatory renovation grants for 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure by local authorities on mandatory grants in each standard region of England for 1991–92 under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is shown in the table.

  Mandatory grants: Final payments 1991–92 (Under Local Government and Housing Act 1989)

  £ million

  Region

  Renovation grants

  All mandatory grants1

  North

  16.3

  18.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17.1

  24.6

  East Midlands

  18.5

  22.2

  East Anglia

  7.7

  9.5

  Greater London

  15.0

  19.8

  Rest of South East

  26.6

  35.4

  South West

  20.1

  25.3

  West Midlands

  25.5

  31.7

  North West

  37.9

  44.8

  England

  184.6

  231.6

  Source: As reported by local authorities on the housing statistics return PID.

  Note:

  1 Total of mandatory renovation, Houses in Multiple Occupation, common parts and disabled facilities grants.

  Information about mandatory grants paid under the previous system, under the Housing Act 1985, is not available.

  Estimates from this year's HIP2 forms, which include local authorities' expected outturns for 1992–93, have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds were allocated in each region for mandatory renovation grants in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  Resources are not allocated to local authorities in each region solely for expenditure on mandatory renovation grants. Each authority receives an overall allowance for specified capital grant, as part of its annual housing investment programme—HIP—alloca-tion, to support private sector renewal work, including house renovation grants. This covers the Exchequer contribution towards the expenditure—75 per cent. in the case of grants. Allocations of specified capital grant to local authorities in each region for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are set out in the HIP allocation tables for local authorities in England for those years, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Housing Associations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations about the retention of the £ 2 billion grant for housing associations; and if he will make it his policy that no cuts in expenditure will be made to the budget for the west midlands.
  797
  Mr. Baldry
  The chairwoman of the National Federation of Housing Associations wrote to my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 7 September.

  In replying on their behalf, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government could not comment on the discussions that are currently taking place about future public expenditure.

  Next year, as this, resources will be allocated to the Housing Corporation's regions in accordance with the housing needs indicator.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each water company supplying water to domestic customers in England, the supply zones where one or more drinking water inspectorate sample in 1991 exceeded 10 micrograms of lead per litre of water; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could he made available only at disproportionate cost. However I draw the hon. Member's attention to "Drinking Water 1991", the second annual report by the chief drinking water inspector, and to the document, "Nitrate, Pesticides and Lead, 1989 and 1990", published by the drinking water inspectorate in July 1992. These reports contain considerable information about lead concentration in water supplies. I regret that the hon. Member has misinterpreted information from these documents in his report "Poison in the Pipeline?"

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to representations concerning local government finance made to him by Sefton borough council on 13 August.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I replied to Sefton borough council's letter on 21 October.

  Radioactive Waste (Aquatic Life)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has undertaken in order to evaluate effects of low-level radioactive waste on aquatic life.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 320, where in Somalia the 19,100 tonnes of British food aid and 105,000 tonnes of EC food aid were delivered; to whom the aid was delivered and on what dates; and what were the commodities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information on United Kingdom food aid for Somalia is given in the table. I shall write to 798
  the hon. Gentleman with details of EC food aid to Somalia when we receive the relevant information, which we have requested from the European Commission.

  United Kingdom aid to Somalia

  Tonnes

  Agency

  Town-area

  Period of distribution

  (Rice)

  30 January to 28

  12,000

  Kisimayo region

  February 1992

  Liboi

  2 May to 29 May 1992

  (Lentils)

  6 March to 5 June

  1,250

  ICRC

  Mogadishu region

  1992

  (vegetable oil)

  10 March to 5

  850

  Merca

  June 1992

  14,100

  (wheat)

  5,000

  WFP

  Berbera

  Late August 1992

  19,100

DEFENCE

  Royal Navy Supertanker
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is planned to replace or install a command and control system in the Royal Navy supertanker Fort Victoria in 1996; what arrangement for command and control will endure during the intervening period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The ship is designed to be fitted with a command system at a later date. The exact nature of this will depend upon the finally approved equipment fit. The ship will be able to operate its existing weapons in the interim period.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy supertanker Fort Victoria was designed to be equipped with the Sea Wolf defence system; if this will now be installed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The ship has been designed to be fitted with the vertical launch Sea Wolf system at a later date, if necessary. The operational requirement to fit the system is currently under review, but no decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what protection and computerised control systems will have been installed when the Royal Navy supertanker Fort Victoria goes into service.

  Mr. Aitken
  The machinery control and surveillance system for the computerised control of the ship and its machinery will be fully operational when the ship enters full service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The ship is designed to be fitted with a command system at a later date.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original budget for the Royal Navy supertanker Fort Victoria; what is the current budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The original contract for Fort Victoria was valued at £ 127.2 million at 1985–86 prices. A final settlement has not yet been reached; our estimate of the cost is commercially confidential.
  799
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original expected delivery date of the Royal Navy supertanker Fort Victoria; what it is now; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The original in-service date for Fort Victoria was 1990. Because of problems experienced by the contractor, it is now forecast that the ship will be fully accepted into service in 1993.

  Diversification Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his policy to evaluate the benefits of establishing a defence diversification agency to protect jobs in companies currently involved in military equipment and armament production.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the amounts of money which have been and are estimated to be spent on(a) developing and (b) producing the European fighter aircraft for each financial year, by each country involved in the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Aitken
  It is not my Department's policy to give details of estimated project expenditure, derived from the long-term costing, which is designed for internal planning purposes. Expenditure by the United Kingdom each year since the beginning of the European fighter aircraft project is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million revalued to 1992 economic conditions

  1984–85

  2

  1985–86

  3

  1986–87

  30

  1987–88

  68

  1988–89

  127

  1989–90

  151

  1990–91

  208

  1991–92

  366

  11992–93

  162

  1 The figures for 1992–93 is expenditure to date.

  We do not maintain records of the progress of expenditure by our partners. The total cost to the four partner nations of developing EFA is estimated at about £8.5 billion, of which the United Kingdom share is about £2.7 billion.

  Sea Training
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the number of(a) Royal Navy ships and (b) NATO ships that undertake a period of sea training at Portland on an annual basis; and what level of income is generated by these arrangements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1991–92, a total of 43 Royal Navy, 17 Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and 12 ships from NATO nations undertook a period of sea training at Portland.
  800
  Over this period cash receipts for training to foreign navies amounted to some £0.1 million. Some nations provide services in support of sea training rather than cash.

  Defence Commitments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the estimated attributable costs of defence commitments for 1992–93 for(a) strategic nuclear deterrent, (b) defence of home base including Northern Ireland, (c) defence of central fronts, including (i) British Army of the Rhine, (ii) RAF Germany and (iii) Berlin and (d) maritime operations including (1) eastern Atlantic, (2) channel, (3) amphibious capability, (4) Allied Command Europe mobile force, (5) United Kingdom mobile force, (6) Belize, (7) Cyprus, (8) Falkland Islands, (9) Gibraltar, (10) Hong Kong and (11) operational HQ costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is no longer possible to provide the information in the form requested. Table 1.3 of "Defence Statistics 1992" shows a breakdown of the defence budget by programme for the years up to 1991–92, but in order to reflect the way in which defence expenditure is now controlled under the new management strategy, this table has been superseded by table 1.3A showing how the defence budget is distributed among top and high level budget holders.

  Naval Bases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those who are being consulted about the review of United Kingdom naval bases, including both national and international bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no single review of United Kingdom naval bases. A number of measures potentially affecting particular bases are being examined as part of continuing work to match support to a smaller front line. Other Government Departments are consulted as necessary. The trades unions will be consulted on any proposals, and local authorities will have the opportunity to give their views so that all relevant factors can be considered before final decisions are announced.

  The provision of support facilities is a national responsibility. NATO authorities are, however, aware of our strategy for ensuring cost-effective support of the Royal Navy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the therapeutic earnings rule to enable people undertaking a specified and limited amount of voluntary work to continue obtaining invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  People receiving invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance may undertake work, including work for a voluntary organisation, if it is likely to benefit their health; and as long as their earnings do not exceed £40.50 a week. We have no plans to amend these conditions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he intends to implement to
  801
  reduce the number of occasions on which responses are unavailable on an application for disabled living allowance because the file has been lost.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 28 October 1992.

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about what arrangements he intends to implement to reduce the number of occasions on which responses are unavailable on an application for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) because the file has been lost.

  I regret that there have been occasions when telephone enquiries could not be answered because the file has been unavailable but I am sure you will appreciate that when vast numbers of cases are being handled it may sometimes be difficult to locate a particular file. When files have been temporarily mislaid, a special search is instigated as soon as possible so that the enquiry can be answered.

  The measures we have introduced to clear the backlog of DLA claims have already reduced the number of outstanding cases and location of files should be more straightforward in future. There will always be a steady volume of outstanding work, for instance where further enquiries have to be made, but with the clearance of the backlog this will reduce to manageable proportions.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration his Department has given to implementing the recommendations of the 1990 report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, entitled "Hard Labour".

  Mr. Scott
  The Department considered this report in full and replied in detail to the national association explaining how existing and planned procedures addressed the report's concerns.

  Income Support Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether an unemployed person claiming income support may participate in a part-time education or training course; what conditions they have to satisfy; whether people leaving employment training or employment action can immediately take advantage of the 21-hour rule concession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Unemployed income support recipients can participate in part-time education or training courses provided that the supervised study element of the course does not exceed 21 hours a week and they are prepared to give up the course if a suitable job vacancy becomes available. In order to take advantage of this people have to be aged 18 or older and satisfy the following conditions:

  (a) they must have been unemployed and in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefit or income support because of unemployment or sickness, or participating in Youth Training for three months, or at least three months in the previous six if they have been in temporary employment between spells of unemployment, after the terminal date for Child Benefit and before they start the course; and

  802

  (b) the course is defined as part-time and does not consist of more than 21 hours a week (based solely on periods of supervised study and course requirements); and

  (c) the course is an education course run by a college, school or equivalent recognised institution or is a training course analogous to one for which a training allowance is payable; and

  (d) they are prepared to leave the course immediately a suitable vacancy becomes available; and

  (e) they continue to actively seek work while attending the course.

  People who leave the employment training or employment action programme have to satisfy the qualifying conditions before they can take advantage of the 21-hour rule concession.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of income support payments were made to unemployed families in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Burt
  Expenditure on income support to unemployed families for the years 1990–91 is shown in the table. Statistics for 1992 are not yet available.

  Annual expenditure £ million

  Average weekly payment £

  1990

  899

  77.94

  1991

  1,319

  84.04

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the administrative cost for benefit payments to unemployed families, for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 28 October.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total benefit payment expenditure, for each social security benefit, for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is published in the Government expenditure plans for the relevant years, copies of which are in the Library.

  Industrial Injury
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many miners, having been diagnosed as suffering from bronchitis and emphysema, have been refused compensation for industrial injury; and how many of them would be entitled to claim if it was recognised as an industrial injury.

  Mr. Scott
  Since bronchitis and emphysema are not in the list of diseases prescribed for industrial injuries disablement benefit—IIDB. No information on diagnoses is held. The number of potential recipients of IIDB is not known.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the latest position over what moneys have been paid out to former employees, now retired, of Maxwell companies; and what further sums are to be paid out.
  803
  Miss. Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 26 October, at column 492. Further grants totalling £ 393,000 are being made from the £ 2.5 million emergency funding to assist with payment of November pensions. In addition, state additional pensions are being paid and will continue to be paid to members of Maxwell pension schemes who have been brought back into the state earnings-related pension scheme. The Maxwell Pensioners Trust, which is chaired by Sir John Cuckney, has so far made payments of some £ 17,000 to 47 ex-employees of Maxwell companies who are not members of Maxwell-linked pension schemes. The trustees are considering how best to provide this particularly vulnerable group with long-term financial security.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission to discuss progress on fair employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As the responsible Minister, I meet the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission every six months to review the implementation of fair employment legislation and the work of the Commission. I last met the chairman on 22 June 1992; the date of the next meeting has not yet been fixed.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost per capita for education of a child in(a) secondary and (b) primary schools in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the 1990–91 financial year £ 1,179 was the cost of a primary school child and £ 1,852 for a secondary school child.

  Constitutional Talks
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had regarding new political initiatives from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current talks.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current circumstances surrounding the all-party talks on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in resolving the United Kingdom dimension of the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has further to boost the small firms sector.

  Mr. Atkins
  LEDU, the small business agency, is currenty implementing its strategy for the period up to 1994 and has introduced recently a number of new programmes which are aimed at improving competitiveness and growth in the small firms sector. In December it will launch a further major initiative in the business growth and development programme.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils in Northern Ireland schools have been statemented.

  Mr. Hanley
  At January 1992, 6,365 children were receiving special educational provision in Northern Ireland. Normally I would expect such children to have statements of special education needs. However, a recent report in Great Britain claimed that numbers of children attending special schools in some local education authorities did not have statements. I have therefore asked the five education and library boards for detailed information on the position in Northern Ireland and I will write to the hon. Member when this information has been received.

  Cross-border Security
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security.

  Mr. Mates
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

  Job Creation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs need to be created in 1992–93 in Northern Ireland to provide jobs for school leavers in 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  About 9,000 school leavers are expected to enter the labour market in 1993. Some of these will take newly created jobs and some will find jobs vacated by others, for example people retiring, changing employment, or moving from Northern Ireland. Those 16 and 17-year-olds who do not find a job immediately are guaranteed a place on the youth training programme.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about abortion in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the past six months 30 representations have been received from individuals and bodies, of which four were in favour of the extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland and 26 were opposed to any reform of the existing laws on abortion in the Province.

  Drugs Prevention Week
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives he plans for the Province in support of European Drugs Prevention Week between 16 and 22 November.

  Mr. Hanley
  The range of initiatives planned for Northern Ireland in support of European Drugs Prevention Week include an open forum on solvent misuse to be held on 16 November followed by a conference entitled Young People and Drugs on 17 and 18 November. The opportunity will also be taken during the week to publish a booklet for parents on solvent misuse, to issue fresh guidance to doctors on the clinical management of drug misuse and to announce the findings of a youth health survey on the attitudes amongst young people to drugs.

  Belfast Airport
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future plans for Belfast international airport.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 20 November 1991, my predecessor announced the Government's plans to sell the publicly-owned company which operates Belfast international airport. Legislation is being prepared to give effect to the privatisation and a draft order will be published in May 1993. The timetable envisages the order being made in the spring of 1994 with the sale of the company taking place during the summer of that year.

  Security
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Since my predecessor answered a similar question on 26 February 1992 there have been 36 deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including 30 civilians, four soldiers, and two RUC officers.

  I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the continuing terrorist crimes. The Government will continue to give their full support to the police and armed forces in upholding the rule of law, striving to protect the community from terrorism, and bringing those who commit terrorist crimes to justice. Up to the end of September this year some 310 people have been charged with terrorist related offences, including 83 with murder or attempted murder.

  Tourism
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what growth in the level of tourism he projects for 1992–93.

  Mr. Atkins
  Firm estimates for 1992 are not yet available but the Northern Ireland tourist board estimates, at this stage, an increase for 1992 of 3 per cent. in total visitors above the record 1991 level of 1.186 million.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the EC Commission on surface transport links between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Security
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost of security operations to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland during the current financial year.

  Mr. Mates
  The cost of security operations to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new undergraduates have been enrolled at(a) the Queen's university of Belfast and (b) the university of Ulster for the academic year 1992–93; how many of these at each of the two universities come from (1) Northern Ireland, (2) Great Britain, (3) Republic of Ireland and (4) other European countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  Final undergraduate enrolment figures are not yet available for 1992–93. However, it is estimated that:

  (a) 2,670 new full-time and 240 new part-time undergraduates have enrolled at Queen's university, Belfast and

  (b) 4,092 new full-time and 1,085 new part-time undergraduates have enrolled at the university of Ulster.

  The country of domicile for new full-time and part-time undergraduates at each of the universities is estimated as follows:

  Country of domicile

  Full-time undergraduates New entrants

  Part-time undergraduates New entrants

  (a) Queen's University Belfast

  (1) Northern Ireland

  2,343

  229

  (2) Great Britain

  76

  1

  (3) Republic of Ireland

  170

  2

  (4) Other European countries

  15

  8

  (b) University of Ulster

  (1) Northern Ireland

  3,215

  1,024

  (2) Great Britain

  126

  0

  (3) Republic of Ireland

  508

  61

  (4) Other European countries

  212

  0

  Terrorism
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has investigated recent allegations of army involvement with terrorists in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The inquiry conducted by Mr. John Stevens into allegations of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the security forces concluded that, while such collusion had occurred, it was neither widespread nor institutionalised. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland asked for a report from
  807
  the Chief Constable of the RUC following the "Panorama" programme on 8 June, and that this is awaited.

  Belfast Institute
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many administrative staff were employed in the former Belfast colleges; how many are employed in the new merged institute; and, of these three how many are former teaching staff who were channelled into administrative duties.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The number of administrative staff in the former Belfast colleges was 130. The number in the new institute is 128. No former teachers have been channelled into administration posts in the institute.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the(a) time allowance and (b) travelling expenses of staff travelling between the different sites of the Belfast Institute.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the principal differences between the duties informed by the three vice-principals of the former separate colleges and the duties carried out by the deputy directors of the Belfast Institute.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The senior management structure of the new institute is very different to that at each of the three former colleges. Deputy directors have wider ranging responsibilities, encompassing the duties of the five former vice-principals as well as other duties associated with such a large

  Table 1: Contracts awarded directly by departments

  Department

  Project

  Suppliers invited to tender

  Awarded to

  Contract period

  Cost £'000

  Environment

  Replacement equipment in Ordnance Survey

  2

  Sys Scan UK

  2 months

  128

  Agriculture

  Office Automation System

  8

  Sybex

  7 months

  350

  Health and Social Services

  Mainframe Backing Store

  1

  ICL

  3 weeks

  11

  Provision of Epic Licences

  1

  Planning Sciences

  2 weeks

  8

  Provision of PCs and Server

  3

  PC Consultants

  3 weeks

  14

  Specialist Software

  1

  Sybex

  3 weeks

  44

  Provision of PCs and Printer

  4

  PC Consultants

  2 weeks

  16

  Provision of Windows and Database Software

  3

  Software Paradise

  2 weeks

  11

  Education

  Change Control for McDonnell Douglas Software

  1

  McDonnell Douglas

  3 weeks

  28

  Provision of an Asset Register System

  6

  Britannia Software

  6 weeks

  6

  Rates Collection Agency Specialised Software Requirement

  1

  Occam

  6 weeks

  100

  Ordnance Survey Accounting System

  6

  Microcare

  6 weeks

  23

  Ordnance Survey—Word Processing System

  9

  Digital Equipment Company

  1 week

  11

  Water Services CAD Project

  8

  Photonic

  3 months

  188

  808
  organisation. The three deputy director posts cover, respectively, corporate services, learning programmes and cross-curricular support.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The business development science (BDS) of the Department of Finance and Personnel, acting as agent for the Northern Ireland Government Departments, purchased the bulk of the information technology equipment acquired by those Departments during the period in question. Details of these projects are given in table 1. In addition some Departments purchased equipment either directly or via the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in Norwich. Details of these projects are given in table 2. A number of low value items have been excluded since they could be produced in the requested format only at disproportionate cost.

  No companies were permitted to submit bids without prior invitation.

  All hardware contracts awarded contained a 12 month on-site warranty provision and consequently no service contracts were entered into.
  809

  Department

  Project

  Suppliers invited to tender

  Awarded to

  Contract period

  Cost £'000

  Finance and Personnel

  Stormont Castle—Upgrade of Microvax

  4

  Digital Equipment Company

  7 weeks

  27

  Provision of Notebook PC's for social Research interviews

  11

  Crown Computers

  2 weeks

  46

  Valuation and Lands Office—Registry System

  7

  Digital Equipment Company

  8 weeks

  9

  Health and Social Services

  Replacement Word Processing Equipment

  9

  Advec

  2 weeks

  63

  Cabling—Royston House

  3

  ICL

  4 weeks

  10

  Estate Services Directorate—Networking

  3

  ICL

  10 weeks

  21

  Note: The contract period is defined at the time from the award of the contract to the date of acceptance of the equipment by the customer.

  Table 2:

  Contracts awarded by Department of Finance and personnel on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government Departments Period 9 April 1992 to 23 October 1992

  Department

  Project

  Suppliers invited to tender

  Awarded to

  Contract period

  Cost £'000

  Economic Development

  Replacement equipment-Typing Service—DED HQ

  5

  Data General

  3 weeks

  38

  Supply of Terminal Servers

  10

  ICS

  2 weeks

  30

  Supply of SCO Unix Systems

  9

  Siemens Nixdorf

  3 weeks

  26

  Call off contract for PC's and Terminals

  24

  ICL and Siemens Nixdorf

  12 months

  143

  Environment

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency—Data Capture

  7

  ICL

  2 weeks

  12

  Supply of Unix Development Machine to the Information Systems Unit

  9

  Data General

  4 weeks

  61

  Works Design Project

  7

  AMT

  6 weeks

  41

  Highway Modelling Project

  6

  AMT

  4 weeks

  49

  Supply of Equipment to DOE Training Branch

  8

  Siemens Nixdorf

  2 weeks

  12

  1 To date after 3 months.

SCOTLAND

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland how many(a) males and (b) females have been referred to the reporter to the children's panel in each local authority in Scotland under the Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Act 1983 in each year since the Act came into effect.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table details the number of solvent abuse referrals to reporters by local authority area.

  Number of solvent abuse referrals to reporters by local authority area (1983–1991)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Berwickshire

  4

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Roxburgh

  —

  2

  —

  11

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  Tweeddale

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders total

  4

  3

  1

  20

  3

  1

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1

  Clackmannan

  1

  8

  8

  12

  2

  5

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  18

  31

  11

  11

  33

  —

  2

  —

  5

  5

  5

  1

  Stirling

  3

  4

  8

  4

  1

  5

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  6

  —

  Central total

  4

  30

  47

  27

  14

  13

  —

  7

  1

  9

  5

  11

  1

  810
  A breakdown by sex is only available for the years 1988 to 1991. The number of children referred is unavailable and the referrals may include some children referred more than once in the year.
  811

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Annandale and Eskdale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nithsdale

  —

  6

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Stewartry

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wigtown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway total

  —

  6

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Dunfermline

  6

  5

  11

  8

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  1

  Kirkcaldy

  2

  18

  14

  9

  7

  3

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  2

  North East Fife

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife total

  8

  24

  26

  17

  10

  6

  1

  2

  —

  7

  —

  3

  3

  Aberdeen (City of)

  12

  8

  32

  12

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  12

  —

  8

  4

  Banff and Buchan

  5

  14

  31

  15

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  11

  5

  9

  4

  Gordon

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  1

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  2

  —

  —

  11

  —

  14

  2

  Grampian total

  20

  24

  63

  30

  12

  11

  6

  5

  3

  40

  6

  33

  12

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness

  —

  —

  1

  3

  9

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Inverness

  9

  18

  8

  —

  1

  6

  —

  5

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Lochaber

  1

  —

  —

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nairn

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland total

  12

  21

  14

  7

  13

  7

  1

  7

  6

  1

  —

  16

  1

  East Lothian

  2

  4

  11

  8

  2

  5

  2

  5

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Edinburgh (City of)

  22

  59

  12

  10

  9

  9

  —

  5

  —

  4

  3

  7

  2

  Midlothian

  4

  3

  1

  5

  4

  5

  3

  8

  2

  7

  2

  3

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  3

  5

  6

  2

  2

  —

  4

  —

  7

  1

  6

  3

  Lothian total

  28

  69

  29

  29

  17

  21

  5

  22

  3

  19

  8

  16

  5

  Orkney total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  4

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  12

  2

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Clydebank

  —

  1

  —

  10

  10

  3

  —

  2

  3

  5

  2

  3

  —

  Clydesdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  3

  —

  6

  —

  7

  1

  7

  1

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  —

  1

  3

  —

  8

  1

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  —

  5

  10

  7

  3

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6

  Cunninghame

  —

  21

  18

  4

  20

  15

  4

  11

  —

  10

  6

  8

  3

  Dumbarton

  —

  2

  5

  2

  17

  —

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  East Kilbride

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Eastwood

  —

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow (City of)

  10

  258

  206

  227

  170

  87

  9

  70

  3

  56

  21

  55

  12

  Hamilton

  —

  26

  6

  10

  3

  5

  3

  19

  1

  1

  2

  7

  —

  Inverclyde

  5

  43

  45

  22

  23

  11

  3

  11

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  —

  14

  8

  36

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  8

  3

  Kyle and Carrick

  —

  6

  6

  10

  4

  1

  —

  13

  1

  5

  3

  8

  3

  Monklands

  —

  5

  6

  5

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Motherwell

  —

  9

  5

  9

  8

  13

  1

  3

  1

  11

  1

  16

  3

  Renfrew

  2

  55

  60

  46

  45

  11

  1

  10

  2

  29

  10

  18

  —

  Strathkelvin

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  4

  4

  2

  Strathclyde total

  17

  458

  386

  391

  329

  158

  25

  161

  18

  138

  51

  162

  38

  Angus

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  5

  —

  3

  1

  Dundee (City of)

  9

  34

  20

  6

  9

  1

  1

  11

  6

  4

  7

  15

  1

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  3

  7

  3

  —

  1

  —

  6

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside total

  9

  37

  31

  9

  9

  2

  1

  20

  6

  19

  7

  18

  2

  Western Isles total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young males and females and adult 812

  813
  males and females have died in each local authority in Scotland in each year since 1982 as a result of abusing solvents.

  Deaths from solvent abuse, by age, sex and Region and Health Board Area, Scotland, 1982–911

  Aged under 16

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Scotland

  M

  3

  4

  3

  12

  3

  4

  8

  6

  3

  6

  F

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Borders Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Region (Forth Valley HBA)

  M

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife Region & HBA

  M

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  F

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde Region

  M

  1

  1

  3

  6

  3

  3

  4

  4

  2

  3

  F

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Tayside Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Orkney Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles Island Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Health Areas

  Argyll & Clyde HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ayrshire & Arran HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow HBA

  M

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  F

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lanarkshire HBA

  M

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 Includes those deaths coded to the WHO International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes 304.6, E860-E869, E891 and E951 and where the death was due to vapour inhalation.

  Aged 16–17

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Scotland

  M

  4

  3

  —

  4

  3

  7

  2

  5

  4

  3

  F

  —

  —

  l

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Borders Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Region (Forth Valley HBA)

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Region

  M

  2

  2

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  2

  1

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles Island Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Health Areas

  Argyll & Clyde HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  814
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The figures requested are given in the tables.
  815

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire & Arran HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow HBA

  M

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lanarkshire HBA

  M

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes those deaths coded to the WHO International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes 304. 6, E860-E869, E891 and E951 and where the death was due to vapour inhalation.

  Aged 18 and over

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Scotland

  M

  6

  3

  4

  5

  3

  4

  9

  1

  1

  6

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Borders Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Region (Forth Valley HBA)

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife Region & HBA

  M

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian Region & HBA

  M

  2

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Region

  M

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  —

  1

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles Island Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Health Areas

  Argyle & Clyde HBA

  M

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire & Arran HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —,

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow HBA

  M

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes those deaths coded to the WHO International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision)codes 304.6, E860-E869, E891 and E951 and where the death was due to vapour inhalation.

  All ages

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Scotland

  M

  13

  10

  7

  21

  9

  15

  19

  12

  8

  15

  F

  1

  —

  2

  3

  4

  2

  2

  1

  2

  4

  Borders Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  816

  817

  Area

  Sex

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Central Region (Forth Valley HBA)

  M

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife Region & HBA

  M

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Region & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Region & HBA

  M

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian Region & HBA

  M

  2

  2

  —

  6

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  4

  F

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde Region

  M

  5

  4

  4

  7

  7

  7

  10

  6

  4

  5

  F

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Tayside Region & HBA

  M

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Orkney Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles Island Area & HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Health Areas

  Argyll & Clyde HBA

  M

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  3

  2

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ayrshire & Arran HBA

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow HBA

  M

  4

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1

  1

  2

  3

  F

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lanarkshire HBA

  M

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  2

  5

  2

  2

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1 Includes those deaths coded to the WHO International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes 304.6, E860-E869, E891 and E951 and where the death was due to vapour inhalation.

  Tertiary Education
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to extend the principles of the citizens charter to cover tertiary education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Market research has been commissioned to sample the views of students, potential students and people in the wider community in respect of further and higher education in Scotland. The results will inform our ideas on the contents of a charter covering further and higher education.

  Post-graduate Awards
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many post-graduate students received an award from the Scottish Education Department for study outwith Scotland.
  818
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Session 1992–93 to date, the Scottish Office Education Department has offered 324 awards under the postgraduate students' allowances scheme and 67 awards under the Scottish studentship scheme to students studying outwith Scotland.

  Scottish Universities
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scots are attending Scottish universities; how many students attending Scottish universities are from other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will list the regions that all students attending Scottish universities are from.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested on students attending the eight traditional Scottish universities in the academic year 1991–92 is given in the table.
  819

  Students attending Scottish universities in academic year 1991–92

  Full-time students

  Part-time students

  GRAND TOTAL

  Domicile of student

  Post-graduate

  Under-graduate

  Total

  Post-graduate

  Under-graduate

  Total

  TOTAL (all domiciles)

  8,539

  49,989

  58,528

  5,549

  1,299

  6,848

  65,376

  SCOTLAND

  3,388

  31,741

  35,129

  4,162

  1,140

  5,302

  40,431

  Borders

  54

  599

  653

  44

  7

  51

  704

  Central

  129

  1,783

  1,912

  180

  159

  339

  2,251

  Dumfries and Galloway

  52

  752

  804

  40

  11

  51

  855

  Fife

  189

  2,028

  2,217

  227

  49

  276

  2,493

  Grampian

  349

  3,099

  3,448

  409

  231

  640

  4,088

  Highland

  70

  1,180

  1,250

  58

  16

  74

  1,324

  Lothian

  711

  4,978

  5,689

  1,023

  119

  1,142

  6,831

  Strathclyde

  1,522

  14,271

  15,793

  1,879

  471

  2,350

  18,143

  Tayside

  271

  2,627

  2,898

  286

  71

  357

  3,255

  Islands

  41

  423

  464

  16

  5

  21

  485

  Not known

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  OTHER UK

  1,848

  13,425

  15,273

  568

  46

  614

  15,887

  England

  1,649

  11,200

  12,849

  534

  39

  573

  13,422

  Wales

  71

  295

  366

  13

  3

  16

  382

  Northern Ireland

  128

  1,930

  2,058

  21

  4

  25

  2,083

  OVERSEAS

  3,303

  4,823

  8,126

  819

  113

  932

  9,058

  Woodlands
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total woodland area planted in Great Britain in 1991; and what were the comparable figures for the previous 20 years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The total area of woodland planted or grant-aided by the Forestry Commission in the year to 31 March 1992, including woodland replanted after felling, was 33,237 hectares. Of this, 11,259 hectares were planted by the Commission and 21,978 by the private sector. This total is close to the average of the previous 20 years, as shown in the table.

  Total area of woodlands planted or grant-aided by the Forestry Commission

  (hectares)

  Year to 31 March

  Forestry-Commission

  Private sector

  Total

  1972

  26,235

  24,010

  50,245

  1973

  23,158

  23,774

  46,932

  1974

  21,723

  22,790

  44,513

  1975

  23,155

  21,347

  44,502

  1976

  20,511

  12,241

  32,752

  1977

  18,703

  9,156

  27,859

  1978

  17,192

  8,299

  25,491

  1979

  15,409

  10,799

  26,208

  1980

  21,499

  11,167

  32,666

  1981

  16,648

  11,399

  28,047

  1982

  16,488

  15,912

  32,400

  1983

  14,684

  15,629

  30,313

  1984

  15,135

  19,740

  34,875

  1985

  11,021

  19,095

  30,116

  1986

  11,630

  23,358

  34,988

  1987

  13,380

  23,618

  36,998

  1988

  13,129

  28,675

  41,804

  1989

  12,580

  29,942

  42,522

  1990

  11,946

  21,531

  33,477

  1991

  11,137

  22,542

  33,679

  20-year average

  16,768

  18,751

  35,519

  Arts and Crafts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to provide further assistance to graduate artist craftsmen and women in Scotland;

  (2) what policy the Government have for the promotion of the applied arts in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will consider making funds available to organisations which could provide advice for young graduate artist craftsmen and women in Scotland;

  (4) if he will list schemes available to assist graduate artist craftsmen and women in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Through Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise we have established Made in Scotland Ltd. which provides marketing support for the crafts sector. In addition, graduate artist craftsmen and women may qualify for any of the business support, training or employment measures available through the enterprise bodies. Details and advice on these can be obtained from local enterprise companies.

  These arrangements are kept under review, but we have no plans to extend support in this area meantime.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital benefit allocation by the Government for water and sewerage services to each of the regional and island councils in every year since 1979, in cash and in constant 1991–92 prices.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 October 1992]: Water and sewerage services form the major part of authorities' water and sewerage programmes which also include flood prevention and coast protection. Allocations to regional and islands councils for their capital programmes in cash and adjusted to constant 1991–92 prices are given in the tables.

  821

  Capital Allocations for Scottish Water and Sewerage Programmes

  £ thousand

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries & Galloway

  Year

  Cash Prices

  1991–92

  Cash Prices

  1991–92

  Cash Prices

  1991–92

  1979–80

  1,600

  2,893

  3,000

  5,425

  1,700

  3,074

  1980–81

  1,500

  2,129

  3,800

  5,394

  1,900

  2,697

  1981–82

  1,700

  2,313

  4,900

  6,668

  2,200

  2,994

  1982–83

  1,800

  2,475

  5,000

  6,875

  2,500

  3,438

  1983–84

  1,800

  2,501

  5,200

  7,225

  2,300

  3,196

  1984–85

  1,800

  2,475

  4.400

  6,050

  2,500

  3,438

  1985–86

  2,000

  2,640

  4,630

  6,112

  3,160

  4,171

  1986–87

  2,200

  2,792

  5,000

  6,346

  3,250

  4,125

  1987–88

  2,300

  2,785

  4,800

  5,813

  3,400

  4,117

  1988–89

  2,500

  2,946

  4,600

  5,421

  4,000

  4,714

  1989–90

  2,700

  2,874

  5,000

  5,323

  4,800

  5,110

  1990–91

  3,500

  3,726

  7,200

  7,665

  5,500

  5,855

  1991–92

  4,500

  4,500

  7,800

  7,800

  7,000

  7,000

  Capital Allocations for Scottish Water and Sewerage Programmes

  £ thousand

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Year

  Cash Prices

  1991–92 Prices

  Cash Prices

  1991–92 Prices

  Cash Prices

  1991–92 Prices

  1979–80

  4,500

  8,137

  13,000

  23,507

  3,400

  6,148

  1980–81

  5,000

  7,097

  10,700

  15,187

  4,200

  5,961

  1981–82

  7,000

  9,526

  15,000

  20,412

  5,300

  7,212

  1982–83

  6,800

  9,350

  14,000

  19,250

  5,000

  6,875

  1983–84

  6,100

  8,476

  15,500

  21,537

  4,900

  6.808

  1984–85

  5,400

  7,425

  15,900

  21,863

  4,500

  6,188

  1985–86

  5,500

  7,260

  17,100

  22,572

  4,700

  6,204

  1986–87

  6,200

  7,869

  17,800

  22,592

  5,250

  6,663

  1987–88

  7,300

  8,840

  17,300

  20,950

  5,700

  6,903

  1988–89

  7,700

  9,075

  15,300

  18,032

  6,800

  8,014

  1989–90

  8,800

  9,368

  15,500

  16,500

  7,500

  7,984

  1990–91

  9,500

  10,113

  16,000

  17,032

  8,500

  9,048

  1991–92

  11,500

  11,500

  18,500

  18,500

  10,000

  10,000

  Capital allocations for Scottish water and sewerage programmes

  £ thousand

  Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Year

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  17,500

  31,644

  27,500

  49,726

  5,700

  10,307

  1980–81

  17,500

  24,839

  31,000

  44,000

  6,000

  8,516

  1981–82

  15,300

  20,821

  33,000

  44,907

  7,800

  10,614

  1982–83

  13,200

  18,150

  29,500

  40,563

  6,900

  9,488

  1983–84

  14,500

  20,147

  31,000

  43,074

  7,800

  10,838

  1984–85

  11,000

  15,125

  29,500

  40,563

  9,000

  12,375

  1985–86

  11,860

  15,655

  30,000

  39,600

  10,300

  13,596

  1986–87

  12,400

  15,738

  33,400

  42,392

  9,850

  12,502

  1987–88

  12,900

  15,622

  35,200

  42,628

  10–100

  12,231

  1988–89

  13,200

  15,557

  37,600

  44,314

  10,400

  12,257

  1989–90

  15,800

  16,819

  45,000

  47,903

  11,000

  11,710

  1990–91

  17,000

  18,097

  53,000

  56,419

  12,000

  12,774

  1991–92

  19,500

  19,500

  65,000

  65,000

  14,800

  14,800

  Capital allocations for Scottish water and sewerage programmes

  £ thousand

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Year

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  600

  1,085

  2,100

  3,797

  700

  1,266

  1980–81

  700

  994

  1,900

  2,697

  700

  994

  1981–82

  800

  1,089

  1,100

  1,497

  1,200

  1,633

  1982–83

  1,000

  1,375

  1,000

  1,375

  700

  963

  1983–84

  1,000

  1,389

  900

  1,251

  900

  1,251

  1984–85

  700

  963

  700

  963

  900

  1,238

  1985–86

  520

  686

  700

  924

  1,050

  1,386

  822

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Year

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  1986–87

  880

  1,117

  860

  1,092

  1,240

  1,574

  1987–88

  1,000

  1,211

  800

  969

  1,200

  1,453

  1988–89

  1,000

  1,179

  600

  707

  1,300

  1,532

  1989–90

  1,100

  1,171

  900

  958

  1,400

  1,490

  1990–91

  1,300

  1,384

  1—

  —

  1,700

  1,810

  1991–92

  1,500

  1,500

  1—

  —

  2,100

  2,100

  1 Shetland funds all programme from revenue.

  Capital allocations for Scottish water and sewerage programmes

  £ thousand

  Central Scotland Water Development Board

  All Scotland Allocations

  Year

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  Cash prices

  1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  900

  1,627

  82,200

  148,636

  1980–81

  1,600

  2,271

  86,500

  122,774

  1981–82

  1,600

  2,177

  96,900

  131,864

  1982–83

  1,000

  1,375

  88,400

  121,550

  1983–84

  1,400

  1,945

  93,300

  129,638

  1984–85

  1,800

  2,475

  88,100

  121,138

  1985–86

  1,380

  1,822

  92,900

  122,628

  1986–87

  1,350

  1,713

  99,680

  126,517

  1987–88

  2,000

  2,422

  104,000

  125,495

  1988–89

  2,000

  2,357

  107,000

  126,107

  1989–90

  2,000

  2,129

  121,500

  129,339

  1990–91

  2,300

  2,448

  137,500

  146,371

  1991–92

  2,400

  2,400

  164,600

  164,600

  Notes:

  CSWDB provides bulk supplies to authorities in Central Scotland. 1991–92 prices established using the Non-Roads Public Works Output Price Index.

  White Fish
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will state the quantities of white fish withdrawn from the market under intervention, subsequent to the letter from Lord Strathclyde to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North on 27 January, which have gone for human consumption(a) abroad and (b) via charities;

  (2) if he will state the quantities of white fish withdrawn from the market under intervention, in each of the past 12 months and at what cost;

  (3) if he will state the quantities of white fish withdrawn from the market under intervention in each of the past 12 months, by port of landing.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: Since 27 January, none of the whitefish withdrawn from the market under intervention has gone for human consumption either abroad or to charities. Full settlement to the producers organisations of compensation payable for fish withdrawn from the market under the European Community's price support system takes place after the fishing year in question, though advance payments are made. Information on the quantities of whitefish withdrawn from the market in Scotland under intervention in each of the 12 months to end July 1992, being the most recent 12-month period for which information is available, on the ports of landing and on the intervention sums paid, is set out in the tables.

  823

  Compensation paid to producers organisations in each of the 12 months to end July 1992 following the withdrawal of whitefish from the market in Scotland

  £

  1991

  August

  57,400

  September

  43,200

  October

  23,600

  November

  43,600

  December

  133,300

  Withdrawals of Whitefish (tonnes) by port of landing during the period 1 August 1991–31 July 1992

  Port

  August 1991

  September 1991

  October 1991

  November 1991

  December 1991

  January 1992

  February 1992

  March 1992

  April 1992

  May 1992

  June 1992

  July 1992

  Eyemouth

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pittenween

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen

  16

  9

  5

  17

  28

  31

  20

  —

  4

  5

  25

  97

  Peterhead

  64

  147

  106

  135

  57

  497

  151

  —

  2

  89

  277

  493

  Fraserburgh

  —

  83

  30

  25

  233

  179

  120

  1

  —

  18

  3

  73

  Macduff

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  2

  Buckie

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  Lossiemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wick

  5

  4

  —

  5

  19

  5

  —

  —

  —

  19

  8

  10

  Shetland

  5

  11

  5

  3

  16

  1

  24

  —

  —

  1

  2

  13

  Kinlochbervie

  2

  —

  1

  2

  19

  19

  —

  —

  —

  23

  44

  58

  Stornoway

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ollapool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mallaig

  —

  —

  4

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  6

  —

  Oban

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Campbeltown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr

  2

  —

  12

  6

  27

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Lochinver

  10

  —

  6

  —

  17

  3

  —

  —

  2

  7

  27

  29

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps her Department is currently making to publicise the wages councils system.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Every employer identified as being covered by a wages council is sent notices of wages council minimum rates, which must by law be posted where employees can see them. The Department also publishes a booklet "Wages Councils and Statutory Pay Rates", which explains workers' rights to statutory minimum pay.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of new jobs that will be created following abolition of wages councils; and if she will publish the evidence on which this estimate is based.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is a good deal of evidence about the link between pay and jobs at national level both in the United Kingdom and in other countries. This link has also been detected in several studies specifically about the wages council industries. We do not have the information to quantify the number of jobs that are inhibited by statutory minimum rates; and attempts to do so are not likely to be successful.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current adult male unemployment rate for each of(a) Arsenal, (b) Glyndon, (c) Burrage, (d) St. Mary's and (e) Nightingale wards in
  824

  £

  1992

  January

  164,300

  February

  62,900

  March

  13,300

  April

  12,900

  May

  68,700

  June

  166,600

  July

  51,200

  Woolwich; how many of these feature in the worst 10 wards in Greater London; and what specific action she has taken or proposes to take to reduce these figures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The smallest areas for which unemployment rates are available are self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas, two of which cover the whole of Greater London.

  The Department operates a wide range of measures, including employment and training programmes, which are available throughout Greater London as elsewhere. These include:
  Nearly 1 million places will be available on our employment and training programmes in 1992–93, an increase of 100,000 on this year. This is in addition to the usual advice and assistance to which all unemployed people are entitled.
  Job Search Seminars, directed at executives and managers, give advice on the best way to search out and apply for jobs are available throughout London.
  Specialist Restart courses to help people with literacy, numeracy and language difficulties, ex-offenders, the homeless and people with drug or alcohol problems.
  From April to September 1992, 307,568 people were interviewed through Restart and other adviser interviews in Greater London and 47,184 people had positive outcomes.
  One hundred and eighty-eight Jobclubs in Greater London offering advice and practical help to people to search for and apply for jobs. From April to September 1992, 19,610 people joined Jobclubs and 10,345 had positive outcomes.
  Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Teams working to equip long-term unemployed people with the confidence and knowledge to succeed at a guaranteed interview. From April to September 1992, 18,441 people have been helped in Greater London by the JIG teams.

  825
  Job Preparation Courses which are similar to Restart courses but with employer participation are held throughout the area. Companies taking part include London Buses, British Rail and the Ambulance Service.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which ward has the highest rate of adult male unemployment in Greater London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The smallest areas for which unemployment rates are available are self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas, two of which cover the whole of Greater London.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of employment training trainees who three months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (2) if she will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for male and female, for the latest available period, the wages earned by employment training trainees who three months after leaving were (a) in a full-time job, (b) in a part-time job and (c) self-employed;

  (3) for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, and for each quarter since 1989, how many employment training trainees had employment status;

  (4) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for male and female, if she will give the best information she has showing how many people have entered employment action and how many were participating in employment action in each month since January; if she will give as much detailed information she has about the destination of those participants who have left employment action; and if she will make a statement;

  (5) how many training credits have been issued in the pilot areas to young people; how many young people have taken them up; what other information she has on the take up of credits in those areas; and if she will make a statement;

  (6) if she will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who were (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (7) if she will give the best information she has about the number of people who were participating in (a) employment training (b) the enterprise allowance scheme and (c) youth training in each month since January; and if she will make a statement;
  826
  (8) for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, if she will give the latest results of the youth training scheme/youth training leavers survey, to show for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability those in full-time work with the same employer, those in full-time work with a different employer, those in part-time work, those on a full-time course at a college/training centre, those on another youth training scheme, those doing something else, those who were unemployed, those who had obtained a vocational qualification, the number of questionnaires issued, the usable percentage response rate and the percentage of respondents who were early leavers;

  (9) if she will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (10) for Great Britain and for each region, by male and female, at the most recent date, and at one year previously, how many youth training trainees had contracts of employment;

  (11) if she will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of employment training leavers who had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (12) if she will give for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, the latest available information she has on the characteristics of those who have entered employment training showing (a) the number of entrants covered, (b) whether male of female, (c) the duration of unemployment, (d) ethnic origin and (e) whether they have a disability;

  (13) for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, and for each year since 1989, what has been the average length of participation that trainees have spent on employment training;

  (14) if she will publish tables showing the latest available results from the youth training leavers survey for each training enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of youth training leavers who were (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) on another youth training scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) who were unemployed, (h) who had obtained a vocational qualification, (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (j) the usable percentage response rate and (k) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers.
  827
  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the information is contained in a considerable number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for each year since April 1990(a) the number of people who were receiving the enterprise allowance scheme and (b) the amount of expenditure on the enterprise allowance scheme; what is the latest information she has on the survival of those businesses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information, by region and for Great Britain, on the numbers of people receiving the enterprise allowance at the end of the 1990–91 and 1991–92 financial years and the 1992–93 year to date is shown on table 1. Enterprise allowance scheme expenditure for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date is shown on table 2.

  There is no information on the survival of the businesses supported in this period.

  Table 1

  Number of people receiving an enterprise allowance

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  London

  6,494

  4,611

  32,385

  South East

  6,142

  3,269

  3,959

  South West

  4,642

  3,991

  3,546

  West Midlands

  5,025

  4,173

  4,471

  East Midlands

  5,653

  4,281

  34,544

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,658

  4,085

  34,836

  North West

  8,816

  6,805

  6,054

  Northern

  3,257

  2,258

  2,139

  England

  45,687

  33,473

  31,934

  Wales

  3,636

  2,756

  52,619

  England and Wales

  49,323

  36,229

  34,553

  Scotland

  5,277

  2 44,400

  44,254

  Great Britain

  54,600

  40,629

  38,807

  Notes:

  1990–91—"old" National EAS delivered by ED Area Offices.

  1991–92—TEC delivered EAS, England and Wales, lee delivered in Scotland reporting to Scottish Office.

  1992–93—TEC delivered, England and Wales. Welsh TECs reporting to Welsh Office. Scotland as 1991–92.

  1 At mid September.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Understated due to incomplete TEC returns-considerably so in London.

  4 Source: Scottish Office.

  5 Source: Welsh Office.

  Table 2

  Enterprise allowance scheme: expenditure

  £ million

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  London

  n/a

  12.7

  3.3

  South East

  n/a

  11.4

  2.2

  South West

  n/a

  9.6

  3.3

  Enterprise Allowance scheme London region

  Enterprise Allowance scheme participants

  at end of quarter

  AZTEC

  CENTEC

  CILNTEC

  LETEC

  NLTEC

  NWLTEC

  SOLOTEC

  STTEC

  WLTEC

  Total

  6 January 1991

  502

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  502

  31 March 1991

  429

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  429

  23 June 1991

  394

  —

  —

  798

  —

  —

  526

  1,263

  —

  2,981

  15 September 1991

  212

  —

  —

  793

  —

  —

  483

  1,309

  445

  3,242

  5 January 1992

  385

  936

  637

  586

  612

  255

  462

  972

  361

  5,206

  29 March 1992

  367

  637

  621

  513

  580

  259

  450

  820

  356

  4,611

  21 June 1992

  433

  276

  528

  569

  437

  147

  523

  631

  323

  3,867

  828

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  West Midlands

  n/a

  9.9

  3.3

  East Midlands

  n/a

  10.6

  3.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  11.2

  4.0

  North West

  n/a

  16.4

  5.7

  Northern

  n/a

  6.1

  1.7

  England

  n/a

  87.9

  27.3

  Wales

  n/a

  7.1

  32.2

  England and Wales

  n/a

  95.0

  29.5

  Scotland

  n/a

  210.2

  23.9

  Great Britain

  133.0

  105.2

  33.4

  Notes:

  1990–91—"old" National EAS delivered by ED Area Offices.

  1991–92—TEC delivered EAS, England and Wales, lee delivered in Scotland reporting to Scottish Office.

  1992–93—TEC delivered, England and Wales. Welsh TECs reporting to Welsh Office. Scotland as 1991–92.

  1 At mid September.

  2 Source: Scottish Office.

  3Source: Welsh Office.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were receiving the enterprise allowance scheme in each London training and enterprise council in each quarter since they became operational; what was the expenditure on the enterprise allowance scheme in the areas covered by each London training and enterprise council in 1991–92 and the budgets agreed for enterprise allowance scheme with each London training and enterprise council in 1992–93; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statistical and financial information requested is given in the table.

  Two sets of figures are given for the operating year 1991–92. One reflects total expenditure on business start-ups for the year. It includes expenditure by the Training Agency area offices, which ran the enterprise allowance scheme prior to the London training and enterprise councils commencing operation. The second shows expenditure by the training and enterprise councils alone, of whom all except one became operational during that year.

  The London training and enterprise councils have built on the success of the national enterprise allowance scheme and increasingly tailored their provision in response to local need. Research has consistently shown that those small businesses with access to appropriate advice and training are more likely to remain in business beyond their first year of operation. The London training and enterprise councils therefore, in common with training and enterprise councils in other parts of the country, have developed their own integrated packages which include training and business counselling.
  829

  Enterprise Allowance scheme participants

  at end of quarter

  AZTEC

  CENTEC

  CILNTEC

  LETEC

  NLTEC

  NWLTEC

  SOLOTEC

  STTEC

  WLTEC

  Total

  13 September 1992

  490

  106

  460

  617

  331

  191

  600

  572

  309

  3,756

  EAS expenditure 1991–92 (incl. AOs)1

  764,260

  2,020,200

  1,501,887

  1,441,200

  1,457,548

  577,486

  1,046,240

  2,167,180

  929,200

  11,913,201

  EAS expenditure 1991–92 (TECs only)

  764,260

  969,160

  649,440

  1,441,200

  709,640

  291,900

  1,046,240

  1,794,260

  535,760

  8,201,860

  EAS budget 1992–93

  707,690

  978,540

  1,073,386

  820,550

  991,920

  426,080

  1,110,775

  1,447,240

  625,260

  8,101,441

  1 Includes expenditure by AOs in TEC areas before TECs became operational.

  Employment Service Courses
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether unemployed claimants offered a place at a Restart or other counselling interview have to participate in employment training or employment action, or any of the other programmes provided through the Employment Service, apart from Restart courses, after two years unemployment; if they take up a place on any of these programmes whether they can leave at any time without incurring a benefit penalty; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 29 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer parliamentary questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about participation in Employment Department, Employment Training programmes by people who have been unemployed for two years or more.

  It may help if I explain that the purpose of Employment Service advisory interviews is for clients to discuss their individual situation and circumstances with one of our client advisers. The aim is to reach an agreement on an appropriate course of action which, if followed, will offer the best chances of finding work. There is no compulsion on people to at tend any of the employment and training programmes, including ET/EA, which the adviser may offer.

  The only exception to this is the requirement for people who have been unemployed for two years or more to attend a Restart Course if they refuse all other offers of help.

  Our advisers would not encourage clients to attend programmes which are not suitable for their individual needs. Indeed, the basis of our advisory interviews is that the client and their adviser should reach an agreement on a suitable course of action for returning to work. However, all unemployed people must show that they are capable of, available for and actively seeking work. Attendance at an employment or training programme is one way in which our clients can show that they are meeting these conditions.

  There is also no benefit penalty if someone who has accepted a place on a programme decides to leave it. However, everyone who agrees to attend an employment or training programme and fails to start, or starts on a programme and fails to complete it, is asked to attend a follow up interview with a Client Adviser.

  This is to check that the client is continuing to meet the conditions for receipt of benefit and to discuss the reasons for their non-attendance on, or failure to complete the programme.

  The adviser will then agree with the client a further, suitable course of action which, if followed, will offer them the best chances of finding work.
  830
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish for Great Britain and for each standard region the monthly reports of supply and demand for youth training places which have been sent to her since July 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by region, and for Great Britain as a whole, and shown separately for male and female, how many 16 and 17-year-olds were in receipt of extended child benefit and how many were in receipt of bridging allowance for each month since June 1992; how many young people in each region and in Great Britain exhausted their entitlement to youth training bridging allowance; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 29 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about how many 16 and 17-year-olds in Great Britain as a whole and by region, and shown separately for males and females, were in receipt of extended child benefit, how many were in receipt of bridging allowance, for each month since June 1992 and how many in each region and in Great Britain exhausted their entitlement to bridging allowance.

  The information you have requested is provided in the attached tables. The period of extended child benefit for 1992 summer school leavers begins in September, which explains the rise in numbers between August and September. Unfortunately, a breakdown of the figures by sex and region is not available.

  Terminations of bridging allowance may occur for a number of reasons, for example, a young person may no longer qualify for bridging allowance if they find a Youth Training place or a job; their eight week entitlement is exhausted; or if they are sick.

  The figures that are collected each month show only the total number of terminations of bridging allowance in that period. There is no further breakdown of the figures to give particular reasons as to why the claims to bridging allowance have ceased.
  831
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written

  Numbers in receipt of bridging allowance—by ES region June-September 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  June 1992

  667

  932

  1,015

  2,099

  625

  464

  1,080

  1,570

  1,635

  10,087

  July 1992

  713

  946

  1,009

  2,218

  690

  454

  1,144

  1,559

  1,560

  10,293

  August 1992

  609

  1,015

  1,070

  2,432

  793

  515

  1,222

  1,483

  1,325

  10,464

  September 1992

  527

  908

  932

  2,048

  670

  471

  994

  1,384

  1,187

  9,157

  Numbers of mates and females in receipt of bridging allowance—by ES region

  June 1992

  Male

  404

  606

  634

  1,342

  416

  310

  698

  1,031

  1,033

  6,474

  Female

  263

  326

  381

  757

  209

  154

  382

  539

  602

  3,613

  July 1992

  Male

  484

  599

  624

  1,423

  432

  308

  726

  978

  971

  6,545

  Female

  229

  347

  385

  795

  258

  146

  418

  581

  589

  3,748

  August 1992

  Male

  410

  649

  671

  1,527

  515

  371

  765

  938

  810

  6,656

  Female

  199

  366

  399

  905

  278

  144

  457

  545

  515

  3,808

  September 1992

  Male

  342

  586

  599

  1,311

  445

  343

  630

  894

  750

  5,900

  Female

  185

  322

  333

  773

  225

  128

  364

  490

  437

  3,257

  Numbers in receipt of extended Child Benefit June 1992—September 1992

  Month

  Weekly average per month

  June

  4,856

  July

  5,195

  August

  Nil

  September

  24,941

  October

  26,522

  NB: The figure for October does not include week commencing 26 October 1992.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of accidents in the youth training scheme, including fatal, major and minor, for the latest available three-month period; and how many YTS placements were closed or not accepted in that period and in the three preceding months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table gives the YT accident figures.

  Quarter

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  April-June 1992

  1

  66

  395

  Notes:

  (a) Employment Department figures for trainees have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed persons. However, the Employment Department's figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments, and road traffic accidents, which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  (b) Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations 1985. These regulations, which came into force on I April 1986, reclassified fractured wrists and ankles as major injuries. These were not classed as major injuries in the previous regulations, the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR).

  Separate figures for closures and rejections of YT placements are no longer kept centrally.
  832
  Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for Great Britain, for each region and for each training and enterprise council or local enterprise company, what is her best estimate of the number of employment training trainees who(a) are lone parents and (b) have entered the scheme under the lone parent eligibility route; how many are receiving child care allowances; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not held centrally. TECs and LECs are required to deliver programmes that meet the needs of all their client groups. It is for the TECs and LECs to determine which trainee groups, such as lone parents, they support with the costs of childcare.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many people have attended a Restart interview since 1 April 1991; and what were the results of those interviews broken down between those who(a) started work, (b) began training under employment training, (c) started a job club, (d) started a Restart course and (e) attended an enterprise allowance awareness day.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 29 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about how many people have attended a Restart Interview since 1 April 1991; and what were the results of those interviews.

  The information you asked for is given in the attached annex. As you will appreciate, these figures reflect only the

  833
  direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. It is through these indirect results of the help which advisers give clients in reviewing their options for returning to work that Restart has its effect.

  An indication of the scale of that effect is provided by the report "The Restart Effect" which was recently published by the independent Policy Studies Institute. It is based on an analysis of the largest survey of unemployed people in the UK

  Outcomes of Restart Interviews April to December 1991

  Region

  Interviews

  Job placings

  ET1

  Jobclub

  Restart course

  EAS

  Northern

  97,159

  591

  4,780

  4,429

  10,195

  226

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  128,485

  794

  5,750

  4,507

  11,266

  395

  East Midlands and Eastern

  122,162

  1,777

  4,270

  5,579

  6,641

  459

  London and South East

  354,648

  5,195

  10,863

  18,898

  13,818

  1,675

  South West

  81,877

  827

  3,282

  4,198

  4,330

  542

  Office for Wales

  72,705

  1,091

  4,047

  3,909

  4,735

  320

  West Midlands

  135,376

  1,130

  6,027

  6,095

  10,230

  485

  North West

  222,734

  1,767

  6,411

  10,553

  20,181

  653

  Office for Scotland

  155,130

  1,943

  7,236

  8,036

  15,656

  4X3

  Great Britain

  1,370,276

  15,115

  52,666

  66,204

  97,052

  5,238

  1 The figure for the total number of people starting Employment Training relates to ES generated starts only

  Outcomes of Restart interviews April 1991 to August 1992

  Region

  Interviews

  Job placings

  ET

  Jobclub

  Restart courses

  EAS

  Northern

  193,082

  1,136

  8,970

  8,867

  15,623

  344

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  251,321

  1,879

  11,678

  9,116

  18,015

  834

  East Midlands and Eastern

  263,285

  3,814

  8,799

  12,593

  12,026

  958

  London and South East

  827,892

  12,970

  23,066

  43,963

  29,342

  3,587

  South West

  181,090

  1,801

  7,498

  9,013

  8,156

  1,064

  Office for Wales

  146,335

  2,494

  7,401

  7,676

  8,513

  591

  West Midlands

  287,667

  2,789

  11,767

  12,737

  18,463

  966

  North West

  460,506

  4,153

  13,017

  21,018

  31,943

  1,320

  Office for Scotland

  310,200

  4,481

  13,192

  15,056

  23,423

  907

  Great Britain

  2,921,378

  35,517

  105,388

  140,039

  165,504

  10,571

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many unemployed people have been referred to Restart courses by employment service counsellors since January 1991; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the Restart course; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 29 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about Restart Courses.

  As you will know from previous correspondence with Mike Fogden, Restart Courses are short courses aimed at helping people who are having the most difficulty returning to work. They are not an alternative to regular job search or
  834
  since 1980. This showed conclusively that the programme had a major effect in reducing the time it takes people to leave unemployment, to get a job and to enter Employment Training, particularly for those people who were at a disadvantage within the labour market.

  As decided by the Adminstration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  other employment or training programmes. Essentially they provide people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them confidence to take the next step back to work.

  Since December 1990 people who have been unemployed for 2 years or more who at their Restart interview refuse or fail to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme are asked to attend a Restart Course.

  As your question has raised a number of specific points, I am setting out the information you have asked for in the two tables attached—one deals with all Restart Course attenders, the other just those covered by the requirement to attend. As explained in the previous answer, we collect at a Regional level the number of people who are referred to the course who are also unemployed for 2 years or more. We have however not felt it necessary to keep similar figures for all those referred. The Benefits Agency make the decision on whether an individual's benefit should be reduced for failure to attend or complete the course. Their figures are compiled by their Districts which have different boundaries from those of our Regions. To avoid confusion, I have given the national figure only.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if expenses for second interviews are paid under the travel-to-interview scheme;

  (2) how many people have claimed help under the travel-to-interview scheme since its inception; what is the cost of the scheme; what proportion of job applicants receive help; what proportion of claims are refused; and what proportion of claims are withdrawn;

  (3) if she will amend regulations to permit backdated claims for interview expenses under the travel-to-interview scheme, where claimants are unable to notify the job centre in advance.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. John Battle, dated 28 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your questions about the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).

  It may help if I explain the background to the scheme. It was introduced in 1986 to help with travel costs for unemployed people to attend job interviews beyond daily travelling distance of their home area, thus widening the applicants' jobsearch, improving their chances of obtaining work and encouraging labour mobility. During 1991–92 the scheme helped 31,000 people at a cost of £ 933,000. A few basic

  Travel to interview scheme Numbers assisted by year/cost

  Date

  Number of applications

  Number helped

  Number rejected

  Cost £

  Average cost £

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1986–87

  28,938

  21,765

  75

  7,173

  25

  1500,000

  22.97

  1987–88

  45,785

  34,136

  75

  11,649

  25

  946,000

  27.72

  1988–89

  41,116

  32,833

  80

  8,823

  20

  920,000

  28.02

  1989–90

  32,953

  25,736

  78

  7,217

  22

  682,000

  26.50

  1990–91

  29,178

  22,112

  76

  7,066

  24

  500,000

  22.61

  1991–92

  41,676

  31,004

  74

  10,672

  26

  933,000

  30.10

  1 Estimated cost.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force was engaged in manufacturing in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country in 1979 and at present.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information is as follows.

  Civilian employment in manufacturing as a percentage of total workforce

  1979

  1990

  Australia

  19

  14

  Austria

  29

  26

  Belgium

  23

  19

  Canada

  18

  15

  Denmark

  22

  18

  Finland

  25

  20

  France

  24

  19

  Germany

  42

  29

  Great Britain2

  28

  19

  836
  conditions must be met before assistance can be granted, to ensure that the limited funds available are concentrated on those unemployed people to most need.

  You have asked if TIS helps with assistance for second interviews. Whilst we realise it would be popular with jobseekers if help was available through TIS to cover the cost of repeat interviews, it could in practice be very costly. It could, for example, lead to the available funds having to be concentrated on a smaller number of people. We therefore limit the assistance to one interview per job. Where a selection process is a lengthy one we have to rely on the employer being sensitive to the costs likely to fall on the applicant and offer help towards them.

  You also ask for the regulations to be amended to allow backdated claims. We normally expect applications for help to be made in advance as we wish to target the limited assistance available on those people who needed this incentive to apply for jobs they would not otherwise consider. However we recognise that on occasions there is insufficient time between arranging and attending an interview and in such cases we would always consider an application if it were made as soon as possible after the interview.

  The scheme is currently under review and many of the eligibility conditions are being looked at to see if within the limited resources there are ways of helping more people.

  Unfortunately we do not keep records of the number of applications withdrawn. However the attached chart provides the rest of the information you asked for.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  1979

  1990

  Greece1

  29

  18

  Iceland1

  24

  19

  Ireland

  19

  17

  Italy

  24

  20

  Japan

  24

  24

  Luxembourg

  27

  20

  Netherlands

  21

  17

  New Zealand

  23

  16

  Norway

  20

  14

  Portugal

  23

  24

  Spain

  23

  18

  Sweden

  24

  21

  Switzerland

  32

  25

  Turkey

  10

  13

  United States

  21

  17

  Source: OECD, except Great Britain (Employment Department).

  1 Latest data available is for 1989.

  2 Civilian employment in manufacturing is calculated as the sum of employees and self-employed.

  Note: 1990 is the latest year for which comparable date are available.

HEALTH

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask t he Secretary of State for Health what is the average response time for ambulances responding to emergency calls in the Greater London area; what assessment she has made of whether ambulances are reaching emergency cases quickly enough; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table details the latest figures held centrally on the performance of the accident and emergency service provided by the London ambulance service.

  Patient Transport Services 1990–91 Quality of service for London Ambulance Service Response Times

  Number

  Total number of emergency calls

  456,695

  Number where response within 7 minutes

  50,390

  Percentage of calls where response within 7 minutes

  11.0

  Number where response within 14 minutes

  336,734

  Percentage of calls where response within 14 minutes

  73.7

  Source: KA34 DH Statistics Division 2B 1992

  The response time of an ambulance is the time taken from an emergency call being received to the arrival of a fully equipped vehicle at the patient's location.

  As these figures illustrate, a significant proportion of accident and emergency ambulances from the London ambulance service are failing to meet the performance standards set out in the patients charter. I have discussed with the London ambulance service its plans for raising its performance including the full implementation of the computer aided dispatch system and new staff rosters and I, together with South West Thames regional health authority, which is responsible for the service, will monitor progress over the coming months.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to improve the performance of the London ambulance service; and if she will make a statement.

  Incidence rates (per 100,000 population) for malignant neoplasms of female breast (ICD1 174) and malignant neoplasms of cervix uteri (ICD1 180) for the Northern and Oxford Regional Health Authorities and the United Kingdom, 1983 to 1987 by age breakdown

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Age group

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  20 to 29

  2.6

  7.1

  5.6

  5.2

  3.4

  6.8

  4.6

  4.2

  4.6

  7.1

  30 to 39

  30.9

  19.5

  41.4

  24.7

  36.6

  33.8

  35.6

  25.2

  38.3

  23.7

  40 to 49

  114.5

  21.2

  103.0

  19.8

  110.9

  39.8

  108.0

  23.8

  122.9

  22.4

  50 to 59

  131.6

  28.4

  156.9

  21.1

  142.3

  20.9

  156.7

  30.3

  152.0

  27.2

  60 to 69

  160.9

  32.6

  204.7

  31.6

  168.9

  24.9

  183.3

  38.8

  204.7

  29.4

  70 +

  201.3

  22.1

  211.6

  27.4

  213.9

  35.2

  210.3

  30.0

  205.8

  20.4

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  20 to 29

  1.1

  6.0

  2.6

  4.8

  3.5

  7.1

  4.4

  5.4

  3.8

  5.2

  30 to 39

  37.5

  14.0

  35.5

  22.2

  36.2

  23.6

  37.1

  25.3

  44.0

  19.0

  40 to 49

  124.5

  23.6

  123.3

  12.8

  126.8

  20.8

  112.5

  18.2

  129.4

  21.7

  50 to 59

  160.7

  17.9

  158.7

  24.5

  178.3

  18.8

  166.9

  13.8

  217.9

  19.4

  60 to 69

  190.3

  21.2

  211.4

  33.9

  240.9

  21.8

  226.7

  22.4

  231.0

  25.6

  70 +

  283.7

  28.8

  274.9

  17.1

  251.2

  21.4

  252.3

  17.3

  285.7

  14.1

  United Kingdom

  20 to 29

  3.3

  7.4

  3.6

  6.6

  3.0

  7.0

  3.8

  7.0

  3.6

  6.2

  30 to 39

  35.3

  21.0

  34.2

  24.7

  35.1

  25.0

  39.2

  24.5

  35.7

  22.8

  40 to 49

  109.7

  21.0

  108.6

  22.8

  114.5

  22.8

  115.9

  23.6

  115.9

  24.2

  50 to 59

  154.9

  24.1

  154.7

  23.4

  154.8

  23.1

  163.5

  22.5

  162.2

  22.2

  838
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of measures have been taken and others are planned to improve the performance of the London ambulance service.

  These include:
  an external inquiry, led by a chief ambulance officer from another metropolitan region into the operation of the Computer Aided Dispatch system;
  a support system involving, where necessary, direct voice contact between the control centre and ambulances, building extra safeguards to ensure that ambulances are on their way;
  a change in the management structure of the service to ensure that Ministers are kept in proper and regular touch with progress;
  increases in the staffing levels in the London ambulance service control room;
  an increase of 9 per cent. over 1991–92 in the funding of the London ambulance service in 1992–93 to nearly £ 70 million.

  Epidemiological Research
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money, expressed as an overall figure and as a percentage of health care expenditure, is currently spent on epidemiological research in Britain.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Cancer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of newly diagnosed cases of(a) cervical and (b) breast cancer per 100,000 population for the age ranges 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69 and 70-plus years for the Northern regional health authority area, the Oxford regional health authority area, and the United Kingdom area as a whole, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table; 1987 is the latest year for which the information is available.
  839

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Age group

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  ICD 174

  ICD 180

  60 to 69

  187.6

  30.6

  189.9

  31.1

  198.8

  29.7

  201.8

  30.6

  211.6

  29.6

  70 +

  236.0

  24.0

  235.6

  23.5

  239.3

  21.8

  242.3

  23.4

  260.2

  23.8

  1 International Classification of Diseases.

  Source: OPCS.

  Scottish cancer registration scheme.

  Department of Health and Social Security, Northern Ireland

  Cancer registrations scheme.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients resident in each regional health authority have(a) been treated for, or (b) died as a result of, radon gas exposure in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available. The effect of exposure to radon gas can be the later development of lung cancer, but there is no way to detect the difference between lung cancers caused by smoking, by radon exposure, or by other factors. On the basis of research studies, the National Radiological Protection Board estimates that exposure to radon in the home may be responsible for about 2,000 premature lung cancer deaths a year in the United Kingdom, but no regional breakdown of this overall estimate is available.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish figures for each six months since June 1987 for inner London of(a) the numbers of people on waiting lists for in-patient hospital treatment, (b) the numbers of people on those waiting lists admitted to hospital for treatment and (c) the numbers of people removed from those waiting lists for other reasons.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the numbers of people waiting by district health authority is given in the publication "Hospital Waiting List, in-patients and Day Cases" published every six months, copies of which are available in the Library. Information on admissions and removals from waiting lists for all district health authorities is not routinely collated centrally. For the relevant information at national level, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 22 October at columns 369–70.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will introduce regulations or produce guidelines on medical confidentiality covering the subject matter of the draft National Health Service Functions (Preservation of Confidentiality) Regulations which were withdrawn in 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is preparing draft guidance on the confidentiality, use and disclosure of personal health information which will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to increase the annual salaries and allowances of the chairman and each member of Doncaster health authority; by what percentage; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A decision will be made in due course about the allowances and expenses paid to chairmen and non-executives.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all financial allocations made by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) regional health authorities directly to trusts and the reasons for them; why it was decided not to make them to district health authorities instead; what steps she has taken to ensure that these allocations directly to trusts do not contradict the purchaser-provider market; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No allocations are made to trusts by either this Department or by regional health authorities. Allocations are made solely to health authorities. Both this Department and regional health authorities do, however, contract directly with trusts where the services concerned are most appropriately purchased at a national or regional level. Central and regional contracts with trusts are entirely consistent with the separate roles of purchaser and provider.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the reasons for her decision that there will be no increase for inflation for voluntary organisations seeking renewal of their grant; whether this is an immutable ruling; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of our review of funding to voluntary organisations under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 we have been looking at what steps we might take to ensure that the section 64 general scheme budget can be used to benefit a wider range of organisations than has previously been possible. Core funding towards headquarters and administrative expenses currently accounts for approximately 80 per cent. of the expenditure, much of which has been provided on a long-term basis.

  We have decided that in future all core grants will be brought into line with those awarded after April 1990 and will not normally be renewed for more than a maximum of five years. Existing arrangements provide that core grants may be renewed in certain circumstances and our annual guidance in August restated previous policy that any

  841
  renewal awards would not normally include an increase for inflation. In considering any renewal application we will take into account all relevant factors, but the presumption will be that there will not be an automatic increase for inflation. This will enable us to make available a larger proportion of funding for new applicants for core or project grants and to give more to those organisations less able to raise funds from other sources.

  Doncaster district health authority Average daily number of available beds Annual 1990–91 and 1991–92

  Ward classification

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Code

  Wards open overnight

  Wards open day only

  Total

  Wards open overnight

  Wards open day only

  Total

  General patients

  Children

  Normal

  1

  54

  0

  54

  59

  0

  59

  Limited

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Elderly

  Normal

  3

  283

  0

  283

  278

  0

  278

  Limited

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other ages

  Intensive

  5

  24

  0

  24

  25

  0

  25

  Normal

  6

  625

  14

  638

  623

  12

  635

  Limited

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Younger physically disabled

  Spinal unit

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  9

  18

  0

  18

  18

  0

  18

  Neonatal

  Flag designated intensive

  10

  24

  0

  24

  24

  0

  24

  Non-maternity

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maternity

  12

  60

  0

  60

  60

  0

  60

  Maternity

  Consultants

  13

  98

  0

  98

  82

  0

  82

  Mixed

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  GP

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental illness

  Children

  Short stay

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Long stay

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Elderly

  Short stay

  18

  21

  0

  21

  14

  0

  14

  Long stay

  19

  104

  0

  104

  86

  0

  86

  Other ages

  Secure unit

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Short stay

  21

  76

  0

  76

  80

  0

  80

  Long stay

  22

  83

  0

  83

  119

  0

  119

  Mental handicap

  Children

  Short stay

  23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Long stay

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other ages

  Short stay

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Long stay

  26

  165

  0

  165

  156

  0

  156

  Total

  27

  1,635

  14

  1,648

  1,629

  12

  1,641

  1 Provisional.

  Source:KMO3.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number of out-patients treated at Doncaster hospitals by category, for the latest date for which she has figures available; and what was the figure(a) six months and (b) 12 months ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for 1990–91, the latest available centrally, and for 1989–90, is contained in the Department of Health annual publication, "Outpatients and Ward Attenders". Copies are in the Library.

  Health Service, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of beds in Doncaster hospitals, by category,(a) in 1990–91 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table. The information for 1990–91 refers to Doncaster Health Authority. The provisional figures for 1991–92 are an aggregation of one directly managed unit and one trust.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance is issued by her Department to doctors about the techniques which should be adopted in performing those late abortions which are now available until full term; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance her Department has issued to doctors about the use of potassium chloride injections to perform late abortions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions as to the method by which an abortion is carried out are a matter for the clinical judgment of the operating doctor, taking into account the circumstances of the particular case.
  843
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the methods currently adopted in performing those late abortions which take place beyond 24 weeks; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The notification form which has to be sent to the chief medical officer in respect of each legal abortion requires the practitioner terminating the pregnancy to give details of the method used.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that RU486 is available only under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Sackville
  Use of RU486 to terminate a pregnancy outside the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, would be an offence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the RU486 pill will be available for general practitioners to prescribe; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will use the discretionary powers in section 37(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to license additional premises, such as community family planning clinics near hospitals, for prescription of mifepristone; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no current plans to extend use of this abortifacient drug to places other than national health service hospitals or private sector clinics approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority the current average budget of general practitioner fund holders.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current average budget for general practitioner fundholders by regional health authority is in the table. The information by district health authority is not held centrally.

  Regional average budget set for first and second wave fundholders combined in 1992–93

  Region

  Average budget set in £ million

  Northern

  1.7

  Yorkshire

  1.7

  Trent

  1.4

  East Anglian

  1.7

  North West Thames

  1.4

  North East Thames

  1.3

  South East Thames

  1.3

  South West Thames

  1.3

  Wessex

  1.5

  Oxford

  1.4

  South Western

  1.4

  West Midlands

  1.4

  Mersey

  1.3

  North Western

  1.4

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fund-holding practices in 844
  each region in England are projecting overspends in the current financial year; how many were allocated additional resources in the first half of the year; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce urgently legislation for a comprehensive system of registration and inspection of all children's homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under the Children Act 1989 and the Children's Homes Regulations 1991 private children's homes are subject to registration and inspection by local authorities. Voluntary children's homes are required by the Act to register with the Secretary of State for Health and are inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate. Additionally, guidance issued to local authorities advises that local authority "arm's-length" inspection units should inspect local authorities' own children's homes. Further guidance on inspection of children's homes by local authority independent inspection units is due to be issued shortly.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the names of public appointments that she has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about public appointments made by the Secretary of State for Health and the remuneration each currently receives is available from the Cabinet Office publications "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: a Handbook for Women's Organisations". Copies are available in the Library. Details of the individuals who hold those appointments could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Chris Chapman
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the impact of her new whistleblowers charter on the case of Dr. Chris Chapman; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Dr Chapman has recently taken his case to an industrial tribunal; it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on his case at this stage.

  Health Pay Review Boards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans to suspend the health pay review boards; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Operations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of operations in each health authority in England were cancelled; what proportion of operations
  845
  were cancelled on more than one occasion; and what proportion of operations were cancelled on the day of admissions in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what number and percentage of patients were assessed immediately in accident and emergency departments in each district health authority area in England under the terms of the patients charter, for the first quarter of 1992–93; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) Which targets specified in the patients charter can now be measured by health authorities; and what responses have been received to the monitoring of the charter in the first quarter of 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities will be expected to monitor all aspects of their providers' performance against the rights and standards set out in the patients charter and reflected in contracts. The National Health Service management executive has recently issued guidance on monitoring the charter.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how information collected on the monitoring of the patients charter will differentiate between the performance of trust and non-trust units.

  Mr. Sackville
  All providers—whether trusts or non-trusts—will be required to supply information on performance against patients charter rights and standards to their purchasers.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of(a) a visit by a health visitor to administer insulin to a diabetic and (b) self-administration using a Novopen, including the cost of the Novo needle.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the cost of a visit by a health visitor is not held centrally. The element of the cost of self-administration attributable to a Novopen and needle is commercial-in-confidence. However, many diabetics use disposable syringes to inject themselves with insulin and these are already prescribable. The use of injection pens and needles entails a real additional cost to the taxpayer. This factor has to be taken into account when considering whether to authorise their prescribing by GPs.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make it her policy that Novo needles shall be available on prescription for people who suffer from diabetes and require insulin treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are continuing to consider the case for authorising general practitioners to prescribe both insulin injection pens and needles but, in reaching a final decision, we shall need to take into account current public expenditure constraints.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average and (b) the maximum waiting time between a patient's initial referral and the first appointment with a consultant in each health authority in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for out-patient waiting times are not collected centrally, but all health authorities are required under the patients charter to publish information on the local standards they have set for waiting times for first out-patient appointments and on performance against these targets.

  Emergency Ambulance Calls
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the change in the percentage of emergency ambulance calls being responded to in each district health authority area within the Orcon standard between the first quarter of 1991–92 and the first quarter of 1992–93; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what percentage of emergency ambulance calls were responded to in each district health authority area (a) within eight minutes, (b) within 14 minutes in urban areas and (c) within 19 minutes in rural areas during the first quarter of 1992–93;

  (3) what percentage of urgent journeys by ambulance in each district health authority area in England reached the appropriate treatment centre within 15 minutes during the first quarter of 1992–93; and she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information held by the Department relates to ambulance authorities which may cover more than one district health authority and is collected on a financial year basis and not a quarterly basis. Figures for 1991–92 are currently being assembled for publication and I will arrange for a copy of the summary tables to be sent to the hon. Member as soon as these are available.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities in each region in England have spent(a) up to or (b) over their budgets for extra-contractual referrals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the regional health authority chairmen for details.

  Childline
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure the continued operation of the charity Childline.

  Mr. Yeo
  A Government grant of £ 100,000 has been given to Childline in each of the last five years, following an initial grant of £ 50,000 to help launch the organisation. Any further application for financial support will be considered on its merits.

  Salford District Health Authority
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will respond to the request made to her by the Salford community health council and the Hope hospital,
  847
  Salford, support group, for an independent inquiry into the funding and management of the Salford district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for financial allocation to Salford district health authority is a matter for the North Western regional health authority. The requests received from the Salford community health council and the Hope hospital, Salford, support group were referred to the chief executive of the regional health authority on 27 October.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policy consideration underlying the charging of 50 per cent. council tax on the owners of residential care homes; and if he will reconsider this policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  Further to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) on 7 July, col. 157, we have received a number of representations from care homes about the council tax. We are presently discussing these representations with the joint care committee.

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

Kipper Project: Funding
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of the Environment is still funding the so called Kipper project, which advertised in The Voice of 14th July for a black, lesbian manager, claiming that this post was funded by the department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Department of the Environment's grant offer to the Kipper project to fund a rehousing and resettlement manager post was suspended on 16th July and remains so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that good news is rather seldom announced these days? It is very welcome. However, will he confirm that this rather offensive advertisement, which is probably highly illegal, is not to be subsidised henceforward by taxpayers? Will he make his wise judgment known to other government departments so that they are not led astray down the same path?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's congratulations and certainly accede to his request to pass on the information to other government departments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend let us into the secret and tell us what the so-called Kipper project was? Was the black lesbian manager to be smoke cured or was she chemically dyed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Kipper project is a housing project in the East End of London which specialises in finding permanent accommodation for young homeless people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, am I alone in finding this tone of questioning rather nauseating? Will the Minister accept that the Kipper project has been going since 1974 without complaint and that it provides a valuable service, financed by the Tower Hamlets Council (which, incidentally, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats)? Will he also confirm that it is continuing its work and that the word to use is not "was" but "is"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what the Government found offensive is not what the Kipper project does, which is entirely commendable and which, as the noble Lord said, has been continuing since 1974. What
1204
we found objectionable was that the project felt that only a black lesbian could do a job which the Government believe could be done by anybody.

Organ Donation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to improve the organ donor scheme by making it possible to use the organs of those who have died unless they have specifically opted out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords. At this time the Government believe that organ donation should be based on a positive choice made by individuals or their surviving relatives rather than on a presumed right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the organ donor scheme, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Joseph over 20 years ago, still entails fewer than 14 per cent. of people carrying cards? Is she further aware that, notwithstanding that, surveys over a number of years have shown that more than three-quarters of the population would be prepared to donate their organs after death to allow someone else to live? Does she feel that it is now time to begin to look at rather more adventurous ways of trying to increase the supply of donated organs so that more people can be treated more quickly and not have to wait—as some have to do for months—until a suitable organ becomes available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the only problem is with kidney donors. At the moment there are 4,000 people waiting for kidney transplants but no one waiting for heart or liver transplants. The organ donor scheme has been very successful. There were twice as many kidney transplants in 1990 as there were in 1980. But the Government have an open mind in as much as if we were convinced that an opt-out policy would increase the number of organs available, and if we had the majority of the public and the medical profession behind us, we would certainly then consider a change.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government have an open mind on this matter. I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in putting forward this proposal. With regard to kidney transplants, does the Minister agree that there are many hundreds of people waiting who cannot have an operation because an organ donor is not available at the right time? Secondly, does she recognise that recent surveys have shown that there is increasingly a movement toward public acceptance of the idea that if people have not opted out, it should be assumed that they agree? Does she agree that would avoid some very embarrassing and difficult presentations by the medical profession to patients or patients' families at a very difficult time for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the reasons why we are not able to meet all the demands for spare organs is because of the very successful impact that recent legislation has had on reducing accidents, including the seat belt, crash helmet and drink-driving laws. Were the general public to feel very strongly that they would rather have an opt-out scheme and if the medical profession supported that, then the Government would reconsider the matter. That is not the position at the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Northern Ireland a donor consent form is an integral part of the driving licence? Does she feel that it is time that such a system were introduced on this side of the water?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. In fact we are discussing with the DVLC the possibility of including the donor card in the driving licence.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better for there to be a greater campaign to encourage people to agree to donate organs? She said that the Government have an open mind. Is she considering taking organs, whether or not the family agree?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical profession is implacably opposed to that. It is felt that would jeopardise the trust which the public place in the profession. Even where people at present carry the donor card, the medical profession still consults with the family to check that the family is willing.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some people involved in the transplant field believe that a system of presumed consent would result in a reduction in the supply of organs because more people would take the positive step of carrying a refusal card? I am sure that the Minister has heard that view expressed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that there is a great deal of support for that view.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in her last answer but one, my noble friend indicated that in the case of someone who already carries a donor card the medical profession asks permission of the families of accident victims, let us say, before removing donor organs. Is she aware that that often makes for great difficulties and that in many cases the medical staff are not prepared to make that request in those difficult circumstances? Will she not agree that against that background even encouraging more people to carry donor cards is unlikely greatly to increase the supply of organs, and that we ought to consider the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkin?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical profession is in a very difficult position on this issue. We are anxious to help the profession as much as possible. Indeed, we have increased publicity. We are improving education and procedures for hospital staff; we are currently funding a survey into the reasons why so many relatives refuse permission to use
1206
organs; and we are introducing a computerised register of organ donors. I hope that that will go some way towards meeting the need.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her last two answers give me serious cause for concern? Does it not mean that if a person who has been in an accident or who dies suddenly has not opted out, his body could be cannibalised even before his relatives were aware that he was dead?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot believe that members of the medical profession, who are so compassionate and sensitive, would allow that to happen.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is there a central register of those who have signed donor cards or in other ways expressed their willingness to donate their organs? If not, would that not be a solution to some of the problems that have been raised?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We are introducing a computerised register of organ donors.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that every year there are probably only 250 potential donors whose relatives refuse donation? As transplantation surgeons will continue sensitively always to consult relatives and are never likely to ignore their wishes, does she agree that there will not be an increase in donors if such legislation were introduced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. When we looked at the position in other countries—principally Austria and France—where such legislation has been introduced, we found that although initially it proved to be successful, there was a considerable backlash later.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would not presumed consent present enormous difficulties for the medical profession?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. I agree with my noble friend.

NHS Management: Expenditure
3.13 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the growth of expenditure on management personnel in relation to NHS provision over the last five years.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a better managed NHS is leading to better patient care and more of it. In the past five years, overall resources for the NHS have risen by over two thirds. Within that total, expenditure on management personnel in England has risen from £ 25.7 million in 1987 to £ 251.5 million in 1991.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she share my concern that, while

1207
management is necessary, the growth in expenditure on management is crowding out growth in expenditure on personnel concerned with health care? Does she also agree that the number of managers has grown fast while the number of nurses has declined slightly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, for every £ 1 spent on senior managers another £ 43 is spent on NHS professionals such as doctors and nurses—a ratio which compares well with any other organisation. In 1984 the Government were concerned about the strength of NHS management and introduced an inquiry, which was chaired by Sir Roy Griffiths. He said that the management was poor and:
"In short, if Florence Nightingale were carrying her lamp through the corridors of the NHS today she would almost certainly be searching for the people in charge".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in her original Answer my noble friend showed that management costs over the past five years have increased by some nine times, I presume in real terms. Can she correlate that figure by saying how much the number of in-patient treatments has risen over the same period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords,7 per cent. more patients were treated during last year. We now have virtually no one waiting over two years for treatment and the number waiting over a year has halved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the total number of direct patient care staff has been virtually static over the past five years while the numbers of administrative and clerical staff have increased by 21 per cent. in the same period? Do the Government think that that is the best way to improve patient care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I have proved very convincingly that the NHS has become more efficient. It is treating more people, both as in-patients, out-patients, and day patients. Much of the credit for that must go to better management.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does it not make sense that administrative tasks should not be performed by people who have had an expensive clinical training? Is not part of the explanation for the figures which have been quoted from both sides of the House that increasingly, on the wards and elsewhere, administrative tasks are performed by administrators and managers leaving the clinically trained staff actually to look after patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has summed up very accurately the Government's policy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the belief that the NHS has improved recently is not widely shared?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, without a doubt the NHS has improved beyond all bounds.
Lord Carter: My Lords, further to her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is the noble Baroness aware that the number of ancillary staff, who are the people
1208
who would be performing the tasks which the noble Lord described, has decreased by 40,00 in the past five years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, ancillary staff also covers catering, portering and general maintenance staff. As we know, many of those staff are no longer employed by the NHS but by private companies. Again, the quality of the work being done has improved beyond all doubt.

Income Support Benefits
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the National Children's Home report Deep in Debt, they are satisfied that the levels of income support paid to families arc adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, yes. Most claimants are managing and, moreover, have gained from an uprating last April that was nearly 3 per cent. above RPI.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the National Children's Home survey shows that families on benefit spent their incomes sensibly. Yet half had to borrow to buy food, and two-thirds, with their children, missed meals because their money had run out. How can the Minister state that income support is adequate when children go hungry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that people cannot manage on the current levels of income support. We have always recognised that some people may find it difficult, but not impossible, to manage on the current levels. However, merely to suggest increased levels is simplistic and irresponsible. We already have probably the most comprehensive safety net social security system in the whole of Europe, the total cost of which is some £ 70 billion. That averages out at £ 10 per working day for every taxpayer and National Insurance contributor. To suggest that that should be raised still further, increasing the burdens on the economy, is irresponsible.
Lord Ennals: My Lord, will the Minister give an assurance that the rumours that have appeared in the press that the Government intend to cut invalidity benefit are untrue? Will he give that assurance bearing in mind that 16 per cent. of all those on invalidity benefit suffer from mental health problems and that it would be very damaging to the welfare of those people if that threat were to be carried out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not comment on press leaks. Nor do we comment on the level of next year's benefit. The Question relates to income support; the noble Lord asked about invalidity benefit. The noble Lord will have to wait for the up-rating statement to discover what our plans are for next year.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is done to help people and advise them about how to live on such small amounts when many find it extremely difficult—even if it is possible—to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that it can be difficult to survive on income support but we do not believe that it is impossible. I have the greatest respect for the work performed by bodies such as the National Children's Home, which offer a great deal of help and advice to families who have problems in this area. We hope that those bodies will continue to offer such help and advice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will my noble kinsman study the report at greater leisure before he is quite so certain of its contents? Will he also take note that the sample families in the survey were going deeper into debt at the rate of £ 8.50 per week and that the average amount spent on food was £ 9.10 per head and on clothing £ 0.62 per head? Does he regard those levels as adequate and will he share that information with his colleagues in the Treasury?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the National Children's Home and its work. However, the report covered only 347 families who had gone to the organisation for help and advice. Obviously, there was a considerable degree of self selection regarding participation in the survey, particularly as it was confined not merely to people who had gone to the organisation but to those who had bothered to respond to the NCH questionnaire.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that even allowing for a reasonable margin of error the fact that four out of five parents who were studied—that is,82 per cent.—said that out of their benefit they could not afford to buy the clothes and shoes that their children needed and that they had been forced into debt, some to the extent of £ 1,000, in order to buy those items? Does that not suggest to the Minister that the figures and the situation badly need to be examined?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. The people who went to the NCH already had problems with debt. The noble Lord will accept that at all levels of income people can get into debt. Simply to suggest that we can resolve such problems by raising the basic level of income support is irresponsible and simplistic.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise—his answers do not appear to indicate that he does—that however careful families may be, financial and debt problems are common among those who are in receipt of benefit and that debt-related inquiries to advice centres have more than doubled in the past decade? Has the Money Advice Trust, which was set up by the Government in 1991 and which was designed to raise £ 9 million over three years from consumer credit institutions, raised more than the £ 362,000 which was raised in the first year? Has more been collected since then? Is it not time for a statutory levy on the credit industry in order to resource the necessary money advice work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an interesting point. I prefer to write to her about the Money Advice Trust. I must repeat that people at all levels of income can get into debt. We greatly welcome the work carried out by the National Children's Home and the advice which is given to some people. However, simply to raise levels of income support would not resolve the problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Ennals the Minister said that we must await the up-rating statement. Some of us are worried that it will be a down-rating statement. Can the Minister assure the House that it will indeed be an up-rating statement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the rules: he will simply have to wait.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the results of the NCH survey are false? If so, do the Government intend to present their own results which will cure the problem of self selection and show something better? Does the Minister agree that even if there are some errors the figures are so ghastly that there should exist a primary duty to correct such abysmal levels of poverty in a rich society such as ours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at no point did I say that the findings in the NCH report were false. I said that they had to be taken with a degree of circumspection bearing in mind that only 347 families were examined. Only 11 families were examined in detail and by definition all were self-selected because they already had problems with debt and had gone to see the NCH about that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the National Children's Home works with approximately 16,000 children per year and it was also drawing on that information. DSS research shows that since 1979 the income of the average family with three children has risen in real terms after housing costs by £ 80 per week, or some 30 per cent. However, such a family in receipt of benefit has had its income fall in real terms since 1979 by £ 7 per week, or 6 per cent. Is it not the case that not only have the poorest had no trickle down of wealth but that they are absolutely worse off in real terms than they were in 1979? In the light of today's leaks in the press will the Minister undertake to protect such families in the forthcoming review of public expenditure, which he has so far refused? For once can any cuts in public expenditure be borne by those who are able to pay rather than by those who cannot afford them? For just once?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has grossly misinterpreted the results of the household below average income survey. If she looks at the expenditure rather than the income of those in the lowest deciles she will find some surprising features. For example, she will find that the expenditure of those in the lowest deciles is often higher than those in the deciles above. That is because those in the lowest deciles include many self-employed people starting in

1211
business. There is not a true reflection of declines or increases in income. On average the incomes of most families have increased during the past 10 years.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is not my noble kinsman a little unwise to use expenditure as a measure when the survey indicates that expenditure normally exceeds income?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. Again my noble kinsman has misunderstood the composition of those in the lowest decile or, for that matter, in any decile. They are in a fluid and not a static group. People are temporarily in the lowest decile when starting a business or whatever but soon they will be in a higher decile. Their expenditure will not necessarily vary a great deal as they move between one group and another.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does not the Minister understand that we are not talking about people who can get out of the decile—whatever that is—but about people who are permanently in the decile, are permanently racked by poverty and whom the Government appear to have set their face against helping?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that some people have problems. Throughout the exchanges I have been trying to say that the view that one can increase income support, increase expenditure and increase the burden on the economy thereby taking a large number of people out of that group is simplistic and irresponsible.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event the Third Reading of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill will be taken during the break.

Hereditary Peerages Bill [H.L.]
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law in relation to hereditary peerages. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Diamond.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a
1212
Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Gisborough, L.

Hanworth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Meston, L.

Lowry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

Wigoder, L.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Boundary Commissions Bill
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved the amendment:
After Clause 3, to insert:
Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act
(".—In Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act, paragraph 4(1)(b) shall be amended to read as follows
"(b) in Scotland, consideration shall be given to the boundaries of local authority areas, having regard to paragraph 5 below".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this subject which was well ventilated in Committee. I have no intention of rehearsing the argument because those of your Lordships who were present when we discussed this matter—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and, indeed, the Minister—all agreed that we expected the boundary commission in Scotland to be flexible when looking at how to draw parliamentary constituencies. In addition to the important aspect of balancing the electorate reasonably evenly between constituencies, we expected it to take into account local ties, community ties and also local government boundaries. I believe we all agreed that that should be done flexibly.
I might have been content to leave it there, as I was asked to do by my noble friend, but, as I mentioned in Committee, the last boundary commission in Scotland did not take a flexible view of this matter. Quite the contrary: it took a wholly inflexible view and decided that nowhere on the mainland of Scotland would local authority boundaries be crossed, regardless of the impact of that decision on the electoral numbers in adjacent constituencies crossing on each side of those local authority boundaries.
Since our debates in Committee I have thought about the reply that I received from my noble friend and I come back to my problem; namely, regardless of what we say in this House or, indeed, in the other place, and regardless of what Ministers say from the Dispatch Box, what matters is what is written into the statute. My worry is that as the last boundary commission interpreted the rules extremely rigidly and decided that regional authority boundaries had priority over getting constituencies reasonably near the electoral quota, I am left with a certain feeling that the boundary commission this time could take exactly the same inflexible view. This amendment attempts to put in the words of the statute a clear signal to the boundary commission that it must be flexible and must not take the inflexible attitude which was taken last time.
In reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee, I should say that I have weakened the words "have regard to" to "give consideration to". I have added to the end of the sentence that in doing that the boundary commission should have regard to the electoral quota and the balance between constituencies when that electoral quota is looked at.
I am quite confident that the words which I suggest should be put into the rules would signal as clearly as we possibly can to the boundary commission in Scotland that it should not treat local authority boundaries as absolutely impenetrable barriers.
The additional problem this time is that, as local government is under review, no one is entirely sure what will be the local authority boundaries. That seems to me to add to the argument that we should signal clearly to the boundary commission in the words of the statute that it should not treat those boundaries as impenetrable. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord has made quite a forceful case for his amendment. However, I still hold the view that I held in Committee. There is flexibility, as the noble Lord rightly says, available to the commission. He is nodding his head and denying what he has stated; namely, that other noble Lords and I agreed that there was flexibility.
All the boundary commissions have the opportunity to take a number of factors into consideration, one of those being the point the noble Lord made in regard to Rule 5 dealing with the disparities in the electorate. The commission may also take into consideration geographical implications. The other important provision is that the commissions may take into consideration any effect on local ties and community interests. I believe that that flexibility is extremely important. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made that same point in Committee.
Another important point is that I do not believe that an amendment to the rules is the way to deal with this matter. The way that the commissions interpret the rules is another matter altogether. If we are to change the rules, there should be consensus and consultation with the various bodies concerned, particularly the political parties. I hope this
1214
amendment will not be pressed. I believe that there is flexibility. If the commissions are failing to take into full consideration all the points which they are free to take into consideration, then perhaps thought should be given as to how they are doing their work.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the clear good intent of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is obvious to the whole House. I do not believe that anyone would wish to suggest that the matter is altogether satisfactory. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I am not sure that I would use the word "flexibility". There is a hierarchy. The more I read the rules, the more I see that there is a hierarchy in the criteria to be taken into consideration.
Reference has been made to the reorganisation of the local authority boundaries of local government in Scotland. It may well be that if the regions are abolished or reduced in size, the scale of the problem will be reduced consequent upon that geographical reduction.
Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the subject is so involved, has so many consequences and is one which should involve the people who are directly concerned on the ground that it would be wrong to endeavour to amend the rules through primary legislation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I support my noble friend in raising this matter again. I shall not repeat the arguments which I made in Committee. I just remind noble Lords who were not there then that the main point is that, as a result of the present arrangements, huge rural and highland areas in Scotland have enormous constituency numbers which was not what was expected. The example which I give—and there are several—is that one in northern Scotland contains 80,000 electors; and it is a huge area including the foothills of the Cairngorms. There are constituencies in Glasgow in the 40,000s and, indeed, one has only 36,000; they are small compact areas.
It seems clear that the boundary commission has taken the consideration of local government boundaries in northern Scotland, not in Glasgow, as a dominating factor. When I was a Secretary of State about 20 years ago, I had to look at all this and at the wording—I take the blame if the wording is not clear. We wanted to give the boundary commissions great flexibility. We wanted them to consider the criteria which are written in but to leave them with the flexibility to decide. However, had I known that they would make local government boundaries the dominating criterion, I should have tried to change the wording in those days. Whether or not anything can be done in this Bill, I point out that extraordinary anomaly, considering that the main object of the boundary commissions is to try so far as possible to equalise the numbers in the electorates.
Had it been the other way around, with a Glasgow constituency of 80,000 and the huge constituency in northern Scotland with only 36,000, one could perhaps see reasons for that. However, it has worked the other way round.
Since our debate in Committee several noble Lords have come to me and said, "What an extraordinary

1215
situation. Why has nobody raised this matter before?" I would say to them that such opportunities only arise now and then. This is an opportunity and I hope that our arguments will be listened to.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay. I cannot understand why this was not dealt with many years ago. My noble friend Lord Campbell said that he might have done that—undoubtedly he might—but it has now reached the stage where we can take a decision on the matter. The numbers from Scotland are extremely important. The constituencies make up only a comparatively small percentage of the House of Commons. Therefore the arrangement should be accurate numerically as well as in relation to the size of land. The words in the provision are inadequate. One could, of course, put down a cardboard map to piece the whole thing together, but that would be superfluous. The amendment adequately meets the requirement we have in mind.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Secretary of State issued a document in regard to the proposed changes in local government in Scotland. In that document there are four options which can be considered and in three of those the regions are either abolished or substantially changed. I suggest therefore that should one or other of those come into operation, and whether the boundary commissions like it or not, flexibility will be forced upon them. They will have lost most of the regions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he found himself in the same position as he was at Committee stage. I believe that goes for most of us. My noble friend Lord Mackay finds himself in the same position in that he wants the amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is also in the same position except that she denied herself the opportunity of referring to PR, for which I am grateful.
I find myself in the same position in that I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend's amendment, as I explained at Committee stage. It is similar to that tabled previously. For various reasons I did not believe that it would be suitable to accept it at that time. I believe that the same situation applies now.
My learned friend's amendment, well intentioned though it is, raises some awkward issues. At Committee stage I referred to the practical effect of changing the rules under which the Scottish commission works when the review has already been started. My noble friend's amendment would not be worded sufficiently accurately for those who take a peculiar and prurient interest in such matters as to be acceptable as part of the Bill.
Should my noble friend feel disposed to withdraw the amendment I shall, together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,
1216
look at the points made to see whether or not it is possible to do anything by the next stage of the Bill, and if so, what.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, in the event of him deciding to move on those lines, will the political parties be taken into consideration? Their views on the matter are extremely important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is aware, time is fairly short. The main purpose of the Bill is to reduce the time between Royal Commission reports. My noble friend is attempting to clear up an anomaly. I shall certainly take the point of the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, into account. However, it may be unreasonable to suggest that within the timescale there is a great deal of opportunity for too much conversation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I may have nudged him an inch—or perhaps in these European days I should say one centimetre—more in my direction than at Committee stage. I listened again with care to what he said and appreciate that he understands and takes on board the point I am trying to make.
My problem with the argument of the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, is that the fact that the last boundary commission was totally inflexible appears to have escaped him when he rests on the need for flexibility. I would happily rest there with him as well had it not been for that precedent. However, in the light of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No.69, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Benson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord formally moves the amendment, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will allow me to raise a point which is not controversial. It affects not only Amendment No.69, but also the amendments we are to consider this afternoon and those agreed on Tuesday.
Our difficulty with the Bill, which is in any case complicated, is that we passed an amendment on Tuesday and there are amendments yet to come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, so we do not know what form the Bill will take. Therefore, I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be willing to publish a table of what will be received by the recipients under each of

1217
the terms of the Bill. That will enable us to see the Bill's effects. In other words, we want to know what is the pension and the lump sums which the judges, judges' spouses and their children will receive under the terms of the Bill with the proposed amendments.
We need a figure, for illustrative purposes, based on current practices and assumed appointments, death and retirement and so forth, which is realistic. It would be helpful for a table to be provided which will also show the position under the 1981 Act. I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be willing to publish such a statement to enable us to see the effect when the amendments are tabled for Third Reading.
There is nothing peculiar or unusual in doing that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appoints the judges and when they are offered the appointments those are the questions that they will want answered so that they know what the Bill allows them to receive. If we could see those figures before we vote for the amendments we will know what we are voting for and it will greatly help us all.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. What he is suggesting would be most useful, but only to enable one to see the magnanimity or otherwise of what the amendments produce. Perhaps the statement could also include what the figures would be had the amendments not been agreed and the Bill was as originally drafted, together with the figures produced by the amendments.
Lord Benson: My Lords, the table can take any form the House desires. I have prepared a table of what I believe would provide the most help. I shall be glad to provide it to the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor immediately after the debate. I have not shown it to the Lord Chief Justice or discussed the point with him. I believe that he should see it because as the next head of the judiciary under the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor he has to cope with all the judges. He will want to know the figures to enable him to explain the meaning behind the Bill. Anything which the House wants can be provided.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have called the amendment. It is Amendment No.69 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I may be able to respond, in order, to some of the points made after the noble and learned Lord moves the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if it is more convenient to the House I am happy for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to deal with the inquiry at this stage. I intend to speak of widows and widowers, which does not seem to have much connection to the point raised. It may even come as a slight anti-climax after hearing the answer to my noble friend Lord Benson. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will wish to take advantage of the pause, but I shall do whatever the House desires.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, surely the situation is this. When the continuance of the Report stage was moved it would have been perfectly proper for the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to make his comment before the amendment was called. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his discretion, could then regard it as being a remark made on his moving that the Bill be further considered on Report. It would then be in order for him to make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I, above all, should follow the proper rules of procedure in this House. I moved that the Bill be further considered on Report. I put the Question and that has been responded to. I then called, according to the ordinary procedure, for my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to move Amendment No.69. It is in accordance with the proper rules of procedure that the amendment should be moved. I may be able, still within the proper rules of procedure, to provide some answer to what was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in the course of my reply. Then I would hope to deal with the matter in order whereas if I try to do so now that would be impossible.
Clause 5 [Surviving spouse's pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.69:
Page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, just before the House adjourned last Tuesday we were about to embark on Clause 5 of the Bill which concerns widows. I suggested—and the House was most compassionate—that as it was nearly ten o'clock we might defer that emotional, and perhaps one might almost say romantic, subject until today. I am grateful to your Lordships for having done that. Perhaps I may make one point clear from the outset. Although I refer to widows the Bill naturally refers to spouses. It therefore includes widowers. In fact, some say that in the not far distant future the male judge will be an endangered species; so it is right that I emphasise that straightaway. I still bear, internally at least, the bruises resulting from an encounter at a judicial seminar in Cambridge when the one and only lady member of the Supreme Court of the United States and the senior lady member of the Supreme Court of Canada rounded on me because there are no Baronesses of Appeal in Ordinary in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may share with your Lordships some historical knowledge which I have recently acquired. In 1799 the first pension Act was passed. It contained nothing about widows. A pension was earned by a judge if he completed an entirety of 15 years' service—a hallowed piece of mathematics which has been recently despatched. The Act also provided that if the judge retired through disability, he would achieve that pension straightaway. There was nothing as regards widows. No doubt in those years taxation made it possible to make sufficient provision without resorting to pensions.
In 1950—some 150 years later—the content of pension provision moved on, generally speaking, and the Act of that year made provision for a pension for a judge's widow. It also made provision for a lump sum, generally considered a great advantage on

1219
retirement in order to deal with accumulated expenses. The judge's pension was reduced from two-thirds to one-half in order to achieve the lump sum so that he was paying for his lump sum. The widow's pension was one-third of the judge's pension, the judge's pension being one-half of his salary. That, too, had to be paid for by the judge out of the lump sum. The one-third did not provide a great deal. It provided about £ 800 or £ 900 in those years; so it was later increased to one-half. Again, the judges were required to pay for that addition.
In all cases the pension ceased on remarriage. It was not obtainable if there was a widow who had become a widow following a post-retirement marriage. That situation is about 20 years out of date. Nowadays, pension provision, certainly in the private sector, provides for the widow not to lose her pension on remarriage and for the widow of a post-retirement marriage to obtain a pension. The sole question is whether she is the widow—in fact in some pensions I believe it is expressed more liberally as the partner—of the deceased judge. I am not in any way seeking to achieve that.
This situation was recognised in a somewhat odd way by legislation quite recently. It was an unsatisfactory provision. In Section 80 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, widows were divided—not surgically, but draftsmanlike—into two different categories. There was the post-retirement widow and the surviving widow of a marriage which occurred during service. Section 80 provides:
"19.—(1) No widow's or widower's pension may be granted if the marriage with the deceased took place after he or she retired from relevant service.
(2) A widow's or widower's pension shall come to an end on the death of the widow or widower.
(3) Where a widow's or widower's pension is payable the Treasury may, on or at any time after the re-marriage of the widow or widower, direct that it shall cease to be payable.
(3) Where such a direction has been given the Treasury may at any time direct that payment of the pension is to be resumed".
That is really the oddest of provisions. It is a kind of compromise and certainly not a halfway house; it is about a one-eighth house if one can give it any fraction at all. It makes it perfectly clear that the post-retirement widow gets nothing, but the surviving widow is in the position of really not knowing what is going to happen to her pension. It is to continue as long as someone in the Treasury decides that it may do so. Then, according to some guidelines unpublished and some factors undisclosed, an unknown member of the Treasury can say,"Stop! That is the end of your pension". At a later stage, again based on some unknown criteria, the pension can be suddenly started up again.
Is that position to continue? That is what Clause 5 of the present Bill does, and that is the clause which I am asking your Lordships to consider. The widow of a judge goes cap in hand—I suppose that is the wrong expression—hut bonnet in hand, to someone in the Treasury and says, "I am contemplating remarriage. Can you tell me whether you in your discretion are going to allow my pension to continue? If you are kind
1220
enough to say that it is, can you tell me in what circumstances I am going to have it taken away from me?"
That is not the way to treat this situation seriously. It is placing the widow in a most undignified and undesirable position. The recognition that this type of provision is grossly out of date I illustrated in an anecdote, the truth of which has been vouched for, some four months ago when this matter was last before the House. I shall briefly mention it again. An uncle of a friend of mine aged about 90, decided to offer his hand in marriage to a sweet young thing of 84. She, with remarkable perspicacity, asked, "What about my pension?" Her pension had started about 60 years ago and it was of as much interest to pension archaeologists as the provision in this Bill. He said, "Let us write to the company". They wrote to the company saying, "What will happen if we remarry because Clause X says that the pension ceases?" The reply came back: "We appreciate that the pension ceases, but we do not operate that clause any more. The pension certainly will not cease in your case. If you let us know the date when this happy event occurs we shall send you a handsome present into the bargain." I have no confidence that the unknown Treasury official enshrined in Section 80 of the 1990 Act and reborn in Clause 5 of this Bill will react in that way. It is for that reason that I suggest to your Lordships that the modern practice should be followed.
I told the House on Tuesday that we had taken advantage—as we had forecast that we would—of the long gap between the Committee and Report stages to obtain on behalf of the judges a report from a consultant actuary on these various aspects. Let me make it perfectly clear that we obtained this report at the end of July and that within three days my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice had sent it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. This is what the consultant actuary writes in paragraph 4.12:
"Over 85 per cent. of private sector pension schemes … will pay the spouse's pension for life. No more than 7 per cent. actually discontinue the pension on remarriage".
He went on to deal with the position of the Treasury official, stating:
"It is very important that judges should know what criteria will be used by the Treasury when deciding to discontinue a spouse's pension. Only in that knowledge could a single or widowed judge plan to provide for his potential 'post-retirement spouse'. It is simply not good enough for such an important benefit as the continued payment of a spouse's pension to be left to the undefined criteria of the Civil Service. Private sector employees would not allow such discretion to lie in the hands of their employer: they would insist on seeing their rights and those of their dependants clearly set out in writing. Judges' dependants deserve the same consideration".
Perhaps I may anticipate a point that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may make. He may say, "Ah, but you have referred only to the private sector situation. In the public sector this does not occur". However, we are dealing with primary legislation which is designed to crystallise the position for years to come. If the public sector system is grossly out of date, that is no justification for re-enacting it in new legislation.
But perhaps a more important point is this: judges are entitled to be treated on the same basis as senior—as very senior—executives in the private sector. Judges are recruited from the private sector after having worked successfully in it for more than half the usual working life. If they had remained in the private sector, that is the sort of treatment that they could have expected with any pension that they took out relative to their position. In those circumstances, I invite your Lordships to say that that should equally operate here. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I greatly admire the Treasury and I profoundly value its place in the machinery of government. I always object when the Treasury is picked out as if it were a rude word—a word of objurgation. The Treasury plays an essential part in ensuring that we live nationally within our means, but the function that this clause, following a recent Act, lays upon the Treasury is one that it is quite unfitted to perform. The Treasury has no expertise in marriage guidance. Apart from that, to give this sort of discretion to the Treasury seems to me to be constitutionally objectionable. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as far as Amendment No.71 is concerned, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will at least take this opportunity to provide some degree of certainty, as is called for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicate how it is envisaged that the discretion that would be given by Clause 5(2), if it is allowed to remain in the Bill, would be exercised? Is there to be a presumption that remarriage will curtail a pension or is the presumption to be the other way round? Obviously, there could be the curious result that a widow who remarries a pauper could find herself worse off than a widow who chooses not to remarry but who cohabits permanently with a millionaire.
That begs the question: how is the discretion to be exercised in practice? Is there to be some sort of means testing of the second spouse? What is the significance of the words,
"on or at any time after the re-marriage"?
Does that suggest that there is to be some sort of periodic review which will check from time to time to make sure that the second spouse has not won the football pools? It is very unfortunate that people in this situation should find themselves living in uncertainty. I hope that some certainty can be instilled during this debate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, referring to the amendment that we are discussing, Amendment No.69, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies, will he make quite clear whether what is proposed in the Bill is the same as the situation in the rest of the public service? In other words, where someone who has retired from the public service and is on a pension remarries, does that marriage give rise
1222
to the payment of a pension after that person's death? Is what is proposed in the amendment to treat the judiciary in a different way from the rest of the public service?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what has been said already and I certainly support the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about how the discretion is to be exercised and about the means test that may be applied.
My only contribution is, as a practising solicitor, to tell your Lordships what you may already know about the change in the way in which husbands these days dictate their wills. When I was a young lawyer I used, with some pain, to have to put into a draft will the desire of the client, the husband, that however generous he might have been to his widow in his will, he would like it to be perfectly understood that, should she remarry, much of the benefit that he might have given her over the course of the years, or, indeed, for the rest of her life, would cease. Custom has moved on, and husbands these days are much more solicitous of the spouses they are going to leave behind them and of their happiness and companionship. In my experience, it is very rare that a practising solicitor now faces anything other than a husband who says, "We had a wonderful time together. I hope that she will find some companionship after I die. Indeed, far from penalising that, I should like to encourage it".
Lord Benson: My Lords, Amendments Nos.69 and 71 are being taken together but I should like to deal with them separately and in succession.
Amendment No.69 proposes the removal of a paragraph which denies a spouse a pension if the marriage took place after retirement. That is a most astonishing provision, whatever may have been provided in years past in some Act or pension scheme, on the plain basis of common sense. If a man marries a woman on Tuesday she will get a pension. If he marries her on Wednesday she will not. That is an intolerable situation because it is not a question of retirement; it is a question of the widow who has to be supported. Why should the widow who marries on Tuesday be kept in such comfort as the pension will allow while the one who marries on Wednesday lives in penury? This is a totally incomprehensible proposal.
There is also something rather offensive about the clause. It implies that immediately after a man has retired he will plan a marriage and arrange his death accordingly so that some improper benefits will be diddled out of the Treasury by these manoeuvres. I cannot believe that the judiciary of this country behaves in that way. It is quite unnecessary to produce a clause in a Bill which assumes that it does. Members of the judiciary marry in the ordinary course of events and their spouses should be looked after.
Amendment No.71 covers a different point. If a marriage subsists during service and the judge dies and then the spouse remarries, the spouse's pension can be cut back at the instance of the Treasury. This has already been referred to by many noble Lords, but the point I make is that there is nothing in the Bill to say how it will be cut back or what criteria will be

1223
examined. There are none of those vital procedures for people who are asked to accept this pension scheme when they are appointed to office. It is undesirable in any case because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, it will encourage people to live in sin. That surely cannot be one of the objects of a Bill of this kind when dealing with the judiciary of this country.
The administrative arrangements whereby the Treasury will have to make these inquiries will be extremely cumbersome. If the Bill is not to be a farce—in other words, if the Treasury is to abide by the Bill and do this properly—it will have to call for statements of income from the two partners so it can examine what those incomes were year by year, because they change year by year. You may be sure that the Treasury's judgments are bound to differ between different people. It will result in a degrading examination of people's incomes and lifestyles. The Treasury officer carrying out the examination may arrive at one conclusion for one partner and a different conclusion for the other. The result will be quite inconsistent and quite unfair.
Both subsections seem to carry meanness and penny-pinching to a totally unreasonable degree. I cannot help feeling that the judiciary is offended by provisions of this character.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I wish to add only a few brief words which are mainly directed to Amendment No.71. It was on my suggestion some 20 years or so ago that the surviving spouse's pension was increased from one-third to a half. I put up the argument that to keep it at one-third was completely out of date—everyone else had a half of the deceased's pension—and that it was time that spouses of deceased judges should be brought into line.
I was then a young, junior Member of the House. I expected resistance to come against me with the full weight of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack backed by the Treasury. There was no resistance at all. The noble and learned Lord then occupying the Woolsack—Lord Gardiner—said,"No problem. If you want to have it as a half you can have it as a half. You have to pay for it. If that is what the judges want, raise it from one-third to a half". So raised it was from one-third to a half. It was a perfectly straightforward bargain as between the judges and the financial authorities. That is how it should remain without the absurdly artificial complication now introduced by the Bill. I therefore support my noble and learned friend, particularly on Amendment No.71.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wish to make one comment on Amendment No.71. I hope it is not entirely irrelevant to observe that the spouse of a serving judge, particularly of a High Court judge on circuit, plays a very substantial part in assisting the judge in his activities. It seems extraordinarily mean that in those circumstances subsection (2) should be in the form in which it is.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has indicated that in this area changes that go to increase benefit will be reflected in the size of the contribution. Of course, people can get the benefits that they wish if they are prepared as a whole to pay for them. This aspect, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner explained, is dependent on the contributions. When the widow's pension was introduced it was at the expense of the lump sum which judges had received in lieu of one-sixth of their pension when it changed from two-thirds to a half.
I think it would be right for me first of all to make it clear that we are concerned here with widows in two different situations. We are not here concerned with children's pensions. I have already indicated to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and to others that I propose to introduce an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that children's pensions continue notwithstanding remarriage of the surviving parent.
I should perhaps start with Amendment No.69 which concerns post-retirement marriages. So far as I understand the position we are reproducing here what is in the previous arrangement. It is the current position that post-retirement marriages are catered for in the majority of public sector schemes. These are under the ordinary scheme rules but limited to that period of service beyond 1978 (for men) or 1988 (for women). A change was made in those respects at these dates.
Before 1978 pensions for spouses were restricted to those who married before retirement. The Members of Parliament scheme has allowed for post-retirement marriages since 1965 but includes a discretion for the trustees not to pay a pension in the event of "deathbed" marriages. There are no provisions in the other schemes to prevent "deathbed" marriages or spouses significantly younger than the member benefiting from the pension to the full extent. That aspect is an important factor in considering the cost of a proposal such as is contained in the amendment.
The cost of a pension to the post-retirement widow can very much vary according to her age. If I understood the anecdote of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, the lady in question had a pension for some 60 years or so, in which event if it was in the private sector I suppose it would have been small. If it was in the public sector it would have benefited from the protection of RPI increases.
The reason why a pension for post-retirement spouses has not been provided for the judiciary has been the much higher earning levels that apply compared to those of typical public servants and a much shorter accrual period for spouses' pensions. Post-retirement marriage cover would therefore be relatively more expensive and build up more quickly than would be the case for more typical public servants. As your Lordships know, the principal Civil Service scheme has a 40-year accrual span and the Members' of Parliament scheme a 331/3 accrual span with a pension fraction of one fiftieth.

1225
The cost of providing post-retirement cover for the judiciary would certainly not be very small; it would certainly be at least 0.5 per cent. of pensionable pay and if that was reflected in the contributions they would be quite considerable. Of course, the generality of the scheme provides that everyone who is eligible pays the same contribution. Therefore, that would be quite a costly benefit to provide in relative terms. The position is that if the judges want the provision it would need to be paid for, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce suggested. Given the fact that judges normally retire at ages between 65 and 70, if any provision for post-retirement marriages was to be introduced it would obviously be prudent to consider under precisely what circumstances that should be allowed. In particular, some increment might be required in relation to a substantial age disparity in order to be fair, or relatively fair, to those who were not involved in such a transaction.
I should also mention that the Top Salaries Review Body, when commenting on the pension proposals that I put forward, made no comment in its response to the pension consultation paper suggesting that it disapproved of a lack of provision for post-retirement marriages. I should add that the absence of specific provision for post-retirement marriages in the new judiciary scheme does not mean that such spouses are totally without benefit. One of the conditions of contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme is that the judicial scheme would have to provide the guaranteed minimum benefit under the national insurance arrangement, SERPS. That means that in the case of post-retirement marriages, we would have to introduce a judicial pensions requisite benefits order providing for one-half of the guaranteed accrued minimum pension in respect of service from 6th April 1978 for male members of the scheme, or since 6th April 1980 for female members of the scheme. A corresponding order was made in 1988 under the powers of the Social Security Act 1973, to which I referred previously. The only other comment I have to make on post-retirement marriages is that we are reflecting the conditions of the present scheme in this respect.
I turn now to the question of cessation of pensions on remarriage. That provision does no more than reflect the common practice of other public sector pension schemes, such as the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The scheme for Members of Parliament contains a requirement that a surviving spouse's pension terminates on remarriage but allows for that pension to be reactivated at the discretion of the trustees. However, the provision in the Bill represents an improvement on what was, until 1st January this year, the position in regard to the 1981 scheme. Before 1st January 1992 there was a total prohibition on pension payments to spouses who remarried. So the pension stopped on remarriage under the 1981 scheme until Section 80 of the Courts and Legal Services Act came along. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that Act with all its beneficial provisions. The latter was one of them. It modified the provisions of the earlier scheme to allow the Treasury
1226
to exercise a discretion as to whether the surviving spouse's pension should cease on remarriage and, should it cease payment of such payment, to reactivate it at any time. There have been no cases where the Treasury has been called upon to exercise that discretion since it was empowered to do so under the Act. Of course, it is open to consider what the conditions might be. I think that it is fairly obvious that the primary responsibility of the Treasury would be to have regard to the financial circumstances of the person in question.
As I said, the provision is the general one that we have in public sector pension schemes. In my submission, it is a very considerable improvement recently introduced on the former scheme and—this is quite important—without any additional charge to the judges. Therefore, the possibility of continuation was provided for in that way. I accept the point that the wife of a High Court judge, and indeed any judge's wife, has an important part to play in sustaining him in the difficulties of his office. That also applies the other way round: the husband, the spouse of a lady judge, has similar responsibilities. Perhaps I should also reassure my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner in that respect. He felt that the male judge was rather an endangered species. However, judging from the information that I have about the pool of those available for appointment, that danger is not a particularly imminent one.
The situation so far as concerns the amendment is that, on the present basis, I must tell your Lordships that it would not be proper to amend the scheme to include post-retirement marriages. If we wanted to do so, the consequence would be a resulting contribution increase. As regards the question of continuing pensions, I have explained that this is the general rule in the public service. It is a recent improvement in respect of the judges' scheme. Therefore, I invite your Lordships not to pass the amendment.
Lord Benson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down can he perhaps help us on the point about the table?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, my Lords; I shall be happy to do what I can to provide a table. If the noble Lord, Lord Benson, cares to let me see the kind of table that he has drawn up, that would at least give me an indication of the heads that he wishes to cover. I have already provided some illustrations on the basis of the amendments about which I have been writing to a number of my noble and learned friends. If the House feels that it would be helpful—I think that perhaps it would—I shall do what I can to provide a table indicating the effect of the various provisions so far as they are capable of being reflected in ordinary figures.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated that if the amendments were passed it could only be on the basis that the judges would have to pay more because of the cost involved. With deep respect, that was an

1227
astonishing answer in the context of this Bill. Perhaps I may remind the House of what the Treasury are saving as a result of the main provisions of the Bill. The accrual period to earn the pension is increased from 15 to 20 years. In the Hansard report of last Tuesday's debate, it will be seen that I drew attention to table 7 in the last report of the Top Salaries Review Body which said that the pensions for judges and circuit judges represented 30 per cent. of what had to be paid to the judges. I drew attention to the fact that, as the accrual rate was increasing by 25 per cent., that meant that the Government were saving, potentially per judge,7.5 per cent. I was relieved to find—and this is also recorded in Hansard—that your Lordships commended me on my arithmetic. The saving of 7.5 per cent. is my starting point.
Let us take into account the other factors. The guarantee of one-quarter of the pension on becoming a High Court judge, and a little less for a circuit judge, has been removed. That is a great saving to the Treasury. The lump sum is to be capped. Anything over £ 75,000 will be subject to tax and probably almost always 40 per cent. tax. Another great saving, despite the fact that it has been in legislation for nearly 200 years, is that the pension will be based, not upon the salary being received at the moment of retirement—in other words, if one retired shortly after an increase in salary (those heady old days, no doubt) one's pension was based upon the new salary figure—but will now be averaged over one year.
We asked our consultant actuary whether he could assess the total savings to the Treasury with the Bill in its present form. He said it would be between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. without taking into account the last matter that I have mentioned; namely, the different basis for computing the pensionable pay. That is an important factor.
I believe that my noble friend referred to the tiny fraction which would be needed to fund what I suggested should occur. I believe that it was 0.5 per cent. Having arrived at 15 per cent. savings to the Treasury, one would have thought that there would have been no difficulty in bringing up this pension provision to something which is modern, but the sad position, which the House must bear very much in mind, is that the judges are being required—not that they resist—to retire five years earlier. That is an expensive process, as anyone involved in pension finances knows. One reduces significantly the pension age, and up go the costs. The judges are being obliged by the Government, no doubt urged on by public feeling, to bring down the age from 75 to 70. But, says the Treasury, you who are to suffer this disadvantage—it is a disadvantage not to be able to go on earning—and you must pay for it. Hence the round figure of 15 per cent. which I have mentioned.
This is a grossly inequitable system. The Government are in a position to afford to bring into primary legislation an up-to-date scheme. The name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is down to support the amendment. He authorises me to say that he much regrets that he cannot be here, but he fully supports the amendment. We have thus recorded that, so far as the judiciary is concerned, the
1228
age of chivalry is not dead. I hope that the same applies to the House. I do not withdraw my amendment.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,62; Not-Contents,106.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Benson, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brightman, L.

Lucas, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Norrie, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Geraint, L.

Renton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grantchester, L.

Russell, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alport, L.

Foley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Astor, V.

Gainford, L.

Barber, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Goold, L.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

Birdwood, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hothfield, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Joseph, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Knollys, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Leathers, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cox, B.

Long, V.

Cranborne, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Downshire, M.

Margadale, L.

Elibank, L.

Marlesford, L.

1229

Merrivale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Milverton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Terrington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wakeham, L.

Porritt, L.

Westbury, L.

Prentice, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Quinton, L.

Wise, L.

Renwick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.70:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) A pension under this section shall be payable at such intervals, not exceeding three months, as the Treasury may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No.41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.6
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.71:
Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken on this matter but I believe that I did not inflict my remarks on one or two noble Lords who are now present. Before I ask for the view of the House on this matter I shall condense my remarks into one paragraph. If this amendment is not permitted the sound advice to every expiring judge must be, "Do not forget to tell your widow shortly to be, on no account to remarry because all you have spent on a pension for your widow will go down the drain." The expiring judge should say to his shortly-to-be widow, "Do not forget, darling, to live in sin." If he is one of the with-it judges, he should tell his wife not to forget to "shack up." I do not intend to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, needless to say I do not accept that description of the situation. I should point out that hitherto, until Section 80 came into force recently, a judge had to inform his shortly-to-be widow that there was no possibility of her receiving a pension if she remarried. Now the shortly-to-be widow will receive a pension unless the Treasury decides there is a good reason why it should not be paid.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm my understanding of what he said in his earlier speech? I thought he said that in other cases where the rule of
1230
discretionary withdrawal applied the Treasury had not exercised that power of withdrawal at all. Was I wrong in thinking that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that since this provision became part of the judicial pension scheme the Treasury had not been invited to exercise that discretion because no such case had arisen. No such case has arisen under this provision since it became part of the judicial pension scheme.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope I may comment on that reply. I wrote to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to ask him specifically in how many cases the Treasury had withdrawn its consent, and if so on what grounds. The answer to that question was as my noble and learned friend has just indicated. However, I asked what would be the grounds upon which the Treasury would exercise its discretion. That matter still remains a mystery. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,61; Not-Contents,95.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Benson, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brightman, L.

Margadale, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Meston, L.

Carnock, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Morris, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Colville of Culross, V.

Renton, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Barber, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bauer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cox, B.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

1231

Craigmyle, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Elibank, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Foley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Prentice, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harrowby, E.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hothfleld, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stewartby, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Liverpool, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
[Amendment No.72 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.73:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert ("and the pension equivalent of the lump sum referred to in section 4(1)).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, last Tuesday I involved myself in explaining to the House my new-found phrase in this field—"dynamisation." Dynamisation is a permitted means whereby the Inland Revenue allows you, if you do not use your last year's salary, to go back and choose any other period within the last 10 years and bring into play inflation. I put before your Lordships the desirability of that principle equally being applied to judges since it is applied elsewhere.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to say that he would consider that matter and it was not pressed. I overlooked the fact, and I apologise to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that with the dynamisation amendments which were to be found in Amendment No.49 went the consequential amendments which would take account of that particular situation.
The amendments here are not connected with dynamisation as I thought at one stage they were. They are concerned quite simply with the increase in the widow's pension in this manner. In the public sector the husband gets a pension based upon two-thirds of his final salary. That certainly applies to senior executives, who are properly comparable with judges. The widow gets two-thirds of the husband's pension. His pension (two-thirds) in the majority of
1232
cases is commuted so that he takes one half and a lump sum equal to three times his annual pension or one and a half times his final salary. Her pension of two-thirds is thus based upon his pension of two-thirds. Within those two-thirds is the option to commute.
The judicial pension is structured differently. That pension is one half of final salary and there is a statutory obligation for the rest to be made up by the lump sum. There is no option at all. The pension itself must be viewed not in isolation as merely half the annual salary but as half the annual salary plus the lump sum, which in the private field is roughly the equivalent of two-thirds of the final salary.
The widow's pension should follow what happens in the private sector. It is based upon a proportion of what the husband would have got. What I invite your Lordships to do is to say that the widow's pension should not be restricted to one half of the judge's pension because that overlooks the factor of the lump sum in the judge's pension. The widow's pension should be one half of the judge's annual pension together with the pension equivalent of the lump sum. The widow is thereby properly given one half of the husband's entitlement in the same way as in the private sector the widow gets two-thirds of the husband's entitlement; that is, two-thirds of two-thirds.
I apologise again to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor if I mixed this up when dealing with the consequential amendments on dynamisation. These are amendments that seek to increase the widow's pension by adding to her one half of the husband's annual pension the pension equivalent of the lump sum. In my respectful submission that is wholly equitable since it is designed to give the widow one half of the pension rights enjoyed by her husband. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understood that this was not connected with dynamisation so my noble and learned friend has no need to apologise in that regard.
This scheme provides the highest fraction of final pensionable pay for each year of service for spouses' pensions that can be found in the public sector. Pension is accrued at the rate of one-eightieth of the scheme member's salary for each year of his or her service. I have undertaken to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment to provide that in the event of death in service the calculation of pension will be enhanced by half the member's service potential to the age of 65. The accrual rate of one-eightieth is the same as for Members of Parliament and higher than that for any other group in the public service. As far as the private sector is concerned, I am informed that the accrual rate here is higher than that of more than 86 per cent. of members of private sector pension schemes. In most private sector pension schemes there is no question of index linking as in the public sector. That is a very important matter in relation to the widow's pension particularly if there is an interval between retirement and the death of the judge.
I believe that the scheme we have proposed offers a very good package for spouses, and rightly so, and it

1233
would not be proper to give effect to this amendment which, as I have suggested to your Lordships, is available only in relation to certain types of private sector schemes where generally speaking—perhaps not in all cases—there is no question of index linking. What I say is that what has been provided for judges' widows in this scheme is a very reasonable provision. I hope that your Lordships will not pass the amendment and that in the light of my explanation my noble and learned friend will feel he does not wish to press it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I much regret that I have omitted to bring with me the last report of the Top Salaries Review Body. I distinctly recall that it said that public service pensions had fallen behind pensions in the private field. It referred specifically to indexing and said in terms that in the majority of cases indexing was in practice carried out. It gave certain percentage figures, explained how it was operated and suggested that the indexing factor had lost a great deal of its attractiveness. I hope to bring that to the attention of my noble and learned friend either by correspondence or on Third Reading. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.76:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from ("pension") to end of line 39 and insert ("had he remained in that office until the age of 65 or until he had completed 15 years in his qualifying judicial office, whichever is the earlier.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not move Amendment No.76 because it has already been debated. It comes under the heading of the sickness provisions. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, I do not move it because he is bringing forward amendments on this subject at Third Reading. He gave us an assurance that they would come within the week before Third Reading.
[Amendment No.76 not moved.]
[Amendment No.77 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Grant and payment of a children's pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.78:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("during his service in such office").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the situation of orphans. At Committee stage I pointed out the harshness of the provisions and said I hoped it would give my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor food for thought. It apparently has done so because we have been informed that my noble and learned friend is to bring forward extensive amendments on the subject-matter of orphans at Third Reading. I respectfully ask that we may be given the same assurance that we shall get those amendments not later than a week before Third Reading, which I understand will occur a fortnight today. In those circumstances it may be more convenient for my noble
1234
and learned friend to address the House at this stage in order to ensure that I have correctly understood the position. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has said, I expressed some sympathy with these amendments when they were moved at Committee stage. I have considered the position carefully. I am pleased to be able to say that I undertake to amend the definition of "eligible children" contained in the Bill. In some respects I am prepared to go further than this amendment. I should like to see children's pensions payable to all children who are legitimate, adopted, or illegitimate children of the deceased, or his or her stepchildren at the time of death, provided that they were dependent and would have been so at the time pensionable service ended. A dependent child would include a child who was conceived before death but born afterwards. Children's pensions would be awarded to the child although payable to the widow, widower or guardian and would remain in force under the usual conditions whether or not the parents remarried.
That amply fulfils what the amendment seeks to do and confirms what my noble and learned friend said. I hope that I shall be in a position to put these amendments forward in good time, as I have said already, for the Third Reading.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I read in Hansard that the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to give an assurance in regard to some of these amendments that we would get them a week before the Third Reading. With humility, I think I am entitled to be somewhat insistent. There has been a period of four months between the Committee stage and Report. We have to consider to what extent we wish to amend—if we do amend—following what the noble and learned Lord puts forward. That takes time. We are entitled to have the amendments not later than one week before the Third Reading takes place. I hope that my noble and learned friend can give us that assurance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to ensure it. I cannot absolutely guarantee it but I certainly hope that it will be so. I undertook that in respect of an amendment mentioned last time. The position is that I may well be able to give more detail even earlier. Certainly I think that I shall be able to conform with what my noble and learned friend has said in so far as concerns this particular amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord finally sits down, I am sure that every part of the House is very grateful to him for the way in which he has considered this matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on that basis I shall not pursue the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.79 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.80 and 81:
Page 7, line 23, after ("pension") insert ("(a)").
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and

1235
(b) shall be payable at such intervals, not exceeding three months, as the Treasury may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No.41. With the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos.80 and 81 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.82 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Children's pension: meaning of "period of childhood and full-time education"]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.83:
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("rounding any resulting fraction of El up to the next whole £ 1").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is self-evident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rate of children's pension]:
[Amendment No.84 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Contribution towards cost of surviving spouse's and children's pension]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.85:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert ("and regulations may prescribe the minimum contributions which may be made by classes of persons holding qualifying judicial offices or other judicial appointments").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have not intervened earlier at Report stage since many points have been better covered by other noble Lords than I could have done. I do not have to declare an interest as I believe it unlikely that I shall come within the ambit of the Bill. Therefore I have no need to worry about that aspect.
I have spoken on some of these issues with a number of circuit judges. They have raised points with me which did not appear to be covered by any of the other amendments. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others have proposed to leave out Clause 9. I have a different point from those that the noble and learned Lord perhaps wishes to raise; namely, the amount that can be paid by a judge towards his relict (I suppose that is the right term) or spouse on his or her demise and to his children under Clauses 5 to 8.
The regulations will determine the contributions to he made. I seek from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor an explanation of how flexible the arrangements will be. It should not cost the Treasury anything because the contributions will be made from the judge's own salary. There should therefore not be any burden on the Treasury. I suggest that within reason it ought to be a matter for the judge himself or herself to decide how much is to be set aside, in addition to the automatic deductions, for the benefit of wife or husband and children.
The difficulty about regulations under this Bill, as your Lordships will see at the top of page 10 of the Bill, is that they do not come back at all to Parliament. Therefore if we do not discover what is in the Government's mind at this stage, we shall have no device whatever subsequently to debate the matter. I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend, whether or not I have given him the clue in the
1236
amendment, will be able to respond to what I have said and say how it is anticipated that the regulations will enable judges to look after their families by way of deductions from what they will anyway be paid. This is perhaps a different point from the noble and learned Lord's point. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is an amendment which I would certainly wish to incorporate in the Bill but for the fact that Clause 29(6) of the Bill already allows the regulations in Clause 9 to do what my noble friend wants. It is true that an amendment has been proposed to delete Clause 29(6). Should, by any chance, that proposed amendment be passed, I shall undertake at Third Reading to bring back an amendment on the lines that this amendment follows.
So far as concerns contributions, we intend to specify, on the basis of the consultation and the benefits provided under the scheme as amended by me at the moment, that the contribution should be 3 per cent. That is what we have in mind. There are powers in the Bill for members of the scheme to make additional voluntary contributions. I have undertaken to propose amendments to make that arrangement more flexible, to try to provide another route for those who may wish to add to their statutory pension provided under this Bill on a basis that allows tax deduction of the contributions. We propose 3 per cent. for the judicial contribution in respect of the benefits as specified by me with the amendments that I have undertaken to make.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that I am to understand that the regulations will simply specify 3 per cent. and nothing else? Do I understand that there will be no alternative option and we need to look to Clause 10 for any flexibility? If that is the correct understanding, I am content for the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judicial scheme provides a specific set of benefits. It is in respect of those benefits that the contributions are fixed. The Clause 10 provision will allow additional contributions in some situations. It is designed particularly to deal with the situation referred to by my noble and learned friend whereby people may go on the Bench not having, for one reason or another, made arrangements under the self-employed schemes, so that they will have little or no retained benefits. This is an option that I seek to provide for them under that clause.
I shall propose amendments to make that provision more flexible so that the Revenue may be able to allow us to use that provision more than might have been possible without the amendments.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, in that event, so far as concerns this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it. I do not know what other points may be raised on Clause 9 but I shall listen with interest to the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.86:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is my respectful submission that where the Government resort to primary legislation there is a heavy onus upon them to justify any provision which is clearly out of date. The obligation to make contributions in relation to widows and orphans is in that category.
My noble and learned friend has recently referred to the comments of the Top Salaries Review Body, which commented on my noble and learned friend's consultative scheme. Its views upon the obligation of judges to contribute towards the widows' and widowers' pensions is expressed in this form:
"Under the proposed scheme members will be required to contribute 3 per cent. of salary"—
I am not sure where that figure comes from—
"towards a widows' or widowers' pension. The Review Body considers this high for what it regards as the rather unimpressive benefit of ½ x the member's annual pension. Under modern private sector schemes, widowers' and widows' benefits are non-contributory. The Review Body believes that they should also be non-contributory under the proposed new judicial pension scheme; coincidentally this would avoid the need for contributions to be refunded to members who retire and have been single throughout their service, and the need for such members to refund those contributions if they marry during retirement".
My noble and learned friend brought in an independent consultant actuary to advise the Government, probably as a result of the suggestion made by the Top Salaries Review Body. The consultant was Mr. Alexander of Watson & Sons. This is what was said in paragraph 314 of his report on the subject:
"The requirement to pay contributions purely for spouse's pensions is very rare in the private sector, where it is seen as outdated and potentially inequitable between male and female scheme members and at odds with the trend towards widening the class of beneficiaries to include financial dependants. It is however not uncommon in the public sector".
We have heard the familiar refrain—"Ah, but the judges have the great concession of retained benefits". That was well known to both the TSRB and to Mr. Alexander of Watson's. In making their critical comments it would be inconceivable that they did not have regard to the value, if any, of that concession.
I now refer to the views of our own independent consultant, Mr. Wynne-Griffith, the senior partner of Barnett Waddingham. Again we have provided my noble and learned friend with a copy of the report and he has had it for some two months or more. Explaining the observation about the obligation being potentially inequitable between male and female scheme members, Mr. Wynne-Griffith says:
"I agree with the comments of the Independent Actuary that advised the Lord Chancellor's Department: there is serious inequality as between men and women. By way of example, the total cost of a widow's pension will be typically of the order of 2% of salary whereas the total cost of a widower's pension is much less, at only ½ % of salary—that is, the widow's pension costs 4 times as much as the widower's. (The reason for this is that women live longer than men and marry husbands older than themselves…) If the contribution is specifically for the spouse and children's pension then there is a serious risk of sex discrimination if a different rate is used for each sex".
In my respectful submission, that indicates, first, that there is to be put into primary legislation an
1238
outdated practice, which is clearly wrong; and, secondly, that it is a practice which involves inequality. If one applies different rates for the male judge as against the female judge there will be a sex discrimination offence. On the other hand, if one makes it the same it is inequitable because one requires the lady judge to subsidise the male judge, for the reasons Mr. Wynne-Griffith has given.
Again it may be said that that is what generally happens in the public sector. My answer to that is that if the public sector situation is out of date it should not be perpetuated. My second answer, in anticipation of your Lordships' comment that that means that the cost will fall on the Government, is that the percentages which have been provided by Mr. Wynne-Griffith show that that cost is well capable of being absorbed by the Government—2 per cent. or thereabouts—bearing in mind the approximate 15 per cent. saving which the Government will achieve through the downgrading of the judicial pension scheme in the manner which I have already indicated in my earlier submissions to your Lordships today. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I have no professional experience of this particular field. I am therefore governed by the advice given by the people who are experienced in the field, who know what they are talking about and know what happens in practice. We have that evidence in front of us. It has been given clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We know what the TSRB's views are. We know that the practice is very rare in the private sector. We know that in some public sector schemes no contribution is made. We have the advice of the independent actuary who advised the judges.
What I find so astonishing about this Bill—because this is not the first time it has happened—is that on so many occasions when experienced and independent advice has been given it has been ignored. I cannot understand that. There must be something wrong somewhere. This is another example. It seems to me to be another case of meanness, which appears to run as a theme through the whole of the Bill. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said earlier, Clause 9 of the Bill gives power to the appropriate Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to make regulations for the payment of contributions by judicial officers towards the cost of providing the surviving spouses' and children's pensions. The deletion of Clause 9 would remove from the Bill any means of requiring such contributions to be made.
I take the position that it is important to compare these arrangements with those of other public servants. I believe that in respect of contributions for spouses' and children's pensions, as in almost all other respects, the arrangements I propose for the judges are among the best which the taxpayer provides for public servants. Contributions for spouses and children are a common factor of nearly every public sector scheme. The rates at which they are levied, however, vary. Members of Parliament are charged 6 per cent., as are teachers, local government workers and employees of

1239
the National Health Service. The police and fire services are charged 11 per cent. The principal Civil Service scheme levies 1½ per cent. but over 40 years, which equates to the 3 per cent. which I propose at the moment to levy on members of this scheme. I believe, therefore, that the provisions of this scheme will be at the forefront of public sector schemes in this respect.
As regards the point made by my noble and learned friend about distinctions between men and women, I do not see that it would be a breach of any provision to make different arrangements for men and women provided that those differences can be justified. We have said that the arrangement that we are proposing is 3 per cent. but we shall look carefully to see whether in the ultimate regulations it may be possible to take some account of that. However, overall the provisions are intended not to be related particularly to specific cases, as I said earlier. Different people are in different circumstances but, generally speaking, it is wise to provide a single rate of contribution.
I could not advise your Lordships to accept this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for not using retained benefits as an argument to sustain the incorporation of this out-of-date provision in primary legislation. Therefore, I have only one point to answer; it is the insistence on saying that the proper comparison is with the private sector. That argument totally overlooks what was accepted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at an early stage in the debate on Tuesday; that the judges are sui generis. They spend most of their life in the private sector and are taken out of it at considerable financial sacrifice. Therefore, if there is to be a comparison they are entitled to be compared with what they would have achieved in the private sector if they had remained there and not to be treated as some would wish to treat them, I am ready to concede, as civil servants who had started their careers in their early twenties. The situation is wholly unsatisfactory and accordingly I maintain my request for this amendment.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,29; Not-Contents,93.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Benson, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Kissin, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cross, V.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Richard, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Templeman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

1240

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Lytton, E.

Barber, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bauer, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moyne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Nelson, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denman, L.

Prentice, L.

Downshire, M.

Prior, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Harrowby, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Howe, E.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 10 [Additional benefits from voluntary contributions]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.87:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The first regulations under this section shall be made within three months of the date when this section comes into force.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, earlier this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and said that it contained beneficial provisions. One of the provisions which it contained—and it may or may not be beneficial—is the insertion into the old judicial pension scheme of a new arrangement which is more or less in exactly the same terms as those contained in Clause 10 of this Bill. That subsection stated:
"Regulations shall make provision entitling any member of a judicial pension scheme … to make voluntary contributions".

1241
Therefore, I am talking about voluntary contributions from a salary, or in addition to a salary, which will put a larger amount into the total pension fund available for the wife and children upon retirement or death.
The way that I have phrased this amendment requires regulations to be made. There is one difference between the 1990 Act and what is now in the Bill. In the Bill there is only a provision for regulations to be made on an optional basis. The Bill says "may" and in 1990 we said "shall".
The fact is that, as far as I am aware, despite the word "shall" being used no regulations have ever been made. Therefore, at the moment under the existing scheme it is not possible to make additional voluntary contributions at all; or that is the situation as I understand it. Not surprisingly, there is anxiety among some of the judiciary that the same thing will happen under this Bill; that although the Bill will say that regulations may be made, they will not be made.
I understand from what was said a little while ago by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he proposes to improve the terms which will be available to the judiciary under Clause 10. The problem with which I am confronted is that the channels of communication have not included myself; and if they have not included myself they have not included most of the circuit judges because they have been corresponding with me. The material of which they have sent me copies contains letters from my noble and learned friend's department which were immensely depressing as regards hope of any increase in flexibility under Clause 10.
If proposals are to be put forward on Third Reading, I shall welcome them, or I believe I should welcome them if I only knew what they were. If this Bill is to be properly considered in this House and, indeed, in another place, it is quite important that the members of the judiciary, who in due course will have the opportunity to elect to go into the scheme, know what it is that they have elected to go into. They cannot help Members of this House or another place if they are not told what is in store.
I believe that I am pushing at an open door with my noble and learned friend and that he will be prepared to tell us, at least in outline, what he has in mind by way of improvements in Clause 10, whether by regulation or as part of the drafting of the primary legislation, so that that can be looked at by the people concerned. The channels of communication will in any event have to move extremely quickly if we are to come to Third Reading in a fortnight's time. However, they can read what has been said in the Official Report and tomorrow will be able to apply their minds to it immediately on receipt of that document. We shall then be able to get a reaction from them. So far, I do not believe that they know what is in the mind of my noble and learned friend; and neither do I. As part of the operation of this House I ask my noble and learned friend to explain, and I ask him to explain also whether he will make regulations. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for enabling me to state the position. In the course of the proceedings I have indicated what I have in mind to do and I have not gone further than that because it is a rather technical situation. It is not enough to have provisions of this kind in primary legislation. In order to get the tax advantages which flow from this, one must be sure that the provisions are adapted sufficiently to enable the Inland Revenue to give the tax deductions in question when such contributions are made.
I believe that the depressing correspondence to which my noble friend referred dealt with the position of additional voluntary contributions under the 1981 Act. As part of the consideration I have given to this Bill I have felt it necessary that that facility should be available. We have heard a good deal about tax positions and I do not wish to go into that again in detail. However, it was pointed out to us that there may be people who do not have retained benefits. If people do not have retained benefits, or do not have much in the way of retained benefits, it is possible that the revenue would allow contributions under that provision.
On Third Reading I am proposing to make the necessary amendments to Clause 10 to make available that facility provided that the retained benefits are taken into account, in the sense that the facility would not be available to take the person in question above the revenue limits if the retained benefits were taken into account. The idea is to provide for those who, for one reason or another, may not have retained benefits. That is what I propose to do to this clause on Third Reading.
I understand the spirit of the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I am anxious to do exactly as he wants. His amendment would not help the cause which he wishes to espouse because the clause needs to commence before anything can happen under it. Therefore, even if this were added to it, while the clause has not commenced it does not operate. I intend to have regulations ready whenever the clause comes in so that it can be immediately and fully used.
Since last summer judges have been able to make the full provisions but at the beginning we found it difficult to devise an AVC scheme simply for derivative benefits—for spouses and children's benefits. We are now in a situation in which I believe that that will be possible. In order to facilitate the use of that power by the judiciary, I shall need to make some amendments on Third Reading. I hope that that explains the situation sufficiently to my noble friend.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I believe it does. I certainly understand that the implications are complicated and would need to go into some kind of subordinate legislation. I do not suggest for a moment that my noble and learned friend would avoid bringing those in by not activating the section. I believe he is aware that the device I used was simply to

1243
call attention to the fact that there was no such provision under the 1990 Act and that people had been waiting for it.
I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be able to do as he promised earlier with amendments tabled from the Cross-Benches, and give a little notice of what he proposes in more detail. It sounds as though it is exactly what everybody has been asking for. But the correspondence was not in regard to the 1990 Act. It was in the context of what was contained in Clause 10 of the Bill. At the stage when the correspondence took place it was nothing but gloom and pressure and not the matters about which my noble and learned friend told the House this afternoon. I believe therefore that some of the details should be circulated among those who will seek to take advantage of them. They can then be considered and decisions made as to whether or not they overtake what was previously thought to be the situation.
I do not invite my noble and learned friend to say anything further unless he wishes to. I am sure that he will bear in mind that those concerned do not know the details which are involved and that they need to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor My Lords with the leave of the House and on the invitation extended to me by my noble friend, perhaps I can say that there was a stage at which a great deal of doom and gloom existed in this area. It required a good deal of consideration to overcome that. I believe that we have now been able to overcome it in such a way as to make the facility possible within the limits I described.
The difficulty is that when the whole situation is covered by the retained benefits system, which certain levels of the judiciary particularly have said that they appreciate, the Inland Revenue has not been anxious to allow further tax advantages in other ways. I therefore sought to produce a facility for those who may not be in a particularly advantageous position with retained benefits to obtain the benefit of the new tax advantage. It is in order to make that possible that I need to produce amendments. I shall certainly table them as soon as I can. There are a large number. When we have done that we shall seek to communicate with the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that further explanation. It will be read with interest. I believe that in the context of our discussions both on Tuesday and this afternoon anything that can be done to increase the potential for a tax-free pension for those who do not possess large retained benefits will be all to the good.
The thrust of the debate so far has been that people will need to be appointed to the judiciary younger and therefore the ones who come in under the new scheme are likely to have accrued fewer retained benefits. The point we are discussing at the moment could be one of the most important discussed at Report stage.
The comments of my noble and learned friend are extremely relevant and I hope will bring a certain amount of relief. I hope, from what he has said and what he will be able to make clear before Third Reading, will enable everybody to grasp what is on
1244
offer. So far as I can, I shall ensure that they see a copy of his words. Anything else that he is able to do by way of communication with the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges will be extremely welcome, though I shall not press him further on that tonight. I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Provisions against pensions under two or more judicial pension schemes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.88:
Page 11, line 2, after ("applies") insert C, or would, apart from section 13 below, apply,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.88 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.90 and 91. The purpose of these technical amendments is to clarify the position of those judicial officers who would be members of the new scheme were it not for the fact that they had opted out under the provisions of Clause 13, or had opted out under previous judicial pension schemes and had that choice protected by the provisions of Clause 13(8).
The amendment brings such persons within the prohibitions of Clause 11(1) on accruing or receiving benefits from their former judicial pension schemes so long as their elections to make personal pension arrangements remain in force. Any such person will of course have any rights he accrued under his previous pension scheme frozen in that scheme until retirement or until he is transferred into the new scheme should the officer at any time elect to enter into it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.89:
Page 11, line 3, after ("scheme") insert (", apart from that constituted by section 19 below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.89 is intended to make it clear that the top-up scheme constituted under Clause 19 of the Bill is not one of the judicial pension schemes referred to in the clause. The provisions of the clause are not, of course, intended to prohibit any member of the new scheme from accruing rights under, or deriving pension benefit from, the Clause 19 top-up scheme, and the amendment seeks to make that clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.90 and 91:
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("those accrued rights") and insert (", in the case of a person to whom this Part applies, any such rights which he may have").
Page 11, line 21, after ("applies") insert (", or would, apart from section 13(8) (a) below, first apply,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.90 and 91 were spoken to with Amendment No.88. With your Lordships' leave I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Transfer of rights of persons holding qualifying judicial office before commencement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.92:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("made for the in") and insert ("under").
The noble and learned Lord said: moving Amendment No.92, I shall Amendment No.93. The amendments promote the flow of the language drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.93:
Page 11, line 40, after ("be") insert ("so").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.94:
Page 11, line 44, after ("scheme") insert ("constituted otherwise than by or under this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.94 is another purely clarificatory amendment to make plain that the expression "judicial pension scheme" is not referring to any judicial pension scheme established under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Election for personal pension instead of judicial pension]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.95:
Page 12, line 16, after ("applies") insert (", or to whom it would apply apart from this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.95, I shall speak also to Amendment No.96. Both amendments are drafting amendments. They again address the situation of persons who have elected under the new scheme, or under a previous judicial pension scheme, to make personal pension arrangements for themselves. Amendment No.95 makes plain that the clause applies not only to those to whom Part I of the Bill applies, but also to persons who have chosen their own personal pension. Amendment No.96 simply incorporates a cross-reference to the provision already included at Clause 1(4) which states that, so long as an election under Clause 13 remains in force in respect of a judicial officer, Part I of the Bill shall not apply to him. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.96:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("and, in accordance with section 1(4) above, where a person makes an election under this section, he shall not he regarded as a person to whom this Part applies at any time when the election is in force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.97:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.97, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.98,99 and 101. They are purely drafting amendments. Throughout subsections (8) and (9) reference is made to "the corresponding enactments". They are the provisions of the Acts and instruments concerning other judicial pension schemes (to which persons who may become eligible to enter into the new scheme currently belong) which enable a member of those schemes to opt out and make
1246
personal pension arrangements. Because some of those provisions are not contained in statute, the term "enactments" is inappropriate. The amendments replace it wherever it occurs in this clause with the more accurate term "provisions". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.98 and 99:
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("provision").
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.98 and 99 were spoken to with Amendment No.97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.100:
Page 13, line 24, after ("Tribunal") insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment to correct a typographical error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.101:
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No.97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Application of this Part to holders of the office of Lord Chancellor]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.102:
Page 13, line 46, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In determining the appropriate annual rate of a pension payable under section 2 above to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above who either—

(a) was holding the office of Lord Chancellor immediately before the appointed day, or

(b) first held that office on or after that day,

the length of his service in qualifying judicial office shall be treated as increased by the aggregate length of his periods of service in the office of Lord Chancellor (excluding any day of service in that office which is also a day of service in qualifying judicial office).
(3) Where a pension under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 is, or would, but for his death, have been, paid to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above (so that no derivative benefits are payable to or in respect of him under this Act) Part II of the 1981 Act shall continue to have effect with respect to the derivative benefits, within the meaning of that Part, which are payable to or in respect of him by virtue of his service in the office of Lord Chancellor, and shall do so notwithstanding anything in section 11 or 12 above.
(4) Except as provided by subsection (3) above, no pension or other benefit shall be paid under that Part of that Act to or in respect of a person to whom this Part applies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to correct and clarify the drafting of the clause, not to alter the policy. At present the holder of this office has the choice between taking a pension under the special provisions of the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act and, should he be appointed to a subsequent judicial office, the 1981 Act. Following implementation of this Bill, of course, the

1247
choice will be between the 1832 Act and the new scheme. Whereas at present a former Lord Chancellor who opted for a 1981 pension could aggregate his service in the office of Lord Chancellor with his other judicial service, the clause as drafted has inadvertently omitted to include provision for this under the new scheme. The amendment rectifies that error.
The new subsections (3) and (4) are intended to put beyond doubt the fact that a former Lord Chancellor will only be entitled to receive benefits under one or other pension scheme. Derivative benefits in respect of the 1832 scheme are governed by the 1981 Act and the Bill will not alter that arrangement.
As noble Lords will see, this provision affects the position of the Lord Chancellor, but it is intended to ensure no change to the present situation. I possibly have an interest in these matters notwithstanding that.
I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches have no intention of calling a Division on this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his great generosity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Circuit judges: the Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.103 to 108:
Page 14, line 5, after ("Subject") insert ("to sections 1(6) above and (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) below and").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("(a)").
Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("accordingly-").
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("accordingly").
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("Parts II and III") and insert ("section 7").
Page 14, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) service as a Circuit judge by virtue of holding either of those offices shall not be regarded as service in qualifying judicial office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to modify the clause so that, although the Bill will continue not to affect the present arrangement whereby the Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant are paid and pensioned by the City of London, the way is left open for those offices to be added to the list of qualifying judicial offices in Schedule 1 at some time in the future should it become necessary to do so. I also take the opportunity in these amendments to correct the reference to the City of London (Courts) Act 1964. The amendments also ensure that the holders of the City offices do not qualify for a pension under the new scheme in respect of their service in those offices by virtue of the fact that the Recorder and Common Serjeant are declared to be circuit judges under the provisions of the 1971 Courts Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary]:
[Amendment No.109 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.110:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales
(".—(1) This section applies in any case where—

(a) an order under section 1(6) above amends Schedule 1 to this Act by the addition of any office ("the office") to those for the time being specified in that Schedule; and

(b) immediately before the coming into force of the order, a local authority was under a liability to defray, whether in whole or in part, pensions or other benefits payable in respect of service in the office.

(2) Where this section applies, the appropriate Minister may by order made with the consent of the Treasury—

(a) provide for the local authority to be discharged, to such extent as may be prescribed, from the liability to pay pensions or other benefits in respect of such service in the office as may be prescribed; and

(b) require the local authority instead to make prescribed payments to the Treasury.

(3) In framing the provisions of an order under subsection (2) above, regard shall be had to the desirability of securing so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) that the payments required to be made by the local authority are such as to reimburse the Treasury in respect of so much of—

(i) any pension or lump sum payable under Part I above, or

(ii) any sums payable by way of pension or lump sum under section 19 above,

to or in respect of any person to whom Part I above applies as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to his service in the office; and
(b) that the local authority is discharged, to a corresponding extent, from the liability to pay any pension or other benefit to or in respect of such a person in respect of his service in the office.
(4) In this section—

"local authority" means any county council, district council, London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London;

"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under subsection (2) above

.
(5) Nothing in this section applies in relation to any pension or other benefits payable under or by virtue of section 10 above.
(6) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 29 below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No.161. This new clause is consequential upon the provision in Clause 1(6) that new offices may from time to time be added to the list of qualifying judicial and other offices in Schedule 1. This clause deals with the financial arrangements which will have to be made where an office is salaried and pensioned by a local authority before it comes within the new scheme. Where the local authority in question is still to pay the officer's salary, the new clause enables an order to be made holding the local authority liable for reimbursing the Consolidated Fund for that part of the officer's pension derived from the salary which will continue to be paid to them by the local authority. The Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant whom we were discussing a moment ago are offices for which this might be appropriate were they at some point to come within the new scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Transfer of accrued benefits]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.111:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert ("(other than any such transfer which falls to be made under section 12 above)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely makes it clear that the provisions of Schedule 2 deal only with the transfer of accrued rights to and from pension schemes other than judicial pension schemes. The transfer-in to the new scheme of accrued rights from the judicial pension schemes of persons who hold qualifying judicial office prior to the commencement of the Bill will of course be determined by regulations made under Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of accrued benefits]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.112 to 114:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert:
(""contracted-out scheme" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, Part IV of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; ")".
Page 27, line 26, at end insert:
(""guaranteed minimum pension" has the same meaning as in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; "member", in relation to a scheme, means a person to whom Part I of this Act applies or has applied; ").
Page 29, line 11, after ("the") insert ("Commissioners of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are purely drafting amendments. They introduce definitions of the terms "contracted-out scheme", "guaranteed minimum pension" and "member", all of which appear in Schedule 2, into the interpretation paragraph of the schedule and correct the references to the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I make this point with great diffidence because if it is a point to be made he would have made it so much better. Is it not the desire of this House, in approving legislation or being responsible for it, that as little reference back as possible has to be made by those who read the Bill? Therefore, is it possible, when talking of a definition, actually to give it unless it is too complicated or too long? It would then be unnecessary to say to the person reading the Act that, for example, "contracted-out scheme" means what it says by way of definition in,
"Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, Part IV of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; ").
It is not always easy for the practitioner and certainly not the layman to go back and find these orders and statutes in order to get a definition. I appreciate that if there is something very complex in a definition it is not the most simple way to refer to it in an Act by referring to it in terms. However, where there is no such complication—I do not think that there is in this case—is it not better parliamentary draftsmanship to give the actual definition in the Bill without forcing on the reader the research which is necessary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in general terms I would accept that. In the context that one has here, looking at the schedule it will be seen that it is intended
1250
to be read, because it is dealing with transfer-in values, against the background of other legislation. So in order to be familiar with the schedule and its operation, one has to have in mind the principal provisions of, for example, the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or, as regards Northern Ireland, the corresponding legislation. In that case the person already has ex hypothesi that in front of him or her so it is rather senseless to repeat the definition. It is a question of judgment. I accept the point in general, but in the particular circumstances of these amendments I would have thought that parliamentary counsel have chosen the right method although it would not be for me to pass judgment on that. I have to accept what he has done is what a skilful person would do.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Corresponding minor amendments to other pensions enactments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.115:
Page 33, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.116:
Page 17, line 16, at end insert:

("(f) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland;

(g) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;

(h) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No.121. The purpose of these amendments is to bring the three offices listed into the new pension scheme on the same terms as the equivalent offices in the rest of the United Kingdom. In doing so, I undertake to bring forward some further short technical amendments at Third Reading to deal with appeals on questions of pensions administration from these officers and other consequential matters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Pensions for senior public investigative officers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.117 and 118:
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("Part)") and insert ("Act)").
Page 40, line 27, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are drafting amendments the purpose of which is to make it clear that there is only one definition of the term "appropriate annual rate" used in the Bill and that this is the rate that shall apply to a Comptroller and Auditor General who elects to enter the new scheme. With your Lordships' leave, I shall put the amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.119 and 120:
Page 42, line 49, at end insert:

1251
( ) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect only in relation to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as substituted by Part II above; and accordingly in any case where—

(a) a person makes an election under paragraph 2(1) (a) of that Schedule for the old judicial scheme there mentioned, and

(b)the former enactments mentioned in paragraph 6 of that Schedule continue to apply by virtue of that paragraph,

the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above shall be disregarded in the continuing application of section 107 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in relation to those former enactments as they continue to have effect in relation to that person and that scheme.").
Page 43, line 20, at end insert:
( ) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect only in relation to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as substituted by Part II above; and accordingly in any case where—

(a) a person makes an election under paragraph 2(1) (a) of that Schedule for the old judicial scheme there mentioned, and

(b) the former enactments mentioned in paragraph 6 of that Schedule continue to apply by virtue of that paragraph,

the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above shall be disregarded in the continuing application of section 107 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in relation to those former enactments as they continue to have effect in relation to that person and that scheme.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, both are purely drafting amendments designed to preserve the position of health service commissioners appointed before the Bill comes into force. They relate to the numbering of paragraphs to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and ensure that, in relation to those officers who elect to continue under their present arrangements, the old paragraph numbering will subsist and not be affected by subsequent modifications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.121:
Page 43, line 20, at end insert:
("PART IV THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
5.—(1) The Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 shall he amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "the appointed day" after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "(except in Article 4A)".
(3) In paragraph (4) of Article 4 (pension of the Comptroller and Auditor General), after the words "Northern Ireland" (where they occur for the second time) there shall be inserted the words "unless he elects under Article 4A for it to be treated otherwise".
(4) After that Article there shall be inserted the following Article—"
Pension of Comptroller and Auditor General: supplementary
4A.—(1) This Article applies to a person—

(a) who first holds office on or after the appointed day as the Comptroller and Auditor General; and

(b) who, immediately before he first holds that office, is a member of a judicial pension scheme.

(2) A person to whom this Article applies shall be entitled to elect between—

(a) the scheme of pensions and other benefits under the judicial pension scheme mentioned in paragraph (1) (b) (his "former scheme");

1252

(b) (if different from his former scheme) the scheme of pensions and other benefits constituted by Part I of the 1992 Act ("the 1992 scheme"); and

(c) the scheme of pensions and other benefits applicable under the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to the civil service of Northern Ireland ("the civil service scheme");

and, if he fails to make an election under this paragraph, he shall be treated as if he had elected for the civil service scheme.

(3) Where a person elects under this Article for his former scheme, that scheme shall, subject to regulations under this Article, apply as if his service as Comptroller and Auditor General were service which was subject, in his case, to that scheme.

(4) A person who elects under paragraph (2) (b) for the 1992 scheme, shall be entitled, when he ceases to hold office as Comptroller and Auditor General, to a pension under Part I of the 1992 Act at the appropriate annual rate (within the meaning of that Act) if he has held that office for at least 5 years and either—

(a) he has attained the age of 65; or

(b) he is disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of the office;

and, subject to the following provisions of, and regulations under, this Article, the provisions of Part I of that Act (other than sections 1(1) to (3) and 2) and of section 19 of that Act (which provides benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) shall apply in relation to him and his service in the office of Comptroller and Auditor General as they apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of that Act applies.

(5) Subject to regulations under this Article, in the application of provisions of the 1992 Act by virtue of paragraph (4), a person who elects for the 1992 scheme shall be treated—

(a) as if the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General were a qualifying judicial office (within the meaning of that Act) by virtue of inclusion among the offices specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act;

(b) as if his election under this Article were an election such as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of section 1(l) of that Act (so that, in particular, section 12 of that Act, which provides for the transfer of accrued rights into the scheme, applies); and

(c) as if his pension by virtue of this Article were a pension under section 2 of that Act (and, accordingly, a judicial pension, within the meaning of that Act);

and, in the application of that Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General (whether by virtue of paragraph (2) (a) or (b)) the references to the appropriate Minister in sections 5(5) (c) (rate of deceased's pension where he died before it became payable) and 13 (election for personal pension) of that Act shall be taken as references to the Treasury.

(6) Where a person elects under this Article for the civil service scheme, Article 4(4) shall apply in relation to his service as Comptroller and Auditor General.

(7) Any power to make an election under this Article shall be exercisable within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations under this Article.

(8) The Treasury may make regulations for purposes supplementary to the other provisions of this Article.

(9) Any such regulations may, without prejudice to section 38 of the Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 or section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (employment in more than one public office), make special provision with respect to the pensions and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person to whom—

(a)his former scheme,

(b)the 1992 scheme, or

(c)the civil service scheme,

applies, or has applied, in respect of any service other than service as Comptroller and Auditor General.

1253

(10) The provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (9) includes provision—

(a) for aggregating—

(i) other service falling within his former scheme or the 1992 scheme with service as Comptroller and Auditor General, or

(ii) service as Comptroller and Auditor General with such other service,

for the purpose of determining qualification for, or entitlement to, or the amount of, benefit under the scheme in question;

(b) for increasing the amount of the benefit payable under either of the schemes mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) (i), in the case of a person to whom that scheme applied in respect of an office held by him before appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General, up to the amount that would have been payable under that scheme if he had retired from that office on the ground of permanent infirmity immediately before his appointment.

(11) Regulations made under this Article shall be subject to annulment in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

(12) Any pension or other benefit granted by virtue of this Article (except a pension or other benefit under the civil service scheme) shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

(13) In this Article—

"the 1992 Act" means the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992;

"the appointed day" means the day on which Part IV of Schedule 4 to the 1992 Act comes into force;

"judicial pension scheme" means any public service pension scheme, as defined in—

(a) section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, or

(b) Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975,

under which pensions and other benefits are payable in respect of service in one or more qualifying judicial offices, within the meaning of the 1992 Act, but does not include the civil service scheme."

PART V
THE NORTHERN IRELAND PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS
6.—(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 2 (power to determine the pension and other benefits payable to person who has held office as Commissioner) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B))".

(3) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—"

(4A) Subsection (3) shall not apply in relation to pension and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person who first holds the office of Commissioner on or after the day appointed for the coming into force of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992.
(4B) The provisions of Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the pensions and other benefits to be paid to or in respect of persons who have held office as Commissioner."

(4) In subsection (5) of that section, at the end there shall be added the words "or by virtue of Schedule 1A".

(5) In subsection (6) of that section, at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Except insofar as Schedule IA otherwise provides".

1254

(6) Immediately before Schedule 1 there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 1A PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS
Persons taking office after the appointed day
1. A person who first holds office as the Commissioner on or after the appointed day shall be entitled, if he was a member of a judicial pension scheme immediately before he first holds that office, to elect between—

(a) the scheme of pensions and other benefits under that judicial pension scheme (his "former scheme");

(b) (if different from his former scheme) the scheme of pensions and other benefits constituted by Part I of the 1992 Act ("the 1992 scheme"); and

(c) the scheme of pensions and other benefits applicable under Article 3 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to the civil service of Northern Ireland ("the civil service scheme");

and, if he is not entitled to make an election under this paragraph, or if he is so entitled but fails to make such an election, he shall be treated as if he had been so entitled and had elected for the civil service scheme.
Transitional provision for persons appointed before the appointed day
2. If a person who held the office of Commissioner before the appointed day has made an election under the former enactment for the old judicial scheme, he shall be entitled to make an election under this sub-paragraph between—

(a) the old judicial scheme; and

(b) the 1992 scheme;

and, if he fails to make an election under this sub-paragraph, he shall be taken to have elected for the old judicial scheme.
Effect of election to continue in farmer scheme
3. Where a person elects under this Schedule for his former scheme, that scheme shall, subject to regulations under this Schedule, apply as if his service as Commissioner were service which was subject, in his case, to that scheme.
Effect of election for the 1992 scheme
4.— (1) A person who elects under paragraph 1(b) or 2(b) for the 1992 scheme, shall be entitled, when he ceases to hold office as Commissioner, to a pension under Part I of the 1992 Act at the appropriate annual rate (within the meaning of that Act) if he has held that office for at least 5 years and either—

(a) he has attained the age of 65; or

(b) he is disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of the office;

and, subject to the following provisions of, and regulations under, this Schedule, the provisions of Part I of that Act (other than sections 1(1) to (3) and 2) and of section 19 of that Act (which provides benefits in respect of eatninigs in excess of pension-capped salary) shall apply in relation to him and his service in the office of Commissioner as they apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of that Act applies.
(2) Subject to regulations under this Schedule, in the application of provisions of the 1992 Act by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), a person who elects for the 1992 scheme shall be treated—

(a) as if the office of Commissioner were a qualifying judicial office (within the meaning of that Act) by virtue of inclusion among the offices specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act;

(b) as if his election under this Schedule were an election such as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of section 1(1) of that Act (so that, in particular, section 12 of that Act, which provides for the transfer of accrued rights into the scheme, applies); and

1255

(c) as if his pension by virtue of this Schedule were a pension under section 2 of that Act (and, accordingly, a judicial pension, within the meaning of that Act);

and, in the application of that Act to the Commissioner (whether by virtue of paragraph 1(a) or (b) or 2(b)) the references to the appropriate Minister in sections 5(5) (c) (rate of deceased's pension where he died before it became payable) and 13 (election for personal pension) of that Act shall he taken as references to the Treasury.
Effect of election for, or to continue in, the civil service scheme
(5) Where a person elects under this Schedule for the civil service scheme, the principal civil service pension scheme within the meaning of Article 4 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and for the time being in force shall apply as if his service as Commissioner were service in employment in the civil service of Northern Ireland.
Effect of election to continue in the old judicial scheme
(6) Where a person elects under this Schedule for the old judicial scheme, that scheme and the former enactment shall continue to have effect in relation to him and his service in the office of Commissioner.
Time for, and manner of, election
(7) Any power to make an election under this Schedule shall he exercisable within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations under this Schedule.
Regulations
8.— (1) The Treasury may make regulations for purposes supplementary to the other provisions of this Schedule.

(2) Any such regulations may, without prejudice to section 38 of the Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 or section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (employment in more than one public office), make special provision with respect to the pensions and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person to whom—

(a) his former scheme,

(b) the 1992 scheme,

(c) the civil service scheme, or

(d) the old judicial scheme,

applies, or has applied, in respect of any service other than service as Commissioner.

(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) includes provision—

(a) for aggregating—

(i) other service falling within his former scheme, the 1992 scheme or the old judicial scheme with service as Commissioner, or

(ii) service as Commissioner with such other service,

for the purpose of determining qualification for, or entitlement to, or the amount of, benefit under the scheme in question;

(b) for increasing the amount of the benefit payable under any of the schemes mentioned in paragraph (a) (i), in the case of a person to whom that scheme applied in respect of an office held by him before appointment as Commissioner, up to the amount that would have been payable under that scheme if he had retired from that office on the ground of permanent infirmity immediately before his appointment.

(4) Regulations made under this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

Pensions and benefits to be charged on the Consolidated Fund
9. Any pension or other benefit granted by virtue of this Schedule (except a pension or other benefit under
1256
the civil service scheme or the old judicial scheme) shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Interpretation
10. In this Schedule—

"the 1992 Act" means the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992;

"the appointed day" means the day on which Part V of Schedule 4 to the 1992 Act comes into force;

"the former enactment" means the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints (Pension) Order (Northern Ireland) 1973 as it had effect from time to time before the appointed day;

"judicial pension scheme" means any public service pension scheme, as defined in—

(a) section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, or

(b) Article 2(2) of the Social Security
Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975,

under which pensions and other benefits are payable in respect of service in one or more qualifying judicial offices, within the meaning of the 1992 Act, but does not include the civil service scheme;

"the old judicial scheme" means the scheme of pensions and other benefits set out in Part II of the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints (Pension) Order (Northern Ireland) 1973."

7.— (1) The Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (2) of section 2 (remuneration), at the end there shall be added the words "or payable by virtue of Schedule 1A".

(3) In subsection (3) of that section, at the beginning there shall be inserted "Except insofar as Schedule 1 A otherwise provides".

(4) After that subsection there shall be added—

"(4) The provisions of Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the pensions and other benefits to be paid to or in respect of persons who have held office as Commissioner."
(5) After subsection (1) of section 13 (power to make provision by order) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to pension and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person who first holds the office of Commissioner on or after the day appointed for the coming into force of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."
(6) Immediately before Schedule 1 there shall be inserted as Schedule 1A the Schedule set out in paragraph 6(6) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.116. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Retirement date for holders of certain judicial offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.122:
Page 17, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person holding any of the offices for the time being specified in Schedule 5 to this Act (a "relevant office") shall vacate that office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 or such lower age as may for the time being be specified for the purpose in the enactments and instruments relating to that office, whenever passed or made.

1257

(1A) Any reference in this section to a person's holding an office includes a reference to his being a member of, or otherwise included in, any panel or list of persons appointed, nominated, approved or otherwise selected to serve from time to time in that office (whether or not the panel or list is required by or under any enactment); and any reference in this section or Schedule 5 to this Act to any particular office or to an office of any class or description, or to a person's appointment to, or vacation of, an office, shall be construed accordingly.

(1B) Subject to the transitional provision referred to in subsection (8A) below, subsection (1) above applies whether the person was appointed to the office before or after the coming into force of this section; but nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by it, shall be taken—

(a) to preclude a person from vacating his office before the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case; or

(b) to prevent a person's appointment to an office coming to an end before that date, in accordance with the terms on which he was appointed.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this amendment, I should explain that this is part of a series of amendments which serve to restructure the provisions of the Bill relating to the new retirement age. At present, transitional provisions are included in Clauses 25,26 and 27. On looking at these provisions, it was decided that it would be a considerable improvement to the uses of the Bill if the transitional provisions were taken out of the individual clauses and put into a new transitional schedule. That is what we have sought to do. I shall speak to the new schedule later. As a result Clauses 26 and 27 have been discarded and the substantive provisions are now confined to Clause 25 and to the new clauses to which I shall refer in due course. There are few changes of substance, but I hope that this restructuring will help to make the Bill easier to follow. I hope that your Lordships have found the Note for Peers, distributed in advance of today, a helpful pointer to these changes.
This particular amendment serves two purposes. The first is to clarify and improve the drafting of Clause 25(1). The substance of subsection (I) is now split more conveniently into two separate subsections. Subsection (1) states the general proposition that a holder of a relevant office must retire at 70. Subsection (1B) provides that this does not prevent earlier retirement or termination of appointment in accordance with the terms of appointment.
The new subsection (1A) is a further refinement. In a number of instances—for example, that of deputy High Court judges—appointment is made not directly to the office in question but to a list or panel. Then, when there is need, a person from that panel is selected to serve. In the case of a deputy High Court judge, I settle the terms with the panel and the judge in charge of the day-to-day operation of the courts selects a person from that panel to serve on a particular case. However, except when he is so sitting, that person cannot be said to be holding a relevant office. This amendment therefore makes clear that the new retiring age nevertheless applies to those appointed to a panel. Through its application to the transitional schedule, it also enables those on the panel at the date of commencement to have the benefit of the preserved retirement age. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this may be a most ignorant query, but when reading the amendment on its own I wondered whether the first three lines, which talk in terms of the automatic vacation of the office on the day on which the age of 70 applies, will cover the situation which we know applies in other parts of the Bill whereby anybody sitting on the very day on which he obtains the age of 70 is obviously allowed to continue and to finish the case on which he is engaged. As I have said, I may have missed something, but I am wondering why this clause does not contain a reference to "subject to the provisions or' whatever the other clause may be.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have christened the new provision a "Magnus Magnusson" provision for obvious reasons. I believe that it will be effective in covering cases of this kind as well as those cases which might more naturally fall under it. Since the noble Lord has raised this question, I shall check it in a quieter moment, but that is certainly what I understand the position to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.123:
Page 17, line 36, at end insert ("except—

(a) Lord of Appeal in Ordinary;

(b) judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, other than Circuit judge;

(c) Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Justice Clerk or other judge of the Court of Session;

(d) Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or Lord Justice of Appeal, or judge of the High Court. in Northern Ireland.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when we debated the retirement provisions of this Bill in Committee my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and others raised the question of the propriety of having a continuation power in respect of the judiciary, and especially the judiciary of the High Court typically in England and Wales—I am taking that for illustrative purposes—because of the judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court.
Your Lordships will also remember that at that stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice was of the view that it would be right to have this power subject to consultation with appropriate members of the judiciary. I was disposed to accept that suggestion from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and, in fact, we put into action the drafting to take account of that.
The resulting amendment proved to be quite complicated because of the desire to select an appropriate person or persons for consultation. However, since then, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has been to see me about this and other matters, along with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Benson. At that time, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner placed particular emphasis not only on the possibility of a judge being affected by the possible exercise or non-exercise of this power by the Lord Chancellor, but also on the perception that people

1259
might have. Seeing him or her operating, they might well be prepared to think that his or her judgment would be influenced by these provisions.
I believe 1 am right in saying that the point about perception had new force for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and he felt inclined at that stage to think that we might be wiser to proceed without the power of continuation at that level. Having considered the matter carefully, and taking account of the fact that this will not operate effectively for quite some time, I thought it right to give effect to that point of view.
We have powers of continuation in a number of other situations. Circuit judges have been subject to this power for some time without any objection that I know of. I would hope that I shall have to exercise it more and more sparingly. I exercised the power some time back when it was difficult to get circuit judges. The position has eased and I am not now required to exercise it generally in respect of circuit judges. The real objection is in respect of judges of the High Court and above in connection with judicial review. Therefore, I have excepted judges of the High Court and above in England and Wales, judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and judges of the High Court and above in Northern Ireland from any power of extension vested in the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No.123 and Amendments Nos.143 and 144 have that effect.
In the light of the discussions we have had I believe that this is an improvement to the Bill. It saves the power where it might be of some use but would not cause damage and removes it altogether in cases where it might cause damage—to perceptions would be the main emphasis. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may express my considerable gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having accepted in substance what I and now the Lord Chief Justice put forward very firmly. I have found some comfort—perhaps he will find some comfort too in the views which we expressed and which he has now adopted—in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Despatch of Business at Common Law 1934– 36, Cmnd.5065, under the chairmanship of Earl Peel. In paragraph 283 the report makes this observation:
"A discretionary power to extend a judge's tenure of office for a limited period—not exceeding, say, three years—would be of undeniable value in cases where it is desirable in the public interest to retain his services. But our witnesses"—
there were many judges—
"were strongly of opinion that, if a limit there is to be, it should be rigid: and since a conditional extension of office might conceivably be thought to endanger, in however small a degree, the independence of the judges, it is perhaps better on the whole that the retiring age should be inflexibly applied".
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth, put in a separate note because he did not agree with the retirement age. But he said this:
"The time limit—if any—for the age of High Court judges should be an absolute one and fixed, in my judgment, at 75. Any discretion, whether exercised by the Lord Chancellor or a Committee, would be invidious and difficult to carry into effect".
It may be of some comfort to my noble and learned friend's department to know that Sir Claud Schuster,
1260
who I believe was one of the most distinguished Permanent Secretaries, also put in a note which, in so far as it is relevant, says this:
"I concur fully with them"
those are the reasons for fixing the age at 72
"that if there is to be a retiring age it should be fixed and not in the discretion of any person or body".
I thought that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor might wish to see that there is some support, going back some years, for the propositions which we put forward.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the concession which he has made. Nothing I say is intended to derogate from it or to suggest that the consultations with my noble and learned friends the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Ackner have not been very fruitful.
I want to suggest that there may be a little danger here of throwing out a very small baby with this bath water. I appreciate the general structure of the new clause. It retains the power in relation to circuit judges where it is useful in practice but abandons it in relation to judges of the higher courts. I just wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would like to think a little more about the situation of High Court judges, and I refer not to judges of the Court of Appeal or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
There may well be cases where a particular judge—a commercial judge or a patents judge—is expert in a subject and yet his place cannot be filled for some time. The obvious successor may be busy on something else or may not be willing to accept the post for some time. I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there is not a case for enabling him, after consultation no doubt with the head of the division—any constitutional safeguard that may be thought fit—to extend the office of that judge in those circumstances.
I appreciate two points. First, I entirely understand that it would be possible to call that judge back after retirement to enable him to continue with his work. That would not be quite the same thing, because he would then be sitting as a retired judge, with a different title and a different status. That would not be the same or quite as good as enabling him for, say, one year to continue as a High Court judge, a judge of the Court of Session or of the High Court in Northern Ireland while the place was not capable of being filled.
As regards the citations by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner from the Peel Committee, those have very great force. But I would understand them rather as dealing with the possible situation that the Lord Chancellor might think fit to extend Judge X because he was so good, so lively and so possessed of his powers on a personal basis beyond the age of retirement. The case for not doing that is extremely strong and was probably the case with which both the committee and Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, were dealing. They might not have applied the same argument to the case which I envisage of a specialist judge required to fill a specialist place for a particular time. The commercial court is the strongest case but there may be others. It is difficult sometimes to find exactly the right man at the right time to fill

1261
those important and specialist posts. That should be met, if it can be done, by enabling someone to remain there for one period only—there would be no renewal from year to year—until a successor can be found.
I am entirely willing to accept the amendments on the Marshalled List but I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would not think fit, after consultation, to consider the case I have put and possibly confer a power to continue a judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. The power is useful in the case of circuit judges. It is exercised sometimes. On the face of it, it seems a little odd that a circuit judge can continue but not a High Court judge. There are constitutional arguments on one side and the arguments which I have ventured to put on the other. I simply invite, with the utmost respect, the noble and learned Lord to consider my point before the next stage of the Bill or before it goes to another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House always listens with the utmost respect to any contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, but I must say that I was very content with the judgment which appears to have been exercised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor after the consultations and meetings which have taken place with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Once one starts making an exception one is on very, very dangerous ground. I merely cite as an example a judge who until just before he reaches that age is a specialist and no other specialist is immediately available. Once one creates a precedent by exercising this power one has to be extremely offensive, if nothing else, to the judge in that position if it so happens that he is not at the retiring age very suitable for an extension. I make the mere point that once one starts making an inroad into this rigid rule one walks into very dangerous areas.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene only because I agree so strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said. When this provision appeared in the Bill it caused the most extraordinary consternation. What it did was to upset the separation of powers which is at the basis of the British constitution—the judiciary, entrenched in its independence, its salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund and not from Votes of Parliament or, as was the case at one time, through grants by the Government. That this independence should be impaired by the Lord Chancellor being given the right to continue a particular judge in office, thereby rewarding him by increasing his right to earn his pension, the pensionable period now being increased to 20 years, was a dangerous proposition.
Moreover, it could not be judged without recollection of a very unfortunate episode which culminated in a scene in your Lordships' House in the 1930s. That was caused by the Lord Chancellor's Department attempting to alter the rules of seniority in the Court of Appeal. At that time there were only two divisions in the Court of Appeal of which the
1262
second, the Common Law Division, was presided over by the senior common law judge. That was proposed to be altered at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The object was to prevent Lord Justice Slesser from presiding over the Court of Appeal division. In itself, that was perfectly comprehensible because Lord Justice Slesser should never have been in the Court of Appeal at all; he was merely appointed to get him out of the way—he having previously been a law officer—so that some very distinguished parliamentary lawyers, including Sir William Jowett and, at one removed, Sir Stafford Cripps, could be appointed law officers.
Lord Justice Slesser went in great distress to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, knowing that the latter was on notoriously bad terms with the then Clerk of the Crown in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Lord Hewart came down to your Lordships' House and made a protest. There was a clash between him and the Lord Chancellor. Such naked intervention by the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Cabinet, in the independence of the judiciary, was not to be endured. That is the first thing that one recollected.
The second thing, I am sorry to say, is the Green Papers which preceded the Courts and Legal Services Bill. They were considerably modified after trenchant criticism of their unconstitutionality by my noble and learned friend Lord Lane. So there are already dangers which ought to have stopped the insertion of this provision. In addition, there was what was said by the Peel Commission. In view of those three matters, how was it that this unconstitutional provision ever appeared in the Bill? How was it that the damascene flash of constitutional light only descended on my noble and learned friend last week? The matter was raised with vigour both on Second Reading and in Committee.
I make these remarks only with reference to the proposition of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. If there is to be a very limited power—and it would require careful delimitation—to increase the term of office before retirement of a High Court judge, it should be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice and not by the Lord Chancellor.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that it is necessary for me to go into the detail of what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has just said. However, I hope that the appropriate change to make here is the one that has been proposed. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce raised a particular question. I should point out that it was consideration of that sort of possibility at different levels—that is, not just at the High Court level—that originally caused me to consider that this might be a power worth having, but, of course, properly safeguarded.
After consideration, including hearing the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, I have concluded that the exception would not be necessary. We have now sought to extend the number of specialist judges in the High Court. There is still one

1263
very specialist jurisdiction and one has to be careful to make provision for it. But, so far as concerns the patent jurisdiction, we now have, for example, a number of judges nominated for the patents court. I believe that that is a good change in its own right. For one thing it makes it more likely that people who go to the Court of Appeal will have some knowledge of the specialist areas, as well as being generalist. Therefore, the chance of precisely the situation that my noble and learned friend has figured arising is considerably lessened.
The other consideration that I have is that if there was any very specialist person in view, the absence of any power to except him or her would, I believe, concentrate the mind considerably in advance on trying to see who should be ready to replace that specialist. My main point is that, nowadays, the narrowness of specialist numbers has been somewhat alleviated. Therefore, the situation is not likely to arise in quite the critical way that my noble and learned friend suggested. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to him for raising the matter. I shall reconsider it in the light of what he said. I am also comforted by the fact that he made the proposal. It encourages me to think that one very distinguished judicial mind felt that this was a type of power that might, in some circumstances, be quite properly inserted in our legislation.
Subject to my undertaking to reconsider what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, I renew my request that your Lordships should agree to Amendment No.123.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.124:
Page 17, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will be apparent from what 1 have already observed that this amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No.124 not moved.]
Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.125:
Page 18, line 1 leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for similar reasons I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No.125 not moved.]
[Amendment No.126 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.127:
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment removes an unnecessary word. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No.127A:
Page 18, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
("(b) be a member of an Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or, as a Lord of Appeal, take part in a judicial sitting of the House of Lords, unless (in either case) he is the Lord Chancellor; ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest amendment which I moved substantially in
1264
Committee merely because sub-paragraph (b) appears to be defective and does not achieve what it is meant to achieve. No doubt for that very reason my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington was prepared to move its deletion. I should have been happy if it had been deleted.
I need not repeat the arguments. I am sure that they are fully in the mind of my noble and learned friend. The sub-paragraph does not do what it means to do; that is to say, disqualify persons over the age of 75 from sitting as judges of appeal. It only prevents them from being counted towards the quorum of three which that section of the Act requires. I was minded to approach this matter head on—to go for the jugular—instead of going around in a circle, and to provide directly, as the amendment does, that one should not be eligible to sit as a Lord of Appeal in the House of Lords after attaining the age of 75. It was pointed out in Committee that there were two objections to my amendment as then drafted. The first was that it did not cover the possibility that an appeal might be heard in the Chamber instead of upstairs.
As your Lordships know, appeals may be heard in the Chamber in three circumstances: after dissolution; during prorogation; or just because the House is not sitting in its legislative capacity and it is thought fit to have hearings in the Chamber. I have amended the clause to deal with that position.
Your Lordships may wonder whether the words,
"take part in a judicial sitting",
are sufficiently legal. I have checked that against the official Minutes of the House when it does sit in the Chamber and the Minutes record the House as then having a judicial sitting, so the words have at least an official imprimatur. I hope that those words cover the objection made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge that I did not cover such cases. I also deal tentatively with the case of the Lord Chancellor. I hardly presume to deal with his case because he would be much the better person to deal with it himself. Having preserved the Lord Chancellor's position 100 per cent., I feel that I have done my duty. If he feels that the amendment goes too far, my noble and learned friend will no doubt say so.
I commend the amendment to the House. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept it. It is merely a helpful suggestion designed to make the sub-paragraph more effective. It has no effect on judicial pensions, the retirement age or otherwise, and it is totally uncontroversial. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his consideration of the point. I too have been considering it. We have come to the conclusion—I hope to propose an amendment on Third Reading—that the best way to deal with the point is to provide that no one over 75 (other than the serving Lord Chancellor) is eligible to hear any appeal (or petition for leave to appeal) to the House of Lords.
My noble and learned friend's proposal covers most of those matters, but it leaves open the possibility of dealing with a petition for leave to appeal, if that were heard by the Appellate Committee. Having

1265
considered the matter, the way I am now advised it should be dealt with may be slightly simpler than the route taken by my noble and learned friend.
That said, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has proposed. If he is willing to allow me to propose my amendment on Third Reading, I shall be grateful. I should be pleased to know whether that course is acceptable to him.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. The course that he suggests is entirely appropriate. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I dealt in Committee with leave to appeal to the Appellate Committee. I did not feel it necessary to include that case because, in practice, those over the age of 75 are never asked to sit on Appeals Committees. Of course there are no statutory provisions with regard to them. If my noble and learned friend sees fit to add them, I should have no objection. I am content to leave the matter to him. I am content to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move Amendment No.142A which goes with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.128:
Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("1978") to end of line 25.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It simply removes a reference to the prohibition of a person over the age of 75 holding office as a deputy judge in Northern Ireland. The amendment raises no point of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.129:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert:

("(f) act as a deputy, or as a temporary additional officer, under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 by virtue of subsection (3) of that section (persons who would otherwise be disqualified by age);

(g) hold office as a deputy district judge in any district registry under subsection (1) of section 102 of that Act by virtue of subsection (3) of that section (persons who would otherwise be disqualified by age) or, in the case of a person who has previously held the office of district judge for a county court district, as a deputy district judge under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984;

(h) hold any office—

(i) to which appointments are made by or under any Act or statutory instrument;

(ii) for which there would, apart from this paragraph, be no compulsory retirement date; and

(iii) for appointment to which only persons who have held relevant office are eligible; ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 25(5) as drafted cites a number of statutory provisions under which persons who have retired from full-time office may sit on a part-time basis and introduces an age limit of 75 for that purpose. The amendment adds three further such statutory provisions to the scope of Clause 25(5).
In addition, sub-paragraph (f) provides that Clause 25(5) shall apply also in respect of persons sitting
1266
under any other provision of a similar kind otherwise not specifically referred to in the clause. That is intended to catch anything we may not have so far lighted upon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.130:
Page 18, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) After the day on which a person attains the age of 70, he shall not be appointed or re-appointed as—

(a) one of the additional members, referred to in subsection (5) of section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, of the appeal tribunal established under that section;

(b) the person, or one of the persons, constituting a tribunal for the purposes of section 150(3) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, or as an assessor assisting such a tribunal;

(c) an assessor assisting with an inquiry under section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970;

(d) chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland constituted under regulation 7 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979;

(e) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986;

(f) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 28 of the Banking Act 1987;

(g) an arbitrator, or (in Scotland) an arbiter, under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989;

(h) chairman of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992;

(i) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides a further aspect to the ever-expanding Clause 25. It deals with what may be termed "one-off" appointments. There are a few tribunals to which people are appointed, not to hold office for a term, but merely to deal with a particular case. That is because the tribunal itself is only constituted to hear specific appeals. It happens with the additional members I appoint to the tribunal established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.
In view of the fact that those people are not appointed for a term but only for specific purposes, on reflection we felt that it was not appropriate for them to be subject to the statutory retiring age. Instead, we have included this provision which prevents appointment or re-appointment to any one of the offices beyond the age of 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.131:
Page 18, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No.131 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.139 and 146. Amendment No.131 deletes Clause 25(6) and paves the way for the new clause provided by Amendment No.139. This is what my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson described during the debate in Committee as a "Magnus Magnusson provision".
Your Lordships will recall that Clause 25(6) referred to existing statutory provisions under which those who have otherwise ceased to hold certain posts may nevertheless continue to act in order to complete unfinished business. The posts so covered by the existing provisions are a fairly haphazard collection and I mentioned in Committee that I was

1267
contemplating a more general provision. Having considered the points made on that occasion, I have indeed decided to bring forward the new clause which provides that anyone who has otherwise ceased to hold office otherwise than by virtue of his removal may continue to act to complete unfinished business. The offices to which this will apply are listed in subsection (3) of the new clause, and subsection (2) provides for the remuneration of those acting in that way.
On further reflection, I have also decided that for this limited purpose there should be no age limit, so that the limit of 75 in the earlier Clause 25(6) will no longer be applicable. I hope that this new clause will help to meet the concerns that were expressed on the earlier occasion and provide appropriate flexibility in relation to the limited circumstances with which it deals. Amendment No.139 simply amends Section 9(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, consequentially upon the new clause and the repeal of Section 9(7) of that Act.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.132 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.133 and 134:
Page 18, line 42, leave out ("either Part of")
Page 18, line 44, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Schedule")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos.133 and 134 together with Amendment No.142 is to correct and simplify Schedule 5. The schedule provides a list of those offices to which the new statutory retiring age of 70 years will apply. Originally it also served a transitional purpose; namely, to enable those holding full-time appointments only prior to this Bill to carry their preserved retirement ages to a new post. To that end the schedule was divided into two parts covering full and part-time offices. As I will be bringing forward a new schedule covering all transitional arrangements, the need for the two separate parts to Schedule 5 has gone, and I propose to replace it with a simple list of all the relevant offices regardless of whether they are full or part-time.
Most of the substance of the schedule is still the same but your Lordships will notice some slight variations. Upon further scrutiny it was discovered that Schedule 5 contained a few offices that should not be there, for example the office of part-time district judge. We have corrected that schedule. Likewise I have not thought it appropriate to include offices where I do not make the appointment myself such as non-legal members of the Foreign Compensation Commission or where people are appointed for very short periods, like the three-month terms of acting stipendiary magistrates or on an ad hoc basis like the Electricity Arbitrator. I have also removed the reference to the vice president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal as this is not a statutory office.
I do not propose to take noble Lords through all the changes. I have merely indicated changes occasioned by the kind of considerations that I have mentioned. I beg to move Amendments Nos.133 and 134 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.135 to 138:
Page 18, line 47, at end insert ("; but those amendments are subject to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement) below and Schedule (Retirement dates: transitional provisions) to this Act.
(8A) Schedule (Retirement dates: transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision in relation to persons holding relevant offices immediately before the appointed day; and—

(a) subsections (1) and (18) above are subject to the provisions of that Schedule; and

(b) any reference in this section to the compulsory retirement date for an office shall he construed in accordance with those provisions.").

Page 19. line I, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Page 19, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Page 19, leave out lines 34 to 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the new transitional provisions will be provided by Amendment No.160. The amendments I have moved, and also Amendments Nos.140 and 141, delete transitional provisions previously contained in Clauses 25,26 and 27 now reproduced in the new schedule. The transitional schedule provides that office-holders already serving at the date of commencement will retain their pre-existing retirement dates. Paragraph I contains definitions and provisions governing the interpretation of the schedule. I need not go into all the detail of that transitional arrangement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.139:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Completion of proceedings after retirement
(".—(1) Notwithstanding that a person has vacated or otherwise ceased to hold an office to which this section applies—

(a) he may act as if he had not ceased to hold the office for the purpose of continuing to deal with, giving judgment in, or dealing with any ancillary matter relating to, any case begun before him before he ceased to hold that office; and

(b) for that purpose, and for the purpose of any proceedings arising out of any such case or matter, he shall be treated as being or, as the case may be, as having been a holder of that office;

but nothing in this subsection shall authorise him to do anything if he ceased to hold the office by virtue of his removal from it.
(2) Where a person has vacated or otherwise ceased to hold a qualifying judicial office but the office in question is one to which this section applies, then, notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, any remuneration that may be paid in respect of service of his in that office by virtue of that subsection shall be remuneration by payment of fees (and not a salary) and accordingly that service shall not be regarded as service in qualifying judicial office.
(3) The offices to which this section applies are—

(a) any relevant office, within the meaning of section 25 above;

(b) any office falling within any of the paragraphs of subsection (5) of that section;

(c) (Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals;

(d) Vice Judge Advocate General;

(e) Assistant Judge Advocate General;

(f) Deputy Judge Advocate;

(g) Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "potential retirement date" and "pre-commencement office" in section 25]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.140:
Leave out Clause 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Recorders and certain other periodical appointments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.141:
Leave out Clause 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Retirement provisions: the relevant offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.142:
Leave out Schedule 5 and insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE RETIREMENT PROVISIONS: THE RELEVANT OFFICES

Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

Judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, other than the Lord Chancellor

Deputy judge of the High Court

Lord President of the Court of Session

Lord Justice Clerk

Judge of the Court of Session

Temporary Judge of the Court of Session

Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland

Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Circuit judge

Sheriff principal or sheriff in Scotland

Temporary sheriff principal or temporary sheriff in Scotland

County Court judge in Northern Ireland

Deputy County Court judge in Northern Ireland

Master, Queen's Bench Division

Deputy or temporary Master, Queen's Bench Division, appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Admiralty Registrar

Deputy or temporary Admiralty Registrar appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Master, Chancery Division

Deputy or temporary Master, Chancery Division, appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court

Deputy or temporary Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Taxing Master of the Supreme Court

Deputy or temporary Taxing Master of the Supreme Court appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

District judge of the principal registry of the Family Division

Deputy or temporary district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section.

Registrar of Civil Appeals

Deputy or temporary Registrar of Civil Appeals appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

1270

Master of the Court of Protection

Deputy or temporary Master of the Court of Protection appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

District judge (whether appointed under section 100 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984)

Deputy district judge appointed under section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a district registry

Deputy district judge appointed under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a county court district

Recorder

Assistant Recorder

Any appointment under section 70 or 75(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to an office from time to time specified in column 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act (statutory office) or any appointment under section 74 of that Act to act in any such office

Stipendiary magistrate in England and Wales

Resident Magistrate appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964

Deputy Resident Magistrate appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner (including appointments in pursurance of section 52(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992)

Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (including appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (including appointments in pursuance of section 50(2) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992)

Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (including appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991 as that paragraph has effect by virtue of paragraph 8 of that Schedule).

President of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals.

President of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals.

Chairman of child support appeal tribunals.

Chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of child support appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of vaccine damage tribunals.

Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission.

Commons Commissioner.

President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) President of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland).

President or Vice-President of Industrial Tribunals and of the Fair Employment Tribunal (Northern Ireland).

Chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

Chairman of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

1271

Chairman of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed under section 3(1)(c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

Member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 135(2)(c) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

President of other member of the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

Judge Advocate General

Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet

president of Value Added Tax Tribunals.

Chairman of value added tax tribunals

Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970

Deputy Special Commissioner appointed under section 4A of the Taxes Management Act 1970

President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Immigration adjudicator

President or other member of Pensions Appeal Tribunals

Chairman or other member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal constituted under the Mental Health Act 1983

Member of the Financial Services Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor

Chairman of a tribunal constituted for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Chairman of an advisory body constituted for the purposes of section 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Appointed member of the Restrictive Practices Court, within the meaning of section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976

Chairman or other member of the tribunal constituted by section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Arbitrator appointed under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 11 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Chairman, deputy-chairman or other member of an Agricultural Land Tribunal (other than an assessor added to the Tribunal under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947)

President of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal

Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963

Chairman or deputy chairman of the Copyright Tribunal

Chairman or deputy chairman of the Data Protection Tribunal

Chairman of an Independent Schools Tribunal

President of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975

Chairman of the tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977

Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal constituted under the Registered Homes Act 1984

Chairman or other member of Rent Assessment Committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977

President or chairman of the Transport Tribunal

President of the tribunal established under section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949

Wreck commissioner appointed under section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970

Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee constituted under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.138. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid I am utterly lost with the grouping as explained by the noble and learned Lord as it differs entirely from that on the groupings list. I do not know why that should be so. I hope that my noble and learned friend will kindly indicate which amendment he will call next.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall call Amendment No.142A next.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Retirement dates for certain judicial offices]:
[Amendment No.142A not moved]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendments Nos.143 and 144:
Page 47, leave out lines 10 to 13.
Page 47, leave out lines 19 to 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No.123. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.145:
Page 47, leave out lines 23 to 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.145 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.147 to 159. These amendments operate to expand the scope of Schedule 6 so that it makes all the textual amendments to the statute book that are needed in consequence of the new retirement age provisions. We have sought to include the new provisions in every statutory provision that provides for these judicial offices. That is quite a large operation but it is an important one. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton, for example, who believes that textual amendment is wise, will support this proposal.
Schedule 6 contains a large number of such textual amendments so as to include references to the new statutory retiring age and the power to extend appointment up to the age of 75. There are also a few minor textual amendments that do not produce any changes of substance. I hope that the Note for Peers that I made available earlier will assist any of your Lordships who wish to look at the detail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.146:
Page 48, line 3, at end insert:
("(3) In subsection (6) (b) of that section (which refers to subsection (7) of that section, relating to the completion of proceedings after retirement), for the words "subject to subsection (7)" there shall be substituted the words "subject to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.131. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendments Nos.147 to 159:
Page 48, line 14, at end insert:
("Acting judges of the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
In section 7 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, in subsection (1) (which provides that certain judges and former judges may, at the request of the Lord Chancellor, sit as judges of the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland)—

(a) the words "at any time" shall be omitted; and

(b) at the end, there shall be added "at any time on or before the day on which he attains the age of seventy-five."")

Circuit judges
—(1) Section 17 of the Courts Act 1971 (retirement of Circuit judges) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) For subsection (1) (which requires a Circuit judge to vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72, subject to the possibility of extended appointment) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Subject to subsection (4) below and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75), a Circuit judge shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70."

(3) Subsection (2) (which contains power to continue a Circuit judge's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.")

(4) Subsection (3) (day on which certain persons are to be regarded as completing a year of service) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 48, leave out lines 42 to 46.
Page 49, line 31, at end insert:
("Officers of the Supreme Court
—(1) Section 92 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (tenure of office of certain officers of the Supreme Court) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (1) (certain Masters, Registrars and other officers of the Supreme Court to vacate office at the end of the completed year of service in which they attain the age of 72)—

(a) after the words "Subject to the following provisions of this section" there shall be inserted the words "and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) for the words from "at the end" onwards there shall be substituted the words "on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years".

(3) In subsection (28) (offices to which subsection (2A) applies) the words "and the office of Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals" shall he omitted.

(4) Subsection (2C) (which makes provision for determining the day on which persons who successively hold offices falling within column 1 of Part I or II of Schedule 2 to that Act are to be regarded as completing a year of service, and which is of no further utility) shall cease to have effect.

(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—"

(2D) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who holds an office to which this subsection applies shall vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of sixty-two years.

(2E) Subsection (2D) applies to the office of Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals."

(6) Subsection (3) (which contains power to continue a person's appointment to an office to which subsection

1274

(1) applies up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(7) In subsection (4) (offices to which subsection (1) or (2A) applies to be held during good behaviour) for the words "or (2A)" there shall be substituted the words ", (2A) or (2D)".

Deputy and temporary officers of the Supreme Court
In section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in subsection (3) (which permits certain appointments as a deputy or temporary officer to be made, notwithstanding that the person would be disqualified by age from holding the office in question) after paragraph (c) there shall be added—
"but no appointment by virtue of this subsection shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person in question attains the age of seventy five years."
Deputy district judges of district registries of the High Court
In section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, at the end of subsection (3) (which permits certain appointments as a deputy district judge of a district registry of the High Court to be made, notwithstanding that the person would be disqualified by age from holding the office in question) there shall he added the words "; but no appointment by virtue of this subsection shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person in question attains the age of seventy-five years."
District judges and deputy district judges of county courts
—(1) In section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984 (deputy district judges) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—"
(1A) Any appointment of a person as a deputy district judge—

(a) if he has previously held office as a district judge, shall not be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 75 years; and

(b) in any other case, shall not be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70 years, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."

(2) Section 11 of that Act (tenure of office of district judge etc) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(3) For subsections (1) and (2) (which provide for a person to whom subsection (1) applies to vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72) there shall be substituted—

"(1) This subsection applies to the office of district judge.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75), a person who holds an office to which subsection (1) applies shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years."

(4) Subsection (3) (which confers power to continue district judges etc in office up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Statutory officers in Northern Ireland
In section 71 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, for subsection (3) (which provides that a statutory officer, within the meaning of that Act, is to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72, but subject to the substitution of a lower age. under subsection (4)) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's

1275
power to authorise continuance in office beyond the age of 70, up to the age of 75), a statutory officer shall retire on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years."").
Page 50, line 36, at end insert:
("(6) In sub-paragraph (7) (which provides that nothing in sub-paragraph (2) or (4) applies to a Commissioner appointed before 23rd May 1980) the words "(2) or" (which are of no further practical utility) shall be omitted.").
Page 51, line 5, at end insert:
("Child support: Commissioners and chairmen of appeal tribunals
—(1) In Schedule 3 to the Child Support Act 1991 (child support appeal tribunals), in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3) (chairman of child support appeal tribunals to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) sub-paragraph (4) (which contains power to continue a chairman's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(2) In Schedule 4 to that Act (Child Support Commissioners), in paragraph 1—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (Child Support Commissioner to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) sub-paragraph (2) (which contains power to continue a Commissioner's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(3) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule (deputy Child Support Commissioners) at the beginning of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A)", and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—"

(2A) No appointment of a person to be a deputy Child Support Commissioner shall be such as to extend beyond the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."

(4) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Advocate before exercising certain powers under the Schedule) for the words "paragraph 1(2) or (3)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 1(3)".

Chairmen of child support appeal tribunals in Northern reland
In Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (child support appeal tribunals), in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3) (chairman of child support appeal tribunals to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)", and

1276

(b) sub-paragraph (4) (which contains power to continue such a chairman's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission
In section 1 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (constitution of the Foreign Compensation Commission), at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of the chairman, to subsection (3A) of this section," and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The chairman of the Commission shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Commons Commissioners
In section 17 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (which includes provision for the appointment of Commons Commissioners) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(IA) A Commons Commissioner shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power of Lord Chancellor to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)." ").
Page 51, line 9, after ("tribunals") insert ("(England and Wales)").
Page 52, line 9, at end insert:
("Members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
In Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (which includes provision concerning the tenure of office of those members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal who are appointed under section 135(2) (c) of that Act), in paragraph 2 (which provides that such a member may by notice resign his membership), after the word "member" there shall be inserted "(a)", and at the end of that paragraph there shall be inserted "; and
(b) shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70;
but paragraph (b) is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)." ").
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("(Northern Ireland) Act") and insert ("and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland)").
Page 53, line 37, at end insert:
("(2) In section 4A of that Act, at the end of subsection (2) (which provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a deputy Special Commissioner unless he is qualified for appointment as a Special Commissioner) there shall be added the words "(and, accordingly, no appointment of a person as a deputy Special Commissioner shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992)".").
Page 53, line 44, leave out from ("(3)") to ("shall") in line 45 and insert ("A member of the Tribunal").
Page 53, line 48, at end insert:
("Immigration adjudicators
In Part I of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971 (immigration adjudicators) in paragraph 2 (terms of appointment) at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph" and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(3) An adjudicator shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."").
Page 54, line 15, at end insert:
("Mental Health Review Tribunals
In Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which makes provision with respect to Mental Health Review Tribunals), at the beginning of paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph 2A below," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"2A. A member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal shall vacate office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
The Financial Services Tribunal
In Schedule 6 to the Financial Services Act 1986, in paragraph I (which includes provision concerning the term of office of persons appointed to the panel from which persons are nominated to serve on the Financial Services Tribunal) at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph," and after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be added—
"(3) A member of the panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Tribunals and advisory bodies under the Misuse of Drugs Ac 1971
—(l) Schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (which includes provision in relation to tribunals and advisory bodies established for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of that Act) shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In paragraph 1 (membership of tribunals) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—"
(2A) The chairman of a tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(3) In paragraph 13 (membership of advisory bodies) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted"
(1A) The chairman of an advisory body shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Restrictive Practices Court
—(1)In section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976 (appointed members of the Restrictive Practices Court), in subsection—(2)—

(a) at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"; and

(b) the words "(not less than three years)" shall cease to have effect.

(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—"(2A) No appointment of a person to be an appointed member shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years); ".
Tribunals constituted under section 706 of the Income and orporation Taxes Act 1988
Section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (appointment of a tribunal to hear appeals in connection with the cancellation of tax advantages from
1278
certain transactions in securities) shall be numbered as subsection (I) of that section, and at the end of that section there shall be added—
"(2) A person appointed as chairman or other member of the tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Arbitrator appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act 986
In Schedule 11 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which makes provision in relation to the determination by arbitration of matters arising under that Act), after sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph I there shall be added—
"(6) A member of the panel constituted for the purposes of this Schedule shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Agricultural Land Tribunals
—(1) Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947 (constitution etc of Agricultural Land Tribunals) shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In paragraph 13 (which relates to the chairmen of such Tribunals), in sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph,"; and

(b) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted "such period as may be specified in the terms of his appointment".

(3) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—"
(2A) No appointment of a person to be the chairman shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(4) Paragraph 14 (which provides for there to be a panel of deputy-chairmen for each such Tribunal) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—"
(2) A member of the panel of deputy-chairmen shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(5) In paragraph 15 (which provides for there to be panels of persons representing farmers' and landowners' interests), after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—"
(IA) A member of either of the panels drawn up under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal
In section 42 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, at the beginning of subsection (5) (which makes provision in relation to the terms of appointment of the members of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) there

1279
shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (5A) below," and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(5A) No appointment of a person to be the president of the arbitration tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
In section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (appointment of a tribunal to hear appeals concerning bookmakers' levy) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words ", but subject, in the case of the chairman, to subsection (2A) of this section", and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The chairman of any such tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
The Copyright Tribunal
In section 146 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (membership of the Copyright Tribunal) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person who is the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
The Data Protection Tribunal
In Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1984, in paragraph 8 (tenure of office of members of the Data Protection Tribunal), at the beginning of sub-paragraph (I) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph," and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(3) A person who is the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Independent Schools Tribunals
In Schedule 6 to the Education Act 1944 (constitution etc of Independent Schools Tribunals) at the beginning of paragraph 3 there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of a member of the legal panel, to paragraph 3A below," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"3A. No appointment of a person to be a member of the legal panel shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
President of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975
—(1) In Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975, paragraph 6 (terms of appointment of members of a tribunal established to arbitrate in a dispute arising under that Act) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
(2) At the beginning of that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of the president of a tribunal, to sub-paragraph (2) below", and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) No appointment of a person to be the president of a tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
Tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977
In regulation 26 of the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 (tenure of office of chairman of Tribunal constituted under section 46 of the National Health Service Act 1977) at the beginning of paragraph (I) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph (I A)," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The chairman shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, at the beginning of sub-paragraph (2) (tenure of office of chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph," and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(2A) No appointment of a person to he the chairman of the Tribunal shall he such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal
In section 40 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, at the beginning of subsection (6) (terms of appointment of persons to the panels of chairmen and other members of Registered Homes Tribunals), there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of a person appointed to the legal panel, to subsection (7) below," and after that subsection there shall be added—
"(7) No appointment of a person to the legal panel shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Rent Assessment Committees
In Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977, after paragraph 2 (appointment by Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State of persons to constitute the panels from which the members of rent assessment committees are selected) there shall be inserted—
"2A. No appointment of a person to any panel by the Lord Chancellor shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."")
The Transport Tribunal
—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 (tenure of office of judicial members) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) (judicial member to hold office until the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72 and then retire)—

(a) after the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph" there shall be inserted the words "and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and

1281
Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five)"; and

(b) for the words "the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of seventy-two" there shall be substituted the words "the day on which he attains the age of seventy".

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) (which contains power to continue the member's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Tribunal established under section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949
In Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, in paragraph 1 (period for which members of the appeal tribunal established under section 9 of that Act are to hold office) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) No appointment of a person to be the president of the appeal tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years).
(1B) No person shall be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of seventy years to act as one of the additional members of the appeal tribunal under subsection (5) of section 9 of this Act."
Wreck commissioner
In section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (appointment of wreck commissioners) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) A wreck commissioner shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee
In Schedule 2 to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, paragraph 2 (composition of Reinstatement Committees) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) A member of the panel of persons referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (a) shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Tribunals constituted for the purposes of section 150(4) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954
In Schedule 3 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, at the end of paragraph 1 (constitution of tribunals to inquire into whether a certificate of competency granted under that Act should be withdrawn or suspended) there shall be added the words "; but no person shall be appointed—

(a) as the person, or one of the persons, constituting such a tribunal, or

b) as an assessor to assist any such tribunal,

after the day on which he attains the age of seventy years."

Courts of inquiry under section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970
In rule 5 of the Merchant Shipping (Section 52 Inquiries) Rules 1982 (appointment of courts of inquiry for the purposes of section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970) after paragraph (3) there shall be added—
"(4) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to assist with a section 52 inquiry as an assessor."
Chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland
In regulation 7 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979 (constitution etc of vaccine damage tribunals), in paragraph (1B), at the end of subparagraph (a) (which provides for the chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland to be appointed by the Secretary of State) there shall be added the words "but no person shall be so appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70".
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986
In section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (tribunals to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Building Societies Commission) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 28 of the Banking Act 1987
In section 28 of the Banking Act 1987 (tribunals to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Bank of England), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section."
Arbitrators appointed under Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989
In paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989, after sub-paragraph (2) (appointment of arbitrator etc to determine third parties' claims for compensation arising out of certain transfers of property etc) there shall be added—
"(3) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be an arbitrator or arbiter under sub-paragraph (2) above."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992
In Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (tribunals to hear appeals in relation to the registration of school inspectors), at the end of paragraph 1 there shall be added—
"(3) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the Chairman of a tribunal."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992
In section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (tribunal to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Friendly Societies Commission), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section.").
Page 54, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 56.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos.147 to 159 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.160:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE RETIREMENT DATES: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Interpretation
1.—(1) In this Schedule—

"potential retirement date", in relation to any office, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below;

"re-appointment" to an office includes extension of a subsisting appointment to the office, otherwise than by the exercise of a continuation power.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's office—

(a) is "salaried" if and so long as his service in the office is remunerated by payment of a salary; and

(b) is "fee-paid" if and so long as his service in the office is remunerated by the payment of fees;

and any reference in this Schedule to a person's being "salaried" or "fee-paid" shall be construed accordingly.

(3) Subsection (1 B) of section 25 of this Act applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that section.

(4) Expressions used in this Schedule and in section 25 of this Act have the same meaning in this Schedule as they have in that section.

(5) This Schedule is without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of this Act, but is subject to subsection (5) of that section and to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement)of this Act.

Salaried offices
2.— (1) This paragraph applies to any person who for the time being holds, or who is seeking appointment or re-appointment to, a salaried relevant office (in this paragraph referred to as his "post-commencement office"), if—

(a) immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that or any other salaried relevant office (in this paragraph referred to as his "pre-commencement office");

(b) he has at all times on and after that day held some one or other salaried relevant office (whether the same office or not); and

(c) his potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office falls later than the date that would, apart from this paragraph, be the compulsory retirement date for the post-commencement office in his case.

(2) If and so long as this paragraph applies to a person—

(a) nothing in section 25 of, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to, this Act shall—

(i) require him to vacate his post-commencement office before his potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office; or

(ii) affect his eligibility for appointment or re-appointment to the post-commencement office; and

(b) that potential retirement date shall be taken for the purposes of section 25 of this Act (and, accordingly, of this Schedule) to be the compulsory retirement date for the post-commencement office in his case.

(3) If a person has two or more pre-commencement offices (so that he would, apart from this sub-paragraph, have two or more potential retirement dates) his potential retirement date for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) shall be determined by reference only to that one of his pre-commencement offices to which he was first appointed, or

(b) shall be such later date, falling on or before the day on which he attains the age of 75, as may be agreed in writing by him and the appropriate Minister, determined by reference to that pre-commencement office;

and any reference in this Schedule to the person's potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office shall be construed accordingly.
(4) If immediately before the appointed day—

(a) a person who holds a salaried relevant office ("office A") also holds another relevant office ("office B"), but

(b) in consequence of holding office A, he is either—

(i) unremunerated in respect of his service in office B, or

1284

(ii) remunerated by payment of a supplement, in respect of that service, to the salary payable in respect of his service in office A,

then, in determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above the number of pre-commencement offices which that person has, and to which of them he was first appointed, he shall be taken to hold office B at that time as a salaried relevant office and to have been so holding it at all previous times when the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) above were fulfilled.
Fee-paid offices
3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any person who for the time being holds, or who is seeking re-appointment to, a fee-paid relevant office, if—

(a) immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office as a fee-paid office;

(b) he has at all times on and after that day held that office as a fee-paid office; and

(c)his potential retirement date by reference to that office falls later than the date that would, apart from this paragraph, be the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case.

(2) If and so long as this paragraph applies to a person—

(a) nothing in section 25 of, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to, this Act shall—

(i) require him to vacate the office referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above before his potential retirement date by reference to that office; or

(ii) affect his eligibility for re-appointment to that office as a fee-paid office; and

(b) that potential retirement date shall be taken for the purposes of section 25 above (and, accordingly, of this Schedule) to be the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case.

Persons holding a relevant office by virtue of a continuation power
4. Where, immediately before the appointed day, a person was holding a relevant office by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, nothing in section 25 of this Act or this Schedule, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to this Act, shall affect the continuing validity of that exercise of that power in relation to that person.
Ascertainment of potential retirement date
5.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's potential retirement date by reference to an office is—

(a) in a case where, immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office otherwise than by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, the day on which he would have been required by any enactment or statutory instrument to vacate that office, apart from this Act and apart from any continuation power;

(b) in a case where, immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, the last day of the period for which he is authorised to continue in that office by virtue of that exercise of the continuation power; or

(c) in the case of an office to which any of the following sub-paragraphs applies (offices for which there was no compulsory retirement date before the appointed day, but whose standard terms of appointment are reflected in the provisions of the sub-paragraph in question), the day specified in the sub-paragraph as the appropriate day.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a salaried office—

(a) President or other member of the Lands Tribunal, or of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, set up under the Lands Tribunal Act 1949;

(b) Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts, appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(c) President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal;

1285

(d) Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission;

(e) Chief or other Commons Commissioner;

(f) Chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(g) Chairman of industrial tribunals or of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or appointed under section 3(1) (c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;

(h) President of Pensions Appeal Tribunals;

and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in that office in which the person attains the age of 72.
(3) In the case of the office of immigration adjudicator (whose usual terms of appointment, whether as a salaried or a fee-paid office, require the holder to vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of 70—

(a) this sub-paragraph applies only in those cases where, immediately before the appointed day, the office is held on terms which require the person in question to vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of 72; and

(b) where this sub-paragraph applies, the appropriate day is the day on which that person attains that age; and, accordingly, no person shall have a potential retirement date by reference to that office (whether held as a salaried or a fee-paid office) in any other case.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to the office of deputy judge of the High Court, as a fee-paid office; and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the day on which the person attains the age of 75.
(5) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a fee-paid office—

(i) in the case of appointments under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, each of the following offices—

(a) deputy or temporary Master, Queen's Bench Division;

(b) deputy or temporary Admiralty Registrar;

(c) deputy or temporary Master, Chancery Division;

(d) deputy or temporary Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court;

(e) deputy or temporary Taxing Master of the Supreme Court;

(f) deputy or temporary Registrar of Civil Appeals;

(g) deputy or temporary Master of the Court of Protection;

(ii) assistant Recorder;

(iii) chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals in England and Wales;

(iv) chairman of child support appeal tribunals, in England and Wales;

(v) Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission;

(vi) Commons Commissioner;

(vii) chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(viii) chairman of industrial tribunals or of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or appointed under section 3(1) (c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;

(x) Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts, appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(xi) deputy Special Commissioner, appointed under section 4A of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(xii) President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal;

1286

(xiii) President or other member of Pensions Appeal Tribunals;

(xiv) Chairman or member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal constituted under the Mental Health Act 1983;

(xv) member of the Financial Services Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor;

(xvi) chairman of a tribunal constituted for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;

(xvii) chairman of an advisory body constituted for the purposes of section 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;

(xviii) appointed member of the Restrictive Practices Court, within the meaning of section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976;

(xix) chairman or other member of the tribunal constituted by section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

(xx) arbitrator appointed under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule II to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986;

(xxi) chairman or deputy-chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal;

(xxii) President of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal;

(xxiii) Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963;

(xxiv) chairman or deputy chairman of the Copyright Tribunal;

(xxv) chairman or deputy chairman of the Data Protection Tribunal;

(xxvi) chairman of an Independent Schools Tribunal;

(xxvii) president of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975;

(xxviii) chairman of the tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977;

(xxix) Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal;

(xxx) Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal constituted under the Registered Homes Act 1984;

(xxxi) President of the tribunal established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949;

(xxxii) wreck commissioner appointed under section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970;

(xxxiii) Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee constituted under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985;

and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in the office in which the person attains the age of 72.
(6) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a fee-paid office—

(a) deputy or temporary district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division appointed under subsection (I) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section;

(b) deputy district judge appointed under section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a district registry;

(c) deputy district judge appointed under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a county court district;

(d) Deputy Resident Magistrate, appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964;

(e) member of an Agricultural Land Tribunal, other than chairman, deputy chairman or an assessor added to the Tribunal under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947;

(f) chairman or other member of Rent Assessment Committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977;

1287
and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in that office in which the person attains the age of 70.

(7) This sub-paragraph applies to the office of member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 135(2)(c) of the Employment Protection (Consolidated) Act 1978, as a fee-paid office; and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the 31st March next following the day on which the person attains the age of 70.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are the new transitional provisions to which I have already referred when speaking to Amendment No.135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Payments charged on Consolidated Fund etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.161:
Page 22. line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Any sums received by the Treasury under section (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.110. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulations and orders]:
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.161A:
Page 22, line 32, leave out from ("to") to end of line 33 and insert ("approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the regulation empowering clause, Clause 29. That clause has a largely formulaic appearance. Indeed it generally appears in that form on the computer in the draftsman's office.
The first amendment standing in my name, Amendment No.161A, deals with the only exception to that provision. Subsection (2) of Clause 29 lays down, all embracingly, the negative resolution procedure in respect of all the regulations to be made under the Bill. That of course is just a try-on. The Executive will always try, understandably, to get away with the minimum parliamentary control. That provision constitutes the minimum control in this Bill apart from the commencement regulation which Parliament always allows these days to be made without parliamentary control.
Quite clearly, a number of these regulations should have more parliamentary control than the negative resolution procedure. The matter was considered and the criteria were laid down by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1971– 72. The criteria appear in paragraph 46(1) of the report. Three or four alternative criteria which call for an affirmative resolution are propounded there. The first is important here, but so is the second where there are important financial regulation-making powers.
Your Lordships will remember that there were regulations affecting contributions under Clauses 9 and 10 and you will have in mind the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Quite plainly, those ought not to be made subject to the minimal negative procedure. The first is even more important. The Joint Select Committee's report, which was accepted in both Houses of Parliament, said that it should be the affirmative resolution procedure if the regulation effected substantial change in the law. The committee went on to say that it realised that "substantial" was a vague term and it defined what it meant by "substantial". It was anything that might be described as not trivial or tidying up or consequential.
It is quite plain that a great number of these regulations cannot possibly be described as trivial or tidying up or consequential. One has only to look at subsection (3) to see there reference to,
"transitional, consequential, supplementary or incidental".
Of those only "consequential" falls within the remit of the joint select committee's report.
At this point in most Bills a delightful pas de deux occurs between my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My noble and learned friend proposes, on behalf of a Government department, the minimum possible parliamentary control. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then expostulates that quite obviously a great many other provisions call for the affirmative resolution. My noble and learned friend then says,"Yes, that may be so. I would like to consider it" and comes forward with a better offer. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that that is not enough. They then get together and come to a compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, like any sensible lawyer, is generally content to settle for half and I myself would do so in this case. I have provided for an affirmative resolution in all cases. That is because, at this late stage of the Bill, if my noble and learned friend were to say that he agrees that there should be an affirmative resolution in respect of some of the regulations and that he will discuss the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should be content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No.161B is largely probing because I was not quite clear what was sought by that subsection. Amendment No.161C relates to subsection (6), which states that:
"Regulations and orders under this Act may make different provision for different cases or classes of case".
That also is an invariable formula and nine times out of 10, including this, is perfectly unnecessary, but its object is to obviate the argument that you must make the same regulation, however different the circumstances may be. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the number of silly arguments that can be put forward, but if every one was forestalled in an Act of Parliament our statute book would go on growing and become more bloated than it has for years. This is obviously completely unnecessary here and although it is all too time-honoured—in fact it is starting to grow whiskers—I suggest to your Lordships that it is high time that something so obviously unnecessary should be removed. For a start, I beg to move Amendment No.161A.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with his usual kindness the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has given me credit as a negotiator with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which I really do not deserve. However, one lesson that I have learnt as a negotiator is that one should leave to the other side a proposal which may be more generous than the one that oneself offers. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to meet the valid points that have been put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and thereby show his usual generosity and ability to compromise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is proper to look at the practice in this situation. I have looked at the existing judicial pensions legislation for the regulation and order-making powers and these are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore believe that it is not appropriate to provide for affirmative resolution procedure in this Bill. The 1981 Act has now operated for a considerable time and, so far as I know, without any complaint whatsoever. Most of the regulations that I seek to make will be of a very uncontroversial nature. Parliamentary time is already at a premium for dealing with matters that require primary legislation. Having regard to the precedent of the 1981 Act, I do not wish to suggest that any of the powers in this Bill should require that resolutions made under them would need to be approved first by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. For that reason I cannot accept Amendment No.16IA.
Subsection (4), which Amendment No.161 B seeks to delete, is subsidiary to subsection (3). It deals with the situation in which transitional and consequential provisions appear to be necessary or expedient. In that situation subsection (4) allows us to modify the operation of the Bill or other enactments for that type of purpose. It is not a power to amend the text of enactments, but rather one to modify the operation of those enactments for the purpose of the transitional and consequential provisions.
So far as Amendment No.161C is concerned, as my noble and learned friend has said, this is a standard clause to deal with different cases or different classes of case. I understand the argument that one does not need it. However, as my noble and learned friend recognised, it has been generally provided and if one does not use that form of words one is at least opening up the possibility of an argument that the same provision has to be made for everyone, for example in relation to the contribution provisions to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred. I think it would be wise, having regard to the advice I have had from parliamentary counsel, to leave in subsection (6). For those reasons I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment he has moved and perhaps not move the other two.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me for saying that that is the most dismal answer to the argument put forward. In so far as Amendment No.161A is concerned, my noble and learned friend merely said
1290
that that kind of thing had been done before in other pension Acts. That may be. Parliament cannot be constantly on the watch for encroachments by the Executive on its supervisory role. My noble and learned friend did not even do us the courtesy of mentioning my point that the criteria had been laid down and accepted by Parliament, namely, financial provisions like the contribution provisions under Clauses 9 and 10, the Henry VIII provision (to which I drew attention on Tuesday) and other important provisions. He never even adverted to the test that something is substantial if it cannot be nominated as trivial, tidying up or consequential. Of course he did not because he could not possibly put forward that argument with a straight face. That is the argument behind the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the support he gave.
As for subsection (6), my noble and learned friend agrees that it is designed to obviate or forestall an argument. He did not pretend for a moment that that argument was other than fanciful, far-fetched and would never get anywhere. Are we going to go on repeating these sillinesses just because they come up on a computer in the draftsman's office? Are we going to try to forestall every silly argument that may possibly be conceived? If so, there is no hope for our statute book. It will go on becoming more voluminous and expensive, to the grave detriment of its users.
My noble and learned friend has been given no flexibility on this Bill, even on this clause, which is of no particular interest except to his department. Certainly it has no particular Treasury interest. But, as I am going to get nowhere by calling a Division on it, with great reluctance and disgust I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.161B and 161C not moved.]
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.162:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert ("(whether or not in respect of service in such offices alone)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Some of the pension schemes of which holders of qualifying judicial offices are currently members provide pensions not only for judicial officers but for other persons. The amendment makes it clear that any public service pension scheme which provides pension benefits for a holder of a qualifying judicial office shall be regarded as a judicial pension scheme for the purposes of this Bill, even if it also provides benefits for persons who are not holders of qualifying judicial offices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.163:
Page 24, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Where a calculation falls to be performed under this Act, any resulting fraction of £ 1 shall be rounded up to the next whole £ 1.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment together with Amendment No.83. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I think it would be wrong to let Amendment No.163 be passed without

1291
expressing appreciation for what is yet another example of the generosity that the Treasury shows to the legal profession. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate what will be the cost to public funds of this concession in a full year.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the cost of doing that would probably exceed the cost of the benefit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Short title, supplementary provisions and extent]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.164:
Page 24, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) The enactments and instruments mentioned in Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments) to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified (being tumor amendments and amendments consequential on the provisions of this Act).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No.168. These amendments insert a new schedule before the presently numbered Schedule 7. The schedule makes minor and consequential amendments to former enactments. All the amendments are consequential upon the provisions contained in the main body of the Bill and have no substantive effect beyond that entailed by those provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.165 and 166:
Page 24, line 30, after ("enactments") insert ("and instruments").
Page 24, line 30, after ("repealed") insert ("or revoked").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No.165 I should like to take Amendment No.166. They simply add a reference to the secondary legislation which is to be revoked in the schedule. With your Lordships' leave, I propose to take them en bloc.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.167:
Page 24, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Section (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) extends to England and Wales only.
(5) The amendments, repeals and revocations in section 21 and Schedules 3,4,6, (Minor and Consequential Amendments) and 7 have the same extent as the enactment or instrument to which they relate.
(6) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, this Act extends to Northern Ireland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to show the extent to which the Bill applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. In general the Bill is a United Kingdom Bill. However, there are parts of it which can apply only to parts of the United Kingdom and the amendment serves to clarify this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.168:
Before Schedule 7. insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951
1. Section 35 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (pension arrangements for Vice Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocates General and Deputy Judge Advocates) shall be numbered as subsection (I) of that section and at the end of that section there shall be added—
"(2) The foregoing subsection shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959
2. At the end of section 116 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (pensions of county court judges in Northern Ireland) there shall be added—
"(7) This Part shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960
3. In section 2 of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 (pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1 A) This Act shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Foreign Compensation Act 1962
4. (In section 3 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1962, after subsection (1) (which makes provision for the pensions or other benefits payable to or in respect of members of the Foreign Compensation Commission) there shall be inserted—
"(1 A) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect in relation to a chairman or former chairman of the Commission who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964
5 In section 2 of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (pensions of members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Subsection (5), so far as relating to allowances and gratuities by way of superannuation, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part 1 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Superannuation Act 1965
6 In section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (superannuation benefits in respect of persons who have been employed in two or more judicial offices) in subsection (6), in the definition of "judicial office", after the word "means" there shall be inserted—

"(a) any qualifying judicial office, within the meaning of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992, and

(b)".

The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969
7 In section 2 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (pensions for president of the industrial court, president and vice-president of the industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal, etc in Northern Ireland) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—"
(IA) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Taxes Management Act 1970
8 In section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, after subsection (6) (pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of Special Commissioners) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) Subsection (6) above, so far as relating to pensions (including allowances and gratuities), shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Immigration Act 1971
9 In Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971, paragraphs 3 and 9 (which, among other things, make provision for the pensions, allowances and gratuities etc payable to or in respect of immigration adjudicators and members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal) shall each be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and at the end of each of those paragraphs there shall be added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) (b) above shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Administration of Justice Act 1973
10.—(1) Section 10 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (which, as it has effect by virtue of subsection (8) thereof, provides for certain widow's and children's pensions in Northern Ireland to be increased) shall be amended as follows

(a) in subsections (1), (2) (a) and (3), after the word "or widow's" in each place there shall be inserted the words "or widower's";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (b), after the word "widow", where it occurs for the first time, there shall be inserted the words "or widower", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (i) of that paragraph, for the words from "was" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "left a spouse and he or";

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) after the word "him" or "his" in each place there shall be inserted the words "or her", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (c), after the word "widow's" there shall be inserted the word "widower's"; and

(d) in subsection (5), after the word "widow's" there shall be inserted the word "widower's".

(2) In Schedule 3 to the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (which sets out the enactments in relation to which section 10 of that Act has effect), for the reference to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of Economic Development.
The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975
11. In paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (pensions of social security commissioners in Northern Ireland) after sub-paragraph (I) there shall be inserted "
(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Pensions Act 1975
12. In section 59C of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, after subsection (2) (rights of appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman on matters of fact or law) there shall be inserted
"(2A) Subsection (2) above does not have effect in relation to any scheme constituted under or by virtue of—

(a) the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961;

(b) the Judicial Pensions Act 1981; or

1294

(c) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975
13. In Article 69C of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, after paragraph (2) (rights of appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman on matters of fact or law) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Paragraph (2) does not have effect in relation to any scheme constituted under or by virtue of—

(a) Part XIII of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(b) the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;

(c) Schedule 10 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975;

(d) the Judicial Pensions Act 1981; or

(e) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978
14. At the end of section 72 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (pension arrangements for statutory officers) there shall be added—
"(4) This section does not apply to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Supreme Court Act 1981
15.—(1) In section 12 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in subsection (7) (pensions to be payable to or in respect of the judges mentioned in subsection (I) in accordance with section 2 of the 1981 Act) after the words "section 2 of the Judicial Pensions Act 1981" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a judge who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, in accordance with that Act".
(2) In section 93 of that Act (certain officers to be treated as employed in the civil service of the State for the purposes of salary and pension), in subsection (2) (exception, in respect of pension, for persons holding offices specified in paragraph I of Schedule I to the 1981 Act) for the words from "an office" onwards there shall be substituted the words "an office for the time being specified in Schedule 1 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 ("qualifying judicial offices" for the purposes of that Act)."
(3) In section 102 of that Act (deputy district judges for district registries of the High Court), for subsection (5) (which includes a reference to section 91(5) of that Act, a provision which is repealed by this Act) there shall be substituted—"
(5) Subsection (6) of section 91 applies in relation to a deputy district judge appointed under this section as it applies in relation to a person appointed under that section."
The Value Added Tax Act 1983
16.—(1) In Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (4) (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President of Value Added Tax Tribunals) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
(2) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule, after sub-paragraph (4) (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of chairmen of value added tax tribunals) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect

1295
in relation to a person to whom Part 1 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The County Courts Act 1984
17. In the County Courts Act 1984—

(a) section 7 (which relates to assistant district judges), and

(b) in section 9 (qualifications for appointment) the words "assistant district judge",

shall cease to have effect.
The Social Security Act 1986
18.—

(1) In section 12 of the Social Security Act 1986 (member's right to make voluntary contributions) in subsection (I0A) (which precludes the application of the section in relation to pensions under the 1981 Act etc) after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992,".

(2) In section 17 of that Act (general power to modify statutory provisions) in subsection (3) (which specifies the Acts in relation to which the power to make consequential provision under subsection (2) is exercisable) after paragraph (h) there shall be inserted—

"(j) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
19—

(1) In Article 14 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (member's right to make voluntary contributions) in paragraph (10A) (which precludes the application of the Article in relation to pensions under the 1981 Act) after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 or".

(2) In Article 18 of that Order (general power to modify statutory provisions) in paragraph (3) (which specifies the provisions in relation to which the power to make consequential provision under paragraph (2) is exercisable) after paragraph (k) there shall be added—

"(1) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Criminal Justice Act 1988
20. In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (2) (pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board) there shall be added—
"(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply to a chairman or former chairman of the Board who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Child Support Act 1991
21.—(l) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Child Support Act 1991, after sub-paragraph (7) (remuneration of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, full-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals) there shall be added—
"(8) Sub-paragraph (7), so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement. Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
(2) In Schedule 4 to that Act, at the end of paragraph 2 (remuneration and expenses of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, Child Support Commissioners) there shall be added—
"(3) Sub-paragraph (1), so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
22 In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, after sub-paragraph (7) (remuneration of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, full-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals for Northern Ireland) there shall be added—
"(8) Sub-paragraph (7). so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Administration Act 1992
23. In Schedule 2 to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, paragraph 2 (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President and full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals etc) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and after that sub-paragraph there shall he added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992
24 In Schedule 2 to the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, paragraph 3 (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President and full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals etc) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.164. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.169 to 179:
Page 56, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("In section 10, in the definition of "sheriff", the words "except in subsection (2) of section six".").
Page 56, line 36, at end insert:

("1970 c.9.

The Taxes anagement Act 1970.

Section 4A(5).").

Page 56, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("Section 24(4).").
Page 56, line 40, at end insert:

("1976 c.33.

The Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976.

In section 3(2), the words "(not less than three years)".

1978 c.23.

The Judicature (Northern Ireland)Act 1978.

In section 7(1), the words "at any time". Section 8(4).").

Page 56, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, the entry "Assistant district judge".").
Page 56, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 9(7). Section 91(5).").

Page 56, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("Section 103").
Page57, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 7. Section 8(2). In section 9, the words "assistant district judge".").

Page 57, line 5, at end insert:

("1990 c.41.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

In Schedule 18, paragraph 42(b).

1991 c.48.

The Child Support Act 1991.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4) and, in paragraph 8, the word "(4)". In Schedule 4, paragraph 1(2).

S. I.1991/2628 (N. I. 23).

The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4).").

Page 57, line 9, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 57, line 11, column 3, at end insert ("and, in sub-paragraph (7), the words "(2) or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.169 to 179 merely add to the schedule of repeals consequential on the rest of the Bill. They are of a technical nature and add nothing of substance. Since they are all of the same kind perhaps your Lordships will allow me to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.180:
Line 5, after ("judicial") insert ("and related").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to amend the Long Title of the Bill so that it reflects the full range of offices contained in Schedule 5, some of which may not normally be referred to as "judicial offices". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [H.L.]
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I described it as a modest technical measure to enable the delegation of management functions within the Civil Service. I recognised that there were many noble Lords opposite who saw it initially as something much more sinister. Our discussions at Second Reading and in Committee were correspondingly lively as we got to the bottom of some technically difficult points. Thanks to the time and trouble that your Lordships have spent on the Bill in this House, in correspondence and in meetings we have made very considerable progress since then.
I think that our debates and discussions have served to allay any misgivings that the Bill is capable of being used for some purpose other than that for which it was intended. I believe it is now generally accepted that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for achieving an important part of the Government's programme to
1298
improve the management of the Civil Service. That was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, at Report stage. I am grateful to her and her colleagues, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening, for the constructive, lively and thorough scrutiny which they have given the Bill in this House and outside. I should also like to thank my noble friends Lord Prentice, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls for their most useful contributions.
It was never the Government's intention that the Bill should be or be seen to be a politically charged measure. I am pleased that the Bill, having been given no less a thorough going-over than one would expect from your Lordships' House, has emerged much better understood, a better Bill and still suitable for the important purpose that the Government had always intended for it.
There is one outstanding matter to raise before I move the Third Reading of the Bill. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I had an exchange on the subject of the arrangements for the parliamentary scrutiny of proposed privatisations. Subsequently, I wrote to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, setting out the position in more detail. I have not yet had an opportunity, as I promised the noble Lord, to put that letter on the record, and I do not think I would be in order to dwell on this subject in the course of moving a Bill on a separate topic. Instead, I have arranged for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House. I trust that that will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our scrutiny of this measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Earl Howe.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I cannot let the Bill leave this House without making some comment with particular reference to the way in which the Bill was brought before us in the first place. I am very grateful that we were able to secure an amendment which certainly makes things a lot clearer, particularly to those who will be affected by the Bill.
However, it will be recalled—the noble Earl has already referred to the point—that the Bill was introduced in the wake of publicity surrounding a widely reported speech by the Secretary of State which had been taken to mean by the media that the Government were about to embark on wholesale privatisation of the Civil Service. Reports indicated that a large number both of blue and white collar jobs in the Civil Service would be subject to competitive tender and contracted out. Headlines in some newspapers said:
"Civil servants to lose their jobs for life".
It was scheduled as the biggest shake-up of the Civil Service in decades with civil servants having to compete with outsiders for their own jobs. It was hardly surprising that when this Bill appeared, with its opaque phraseology, alarm bells should have started to ring all over the Civil Service. The result was that

1299
the unions, which clearly had not been consulted at that time, began to lobby Members of your Lordships' House.
I have to say that it was an example of poor handling of an issue by the Government since in the atmosphere thus created we tended to listen somewhat sceptically to the noble Earl's protestations that it was all a misunderstanding and that this was a purely technical Bill the purpose of which was not wholesale privatisation. The noble Earl assured us that it could not be used as a vehicle for that, although he confirmed that that was still an ultimate objective of the Government. Thus we had a purely technical Bill designed simply to facilitate, as we understand it, a delegation of management functions within the Civil Service itself. We are very glad that as a result of pressure inside and outside the House there has now been consultation with the appropriate union. Moreover, on Report the noble Earl accepted the wording of an amendment that we had put down, which certainly, as I said earlier, makes the objectives of the Bill much more clear. Furthermore, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the quite specific guarantees that he has given on the Floor of the House during the debate on the Bill.
I myself remain opposed to the kind of so-called shake-up indicated in press reports which appears to be the Government's ultimate objective. I was somewhat disturbed to see that there is an advertisement in The Times today indicating that the Inland Revenue is putting out to tender its typing, secretarial and office support services. I understand that the jobs involved are in any case already filled by staff employed within the Civil Service. In my view this kind of privatisation is simply ideological. Ultimately, it is bad for the public and even worse for staff relations within the Civil Service.
We accept that the Bill itself is not a vehicle for privatisation but we still object to the manner in which apparently it is intended to hive-off Civil Service functions to the market. We do not believe that in that way the functions will be any better performed—on the contrary. I have a very high regard for the Civil Service in this country and I regret that that still remains the Government's ultimate objective.
Having said that, I accept that the Bill will leave this House as the technical Bill that we have been assured it is by the noble Earl.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must say something to support my noble friend Lady Turner and to justify the commotion that occurred when the Bill first made its appearance. I am strongly of the opinion that more lies behind the Bill than within it.
We appreciate the skill, lucidity and agreeableness of the noble Earl who found himself on a mystifying and difficult wicket at the start. But the misunderstanding about the Bill, to which he referred, occurred to a large extent through the silly speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time the Bill was being printed and published. Naturally, it was his boastful and arrogant speech about what he was going to do with the civil servants that led us to believe that the Bill had intentions far beyond its contents. However, the obscurity of
1300
language and prejudice against what we suspected to be its motives led to a misunderstanding as to what the Bill proposed. As the noble Earl just said, those misconceptions were removed and our confidence in the good faith of the Government in regard to this Bill restored when my noble friends Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lady Turner went to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to have the matter cleared up.
I much regret that the source of the misunderstanding and much else, including the advertisement in The Times today on behalf of the Inland Revenue to which my noble friend referred, was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I deplore that. At one time I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is a noble office which has obligations to the Crown and to time available for government and Cabinet business. I divided my time between the two. My salary was paid by contributions from both. But now the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been dragged into the marketplace. Instead of being the holder of a noble and historic office he has become the public service auctioneer. He is creating wide unrest and disturbance in the Civil Service at present.
The Bill itself deals with a matter which requires legislation, although of a minor character, namely to remove some of the red tape that stood in the way, on constitutional grounds, of transferring work from one Minister to another within the Government. That has now been made a shorter procedure.
So far so good. If that was all that there was to it and if that was all that was going to come out of the Bill we should not have any anxieties. However, what is happening now is precisely what we feared at the beginning. Although it is not covered by the Bill we see that that is beginning to happen quite apart from the Bill. We are entitled to inquire what is the statutory authority for what is now being done outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not expect that we shall receive a reply from the noble Earl on that point. We must have some sympathy with him. This is not his pitch. He has been brought in to represent the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in your Lordships' House on this Bill. I venture to suggest, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, that he has had nothing to do with the preparation of the Bill. He has probably had nothing to do with what has been decided on the Bill itself. His area of expertise lies in drift-net salmon and sea trout fishing which he will be called upon to deal with in the debate next week. There we shall see him blossom forth, in full command of the subject he is asked to deal with. I am sure that what was put into his hands with this Bill must have been a puzzle to him and was probably not welcome.
I do not know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will do in the further course of his destructive task. He holds an office covering the public sector and science, but he is not a departmental Minister. So far as I know he holds no other office. He does not have the usual parliamentary support and equipment enabling him to take his position in

1301
another place. However, that is their business and not ours. But this matter will be watched with critical attention.
I should add to what my noble friend said a moment ago about the advertisement in The Times today. That is now fixed in our minds as being directly associated with the Bill. It is not covered by the Bill or authorised by it. As I said a moment ago, I do not know how it has been authorised. All I know is that in the 75 years I have been connected with the Inland Revenue department, which I entered in 1915, nothing so humiliating has ever come out of Somerset House as the advertisement in The Times today.
The advertisement asks for tenders for work on which people are currently engaged. The advertisement relates particularly to Glasgow. It is intended that it should be followed by similar developments in relation to Bristol, Southampton, Central London and elsewhere. It is part of the dismemberment of the Inland Revenue. That department is not the only one which will be given this treatment.
I should stress that the posts described—well over 200, with management to match—are at this moment in full operation in Glasgow. The office is fully staffed. What does it amount to when an advertisement appears asking people to tender for the whole lot—staff and all? Tenders are to be delivered in January; the new scheme is supposed to start in April. What do the Government expect people to think about their future when they find themselves in such an uncertain position? Men and women who are already doing the job have been put up for auction. And, incidentally, they are handling confidential material, for which, so far as I am aware, no safeguards are being introduced in respect of the new employers who might emerge in that field. That is a serious prospect. If the approach is to be extended over the whole of the Civil Service it will be a serious and savage blow to the spirit and composite nature of public administration.
It is therefore in the gravest spirit that I feel that I must refer to the matter. Happily, in the Financial Times today a warning is published that those who tender for such work may find themselves blocked by an EC directive from worsening the conditions of pay and service which a transfer to the new employment might entail. We do not know where we are and they do not know where they are. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hopes that he can get rid of a large slice of public administration.
The Property Services Agency's project division has just been sold lock, stock and barrel to Tarmac for £ 84 million. That is quite a large slice of the Civil Service to be handed over. However, there are all sorts of complications and difficulties about contracts of service. The proposed Inland Revenue contract is for three years. What then? The approach is untried. There has been nothing like it before. I need not dwell further on the turmoil which is now being created.
In conclusion, I shall just add that the change of attitude by the Government and their apparent weakness on the pit closures question has stirred the militant Left in the Civil Service unions to feel that,"If the miners can do it we may be able to do it". That is
1302
a new problem for Civil Service organisation and control which has to be dealt with. I know from my own experience and my close knowledge of what is happening at the moment that that is disturbing for everybody involved.
Why is this being done? I am told that the magic formula is "value for money"—VFM. There is to be detailed consideration of the economics of the coal industry and consideration may have to be given to the economics of public administration, in which an ethos, integrity and desire for service exist in our Civil Service which are unique.
I must part with this Bill with the gravest concern about what is to follow. The Bill is the stalking horse. Now that we understand it fully we realise that it does not give rise to any problems. However, we can understand the motive behind it; that is, that the Government wish to remove any obstacles which stand in the way of moving Civil Service work around and moving it out to private tender. That matter should receive the major consideration of Parliament. It is an affront to the Civil Service and it is too important to be dealt with in the smaller hours of our work in Parliament. Prominent consideration should be given to where the Government intend to go and the way in which they propose to safeguard the legitimate interests and affairs of the public.
I am sad to deal with the matter in such tones but I never thought that I should stand in your Lordships' House in order to deal with an advertisement in the Personal Contracts column of The Times announcing a slab of work in Glasgow to be transferred to private enterprise lock, stock and barrel. Invitations for tender are invited and must be considered quickly if they are to take effect from next April. When dealing with another such case I asked that copies of contracts should be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House so that we know exactly what is required and what is expected to be done.
I thank the noble Earl for his work on the Bill as deputy to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I only deplore the fact that he was given this mission to carry out in your Lordships' House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for their closing remarks. I cannot blame the noble Baroness for rehearsing the difficulties that we experienced on Second Reading and in Committee. I accept, as I said in Committee, that the origins of those difficulties lie in an unintended coincidence of events and, with hindsight, in the Government not being in a position to take the unions into their confidence a little sooner.
I yield to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I can assure him that his suspicions about the Bill are entirely misplaced. I have said repeatedly, and I hope that the noble Baroness accepts my statement even though the noble Lord may still be in doubt, that the Bill has no connection with the Government's policy on privatisations. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken of the possible contracting out of the functions of the Inland Revenue. I am sure that those and other related matters will be the object of scrutiny in our debate on

1303
market testing, which will occur when an opportunity arises in due course. I look forward to a lively debate on that occasion. I stress that the subject has nothing to do with the Bill, as the noble Baroness has accepted.
Perhaps I may be allowed to summarise the purpose of the Bill. We cannot expect to deliver effective services to the public unless we are effectively organised to do so. We have good reason to be proud of our Civil Service. Better management which is better tuned to the needs of the Government's many different businesses will enable our civil servants to give of their best in serving the public. I believe that through the use of the power of delegation the Bill will
1304
do a great deal to help Civil Service managers to build on the improvements produced by the Next Steps initiative and to fulfil the aims of the Citizen's Charter within the Civil Service.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS: UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS: UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: ENTRY VISAS PROVISO
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: ENTRY VISAS PROVISO
  PIT BULL TERRIERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PIT BULL TERRIERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PLUTONIUM
  PLUTONIUM
  COAL CONSUMPTION
  COAL CONSUMPTION
  COT DEATHS
  COT DEATHS
  ECO-LABELLING
  ECO-LABELLING
  EWE LOSSES: NOTIFICATION
  EWE LOSSES: NOTIFICATION
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL,26th and 27th OCTOBER
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL,26th and 27th OCTOBER
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: WORKS
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: WORKS
  ANGLESEY AND RADNORSHIRE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
  ANGLESEY AND RADNORSHIRE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS