Sitting of 2 November 1993

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

  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think
  134
  fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have alrady been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to the Greater Manchester Bill?
  Mr. Bennett: My objection, Madam Speaker, was to the British Waterways Bill, which I thought was the first question that you put.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman actually objected to the first motion. The Question that I put was,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and the Bill now be read the third time.
  That is the motion which the hon. Gentleman objected to. The objection must stand for the moment, although I take it that he is also objecting to the Waterways Bill.
  Sir Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) did not understand the position when he objected to the first motion. Could you not exercise your discretion and allow it to pass on this occasion?
  Madam Speaker: Of course I can. I think that is a very common-sense approach. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the support of the House.

  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] Considered.
  Considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Capital Expenditure, Manchester
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will approve in full Manchester's bid for capital expenditure on schools for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Manchester's capital bid will be decided on its merits. We shall announce our decision on all the local education authority bids in December.
    Mr. Bradley: I hope the Minister has read the brilliant documentation of disrepair in Manchester schools in my constituency. I know that he is having a meeting with a delegation from Manchester city council next month, and I hope that he will work positively with its members to ensure that resources are made available for remodelling, repair and rebuilding of Manchester's schools, particularly Parrswood high school and St. Paul's school in my constituency. Will he ensure that all Manchester's children receive a quality education in quality schools and buildings?
    Mr. Forth: I am looking most carefully at Manchester's bid, as I look at all education authority bids. Manchester has done remarkably well over the last few years, and I do not wish to embarrass other local education authorities who might be envious of just how well it has done. I remain conscious of the needs of Manchester and other local education authorities. We will not only listen carefully to what the delegation has to say, but do our best to meet all reasonable requests from Manchester and other places.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that Manchester council would have more money to spend on its schools if it ran its affairs generally in a more efficient fashion? Have not the local government ombudsman and the Audit Commisssion identified numerous areas where money is wasted? For instance, 60 lecturers have been told to stay at home while the council spends £1 million on their salaries.
    Mr. Forth: I am not sure that I can take those precise factors into account when considering Manchester's capital bid; however, I expect Manchester and all the other local education authorities to take full advantage of the Chancellor's generosity in allowing them to use all capital receipts this year, without let or hindrance. I hope that they will do that, and direct a good deal of the money towards educational needs.
    Mr. Eastham: Will the Minister give some consideration to the serious position of schools in Manchester? In north Manchester—which constitutes about one fifth of my constituency, Blackley—each of 18 schools needs expenditure of more than £100,000. Is the Minister prepared to spend the money, or else find himself having to replace those schools with new buildings in four or five years' time?
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is directing such questions to Manchester local education authority —in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has said, in the light of what I have said about capital receipts and in the light of the fact that the LEAs have enormous discretion in prioritising their own work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is quizzing the LEA; it is to the LEA that he should look.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what aspects of the curriculum prepare school children for the opportunities of the single European market.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Timothy Boswell): The national curriculum provides for all pupils a broad and balanced education which will equip them with the skills, knowledge and understanding appropriate for adult life and for the world of work within the European Community. The Department has issued informal guidance on how this European dimension can be addressed through individual subjects, particularly modern foreign languages, geography and history.
    Mr. Taylor: While education must remain very much the responsibility of national Governments, does my hon. Friend agree that preparing young people for the opportunities and challenges presented by the single market—and also for the needs of companies that now operate on a pan-European scale—requires schools to take more and more children post-16, and to broaden their education by giving it a European dimension? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom Centre for European Education in this regard?
    Mr. Boswell: I agree very much with my hon. Friend on two counts. First, I approve of his emphasis on the fact that the European dimension must respect the national education systems that must deliver education; secondly, I endorse his praise for the United Kingdom Centre for European Education, where he and I shared a platform this morning. I was able to introduce to the conference, and the consultative process, the Commission's Green Paper, which is designed to set up proper measures for co-operation—but not harmonisation—in European education policies.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that the teaching of children will be made immensely more difficult in places such as Bradford if section 11 funding, and other funding aimed at tackling deprivation and disadvantage, is reduced? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or deny recent reports that Bradford's section 11 funding is to be substantially reduced?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman could take a few lessons in relevance before asking such questions. I have noted what he said, as have my colleagues; I hope, however, that he will remember that there is only one broad pot for education spending, and that any money that is spent for one purpose may not be available for another.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The national curriculum's requirement that every child learn a foreign language undoubtedly represents a major step forward, but is there

    137
    not a long way to go before our children are as well prepared for business in the single market as children in some other Community countries such as Germany—not to mention Holland and Sweden? Do we not need to invest more in training language teachers, and expanding the range of opportunities for children to learn foreign languages?
    Mr. Boswell: Our education system undoubtedly has some strengths—for example, in information technology —but it also has a number of weaknesses. I think that most of us feel that in respect of our performance in modern foreign languages. A strong emphasis has been placed on the issue, and we have discussed it with the Commissioner in the context of his proposed changes to the Lingua programme.

    Student Awards
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to provide special funding next year for discretionary student awards.
    Mr. Boswell: That is a matter for local education authorities. They are already free to devote to discretionary awards whatever portion of their total resources they consider appropriate to local needs and circumstances.
    Mr. Hain: Surely the Minister is insulting the House with that reply. He knows that every local education authority that wishes to fund students who need discretionary grants is prevented from doing so by the cuts in budgets which have been imposed by central Government. Is he aware that he is consigning many thousands of students, from those of medicine to those of music, who depend or would depend on a discretionary student grant, to an impossible position in which they cannot continue their further and higher education? Why does not he grasp that nettle? Why has he not published the study of the subject by the Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass foundations, which was promised by the Prime Minister in the summer?
    Mr. Boswell: We increased education spending by about 2·6 per cent. last year, and that is available for local authorities to spend on what they regard as their priorities. If they choose to take funds away and spend them in some other sector, that is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we took away that discretion from them.
    As for the point that the hon. Gentleman made about discretionary awards, we have not published the Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass foundations' study because it is not ours to publish. The document is being prepared by the National Foundation for Educational Research. I shall read it—as will the hon. Gentleman, I am sure—with great interest when the detailed findings are available. I have already told the House, from the early part of that study before the detailed work was done, that there was evidence of a continuation of spending and the number of awards made, both of which are slightly higher than they were three years ago.
    Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend must be aware that in my constituency there are premises of Leicester university and of De Montfort university. Is he aware that students at those universities find it difficult to manage on their grants because the socialist council in the city of Leicester is
    138
    imposing hideous regulations on private landlords, pricing private residential accommodation out of the reach of students? Will he, with the co-operation of the Department of the Environment, ensure that unnecessary regulations affecting student housing are not implemented?
    Mr. Boswell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I am very much in the business, from this Dispatch Box, of promoting academic deregulation wherever possible and preventing unnecessary and expensive regulations either in the capital programmes of universities and colleges or, indeed, in student accommodation. Although it is not a direct responsibility of the Department, and it has relevance to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, I have noted what my hon. Friend said and I will take forward his specific suggestion.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Whether the Minister likes it or not, the discretionary grants provision is now in a state of crisis. He promised the results of the Gulbenkian study before the summer and said that they were imminent, but we still await the results of that report. Even if he does not know, we know already that four local education authorities have cut discretionary grants altogether, another 10 have cut grants down to fees only and the majority have cut back on provision of discretionary grants. Is the Minister aware, as he ought to be, that the people who depend on discretionary grants are those who would not get into education without the grants? Will the tell the House here and now what steps he is taking to ensure that next year those grants will be available for the people who need them?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is such a slow learner. I have already explained to the House why I cannot publish the survey, which is not in my hands to publish. We are not sitting on it.
    The hon. Gentleman made a series of assertions in a paper that he submitted to the Department in July, including, at that time, the assertion that three local authorities had decided to make no discretionary awards. I have not, as far as I am aware, been given the names of those authorities. He has now increased the number to four. As I told him at the time, if he is prepared to name them, my Department will investigate because not to make any payments is an improper use of the discretionary procedure.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not the sad reality that too many Labour local authorities, such as mine in Leeds, simply do not attach sufficient importance to education to make a fair share of resources available for discretionary grants?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is exactly on the point. It is no good giving discretion to local authorities if they then turn round and dislike the discretion that they have been given because they have put it into directions which are their own priorities and not the priorities of students.
    I noted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). Of course, in certain areas less is paid. We shall know more when the detailed survey is completed. I am as anxious as he is that it should be completed. It is no excuse for a local authority to say that it has not been given the money—it has.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to improve the transition of school leavers from school to work.
    Mr. Boswell: All the Government's policies for school education, and particularly the national curriculum, are designed to prepare pupils for adult and working life.
    In addition to raising the standards of skills and knowledge achieved by all pupils, the Government are ensuring that they will benefit from a planned programme of careers education and guidance. This should assist them in taking advantage of the three clear qualifications pathways that we are developing.
    Mr. Mandelson: In the light of two reports on education standards—one published last week and the other, from the National Commission on Education, which will appear shortly—does the Minister accept that thousands of school leavers, mostly from deprived backgrounds and communities, are being badly let down by the school system? Is it not time for the Government to undertake an urgent examination of education provision for those above and below the school leaving age, so that the full range, quality and the co-ordination of education and training opportunities are significantly improved?
    Mr. Boswell: I will not comment on documents that I have not seen and which have not been published. I felt that the most striking aspects of the recent report by the Office for Standards in Education was the way in which it emphasised teachers' low expectations of their pupils in difficult areas and areas of social stress. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—if this is the point that he was making —that the problem needs addressing. Ofsted has produced an excellent report. Through our proposals for a large expansion in further education and, at school level, through the national curriculum, we are trying to provide a basis for all pupils, whatever their aptitudes and abilities and, above all, whatever their social backgrounds, to have the right to a decent education and to proper motivation from their teachers, as well as reasonable expectations of the very considerable progress that they can make.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Foyer project, which is one of eight pilot projects supported by his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment? It is intended to help young people in the transition between school and work, especially those who have difficulty in finding housing in Norwich and other parts of the country and also those young people who may have some difficulty at home. Will he pay full tribute to the excellent work that is being done in Norwich and elsewhere on that splendid project?
    Mr. Boswell: I most readily join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that project. I must emphasise the importance of studying the period around year 11 and subsequent years at school, when pupils make extremely critical career choices. They are entitled to as much guidance and support as we can possibly produce for them.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister reflect on the simple truth that seems to be obvious to everyone except the Government, which is that the greatest problem that has consistently faced school leavers is that their prospects of finding employment are worse than under any other
    140
    Government since the war? Will he reflect on the tremendous damage that is done within schools when pupils have the certain knowledge that, however hard they try and however many exams they pass, their prospects of finding full-time employment when they leave are minimal as long as this Government is in office? Does he not feel thoroughly ashamed to be a member of a Government who are responsible for that?
    Mr. Boswell: I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that unemployment has already decreased by 84,000 this year. I hope that he will not put it about to our school leavers that it is not worth staying on to get skills and qualifications, because growing numbers of them are staying on and were already doing so before the recession—71 per cent. are now staying on full time. That is a good investment in their future and I saw a specialist class at a further education college the other day which had a turnout into employment of more than 90 per cent. because of the high level of skills achieved.
    Mr. Forman: While I welcome the thrust of the Government's policy in that area, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest needs is for more vocational courses to be taken in schools at an earlier stage? In that context, will my hon. Friend give a further push to the excellent general national vocational qualifications, which provide a good path for that purpose?
    Mr. Boswell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who, if not the father, was the godfather of general national vocational qualifications. They form a splendid path of new qualifications and are being taken up by upwards of 500 schools and 500 colleges this autumn. We have most ambitious targets for their uptake—we want a quarter of all children who fall within the appropriate age group to take them up within a short time. For the first time, the Government have pioneered proper and appropriate qualifications, blending education and vocation, and providing parity of esteem with the academic route with which we are familiar.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last reviewed the statementing process for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: The Education Act 1993 and the draft code of practice issued last week will significantly improve the arrangements for the education of all children with special needs—those with and those without statements. As a result, statements will be made more quickly and written more clearly—to the benefit of children and their parents. We also issued draft regulations which would, for the first time, bind local education authorities to time limits when making assessments and statements.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a 13-year-old constituent of mine was, to use the odious phrase, "statemented" and, to the anguish of her parents, excluded from mainstream school? There is no other accommodation for her anywhere in Leicester so she receives her education at home for the statutory minimum of just five hours a week—only when her tutor is well, which she is not at present. Is it not disgraceful that the children who

    141
    most need education receive the least education because local education authorities such as Leicestershire simply do not have the money to extend the hours? Will the Minister be good enough to look at that aspect of the statementing problem to see whether he can find a way to help local education authorities to provide education at home for those children who, through no fault of their own, cannot receive education at ordinary schools?
    Mr. Forth: Obviously, provided all the existing appeals mechanisms have been properly exhausted, I shall want to look at the case raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Janner: They have.
    Mr. Forth: If that is so, we shall want to look at the case. I believe that the Education Act 1993, which places new duties on authorities, the code of practice, which brings new uniformity and clarity to the process of making statements for children, the time limits and the SEN tribunal, all add up to a better deal for the children in our schools who have special educational needs. It is no excuse for any local education authority to hide behind the resources whinge if it is not fulfilling its duties towards children with special educational needs. If that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman's local education authority is doing, it is a disgrace.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that many parents will welcome the much strengthened provisions in the new Education Act for those with special educational needs, particularly the time limits on the statementing process? Does he also agree that it is up to the schools to ensure that they identify those children with special needs and ensure that their needs are properly meet?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend played his part in bringing the Education Act to fruition and on to the statute book, for which I am grateful. He pinpointed the fact that we are rightly going to lay the onus very much on schools, which must have a special educational needs policy. The code of practice rightly lays on schools the principal responsibility for constantly assessing pupils' needs, identifying those needs and meeting them. That will be a considerable step towards providing properly for all children and their needs.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Minister and, having listened to his opening reply, may I say that I agreed with every word of it. The draft code of practice is a most commendable document—the only thing wrong with it is the colour of its cover, but we can stand that. For all the good ideas drafted in the code of practice, unless there are sufficient resources, all the tine words it contains will count for nothing—that is not a resources whinge by a local authority.
    Will the Minister do two things? First, will he undertake a survey on what has happened to special educational needs provision over the past four years? I think that he will find that it has not improved in many spheres. Secondly, when local authorities come forward, will he commit himself to providing the resources to implement the fine instructions given in the code of practice; otherwise it will be a scandal?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but I must say that the answer to both his questions is no. A survey of the kind that he suggests would be useless because it would be looking to the past,
    142
    when the future is about the Education Act, the code of practice and all that is in them, together with the tribunal. I believe that, as a result of the Act and the code of practice, there will be a much better, more effective and efficient use of existing resources in directing them properly towards pupils in a structured and clear way. I do not believe, therefore, that we should necessarily assume that the improved provision for special educational needs that the Act and the code of practice will bring necessarily demands a blanket spraying of resources around local education authorities. The resources will be better directed by what is in the code of practice. I look forward very much to seeing an improved quality in the delivery of service.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in Kent, distinguishing between (a) primary and (b) secondary; and how many applications for grant-maintained status are under consideration.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): Fifty-four secondary schools and 12 primary schools in Kent are already self-governing and enjoying the freedom that grant-maintained status brings. A further seven secondary schools and seven primary schools are in the process of acquiring GM status.
    Mr. Rowe: Does not that remarkable figure clearly demonstrate how popular the policy of grant-maintained schools is? Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent article by the director of education in Kent, who, apparently relying on the convention that officials are immune from political attack, chose to attack in an exaggerated and extraordinary form the policy of the Government?
    Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend's praise for self-governing schools. I also agree that the article by the director of education, which was published in The Times Educational Supplement, was both inaccurate and misleading. That is not only my view; I notice that, the following week, the TES published letters from a significant number of head teachers and others making precisely the same points.
    Let me reassure my hon. Friend that in Kent and elsewhere, as parents have those ballots, they will draw their lessons from the success of schools on the ground rather than from the articles to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister acknowledge that the disgraceful decision to allow only voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools to apply for moneys under the new technology schools initiative is nothing more than a bribe to persuade yet more schools in Kent and elsewhere to opt out? Will he explain why the advice of the chairman of the City Technology Colleges trust was ignored? What further bribes does he propose to offer to try to boost the flagging grant-maintained school initiative?
    Mr. Squire: The simplest answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to say that he is wrong. The policy to which he refers was highlighted by the Prime Minister in

    143
    1991, it was in our election manifesto in 1992, it was in my right hon. Friend's White Paper following that and it was in the legislation.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that grant-maintained schools in Kent moved out of local education authority control only because parents wished to do so, is the Minister aware that the Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council is now objecting to all grant-maintained school applications, yet did not have the guts to tell the people of Kent of its policy during and before the recent Kent county council elections?
    Mr. Squire: I find it sad that the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend took place in Kent and, for all I know, in other counties. In the forthcoming elections, I hope that the parties—whatever their views on self-governing schools—will not hesitate to put their views before the electorate. If, like Opposition Members, they believe that self-governing schools are wrong, they should say so and make that clear to the electorate before they vote.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he recommends for pupil-teacher ratios for nursery education in areas of deprivation.
    Mr. Robin Squire: There are no recommendations made on staffing levels specifically for nursery education in areas of deprivation. The long-standing recommended staffing levels for all pupils in nursery education are for a minimum of two staff members for every 26 children in nursery classes and two for 20 children in nursery schools; in both cases, one member of staff should be a qualified teacher and one a qualified nursery assistant.
    Mr. Wray: According to the statistics from the Library, 26:1 is the average pupil-teacher ratio in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that thousands of children are missing out on nursery education? Will he take a leaf out of the Plowden report, which recommends that areas of deprivation should have pupil-teacher ratios as low as 10:1? Does not the Government's capping of local authorities mean that they cannot spend the money that they would like to spend on nursery education?
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as has already been referred to, how money is used by local authorities is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman also knows that within the grant distribution system, significant extra sums go to areas of major deprivation.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree with Ofsted and Professor David Hargreaves, former chief inspector of the Inner London education authority, that standards in nursery schools and the primary sector in deprived areas depend not so much on pupil-teacher ratios as on high expectations from teachers and good leadership from head teachers? Is not it true that those are underpinned by policies of rigorous assessment and league tables, which are understood by the vast majority of parents in Britain but are completely misunderstood by the Opposition?
    Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend's excellent comments. I suspect that one thing that would transform education in some of our inner cities would be the
    144
    stretching of all pupils by teachers so that pupils are tested to the very limit of their abilities rather than taught down to.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the Minister's last answer, will he clarify the Government's position with regard to nursery school league tables? Does the Minister accept that the Ofsted report, praised by the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education earlier this afternoon, points out the critical role of nursery education? Is not it a remarkable condemnation of 14 years of Conservative Government that so many young children are denied the best start in education? If parents, governors, teachers and now Ofsted can see the value of nursery education, why will not Ministers lift one finger to help extend nursery provision and provide the best start for all our children?
    Mr. Squire: Far from simply lifting a finger, as the hon. Lady says, the Government have acted and significantly increased the numbers in nursery education since we have been in power. But we do not believe that nursery education is the only answer for pre-school aged children. As the hon. Lady well knows, more than 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in Britain are educated in some form of group activity, a rich and varied form of education and training.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local authorities now have more than 10 per cent. of their pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): In 30 local authorities, 10 per cent. or more of all pupils are already being educated in self-governing schools. In 47 local authorities, more than 10 per cent. of secondary pupils are educated in grant-maintained schools and 15 per cent. of the country's secondary pupils are now educated in grant-maintained schools—nearly 500,000 pupils today.
    Mrs. Peacock: What responsibilities will the funding agency have for schools in areas in which more than 10 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools?
    Mr. Patten: The new Funding Agency for Schools will have considerable powers in such areas. Once more than 75 per cent. of pupils in either the primary or secondary sector are being educated in grant-maintained schools, the Funding Agency for Schools will take over the planning of school places in its entirety. Local education authorities can ask to go into the care of the Funding Agency for Schools long before that if they wish. Already at least one borough, Hillingdon, has passed the 75 per cent. point, so from 1 April the Funding Agency for Schools will be dealing with all the schools in Hillingdon, shortly to be joined by Brent and a good number of other local authorities.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What plans does the Secretary of State have to force all schools to adopt grant-maintained status by abolishing local education authorities and when can we expect an announcement about that?
    Mr. Patten: None, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal opposition to grant-maintained schools comes from two sources; politically motivated local education authorities and local education authorities which seek to protect their education empires?
    Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the appointment of Sir Christopher Benson to the Funding Agency for Schools? Does he agree that Sir Christopher will reach those parts of the educational scene that other educationists will not reach?
    Mr. Patten: On the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question, the answers are yes and yes.
    As for Sir Christopher Benson, we are extremely fortunate to have the present serving chairman of the Housing Corporation moving to the Funding Agency for Schools. He is a man with an international reputation and that makes the attack on him in The Guardian by the Opposition spokesman on education all the more disgraceful. He has not been attacked by any Labour Front Bencher during his tenure as chairman of the Housing Corporation, yet the hon. Lady has started to attack him before he has even taken up his job.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there were 95 school ballots on grant-maintained status in October last year, while there were just 19 ballots in October this year? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that it is five years to the day since the first school ballots for grant-maintained status took place and that, at the rate at which schools have become grant-maintained, it will take the best part of the century to reach the Government's targets?
    Does the Secretary of State have any plans to revise the targets, now that his bribe-and-divide policy is simply running out of steam?
    Mr. Patten: We have no targets; we have figures. Already this year some 450 schools have taken part in ballots on grant-maintained status and there will be another 50 ballots before Christmas.
    The hon. Lady simply does not understand her brief. I understand that a learned judge has said recently that repetitive strain injury does not exist; repetitive political self-damage occurs every time that the hon. Lady opens her mouth.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the petty, vicious and nasty policy of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council, which is seeking to cut all capital funding to any school in Essex which thinks about or puts in motion a grant-maintained ballot?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the Lib-Lab-Democrat pact which is now in charge in Essex runs Kent very close for the title of the worst education authority among the new Lib-Lab controlled shires.
    I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. It is entirely wrong for any local authority to attempt to use bully-boy—and, to satisfy the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), bully-girl—tactics to stop schools voting in favour of grant-maintained status.

    Literacy
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent study he has made of national literacy standards.
    Mr. Patten: Standards in the teaching and learning of reading and writing in schools are continually monitored by the Office for Standards in Education, and the national curriculum testing arrangements for English will provide a regular measurement of the attainment of pupils. Adult literacy is monitored on the Government's behalf by the excellent adult literacy and basic skills unit. The raising of literacy standards is a top priority for the Government's policies for education and is reflected by the substantial support which we are providing for the Reading Recovery and the Family Literacy initiatives.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware of the planned reduction from £129 million to £90 million of section 11 funding. Those cuts will affect Coventry, where three quarters of that money is spent on English as a second language. How on earth do those cuts fit in with the Government's stated priorities? Is this a case of two Ministries which are not able to work together? Is it a case of the Government saying one thing and doing another, or is it simply that people from ethnic minorities do not figure highly in the Government's priorities?
    Mr. Patten: They figure very highly. I say three things to the hon. Gentleman. First, I share his interest in ensuring that all our children from ethnic minority communities are well educated. Secondly, he should reflect on whether all the money that was previously earmarked for section 11 funds in years past was well spent. Much of it was spent by labour local education authorities such as Avon on paying general teachers' salaries rather than section 11 teachers' salaries. Thirdly, while I agree that some teaching of mother tongue languages or English as a second language may be important for newly landed immigrant children, the first language of all our children should be English. That is what should be taught in our schools.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a Scotsman, may I say that the English language is the greatest and most necessary opportunity that one can give to a child, and the younger the better, if the child is to find employment and be impressive. The civil service has hardly shown us the way in its reports. Idiotic phrases such as "statementing process", as was used in question No. 5, show that the civil service is destroying English. It ought not to.
    Mr. Patten: I shall refer the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has ministerial responsibility for the civil service. As for the first part, I regard it as critical that all our children are brought up to speak standard English clearly and with confidence; that helps to level all our children up. Standard English should be spoken clearly and with confidence, whatever accent is used to deliver it. That includes the accent of my hon. and learned Friend.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that early next month Mrs. Margaret Humphreys will become the first British citizen outside the royal family to be awarded the prestigious Order of Australia medal for her work in rehabilitating victims of the British child migrants scheme? In recognition of that award, will the Prime Minister set up an independent public inquiry into the operation of the scheme until 1967 and the resulting appalling treatment of vast numbers of British children? In view of his professed commitment to open government, will the Prime Minister end the disgraceful Government cover-up of the issue once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate Mrs. Humphreys on her award. I was not aware that that was the case, but I give her my warmest congratulations. As the hon. Gentleman will know—for I am aware that he has taken a great interest in the matter —the migration schemes to Australia and other countries were run at the time by respected national voluntary bodies. The Government's concern now is to ensure that former child migrants who want to make contact with their families are able to do so. Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country.
    Dame Jill Knight: In the light of the broadcast by Gerry Adams last week and the offence that it caused to a great number of people, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the arrangements for the broadcasting on our television screens of self-confessed terrorists and supporters of mass murderers should be revised?
    The Prime Minister: Many people felt that the incident to which my hon. Friend refers stretched the present guidelines to the limit and perhaps beyond. That is a matter that perhaps we should examine.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that, while it must be right for both parents to contribute properly to the maintenance of their children, the Child Support Agency is causing widespread anxiety and dismay by imposing a rigid and inflexible financial formula that often ignores the realities of people's lives? Will he institute an immediate review of the operation of the Child Support Act 1991?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises the need for both parents to contribute to the bringing up of their children—that is not a point of dispute between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that fathers who desert their children face up to their responsibilities. I know of the concerns that have been raised about that matter and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is examining them.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in any examination of the system, account is taken of the fact that the formula appears to disregard a property settlement, which provides a home for children, and also the cost of exercising access? Should not those factors, at the least, be taken into account and will they be encompassed in any further considerations of the operation of the Child Support Act?
    The Prime Minister: There are a number of matters to be considered, including the maintenance formula to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend is aware, as I indicated a moment ago, of the concerns that have been raised and he will examine them.
    Mr. John Smith: If further consideration is to be given, will the right hon. Gentleman look into what appears to be another possible fault in the system? Is it right that out of the £530 million that the agency is to raise in its first year, £480 million should go to the Treasury and only £50 million to the benefit of children? While recognising, of course, the legitimate interest of the taxpayer, does not that show a lack of balance in what is supposed to be a Child Support Act?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the main purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that assistance is given by both parents towards their children. That is the purpose of the agency and that will continue to be its purpose in the future.
    Mr. Lidington: In view of this morning's press comments about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards possible payments from the European social fund, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make the Government's position clear?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen suggestions in the press in recent weeks that sums due from the social fund would not be paid. Those reports are misguided. It is my expectation that the £300 million figure that has been mentioned in those press reports will be taken up by authorities within the calendar year.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of a guillotine on the Railways Bill is an affront to democracy—[Interruption.]—which has caused dis-quiet not only on Opposition Benches, but on his Benches, too, because it will curtail discussion of vital subjects such as pensions, railcards, and British Rail's bid for franchises? Does not he realise that it will be seen by the public as a cheap, gerrymandering attempt to get an unpopular measure, which was introduced by his Government, through the House when it could have been debated fully in the two weeks up to the Queen's Speech?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time and I congratulate him on keeping a straight face while he asked that question. When the arrangements for consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill were announced, no one suggested that the two days proposed were insufficient. The majority of the amendments that have been brought

    149
    from another place are uncontroversial, many of them demonstrate the Government's positive responses to the points made in the Lords and all aspects of the proposals have been discussed exhaustively at all stages.
    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that so far there have been more than 186 hours of debate, including 130 hours in this House alone—hardly a negation of democracy.
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brandreth: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal involvement in encouraging the Maryland bank of North America to bring its European headquarters to the city of Chester and with it the prospect of 1,000 new jobs for my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment and employment prospects must now go to the top of the European agenda and that the British approach gets the right results—less regulation means more jobs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the relationship between regulation and jobs. The greater the extent to which we can reduce both regulation from Brussels and domestic regulation, the greater will be the likelihood of increasing the number of jobs in the United Kingdom. I am delighted at the excellent news from Chester and I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Ministry for Industry on their part in obtaining that institution.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Prime Minister find time today to call for the court reports referred to in early-day motion 2534, standing in my name and that of other hon. Members, on the torture of a British citizen, Sulaiman A1-Adsani, by Sheikh Jabar A1-Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal house? That matter is now to go before the courts in Kuwait. The torture, which consisted of the burning of 25 per cent. of the body of that British citizen and of his being held repeatedly under water in a swimming pool that was floating with dead bodies and being pistol-whipped and brutally beaten, is a serious matter. Given that the A1-Sabah family business was reinstated to power at the point of British arms and at much British sacrifice, does the Prime Minister think that it would be a worthwhile subject of discussion between him and the Government of Kuwait?
    The Prime Minister: My understanding is that the matter is being dealt with by the courts of Kuwait, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look at the information available to us.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his desire to get back to basics in education? Does he agree that it is essential to keep A-levels as a beacon of excellence at the top of secondary education, to concentrate on reading and writing in primary schools and to ensure that there is strong discipline in schools?
    The Prime Minister: I want to see us get back to basics in education, as in other subjects. We want to hear a good deal more of common sense and traditional values and rather less of the fashionable views that have so often offended parents and damaged education. I know that many teachers are concerned about the problem of discipline in schools and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education wishes to discuss with teachers what action can be taken.
    Mr. Stevenson: In view of the collapse of the Government's policy on law and order, which has led to rocketing crime figures and equally record prison populations, does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Derek Lewis that a return to that Victorian value, the prison ship, would be regrettable?
    The Prime Minister: There is an internal contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is right and our policy has collapsed, we would not be catching villains and our prisons would not be crowded. He should listen to what the chairman of the Police Federation said just eight days ago:
    "There has been a lot of comment about prison in the last few days … One fact is clear. Society must be protected from the small but vociferous minority who put two fingers up to the criminal justice system. They are cautioned or bailed simply to be let out again and to reoffend and reoffend again … These criminals should be behind bars. By locking them up they will be unable to ruin other people's lives."
    Those are my views as well.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge my right hon. Friend to be sceptical about the siren voices predictably suggesting to him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a major contribution can be made towards reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by relying on the future growth of our economy? That is the fairy gold school of economics, greatly beloved by Opposition politicians all over the world. Does he agree that it is important that, on Budget day, it should be seen that we are making an immediate, substantial and steady movement towards a reduction of our fiscal deficit?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need to make a steady and consistent move to reduce our fiscal deficit. We have been looking at the range of Government expenditure to find out whether it is necessary; if it is, whether it is being spent effectively; and whether there is waste that we can cut. Those are propositions behind which all my right hon. and hon. Friends can unite, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who would throw taxpayers' money at every problem. There will be a series of ways to reduce the fiscal deficit: withholding public expenditure is one; and growth and other factors will make a contribution.
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Hara: Yesterday in the House, the Government failed to refute a figure in a Department of Transport

    151
    working paper of £1·15 billion extra subsidy that would be needed for British Rail after privatisation. That is considerably in excess of the sum that would be raised were VAT imposed on domestic fuel bills at a rate of 8 per cent. next year. Will the Prime Minister apologise to pensioners who will be shivering through next winter when he tells them that they will be contributing to the placing of not one more train on our rail tracks or one more passenger on those trains, but to a semblance of profitability in a sham of privatised railways?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense, as the House will have expected of him. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are looking at assistance to help vulnerable people with their heating costs during the winter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters such as special cold weather payments were never raised, provided or thought about by previous Governments.

Hare Coursing (No. 2)
3.30 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes.
My constituency of West Lancashire has much to be proud of, but it is not proud of the fact that it hosts the Waterloo cup, which coursers tell me is the blue riband of hare coursing.
The overwhelming majority of people in West Lancashire feel nothing but revulsion for that cruel sport, and I am glad to say that attempts to end it have attracted all-party support. That was particularly the case when the district council passed a Labour resolution to create a byelaw banning the sport in the district, which attracted support from the Conservatives. The Home Office has blocked that byelaw on grounds which I can describe only as spurious. One of the Labour councillors concerned in that vote, Andrew Johnson., represents the parish that hosts, unwillingly, the Waterloo cup, and he is present in the Gallery today. He has earned widespread support in his village for his opposition to that unpleasant activity.
Alas, many obnoxious blood sports remain in this country, but none is more detested than hare coursing. For those hon. Members who know little of it, it consists of beaters driving hares on to a large course. The hares bolt for the long grass past a dog handler who unleashes two hounds, and the dogs seek to catch and kill the hares. Points are awarded for the dexterity of the hounds in turning the hares but, of course, the fundamental aim is the killing of the hares, which, when caught, are torn to pieces.
On one side of the course are assembled the Range Rover and hamper types, and on the other side on a mound are to be found the men with a crate of lager under each arm. The consumption of the lager leads to ever more ugly demands for more killing. To a large extent, the amount of killing can be controlled by the point at which the handler releases the dogs.
Hare coursing is the last legal spectator blood sport—rather than a spectator sport—in this country. It should follow bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting and bull baiting into the history books as a horror that civilised men and women have discarded.
The last Waterloo cup meeting in the spring was attended by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott). We spent about two hours there, during which time there were no kills. There had been kills before we arrived and there were more after we left. Towards the end of our visit, the lager mound was beginning to get obvious in its demands for more blood.
In fairness, I must tell the House that the organisers of the event treated us with extreme courtesy. Mr. Mark Prescott, the organiser, explained his enthusiasm for the sport with great plausibility, not to say charm. He would, wouldn't he? The basis of his defence, like that of all those who are involved in this so-called sport, is, first, the long, distinguished and interesting history of hare coursing; secondly, the income that it provides for some landowners
154
and some temporary beaters; thirdly, that it is a celebration of the skills of the hares as well as the dogs; and fourthly, that most hares get away.
Many barbaric practices have long and interesting histories, and they include cruelties inflicted on human beings that some Conservative Members would be all too anxious to restore. To say that an abuse of our responsibilities as human beings has a long history cannot justify its continuation. To quote employment as justification is feeble, and such employment should also include the large numbers of policemen who turn out to keep the peace at an event that naturally gives rise to strong feelings. I spoke to the police on duty at the Waterloo cup event. They felt as much distaste for the sport as everyone else, and expressed the wish that they would no longer have to police the affair.
The policy of the League Against Cruel Sports to demonstrate and protest with restraint has meant that there are few significant clashes at the Waterloo cup. The only arrest that I saw was of a drunken hare coursing enthusiast who launched himself at the protesters and was hauled down by the constables.
To celebrate the skills of a beautiful wild animal by dying to see it pulled to shreds is the height of hypocrisy. The excuse that most hares get away is equivalent to saying that most people are not murdered and that therefore murderers's activities should not be stopped.
Government-sponsored research shows that the hare population is in serious decline. The total for the United Kingdom is estimated at 900,000. Some areas, such as parts of East Anglia, are denuded of hares so that they can be transported to Altcar. The species is not a pest, and is already under stress from agricultural change.
It is important to appreciate the close relationship between legal and illegal hare coursing. At the 1990 Waterloo cup, 15 gangs of illegal coursers were arrested in adjacent fields. The best on offer from the law to check this activity was a £40 fine for trespass. Many hon. Members have good reason to support action against unofficial hare coursing, which is often conducted through threats to farmers, gamekeepers and landowners. The National Farmers Union and the police are on record as seeking to outlaw the activity.
I have press cuttings giving accounts of such activities in Wistaston near Crewe, in Aldborough, Salisbury plain, near Newmarket and near Peterborough. In Upholland in my constituency, a seven-year-old girl saw hares torn apart by lurchers close to her home twice in one day. I do not think that Laura Horrocks will every forget that experience.
I am told that illegal coursing is sometimes videotaped and videos are run in pubs for betting purposes—a macabre race night. How can we expect illegal coursing to be curbed by the law when legal coursing is still sanctioned by the House? I had a brief quote from a blood sport journal, but I have lost it somewhere. It said that, if legal hare coursing is abolished, illegal hare coursing will follow as sure as night follows day—and a good thing too.
Hare coursing cannot be defended as part of a traditional country pursuit, especially as few of its proponents are traditional people. Nor can it be defended on the grounds of freedom. The freedom to be barbaric, to be a killer and to rejoice in the spilling of blood for its own sake is a freedom that we allow at the peril of our civilisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mrs. Janet Anderson, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Jean Corston, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Mr. Roger Stott.

Hare Coursing (No. 2)

  HARE COURSING (No. 2)
  Mr. Colin Pickthall accordingly presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard ten-minute rule Bill on a subject which used to cause maximum controversy and opposition. You will have noticed that, after my hon. Friend's excellent remarks, there was no opposition whatsoever to the measure. It no longer seems to be a controversial subject. No Conservative Member stood up and opposed it, which would have been the case previously. In view of the fact that there is no opposition to the Bill, is there any way in which we can make parliamentary progress, for all the excellent and valued reasons my hon. Friend put forward?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that he must pursue that matter with the Leader of the House and through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day

  Railways Bill (Allocation of Time)
  3.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Railways Bill:

  Railways Bill (Allocation of Time)

    LORDS AMENDMENTS
    1. The proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings.
    2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

    (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

    (iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and

    (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

    (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
    (2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    STAGES SUBSEQUENT TO FIRST CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
    3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    157

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

    (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

    (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    (3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    SUPPLEMENTAL
    4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown—

    (a) for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons; or

    (b) for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

    (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    5. —(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    (4) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    (5) If the proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
    The case for the motion can be put simply and briefly. There are four good reasons.
    First, the Bill has had ample time for debate—about 185 hours before yesterday's proceedings—when all the issues have been exhaustively discussed. That is a great deal of time for every issue to be tackled, so no one can argue that both Houses have had insufficient time to consider the Bill. Quite the reverse: a huge amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to it.
    Secondly, all but two of the Lords amendments are either in response to commitments given to hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place, or they are technical. Indeed, some 75 per cent. of the amendments are technical and do not introduce any real policy issues, or they are consequential. A very large number simply flow from the commitments that have been made.
    It is noteworthy that only a small proportion of the time spent on the Bill in another place was spent on the Government amendments that we are considering today. They were all passed in another place without a Division. They were unopposed by the Opposition in another place, with one exception.
    The vast majority—indeed, all but two—of the amendments that we are considering in these two days are in response to commitments or are technical. They took very little time in the House of Lords and were not opposed there.
    Thirdly, we are fundamentally concerned with two issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr.
    158
    Rathbone) said last night. One concerns pensions—the exception to which I referred—and the other British Rail being allowed to bid for franchises. We had provided the House with generous time—two whole days—to consider those issues and the other technical amendments that took so little time in the other place. It should have been perfectly possible to deal with those issues as fully as was required—as, indeed, is still possible under this motion.
    It is interesting to note that the other place took about three and a half hours on the two issues; we still have five hours ahead of us to debate them, and we could have spent a great deal of time on them yesterday. In addition, the House had already debated them fully before the Bill left here to go to the other place. We are talking about two amendments that have been very fully and widely debated in the other place in less time than we are now making available at this stage of our proceedings. It is quite clear that we have already provided generous time.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can the Minister tell us of any other Bill of which a very substantial part of the provisions were introduced by a Minister saying, "Although the wording is not clear, it is obvious that it will be tested in the courts"?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are many cases where Acts of Parliament involve interpretation by the courts. It happens frequently. I note that the hon. Lady has not challenged any of the three points that I have made so far, yet those are important points in the context of the debate.
    My fourth point is that the fact that we have provided plenty of time was acknowledged when no hon. Member questioned the time allocation announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during the business statement last week. That is a crucial point, because it is quite clear that the House understood all the points that I have just made and decided that the time provided for our debate this week was sufficient to deal with all the issues.
    Dr. John Marek: I want to make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the Bill has been substantially rewritten. His argument is that, although it has been modified, the principle is not different. That may be so, but the House examines Bills line by line and goes into the detail. Therefore, the argument that the Bill is not substantially different in principle, apart from two issues that have been well debated in the other place, does not carry much water.
    Secondly, the other place has sent back those two issues to the House of Commons and is telling us to think again, so they should be fully debated. I am afraid that I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have provided plenty of time for those two issues to be debated—indeed, more time than we provided when we considered them on Report on 25 May. We did not have a guillotine on 25 May, but the House decided that two and a half hours of debate was sufficient time, and then took a vote. The hon. Gentleman's point fails on that fact alone. If his view is really as he stated, I am surprised that he did not communicate it to his right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday or raise the matter in the House. The truth is that, last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that two full days had been allocated to debate these issues, and the House thought that that was ample.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that when two days are allocated to debate a Bill that has been to the other place and where new material is involved—and although the measure is controversial and the job of the Opposition is to oppose and to use all the techniques available to do so—it is wrong of the Opposition to assume that the debate will continue beyond 10 o'clock so that the Opposition can harry the Government? Surely that is the role of the Opposition.
    The Government know that 80 per cent. of the British public do not want the Bill—[Interruption.] That is true. Our assumption was that two days meant many more hours of debate than being obliged to finish at 10 o'clock on two successive days. I was under the impression that we would spend all night opposing the Bill line by line, clause by clause, to try to prevent it being passed—in line with the wishes of millions of people.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He said that the Opposition would use every technique available to make sure that the Bill never reached the statute book. That is not the stage that we are at—
    Mr. Skinner: It is the Opposition's job to oppose.
    Mr. MacGregor: Exactly, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that the Opposition can use every technique without being challenged, he must understand that the Government have the legitimate role of ensuring that amendments are properly considered and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has blown the gaff. He has told us exactly what the Opposition are about.
    Until yesterday, we had every reason to believe that we could deal with all the issues in an orderly and reasonable manner. We saw what happened, and the hon. Gentleman explained the thinking behind it. There was an attempt to use the techniques of the House to prevent the Bill from going through. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends now understand exactly what was happening.
    Mr. Skinnerrose—
    Mr. MacGregor: As I am not too naive in these matters, I will spell it out to the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I will allow him to make another point first.
    Mr. Skinner: Every text book on parliamentary government and the role of the Opposition indicates that the only power held by the Opposition to stop a ruthless and arrogant Government from enacting measures that the majority of the population do not want is to use the availability of parliamentary time. The Secretary of State is saying that, for the past 14 years, the Government have been so contemptuous of the people and of arguments that, every time that there is opposition, they introduce a guillotine to have their way and to get their legislation through. That says more about this Government than about Oppositions generally in the past.
    Mr. MacGregor: I recall, when I was fairly new to the House, having to suffer five guillotines in one day from the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government. The amount of time allowed must be reasonable; it cannot be unlimited. We have already spent more than 185 hours examining the Bill in great detail.
    160
    Yesterday, we saw a classic filibuster. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for even a short time could spot what the Opposition were up to a mile away. We had nearly five hours—
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State says that the House was subjected to a filibuster by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Did you, Madam Speaker, have to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member speaking because he or she was filibustering? You should put him in his place.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That matter is for debate and argument, not for the Chair. I know well what took place yesterday. Any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to do so can check the time taken by any speaker.
    Mr. MacGregor: What we are doing now is also in order. I will take the House through it. Yesterday, nearly five hours were spent debating two amendments—
    Mr. John Heppell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way for the moment. Nearly five hours were spent debating two groups of amendments.
    Mr. Heppellrose—
    Mr. MacGregor: This is totally typical of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Heppell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the House dealt with 128 amendments yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that no right hon. or hon. Member misleads the House. That is not a point of order for the Chair but a matter of argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, because he has not been allowed to intervene—but if he will be a little patient, perhaps the Secretary of State will allow him to do so later.
    Mr. MacGregor: We want to get on to the points of substance, but it is obvious what the Opposition are up to. They are not allowing me to get on with the argument and are clearly keen to filibuster this debate as well.
    I acknowledge that we debated two groups of amendments yesterday. It is typical of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that he picks up on points of trivia and delivers great tirades on them, but he never addresses the major issues.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will know of my interest in and concern about the more controversial Lords amendments. Does he agree that it would not have made sense to debate, for example, the so-called Peyton amendment on BR bids at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and that it was far better to debate those matters in prime time, which we would have hoped the Opposition would allow? Is not the real reason the fact that the Opposition were denied the possibility of a Conservative rebellion by the skill of the Secretary of State and of some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wanted an opportunity to prove his virility to the left of the Labour party, having possibly sacrificed it at the Labour party conference?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. John Prescott: Look at what the pensioners are going to lose.
    Mr. MacGregor: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Look at what the pensioners are going to lose." He repeats that allegation around the country, but it is not true, as I shall make clear in a moment. It is time that he stopped repeating that accusation, because it is not true.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State pays lip service to the desire to get on with the debate, but we are anxious to get on to its substance and, above all, to the issue of pensioners. Instead of taking part in a cheapskate exercise, let the Secretary of State address himself to the views of the chairman of the British Rail pension fund. Before the summer recess, he said that he was satisfied with assurances that he had been given, but he is now calling on the Government in specific terms to stop reneging on their assurances. He has accused them of reneging on assurances given in another place and coming back to the House with amendments to reverse the Lords amendments.
    Let the Secretary of State address himself to those views and to the genuine concerns of hundreds of thousands of British Rail pensioners rather than getting involved in this game of farce and semantics. The Government are interested only in curtailing debate, because they know that the more debate there is, the more they lose the argument.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is not right. I shall return to pensions, which I regard as a serious issue. I wish that we could have spent time on it yesteday, but I shall say something about it in a moment. I need to make the argument for the motion. Instead of interrupting all the time and accusing me of not getting on with the debate, the hon. Gentleman might allow me to do so.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who said—
    Mr. Wilson: The idiot.
    Mr. MacGregor: That type of comment gets us nowhere, and it is typical of the hon. Gentleman.
    I remember the debates of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale: (Mr. Jopling). It was responding to public concern about the way in which we sometimes debate matters at 3 am. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has provided ample time to debate the two key issues at appropriate times during the parliamentary day.
    I noticed that the Opposition got very shirty and wanted to interrupt to stop me making my argument on how the filibustering occurred. Nearly five hours were spent on the two groups of amendments—much longer than the Lords took on those two issues. The delays occurred because we were treated to a series of Second Reading speeches and constant repetition of arguments that had been made ad nauseam in earlier debates.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I detect in the Secretary of State's remarks clear criticism of the Chair's handling of amendments yesterday. I am sure that, had any hon. Member contravened the rules of order, the occupant of the Chair would have called the Member to order. Should it not be made clear to the
    162
    Secretary of State that the constant use of the word "filibuster" is not only inaccurate but unbecoming in a senior Minister?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I did not notice any criticism of the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Lady is right and that the occupant of the Chair would have acted in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House and carried out his or her duty.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Standing Orders of the House prevent tedious repetition? The Secretary of State has just accused the Opposition of numerous repetitions, but that cannot be true because it would be in breach of the Standing Orders.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is for the Chair to decide what is tedious repetition, and the Chair has not yet so decided.
    Mr. MacGregor: We can see how sensitive the Opposition are to the point that I am making. I am not directing any accusations at the Chair; I am saying that the Opposition spokesman had his team lined up—the tactics were all too obvious—to use every argument they could think of to delay debate on the amendments. That is why so many points made in earlier debates were repeated yesterday.
    Let us listen to some of the arguments to which we were treated—
    Mr. Matthew Banksrose—
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way; I must get on.
    Despite the fact that everyone was anxious to move on to the key debates and that the House of Lords had spent very little time on the two groups of amendments that we debated yesterday, we were treated to speeches about the sale of drinks at Birmingham New Street station, the opening hours of toilets at Birmingham New Street station, and all stations to Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Carnoustie and Arbroath. I am not saying that such issues, as well as the Eastleigh works, are not important, but they were not relevant to the amendments being considered yesterday. We heard about the nicknames of pre-grouping railway counties, the sale of knickers on stations and various other issues which were included to prolong the debate. That was not an orderly way in which to conduct the debate.
    The game was given away when we completed the vote on the second group of amendments at about 9.30 pm. We were deciding how to handle the obvious filibuster, but the game was given away when the Opposition spent hardly any time on the next group of amendments. We all understood what was happening. The Opposition dug a hole for themselves and they were rumbled. Last night we saw blatantly obvious spoiling tactics.
    When he made the business statement, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that, at yesterday's rate of progress, we should have needed a further four weeks to complete consideration of the amendments. That is the reason we had to ensure an orderly debate. If we had not, we would have ended up with a further four weeks of debate—or, as the hon. Member for Bolsover rightly said, a debate long enough to ensure that the Bill did not reach the statute book.

    163
    Last night, the Opposition employed deliberate spoiling tactics and displayed spurious, wholly synthetic rage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear during Prime Minister's Question Time. I watched him doing so on television, and he was absolutely right.
    Mr. Peter Snape: I am a former railwayman; indeed, I suspect that I am the only hon. Member who hopes to live long enough to draw a railway pension. However, will the Secretary of State accept that many of my colleagues also feel strongly about these matters—so much so that we were considerably annoyed yesterday by the indifference of Conservative Back Benchers, the vast majority of whom, in spite of their support for the Government today, were not in the Chamber for any part of yesterday's debate? Will he accept that those of us who feel strongly about the future of the railway industry have a right to raise the issues that he mentioned so scornfully and that we shall continue to do so today, as long as the Chair rules that we are in order?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friends believed that the two groups of amendments were right, and they did not want to hold up the discussion. That was a perfectly sensible way to proceed.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what confirms more than anything else the synthetic nature of the Opposition's outrage is the fact that, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—I see that he is in his place—none of the Opposition Members who both yesterday and today have expressed mock outrage about the guillotine were present in the Chamber for the debates on any of the amendments?
    Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, because what has just been said is not correct. I was in the Chamber throughout the debates but I did not contribute to them, and that is what is misleading the House. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) is wrong, he will want to withdraw what he has said. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. It is time that the House settled down to a serious debate.
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that I have made the case. Indeed, the case for ensuring that there is an orderly debate on the issues of most concern to people outside the House is being made for me by the minute.
    As a result of all that I have explained, and especially as a result of what we observed yesterday, the Government believe that a timetable motion is necessary to ensure orderly debate for the remainder of our time on the Bill. I am sure that we can achieve that.
    I shall now deal with the two key issues. The first is the question of British Rail bidding for the franchises, and the hon. Member for Wrexham told us last night—his words are recorded at column 123 of the Official Report—that the Opposition were prepared to accept formally the amendments that we were debating at 10 o'clock. That means that we can go straight into the debate on the group including amendment No. 31, which is about British Rail bidding.
    164
    I can therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) the assurance that he sought last night, that there will be ample time to debate that issue. Indeed, there will be more than ample time. On Report on 25 May, a two-and-a-half hour debate on that issue, when the Opposition amendment was defeated, was considered long enough. The House of Lords, too, took two and a half hours on the issue. So we have plenty of time today.
    I know that Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends wish to discuss pensions—briefly, in the case of my hon. Friends, because more than 30 hours have already been devoted to the subject, and we have now come down to a fairly narrow issue. The background to the debate is the fact that we have always made clear our belief that it is important that the position of existing pensioners—that is what we are to discuss today—should be fully taken into account and dealt with satisfactorily.
    I have said that throughout our proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have engaged in lengthy discussions with pensioners and pension fund trustees, because I fully understand, accept and sympathise with the pensioners' views, and I was determined to ensure' that they had a good deal. They can now be assured that they have a very good deal indeed.
    It is outrageous that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has misrepresented the position of pensioners and of the pension fund so outrageously. He knows that there is no ground whatever for saying that the Treasury is out to purloin the existing pension funds. For him to suggest that is not only outrageous but frightening an awful lot of pensioners unnecessarily. Let me spell the position out.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I want to spell the position out.
    For existing and deferred pensioners, we are setting up a closed scheme with its own fund within the joint industry scheme. The assets going from the existing British Rail scheme to that fund will be actuarially determined. The fund will, as now, be under the control of the trustees, who will have the same fiduciary duties to members as they have now.
    We have added the protection of a guarantee, fully underwritten by the Government, that the fund will remain solvent. That means that pensions paid are certain to keep pace with inflation. That is an absolute guarantee, which pensioners do not at present enjoy. In addition, the trustees will be able to use up to 40 per cent. of any surplus in the fund—the likelihood of such surpluses occurring is real rather than theoretical—to enhance benefits above the level of inflation. Incidentally, 40 per cent. is broadly the figure that pensioners have been getting on actuarial surpluses up until now.
    Three things have been guaranteed to the pensioners —the solvency of the fund, the index-linking of pensions, and 40 per cent. of any surpluses—which they will be able to have for as long as they have pensions. That is an extremely favourable deal. It is a fairly good deal by the standards of any pension scheme. It is a copper-bottomed guarantee of inflation-proofing, plus the ability to share in the surpluses. It is a more certain deal than pensioners have now.

    165
    That is the context in which the House should address the question of Government payments to the scheme under the Transport Act 1980.
    Mr. Heppell: The Secretary of State says that there will be a guarantee of about 40 per cent. of the surpluses in my pension scheme. Can he tell us what will happen to the other 60 per cent. of the surpluses in my pension scheme?
    Mr. MacGregor: Those surpluses will stay in the fund, because there will be a continuing commitment to inflation-proofing and the payment of surpluses in the future. If the surpluses are insufficient, and if the fund is unable to make the payments, clearly the Government's commitment comes in and the taxpayer assists.
    Mr. Heppell: To clear up that point, the Secretary of State says that 60 per cent. will stay in the fund. I understand that it will stay with the Government and they will give it to the fund when necessary. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment now that the payments that will be made to pensioners—the Government's contributions —will continue without any conditions?
    Mr. MacGregor: I repeat what I said: the 60 per cent. stays in the fund, without any conditions. The issue is when the extra funding from the taxpayer comes in. That is the issue which I want to spell out now. [Interruption.] The answer is yes: the 60 per cent. stays in the fund.
    Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State admitted that 60 per cent. will be kept in a reserve fund and 40 per cent. will be distributed to pensioners in the normal manner. I understand that 60 per cent. will remain in the fund but not for distribution, as it is now. At present, any surpluses made from the investments are distributed on the decision of the trustees. The Secretary of State is now saying that that will apply to only 40 per cent. of the surpluses, and 60 per cent. will be put into a reserve fund. Perhaps he could tell us why he is appointing a special Government trustee who will have some special responsibilities to the fund.
    Mr. MacGregor: Let me deal with the two points. What I said is absolutely clear and in accordance with what has been happening up until now in the British Rail fund and, indeed, any other funds. There is a clear reason why the surpluses stay in the fund. [Interruption.] Putting the surpluses into reserve for the fund is the same thing as the surpluses staying in the fund. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood that. I have made it clear that the surpluses stay in the fund.
    Until now, about 40 per cent. has been paid out in most cases in the British Rail fund. Clearly, when the trustees face their future commitments, and when they know that there are liabilities for the employer, the 60 per cent. is dealt with in that way. What we will have is a closed fund. Therefore, we have said that 40 per cent. can be distributed in the way that the trustees see fit. That is a very good deal, because it is in accordance with the way in which pension funds operate.
    The taxpayer, rather than future employees or employers, is underwriting the fund, because we want to give the pensioners a fair deal. If we suppose that the fund does not perform very well at some stage in the future, if the 60 per cent. is absorbed in paying out index-linked pensions and the 40 per cent. commitment, and if the fund
    166
    runs into deficit, the taxpayer will step in and meet its commitment at that point. It must be clear to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East now.
    There is no question whatever of the Treasury or the Government purloining pensioners' funds, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop saying that.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: The Secretary of State says that the 60 per cent. will remain in the fund. In the memorandum that his Minister signed, it says that the Government director will decide on the investment of the special reserve. If the 60 per cent. stays in the fund in the normal way, as it has in the past, surely the fund trustees will decide on the investments of the fund. Will the Minister guarantee that it will be the pension fund trustees and not the Government commissar who will control the 60 per cent. special reserve?
    Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman put himself in the place of the taxpayer? We have a commitment to the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer is underwriting the solvency of the fund and, effectively, the index-linking, there must be some assurance that it is the 40 per cent. and not the 60 per cent. that is distributed in pension benefits of one form or another. That is why there must be some special reserve power to protect the taxpayer, who will be putting in further funding. There is no queston of siphoning off those funds for the other purposes that the hon. Gentleman keeps talking about.
    The issue before the House today is the context in which it should address the question of Government payments to the scheme under the Transport Act 1980. At present, such payments are made each year to fund liabilities which would otherwise be unfunded. In a closed fund, with an absolute solvency guarantee from the Government, the situation is different. The trustees acknowledged this when their chairman signed the memorandum of understanding in the summer, which explicitly recognised the need to look again at the timing of those payments and to
    "take account on the absolute guarantee now being provided".
    The absolute guarantee is a very significant change. The Government's proposal will ensure that the full value of the payments and the interest on them become assets of the pensioners' closed fund and will be counted in the overall calculation of the balance in the fund.
    Let me make it clear beyond doubt that they will count as assets, and the fund will get the full value of the contributions. If there is a surplus to be distributed, counting in those assets, pensioners get that value in real money.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: How can you invest in an IOU?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there will be rolled-up interest on the payments which will be included in the value.
    Under the changed arrangements and the Government guarantee, the point at which a cash injection of Government money into the fund is needed will not necessarily be every year, as it is now. That is why we want to discuss the timing of payments with the trustees. They implicitly recognised the reasonableness of that proposal when they signed the memorandum.
    It remains the Government's firm intention to honour the memorandum of understanding and to reach an agreement with the trustees, as I am confident we can. We are in detailed discussions with them, but these are very technical matters and will take some time to resolve. We

    167
    have made it clear that eventually an order will come before both Houses and be subjected to full consideration. Ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the way in which they exercise and use that order-making power.
    The amendment passed in the other place requires the trustees' agreement on the face of the Bill. That is quite unacceptable. It would give the trustees—a third party that is not answerable to either House—an effective veto over public spending and subordinate legislation, areas that are clear provinces of Parliament. If a future board of trustees withheld their agreement, however vexatiously, payments of money under the 1980 Act, scoring fully against public expenditure, would have to continue as now, regardless of the need for them. The trustees would be able to prevent the Government from bringing forward secondary legislation for consideration by both Houses.
    That would mean that an outside body would have a veto over what comes before the House and the timings of payments of public expenditure. That is unacceptable, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had many guillotine motions over the past 14 years, and it has always been the job of the Chair to draw to the attention of speakers the fact that it is a narrow motion, and that they should refer only to the reasons for the guillotine. My hon. Friends want to debate pensions —that is why we did not want the guillotine motion in the first place—but the Secretary of State is proving the very point that was made last night. He himself is using a guillotine motion to talk about the pension scheme. That is exactly what we were protesting about in the first place. I do not want to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but he is out of order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State was going rather wide of the motion, but I considered it in the interests of the debate that he be allowed to do so.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have liked to discuss the issues without a guillotine; indeed, I should have been able to do so had we not encountered yesterday's problems, which I have already described in detail.
    I hope that what I have said has given my hon. Friends the reassurance that I know they were seeking. We shall shortly be able to turn to the other main issue that is before us as a result of the Lords amendments. For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the attack on our guillotine motion is spurious, and not prompted by a real rage. The Opposition knew exactly what they were up to: they were out to destroy any opportunity of completing the full discussion within the two days so generously allowed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I commend the motion to the House.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State has taken 35 minutes to introduce a guillotine motion. That is twice as long as any speech made during the debate in which the right hon. Gentleman has accused us of filibustering. I do not deny that what he has said is important; indeed, this is the first occasion on which such a statement about pensions has been made to the House. That, however, is what half our grievance is about.
    168
    The Secretary of State appears to doubt that, but he knows that the amendments were tabled in the other place, not here. The pensions provisions were changed two or three times in Committee, quite apart from the substantial changes imposed in the House of Lords. Issues of real substance are involved here, rather than merely technical matters.
    The case presented by the Secretary of State and the manner of its presentation remind me of the quotation that we heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—Mrs. Thatcher's observation about the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The quotation reflects the view of the Secretary of State that was taken by the Prime Minister of the day.
    In the section of her book entitled "Men in Lifeboats", Lady Thatcher wrote:
    "But I still wanted a new face at Education where John MacGregor's limitations as a public spokesman were costing us dear in an area of great importance."—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 46.]
    I consider that a very apt comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, especially what he has said about the important issue of pensions.
    The Opposition have been accused of wasting time. I deny that, and I resented the charge when it was made by the Leader of the House. To be fair, he said that long debates took place on only two amendments; the Secretary of State has now changed that to two groups of amendments, comprising about 100. I believe that he was wrongly advised while I was shouting at him in the heat of the moment. Now we have witnessed the unusual procedure of a Secretary of State, rather than the Leader of the House, moving a guillotine motion—perhaps because, like us, the Leader of the House is not convinced by the Secretary of State's arguments.
    Let me deal with the central charge, that we have been wasting time. Of course, that is in the nature of guillotine motions. I am not arguing against the guillotine; all Governments have used guillotine motions, and we all know the reasons why. I do not wish to enter into such an argument, or even to exchange facts and statistics about which party has introduced more guillotine motions. Such arguments often characterise debates of this kind, but I do not want to engage in one today; I want to refute the charge that the Opposition were wasting time, and to put the facts on the record.
    It was said on television that we spent four hours on two amendments. It was suggested that they were technical amendments which did not deal with matters of substance. That is not so.
    The Bill with which we dealt in Committee was a Bill of considerable proportions. It had 158 pages, 132 clauses and 11 schedules. That is large by any measure. During the debates in Committee it increased by 28 pages, eight clauses and two schedules. In the House of Lords major changes were made, increasing the Bill by 50 pages, 14 clauses and a further schedule. We have before us 470 amendments that came from the House of Lords, a greater proportion of which were Government amendments.
    No one approached Opposition Members to discuss any type of guillotine discussion about timetables. The Bill has gone through the process in the House of Commons Committee, where there was agreement. There was not even one all-night sitting. There was an agreement with the Government about the process of debate. The Government

    169
    allowed us to choose the debate period of time and also the matters that we wished to debate and we worked on that through the normal channels and accepted that.
    There has been much argument about how many hours of discussion took place in Committee and in the House —109 hours, 20 days, 35 sittings, although some sittings were not completed. The Minister of State will agree that we suspended some of the sittings because the amendments that the Government wished to make to their Bill were not ready. They asked that the House or the Committee finish early because they were discussing pensions with the unions and the trustee boards. I know that the Minister of State does not deny that, because one can read what happened from the record.
    Whole schedules about pensions were taken out because discussions had to take place and we had to agree to suspend some of the sittings. Major amendments were made and we co-operated. Indeed, everyone knows that if one does not co-operate the Government immediately go for a guillotine. There is much evidence of that. We know now that, after a certain number of sittings, the Government automatically move to the guillotine. They never had to do that as a result of that delay.
    We never had a guillotine then, or on the two days on Report, when we went through the whole Bill in two days with agreements about debate times, and no guillotine. There is no evidence, therefore, of our filibustering. One can consider the records and the comments that were made by Ministers at that time.
    We had no desire to filibuster. There were many substantial issues in the Bill that we wanted to debate. We did not go through however many hours on sittings motions; we agreed quickly and got into the debate. There is no evidence that the members of the Committee wished to delay it. They wanted to debate the arguments substantially, for a good reason.
    The only reason that we wanted to debate the Bill through was that pensions was a highly controversial issue and pensions are at the very end of the Bill. That is the problem with the timetable that now confronts us.
    Mr. Stephen Milliganrose—
    Mr. Prescott: I shall give way soon to the hon. Member, who has shown more than a passing interest in the pensions issue.
    We wanted to allow sufficient time to discuss pensions. When we considered the motion before us for this sitting we assumed that the Government, in putting down the 10 o'clock motion, were prepared to go through the night and not cut off at 10 o'clock. Otherwise, why put it down? Therefore we could reasonably assume that it would go into the early hours of the morning. We can have debates among ourselves about how long, but it certainly suggested that the Government did not want to put it down by 10 o'clock.
    We also thought that, if there were not an agreement and they went for a guillotine, we would be denied the opportunity—there are 28 debates—to get to the end of the Bill, which was where pensions were.
    The Minister for Public Transport was good enough to send me a copy of the amendments and their order, and we did not protest. We took the debates as they were in subject form and said that, if they were making the case to the Table Office, we had no argument with it. When the 10 o'clock motion went down we assumed that we had some
    170
    considerable time—20 hours if we wished—to go through the process. We could have sat through the night, although we did not much want to. We have gone through the period when we went through the night simply to make ourselves look good. I do not think that it is good for the House or the Members discussing legislation.
    The argument was not that there should be only two days for discussion. It was not the Opposition who decided that the House should be prorogued on Friday—it was the Government. Never has there been such a long period as 14 days between prorogation and the Queen's Speech. There was ample time, if the Government wanted it because they had got into difficulties with their legislation, to go into next week. Why not? No argument has been made as to why we should not have another week.
    We have just come back from 10 or 11 weeks when Parliament has been closed. Why did the Government not find time? We assumed that they wanted to go through the two days for the amendments to go to the Lords and then, by going to the Lords, they would allow us at least to go through the night and debate the issues. The argument is whether those amendments—
    Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is accurate about the Committee stage, where the discussion was fair and balanced. Does he agree, however, that, in the debate last night, the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was entirely devoted to events in my constituency, and to an issue that was not being debated? Does he not agree that that was a clear example of time wasting?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate, although I appreciate that we all have different reasons for not being in the Chamber. The Chair ruled that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was in order, so let there be no mistake about that. If it is in order, it is right and proper for any Opposition Member to raise anything to do with the Bill. My hon. Friend's speech was about the important maintenance work that takes place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is nothing to prevent any hon. Member from mentioning any issue affected by the Bill.
    Mr. Milliganrose—
    Mr. Prescott: I shall not give way again. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the debate he would have understood, but he was not. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) did, however, make an important point at the beginning of his intervention, when he asked why we wasted time last night.
    Let us look at the timetable. The Prime Minister's statement took an hour, which was very proper and we do not dispute that, although it took some of the time that we could have devoted to the Bill. Hon. Members have conceded that we managed to discuss not merely two amendments but two groups containing about 100 amendments—we could have voted on every one of them, had we wanted to filibuster or delay, because there was no guillotine: that would have taken weeks of parliamentary time. If we had wanted to filibuster, we could have done so from the beginning, but we chose not to.
    The first debate yesterday concerned management buy-outs. One cannot possibly say that that was a simple, technical amendment—it was an important change in the

    171
    Government's position. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State listens, he will understand the matter a little better. Why was it important? Because the House of Lords had passed an amendment to say that British Rail should have the right to bid for a franchise. The Government dispute that, and they intended to take it out of the Bill. No doubt we shall come to the right to be able to bid for a franchise in the debate after the guillotine.
    The amendment concerned the Government's alternatives, and the right of management to bid is involved. The Lords amendment imposed on the franchise director a new duty, under which he must give preference to management buy-outs. That is not technical: it is a substantial amendment, which was not tabled in Committee. It was a change introduced in another place and a matter for substantial debate.
    The fact that we spent two hours discussing the amendment cannot be described as wasting time, because spokesmen from both sides of the House took exactly the same amount of time.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: No. I wish to continue, as I am conscious of the time.
    Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: Let us see how clever the intervention is, then.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If Opposition Members were not wasting time last night and if those matters were so important, why did they not address their remarks more succinctly to the matter and to the amendments in hand?
    Mr. Prescott: I shall come to that. I am trying to establish that we were discussing matters of substance. There may be some debate about how qualified hon. Members are to contribute to such debates, but I shall leave that subject aside. I am bound to say, however, that a matter of some substance was involved, which was relevant to a later amendment and to the Government's intention to take away what are known as the Peyton amendments, so we certainly were not wasting time.
    The Minister of State, replying to the debate, said:
    "I will seek to answer as concisely as I can some of the points that have been raised in this important debate. It has taken two hours, but it has covered very important issues, and they need to be addressed".—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 72.]
    The Minister of State's assessment was fair and is not evidence that anyone was filibustering or taking time. If the Opposition are filibustering, the Government are the first to point it out. There can be no doubt about that. We do not doubt the integrity of the Minister of State when he made those remarks, so it is fair to say that we were not wasting time.
    On the second group of amendments, the Opposition Front Bench did not speak during the third debate and did not seek to divide the House after the third or fourth debates, although those debates concerned issues of some substance. We did not do so, because we wanted to move on to the debate on Lords amendment No. 31, about the right to be able to bid, which we knew to be important. It
    172
    was then after 9.30 pm—approaching 10 pm. I had already told the Minister of State that we would not press the matter to a Division. When the Minister was winding up the previous debate on the closure motion, I turned to the Whip and said that we would not be voting on it, so he should tell the Minister to shut up. The Whip sent the Minister a letter—I do not know whether it said "Shut up"—
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)indicated assent.
    Mr. Prescott: The Minister is readily agreeing that he shut up. The Opposition spokesman told the Minister to sit down because the Opposition were not going to press for a Division: they wanted to get on with the business. That is hardly an example of the Opposition wasting time—the Minister was speaking and wasting time, and the Opposition told him that he should sit down so that we could discuss the amendment.
    I disagree with the comments by the Leader of the House on the subject. We are not trying to waste time. We were clearly trying to have a debate in proper order on the mistaken assumption that the debate was to continue after 10 pm—I agree that we made a mistake there. The Government did not try to have discussions about a timetable; they simply tabled the 10 o'clock motion. I assumed that we would have discussions through the usual channels about what time we might pull up stumps, but that did not happen.
    Therefore, I believe that the Government's strategy was clearly to try to guillotine proceedings as quickly as possible, and to try to argue that the Opposition had wasted time. We had agreed that we could have taken weeks simply voting on the hundreds of amendments. It had dawned on the Opposition that, if we wanted to waste time, we could do that. We did not do so, because we wanted to proceed from debate to debate, and it can be shown that we have done that.
    The time allowed for the debates—two parliamentary days—was not enough. I argued that there would be sufficient time for the debates if the prorogation of Parliament was delayed. The Government could have done that. I do not know whether the Secretary of State even argued for that—I suspect that he did not. Perhaps he will tell us whether he said that he thought that the House should discuss those important matters and should have more than two days in which to do so.
    He must have assumed that there would not be sufficient time to debate the issues properly before 10 pm—otherwise, the Government would not have tabled the 10 o'clock motion. The Government tabled that motion because they believed that the two days that they were offering were probably insufficient, so they wanted to introduce a timetable.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: No.
    We must assume that the Government wanted to guillotine debate. They wanted to avoid debate on essential matters. The guillotine has many disadvantages, but one advantage of yesterday's guillotine was that the Secretary of State gave us his view on the pension funds—a matter for debate on which discussion has already started.

    173
    Some guillotine motions include a timetable listing clauses and amendments so that it is possible to debate various subjects. The Secretary of State has said that he thinks pensions are important—we all agree on that—so I find it astonishing that he did not allocate a specific time to discuss that subject. The subject of pensions forms the 24th debate—according to the Minister's timetable, there are still 20 debates to be held in the House before that one. Therefore, it will be impossible to reach that debate unless we rush through the previous ones.
    If the Minister thought that pensions and Lords amendments relating to pensions were important, why did he not table a timetable motion with specific cut-off times? That is quite normal. The fact that he did not do so is another sign of the fact that he had no intention of allowing a proper and honest debate on pensions, whatever he might say. It was entirely in the Government's hands to do so. It was not a matter for discussion with us. The Secretary of State could have advised the Leader of the House what should be done. Therefore, I assume that the Secretary of State advised the Leader of the House to do otherwise.
    Why do the Government want to rush the debate and avoid discussion? They want to avoid debate on the most controversial subjects, where Government actions have provoked contention. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State talk about the two important issues we should debate, which is obviously a reflection of how important he believes those matters are. The Minister of State has spelt out many more important subjects in the document which has been given to us.
    Of the "crucial" debates, one was the right to be able to bid for franchises and the other involved pensions. What about TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—involving employees' rights? Is that not important? Were we not told in Committee that we would not have to rely on existing employment legislation because the Minister of State thought it important to write the protections into new legislation? The Minister of State thought that that was important, but he changed his mind—in fact, the Government had to change their mind when the Bill reached the House of Lords. The Government have now introduced provisions that will make it much worse for British Rail employees.
    The Secretary of State did not think that that subject was important enough for a debate. I shall come to that in a second or two. Therefore, we think that those issues are important. The right to bid is important, but I will not take up any time on that matter, because it is almost the first debate to which we shall come after the guillotine. I am more concerned about whether a debate on subsequent amendments can be guaranteed.
    On clause 82, which deals with TUPE, the Minister made it clear that the transfer schemes made as a result of the Government's privatisation proposals will be subject to the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, thereby extending the application of TUPE to transfers other than purely commercial undertakings. That meant that the Government intended to write into the Bill that all employees of British Rail would be guaranteed that right. But what happened was that they then went to the House of Lords and made it absolutely clear that they intend to rely simply on the Act itself. That was a change of mind.
    It is right for us to have a proper debate about that matter, but the guillotine will not allow it. Those
    174
    employees in the railway industry, who already face uncertainty as a result of the massive reorganisation that has gone on in the railways, and the wholesale reorganisation that will come out of the Government's privatisation schemes, now face the possibility of reorganisations once they are put into a private company.
    The idea behind TUPE was to guarantee the right of workers—a right that came from Europe and had to be written into our legislation and enforced by the courts on the Government, who rushed the measure through on Third Reading in another place. That said that, if a person transfers from one employer to another, that person's rights transfer with them. We thought that that was right and proper, and we were assured by the Minister that that was the case.
    Not to put that into the Bill, which is what the amendments seek to do, will mean that a British Rail employee could go to a private company, when the normal law might apply. That will mean that workers may have to go through a process of adjustment and change of rights under the present British Rail organisation. They can lose their employment rights, be made redundant and lose all the protections that are guaranteed. There is nothing to prevent them. Such workers are not transferring; they are only being reorganised at present under the same employer, British Rail.
    When all that reorganisation has been completed, it is passed over to private companies. No doubt the private companies have made that a condition, saying that they do not want to pay for the conditions that are given to railway workers; that they do not want full-time workers; they want part-time workers. They might say that they do not want to be responsible for the employees' redundancy and employment rights. That is why there should be a debate. Yet the guillotine is designed to prevent that kind of debate. That is what makes us angry.
    The guillotine is designed to prevent Parliament from debating a matter which we were assured in the House of Commons was one thing, but which was changed in the House of Lords. We are now prevented from having a debate on that. That is a matter of some substance. It affects every one of our constituencies. It is not a technical matter: it is a matter of considerable importance to hundreds of thousands of employees in those circumstances. The Government are relying on the guillotine to do their dirty work for them.
    On pensions, the Secretary of State has constantly said, as he does in his document, that he will always guarantee that employees will be no worse off as a result of whatever pension changes the Government undertake. We are talking about a pension fund with assets of £8 billion. That is of some relevance to the coal industry and the post office, which together have about £20 billion of assets in their pension funds. All are candidates for the process of privatisation. They will not generate income for the Treasury. In the main, revenue will come from pinching the assets from the pension funds.
    The Secretary of State has been good enough to point out that he believes that everything will be all right. I say that he is intending on a design to take the assets of the funds out of the pension fund. As that is my charge against the Government, let me make clear a number of things.
    The unfunded pension schemes that used to apply to British Rail before 1979–80 were schemes where the Government simply paid the pensions and received the contributions. There was no fund. The Government then

    175
    —I believe that it was 1975, and it was confirmed in 1979 legislation—put that on to a proper footing. Indeed, the present Chancellor was Under-Secretary of State for Transport at that time and I was the Shadow Minister, so I well remember the changes that were taking place. The Chancellor then said that he intended to make the pension fund self-funding, so that the Government would be free from it and there would be no claim on the Government's resources.
    The Government's one obligation was to consider what their capital obligations were to the fund and assess them on a yearly basis. That amount was considered to be about £70 million per year. That money was the Government's obligation to pay to the pensioners. There is no doubt about whose money it was. It belonged to the pensioners. Those are the kind of moneys the Secretary of State is talking about when he talks about IOUs, but I will come to that.
    There is no doubt that the Government had an obligation to pay that yearly amount. On that point alone, as the Secretary of State well knows, the Government intended originally to wipe out that amount. They said that they wanted to cancel that amount. There was a wholesale protest from the pensioners and the trustees, and eventually in Committee the Government agreed that the money would continue to be paid. On that matter alone, the Government offered the House of Lords an IOU. The Government said that they would not make the yearly payment. They said that they would give an IOU, which could not be cashed, was non-marketable and would not be in gilts.
    It fills me with great joy to believe that I could receive an IOU from the Government. I do not know what it would be worth today, but it is suggested that it could be cashed only in the year 2000. It could not be used to buy any assets. It could not be invested to make money. It is simply an agreement by the Government not to pay now, which presumably was helped by the generosity of the pensioners, who do not agree with it, to help deal with the public sector borrowing requirement that the Treasury wants to reduce. The £80 million that belongs to the pensioners in the first place is to be put on to an IOU. That is what is happening, and the Treasury saves £80 million each year. That £80 million belongs to the pensioners and its repayment is to be delayed until some time in the future.
    I was thinking only the other day, when we talk about compensation for nationalised industries or private industries that are renationalised, what an interesting formula that is for compensation. If we were using the same formula for compensation for capital, Conservative Members would be screaming that it was robbery. The fact that the Government can do that for the pensioners and get away with it without any word of disagreement from Conservative Members is quite deplorable.
    Mr. Milligan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trustees of the scheme agreed to the principle of going ahead in that fashion? What they are concerned about is the way that the measures are implemented, the rate of interest that is paid, the maturity, but they have accepted the principle that the hon. Gentleman is saying is such a fraud.
    Mr. Prescott: I will come to that point. It is a good point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to come to it. As he knows, the trustees were
    176
    concerned that they would not have any control over those matters. The House of Lords was concerned about the solvency matter, to which the Secretary of State referred. That was the argument of Lord Peyton. It was said that the Government would give a promise. The other place did not feel that that was enough—an interesting point—and did not like the idea of an IOU. That came from a Conservative ex-Secretary of State for Transport.
    The Government, in the debate in June or July, said that they would talk to the trustees about that matter and come to some agreement. They did. There was an agreement between the Government, the board and the trustees. It was entitled:
    "Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transport, the British Rail Pension Trustee Company and the British Railways Board",
    and it spelled out some of the issues to which the Secretary of State has referred. But the issue was whether, in the making of orders relating to any changes affecting the fund, there would be an agreement with the trustees, or simply consultation. First, it was said that it was not possible to write that into the Bill. They came up with a formula, which was rushed through because the debate was to be the next day.
    The chairman of the trustees fund, Mr. Derek Fowler, was sent for, along with James Jerome. They concocted the memorandum of understanding. It deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh by saying:
    "the Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds. The timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantee now being provided."
    They went to the House of Lords saying, "Pensions in our time," but like the other document, "Peace in our time," it was not worth the paper it was written on. The first thing that the lawyers of the trustees fund said was that it did not mean anything because it does not refer to anything in the Bill. Therefore, it is just a statement. It does not mean anything.
    The chairman of the trustees made it clear that he thought that he had been kidded by the Government, by which he means the people who signed the document, acting on behalf of the Government: the Minister for Public Transport—the fact that the Secretary of State did not sign suggests that the matter was a difficult one; he always keeps out of trouble, this guy. Derek Fowler, chairman of the British Rail pension fund and James Jerome, the British Rail board member responsible for finance signed, but they felt that they had been duped. They were told that the word "agreed" would be used, but when the Government came forward with their amended version, it contained the word "consultation".
    All hon. Members know that there is a heck of a difference between having to have an "agreement" about what is done with £80 million and "consultation". One does not need to be a lawyer to know the difference between those two words. Hon. Members can well understand then why the chairman of the British Rail pension fund, having agreed this without the agreement of the other 11 trustees, was disowned by them. He had thought that the word "agreed" gave him a kind of veto. If the Government's position is that the use of the word "agreed" creates problems, did they not know that when they wrote the document, or did the Government put it in knowing that people could be bought off, that they would

    177
    not be able to do anything about it, that perhaps they would not check, and they might even believe the Government? Well, they did. What fools.
    The document is not worth the paper that it is written on. The Government do not offer agreement, they offer consultation. I have some time and respect for the Minister for Public Transport, who deals with many difficult issues, but I am bound to ask: does no one resign any more?
    What is the Secretary of State's responsibility? If the document does not mean what it is said to mean, if the words do not mean anything and were simply used to buy votes in the other place by suggesting that there was agreement, that sounds like a Government who cannot be trusted—a Government with whom one cannot afford to have an agreement. They sign documents to convince the other place that everything is all right and then they have the audacity to come back here and tell us that everything is all right with the pension fund. Did the Secretary of State not read the document? Did he agree it or will he now blame the Minister for Public Transport? Will the Secretary of State say whether he read and agreed the document?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already made my position absolutely clear. We shall reach agreement with the trustees. We have made it clear that if there are differences and we cannot reach agreement, those points will come to the House and it will be for the House to decide because we are talking about public expenditure. An outside body cannot have a veto over decisions on public expenditure which are for the House. We are having good discussions with the trustees. We will do everything that we can and we believe that we shall be able to reach agreement, but we cannot pre-empt the right of the House to decide on public expenditure matters or the right of the Government to bring proposals before the House.
    Mr. Prescott: Did the Secretary of State read the document?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes.
    Mr. Prescott: So the Secretary of State signed a document saying that there would be agreement with the trustees. The chairman of the trustees, who did not have time to consult his board, signed the document telling his trustees, "I had to do it last night, but don't worry—the Government can't do anything unless they agree it with us." The other place was informed of that acceptance but the Government had no intention of using the word "agreed", for the reasons that have been given. That is misleading, to say the least. I do not know what parliamentary language could be used to describe such actions, but they are not honourable ones.
    Hon. Members need not open their mouths to show shock and disbelief. If the Secretary of State is telling me that he does not understand the words and their meaning, he should not be in the job. I believe that he did understand the meaning of the words and he dealt with the matter in that way so as to kid the other place that the Government had an agreement with the trustees, despite the fact that only the chairman of the trustees had been involved. The chairman was then left to hang and dry and neither has had the decency to resign over the matter.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made the position clear throughout. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman still to be going around the country saying that the Government
    178
    intend to take pension fund money from the pensioners, which is what he has been saying time and again. That is not the case and it is time that the hon. Gentleman stopped saying it.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise that the Secretary of State knows that he is in difficulty and wants to move the debate on. This is a matter of importance to a man of great integrity who put his name to a document because he believed the Government. I have a copy of a letter dated 26 October, which I understand was sent to the Secretary of State, saying:
    "What I had not foreseen when I signed the memorandum was the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee was to be invoked. In my letter dated 15 October I expressed my concern about the implications for future real pension increases of your proposals to cease making cash payments in respect of the Government's statutory obligations in the 1980 Act. I restated that concern at the meeting with Mr. Roger Freeman."
    The letter continues.
    That man, a public servant, was misled by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. That is a serious matter. It seems that we are not to have a proper response from the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. At least the Secretary of State has now admitted that he did read it, so he cannot put the matter entirely on the Minister of State's shoulders. We will leave the people to judge for themselves, having heard the debate or read it in Hansard, what they think of the Secretary of State's competence, and to remind themselves what the Prime Minister of the time thought of the Secretary of State.
    I come now to another issue which exercises the mind of the Secretary of State. He now apparently disputes my accusation that the Government intend to obtain access to the pension fund and to use its assets. First, I make it clear that the £80 million will not go to the pensioners at the moment and that the Secretary of State is retaining rights over that. Therefore, we can reasonably agree that the Government have taken £80 million on an IOU which, on the word of the Secretary of State, is to be repaid in the year 2000. The word of the Secretary of State did not last three months in the other place, so I do not attach much importance to it. The Secretary of State will have to admit that that £80 million is now being kept by the Treasury to help with the public sector borrowing requirement.
    It is concern for the public sector borrowing requirement that has largely motivated the privatisation of British Rail. Not much income will be generated from the sale. The Secretary of State has already admitted that the taxpayer will have to pay twice as much—£2 billion—to run it. The Department of Transport has been making an assessment. The Secretary of State has already admitted that it will cost more, so the taxpayer and the fare passenger will pay more for fewer services. The argument has been well made. The Treasury's concern is how it can get at the pension fund assets.
    Having established the facts about the £80 million, I now put a matter of record to the Department of Transport.
    It will be recalled that the National Bus Company, with assets of about £190 million, was sold for £45 million. The Public Accounts Committee was astounded at such a sale, although I am bound to say that it is quite usual for the Department of Transport. Because it got some money, it thought that it was making money. The Public Accounts Committee investigated. When asked what price had been obtained for the National Bus Company, the Department of

    179
    Transport said £200 million, £150 million of which came from the busmen's pension fund, which was broken up in the same way as is now being suggested, and the money went to the Treasury. Does the Secretary of State deny that? Apparently not, even if he knows about it. However, that is true and he can check for himself.
    I have now established that pinching from a pension fund is not new. The Government have already done it with National Bus and they are starting to do it with British Rail. Now it is a matter of judgment whether one can believe the Secretary of State when he says that the Government do not intend to do that. We already know that the trustees could protect pensioners if the trustee's agreement was required, but the Secretary of State is offering only consultation.
    The Government can restructure the fund. The rights and powers that Mr. Fowler talks about relate to the fund being made insolvent. The Secretary of State is already beginning to take money out of it with his 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. formula on surpluses. Fewer resources will be in it—yet, for technical reasons that I shall not go into here, the demands of the 1975 pensioners are growing. This is a fund that has no extra income going into it because it is a closed fund, so in reality it is likely to move towards insolvency.
    Let me tell the Secretary of State what will happen then. He might not be here—he probably will not—but the good old Treasury civil servants will always be here whatever Government are in power, and they will restructure the fund. It is agreed that the surpluses and the distribution of assets in that closed fund will be about £2 billion. The Government will then say to the pensioners, "Look, why don't we go back to the old times? Why don't we agree to pay you your pensions and we will take the assets for now? We will pay you over a period, and we will take your £2 billion to help us with the public sector debt." That is not unique for the Treasury. It is possible, and the changes in the rules which are contained in the amendments which we are not allowed to debate will allow that to happen. That is why we make the charge against the Secretary of State.
    The guillotine is not about time, but about the essential issues that were still to come. I understand now—I am sure that the House will understand also—why the subject of pensions was to be left until the end of the debate. The guillotine has enabled us to discuss pensions. If the debate had continued, we would have raised those points when the subject was to be discussed. However, the guillotine has allowed us to do that now.
    The Secretary of State made no mention of disagreements over memoranda of understanding. He has tried to cover his tracks. Therefore our charge is that the guillotine is not about wasting time during debates on technical issues. The issues affect a quarter of a million pensioners and railway workers. The guillotine is about the money that is in the fund that the Government have no right to claim, and which they are to attempt to claim on what I notice is the second anniversary of the Maxwell swindle of pension funds.
    The issue is one of the Government breaking their word. It is an issue of deliberate deceit. The guillotine is designed to prevent debate, and cover up the actions of a dishonest Government. They are a Government of incompetence, a Government of duplicity and a Government of disrepute.
    180
    Above all, they are a Government who are attempting to rob railway employees and railway pensioners of their rights and pensions—and they are attempting to do that with a guillotine which damages the process of democracy itself.
    5.1 pm
    Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) began by attacking the Secretary of State for speaking for 35 minutes. The hon. Gentleman spoke for exactly 40 minutes, and took fewer interventions than my right hon. Friend. That suggests that the hon. Gentleman is less than aware of his own verbosity.
    The hon. Gentleman was accurate when he said that there was agreement between both sides on Committee. There was a fair debate, with no attempts to filibuster, and the issues were discussed fairly. However, yesterday afternoon something went badly wrong, and there was an outbreak of verbal diarrhoea among Opposition Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were not here."] I was not here for a good reason. [Laughter.] Hon. Members have not heard the reason. I wished to wait for the debate on the main amendment, and I did not want to waste time as Opposition Members did.
    There are two possible explanations for the outbreak of verbal diarrhoea.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Milligan: I will not give way at the moment.
    There are two possible explanations. The first is that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been unable to spend a great deal of time on railway matters. He was unable to attend the majority of Committee sittings, and we know that he has an eye on the deputy leadership of the Labour party and may be moving to another job. The hon. Gentleman obviously hoped that some of his colleagues who assiduously attended the Committee would help him by making lengthy speeches. That would obviate the need for him to go through a complicated set of amendments. What possibly happened—as happened with the assassins of Thomas à Becket—was that the followers followed the master's instructions rather too assiduously. That is perhaps an uncharitable explanation.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the pensioners of Eastleigh will note that, following the analytical account of their prospects made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), all that their Member of Parliament could do was engage in a juvenile assault on my hon. Friend.
    The hon. Gentleman's analysis concerns the only debate at which he was present, which was the first debate yesterday. Will he tell the House whether he specifically disagrees with the Minister who wound up the debate? The Minister said that it had been a full and important debate, and that many points had been raised by the speakers, who spoke alternatively from both sides of the Chamber? Is the hon. Gentleman dissenting from the Minister of State's view of the debate? Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps turn his attention to the issue of pensions, and in particular the letter from the chairman of the British Rail pension fund?
    Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend the Minister is polite, and he was certainly right to say that the debate had been

    181
    full. I might have chosen a slightly different adjective. My hon. Friend was also right in saying that the debate was important, because it drew the real objectives of the Labour party to the attention of the House. The intention was not to have full debate on pensions—an important issue, I entirely agree—but to force the Government to a guillotine. The objective of the Labour party was to embarrass the Government, rather than to have a proper debate. That is the second possible explanation for the verbal diarrhoea from Labour Members.
    I wish to cite in evidence an interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I know the hon. Gentleman well, because he is my pair. He is assiduous in the House, and he speaks on a wide range of subjects including housing, overseas aid and the railways. The hon. Gentleman always makes relevant points, is an extremely competent hon. Member and does not waste the time of the House.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke last night—unfortunately, I was not here—and he has gracefully apologised for not giving me warning that he intended to devote the whole of his speech to events in my constituency. Those events related to the future of British Rail Maintenance Limited, which is very important. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the subject with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has made a series of helpful suggestions of which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the speech had been entirely in order. I do not know whether he was here last night, but it is clear in Hansard that, on two occasions during the speech by the hon. Member for Itchen, Mr. Morris interrupted to point out that the speech was out of order. The speech was clearly not relevant to the debate.
    It is perfectly clear that Opposition Members tried last night to force the Government to impose a guillotine. That is what happened. It is important that the Bill is passed, and I will be supporting the Government tonight.
    One of the unfortunate aspects of the discussions is that we have not had the proper time to debate two crucial issues. The first of those is the right that is now being given to British Rail's bid for franchises, which I welcome. I want the process to move forward gradually, and I want the private sector to compete on a level playing field with the public sector. That is called market testing in other areas of Government. BR should have the right to bid, provided that the bid is not unfair vis-a-vis those management buy-outs that have extremely optimistic prospects. I welcome the revised guidelines to the franchising director that will make it clear that a private operation will not be able to take over a franchise unless it provides a better service than the existing BR service.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I wish to make a point that I did not make because the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) refused to give way to me. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was prepared to go through the night on the matters, and he also made it clear that the important debate on British Rail bids—my hon. Friend is addressing the subject now—probably would be reached at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. There are hon. Members who want to listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have to say—and
    182
    also question him—on that delicate matter. Is it sensible for hon. Members to do that at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning?
    Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, and it is unfortunate that there will not be a proper debate as a result of the antics of the Opposition yesterday.
    The new guidelines to the franchising director make it clear that private operators must provide better services than the existing BR service if they get a franchise. If BR retains a franchise, I hope that it will do so for a significant period. It is not specified in the Bill what that period might be, but I hope that it would be about six or seven years. That would give BR a real chance to make the service work, and would provide genuine competition between the public and private sectors with the simple aim giving the best possible service to the passenger.
    I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democratic party has made an important contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) appears surprised; perhaps he did not read his party's manifesto at the general election, which clearly favoured privatisation and the franchising process. On 2 March, the hon. Gentleman made a most interesting speech to the Committee, during which he explained that his party would not support the Bill for one reason. The reason was that BR would not be allowed to bid for franchises. The hon. Gentleman made it clear to the Committee that if the Government were to have a change of heart to allow BR to bid for franchises on fair terms, the Government could count on his party to support them in the Lobby.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said a moment or two ago that he was keen to see market testing of the services. The difference between what the Government's proposals and market testing is that there will be no competition on a level playing field of the sort that I said on 2 March that I wanted. If that were to happen, my party still would be perfectly willing to support the measure. British Rail is being allowed to bid, but in every imaginable circumstance the bid is to be disregarded. That is not a market test; nor is it competition on a level playing field. It is a complete and utter fix.
    Some Conservative Members have been saber-rattling over the past few weeks, trying to convince their constituents that they are rebels. It is a poor do if those hon. Members can be convinced as easily as that. If the Government give us competition on a level playing field, they will get support from the Liberal Democratic party. However, what stands before us as a Government amendment does nothing of the kind.
    Mr. Milligan: That comes as no great surprise to us, because the Liberal party twists and turns on every issue. The hon. Gentleman says that BR will not be able to compete on a level playing field. If he believes in privatisation and franchising—perhaps he no longer does—he must accept that it is extremely important to give management buy-outs, which are a difficult and fragile operation, a genuine chance to succeed. To force the same BR managers to make a choice between bidding as a management buy-out and bidding as BR will not work. So the compromise that the Government have come up with is a good one.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked at some length about pensions. That is a critical issue for

    183
    my constituency, where there are 2,000 railway pensioners, and for the hundreds of thousands of railway pensioners across the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that pensions are one of the most important issues in the Bill.
    I must say in all honesty that the Government's original proposals were not satisfactory. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen were justified in criticising those proposals. They would have left pensioners in a worse position than before. The railways pension fund has been extremely well run. It has yielded real increases in pensions. People who have given a lifetime's service to the railways are entitled to a decent pension. There is no reason why privatisation should in any way materially affect them unfavourably.
    Ministers rapidly recognised that the original proposals were not satisfactory. It was regrettable that it took so long to reach a proper agreement. However, the memorandum of understanding signed at the end of July was, indeed, such an agreement. It provided guaranteed indexation and it provided that pensioners could continue to share in the surplus. Most important, it gave the fund a Government guarantee against insolvency. Those three measures taken together put the pensioners in a better position than they are in now.
    It would be graceful of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to recognise the achievement by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the railway trustees. I pay tribute to the way in which the trustees stuck at their task through a long and difficult negotiation and relentlessly pursued the interests of the people whom them represent.
    One important issue is outstanding, but it should not obscure the overall settlement. The issue is payment under the Transport Act 1980 to people who served before 1975—not only those who retired in 1975. It was agreed between the trustees and the Government that, in return for the solvency guarantee, those payments, which currently run at about £50 million a year would be rescheduled to take account of when the liabilities came due. The matters that have not been agreed include the maturity, the valuation of that capitalised gilt-edged stock and the rate of interest. Those are vital matters, on which pensioners must be given answers if they are to be reassured.
    Mr. John Heppell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trustees have agreed to deferment of payment only on the basis that no scheme would be introduced without the agreement of the trustees? Does he agree that the position changed when the Government sought to change the memorandum of understanding? Originally it required the agreement of the trustees. The Government sought to make it only consultation of the trustees.
    Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that point. There is a legitimate and genuine issue here. Parliament has to be sovereign on matters of public spending. No outside body can have a veto over parliamentary decisions. Although it is most unlikely that the trustees would behave irresponsibly, they might renege on the agreement and demand both the solvency guarantee and continuation of the present payments. The interests of Parliament and of the taxpayer—who is not often represented by Opposition Members—have to be considered.
    184
    I have talked to the chairman of the trustees. Although he shares the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), he does not share the view of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that he was duped. He believes that the Government have behaved honourably.
    Mr. Prescott: He says it in the letter.
    Mr. Milligan: He does not say that he was duped. He says that the trustees need guarantees.
    There is a genuine legal problem. We cannot give an outside body a veto over decisions about public spending. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give some additional guarantees to ensure that the matter is settled to the satisfaction of the pensioners, the trustees and all involved.
    First, can the negotiations on the matter resume as soon as possible? Secondly, can the negotiations resume on the basis that the new arrangements for the present net value are the same as the old arrangements? Although the payments may be rescheduled, there should be no effective monetary loss at today's value. Thirdly, if, by any chance, agreement is not reached, will the Minister come to the House, explain why and set out the views of the trustees before any further legislation to implement the agreement is brought before the House? If the Minister does all three of those things, it will be possible for him to satisfy the interests of the pensioners.
    Mr. Stevenson: Can the hon. Gentleman help me, please? I am listening to the debate carefully, as I did throughout last night, which is more than he did. Is the hon. Gentleman calling on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to conduct the negotiations on the basis of the memorandum, which referred to "agreement", or on the basis of consultation of the trustees? I am sure that he would agree that consultation and agreement are entirely different. The word "consultation" is contained in the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Milligan: I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek to achieve agreement. I accept my right hon. Friend's argument that it is not possible to write into primary legislation an argument which gives an outside body a veto over parliamentary sovereignty. That would be wrong. However, it is vital to seek the agreement of the trustees. If that cannot be achieved, the Minister should come to the House and explain why. The House will judge whether it is a proper explanation. If it is not, it will not pass the necessary secondary legislation. That is a reasonable way to proceed.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Milligan: I will not give way. I have given way many times. Everyone is complaining that more time is needed to discuss other issues. I support the motion. I support the Bill. I believe that if privatisation proceeds gradually, is tested at each stage and is undertaken on the basis of improving freight and passenger services rather than on the basis of dogma, it will be greatly in the interests of the country. I will support the Government tonight.
    5.17 pm
    Dr. John Marek: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) never ceases to amaze me. The hon. Gentleman could have asked for guarantees from the Minister when I first tabled an amendment on pensions in Committee. With the Conservative majority of one, something might have been done about the problem. Did the hon. Gentleman say anything? Not a bit of it. He slavishly followed exactly what the Minister said, with the result that the opportunity for changing the pensions legislation was lost. So it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come along here now and say, "I want some guarantees, Minister; please will you help me?"
    The hon. Member for Eastleigh made one of the longest speeches that has been made in the past two days, apart from the Front-Bench speeches, which were worth every minute. We learned a lot from them and I would not have missed either of them. The hon. Member for Eastleigh made one of the longest speeches of yesterday or today, yet he complains that Opposition Members filibustered. He showed himself up. He was not here yesterday except during the first part of the debate.
    The only helpful comment that the Minister made about British Rail Maintenance Ltd. was in essence to say that there would be redundancies. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. He can read Hansard.
    Mr. Milligan: I think that my speech was about 17 minutes on the clock and half of that was interventions. I read carefully the words of my hon. Friend the Minister about BRML in Hansard. It is a matter of great importance to my constituents. There is a threat of redundancies because the modernisation of trains means that they need less maintenance. About half the jobs are under threat. That is why, when we had a meeting last week, my hon. Friend the Minister made the helpful suggestion of creating the Eastleigh liaison group. He has promised to attend every meeting to find other ways of retaining the jobs by bringing extra work to Eastleigh. I greatly welcomed that suggestion.
    Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman had been here during the debate yesterday, he would know that the Minister said precisely the same thing as he has just said. There was a debate on the special function of Eastleigh. It maintains carriages which are run on the third rail. But the hon. Gentleman was not here for that debate. He should read Hansard. The Minister did not give much hope. I suspect that BRML will be in great difficulties as a result of the Bill when it reaches the statute book. The hon. Member for Eastleigh has the chance to make amends to his constituents by voting against the Bill or voting against the guillotine motion. Whether he will take that chance is another matter.
    The Bill has been largely rewritten. There are pages and pages, looking through the Lords amendments as any hon. Member knows, and the Government have sought to argue that most of the changes are technical and do not need a lot of debate and that there are only two issues that require debate—the question of pensions and whether British Rail could have the right to bid. Since the hon. Member for Eastleigh is in favour of BR having the right to bid, are there any of my hon. Friends who were in Committee who heard that from the hon. Gentleman at the time? Another
    186
    amendment in my name was defeated by one vote. If the hon. Gentleman had faced up to that issue a little earlier, we might have had a different result.
    I do not accept that, because the pages and pages of new amendments and proposed legislation are technical, we should not have time to discuss them. We had only a weekend to consider them. I took the precaution of asking the Vote Office to post them to me and I received them on Friday. I did not receive the Government amendments to the Lords amendments until later.
    It is not my job to accept the Minister's word that 50 pages are technical and we therefore should have gone home to bed at 10 o'clock yesterday and should go home at 11.30 tonight. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott): there is no reason to sit all night tonight, but last night we should have sat all night and done our duty to the country, the travelling public and the railway employees and considered all the technical amendments and changes that have been suggested by the Lords. Not a bit of it. We cannot do it.
    The debate yesterday was not filibustered in any way. People made normal speeches. If the time is totted up, the chances are that it was the Minister who spoke more than anybody else, by a substantial margin. I do not say that to embarrass the Minister. It is right that the public and hon. Members deserve an explanation of all the amendments. On the fourth set of amendments, which would have been passed on the nod, the Minister said that they were important. I agree that they were important amendments—not necessarily so important to deserve half an hour or an hour's debate, but certainly deserving of four or five minutes of ministerial explanation followed by a chance for any other hon. Member to ask questions. Unfortunately, nothing like that will be possible tonight, as we are having a setpiece debate.
    I shall not speak for long because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, but we will not do the duty, as is normal, of examining the Bill line by line. The Bill will go through the House without that being possible. Yet the Government need not have got themselves into such a position. They could have allowed a third or a fourth day, and if they had allowed us to debate overnight, I doubt whether a third day would have been needed.
    Contrary to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), I did not count 128 amendments that had been discussed, but 99, which, out of 470, is more than 20 per cent., so I do not understand why the Secretary of State for Transport said that we would be here until Christmas if we were to discuss all the amendments. I admit that that is a somewhat selective statistic, but it is not as selective as that chosen by the Leader of the House yesterday.
    It is a great pity that the media seemed to swallow that statistic hook, line and sinker without being present and checking the facts so that they could give the public an independent and objective view. However, 99 amendments from 470 are about to be disposed of, and would have been disposed of on the nod if the Minister had not said that the fourth group was important and that it was necessary to spend three or four minutes explaining them. At that rate, if we had carried on yesterday, we would have been finished by now.
    I utterly reject the view of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, who has not said much in Committee, on Report, or during Lords amendments—I am not denigrating him for that, but it is shown by the

    187
    record—that we have been filibustering. We have not. We have been trying to get into shape a stupid Bill, which most of the country does not want and which now cannot be put into reasonable shape or made operable. Nevertheless, we have tried.
    Clearly, there are two important issues that we must discuss. The first is the right of British Rail to be able to bid for franchises. When a proposal is sent back from the House of Lords—the revising Chamber—because it wants the House to think again, there is no reason for the Government to say, as they did earlier, that we have discussed that matter ad nauseam, and therefore do not need to do so again. There have been new developments and we owe it to the country, if the revising Chamber asks us to think again, at least to discuss it again and see whether to change our minds.
    Secondly, the issue of pensions has developed a great deal and we should be able to talk about such important matters that may vitally affect the pensions and livelihoods of British Rail employees in the present climate, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I agree with the Secretary of State that, to the extent that public money is involved, the Government should be accountable and should have a final say in what happens to that money, but most of the money in the pension fund is not the Government's—at the moment, none of it belongs to the Government.
    My fundamental argument is that the money in that pension fund is for the benefit of pensioners and should never, ever come under the control of the Government. It is a great pity that, as a result of the guillotine, we will not be able to develop those arguments any further.
    I consider it an outrage that the Government allowed this second-rate, botched-up Bill to be introduced, will allow it to be passed—unless Conservative Members come to their senses—and have succeeded in forcing through a guillotine to stop discussion on vital matters.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. John Biffen: One of the charming characteristics of guillotine debates is that they transform themselves so that they are rarely about guillotines, but rather an opportunity to discuss the Bill about to be guillotined, as so eloquently shown by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan).
    I shall reflect on the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation in which the House now finds itself. Once one discards the pyrotechnics and rhetoric that customarily grace such occasions and are cheerfully exchanged from one side of the Chamber to the other, the truth is that no House of Commons having even a modest regard for the self-respect of legislators would be presenting them with such an extensive and conscientious Bill to be dispatched in two days. For it to be against the expected proroguing of Parliament makes the imperative even more incredible.
    I was not in the least surprised that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the guillotine. Had I been sat on the Conservative side, I would have shouted whatever improving and encouraging remarks, if I felt them necessary in these dark days, and if I been on the Opposition Benches, I would have shouted with all the contrived venom that was manageable.
    188
    The truth is that we are here because, as a House of Commons, we are allowing the Executive, whether it be Conservative or Labour, to determine the passage of business by such means. That is not what the House is for. Originally, a guillotine was a very unusual development, so the cry of constitutional outrage had just a touch of truth about it. One had to be at least a mild thespian to give the impression that one was deeply concerned. Now, a guillotine is an integral part of the passage of a Bill. Nobody supposes for one moment that it could be otherwise, and I do not.
    However, with the present arrangements and with the control so heavily weighted in the hands of the Executive, we find ourselves in a different position. The guillotine is perfectly understandable, but nonetheless is set out in terms that I do not believe to be helpful to the House, not least because the House will be debating a number of matters, whether the franchises or the pensions, in which the disputes do not run along the fault line of party politics. All the more reason for the Executive to get the matter dispatched as soon as possible.
    We do not have to endure such a procedure as part of the humiliation of the Back Benches. A report of the Procedure Committee sets out the virtues of automatic timetabling for a whole range of legislation. It still awaits the determination and judgment of the House. The House sleeps in the prospect of that. It passes measures undebated and practically unnoted and, to some extent, is gradually being forgotten. That is how the House reacts to its circumstances, and as long as it is complacent and compliant, it will be neglected.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. John Heppell: I start by declaring an interest. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that he was the only Member who hoped to live long enough to draw a British Rail pension. I hope that he does not know something about my health that I do not know, but I also hope to draw a BR pension. I hope that it will still be there after the Government have finished their machinations.
    One of the surprising results of serving on the Standing Committee was the affection that I began to feel for the Minister for Public Transport. Some feel that he behaved badly in Committee, but I thought that he performed marvellously, given that the Bill was so ridiculous. At times he made it seem almost believable, and that earned him the affectionate title of "Roger the Dodger" as he moved his way through the pitfalls that the Government had set into the Bill.
    A more fitting nickname for the Minister, and for the Secretary of State, would be "The Exterminator". I say that not because they have managed to do their best to get rid of the railways as we know them now and to cut away the constitutional right of Members of Parliament to debate the issues, but because, during the passage of the Bill, I have seen more ratting than a local government employee working in pest control. The Government have ratted on almost everyone—British Rail employees, the passengers, the passenger transport executives and the pensioners. If the latest information is true, they have ratted on the trustees of the pension fund as well.
    I had meant to speak on a number of issues but, in showing why the guillotine is wrong, I feel it important to speak on pensions in particular. My hon. Friend the

    189
    Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was wrong. We dealt not with 99 amendments last night but with 127, although we did not get to the vote on the last 28. I am realistic. I recognise that, with 470 different amendments, after 730 in Committee and 250 on Report, there was not a cat's chance in hell that we would get through the business in two days. I knew, and I think that most hon. Members knew, that we would have a guillotine at some stage. But I did not expect the guillotine to come at 10 o'clock.
    What would have been wrong with the Government allowing us to go on until 12, 1 or 2 o'clock? Why was it that, when hon. Members were present in the Chamber wishing to debate issues—employment rights, British Rail's right to bid, and pensions—we were not allowed even those few hours? The Government took the decision to curtail the debate, using the reason that hon. Members were filibustering, before the reality of 128 different amendments being dealt with was known to the Leader of the House.
    My main concern about pensions is the Government's contribution to the scheme. I had my first assurance on that from the Government in July 1992, when they said that they would take measures to safeguard my pension. That did not happen. On 20 January, they changed the wording and said that they would ensure that the terms of my pension were no less favourable. They then came up with two options, effectively a Hobson's choice. Neither of them made my pension terms more favourable, as I have said before.
    The Government then went to the chairman of the trustees and persuaded him to sign a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed the solvency of the pension fund while in return the Government were allowed to borrow some money in the short term. I would not have agreed to that, but I can understand the pressures that the trustees were under. They were given a Hobson's choice because, if they refused that option, they might get nothing from the Government and the funds would be taken under Government control. Therefore, after the chairman, the other trustees signed the memorandum of understanding.
    The Government have since ratted on that memorandum. Originally, they said that the timetable for paying the money back would be through an agreement with the trustees; now they are saying that they will work it out themselves. The arrangement that the Government want is to borrow the money but repay it when the pension fund needs it. I wish that I could tell my bank manager that I would like to borrow £5,000 and pay it back when I thought that the bank needed it. I know what my bank manager would say to that. I know what I would say to the Government as a member of the British Rail pension scheme: it is not on.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Surely what matters, what is important, is what happens to the pensions. The Secretary of State spoke about guaranteed payments, inflation-proofing and a share in the surplus. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Secretary of State was misleading the House?
    Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman will know that it would be unparliamentary of me to suggest such a thing. I will let the facts speak for themselves.
    On 22 April the Minister made a statement—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen. He might then understand what is happening with the
    190
    pension fund; when he made his statement, he clearly did not. Let me go back even further. In 1980, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, decided that he wanted to rid himself of the railway pension fund. At that time, it was a non-funded fund and the Government had complete responsibility for it. The then Minister decided that the Government would wash their hands of their commitment.
    It was not what the trustees or pensioners wanted but what the Government wanted. He said, "Okay, we owe you a lot of money, so we'll give you these payments, but it's a once-and-for-all settlement. There will be no negotiating afterwards. If the fund goes bust, your pension has had it. We've washed our hands of the issue."
    What good is the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury is now trying to claw the funds back? The Government now say that they will no longer pay those funds, but will keep them separately and look after them. When the trustees ask when they will get them back, the Government say that they cannot give a date. When the trustees ask how much they will get back, the Government say that they cannot give an amount. When the trustees ask when they will get it, the Government say, "You'll get it when you need it." When the trustees ask whether they can decide when they need it, the Government say, "Oh no, the Government will decide when you need it."
    It is a deceitful mechanism to try to ensure that the Government transfer the money from the pension fund to the Treasury, just as they would have done with the options which they originally gave the pensioners last July. The Government have always had their eyes on the pension fund, and they are determined to do that.
    Another reason why the guillotine motion should not go through is because of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, the employment rights enjoyed by people in this country. Article 8 of the directive on acquired rights says that, on transferring from one undertaking to another, people's employment contracts—length of service, pay and conditions—go with them. The Government have never liked legislation that protects ordinary workers but, because it was a European directive, the article had to be made law and that was done by TUPE.
    TUPE effectively rewrote those articles and said that, in future, when people changed from one undertaking to another their employment rights went with them. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that he had included a special provision that TUPE would apply in all cases. That satisfied Opposition Members, and the debate about employment rights disappeared at a stroke. We said, "Fair enough, if TUPE is to apply, we have no worries whatever." It is annoying to find that, now that the Bill has been through the Lords, the Minister's undertaking has been taken out.
    The Government have gone further and introduced a new clause trying to evade TUPE. They have invented a mechanism to try to avoid a law of their own making. What message does that send out to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham would say, their "cronies in the City" and those who have their eyes on our pension funds? What message does it send out about respect for the law when the Government are trying to devise mechanisms to get round their laws?
    The Government are saying that, before people transfer to a different undertaking, their pay can be reduced, their

    191
    hours can be increased and their employment rights can be changed. It is clearly a mechanism to evade the law and the Government should be ashamed of themselves not only for doing that but for offering compensation to employees. They are paying out compensation from taxpayers' money to make it easier for private companies to employ people on starvation wages and for unworkable hours.
    The Government resisted one Lords amendment to stop a 72-hour limit being placed on railwaymen's hours of work. Legislation exists to limit the number of hours worked by people who drive on the roads and of airline pilots, so why do we not have legislation to limit the hours worked on the railways? I shall not feel safe to know that an employee of one of those new companies can drive for more than 72 hours a week. How can he be expected to be alert under those conditions?
    For all those reasons, the guillotine motion is wrong, and I hope that the hon. Members will vote against it.
    5.46 pm
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: I shall not detain the House for long, because we wish to move from this debate to discuss the fundamental Bill and the Lords amendments as quickly as possible.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought up the subject of pensions, and it has been well developed on both sides of the House. I was entirely reassured by statements by my right hon. Friends in the Chamber and in written form in recent months. To the best of my knowledge, all the pensioners who have been in touch with me on that matter—there have been quite a number—have also been reassured.
    However, some people outside the House are not yet reassured—not through any fault of the Government, but because the matter has been stirred up so despicably by Opposition Members, whether they are pensioners of British Rail or are doing it just for political reasons. That has caused sufficient worry that reassurance is still necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friends will reassure the House that they will do everything in their power to provide that reassurance to people outside the House who are genuinely worried about their future pensions.
    I thoroughly endorse the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We could organise our business better so that we can at least spend some time on everything, even if we are not satisfied with the amount of time that we spend on some things. I hope that the Government and the Whip will take that message back to the Leader of the House, so that we can consider as soon as possible the Select Committee on Procedure report, the age of which I cannot remember.
    I expressed my discontent with the sudden arrival of the guillotine motion yesterday evening and had an opportunity to discuss it with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other luminaries of the party organisation in the House after the statement had been made. I was not entirely convinced by the rationale, but now I am completely convinced, because I fear that Ministers have been bested by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who made it absolutely clear that, as a destructive Opposition, he intended to make the Government go right to the line, which would mean risking the loss of the Bill.
    Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rathbone: I shall do so in the hope that the hon. Gentleman is brief, which is what I intend to be.
    Mr. Snape: Before the hon. Gentleman goes down that road, he should remember that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke today, he did not speak in yesterday's debate.
    Mr. Rathbone: I shall not contradict the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), because I know that he intends to pursue his own way towards his pension to the bitter end. I wish him well in that endeavour, and I hope that the Secretary of State's remarks have reassured him.
    The intention of the hon. Member for Bolsover to go right to the line shows the divergence of opinion in the Opposition parties. There was a difference between the statements made from the Opposition Front Bench about good intentions and statements by other Opposition Members. Therefore, the Government were, sadly, right to introduce a sudden guillotine. If we have to vote upon it, I hope that we shall do so swiftly, so that we can deal with the amendments as quickly as possible.
    5.50 pm
    Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State has told us, as did the Prime Minister earlier today and the Leader of the House last night, that 185 hours or more have already been given to the Bill. We have heard about new clauses, and about 2,000 amendments have been tabled. One is entitled to ask at the end of all that why there are still more than 400 amendments. Those are not wrecking amendments tabled by Back Benchers or by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who seems now to be regarded by some Conservative Members as the official Opposition: they are Government amendments.
    I have here the Bill that went to the Lords and the document containing the amendments that came back, and one is twice as thick as the other. We are virtually being asked to consider a new Bill. What sort of Government are they who, two days before the end of the Session, are still presenting to the House such a mammoth amount of material for consideration?
    It is right that, in the earlier part of yesterday's debate, progress was somewhat slow, but that was the first opportunity for some months that the House has had to debate the Bill. We were guided by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the effect that, as the clauses being amended were general, it was in order to have a general debate. As a result, the debate on the first group of amendments was of the nature of a fourth Reading.
    It is completely untrue for Ministers to say that we have considered only two groups of amendments. We were on the fifth group yesterday and had reached the stage at which no hon. Member was attempting to speak. To all intents and purposes, we had disposed of 99 amendments, and were therefore some 20 per cent. of the way through consideration of this mammoth document. When stumps were drawn at 10 o'clock last night, we were within seconds of starting the debate on the all-important amendment about British Rail's right to bid.
    All sorts of assertions have been made by Conservative Members about the tactics of the Labour Opposition. I am not conversant with what those tactics might have been, but at 10 o'clock we were about to begin that debate, and

    193
    I had every indication that we would vote on the matter at 11.30 pm. It is untrue to say that unsatisfactory progress was being made.
    Three important debates were scheduled for yesterday. The first was on management buy-outs and the second was on assets, and we were about to debate BR's right to bid. That would have left three more significant groups of amendments to deal with today, on discount fares, employment rights and pensions. I can vouch for the fact that the official Opposition were encouraging me to do everything possible to reach a point at which enough time would be left for an adequate debate on pensions. Any suggestion of an attempt to delay matters is not borne out by the facts.
    Just as we were about to start the debate on what the Government say is the all-important topic, it was decided that three hours of Parliament's time should be allotted to discussing the guillotine motion. If we had gone on for less than three hours last night, we would have made more progress that we are making now.
    The reason for that state of affairs is that the Government's handling of the legislation has been shambolic. Those who served on the Standing Committee will know that, time after time, the Government were only a day ahead of the Committee in tabling amendments. They were tabled at the last possible moment, and all too often they were starred. The Government were reprimanded by the Chairman of the Committee for their discourtesy to him and to the members of the Committee.
    On one memorable occasion the Minister of State, in his normal steady manner, presented amendments on which the ink was hardly dry. By the time that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had made a good breakfast of them, the Minister had to admit that they were technically incompetent and would be withdrawn and replaced.
    That is the story of the Government's handling of the Bill, time and again. A minute or two before the guillotine announcement last night, the Minister of State declined the offer by his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to move it formally. The Minister insisted that he needed to speak to the amendment at hand because it replaced another Government amendment which, he admitted, had been incompetent. Too much of the Government's material on the Bill has been incompetent.
    Yesterday, we had the spectre of primary legislation being made deliberately vague so that the courts could later clear it up. There is considerable Government precedent for that. The poll tax cost this country about £14 billion, and two or three years later the Government had to put the entire subject of local government finance to the test again with more legislation. The same happened over criminal justice.
    If the Government did not railroad legislation through so arrogantly, they would not have to return to put right their own mistakes. It is little wonder that we already hear rumours that, even at this late stage, the Government realise that the Bill is technically incompetent and that another Bill may have to be introduced in the next Session to clear up loose ends.
    The Government seem to be applying the principle of market testing to their legislation. They introduce legislation, see how it works, and a couple of years later return with more. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) spoke about market testing, but this is not market
    194
    testing. In its current form, the Bill allows BR to bid, but in every imaginable circumstance the bid will be disregarded.
    The Government do not give the franchising director one shot at this: they give him four. On the first shot, he has to skew the bidding to featherbed a management buy-out; on the second, he has to skew it to featherbed the efforts of a new entrant to the sector; and on the third, he has to do it in the name of competition. If, after all that, he has not managed to disregard a BR bid, he is required to prevent anyone from being over-dominant in the market.
    When we start from a market in which one supplier has 100 per cent., one can scarcely in any circumstance not meet the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's definition of a monopoly. That covers every conceivable bid. It is the "I don't like your face, so you can't bid" rule.
    Hon. Members who during the summer and the autumn have attempted to flex their muscles by telling the Government that they will hang out for BR bidding, have secured nothing. The concessions that I wrung out of Ministers in Committee and on Report were—
    Dr. Liam Fox: Name them.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall name them directly. One was that BR would be able to submit not only historic costs but a business plan at which the franchising director would be obliged to look and also to examine the bottom line figure and the projected balance of the plan. That would have meant that, in every circumstance, a private bidder or a management buy-out bid would have had to beat that figure. It is not even achieving that. British Rail's figure could be disregarded, at least in the plan that I characterised as a ghost Bill, although the Government never recognised the term.
    At least, under that scheme, the passenger could be guaranteed that the bidder would have to do better than British Rail and the taxpayer could be guaranteed a better price. The Bill is much worse. It is not competition or market testing; it is market rigging. It is not about trying to secure the best possible deal for the passenger; it is about Conservative party philosophy. It is because the Government want to put the industry into the private sector.
    The hon. Member for Eastleigh said that, if the Liberal Democrats were in favour of privatisation, we would be in favour of the measure. We are not in favour of privatisation, but we are in favour of the best possible service for the passengers. There is no philosophical problem with the private sector competing. In Sweden, when the national carrier was exposed to competition from the private sector, it improved productivity, reliability and everything else. That option was available to the Government, and we said earlier that, had they taken that path, they could have looked forward to some support.
    The Bill is nothing of the kind; it is not market testing. It is small wonder that recently the author of a book was able to say after the Conservative party conference that Thatcherism was alive and well. She need do no more than look at the Bill to be totally convinced that Thatcherism is indeed alive and well.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Matthew Banks: I am most grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, when right hon. and hon. Members

    195
    have the opportunity of reading the Official Report tomorrow, at least on this occasion they will see that I was in the Chamber.
    I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). As all hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend is a wise counsellor. I agree with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the importance of bringing forward the Jopling proposals as quickly as possible. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take note of what my elders have said.
    I took the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North in 1989. I knew that his counsel was wise then. I followed it, and that is why the hon. Member for Southport sits on this side of the House. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind me pointing out that not all that long ago he was Leader of the House, and the Executive were still fairly powerful then.
    It is important that we look carefully at how we timetable our debates. I listened to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who yet again is not in the Chamber. He spent most of our debate yesterday outside the Chamber.
    Mr. Snape: So did you.
    Mr. Banks: I hear what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, apart from a very short time when I took refreshment, I was here in the Chamber. That is why I can recognise and record which Opposition Members were present for that debate; I shall come back to that in a moment.
    I should mention the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) just before he leaves the Chamber. He said that he thought fairly early on that the Government had decided to introduce a guillotine. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I beg to differ. After I had spent most of the debate in the Chamber and listened carefully to hon. Members on all sides of the House, it was clear to me that it was very late in the day that right hon. Friend decided to table a guillotine motion.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that the amendments under discussion yesterday afternoon were widely drawn indeed. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, no hon. or right hon. Member really fell foul of your ruling. In spite of those amendments being widely drawn, there was no doubt that the speeches of Opposition Members were rarely succinct and not always relevant to the amendments under discussion.
    Had Opposition Members been a little more concerned about making a team effort and acting like a proper official Opposition—they were shown up by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover, who were here earlier for only a few minutes—and had made a better stab at things, it would have been possible for us to get on and talk about the particularly important amendments on pensions and the so-called Peyton amendment. I hope we will be able to get on with those debates at the conclusion of this guillotine debate.
    I did not have to be convinced by the words of the hon. Member for Bolsover, because it soon became apparent precisely what the official Opposition were doing. I
    196
    thought that they were shooting themselves in the foot at 10 o'clock, when my hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the guillotine motion and a number of Opposition Members made various points. None of those hon. Members is in the Chamber now; nor were they here throughout the debate. I look around the Chamber to see if they are here now.
    Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): I am here.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South, to name but four, all stood up after 10 o'clock with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described as synthetic anger. That describes the whole charade fairly well.
    Of course, it is not just the official Opposition who wasted time yesterday, knowing full well that we had a relatively limited amount of time to debate these important amendments. I see that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has just arrived. I do not think that she was here yesterday.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I was.
    Mr. Banks: I know the hon. Lady is in the Official Report as having voted, but having sat through most of the debates, she was not here regularly. Only the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) was here throughout most of the debates yesterday afternoon and evening. Yet the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) came to the House at 10 o'clock to stand up with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described as their own synthetic nonsense. They did not even enter the Chamber throughout the afternoon, so far as I am aware, to take part in the debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was very kind to say that he saw the way the debate was flowing, and that the hon. Member for Bolsover had convinced him of the filibuster that was taking place. Some Conservative Members are slightly less charitable than my right hon. Friend. We were very much aware of what was happening by about 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. Opposition Members really have to decide.
    I see that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) are not here. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh mentioned earlier, they are hatching a plot to depose the leader of the Labour party. One really has to set an example.
    I am not about to criticise Opposition Members for filibustering and talking on matters other than the guillotine if I do not follow an appropriate course myself. My hon. Friend for Shropshire, North made that point. He has briefly left the Chamber, but he was right to come to the House and make it clear that it is about time that the Jopling proposals saw the light of day. Many Opposition Members, including the only member of the Labour Front Bench who is present, have been in the House longer than me and know how debates proceed. They should have been able to make a far better fist of tackling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport than they did.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I would like the House to stop playing I spy and to debate the guillotine motion. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was right when he said that in introducing the motion at such an early stage, the Government showed contempt for the House. They brought 470 Lords amendments before the House and we dealt with 100 last night. Still the Government want to stifle debate.
    For more than a year, the Government have been desperately trying to make their case for rail privatisation, but they have lost the argument. The Secretary of State is left like the emperor with no clothes and he shuts down debate to hide his nakedness. That is what happened today. We oppose that, believing that the 470 amendments that have come from another place should be properly debated. The Government's straitjacket on debate will prevent the House from considering many important Lords amendments that it has a right to discuss.
    I will put a number of points to Ministers now, because the House will not otherwise have a proper opportunity to debate them. The question of the national railway museum and the national heritage is one that affects my constituency. In another place, Lord Caithness, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, said that the Minister for Public Transport would write to the museum and
    "do all that we can to make provision which is as favourable as possible to the museum".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 563.]
    That related to the museum's right to claim redundant documents and artifacts. The Minister wrote to the museum in July, stating:
    "Noble Lords also stressed the importance of retaining the broad rights of first claim which the museum presently enjoys. I am happy to accept these proposals, and to introduce provisions in the Bill which will give a right of claim to artifacts in both the public and private sectors."
    We argued long and hard about that in Committee and in July, at the last moment, the Minister gave an undertaking to introduce amendments to permit the museum to remain the national centre of rail heritage in this country. Did he do as he promised and make sure that appropriate amendments were tabled in another place before it finished its consideration of the Bill? No, he did not. He made a promise, but he failed to make good that promise. Why?
    What measures does the Minister propose to ensure that the national railway museum continues in the future, as in the past, to have a right of first claim on redundant railway equipment and records, at no cost? No material cost will be imposed on either a public or private sector rail operator, because the equipment in question will be redundant. Why did the Minister fail to honour his promise, and what will he do to put that right?
    I seek an assurance that investment levels will not decline. In British Rail's 1992–93 annual report—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to be wide of the debate. Some latitude has been allowed by the Chair, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments relate to the guillotine motion or to the amendments to which it refers.
    Mr. Bayley: If the House had been given time properly to consider all the amendments, it would have had an opportunity to debate future investment levels. There will
    198
    be no such debate, so I want the Minister to say how investment levels for rolling stock, signalling, track and infrastructure will be maintained at historic levels. If that is not done, there will be huge redundancies in the rail manufacturing industry. The arguments were explored on previous occasions, but I want that answer from the Minister.
    As to the amendments on clause 105, the Bill makes provision for the Government to write off British Rail's historic debt, which the annual report puts at almost £2 billion. If that sum is to be written off, it will have to be written off by taxpayers to make privatisation more financially attractive to private sector operators. Why should taxpayers in my constituency foot the bill for privatisation? Why should retired railway men and women on low pensions who pay income tax also have to meet a £2 billion cost after spending their lives building up a rail system that is now to fall into the hands of private operators?
    6.16 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: In common with my hon. Friends, I was exceedingly surprised when the guillotine motion was imposed on almost 500 amendments from another place. As other right hon. and hon. Members pointed out, we have been denied the opportunity to debate what is virtually a new, alternative Bill.
    Conservative Members, including the Minister for Public Transport, were highly critical of the Opposition for wanting to debate what were described as purely technical amendments. The possibility that many of my constituents, particularly those who are disabled, may never again be able to use a train because stations on the north London line are unmanned and will remain unmanned is by no means a technicality. Many women are afraid to travel after dark because it is frightening to find oneself on an otherwise deserted station with no one to give assistance in either earshot or eyesight.
    My constituents want to use the railways and to see the British Rail network expand. That was their understanding and mine of this whole farrago of a Bill. However, debate on extremely important issues is being curtailed because, according to the Minister, the amendments are purely a technicality.
    The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who I regret is not in his place, repeated an allegation that was made by Conservative members of the Committee—that the concern expressed by British Rail pensioners at what they viewed as threats to their pension fund by the Government and the Bill was motivated by the Opposition. I would like to be able to tell the hon. Member for Lewes that those of my constituents who are BR pensioners take that presumption of lack of character on their part very hard. I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Lewes has now returned to his place.
    My constituents who are members of the BR pension fund have dedicated their lives to the railways, are extremely hard-working and are immensely responsible and sensible people. Their concern about the attack on their pension funds stems not from what the Opposition have said, but from what the Government have done and are continuing to do. That is one reason why I am so concerned about the guillotine motion that is being imposed upon us today.

    199
    The Secretary of State said that pensions had been fully debated. He neglected to point out that changes in the pension arrangements certainly have not been debated in this place. Confirmation that he is attempting to make changes without any debate comes from the chairman of the BR pension board. On 20 July, the memorandum of understanding mentioned earlier in the debate was agreed between the Department of Transport, the trustees and the British Railways Board. It was supposedly binding on all parties. In a letter dated 26 October, Derek Fowler—the chairman of the BR trustees—wrote to the Minister saying:
    "I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the Memorandum."
    In fewer than three months, the agreement that the signatories to it thought was binding on all parties was in the process of being changed by the Government.
    A particular issue of concern to the trustees is that in the initial wording of the memorandum agreement was reached that changes to the method of payments under the 1980 Act would be made only with the agreement of the trustees. The memorandum stated:
    "The Government's obligations will be reflected as an asset of the Pension Fund and will be taken into account in determining any surplus available for pensioners. We intend to agree the details of such an arrangement with the Trustees, and we will lay before Parliament, in due course, Orders which will give effect to such agreement."
    Now, the Government are changing the wording of the memorandum to replace "agreement" with "consultation", which will allow them to override the wishes of the fund's trustees.
    As Derek Fowler said in a further letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 October:
    "It is proposed to change the wording of the Memorandum of Understanding to provide that payments under the 1980 Act may be changed after consultation with the Trustees and not, as previously provided, by agreement with the Trustees. Such fundamental change is unacceptable to the Trustees."
    The Government are attempting to railroad the changes through the House without proper debate. British Rail pensioners are effectively being penalised for the success of their own pension fund. Is not it deeply ironic that the Government should be doing so at the same time as they are attempting to entice people away from dependence on state pensions? They are using the pension surplus to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, effectively forcing pensioners to pay for the Government's mistakes and broken pledges.
    The Government have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy on the pensions issue, as was proved by the correspondence from Derek Fowler. What other guarantees given during the course of the Bill and in today's debate can be believed by the pensioners? The lack of guarantees and the lack of time being provided by the Government to debate almost 500 Lords amendments makes me understand why so many BR pensioners now say that the initials "BR", as they relate to the pension fund, no longer stand for "British Rail", but for "bank raid".
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: It is a shame that we have had a three-hour debate on a guillotine motion when instead we could have continued with our consideration of the substantive issues in the Bill. The move certainly does not appear to have done the
    200
    Government a great deal of good. Last night they gained themselves the opprobrium of cutting short the debate. Today, they have provided a platform from which to say a great deal about the pensions issue. In addition, they have moved the debate on the right to bid from late last night to a relatively prominent time today. That does not strike me as a tactical masterstroke.
    It is important to set the record straight on some of the factual reasons why the guillotine motion is a disreputable exercise. First, it is essential that the House understands that no approach was made to the Opposition to arrange a timetable for our proceedings on Lords amendments, despite the fact that a timetable had been agreed and observed throughout the Committee and Report stages. It is clear that, if the Government had wanted a timetable, they would have asked for one. It is equally clear that they knew last Friday that they would do exactly what they did last night and when they would do it.
    Secondly, the statements made last night by the Leader of the House were inaccurate, as has been shown today. He made those statements in the Chamber and also in notices given to the press—for example, he said that only two amendments had been dealt with in five hours. That was fallacious nonsense. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was deeply uncomfortable with the task allotted to him last night, so it is significant that he has distanced himself from today's proceedings.
    Thirdly, the debates last night were legitimate and were recognised as such by the Minister of State. It is interesting to note that, in addition to nine ministerial speeches, there were three extensive speeches from Tory Back Benchers —as was perfectly legitimate—and nine interventions from other Conservative Members. The idea that there was an Opposition monopoly on speeches is simple fabrication.
    Fourthly, if the debate had proceeded last night, we would have reached the amendment on the right to bid not in the middle of the night, as some Conservative Members have suggested, but at 10 pm. There was absolutely no need to curtail our proceedings at 10pm. The Government did that for their own reasons—their desire to limit debate in and scrutiny by this House. They did so in the full knowledge that the more scrutiny there is by this House and by the wider audience outside, the more their proposals are discredited.
    Another point worth putting on the record is that the fact that the Government now have such a tight timetable for getting the Bill passed is entirely their own responsibility. The fact that they are counting the hours before Parliament is prorogued is entirely their responsibility. They have only themselves to blame for the way in which they have handled the Bill from start to finish—introducing amendments at every stage and virtually rewriting the Bill, culminating in 470 amendments being made in the other place.
    It has been a farcical procedure, as it had to be because the Bill is inherently so deeply flawed. One consolation for the Opposition is the knowledge that, no matter how often the Government rewrite it, how extensively they change it or how they try to patch it up in response to objections, it will still be deeply flawed when it is enacted and the chickens will then come home to roost. There will be big political trouble for them, not for us.
    As has been said by several of my hon. Friends, it was farcical to say last night and today that the proceedings must be rushed through and that we can speak for only an hour or two on pensions and an hour or two on the right to

    201
    bid, with great swathes of amendments not even being considered—yet on Thursday the Government are sending us away for another fortnight's recess. They do not want Members of Parliament in the House. Indeed, it has now become the general rule that they want the House to sit for as little time as possible, because when it is sitting the political focus is on this place and that it is not in the Government's interests.
    For all those reasons, what we witnessed last night and today is a charade. There was no need to curtail the debate at 10 pm last night. We knew that at some stage the Government would rescue their Bill. We knew their timetable and we knew that they were expecting more trouble in the other place. I am sure that the Minister of State listened to the "Today" programme this morning, when Lord Peyton had certain things to say about the amendments. I was delighted to hear that he was less easily impressed by bogus compromises than were the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and one or two others who paraded their consciences during the summer, but who now apparently feel able to give the Secretary of State everything that he wants. So we hope that the principles and concerns of those in the other place will be more consistent than those of hon. Members. It would be wrong to comment on what will happen in the other place, but as it voted for the amendments in the first place it is not certain that it will be bought off as easily as some hon. Members.
    The issues have been well covered by my hon. Friends. We shall debate some of them, but as I shall not speak much later I should like to express my deep distaste for the performance of Ministers in the debate on pensions. I still have not decided whether the Government first thought, "We are going to get our hands on pension fund surpluses, so we have to privatise the railways," or whether rail privatisation came first and, as a byproduct of that, they realised the phenomenal implications for the Treasury.
    Mr. MacGregor indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State feigns disgust. Will he have the decency to inform the House of the potential implications for the public sector borrowing requirement of the action that the Government are taking on the railway pension fund? We shall then see whether the sums involved and the political implications are consistent with this shrug of the shoulders and his comment that it is ridiculous to say that those implications entered the Government's mind.
    If the Government had introduced the Bill without assessing the political implications of what it would allow them to get away with, from their point of view it would have almost been a dereliction of duty. If those implications did not occur to the Secretary of State—given Baroness Thatcher's comments about him, that is conceivable—we can bet our bottom dollar that they occurred to the Treasury.
    My comments on pensions are a lot less important than those of the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company. The Minister for Public Transport is pointing at the clock: he does not want to be guillotined when he speaks later. Before the summer recess, that chairman had been prepared to take the word of Ministers that everything was going to be all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, in his superb analysis of the matter, the chairman did not manage
    202
    to persuade other trustees to take the word of Ministers. However, this man, who was taken in by the Government, wrote to the Secretary of State on 26 October 1993, saying:
    "I very much regret the need to have written to you three times in less than three weeks on fundamental differences of view between the Government and the BR Trustees…The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to that Memorandum."
    What an indictment of Ministers, of the Government and of their integrity.
    We shall continue the fight on behalf of pensioners. We shall alert them and ensure that the future not only of the railway pension fund but of every pension fund in the country which is at risk from the Bill will be as major a political issue as rail privatisation. If Ministers are unable to rebut those words of the chairman, they should not be sitting on the Front Bench.
    6.33 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has many endearing qualities, but careful attention to the clock to allow sufficient time to respond to a debate is not one of them.
    Before I deal with the extremely important issue of pensions, may I say to the hon. Member for Hugh Bayley—[Laughter.] I meant the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). [Laughter.] As I wanted to make a serious point, I shall come back to it.
    Let me deal with the issue of pensioners. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who put his finger on the point. This issue has been stirred up deliberately by the Labour party to create quite unnecessary fear, and the Liberal Democrats are not absolved of that charge.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) was absolutely right and I pay tribute to his constructive contributions. I ask Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen whether they challenge what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said on four issues.
    First, there is no dispute that pensioners will have their own independent pension fund—their own assets, with trustees responsible for managing the fund. There has never been a suggestion that the Government would take those assets and it is disgraceful of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to go round talking about those assets being pinched and in the same breath asserting that the Government are as guilty as Mr. Maxwell. That is a calumny, and it causes unnecessary fear in the minds of pensioners.
    Secondly, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is there any question about the solvency guarantee provided by the Government and the index-linking of railwaymen's pensions for inflation? Of course there is no doubt.
    Mr. Prescott: Of course there is.
    Mr. Freeman: Of course there is no doubt about that, because it is on the face of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
    That represents a major change since 1980. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then a Transport Minister, promised continuing payments during proceedings on the Transport

    203
    Act 1980, he did not do so in the context of a Government guarantee on railwaymen's pensions. The scene has changed completely—at the request of trustees.
    Thirdly, there is no doubt that railwaymen will have a 40 per cent. share in any surplus created by the good management of the pension fund. That 40 per cent. is the same percentage as pensioners have enjoyed since the pension fund was created. In the past, 60 per cent. of the pension fund surplus has been distributed to employers and to the current employees of the pension fund. Therefore, we are proposing no change.
    Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot challenge the fact that, in addition to an index-linked fund, 40 per cent. of the surplus will go to pensioners. That is an excellent deal. I know of no other pension fund in the public or private sector that can guarantee such an excellent opportunity.
    Do Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen challenge the fact that continued accrued liabilities under the 1980 Act will not continue to benefit the pension fund? There is no doubt about that. Those are accrued liabilities. The payment of cash under that accrued liability depends on the need of the pension fund to pay out index-linked pension payments.
    I give my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh the assurances that he asked for—that discussions with trustees will continue, that the memorandum of understanding will be honoured, that we will seek an agreement with the trustees and that we will seek parliamentary approval of the schedule of payments under the 1980 Act. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh knows, the Bill obliges us to lay before the House the comments of the trustees on the conclusions that we reach. There can be no question but that we have dealt honourably, correctly, fairly and well with the pensioners. The Opposition are stirring up trouble unnecessarily.
    Finally, in the few remaining minutes, I shall spell out the reason why we have a timetable motion. Yesterday we spent five hours on two groups of amendments. I acknowledge that we were discussing important issues. The first group dealt with management-employee buy-out bids. That is, of course, important, but it was not a new principle, as it is already contained in parts II and III of the Bill. I took seven minutes to respond to that debate whereas the Opposition spent two and a half hours debating what is a narrow issue.
    The second group of amendments covered the powers of the franchising director to include in franchises the ability of the train operating companies to access stations. A further two and a half hours were spent on that—if that is not wasting time and filisbustering, I do not know what is.
    The truth was revealed this afternoon—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) let it out of the bag. He asked whether we realised that we could be here all night, every night this week, debating all the amendments. That was not the agreement with the Opposition; the agreement was to allow two days.
    I understand that this evening the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) released to the press a private record of conversations between me and the chief executive of British Rail. That is disgraceful, because the effect of releasing such a document, which was written not by the
    204
    Department of Transport but by someone presumably present at that meeting, can only embarrass the chief executive. It is disgraceful—
    Mr. Bayley: I do not think that any embarrassment caused by the release of that document will land on the shoulders of the chief executive of British Rail; it will land on those of the Minister, who was told by the chief executive that, in relation to the rail privatisation proposals, he was
    "in a hole and still digging".
    He told the Minister for Public Transport at that meeting that he would have nothing left but
    "a car boot sale. I am not joking."
    They were his words.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman released a document—
    Mr. Prescott: Is it true?
    Mr. Freeman: It is typical of the Labour party to conduct debate by releasing such a document.
    I commend the motion to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 286.

    Division No. 380]

    [6.42

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Alexander, Richard

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Cash, William

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Amess, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Ancram, Michael

    Clappison, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Ashby, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Congdon, David

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Couchman, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Cran, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bates, Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Day, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Devlin, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dicks, Terry

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Body, Sir Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bowden, Andrew

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bowis, John

    Elletson, Harold

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evennett, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burns, Simon

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burt, Alistair

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    205

    Forth, Eric

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lidington, David

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lightbown, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    French, Douglas

    Lord, Michael

    Fry, Peter

    Luff, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    MacKay, Andrew

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maclean, David

    Garnier, Edward

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gill, Christopher

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Madel, David

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Malone, Gerald

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mans, Keith

    Gorst, John

    Marland, Paul

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hague, William

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Merchant, Piers

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Needham, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hendry, Charles

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hicks, Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Norris, Steve

    Horam, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pickles, Eric

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rathbone, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Richards, Rod

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Key, Robert

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knapman, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knox, Sir David

    Sackville, Tom

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lang, Rt Hon lan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Legg, Barry

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Leigh, Edward

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    206

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Tracey, Richard

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Trend, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Trotter, Neville

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Twinn, Dr lan

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Viggers, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sproat, Iain

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Waller, Gary

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ward, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stephen, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stern, Michael

    Watts, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Wells, Bowen

    Streeter, Gary

    Whitney, Ray

    Sumberg, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sykes, John

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thomason, Roy

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mr. Derek Conway.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Alton, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Corbett, Robin

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ashton, Joe

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cox, Tom

    Barnes, Harry

    Cryer, Bob

    Barron, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Battle, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dafis, Cynog

    Bell, Stuart

    Darling, Alistair

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Denham, John

    Betts, Clive

    Dewar, Donald

    Blair, Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Blunkett, David

    Dobson, Frank

    Boateng, Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Dowd, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bradley, Keith

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Enright, Derek

    Burden, Richard

    Etherington, Bill

    Byers, Stephen

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fisher, Mark

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Fraser, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    207

    Galloway, George

    McWilliam, John

    Gapes, Mike

    Madden, Max

    Garrett, John

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    George, Bruce

    Mahon, Alice

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marek, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Martlew, Eric

    Gould, Bryan

    Maxton, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Meacher, Michael

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Meale, Alan

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Michael, Alun

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gunnell, John

    Milburn, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Hall, Mike

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hanson, David

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hardy, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Harvey, Nick

    Morley, Elliot

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Henderson, Doug

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Heppell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mudie, George

    Hoey, Kate

    Mullin, Chris

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Murphy, Paul

    Home Robertson, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Olner, William

    Hoyle, Doug

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hutton, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Illsley, Eric

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Janner, Greville

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Barry (Alvn and D'side)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jowell, Tessa

    Redmond, Martin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Reid, Dr John

    Keen, Alan

    Rendel, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rooker, Jeff

    Leighton, Ron

    Rooney, Terry

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Salmond, Alex

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAllion, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Short, Clare

    McCartney, Ian

    Simpson, Alan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    MacIennan, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    McMaster, Gordon

    Soley, Clive

    McNamara, Kevin

    Spearing, Nigel

    208

    Spellar, John

    Wareing, Robert N

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Watson, Mike

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Welsh, Andrew

    Stevenson, George

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stott, Roger

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Straw, Jack

    Williams, Alan W(Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wilson, Brian

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wise, Audrey

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Worthington, Tony

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wray, Jimmy

    Trimble, David

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Tyler, Paul

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Wallace, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walley, Joan

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Railways Bill:

    LORDS AMENDMENTS
    1. The proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings.
    2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

    (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

    (iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and

    (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

    (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

    (2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    STAGES SUBSEQUENT TO FIRST CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
    3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing those proceeding; to a conclusion—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

    (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

    (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    (3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    SUPPLEMENTAL
    4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown—

    (a) for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons; or

    (b) for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

    (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    (4) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    (5) If the proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the
    210
    House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
    6.58 pm
    Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance and help? I have an office in Deans Yard which, as you know, is about a quarter of a mile away from the House. If one travels by car when one hears the Division bell one usually gets help from the police when driving round Parliament square. Apparently, unknown to me, the police have suddenly decided that they will not cover Divisions, so when one gets to the filter light which allows one to get into the Palace there is nobody there to help one through. I nearly missed the vote this evening because of the traffic jamming Parliament square. Secondly, having arrived in New Palace Yard with only seconds to spare, I found that the police have now put out "No Waiting" and "No Parking" signs so that one cannot stop, either. We have a new problem, and I do not know why. Perhaps there are too many rules and regulations, and we need deregulation.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I shall, through Madam Speaker, draw that matter to the attention of the usual channels.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised a similar point nearly a week ago. I am sorry to say that, although there has normally been a courteous response to such matters in the past, I have heard nothing, and nothing has changed. My office is in Parliament street where the traffic is extremely busy and the traffic lights can be against pedestrians for up to three minutes. The withdrawal of police support is contrary to the rules of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the message. I have told the House that I will draw it to the attention of the Speaker.

Railways Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 30 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Railways Bill
  Clause 22

    PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATORS NOT TO BE FRANCHISEES
    Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 24, line 37, at end insert—
    ("(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent—

    (a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"); or

    (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

    from being a franchisee.")
    7 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may consider the following Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 31: (a), in page 24, line 40, at end insert—

    '(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—

    (a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or

    (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

    from being a franchisee.

    (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.

    (5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

    (a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;

    (b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;

    (c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or

    (d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

    (6) The Franchising Director shall—

    (a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and

    (b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

    (7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.

    (8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.

    (9) In this section—
    "competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
    212
    "encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
    "qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.'.

    (b), in page 54, line 36, after '20' insert '21, 23'.
    (c), in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
    '( ) every notice of a determination under section 22(4) above;'.
    Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, we discussed similar issues on Report on 25 May when a Labour amendment along the lines of amendment No. 31 was tabled. The Labour amendment was rejected by a majority of 19 after a lengthy debate. After the Lords amendment tabled by Lord Peyton was passed, I made it clear that the House of Lords was asking us to re-examine the arguments, and that I would wait until the Bill had passed through the other place before I made our position known.
    Since the passage of the Lords amendment, we have had detailed discussions with many people, including a number of my hon. Friends, about the issues, and what I am proposing in our amendment is the result. Therefore, I urge that we disagree with the Lords in their amendment and pass our amendment instead.
    The House will be aware of our concerns about allowing British Rail to bid for franchises. They are not simply our concerns. They were spelt out many times during the debate on 25 May when I set out our objections, with which the House agreed at that time. The most important concern is that British Rail starts out as the monopoly operator—indeed, the sole operator. Its privileged position, backed by the taxpayer, will discourage other potential franchisees from bidding and make it more difficult for management and employee teams to prepare and support bids for franchises.
    With the best will in the world, senior British Rail management are bound to favour their corporate bids at the expense of management-employee buy-outs. Those who want to mount management-employee buy-outs would be hesitant, to put it mildly, about going against senior management in that way.
    We already know—my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has talked about this already in our two-day debate—that many managers in British Rail are keen to submit management-employee buy-out bids. However, they have made it known that, if British Rail bids against them, they will have severe difficulties. We need to address that issue. I think that Tory Members and, I hope, the whole House are in favour of encouraging management-employee buy-outs. After the vote yesterday, it is clear that Labour Members are not in favour of encouraging management-employee buy-outs but certainly all Tory Members are.
    The second problem is the chaos and confusion that would result—I know that many people in British Rail are concerned about this—if the Lords amendment went through unchanged. Chaos and confusion would arise because, in many cases, the managers who will be asked to submit the British Rail bid will be keen to submit their own bids. Clearly, that is a recipe for complete confusion. To deal with that specific point, a British Rail source is reported in The Daily Telegraph yesterday as asking what

    213
    would happen if the British Rail Board asks the same people—there is not a limitless supply of experienced managers—to prepare bids on its behalf for the same franchises. It is an impossible conflict of loyalty and will put many managers off altogether. It is not clear at what point the franchise director will step in to rule that a board bid is acceptable or otherwise. Obviously, that comment was made before the Government's amendment had been seen, because our amendment makes clear the point at which the franchising director will step in. He will step in at an early stage to avoid unnecesary and fruitless bids and to clear up the uncertainties to which the source refers.
    My third point is that it would be much more difficult to develop a healthy, competitive market in passenger railway services if British Rail were given unfettered discretion to bid for and operate franchises. We need to secure competition between franchisees which means avoiding market dominance by any one operator. That has been the clear purpose of our reforms, and one of the main benefits will come through that competition.
    There are problems about transparency in bidding—problems of possibly unfair playing fields, cross subsidies and so on. The point is—I think that many people still misunderstand this with regard to our reforms—that there is no single big bang, no private flotation and no "Sid". Inevitably, the franchises will be granted over a period because the franchise director will be preparing different ones. We have indicated seven franchises that we regard as his priority.
    In setting up the franchises, a track record of the separate business operating as a shadow franchise will have to be established so that bidders will be in a reasonable position to prepare bids. Inevitably, that means that not all bids will be happening at once—they will come through gradually. If British Rail is able to compete on each franchise at a different stage, that will increase the risk of unfair competition for bidding. Certainly, everyone who is preparing to bid will think that that is the case.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State says that a track record will have to be established on the service that is franchised. Can he clarify whether the managers who are running the shadow franchise and establishing the track record—the same team of managers—will be allowed to bid for the franchise? If so, is there not some incentive for them to ensure that the track record that they develop is as modest as possible so that they have the lowest possible figure for which to bid?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that will be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that managers will set out deliberately to run a poor service in order to show that they can improve the service, in that case they will prepare their bids, there will be other bids and they will be compared with the British Rail situation. If all the bids are better than the track record, clearly, the bid that is accepted will improve the situation.
    In any case, everyone who is bidding—whether it is a management-employee buy-out or someone else—will do so on the basis of the same known details of the track record. There will be no favourable position in that respect in terms of information for management-employee buy-outs as compared with any other bidder. Therefore, in that sense, it does not matter because everyone will have the same basis of comparison on the track record.
    Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that. Is he telling us that the track record is the bid? Surely, at the point at which the bid is submitted, the track record is historic and the bid that is being made by the team is some sort of projection of the future. It may be that, having achieved a perfectly modest record in the period running up to the bid's being made, the team will none the less have a much more imaginative and adventurous business plan to submit. The projection of the future would be compared with bids from the private sector, and the figure that they submit would be based on that. However, the track record could be perfectly modest.
    Mr. MacGregor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would know this, because it has already been debated at great length. The track record of the shadow franchise will not be the bid—it will be the basis on which bids are prepared. Obviously, that will be important for every bidder. The bids will be considered by the franchising director—he will compare the different bids. If the bids are an improvement on the track record, clearly, that will be a factor that he will take into account. That is also something which we will welcome, because, in the competition for franchises, we will be looking for an improvement on the historic record.
    I believe that the real issue is the other way round. I understand from discussions that we have had that a number of management-employee buy-outs are aware of the potential for increasing revenue, making savings and improving efficiency. They will submit a bid that will be a good deal better than the track record for different reasons, not the reasons given by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey).
    The Government have always said that if the franchising director is not satisfied with any of the bids, for whatever reason, and he feels that British Rail's track record while operating a shadow franchise gives better value for money, he will not grant any of the bids and British Rail will continue to operate as it has done. I hope that that makes the position clear.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: It does not.
    Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not understand, but he has not been following it.
    All the indications that we have had since the Lords amendment was incorporated in the Bill suggest that our concerns were and are justified. Potential bidders, including bidders for management-employee buy-outs, have made it clear that they would be deterred from bidding if BR were given complete freedom to bid for franchises. I know that my hon. Friends agree with those concerns.
    The Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 31 resolves those difficulties. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed). He has taken a close interest in these matters throughout and approached them in a constructive spirit, as have other of my hon. Friends. We have achieved a satisfactory outcome, which meets his concerns and those that the Government have always expressed. I regret that my hon. Friend cannot be here today owing to illness, but I hope that we will see him back shortly.
    The Government amendment preserves the wording of amendment No. 31, and the Government accept that BR should be eligible to be a franchisee. We are, of course,

    215
    asking the House to reject amendment No. 31 and to replace it with the Government amendment. That is a technicality—it is a way of achieving the passage of the Government amendment—but the whole of the original measure from the House of Lords is preserved in the Government amendment.
    The Government amendment puts certain confinements on BR's eligibility, and addresses the concerns that I have listed. It gives the franchising director a power to determine that BR should not be invited to bid for a particular franchise in certain circumstances. The franchising director may exclude BR from bidding, but only when he considers it desirable to do so in the interests of promoting management and employee bids or competitions for franchises, encouraging new entry into the industry or preventing or reducing market dominance in the provision of passenger railway services.
    The question whether to invite BR to bid will be left to the discretion of the franchising director. He will have responsibiliy for the entire franchising process, an important part of which involves having effective competition at the franchising stage wherever possible. It is right that he should be the person to decide whether to invite BR to bid for particular franchises.
    Mr. Cryer: Why? It is crackers.
    Mr. MacGregor: He will do so at the pre-qualification stage, before notices to tender go out and before people have to prepare bids. That is important in order to give the certainty that was asked for by the BR source, and to prevent unnecessary expenditure on the preparation of bids on a false basis.
    Subsection (9) in amendment (a) makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to give objectives, guidance and instructions to the franchising director in the exercise of his powers to determine that BR should not be invited to bid. I know that some people regard that as an important part of the amendment, because it guarantees the franchising director's independence.
    The amendment does not affect BR's role in operating passenger services until they are franchised. Should the franchising director decide not to accept any of the bids in response to his invitations to tender, BR will continue to operate that particular service.
    On Report on 25 May, I argued that the amendment from the other place was unnecessary because there was a fundamental basis on which other bids could be assessed—BR's operating track record. If none of the other bids was regarded as satisfactory because they did not give better value for money, BR would continue to operate that particular service.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: In that instance, would the BR bid receive the same subsidy that a private franchisee would receive, or would BR still have to operate its services with its present subsidy?
    Mr. MacGregor: That would be a matter for the franchising director. He would have to look at what subsidies were being bid for by the franchisees. The intention is that it would continue as before, but the issue of subsidy at that point would be a matter for the franchising director.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State seemed to say that if British Rail became a franchisee, it would have the same length of franchise as any other franchisee, and the appearance of another interest in a particular service would not overtake the allocation of BR's franchise for the whole of the franchise period. Is that correct?
    7.15 pm
    Mr. MacGregor: That is more or less correct. It is a point which I will come on to later.
    I am talking about a situation in which the franchising director decides that there are no viable bids, or no bids that give value for money. In such a situation, he would reject all the bids, and British Rail would continue to operate the service.
    There is concern about the uncertainty that this might create for BR managers and staff, who will need to know where they stand in order to plan the operation of their services. For that reason, and having regard to BR's need to motivate its staff and to deliver services, I intend to include in the objectives, instructions and guidance that I will give to the franchising director a requirement that he should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse before initiating a new competition. It will be for the franchising director to decide how long that period should be. That point is covered in the second draft of the guidance to the franchising director, which is available in the Library. It is still a draft, and no doubt it will be subject to changes.
    I will also incorporate in the guidance to the franchising director guidance on the assessment of bids from BR in cases in which he decides that BR should be allowed to bid. That is also contained in the draft guidance in the Library. The franchising director will have to ensure that BR's bids are assessed fairly, taking into account BR's position as the only public-sector body allowed to be a franchisee and the incumbent operator of the services to be franchised.
    I will expect the franchising director to attach great weight to BR's record in providing the services in question, and to take account of the value of transferring risk from the public to the private sector. That will achieve the level playing field and the transparency.
    The amendment giving the franchising director power to exclude BR from bidding will ensure that the interests of competition are properly safeguarded in the process of deciding who should be invited to bid for franchises. The guidance that I will give the franchising director will ensure that when BR does bid, its bids are properly and fairly assessed. That should reassure potential private-sector bidders that, despite BR's dominant position, there will be a level playing field.
    As I have said, the amendment gives the franchising director a discretionary power to prevent BR from bidding when he considers that desirable for well-defined reasons. I cannot say how he will exercise that discretion, because the amendment also prevents me from giving him any guidance or exercising any power over his use of that discretion. In the terms of this amendment, there will be cases where BR will be given the opportunity to bid, although it will be for BR to decide whether to do so.
    The Lords amendment makes a material change, even with the amendments that I propose. It will mean that a BR franchise will run for the period of the franchise, as distinct from the BR franchisee's being the residuary operator where there is no successful bidder. I hope that answers the

    217
    hon. Gentleman's question. We intend to respond to the marketplace and the depth of the bids, and therefore the length of the franchises will differ.
    Clause 106 provides that it shall be the principal objective of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers in clauses 77 to 90 of the Bill, to secure
    "as soon as … is reasonably practicable the result that the function of providing railway services in Great Britain is performed by private sector operators."
    That objective, as has been clear from the outset, applies to all railway services, including Railtrack, BR Railfreight, BR franchises and other BR-owned activities, including infrastructure companies, but the objective applies only as soon as is reasonably practicable and it is qualified by a wide range of other factors in subsection (2) to which the Secretary of State is required to have regard. Those include maintaining efficiency, economy and safety of operation in the provision of railway services and securing that any disposal takes place on favourable financial terms.
    I could have said more about things that were said yesterday, but, to ensure that we get on with debating the amendment, which I know is of great interest to the House, I shall forbear from doing so. I shall simply conclude by saying that Lord Peyton's original amendment would have created chaos and confusion in BR and among management buy-outs and would have discouraged competition for franchises, which will secure better deals for passengers, taxpayers and employees.
    Our amendment strikes a proper balance between allowing BR to be a franchisee where that is appropriate, and ensuring that BR's dominant position does not prevent the development of private sector interest in franchised passenger services. It is workable in a way in which the House of Lords amendment in its present form would not be, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.
    Mr. Wilson: It is a supreme irony for the Secretary of State for chaos and confusion, the architect of this massive, unwanted disruption of our railway network, to accuse Lord Peyton, that benign figure at the other end of the corridor, of seeking to cause chaos and confusion in British Rail with his amendment. It is an exact minor image of the truth; the Government are responsible for the chaos and the confusion that will be caused by the Bill.
    This is a key series of amendments. The Lords amendment would give British Rail the right to bid. It started its life as the Adley amendment and it would be remiss not to recognise the late Member for Christchurch's view of it. Robert Adley said:
    "It is a bit odd to say that the only people who will not. be allowed to bid to run the trains is the only organisation in Britain that actually has any experience of running trains—namely, British Rail."
    That was true when Robert Adley said it, and it is true now. The absurdity that he highlighted was gross then, it is gross now, and nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight erodes that fundamental absurdity. What has been stitched up as a deal with Conservative Back Benchers is the Government's internal affair, but the rest of the House and the country know that it is not a compromise but a buy-off, and that it is a buy-off for an extremely low price.
    Until last week, there seemed to be reasonably widespread agreement throughout the Chamber on the principle that Robert Adley enunciated, and which had carried on life as the Peyton-Marsh amendment. That
    218
    agreement has now collapsed due to the so-called Tory rebels' undignified retreat, which was as predictable as it is risible.
    We are left with a contradiction. Yes, British Rail will be allowed to bid, but only if the franchise director can find no one else to bid against it. If he can, British Rail will be sent off into undignified retreat as the operator of last resort.
    That is not fair competition; it is a rigged perversion of competition. It is deeply contemptuous of British Rail, its managers and its work force. British Rail will be left as the provider of last resort when no one else wants to run a service. The Minister, when it suits him, admits that, for a long time to come, a large part of the British rail network will remain in the hands of British Rail, but it will be in the hands of British Rail under the conditions which the amendment to the amendment seeks to impose, in which British Rail has been categorised as the provider of last resort, in the full knowledge that the opinion of the Government is that, if it can be got rid of, it will be got rid of.
    I recognise a small advance in that. I have no doubt that, when the Government set out on this course, they intended to abolish British Rail altogether and to leave it running no trains at all. They have been on a collision course with reality because of the modicum of private sector interest that exists and also the massive cost in subsidy, which we now know a little more about, that will be needed if private operators are to be interested. They recognise now that British Rail will not go away and that it will still have a usefulness, but in a role which no other party and no other Government would dream of according the state railway company. We should be investing in and developing British Rail so that it gives us a railway to be proud of, integrated within the public sector, as exists in other continental countries.
    What the Secretary of State is doing in this amendment is deeply contemptuous not only of British Rail but also of the British taxpayer. The Secretary of State is saying that, even if British Rail is the most effective potential bidder—in fact, especially if British Rail is the most effective potential bidder against a private interest—it will be excluded from competing in order to clear the way for that private bidder. There will be no competition.
    Mr. MacGregor indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but it is my understanding that, where that is likely to exist, British Rail will be disqualified from bidding. Irrespective of how little subsidy British Rail seeks to operate a particular franchise, if a private operator who might be asking for a great deal more subsidy is available, British Rail will be excluded and the money will go to the private operator. That is why we begin to realise that a huge increase in subsidy will be required to hold the network together.
    The figures that we discussed the other day did not take account of train operators' profit. They envisaged the daft circular movement of everyone paying everyone else profit—the economic charges, plus 8 per cent. return. The figures did not take account of the train operators' profits. It is at that point, when the private operators are brought into that circle, if they ever exist, that the cost of subsidy,

    219
    if the existing network is to be maintained, will go through the roof, even beyond the £2 billion a year which is being discussed now.
    If British Rail were allowed to bid for every franchise, and came in as the lowest tenderer in every franchise, the country would ask why British Rail should not operate every franchise, because in aggregate the cost to the taxpayer would be massively less than the alternative, which is to fragment the railway, to cosset the private sector and, in each of those franchises where there is an interest, to pay the operators more in order to operate the services.
    The Secretary of State, in defence of that point, argues against the concept of cross-subsidy. Cross-subsidy is a good idea; we owe an awful lot of our public services to it. In arguing against cross-subsidy in order to disqualify British Rail from bidding, the Secretary of State gives the show away. If British Rail were allowed to compete for every one of those 25 train operating companies, and if it were able to win every one of those franchises, obviously it would not be on the basis of cross-subsidy because British Rail would have had to make the appropriate bid in each and every case. Cross-subsidy enters the argument only when one is dealing with two or three of those franchises, not when one is dealing with all of them.
    If there were any logic in what the Secretary of State is doing, and if there were any interest in giving the taxpayer the best deal, it would be put to the test: British Rail would be allowed to bid for every one of those franchises. The Secretary of State understands and fears above all that British Rail would probably win all, or nearly all, the franchises, which would be the best deal for the British taxpayer.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman totally ignores two points: first, as I made clear, the franchises will not all go out at one and the same time, but will be staggered substantially; and secondly that the franchising director will know the operating track record of British Rail during the period beforehand as a separate business—the shadow franchise, in other words. He will therefore have a benchmark, a comparison, with which to compare the bids, and if he does not think that he is getting value for money for the bids, he will not grant them.
    Mr. Wilson: The point about staggering is irrelevant; in fact, it supports my case, because, if the Government's policy is pursued, ultimately all the lines would go out to franchise. Eventually, cross-subsidising would catch up with British Rail, because it would not be able to bid effectively for the later franchises. It is not true—British Rail would win the franchises not by cross-subsidising but because, as Robert Adley said, it is the only organisation in Britain with any experience of running the railways.
    I am sorry, but what was the Secretary of State's second point?
    7.30 pm
    Mr. MacGregor: The franchising director will always know British Rail's track record of operating as the shadow franchise. He will be able to make that comparison, and, if he does not think that the bidders offer value for money, he will not award them the contract, so the shadow franchise will be converted into British Rail operating the franchise.
    220
    Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the £2 billion, and therefore about subsidies. He has completely misunderstood the basis for that figure. It comes from a report which is only a working document and which I have never seen. There are many models, and it is ridiculous to place such weight on that one. His argument about subsidy and value for money is undermined by the very process that the franchising director will go through.
    Mr. Wilson: I certainly understood, from his reaction on television, that the Secretary of State had never seen the document in question. It was produced at the highest level by his officials and spells out the cost of subsidy during the next year. I have no doubt that, now that the document has come out, some formula will be found for disguising the figures, but essentially it spells out in great detail that more taxpayers' money will be needed in the system to make the thing work. That is the lesson to be learned from the document, and it is also common sense if anyone looks at this legislation.
    Mr. MacGregor: Let me make it quite clear that I did not know about the report when I was confronted with it on television on Sunday, because there are a large number of documents from working groups at various levels. Naturally, one asks for different models of the way in which one can achieve a more commercial basis for the system. I think that that report was the 79th document from that working group. The hon. Gentleman is creating a great myth on the basis of very little, as he so often does.
    Mr. Wilson: Frankly, if I were the Secretary of State I would think that some questions needed to be asked when my Department produced a document that concluded that "the central Government grant requirement would total about £2 billion in 1994–95, assuming an 8 per cent. return for Railtrack", if the officials had got it wrong to the nearest billion, irrespective of the level at which the report was prepared. If he likes, he can tell us the level of the document and whether that statement is wrong. It is not my statement, however—it comes from his Department, which says that it will cost £2 billion next year to make this show operate, without running a single extra train or carrying a single extra passenger.
    Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, we will bow to experience.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood. If I remember correctly, I think that the report says, "by way of illustration". It is a model. The fact is that we are studying various models. That document was illustrating one way in which certain factors, which have all yet to be decided, could be worked through in the system. It is wrong to make any deductions from it about the level of subsidy next year.
    The hon. Gentleman, among others, has made all sorts of suggestions on previous occasions about Network SouthEast fare increases. I have always said that we should wait until the announcement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to do so, rather than building his position on a working document when many other such documents are being worked through.
    Mr. Wilson: We need not prolong this argument. As the Secretary of State says, it will all come out in the wash. I am surprised, however, that he should build his case on fare increases. What sort of Government do laps of honour

    221
    when fare increases are restricted to four or five times the rate of inflation, after Government intervention to hold them down? I am talking about Network SouthEast and the 8 or 9 per cent. increase in the travelcard. I do not regard that as a great triumph, and that increase was after intervention. Suppressing such increases would have to be paid for one way or another. British Rail has been left with that problem.
    We have wandered off the point slightly. Let me return to the subject of ghost bids, to which I think the Secretary of State referred. We are invited to believe that the franchise director will consider British Rail's operations, once the vast superstructure for privatisation has been set up, and will work out what it costs British Rail to run each franchise area. He will then say that, if the private sector cannot do it for less, there will not even be a competition and British Rail will carry on. Is that probable? Is some guy appointed by the Secretary of State going to study BR's costs and call the whole thing off because, having looked at it objectively, he has decided that there is no way that the private sector could do it more cheaply? I do not believe it. The Secretary of State does not believe it. It is a total fiction to parade to the House.
    The Secretary of State's political direction to the franchise director will be that he should get some franchises going this side of the next general election, but only the safe ones—the ones at which money can be thrown and which will cause the Government no political embarrassment. I do not think that they exist; we are beginning to see that from the Gatwick express, which is supposed to be the easiest of them all.
    Political direction will occur at every stage. The franchise director will be told what to franchise, to cut out British Rail and to skew subsidy in the early years towards private operation, to give the Secretary of State the sort of political cover that he obviously so much requires.
    I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak and I think that Conservative Members have some explaining to do, so I do not want to take too long on the subject, but the myth of management buy-out must be challenged whenever it occurs. The Secretary of State may be a magician but he is not entitled to set himself up as a ventriloquist, to speak for people who are not allowed to speak for themselves, and to misrepresent them. That is a disgrace.
    I do not know what precise proportion of BR's management are interested in buy-outs, but I know that, according to the only survey of opinion undertaken, 92 per cent. of senior railway managers are opposed to rail privatisation. It may be a little more, or a little less, but there is not one shred of evidence from which the Secretary of State can adduce, or even try to adduce, that a majority or even a substantial body of railway managers are positively in favour of rail privatisation and want to be involved in buy-outs.
    Ninety-two per cent. of rail managers replying to the survey were opposed to privatisation; 77 per cent. were in favour of British Rail retaining the ability to bid for franchises. Seventy-seven per cent. of managers are still in favour of the very amendment that we are discussing. Tory Back Benchers—to whom the railway managers appealed—will betray them on that amendment.
    Let it not be said that the amendment has been tabled in the name of railway managers, because it is not true. The Government are looking for a minority of railway managers who, from zeal or fears for their jobs and
    222
    prospects, will become involved in the buy-outs. It is a disgrace to misrepresent railway managers by suggesting that they are behind the proposal. It astonishes me. No, it does not astonish me, as nothing that this lot does can astonish me. In the light of the figures, the Secretary of State glibly pretends that Government proposals are intended to support railway managers.
    Railway managers may be the front men—we discussed last night how they might be used by private sector interests as a way in. A handful of managers may be involved, but how long will they remain involved? I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister attend conferences on rail privatisation, as I do—a great new industry has been created. I am sure that they are as familiar as I am with the advice given by financial interests to potential management buy-outs. I am sure that they are also as familiar with the term "exiting", which is used at such conferences, when railway managers are told, "Yes, get in there, make your money and then exit within three to five years. Sell on to the full private sector." That is the strategy urged on railway managers by the financial backers and the interested parties who will eventually take over those companies.
    The idea that there is widespread enthusiasm among railway managers to make it their life's work to run private railways is false. The Minister knows what happened in other industries. Let us consider what happened to the bus industry where buy-outs occurred—within a few years, financial pressures and the anxiety to make a fast buck led to companies being sold on. I make no distinction between management buy-outs and full privatisation, because they are ultimately exactly the same. The only substantial difference in most cases is that a small number of pockets are well lined. That provides a heavy incentive for managers to become involved initially.
    The extraordinary tribute to managers' commitment to the public railway can be seen in the figures. In spite of the bribe, 91 per cent. of railway managers are opposed to the suggestion. The Secretary of State said that there was
    "not a limitless supply of experienced managers".
    He has got something right. Of course there is not a limitless supply; in fact, there is a distinctly limited supply.
    What will happen while the wonderful management buy-outs bids are being prepared? We understand that managers involved in the bids will have to separate themselves from British Rail while the bids are put together for a period of six months, or perhaps even 12 months—[Interruption.] The Minister can correct me if I am wrong.
    Mr. Freeman: Later.
    Mr. Wilson: Who will run the railway from the moment that the bids are put together? If the bids do not succeed—there is no guarantee that they will—what will happen to the railway managers who have separated themselves from British Rail in order to put their bids together? Will they return to Dust the people who have run the public railway while they have been away putting together their bids? The scheme is a recipe for conflict and division, and will sap morale. Some people will be seen to be trying to feather their own nests, while others will be left with the job of running the public railway. That is what the Government are doing to the railways, and it is already having a huge effect on the morale of those who work in that industry.

    223
    The Secretary of State is right to say that there is not a limitless supply of experienced managers. Where will those private interested parties, who are supposed to be waiting in the wings, find the supply of railway managers to run the industry? When bus companies and other interests enter the market, they may want to recruit from the existing pool of railway managers, but at that stage not even the Secretary of State will be able to dragoon railway managers to work for them. At present, there is a large haemorrhage of experienced railway managers because they despise what is being done to their industry. That haemorrhage will increase.
    The Secretary of State must bear in mind the fact that there will not be a limitless supply of experienced managers. He will leave us with a railway from which many of the most experienced people have gone. The inevitable corollary of that is that the running of the railway will be left in the hands of inexperienced people, which will have serious implications.
    I am curious about the line that market dominance will exclude British Rail from bids. The Government are in the process of setting up private monopolies throughout the country. No matter which company wins the franchise, it will have a monopoly—whether it be British Rail or any other company. If only one operator runs a franchise—which will be the reality for a long time, even under the Government's scheme—that operator has market dominance. To say that British Rail cannot bid because to do so would give it market dominance is nonsense. If the Government have an explanation, I will be interested to hear it.
    7.45 pm
    I question whether fixing the scheme against British Rail and talking up management buy-outs is legal under European law. That issue was authoritatively raised in the House of Lords by Lord Clinton-Davis. In our contacts with the European Commission, we have been advised that it would certainly want to consider that issue. The notion that competition can be twisted to push one potential operator and discount another is ridiculous. Perhaps that could be done in the good old days of market rigging, but there is now European law to be taken into account. The words of Lord Clinton-Davis in the House of Lords will be actively pursued by the Labour party, which wants answers to various questions.
    The subject should be of interest to my friends and colleagues from Ulster, who were present earlier. The Government may try to tell them that the Bill contains nothing relevant to Northern Ireland. We know that emissaries were sent to try to buy their votes a few weeks ago. There is a consultants' report on the future of Northern Ireland Railways. Despite several parliamentary questions, the Government have refused to publish that report. If they go ahead with the Bill, there is every reason to believe that Northern Ireland Railways would be next in line, as well as any other bits and pieces of railways around the country. The precedent of not allowing the operator to bid would presumably apply in each of those cases. The implications for Northern Ireland do not have to be spelled out.
    The scheme is not a compromise; it is not an effort to satisfy the reasonable demand to give British Rail the right to bid. It is a fix against British Rail and cossets the private sector, which may turn out not to exist. There are minimal signs of genuine private sector interest. British Rail will
    224
    continue to operate the great majority of services in this country. After a change of Government, British Rail will once again operate all the services in this country. In the meantime, what damage will be done to the morale and fabric of British Rail? The Government's performance over the issue, particularly the amendment, has been tawdry. They may have bought off the Tory rebels, but not opinion in the country.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: If the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was meant to be a short speech that left lots of time for colleagues on both sides of the House to make their own contributions, I am glad that we were not blessed with a long speech from the hon. Member.
    I am extremely glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it gives me the opportunity to put my oar into the debate not just only on my behalf, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) who, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, is unfortunately extremely unwell and unable to be with us today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and I are grateful to my right hon. Friend for seeking to address the concerns that a number of us have expressed. Our worries relate to ensuring the fundamental direction of the Bill and what it is meant to do. The Bill is intended to improve the service offered to customers by railways and to offer value for money both to passengers and to taxpayers.
    There has been much press and public comment on the subject of Lords amendment No. 31, the so-called Peyton amendment, to allow the British Railways Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the board to become a franchisee. Since the amendment of Lord Peyton—no shrinking violet—was accepted in another place, a number of colleagues and I have argued in favour of the amendment to improve the denationalisation Bill.
    I am delighted and grateful that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport have accepted that principle and tabled a Government amendment on the issue, in the same positive way as they have reacted to other suggestions that we have made over recent weeks and months.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, it is essential to have a level playing field for all potential franchisees, be they from the private sector, management-employee buy-outs or the British Railways Board. British Rail managers with whom I and my hon. Friends have spoken, including those employees who wish to mount management-employee buy-outs, have stressed that they want only a level playing field, not a built-in advantage. They merely want to be able to compete for the franchise equally and fairly. They did not want the Peyton amendment overturned.
    I understand the managers' concern. I believe that anyone with any business experience would understand their concern, because railway franchises will inevitably be a risky business. The companies will employ staff and have contracts perhaps for only five or seven years, although I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend state on television last weekend that the contracts could go up to 15 years or even more.
    The companies will not own many assets. The trains will be leased and the track, signalling and stations will be owned by Railtrack or by franchisees for those stations. They will avoid much capital debt, but will lack also the

    225
    financial security that those assets would otherwise bring. Their business will be largely specified by the franchising director, heavily regulated and yet subject to the fierce competition of car, coach and air, which British Rail faces now, and which any rail operator will face in the future. As demand for rail travel rises or falls in line with the economy, even when business is bad the operator will still have to meet the obligations given to the franchising director when the original bid was made, so of course new operators need the sort of encouragement that my right hon. Friend proposes in his amendment.
    I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the view of potential management-employee buy-outs that they merely want a level playing field. It demonstrates that they are already embracing the free market principles of fair and equal competition. That was referred to at length during our debate on the guillotine motion this afternoon. They understand that in that way the railway will change for the better and will offer a better service and, crucially, better value for money.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured me that those are his objectives, too; and I believe him when he says that those are the objectives behind the amendment that stands in his name. I welcome those assurances and the stands that he has taken.
    I much regret the comments made by Opposition Members and their supporters outside the House who are seeking to undermine and rubbish the Government's proposals with rumours and innuendo worthy of a Machiavelli, which are thereby causing a lot of quite unnecessary worry among present rail users and present rail pensioners. That was the context in which I made some comments earlier this afternoon.
    The Bill is complex. I want to try to help Opposition Members and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by inviting him to take this opportunity to give the House once again the assurances that he has given me and my hon. Friends. The first concerns a small point that was raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) towards the end of the debate on the guillotine motion. It is to do with the future right of British Rail's museums to the artefacts, free and clear of any cost in the future, as it has been given that right in the past. That matter has been raised before in the Chamber.
    I had the opportunity of raising the matter in the last few words of the last speech before my right hon. Friend summed up on Third Reading. It has been touched on in the House of Lords and I believe that reassurances can be given—I hope that reassurances can be given—even though it has not been written into the Bill. Whether it becomes the responsibility of the franchising director in a similar way to that in which he becomes responsible for stations that are franchised individually, or some other responsibility, I believe that we should have some reassurance as to the present rights of that magnificent British Rail museum.
    Returning specifically to the amendments, which I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will want me to do, paragraph (4) of Government amendment (a) permits—I emphasise the word "permits"—the franchising director in certain circumstances to determine that neither the British Railways Board, nor a wholly owned subsidiary, shall be allowed to bid for a franchise.
    There is no requirement on the franchising director to do that. He can act only under the specific circumstances set out in the amendment. As my right hon. Friend has told
    226
    us, those circumstances are designed to ensure a level playing field. He said that in his opening words and I believe that he should say it again when he sums up. He should go on to say that provision of quality of service and value for money are indeed the overwhelming reasons why a particular franchise will be granted.
    I understand it to be the Government's intention that the franchising director would exercise those powers to that end and to no other. Were that not to be the case, I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee would soon be examining the activities of the franchising director. I hope that my right hon. Friend will therefore confirm to the House that that will be the case and that the franchising director as accounting officer will be required to come before the Public Accounts Committee to justify his actions in terms of seeking the maximum value for the public money for which he is accountable.
    Mr. David Nicholson: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said in that regard. Does he agree that decisions by the franchising director, which might be controversial, might be open to judicial review?
    Mr. Rathbone: I agree with that and I will come to that point in just a few moments.
    I particularly welcome the requirement on the franchising director to promote competition for franchises. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm to the House that, in most cases, that will require the inclusion of British Rail in the bidding process to promote competition and to provide the benchmark against which new entrants to the Rail industry will and can be judged.
    I must tell the House, however, that I was concerned about the reference in the amendment to
    "preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons".
    That is a highly judgmental factor and one which, if abused, could give the franchising director carte blanche to buy bids by the British Railways board willy-nilly. [Interruption.] If hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would stay comfortably quiet, I should be most grateful.
    It seems to me that, in the absence of open access competition, every franchise operator will be a monopoly provider of rail services within his area and therefore dominant, except in a limit number of cases such as Gatwick Express. In my constituency of Lewes, the local franchisee is certainly likely to be the only operator.
    I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that it is not his intention to use that provision universally to bar British Rail from bidding. It is difficult to understand how paragraph (5)(d) of his amendment will operate. I hope that he will be able to give the House an indication of what is meant by the word "dominance".
    I was considerably reassured by a letter that I have received from Sir Bob Reid in answer to questions that I put to him. He indicates a proper approach to that sensitive issue. It is clear that British Rail will be prepared to submit to proper scrutiny of any of its bids; that it will do so in co-operation with the Government; and that it accepts as a minimum requirement a robust accountancy system to prevent subsidy leakage. That is being built into the restructuring which is already in hand.
    A crucial part of the Government's amendments is the requirement for the franchising director to publish his decisions. That will allow them—here I come to the point

    227
    raised by my hon. Friend—to be tested in court if necessary by way of application for judicial review. As my right hon. Friend has told me, that is a vital safeguard if the franchising director is to be given the power to bar British Rail from bidding.
    I am advised, however, that it would be difficult for aggrieved bidders successfully to petition for leave for judicial review if the franchising director has not given the reasons for his decision. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some comfort on that point. He may be unwilling to include such a requirement on the face of the Bill, but I hope that he will be able to give the House an assurance that the franchising director will give reasons for his decisions when he takes them, and not just in his annual report.
    I have one further concern relating to those cases where, despite the franchising director seeking bids, he is unable to appoint a suitable franchisee and British Rail remains the operator. In those cases, it is my view, and the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that such an arrangement should be in force for the franchise period.
    8 pm
    In his draft objectives for the franchising director my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recognised the importance of the effect on morale and the need for a period of stability. But those draft objectives refer only to a reasonable period of time before seeking potential franchisees again and, if I heard him correctly, my right hon. Friend used exactly the same phraseology in his opening speech today.
    My concern is that those continuing the running of difficult services or taking over unpopular franchises should be rewarded with a degree of stability. As a result of the changes that my right hon. Friend has agreed to the Bill, British Rail will be long-term operators and not just caretakers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure me and the House that the final version of his objectives for the franchising director will be more specific on that point and establish that such continuing British Rail operations will be at least for the length of the franchise period on offer.
    Perhaps the most important feature of my right hon. Friend's amendment, on which I particularly congratulate him, is subsection (8) where he removes any question of his being able to direct the franchising director in these matters. If, therefore, the franchising director is to bar British Rail from bidding, the decision will be his and his alone after consultation with the regulator and the British Railways Board.
    However, I have heard it said that that subsection prevents the Secretary of State from directing the franchise director only in that specific context, a point which I believe my right hon. Friend also made in his opening speech today. It has been alleged by others that the Secretary of State could use other powers of direction within the Bill effectively to ensure that British Rail would not be awarded a franchise if any other bids were made.
    The argument runs that the Secretary of State could direct that another bid be awarded the franchise. It has been argued that the amendment to clause 4, which was successfully moved in another place by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, the Minister for Aviation and
    228
    Shipping, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to direct the franchising director to accept MEBO bids above all others.
    I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that is not his intention, but, if he will excuse me, Secretaries of State tend to come and go, and nowhere more frequently than in the Department of Transport. I am sure, therefore, that the House would welcome some reassurance that the powers contained in the Bill should not be interpreted in that way.
    In that context also, I remain concerned that the franchising director must submit to the Secretary of State for approval any proposal to offer vertically integrated franchises wherever those seem appropriate even though any such proposal can be made only with Railtrack's agreement. Therefore, I hope that the final objectives will delete that requirement as well as clarifying the previous requirement to which I have referred.
    I return briefly to the crucial issue with which I started—that the Bill and my right hon. Friend's amendment have the sole intention of achieving value for money and quality of service through fair and equal competition between all those who bid for franchises, so that the best future operator wins each of the franchises, so that in turn much needed increased investment is made to improve services, particularly in such areas as the Kent coast line serving the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the south coast central franchise area and the Sussex coast services which serve my constituents.
    I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that and give the assurances that I invited him to state, and I am confident that those assurances from my right hon. Friend will enable my right hon. Friends to join me in supporting the Government amendment.
    Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) did the House a service, about which the Government will not be unduly perturbed, when he highlighted a central contradiction in the Government's amendment in his reference to subsection (5)(d). This will not be an open access railway. In granting franchises, the franchising director will inevitably be conferring not merely dominance in a particular railway but a monopoly in the railway. When proposals were put forward for the deregulation of the buses, it was precisely because the Government were worried about the potential abuse by franchisees that they rejected the concept of franchises in connection with buses.
    On many occasions in the Select Committee on Transport and the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, we have drawn attention to documentation published in the mid-1980s which demonstrated the anxieties of departmental officials that the franchisee would capture the franchiser. The argument is that, in due course, railway passengers will pay the penalty for the situation that the Government are establishing.
    However, that is not the main burden of my remarks this evening. Initially at least, I wish to pursue a line of questioning raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) about the compatibility of the Government's amendments in relation to our obligations under the treaty of Rome.
    The Secretary of State, who has just left his place, will doubtless be aware that those matters were raised by my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davies, himself a former Commissioner, which adds authority to the reservations

    229
    that he expressed in another place on this matter. Even the most sympathetic perusal of the record reveals that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping in the other place was unable to supply anything approaching an adequate response to the issues raised by my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
    There is no doubt that the Government's amendments confer a privileged position to management-employee bids for franchises. There can he no other interpretation of the words:
    "for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest".
    Those words confer rather more than a level playing field to the advantage of MEBOs in these approaching bids.
    However, there are potential objections to the Government's proposals under three heads of European Community legislation. Article 7 of the treaty states:
    "Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited."
    It is at least arguable that the present provisions put forward by the Government implicitly discriminate in favour of nationality. It is certainly an argument that merits a response.
    Article 85 of the treaty defines as having the effect of prevention, restriction or distortion or competition within the Common Market, and therefore in contravention of the treaty, agreements, decisions and concerted practices which
    "apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage".
    It is certainly arguable that another potential franchisee could take exception to the preference offered to a MEBO and it is hardly satisfactory for the Government to reply, as did the noble Earl of Caithness, that the Government would seek an exemption under article 85, paragraph 3. That power might be sought by the Government, but do they have any grounds to believe that it is likely to be granted? In other words, are there grounds to believe that the provision is compatible with the treaty?
    I draw the Minister's attention to article 90 of the treaty, which states:
    "In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty."
    That relates in particular to the rules provided for in article 7, which I have quoted, and in articles 85 to 94 to which I have referred.
    The Government amendments place MEBOs in a privileged position and that privilege will be enshrined in statute. There is no doubt that the statutory provision could be used in evidence against the interests of the MEBO. These matters should have been subject to serious consideration before the Government drew up their amendments. I wonder whether they seriously investigated the implications of the proposals in light of our treaty obligations. Did they consult the Commission? Are the Government sure that their proposals meet our treaty obligations? If they did not consult the Commission, and if they are not entirely sure that they have met the treaty obligations, is it not improper to ask the House to approve the amendments? Should not the amendments be withdrawn?
    230
    If the Government press the amendments to a vote—I suspect that they intend to do so—Conservative Members should be aware that the next Session may bring amending legislation to the Bill.
    I shall turn briefly to the main thrust of the Government's proposals in the amendments. Conservative Members have expressed disquiet about the Government's earlier resistance to the amendments from Lord Peyton on British Rail's right to bid. If those hon. Members are willing to fall for the proposals, I fear that they are liable to fall for anything. It appears that Conservative Members wanted to secure a reasonable opportunity for BR to enter competitive bids to provide services. We have heard a good deal about the level playing field. The truth is that the Government are denying BR that level playing field and are saying effectively that it may compete only, if no private operator is interested in running the service.
    By any standards BR is an efficient railway undertaking. There are Conservative Members who do not believe that. Why, I wonder, are those hon. Members so enthusiastic about the enlisting of the support of BR managers through the proposed MEBOs? In any comparative terms—capital investment, railway undertakings, the proportion of GDP expended upon railways—BR is an outstandingly efficient and productive railway system. Why should BR be effectively and extensively denied the right to compete for the franchises?
    There is an inconsistency here with earlier Government legislation which provided for competitive tendering in local government and in the health service. The Government have always permitted the public sector to bid. After all, BR knows something about running a railway, unlike virtually every other potential franchisee in sight. Is it not true that the Government are fearful that BR would win most of the franchises? In the public sector and in local government, the public sector won three out of every four contracts and, I might add, Swedish railways have won most of their work.
    8.15 pm
    Is it not true that the Government are aware that there is virtually no interest in the franchises? Are not the Government seeking to exclude BR to make it easier for the pathetically few private bidders—however expensive and however inefficient they are likely to be—to enter the scene? It is beyond my comprehension that the Conservative Members who apparently were willing at an earlier stage to go out on a limb to secure a reasonable opportunity for BR to provide these services are to be bought off easily. I hope very much that those hon. Members will listen carefully to the strength of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and by other Opposition Members and that they will join us in the Lobby tonight.
    Sir David Mitchell: In the original Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provided, I believe wisely, that British Rail could not bid for franchises, but that the franchise director need not accept a franchise bid and could leave BR as the operator. The Lords have amended that to permit BR to bid for franchises and my right hon. Friend has tabled an amendment which goes part of the way to meet the Lords amendment.
    I regret the Lords amendment, which I believe was short-sighted and misdirected. If BR bids, the private

    231
    sector will be frightened off. There have been continual references during the debate to the need for a level playing field. I do not think that there is any way in which a level playing field can be achieved with BR as a bidder. I shall explain why I think that is the case.
    BR has enormous financial clout and there will be fear by those who are invited to bid for franchises that BR will cross-subsidise. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and that is unusual. To bid for a franchise, any bidder needs to know the cost and overheads and how to apportion and predict the movement of those overheads. Does the House, my right hon. Friend or anyone who knows BR intimately believe that there is any way in which BR knows what its costs are and can predict them? It is not organised to do that.
    I do not believe, nor does anyone who knows the industry, that BR would be capable of putting forward a clean bid on a level playing field. I know that, many hon. Members know that and—more important—anyone thinking of putting forward a MEBO knows that only too well. If BR is to bid, there will be cross-subsidisation, which I as a taxpayer have every right to be fearful of. BR would be using taxpayers' money and that would be cheap and nasty; cheap for BR and nasty for the taxpayer. That would inevitably frighten off bidders from the private sector.
    There are important points which my hon. Friend the Minister should not overlook when he winds up the debate. The benefit of private sector culture will be lost if BR continues to hold a franchise. One can take a photograph of the situation at any particular moment, but the situation is moving. Looking forward over the period of the franchise, there will be opportunities for innovation and for change. It is that innovation and change at which BR is so bad and at which the private sector is inevitably better. The real difficulty is that, if BR is to be compared with a private sector bid, the facts will be concealed. BR will rumble on as it has for so many years, whereas the innovative private sector bidder could bring new ideas and new ways of capturing the market and of pleasing the customer.
    Mr. Keith Hill: During the hon. Gentleman's earlier incarnation as a Transport Minister, he leaped around the counties of Hereford and Worcester in pursuit of buses to pave the way for bus deregulation.
    I suppose that the hon. Member would argue that we have seen the benefits of innovative creativity from bus deregulation and privatisation, which has led to a total loss of 13 million bus passenger journeys each year since its introduction.
    Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that bus deregulation has been a considerable success in Worcester. In many parts of the country, innovative ideas have been introduced, such as the minibus, which virtually did not exist before the Transport Act 1985 was passed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what happened, one result of bus deregulation was the introduction of a whole series of new ways of providing services which were of substantial benefit to the consumer.
    Yes, there is a long-term downward trend in the number of passenger miles. That is simply a result of growth of the use of the private car, with all the convenience that it can
    232
    offer. That trend has not altered. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's point about buses in a moment; I do not want to detain the House for too long.
    We must bear in mind the serious point that if British Rail can bid, the level playing field that Members on both sides of the House believe should exist will not be provided. Management buy-outs will be stifled. No manager will bid against his employer knowing that if he loses the franchise, he will continue to be beholden to that employer for his employment. Indeed, managers will think two or three times about whether they dare to put their future employment prospects on the line, mortgage their houses and do the other things that might go with a buy-out. There is serious anxiety about whether managers and employees will dare to bid against a British Rail franchise offer.
    The last reason why there will not be a level playing field is that managers will have to put up their own money, mortgage their houses and take real risk while British Rail will bid with the bottomless purse of the taxpayer. The Government amendment says that nothing should prevent British Rail or its subsidiaries from being franchisees, subject to the right of the franchise director to forbid it, if desirable, for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises, encouraging management and employee buy-outs, encouraging new entrants to railway operations in the United Kingdom and preventing market dominance by one operator. I find it difficult to live with that. I am prepared to do so and to put confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening, but the original Bill was much more sound in ensuring that genuine innovative new bids were brought into the working of railways.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) feared that large increases in subsidy would be required when franchises came in. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) spoke about buses. There is one lesson to be learned from bus deregulation. I refer to it in the narrow aspect. When socially necessary bus services were put out to tender, service after service which previously needed a substantial subsidy needed much less and, in many cases, no subsidy. That was to the astonishment of the county and metropolitan councils which had been paying the subsidy thinking that they were obtaining value for money.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir David Mitchell: Certainly.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We cannot go into a long discussion about the pros and cons of buses.
    Sir David Mitchell: In that case, I will not give way. I conclude by saying that some £40 million was saved by county and metropolitan councils throughout the country when they discovered to their astonishment that, by putting bus services out to competitive tender, they saved substantial amounts of subsidy. I believe that there will be considerable astonishment when it is found that the same thing applies to the railways.
    I bow to your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in not pursuing the argument about buses any further. I shall support my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby, but we would have done better to reject the Lords amendment and stuck to the original Bill.
    Mr. Harvey: One would find it easier to believe that the Government had had a significant change of heart and were making a concession on this point if their change of heart was not so late in the day. As others have said, it came after the Government's defeat in the Lords. Their response has been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, there is considerable doubt about its legal validity.
    The argument about allowing British Rail to bid has been with us for a long time. When the White Paper was issued, long before the Bill was published, I asked from this Bench whether British Rail would be allowed to bid. The point was raised again on Second Reading, throughout the Committee proceedings, on Report and Third Reading and in the Lords, where the Government were defeated. Only after that defeat, when the Government faced the prospect of the same thing happening in the House of Commons, did the Secretary of State wave his magic wand and come up with the strange formula that we have before us.
    We were told earlier that the leaked document from the Department of Transport which said that the privatisation process would double the level of public expenditure was just a model. But surely the model of allowing BR to bid with some handicap was considered earlier. If it was ruled out as invalid then, why has the option been whipped out at this late stage as the basis of the legislation which is shortly to go on to the statute book?
    Allowing BR to bid is simply a device to allow Conservative Members who have threatened to rebel to walk away without loss of face. It has nothing to do with the running of the railway service or choice for passengers. Nor does it do anything to guarantee the position of the taxpayer, who has poured money into the nation's rail network for decade upon decade. The prospect of allowing British Rail to bid was the only guarantee that the service would not be taken away and dismembered by spivs who would come in briefly to run a railway service, find that they could not, bale out and leave the mess behind them.
    The suggestion that risk is being transferred from the public to the private sector and that some value should be put on that gives the game away. I wonder whether it is true. If the risk that will be taken by the private sector will not be bailed out by the taxpayer when the crunch comes, the fears that have been voiced by Members of Parliament and people elsewhere that services will close will be realised. If there is a risk transfer, who will pick up that risk?
    At this point we should be discussing the Government's rail policy for the future. A proper policy would seek to avoid the doubling of road use by 2025. A sensible policy might reasonably seek to double use of the railways by the end of the decade. People want to use the railways more. They are put off by the ridiculously. high fares that they have to pay. The Bill will make that worse. We shall see a net transfer of not only freight but passenger traffic away from rail back on to the roads.
    Ministers are fond of saying that, if the amount of freight carried on the rail doubled, it would reduce road traffic by only 5 per cent. That is false, because it ignores the distance of the journeys involved. If the railway doubled its share of the 200 km-plus market, it would reduce long-distance lorry freight by 50 per cent. That would be a popular move. It would be a great deal more
    234
    popular than building a motorway from Felixstowe to south Wales and the south-west—a proposal that is coming on to the agenda.
    The Bill is not about safeguarding the taxpayer or improving choice for the passenger. It is not about facing up to the real crisis of under-investment in the railways or exploring new ways of doing something about it. The game has been given away during the debate. We have heard that the Bill is about cutting public subsidy. I believe that it is about continuing to pursue the Thatcherite dogma of the 1980s and convincing the right of the party that the candle burns on, the policy still exists and the Government are true to the faith.
    The Government amendment is ridiculous. It says that BR can bid, but that in any circumstance that any sane man can think of, the bid is to be disregarded. There are four reasons why it can be disregarded. One is to feather-bed management buy-outs, which will be the only real prospective bidders. The second is to feather-bed private sector buyers. There is no sign of any of them. The third is competition, although by the time competition has been skewed twice, one has to query whether it is worthy of the name competition.
    The fourth reason why the bid can be disregarded is to prevent anyone from having a dominant position in the market. British Rail has 100 per cent. of market at the moment. That means that, at any given point, on any franchise that is considered, British Rail can be disregarded because it is a dominant supplier. The catch-all enables the franchising director to disregard BR's bid on any occasion for any reason that enters his mind. We need British Rail to be a strong, vibrant bidder, an on-going committed public transport provider that is going to guarantee quality to the public and to guarantee value for money to the taxpayer. We do not want BR to be an impotent bidder of last resort.
    8.30 pm
    The consequences of the amendment are no different to those that would have occurred before the amendment was tabled. The Government were initially saying that, if the private sector management buy-outs did not produce a worthwhile bid, BR would be left as the operator as the last resort. What sort of service is it to operate as the provider of the last resort? What sort of service will the passenger get on lines run by the operator of the last resort?
    Under those circumstances, BR should be given the franchise. BR should be given a guarantee that, for a period of seven, 10, or 15 years, it will be running that service and it should have the same incentives and objectives as any other bidder or anybody else operating any part of the rail network. Damage has already been caused to morale and unity among BR employees by the work that has gone on in putting together the shadow franchises.
    I wonder why, even at this late stage, the Government did not take the opportunity to save themselves from the ridiculous ideology of trying to prevent BR from bidding. Even the Evening Standard—hardly a renowned bastion of left-wing thinking—asked in an editorial in the summer, what on earth all this is for? Who is going to benefit? Will it end up with fares going up, services being reduced and a new level of bureaucracy being created just to split BR into franchises? It said that the game is not worth the

    235
    candle. The late Robert Adley summed up the Bill as the poll tax on wheels. That description and what he meant by it it will come home to roost.
    I deplore the Bill for the passengers and I deplore it for the taxpayers. The only thing that prevents the Conservatives from plunging on to their own sword is the hope that the franchising director will save them from themselves and allow BR to bid.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Opposition tactics over the Bill, especially in the past two days, have consisted of little more than delay, scaremongering and, most appallingly, threats. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) described yesterday what would happen, in the unfortunate event of a future Labour Government seeking to renationalise the railway, to those managers who dared to try to provide a better service to the customer, we saw the Opposition's real enthusiasm for involving management and employees in running a better business. I was deeply disappointed with what he said.
    The words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were not surprising. We know that the Opposition want to kill the Bill. They are not, and never have been, interested in the consumer. Their interest is in the producer, the provider of services. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) sharing that same prejudice. I shall tell the House what the Bill is about. It is about providing new ideas, new investment and new involvement in the railway from the management and employees of the railway. That is why I was so anxious to speak on this group of amendments.
    I expect significant private sector interest in the franchises to be offered by the franchising director. I think that that interest will often be expressed in partnership with management and employee teams, and very often I expect management and employee teams to take the lead in bidding for the franchises in their own right—and I welcome that. We must ensure that no potential new participants are frightened from bidding for the franchises by anything in the Bill.
    I sincerely hope that the concessions that have been made by the Government in this group of amendments in an attempt to get the Bill on the statute book before the end of the Session will not have that frightening effect. I fear that there is already some evidence that managers are becoming less enthusiastic as a result of their concern at this concession. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me on a number of specific points.
    The British Railways Board fought a clever campaign to try to frustrate the Bill. One senior BR representative said recently:
    "The board will not stand by and preside over its own suicide"
    Frankly, that is no concern of the House. Our concern must be for the quality of service, not the preservation of the British Railways Board. It is essential that we look carefully at the Government's new amendments to see whether they go too far, whether they will frustrate management and employee buy-outs and whether they will betray the confidence of those managers who are currently preparing bids and who believe that they can run a better railway. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), there are many more than three managers currently preparing bids who were named in The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
    Over recent months, I have spoken to a number of managers who are interested in preparing bids and they
    236
    have warned of the consequences of accepting the amendment as it stands. The concerns that I shall express are not mine, but those of railway managers who want to bid. First—
    Mr. Nick Raynsford: Out of self-interest.
    Mr. Luff: Their interest is not self-interest, not exclusively self-interest. Yes, they will make some money, but they will provide a better service to the passenger. That is the important point. The British Railways Board has access to money at different rates from managers or outsiders bidding for franchises. There is a real danger of unequal competition as a result of that consideration.
    Secondly, the board would always have been the operator of the last resort if the franchising director declined to accept any other bid. I still worry whether that process needs even the limited double chance that it is being given by the amendments.
    Thirdly, in many areas, many managers feel that the board has failed to reduce central administration adequately under the Organising for Quality initiative, landing individual managers with excessive central costs. Managers must be allowed a chance to show what they can do when they choose how much central administration to buy.
    Fourthly, many outside bids could be non-compliant. They may seek greater vertical integration than the Government seem prepared to accept. A large central compliant bid from the British Railways Board would automatically rule out outside bids, thus inhibiting the evolution and development of the railway. I hope that, under the Government's new proposals for the objectives of the franchising director, that danger will be carefully monitored.
    Fifthly, managers of British Rail know that they have an unsaleable brand, with 45 years of adverse associations. During that period, the railways share of the passenger transport market has declined slowly, but consistently. Under the new regime, the managers to whom I have spoken are looking for a new start for new products that can succeed. I hope that the Minister will assure me that there is nothing to stop bidders grouping together to sustain the one British Railways brand that has real value in the marketplace: the InterCity brand.
    Sixthly, the Government will continue to provide the British Railways Board with money through public service obligation grants to run those parts of the railway with which it is entrusted. If the BRB is allowed to bid for franchises, there is a real danger that it will direct funds to franchise bids. That could worsen the service elsewhere on the passenger railway.
    Seventhly—a point that has been made by many hon. Members and commentators—there will be a conflict of interest if managers are forced to choose between whether to work on a British Rail bid or on their own. I must welcome what the Government have done to clear the way for those bids.
    It is now too late to fine-tune the plans. I hope that the amendments meet the seven specific concerns of the managers that I have expressed. I will be carefully scrutinising the activities of the franchising director to ensure that he uses his powers well to address those seven concerns. How well he does so will determine the success of the Bill, which provides an opportunity for the liberating winds of choice, competition and concentration on the

    237
    customer—something so often lacking in so many parts of the British Railways Board's activities over the years—to blow through the railway. I wish the franchising director well in that onerous task.
    Mr John Gunnell: I was watching television on Sunday afternoon and saw the Secretary of State receive the news about the extra £2 billion expenditure. I have heard him say tonight that it was only the 79th paper from the working group and therefore that he is discounting figures that gave him such a shock on that programme. Will the Minister tell us whether there are to be increased costs?
    Sir David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past, British Rail has had to show an 8 per cent. return on new investment? The paper to which he referrred dealt with the consequence of the wholly new concept of having to apply an 8 per cent. return to all the old investment. That is not likely to become a practical reality, and if somebody has worked it out as one of the options in the Department, the hon. Gentleman should not put too much weight on it.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am not about to put any weight on it. The Minister for Public Transport, in his discussions with passenger transport authorities, has agreed that, next year, their public service obligation grant—the money that they get through the section 20 agreement—will need to be increased by 50 per cent. to cover the extra costs of the changes that will be taking place. Therefore, he has accepted that the extra money is a result of the Bill. Sadly, because of the guillotine, we shall not be able to debate the necessary arrangements to reschedule the section 20 grants.
    It will come as no surprise to the Minister or to any hon. Member to hear that PTAs wish BR to bid for every franchise in which they have an interest. They fear that, if BR becomes only a residual operator, management motivation will be lost and efficiency will drop. Over a number of years, PTAs and their executives have exerted considerable pressure on BR to improve financial and operational performance. When I was leader of a metropolitan authority, I had a number of such meetings, in which we demanded increased efficiency from British Rail. The Government have acknowledged the success of PTAs and written into the Bill provisions to continue, and perhaps strengthen, the role of PTAs and their executives.
    By keeping the maximum pressure on British Rail to maintain efficient management practices and seek innovative solutions, the PTAs will be able to continue to improve local services. If they cannot continue to do so, they fear a return to escalating costs and declining standards. If there is a mixture of organisations, with a residual operation by British Rail—if that is what it becomes—it will have no long-term goals except its own extinction.
    I accept that there may be bidders for franchises from management buy-outs. Another possibility is bus companies, and some major bus companies have been looking seriously at bidding, but have already decided that, as the franchises are too large for them, they will not bid. No one has yet mentioned possible bids from foreign railway operators. Will the Government be prepared to sanction bidding from such companies, which may then charge a higher price than BR to run the service? There might also be bids from non-transport companies—we do
    238
    not know of any yet—that might seek partnerships with BR teams of managers. All those possibilities do not look likely to become realities.
    We have to ask the Government to consider several questions. First, why will there be no genuine competitive tendering in this privatisation? My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said that the Government have permitted other in-house groups within the public sector to set up and compete against the private sector. I would go further: I would say that the Government have encouraged that. We have seen many examples of groups that have offered services first within the public sector and then, as a result of their experience there, have put in bids and transferred to the private sector.
    The Government would have benefited if they had allowed British Rail to compete. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said that he did not think that BR managers were all that good at some of the aspects of business that are necessary in a management buy-out. He said that they were not good at giving the sort of financial information that would be necessary in a bid. In that case, it would be better to allow BR to develop such expertise than simply to cut its managers free now.
    We have to ask about the transfer of risk, a point that I mentioned last night. The Minister said that he did not regard the whole of the private sector bid as being covered by the transfer of risk. If BR is providing a service at £10 million a year and a private sector bidder offers to provide the service at £15 million a year, will the transfer of risk be more than the £5 million a year to make that private sector bid more economical?
    8.45 pm
    We have to be suspicious of the Government's amendment, because it contains no referrence to costs, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said. Given that the amendments are designed to transfer services to the private sector, why is there no clause to ensure that the transfer does not incur significant additional costs? Why is that not a limiting factor and why have the Government not put economy at the forefront of their amendments? In every other respect, it has been clear that the franchising director has to take maximum account of cost and the economy; but not in this instance. That is why the Minister, in dealing with PTAs—he has been willing to talk to them throughout the passage of the Bill—has said that the section 20 grants will have to rise by 50 per cent. to cover the increased costs of services. Those increased costs are brought about by the change in the Bill. The Minister cannot avoid answering that point.
    Mr. Gary Waller: Any lingering doubts that I might have had about the Government's amendments would have been blown away by the lack of vision shown by Opposition Members. Time and again, they have ignored the key point, which was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that even where BR does not have an opportunity to make a formal bid, the franchise director will be precluded from awarding a franchise to an operator whose potential does not match the track record of BR.
    The draft objectives for the franchising director state clearly, on the first page, that he must seek to protect the interests of passengers. It would be nonsense in those terms to award a franchise to an operator whose potential service would be worse. We have heard the misleading claim that

    239
    BR is a provider of last resort. The suggestion is that BR will be left with services only if no other bids are submitted for them. That is a misunderstanding of the purposes of the Bill. Sadly, that misunderstanding is spread throughout the country. We have to explain the measure better. Unreal fears have been promoted in recent months on the basis of misleading information deliberately provided from certain sources.
    It seems to me that rail users have a good two-way bet. The BR shadow franchises will inevitably have to respond to commercial pressures and, whether BR or a management and employee buy-out eventually runs the service, it will be a better service—at least it will be no worse— because the franchise director will not award a franchise to someone who will provide a worse service.
    Another myth is that BR will be left running a rump railway after a bout of cherry picking. Anyone who believes that clearly has not read the Bill or the "Draft objectives for the franchising director", the first page of which includes as a principal objective
    "through payment of support to the British Railways Board and its wholly owned subsidiaries and to franchisees, to secure an improved overall service for passengers."
    I am convinced that, for a long time, services will continue to require taxpayers' support. That cannot be denied. Indeed, it is bound to be the case, as it is in all countries with railway services.
    I hope that the franchising process will bring the greatest improvement to those services that need it. For various reasons, the service currently provided by BR is patchy throughout the country. We all know that certain lines desperately need improvement and the franchising process is the best way to ensure that it is directed to those services.
    I welcome the fact that the Government have gone not for a big bang but a gradualist approach. As time goes by, the Bill's benefits will become clearer and clearer.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to another amendment in the Bill as "Alice in Wonderland". Surely this amendment brings us to the Mad Hatter's tea party. I clearly recall my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tabling an amendment in Committee urging the Government to allow BR to bid for franchises. The Government's response then was a categorical no. For a variety of reasons, BR was not to be allowed to bid for franchises in the bright new world of privatised railways.
    What has happened in such a comparatively short time to change the Government's attitude to the idea of British Rail bidding for franchises? Could it conceivably be that the private sector has shown no interest whatever in taking on the British Rail network? That is probably a stronger reason than the much-vaunted Conservative Back-Bench revolt. Even someone as comparatively new to the House as I am knows that Conservative Back Benchers tend to talk a good fight, but inevitably fail to deliver the knock-out punch.
    The argument of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), that BR should not be allowed to bid because it was over-qualified, was absurd. I should not like to travel on a rail network run by amateurs, which is, in essence, what we are talking about.
    240
    He argued that it is unfair because BR has a bottomless pit of public money with which to provide an improved service. We have seen in the past few weeks that that is patently untrue. The Government have savagely reduced public service obligation and BR subsidies.
    I asked the Secretary of State this afternoon whether the subsidy earmarked for private operators when they bid for franchises would be given to the BR service if a private franchiser failed to win a franchise. BR will be expected, come hell or high water, to keep the trains running on our national network. As usual, the Secretary of State neglected to answer.
    How can the Government seriously expect to improve the use of the rail network, attracting more passengers on to it and keeping freight off the roads? As one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, when will the Government give up their love affair with the juggernaut?
    How can the proposed basis for introducing this ridiculous Bill be achieved if those now running the rail network, who will be expected to get out of trouble privatised franchise operators who significantly fail to deliver the service? How are we to expand the use of our networks and attract more people onto them when the Government consistently say that BR is a fail-safe device, is not good enough to bid for new franchises, and lacks the imagination to produce better services?
    I spent an entire day with the management and work force of the part of BR that runs through my constituency—the north London line. A more dedicated group of people it would be extremely hard to find. They have weathered and worn the Government's chopping and changing and their inability to define what they mean by a public network service, short or long-term franchises, or plans for British Rail. Yet the members of that management and work force are still dedicated to the idea of a public network system. They are desperate to improve their stations and only too anxious to improve their services. They have a welter of imaginative ideas which they and I believe would attract more people back to that stretch of the railway. They have wonderful ideas for integrating that piece of railway into the much wider network.
    Those who significantly failed to link this country by means of the channel tunnel link should listen to those members of the BR management. But they are not interested in the idea of breaking up the existing network in which public money will do little more than line the pockets of private investors who, as we have heard time and again in the House, lack any experience in running a rail network.
    Only one group of people knows how to run a network. It could run it infinitely better if only the Government would acknowledge that a railway is a national resource and infrastructure that should be funded by public and private combinations, not split up in this absurd way.
    Mr. Wilson: May I ask the Minister a specific point on ghost bids? I understand that there has been a change in Government thinking and that track and rolling stock costs will not now be distributed by the franchise director to specific franchises but, instead, the franchise director will pay a lump sum to Railtrack and the leasing companies.
    Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct? If so, it represents a fundamental change in the Bill, virtually abolishing the concept of transparency and the attribution of costs to particular routes within the franchise. It also

    241
    makes it impossible to make meaningful comparisons between BR's current performance and the bids being made. Has that major change in Government thinking, as yet unannounced, taken place?
    We have had a full debate for the past two hours. I am pleased to see that, until the closing speeches, the allocation of speeches has gone back and forth across the Chamber.
    Despite that widespread participation, the Government have truncated the debate on the spurious ground that there was procrastination in yesterday's debate. The debate would have been even better if it could have continued last night and we had been allowed more time. The Government's assertion that Opposition Members were speaking to no purpose has been discredited in the past couple of hours.
    The Government's arguments on the amendments have been similarly discredited. Conservative arguments were summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who said that they asserted that British Rail was to be disqualified from bidding because it over-qualified. People who use the railways want a safe and efficient system that will cost the taxpayer as little as possible. They would prefer over-qualified people to those who are under-qualified, who are brought into the network not to improve it but to practise the dogma and prejudice that underlies the legislation.
    As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said, the grounds on which the franchising director, who will be a creature of Government, will be able to rule out British Rail are part of a catch-all clause. BR will be left as a last resort provider. We shall oppose that at every stage, and shall draw attention to what is being done, to the discrimination against British Rail and to the disadvantage that will be imposed on the taxpayer. We shall continue to oppose the amendments.
    9 pm
    Mr. Freeman: I shall try to be as succinct as possible, but I am sure that the House would want me to answer all points properly. I can tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that, for the first round of franchises, we expect that the franchising director will reach agreement with Rail track on the costs of track access for all franchises.
    After that, the franchising director will ask for bids for subsidy for those lines that he proposes to franchise. Therefore, the bids will reflect not only the cost of train operation but the cost of access to the track. Of course, open access operators and the freight industry will bid directly to Railtrack. As I have said, we expect Railtrack as from yesterday to negotiate terms for access to the track. Rolling stock is a matter for the rolling stock companies.
    The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) asked about the treaty of Rome. Obviously, the franchising director must exercise his discretion under the amendmentin line with our obligations under that treaty. The amendment does not require the franchising director to take any action in breach of those obligations.
    The hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) spoke about the £2 billion. My right hon. Friend and I have explained that, but I shall try to do so again. This is a model. It does not imply any additional funds for the railway system—that is to say, Railtrack, British Rail and the franchising
    242
    director. It is simply one attempt of many to estimate the external financing limit of one part of the railway system, the franchising director. That is all in the public sector. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at many more possible solutions as to how a given sum of public money can be split between the external financing limits of those three public sector bodies.
    It is not true that I have spoken about 50 per cent. The figure represents the increase in track costs to the passenger transport authorities, and I have no idea what the final increase will be. We shall provide a specific grant to the PTAs to cover the increase in costs in 1994–95. We have no desire to interfere with the level of service, and there is no reason to do so.
    The Secretary of State and I are grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I appreciate their support. They also want to improve the private sector's contribution to the railway, and that can be done by permitting additional investment and greater innovation. That is not a criticism of BR managers or employees. Because of the nature of a public sector monopoly, those two benefits are not properly reaped. The issue is how that is to be done.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked whether British Rail would bid. I confirm that our expectation, intention and belief is that it will bid competitively in certain circumstances. That is the purpose of my right hon. Friend's amendments. However, it will not be invited to bid in specific cases. The franchising director will decide. That is where the issue of promoting an interest in buy-outs by management-employees arises. That will encourage competition and prevent dominance. I shall try to define precisely the last of those.
    There is evidence that British Rail management are seeking to prepare bids. We welcome that. I have visited many BR managers and I know that they are interested in the 25 franchises in the offing. Some of that interest will manifest itself next year and some in years to come.
    The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked about value for money. The franchising director's budget is cash-limited, and he must use the money efficiently and economically. Therefore, when he compares private sector bids with BR's historic costs and makes his decision, taking account of risk transfer to accept a higher subsidy bid in the early years, he must initially justify that decision to the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, his judgments are subject to judicial review. The figures cited by the hon. Gentleman are way over the top. There may well be some differences, but they will have to be justified.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked seven questions, and I shall seek to answer them as succinctly as I can. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) is not here. Some of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) asked overlapped with the seven from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, and I hope that I have them correctly.
    First, we did not manage to table the amendments to deal with the ability of the railway museum to acquire artefacts from the private sector. I will reply to the director of the railway museum. I give an assurance that I will have a meeting with him. It may be that we will be able to achieve the same objectives, but not via the statute. [Laughter.] There seems to be some mirth about that. It is

    243
    not an evasion at all; we intend that the museum should obtain artefacts from both the private and public sector. I do not understand what the mirth is about.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether the franchising director would operate on a level playing field. It is important that the franchising director obtains value for money. As I have already explained to the House, his judgments will have to be explained in due course to the Public Accounts Committee. There is certainly no requirement upon him to exercise that discretion in any particular fashion. He will enable BR to bid in certain cases, and he must explain any actions he takes in relation to the private sector.
    Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked what was meant by dominance. It does not mean an absolute bar on BR bids from the beginning. My right hon. Friend and I certainly do not interpret dominance to mean that no BR bid should be allowed until it is down to 25 per cent. of all rail services in Great Britain: that is clearly absurd. Judgment will have to be used regionally and nationally, because we want to encourage private sector participation.
    Fourthly, my hon. Friend asked about the publication of decisions. My hon. Friend will know that clause 67 of the print of the Bill dated 27 May states that the franchising director must publish and annual report which must be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend. We believe that is the right way to explain the decisions that have been taken.
    Mr. Rathbone: It is absolutely essential that those decisions are explained in the annual report. In order to enable a judicial challenge to be made, it is unreasonable to expect a potential challenger to postpone making that challenge until the annual report becomes available, so it is important that the franchising director publishes his reasons before the annual report.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand that. I am sure that the franchising director will be making announcements. I will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said, but I can give him no assurance at this stage that the franchising director will go beyond giving a account of this activities in the annual report. I understand what my hon. Friend is arguing; perhaps it is sensible to review what statement is made by the franchising director as and when he makes each decision. It is a perfectly reasonable point, and my right hon. Friend and I will reflect on it.
    I was asked what was a reasonable period for BR to operate as a matter of last resort and continue to run services if it does not participate in the franchise award. We have deliberately not tried to define that, because it is not possible to do so. My right hon. Friend and I will reconsider the draft objectives which have been tabled for consideration by the House and reflect on how the language can be improved, but I do not hold out any hope that that period should specifically match the franchise period that the franchise director had in mind to offer if BR was not bidding.
    I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that we must ensure that the morale of BR does not deteriorate, and that management should be given some certaintly in continuing to run services.
    244
    Sixthly, my hon. Friend asked whether there were other means by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can direct the franchising director in terms of accepting or rejecting British Rail as a bidder.
    The answer is no, my right hon. Friend cannot use clause 5 to instruct the franchising director to use his powers to exclude BR from the bidding.
    Finally, my hon. Friend asked me about vertical integration. That is not part of the Government's policy, which is why the franchising director has to refer these matters to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that must be right, and we have set out our reasons for that.
    I very much welcome the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and other hon. Friends. I hope that the assurances that I have given on these important issues will make them feel able to vote with the Government. I commend to the House both the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to disagree with the Lords amendment No. 31 and the Government amendments in lieu.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 282.

    Division No. 381]

    [9.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Cash, William

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Churchill, Mr

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Ancram, Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Colvin, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Congdon, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Conway, Derek

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baldry, Tony

    Couchman, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Cran, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Bates, Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Beggs, Roy

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Day, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Devlin, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dicks, Terry

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Body, Sir Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bowden, Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bright, Graham

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burns, Simon

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Burt, Alistair

    Forman, Nigel

    Butcher, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Butler, Peter

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forth, Eric

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    245

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lord, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Gallie, Phil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Madel, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gill, Christopher

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Malone, Gerald

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mans, Keith

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marland, Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mates, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hague, William

    Merchant, Piers

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mills, Iain

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Harris, David

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawkins, Nick

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hawksley, Warren

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hayes, Jerry

    Needham, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hendry, Charles

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Horam, John

    Norris, Steve

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Paice, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pawsey, James

    Jack, Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Pickles, Eric

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jessel, Toby

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Richards, Rod

    Key, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Knapman, Roger

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knox, Sir David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Sackville, Tom

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Legg, Barry

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Leigh, Edward

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lidington, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    246

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Trend, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Trimble, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Trotter, Neville

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spring, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Steen, Anthony

    Waller, Gary

    Stephen, Michael

    Ward, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stewart, Allan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Streeter, Gary

    Watts, John

    Sumberg, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Sweeney, Walter

    Whitney, Ray

    Sykes, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Willetts, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Thurnham, Peter

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Tracey, Richard

    Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ann

    Alton, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Austin-Walker, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Baldly, Tony

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Cox, Tom

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, Bob

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bell, Stuart

    Darling, Alistair

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Denham, John

    Betts, Clive

    Dewar, Donald

    Blair, Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Blunkett, David

    Dobson, Frank

    Boateng, Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Dowd, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bradley, Keith

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Enright, Derek

    Burden, Richard

    Etherington, Bill

    Byers, Stephen

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fisher, Mark

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Fraser, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    247

    Galloway, George

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Gapes, Mike

    Mahon, Alice

    Garrett, John

    Mandelson, Peter

    George, Bruce

    Marek, Dr John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Martlew, Eric

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Maxton, John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Meacher, Michael

    Gould, Bryan

    Meale, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Michael, Alun

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Milburn, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Miller, Andrew

    Gunnell, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hain, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Mike

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hanson, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Harvey, Nick

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Henderson, Doug

    Mudie, George

    Heppell, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Murphy, Paul

    Hinchliffe, David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Home Robertson, John

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hood, Jimmy

    Olner, William

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Neill, Martin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Parry, Robert

    Hoyle, Doug

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pope, Greg

    Hutton, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jamieson, David

    Prescott, John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jowell, Tessa

    Redmond, Martin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Reid, Dr John

    Keen, Alan

    Rendel, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rogers, Allan

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rooney, Terry

    Leighton, Ron

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lewis, Terry

    Ruddock, Joan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Salmond, Alex

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Shearman, Barry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McAllion, John

    Short, Clare

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Simpson, Alan

    McCartney, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McFall, John

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McLeish, Henry

    Snape, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    McMaster, Gordon

    Spearing, Nigel

    McNamara, Kevin

    Spellar, John

    McWilliam, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Madden, Max

    Steinberg, Gerry

    248

    Stevenson, George

    Welsh, Andrew

    Stott, Roger

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Straw, Jack

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wilson, Brian

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Winnick, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wise, Audrey

    Turner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Tyler, Paul

    Wray, Jimmy

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Wallace, James

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Walley, Joan

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Watson, Mike

    Mr. J. O. Jones.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment proposed:
    (a) in page 24, line 40, at end insert—

    '(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—

    (a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or

    (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

    from being a franchisee.

    (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.

    (5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

    (a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;

    (b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;

    (c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or

    (d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

    (6) The Franchising Director shall—

    (a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and

    (b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

    (7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.

    (8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.

    (9) In this section—
    "competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
    "encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
    "qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement

    249
    relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 283.

    Division No. 382]

    [9.27 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Devlin, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ancram, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dunn, Bob

    Ashby, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkins, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evennett, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Faber, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Beggs, Roy

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forman, Nigel

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forth, Eric

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    French, Douglas

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fry, Peter

    Bowis, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Bright, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hague, William

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'lre)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    250

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pickles, Eric

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robathan, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knapman, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knox, Sir David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sackville, Tom

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sims, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, David

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stephen, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stern, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Stewart, Allan

    Mans, Keith

    Streeter, Gary

    Marland, Paul

    Sumberg, David

    Marlow, Tony

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sykes, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tracey, Richard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tredinnick, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trend, Michael

    Needham, Richard

    Trimble, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Norris, Steve

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waller, Gary

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Ward, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Page, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Watts, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Wells, Bowen

    251

    Whitney, Ray

    Wood, Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Wilkinson, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Willetts, David

    Mr. Irvine Patrick and

    Wilshire, David

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Wolfson, Mark

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Denham, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dewar, Donald

    Ainger, Nick

    Dixon, Don

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dobson, Frank

    Alton, David

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Ashton, Joe

    Eastham, Ken

    Austin-Walker, John

    Enright, Derek

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Etherington, Bill

    Barnes, Harry

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Barron, Kevin

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Battle, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Faulds, Andrew

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fisher, Mark

    Bell, Stuart

    Flynn, Paul

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Benton, Joe

    Foulkes, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fraser, John

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Fyfe, Maria

    Betts, Clive

    Galloway, George

    Blair, Tony

    Gapes, Mike

    Blunkett, David

    Garrett, John

    Boateng, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boyes, Roland

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Burden, Richard

    Gould, Bryan

    Byers, Stephen

    Graham, Thomas

    Callaghan, Jim

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Gunnell, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hain, Peter

    Cann, Jamie

    Hall, Mike

    Cartile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hanson, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hardy, Peter

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Doug

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Heppell, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoey, Kate

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cox, Tom

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hutton, John

    Darling, Alistair

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Janner, Greville

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    252

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Prescott, John

    Jowell, Tessa

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Alan

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Radice, Giles

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Randall, Stuart

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Redmond, Martin

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Reid, Dr John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rendel, David

    Leighton, Ron

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Lewis, Terry

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rogers, Allan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rooney, Terry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rowlands, Ted

    McAllion, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Salmond, Alex

    McCartney, Ian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sheerman, Barry

    McFall, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McKelvey, William

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    McLeish, Henry

    Simpson, Alan

    MacIennan, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    McMaster, Gordon

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Snape, Peter

    Mahon, Alice

    Soley, Clive

    Mandelson, Peter

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marek, Dr John

    Spellar, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Stevenson, George

    Martlew, Eric

    Stott, Roger

    Maxton, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Meacher, Michael

    Straw, Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Milburn, Alan

    Turner, Dennis

    Miller, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Walley, Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Watson, Mike

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mudie, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mullin, Chris

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Murphy, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Winnick, David

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wise, Audrey

    O'Hara, Edward

    Worthington, Tony

    Olner, William

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Parry, Robert

    Patchett, Terry

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

    Pickthall, Colin

    Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About 10 days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) raised

    253
    the question why the police were no longer providing assistance to hon. Members who wished to get to a Division. Such assistance requires the police to be in Parliament square when a Division is called.
    I raised this issue a few hours ago, but since then I have learnt that my hon. Friend raised it 10 days ago, but no action has been taken. I had difficulty getting to the House for the Division. Apparently, the new superintendent of police has decided that all police based in Parliament square should be removed when a Division is called and should not help hon. Members to get to the House to vote. That is in breach of our Sessional Orders—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that the debate is guillotined. I assure him that I will report the matter to Madam Speaker and ensure that it is looked at tomorrow morning.
    " —(1) A franchise agreement may include provision with respect to the fares to be charged for travel by means of the franchised services.
    (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, if it appears to the Franchising Director that the interests of persons who use, or who are likely to use, franchised services so require, he shall ensure that the franchise agreement in question contains any such provision as he may consider necessary for the purpose of securing that any fares, or any fares of a class or description, which are to be charged are, in his opinion, reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
    (3) Every franchise agreement shall include provision requiring the franchise operator—

    (a) to participate in every approved discount fare scheme,

    (b) to charge fares, in cases to which such a scheme applies, at rates which are not in excess of the levels or, as the case may be, the maximum levels set by the scheme, and

    (c) otherwise to comply with the requirements of every such scheme,

    if and to the extent that the franchised services are services, or services of a class or description, in relation to which the approved discount fate scheme in question applies.
    (4) The discount fare schemes which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as "approved" are those which are from time to time approved for the purposes of this section by the Franchising Director.
    (5) In this section—
    "discount fare scheme" means any scheme for enabling persons who are young, elderly or disabled to travel by railway at discounted fares, subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as may be imposed by or under the scheme;
    "discounted fare" means a lower fare than the standard fare for the journey in question;
    "scheme" includes any agreement or arrangements."
    Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 13, at end insert
    'and every appropriate travelcard scheme.'.
    (b), in line 20, after 'scheme', insert 'Or travelcard scheme'.
    (c), in line 21, after 'fare', insert 'and travelcard'.
    (d), in line 32, at end insert
    '"travelcard scheme" means any scheme for enabling persons to travel by railway, or by railway and other specified forms of
    Mr. Steen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The crux of the issue is clear to me. It is an important issue, and I can give the hon. Gentleman full confidence that it will be looked at in detail tomorrow morning.
    Amendments made: (b), in page 54, line 36, after '20' insert '21, 23'.
    (c), in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
    '( ) every notice of a determination under section 22(4) above;'.— [Freeman.]
    Lords Amendment No. 32 agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 33, after clause 24, to insert the following new clause—Fares and approved discount fare scheme—
    transport in a described geographical area, during a described period of time, subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as may be imposed by or under the scheme.'.
    and Lords amendment No. 37.
    Mr. Freeman: Amendments Nos. 33 and 37 are important, and I shall be as clear and succinct as I can be in introducing them. They deal with the commitment on fares control that we gave on Report. That has resulted in the amendment, which gives the franchising director the power to ensure that franchise agreements contain provisions to ensure shat all fares are reasonable. The Government believe that the amendment fulfils the criteria that we set out during the debate.

    255
    The amendment also covers discount schemes for the young, the elderly and the disabled, and their protection under the franchise agreements.
    The franchising director will have powers to safeguard travelcard schemes. My right hon. Friend has given a specific commitment in regard to London; there are powers in relation to travelcard schemes outside London, but London is what is covered so far. We believe that broadly similar provisions could apply outside, but we have made no decision about that.
    I hope that the House will agree that the amendments fulfil commitments, and are to be commended.
    9.45 pm
    Sir John Stanley: I should like to speak briefly to Lords amendment No. 33, with particular reference to subsection (2).
    This is a significant amendment, which was not printed in the Bill at any time during its previous consideration by the House of Commons. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it introduces for the first time a provision enabling the franchising director to ensure, in the interests of the travelling public, that fares in the franchised services remain reasonable.
    It is also worth referring to the genealogy of the amendment. We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about the alleged potential implications of the proposals for fares; but the existence of this significant provision in the Bill owes nothing to the Opposition Front Bench—or, as it happens, to the Liberal Democrats. It was tabled on Report, as amendment No. 237, by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and myself. On the following day, it was accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend.
    I consider the amendment significant and substantive. I highlight just two features which illustrate that. First, there is the use of the phrase "shall ensure" in relation to the franchising director. The fact that that phrase is used—rather than the phrase "may ensure"—represents an important statutory obligation. The second important feature flows from that wording. By virtue of being statutory, the obligation is clearly justiciable—which means that, ultimately, any of the new consultative committees, any transport users association and, indeed, any individual member of the travelling public will have an opportunity to take legal action against the franchising director if he fails to discharge his obligation in relation to the reasonableness of fares.
    I am delighted that this important amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the House will give it warm support.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it may be the wish of the House to deal formally with Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252, and to proceed to a debate on Lords amendment No. 253. If that is so, before I call the Minister to move formally to agree with the Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in the Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40, 45, 56, 65, 83, 97 and 104.
    Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252 agreed to. —[Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 86

    EMPLOYMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 253, leave out Clause 86 and insert the following new Clause—
    Assignment of employees to particular parts of undertakings.

    (" .—(1) Schemes may be made—

    (a) assigning such qualifying employees, or qualifying employees of such a class or description, as may be specified in the scheme to such part of their employer's undertaking as may be so specified;

    (b) modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees; and

    (c) providing for the payment of compensation to any of those employees by his employer in respect of any overall detriment incurred by the employee in consequence of any modifications made by the scheme to his terms and conditions of employment.

    (2) A scheme shall be made only for the purpose of facilitating, or otherwise in contemplation of, or in connection with,—

    (a) the disposal of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, of the Board or of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board;

    (b) the transfer, by virtue of a transfer scheme, of any property, rights or liabilities—

    (i) from the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board to any such subsidiary or to a publicly owned railway company or a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director; or

    (ii) from a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director to another such company;

    (c) the provision of railway passenger services, or the operation of additional railway assets, under a franchise agreement, in circumstances where a previous franchise agreement relating to the provision of those services or the operation of those assets comes, or has come, to an end;

    (d) the performance of any duty imposed on the Franchising Director by any provision of Part I above to secure—

    (i) the provision of any railway passenger services;

    (ii) the operation of any network or part of a network;

    (iii) the operation of any station or light maintenance depot, or any part of a station or light maintenance depot; or

    (e) the exercise of the power conferred on the Franchising Director by section 26 above-to secure the operation of any additional railway assets.

    (3) The power to make a scheme shall be exercisable—

    (a) by the Board, in respect of employees of the Board or of any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

    (b) by the Franchising Director, in respect of employees of any company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.

    (4) Where a scheme modifies the terms and conditions of employment of any person, the person's terms and conditions of employment after the modification takes effect must overall, and taking account of the amount or value of any compensation payable to him by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above in respect of any such detriment as is there mentioned, be no less favourable to him than his terms and conditions of employment before the modification takes effect.

    (5) The duty imposed on an employer by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (requirement for written statement in respect of certain changes relating to an employee's employment) shall extend to all of the modifications made by a scheme to a qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment, as if those modifications were changes required to be dealt with in a written statement under that section.

    257

    (6) If any qualifying employee whose terms and conditions of employment are modified by a scheme is aggrieved—

    (a) at the provisions made by the scheme with respect to the payment of compensation, so far as applicable in his case, or

    (b) at the fact that the scheme does not make any such provision,

    he may make a written complaint to the maker of the scheme not later than twelve weeks after the date of issue of the written statement required by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in consequence of the modifications made by the scheme in the qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment.

    (7) Any complaint under subsection (6) above shall be referred to, and determined by, such arbitrator as may be agreed by the qualifying employee and the person to whom the complaint was made or, at the request of either of them, by a panel of three arbitrators appointed by the Secretary of State and consisting of—

    (a) a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employers in the railway industry;

    (b) a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employees in the railway industry; and

    (c) an independent chairman.

    (8) A scheme may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as appears necessary or expedient to the person making the scheme.

    (9) A scheme may make different provision for different qualifying employees or for qualifying employees of different classes or descriptions.

    (10) A scheme shall not come into force unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State or until such date as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the maker of the scheme, specify for the purpose in giving his approval.

    (11) In the application of this section in relation to Scotland, any reference to an arbitrator shall be taken as a reference to an arbiter.

    (12) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, for any reference to section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 there shall be substituted a reference to section 4(4) to (6B) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.

    (13) In this section—

    "qualifying employee", in the case of any scheme, means a person who, immediately before the coming into force of that scheme—

    (a) is an employee of—

    (i) the Board;

    (ii) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

    (iii) a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director; and

    (b) is not assigned solely to duties in that part of his employer's undertaking to which he is, or is to be, assigned by that scheme;

    "scheme" means a scheme under this section;

    and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.")

    Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Opposition do not want to move amendments (a) and (b).
    Mr. Freeman: For the convenience of the House I shall make a few comments about employment arid the provisions of TUPE. Several trade unions have expressed concerns about the interpretation of this group of amendments.
    I shall mention two basic points. First of all, there is no doubt that the acquired rights directive and the provisions of TUPE apply to the railway industry. That is Government amendment No. 317, and there is enshrined in the Bill a
    258
    clear reference to the application of TUPE. There is no doubt that, in a transfer of undertaking from one ownership to another, whichever undertaking it is, the provisions of TUPE apply. That protects the terms and conditions of employment.
    Mr. George Stevenson: What might those conditions be at the time of transfer?
    Mr. Freeman: The terms and conditions of employment under the TUPE regulations include, obviously, the pay and conditions, the hours of work and the conditions of work. They do not include pension rights. They apply throughout industry. The railways are not unique. It is not a matter for me, as a Transport Minister, to define the acquired rights directive or the provisions of TUPE, but they will apply in any change of ownership in the railway industry.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In a case in my constituency, various people were informed that, unless they agreed to transfer automatically, they would not only lose their employment but would be at considerable risk in relation to any redundancy payments. Will the Minister give us an undertaking that any railwayman or woman who is required automatically to transfer to another private undertaking will not be penalised with new contracts and new terms of employment, but will, if he or she wishes, be able to retain his or her full entitlement at that moment and for his or her continuing contract?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance, because the law requires those terms and conditions of employment to transfer cleanly, without any amendment or compromise. What happens to the terms and conditions thereafter is a matter for voluntary negotiation between the employee and the employer. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I am citing the law. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that the provisions of TUPE, which apply whether it is Marks and Spencer, Unilever, ICI or the railway industry, are clear and unimpeded. The Bill does nothing about their application.
    The second—and, I suspect, more important—subject of the debate is Government amendment No. 253. That is where the misunderstandings have arisen. I shall seek to allay them. Government amendment No. 253 is new clause 86. That allows British Rail or the franchising director to remove uncertainties where there is double employment in British Rail at present between different divisions of British Rail—that is to say, the individual is not wholly employed.
    I cite the example of drivers who drive both the Gatwick express, which is InterCity, and trains on Network SouthEast. The driver may spend 50 per cent. of his time driving one set of trains and 50 per cent. the other. We are advised that, as the driver in that case is not wholly employed by one enterprise in British Rail, if there is a transfer to a private sector franchisee, the provisions of TUPE might not apply. That is the legal advice that is available to the Department of Transport. What clause 86 does, therefore, is to enable individual employees who are working for two distinct businesses to be assigned to one of them.
    I hope that the assignment will be made with the voluntary agreement of the individuals involved and that agreements with the trade unions about the negotiating

    259
    procedures that should be followed will be honoured. Once the assignment is made, without question the provisions of TUPE will apply when the undertaking is transferred—for example, from complete ownership by British Rail to a franchising company.
    New clause 86 makes it clear that, if it could be argued that an individual's terms and conditions of work had been changed by the assignment, there is a process for compensation and independent arbitration to deal with any dispute between British Rail and the individual involved. I think that that is fair, and I hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    Mr. Wilson rose—
    Mr. Prescott: There seems to be a bit of competition.
    We do not wish to take a great deal of time on the amendment, but having discussed amendments nos. 6 and 31, we have skipped over important debates on passenger transport executives, competition, the disabled, codes of practice and consultative committees, to reach the 18th debate. The others were all important amendments, but due to the guillotine we have had to miss them. However, it is important to place on record the fact that we have missed them out and have begun an important debate on TUPE.
    The amendment may seem to be technical—indeed, it is often introduced as a technical amendment—but its implications are considerable and complex. No doubt in the other job that I shall have to do shortly I shall have to understand the subject better than I do at present.
    The subject that is causing concern has been mentioned by the Minister and arises directly from a change since the issue was first mentioned in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Then, the Government made it clear that they intended to include in the Railways Bill—in clause 82, I believe—a statutory provision to ensure that all transfers would be covered.
    In the debate, it was said that the present trade union egulations—TUPE—would still apply. However, the Minister still felt that it was important to contain the provision in the Bill. He said:
    "Clause 82 has been included in the Railways Bill to apply TUPE to all kinds of transfers resulting from the privatisation of BR. Certain transfers may be of undertakings forming part of BR that are not properly regarded as commercial. Other transfers may include a collection of property rights and liabilities, which would not normally be regarded as an undertaking, because, for example, they are not a going concern."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 March 1993; c. 773.]
    The Minister was concerned that in some operations within British Rail, commercial and non-commercial, workers would normally be transferred from the various organisations. Reorganisation has created problems involving identifying employees with specific parts of the operation. The Minister mentioned the Gatwick operation, where some drivers use 30 per cent. of their time on the Gatwick run and are unable to work on other parts of the railway network. The problem is whether those workers should be identified with a specific company.
    I think that one case was known as the Butts End case. The European Court identified cases in which people had not worked for a company long enough to qualify as full-time workers with the company. Many such examples occur when an organisation such as British Rail is split up
    260
    into different operations. Will ticket sellers be selling tickets for Regional Railways or InterCity? Who are they employed by? Unless those sellers are placed in separate ticket offices—as has recently occurred at Victoria in relation to the Gatwick service—difficulties are created.
    No doubt exists about employees who are directly employed full time in a company, as any transfer from that company to another company would be covered by the regulations, but clause 82 and the proposals in the Lords amendments have caused considerable concern. The central issue involves employment rights such as conditions, redundancy rights, and even concessionary travel—another issue addressed by the Minister in Committee—which constitute an individual's property and employment rights.
    I think that the Minister hopes that he can make it clear, through the amendment, that those people who may be caught between one situation and another will now be identified as working with one employee—
    Mr. Freeman: Employer.
    Mr. Prescott: One employer. I thank the Minister.
    In the process of their changing—for whatever reason —from one company to another, an employee's conditions of employment can be changed, which is what is suggested in the amendment. Where such changes take place, compensation will be paid. In that situation, I presume that it will be paid by the taxpayer.
    10 pm
    There is a fear—I believe that it has some substance —in relation to people who may be transferred from one company to another in the reorganisation of the industry prior to privatisation clearly being transferred from one undertaking to another. It may well be a judgment that that undertaking—track authority, say—decides that it wants to keep only X per cent. of the employees, or wants them to go to another company. If the worker does not accept that, he would receive compensation under the Bill.
    Where Gatwick drivers did not want to spend 100 per cent. of their time driving the Gatwick route, which is one of the cases at the moment where the first shadow franchise is in operation, the drivers on those trains were entitled to move anywhere in the system. However, I presume that the shadow company can now say to an employee, "You will have to work for us 100 per cent." If that employee does not want to, disagreement can be registered between the employee and employer. If the employee is not prepared to accept the new conditions of employment—as that is what they represent—he is entitled to receive compensation, to seek employment elsewhere or to go to arbitration if there is disagreement as to the extent of the compensation. Those complexities come directly out of the reorganisation and they threaten the certainties of people's employment rights.
    There is another matter that causes some concern, and on which I want to question the Minister. Concern has been expressed that the Government may have the possibility of causing reorganisation and changes in conditions of employment prior to privatisation. That is an act of transfer that will not necessarily guarantee compensation. Some railway employees feel that that is the intention of the reorganisation. Will the Minister reassure us that any changes or reorganisation which take place prior to the privatisation will be covered entirely by the regulations, and guarantee employees their rights, as was intended in clause 82?

    261
    I believe that clause 82 is being removed and replaced with an amendment under TUPE which has no statutory guarantee in the Bill. The scope is being widened to cover other groups of people who would not have been covered by clause 82. Will the Minister say whether in that matter, which is highly technical but has considerable consequences for employees, he considers that shadow companies will seek to reorganise the labour force—reduce it if necessary, or get rid of workers—ready for what might be considered to be a move away from full-time to part-time labour by the new company?
    Finally, does the Minister have any estimate of what the compensation is likely to cost the taxpayer? I recall one other taxpayer's guarantee in the reorganisation contained in the Dock Work Act 1989. The Government's estimate at the time was something like £20 million, but it turned out to be about £200 million—all to return the docks to another kind of casual labour, which we are beginning to see develop in the docks.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me four questions. The hon. gentleman is right to say that in Committee the law had not clearly resolved the problem of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial undertakings that were being transferred. But we now have the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, section 33 of which resolves that issue. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 137(6) of the Railways Bill now applies TUPE. It applies the new provisions in the 1993 Act and there should be no cause for any concern or ambiguity.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point on concessionary travel, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London would have said had we discussed it, and on numerous other occasions has given assurances, that we regard the concessionary travel arrangements as covered by TUPE, so they cannot be abridged. The responsibility of employers to maintain the concessionary travel arrangements is clear under the law. The franchising director has the power to enable that duty on the part of employers to become effective, and he will do that through the train companies that will operate.
    Mr. Prescott: Does that mean that the employer will have to buy those concessionary passes? For example, when Sealink was privatised, there was a concessionary fare right and Sealink had to buy that right from British Rail to provide the concessionary passes to the people. If the franchising director has the power of enforcement, will it be a condition of the franchise that those concessionary passes are purchased and that, if they are not, the employees can take action against the franchisee as being in breach of the franchise agreement?
    Mr. Freeman: The arrangement proposed is that the railway companies, on behalf of their employees, will make a payment to the franchising director, and that companies carrying the employees of other companies will reflect the cost of doing that in their franchise bids for subsidy. We will be happy to set that out more fully at the appropriate time, but I can assure the House that there is no intention to make any significant change. I do not foresee any change in the concessionary travel arrangements.
    Mr. Wilson: The change that has been effected by the removal of clause 82 is not technical but substantive. The
    262
    main difference is that, if TUPE was positively written into the Bill, TUPE would apply—end of story. However, where TUPE is not specifically written into the Bill, every case will be considered on its merits. The basis of TUPE is that every case is different. That is what the case law shows. Every successor employer who seeks to demonstrate that TUPE does not apply will be able to turn that into a legal marathon in order to do so. Therefore, rather than TUPE having a clear-cut application in every case, it will be up to the employees to prove that TUPE applies in any specific case.
    Mr. Freeman: I do not believe that that is a fair representation of the position. Clause 137 clearly shows that the provisions of TUPE shall apply in the changes that will affect the railway industry. As to how each individual is affected and how he might make claims, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. That is the process of the law. But I am certain that, because we have put the application of TUPE on the face of the Bill, that will remove any doubt.
    The third question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was whether there would be any effect on national terms conditions of employment. I am happy to give him an unqualified assurance that there will be no such effect in terms of the provisions of amendment No. 253 which foreshadows the introduction of a new clause as a result of the assignment, which I hope will be voluntary, of individuals to one particular undertaking within British Rail where they work for two or more.
    The hon. Gentleman then asked about shadow franchises and whether they would be a mechanism for getting rid of staff. No, this is a genuine attempt to clarify the full-time employment of individuals so that the provisions of TUPE can apply.
    If there are continuing concerns on the part of the unions, to which I have already written twice and with which I have had two meetings, I should be happy to have further meetings or correspondence, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to write to me. I hope that, with those remarks, the House will see fit to approve the Lords amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 121

    PENSIONS.
    Lords amendment: No. 295, in page 121, line 32, at end insert—
    ("( ) Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Secretary of State of any duty imposed by section 52D(2) of the Transport Act 1980.")
    Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 410 to 415, Lords amendment No. 416, Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 417.
    Mr. MacGregor: There was a discussion on this issue today. Before I come to the technical aspects of the amendments, I will remind the House of the important background to what has been agreed on the subject of pensions. I will repeat the four points that both I and the Minister made earlier.

    263
    The first point is that the assets which will move from the existing British Rail scheme to the closed fund—the subject about which we are primarily talking—will be determined on an independent actuarial valuation. I repeat the point, because it is important that it is made clear to all pensioners. There is no question of the funds being siphoned off in any way other than for the purposes of the payment of pensions. The fund will be under the control of the trustees and they will have a fiduciary duty to the trust members. There is no way in which the Government would either wish or be able to purloin any of the funds. I underline that point, because that accusation has been put around the country. It is not our wish in any way, and I hope that that is explicit.
    The second point is that the fund will now have the added protection of a solvency guarantee from the Government. That is a totally new position and one to which I shall refer again later. The third and fourth points, which were widely welcomed and acknowledged by my hon. Friends, are that we have given the pensioners an extremely good deal. In addition to that guarantee, they will have an inflation-linked pension. The guarantee for solvency means that they have a guarantee on VAT, which at present they do not enjoy. In addition, the trustees will be able to use up to 40 per cent. of any surpluses in the fund and that is roughly the figure that is used at the moment for the payment of benefits.
    Unlike most other funds there is a Government guarantee, an inflation index-linked pension guarantee, and there is the additional ability—the big difference from other index-linked pensions—to benefit from surpluses. That is the background and we have fairly and generously carried out our commitment to the pensioners. Certainly I wished to do that.
    The grouping of amendments deals with Government payments under the Transport Act 1980. I will first deal with amendment No. 416 because most of the others in the group follow on from it. The memorandum of understanding between the Government, BR and the BR pension fund trustees deals with protecting the pensions of existing, deferred and future BR pensioners after privatisation while protecting the taxpayers' interests.
    The solvency guarantee for the closed fund for existing pensioners, with the agreement that those pensioners may benefit from up to 40 per cent. of any future surplus and the promise of a similar guarantee to the BR residuary section of the joint industry scheme should that section at any time become seriously unstable, secures the future for all BR pensioners present and future. The provisions of the amendment are designed to provide the agreed protection for the taxpayer's interest.
    It would be anomalous to continue the supply of public funds under section 52 of the Transport Act 1980 in circumstances in which they were not yet required, because the scheme now has the copper-bottomed security of an absolute solvency guarantee that is backed by public funds. That produces a fundamental difference—a guarantee from the taxpayer—that was never there before.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) referred to the situation in 1980 and said that he understood that the position then was, "If your pension went bust, you'd had it." I think that those were pretty much the words he used. The difference now is that, if the situation
    264
    arises of the fund being deficient, he has not had it. That is a big difference. It is a complete change from the position in 1980. Now he will continue to receive the pension guaranteed by the taxpayer. That is a fundamental difference.
    Lords amendment No. 416 introduces three new sections—52B, 52C and 52D—into part III of the Transport Act 1980. The purpose of section 52B is to terminate the support contributions currently payable under section 52 of the 1980 Act in respect of the unfunded obligations acquired by any new pension scheme which has been given a Government solvency guarantee. So the contributions cease where there is a Government solvency guarantee, which is, above all, the closed existing pensioners fund.
    10.15 pm
    In place of the continuing contributions, a new obligation is proposed under which substitution payments will be made in circumstances to be prescribed by order. As I said, we intend to apply those arrangements principally to the new pensioners' closed section of the joint industry scheme, in line with the memorandum of understanding. But section 52B can equally be exercised in relation to the residual BR section of the joint industry scheme to which I referred earlier if a solvency guarantee is given in the event of the joint actuaries certifying the instability of the fund.
    Mr. Prescott: It is complicated.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it is a complex and technical matter. That is why I was careful to stick firmly to forms of words which will be understood by everyone involved when they are read in Hansard.
    Subsection (5) requires a determination of the capital value of the unfunded obligations. It is worth spending a moment on that because a related issue was raised this afternoon. Subsection (7) (c) provides for the substitution payments to be made in circumstances prescribed in the substitution order. Until the payments have been made or the scheme has been wound up, the Government's liability will not be discharged.
    Subsection (7) provides for interest to accrue. The formulation is sufficiently wide for an interest rate to be specified which can equate to that which could otherwise have been earned by the scheme if the trustees had received the cash. In other words, the Government's liabilities to the guaranteed new scheme will continue with interest on the outstanding balance as assets of the scheme until the prescribed circumstances provide for the substitution payments to be made. That obligation, with interest accrued, will be included in every valuation. Therefore, it will be part of the valuation leading to the surplus from which direct payments in cash will go to the pensioners.
    Mr. John Heppell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while the Government have the option not to pay anything into the fund if they do not want to, that is of little interest to the people in the pension fund, because nothing says that the Government have to pay the whole amount into the fund? So the money accrues with more and more interest but does so in the Treasury coffers and not in my pension fund.
    Mr. MacGregor: That is not accurate. In circumstances where there is a surplus in the fund as a result of the obligation plus interest, there will be a direct and

    265
    immediate benefit to the pensioners. That will contribute to the 40 per cent. of surplus which can be paid directly to them. It is a meaningful provision. It means that the obligations exist. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the interest payments matter very much. We were accused earlier of not putting cash in, and therefore not enabling the pension fund to gain anything from that obligation.
    With interest applied, there will be a roll-up in the fund. That will contribute to the surplus. So the amendment has real meaning and could mean real cash for the pensioner.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Secretary of State saying that the contributions that the Government are committed to paying under the 1980 Act will continue to be paid? If not, is he saying that the pension fund can receive those payments when it asks for them but not when the Government decide that it does not need it? If so, the Government will say that the fund does not need the contributions because it has a surplus. So the surplus would gradually be reduced. Is it the Government's intention to pay, because have evidence to the effect that their intention is effectively to reduce the contributions depending on the surplus of funds?
    Mr. MacGregor: No. Let me make it clear. As I have already said, and as is clear in the amendments, there will not be a direct payment of cash to the pension fund as there was previously because that is now replaced by the solvency guarantee, which is a fundamental difference. There will be a calculation of the unfunded obligation, which will be included in the fund for the purposes of valuation and therefore for the purposes of surpluses, plus the interest that I have already mentioned, which can and will lead to real benefits.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree that it is a complex area, but what the Secretary of State has said means that the Treasury, certainly at the moment, will be saving the annual payments that it makes right up to the period when an assessment is made and the IOU has to be delivered. What is the estimate of the amount that the Treasury will be saving for the rest of decade?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no estimate at the moment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) must remember that the taxpayer has a liability and commitment, and there is no way in which the pensioner will lose by this arrangement at present, for the reasons that I have just described.
    I shall now deal with the point about timing. The new section 52D, which has been causing concern, includes provisions relating to directions given under the powers contained in sections 52A and 52C and orders made under section 52B. I shall first explain the technicalities. Orders under section 52B will be subject to the negative resolution procedures in common with the other order-making power in part III of the Transport Act 1980. However, section 52D(1) requires prior consultation with the trustees on any such order and section 52D(4) requires a copy of the solvency guarantee to be laid before each House when or before an order is laid. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was referring this afternoon.
    We are currently in discussion with the pension fund trustees as to how we deal with those extremely complex and technical matters in order to fulfil the arrangements
    266
    under the memorandum of understanding and the arrangements that I have just described. Those discussions will lead to the laying of the order before the House some time early next year, when we have completed it.
    The House will know that this closed fund arrangement does not come into effect before next autumn, so it will be laid before the House well before that and the House will debate and decide on the matters. It will be by negative resolution, but that will enable the House to decide.
    Mr. Cryer: There is a problem with laying negative procedure orders. Can the Minister guarantee that, when the order is laid, it will not come into force before Parliament has had the opportunity to make a decision? I must draw to the attention of the Minister examples of cases where orders have been laid in August, immediately after the beginning of the summer recess, which have come into force during the recess before Parliament has had a chance to debate them. Is the Minister saying that, after consultation with the trustees, Parliament will have the chance to make a decision? That assurance must be meaningful so that it will not be a case of trying to roll something that has already come into law.
    Mr. MacGregor: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Setting up the scheme will require an affirmative order. As I have said, the scheme is intended to come into operation as a closed fund in October. I understand that it would not be fair either to the pensioners or to the House to follow the sort of timetable that the hon. Gentleman suggested, and it is certainly not our wish to do so. It will obviously depend on how our negotiations go and I cannot give a complete guarantee, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate that I wish to meet his point.
    Part of the whole commitment that we have given is that the scheme will come to both Houses for approval. That leads to the—
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should get on, because I can then explain the position in total.
    That leads to section 52D(2), which was introduced as an amendment on Report in the other place. It would require the prior written agreement of the trustees to be obtained before the Secretary of State laid an order under section 52B. Our amendment (a) to amendment No. 416 will delete that requirement.
    I do not see how the House can accept Lords amendment No. 295. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) rightly recognised, it could prevent a proposal, in relation both to the scheme as a whole and to public expenditure, from coming before the House. It would give the trustees an effective power of veto over the Government introducing secondary legislation, or control over the timing of payments, under the Transport Act 1980, to the guaranteed BR pensioner scheme.
    I have made it clear that the memorandum of understanding, which I have fully read, provides for the trustees' agreement, but it would be wrong to provide in legislation for any private individual or group such as the trustees to have such power in primary legislation. I have been looking at past examples, and that would be unprecedented.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. MacGregor: Let me finish the point. There is a genuine problem, but we have done everything that we reasonably can to solve it. First, the proposed new section requires consultation with the trustees. It is clearly our intention and desire to seek and obtain agreement with the trustees on such matters. We have, as I have already said, started discussions with them. We have put a proposal to them and we await their response. It will be in the interests of all the parties concerned that agreement is reached.
    However, we have to protect Parliament. A group of trustees might be able to withhold the putting of proposals before the House or control—having a veto means control —public expenditure proposals put before the House. Ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the way in which they exercise their order-making power. As taxpayers' funds are involved, we believe that that should be a decision for the House and not one taken elsewhere.
    I hope that that makes clear what the difficulty is and why we have striven to overcome it. There is no duplicity. We have ended up with an extremely good deal for the pensioners. That is the most important point of all. We have sought to protect Parliament's interest. We have enabled the House to decide on what is quite a technical issue, once we have worked it through with the trustees. I believe that that is a sensible resolution.
    I know that the matter will be debated for some time. I assure the House that the remaining amendments in the group are consequential or technical. I commend the other amendments to the House.
    Mr. Prescott: When I spoke on the guillotine motion, I made clear my position, and that of the House, over the Government's action on the pensions. I know that other hon. Members have only the best part of an hour in which to speak, so I shall not go into the amendments in detail. The Secretary of State did so, and he spelt out his position, as was proper, because many people will be reading the report of the debates. However, I shall not follow him up that alleyway, because there is not enough time.
    The essential issue about the pensions was determined at the beginning, when the Government decided to divide the pension fund into separate groups for separate companies. The Government often said that the tax authorities had forced them to do that, but that is not quite correct, because the tax authorities allow two ways to organise a pension fund.
    A general industry fund could have been kept, but the Government decided to reorganise in such a way that it caused a conflict between the bodies, so the tax authorities said that the funds must be reorganised separately, and the problems arise from that. The main concern in this debate has been about the closed fund and pensioners who paid into the 1975 and 1980 funds. The closed fund will now be separated. No extra contributions will be made except those originally identified with the fund—the contribution to be made by the Government for their obligations arising directly from an unfunded pension fund.
    That contribution amounts to some £80 million. We could argue about how that is divided between different funds, but it is approximately that amount. As the Treasury will not be paying it every year, it can be calculated to be five or six times £8 million. The Treasury is doing quite well, as it will save £4 billion or £5 billion, possibly more —being a little pessimistic, I think that it will save more —on the basis of providing an IOU.
    268
    10.30 pm
    The Treasury has undoubtedly gained some assets from the process. It has saved by not paying a contribution to the pension fund, as written into the 1980 legislation. The Government are now offering an alternative—an IOU—and have gained from the process at the pension fund's expense.
    At the heart of the debate has been the question whether the Government could reassure the trustees that their actions would meet their original commitment that the pensioners would be no worse off, their security would be guaranteed, and that the Government did not intend to take the funds. I do not agree with that point, but I have already made that clear.
    It is only fair to feed into the argument the trustees' views. They have an interest to act on behalf of the pensioners in negotiations with the Government, and must say what they believe the Government intend to do. They recognise that the Government had difficulty in writing the solvency agreement into the Bill, and even recognised certain arguments about the power of veto and whether they could control the fund.
    In a properly funded pension fund such as this, which the Government set up when they reorganised pension funds in 1980, the trustees are not obliged to agree with the Government. They have a fiduciary obligation, to which the Secretary of State referred, to manage the fund on behalf of the pensioners. Indeed, when the Government first funded the fund, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said that the fund no longer had anything to do with him and that he was obliged only to make a yearly payment. The same person is now trying to get back the yearly payment from that fund because he has discovered that surpluses have been paid.
    The memorandum of understanding was the means by which the Government sought to assure the trustees about their responsibilities, rights and protections. The chairman of the trustees believed that it would protect the pensioners. The trustees made it clear that they hoped that, in accepting the Government's break-up of the fund, solvency and a retail prices index on pension payments would be guaranteed.
    The Government said that they intended to give those guarantees, but they made other changes. The trustees then Agreed that the surpluses that were meant to fund the extra value pension increases which railway pensioners had enjoyed because of the good management of the fund, about which we all agree, were not to be put in a fund on the basis of a 60:40 share. That means that 100 per cent. would have been available to the trustees to distribute as they wished. They chose to distribute it on a 60:40 basis, measuring their liabilities against the incomes that they were receiving from the fund.
    Now they have no choice. The Government are telling them not only that they must put 60 per cent. into a reserve fund but that an appointed director must agree any investment policy followed by the fund. It seems from that that the trustees are not in the independent position that they occupied before. The appointed director can determine the moneys to go into the fund and the investment programmes. The introduction of the 60:40 share will affect the solvency of the fund. The understanding makes clear that if there is a problem of insolvency in the fund, the Government, through their appointed trustee, can take over and reorganise the fund.

    269
    The charge that I have laid at the Government's door is that they were almost building insolvency into the fund. They were making conditions almost perfect for them to move in, take over the fund and reorganise it. It would then become a sort of unfunded fund and would meet the Exchequer's obligations. That would open the door to taking the assets. That creates uncertainty.
    The Secretary of State has had correspondence with the chairman of the board, who feels that he has been let down by the Government because he believed that whatever action was taken had to be agreed with the trustees. We now know that that is not the case, as the amendment makes plain, because the Government now speak about consultation. If the Government feel that they cannot grant the right of veto, the complaint of the chairman of the trustees, as spelt out in the letters, should be attended to.
    The Secretary of State has had a number of letters from the chairman of the trustees, Mr. Fowler, on 15, 19 and 26 October. We have no record of any replies. Did the Secretary of State reply to the great concerns expressed by the chairman of the board who thought that he had been duped on the memorandum of understanding?
    Mr. MacGregor: I had a meeting.
    Mr. Prescott: In his final letter, Mr. Fowler complains that he has sent three letters and has not received a reply. That letter states:
    "I am sufficiently experienced in public expenditure matters to know that Government guarantees cannot be given lightly and without sensible controls which protect taxpayers' interests." That is a fair point. The letter continues:
    "Those requirements were recognised in the Memorandum of Understanding."
    That was an agreement—peace in our time, pensions in our time—that was made before the debate in the Lords.
    Mr. Fowler adds:
    "What I had not foreseen when I signed the Memorandum was that the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee were to be invoked."
    He was a party to the negotiations and signed the paper along with the Minister of State. I do not know why the Secretary of State did not sign, but perhaps unfolding events have made that clear. Mr. Fowler makes it clear that his understanding of the memorandum was entirely different from that of the Secretary of State.
    There is a clear division between the Secretary of State, the Government and the other signatory. I do not know what British Rail says about it.
    If it was thought that there was a difference over the guarantees on terms and conditions why was the word "agree" in the memorandum? Irrespective of whether it is in statute, if it is in the agreement with good intent that there will be an agreement with the trustees before anything is done, that should have some meaning. Does the memorandum of understanding still apply? Did the Secretary of State say that he would apply the word "agreement"? What happens if there is no agreement? Will he take unilateral action by telling the House, "I could not get an agreement"? If so, that is consultation. The crucial question is why the Secretary of State does not use: the word "agreement".
    Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I may explain again. I was straightforward in explaining the difficulty that we could not avoid the responsibility of the House by granting a veto on matters that should be decided by the House. I shall repeat the exact procedure. We think that we shall reach
    270
    agreement with the trustees, and that is our wish. When we do, we shall place orders before the House, and it will be for the House and the other place to decide upon them. If there is any disagreement, we shall lay before the House the trustees' comments. That is made clear in one of the sub-paragraphs that I read out. In relation to public expenditure, it is right that the House should decide. There is no question of the Government's taking control and leaving no alternative for the trustees. I repeat that I believe we shall reach agreement.
    The hon. Gentleman speaks about the Government effectively taking over the fund. There is no question of the Government's controlling or taking over the fund. However, because the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, are guaranteeing the benefits, we must ensure that the taxpayers' interests are protected. That is the reason for having a Government director on the body of trustees. It is not to control the fund, but simply to ensure that the taxpayer, who has the ultimate liability, is protected should all the funds be paid out to pensioners or otherwise issued.
    Therefore, in unreasonable circumstances—I do not believe it will happen, but we have to protect ourselves in legislation—the taxpayers' interests are protected as the taxpayer would be footing the bill. There is no question of the Government's taking over the fund.
    Mr. Prescott: We shall have to continue that debate another time, but if the Minister looks at the memorandum of understanding, he will see that his appointed Government director of the trustees,
    "whose consent will be required to the distribution of any surplus, strategic decisions on investment policy and other matters"
    and anything to do with the
    "guarantee of benefits granted from a surplus",
    will
    "decide on the investment of the special reserve."
    That is not the trustees; it is the Secretary of State's appointee acting on his instruction. The trustee company is no longer an independent body.
    Why does the Secretary of State appoint a director? Why does he make it clear in the memorandum of understanding that trustees no longer have freedom to make such decisions unless the Government-appointed director agrees? Presumably he will ring up the Department of Transport or the Treasury. How can he consider for a second that the. Government are not controlling the fund? I cannot believe that the Secretary of State could possibly have read the memorandum of understanding; if he did, he had a duplicitous way of doing it.
    Another example comes from the Minister of State's statement in the other place on 12 October in which he said:
    "The Government regard the memorandum of understanding as binding".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1993; Vol. 549, c. 101.]
    It may be binding on the Government, but it is totally meaningless. It can mean whatever the Secretary of State wants to interpret it to mean. As the lawyers to the trustees fund said, it has no binding in contract law. It cannot be used to claim that the Government are party to a contract as signatory to the document; it cannot be treated as a contract in law. It has no meaning whatsover. It achieved what the Government wanted—it won the vote in July in the House of Lords simply by kidding them.
    Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: There is no point in giving way to the Secretary of State, as some of my hon. Friends want to speak.
    The chairman's letter continues:
    "Third, your proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. This is contrary to one of the basic principles underlying the Memorandum of Understanding."
    The signature to it says it is contrary to what was agreed. Finally, he said that the Government IOU that would replace various funds and Transport Act payments would have serious implications for the fund. He went on to say the claims on the fund which the Government will now treat as an IOU that those claims on the fund will represent some 25 per cent. of the assets now, and that 10 years' later,
    "70 per cent. of the assets might be represented by the Government's IOU, thus moving close to an unfunded scheme".
    It is the chairman of the trustees saying that.
    272
    The Secretary of State can disagree with me, but the trustees seem to have backed my interpretation. I have no doubt that nothing today or in the guillotine debate has put to rest my fears that perhaps not the Secretary of State but the Treasury intends eventually to work with the closed fund to an unfunded scheme where eventually the Government will take over control as they have now under the memorandum of understanding which, presumably, the Secretary of State will impose on the trustees.
    The Secretary of State controls the fund. It will eventually move to an unfunded scheme and then the Treasury will make a deal with the pensioners, offering them a price-related, inflation-free business pension fund and they will have access to the £2 billion assets exactly as they did with the National Bus funds. Then, when they have established the formula, they will follow it through in the coal industry and the Post Office. These privatisations are solely about robbing the pensioners of their resources and assets, and that is why we will oppose the measure.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Bayley: The pensions issue has been a long and sorry saga, yet the Government still do not recognise that, for most railwaymen and women, their pensions represent their life savings. That is why there has been such an outcry from the pensioners about the Government's proposals for their scheme. The Secretary of State's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment would tear up the Government's obligation to contribute to the pension fund under the terms of the 1980 Act. That obligation arose because of the change in 1975 from a pay-as-you-go pension scheme—similar to the national health service scheme—to an asset-based, funded scheme.
    In Committee, the Opposition sought a commitment from the Government that they would continue to meet their obligations under the 1980 Act. On 23 March, the Minister for Public Transport—I am tempted to say the Minister for Roger Freeman—said:
    "In 1980, my predecessor—now the Home Secretary—made a commitment under the Transport Act 1980 for the Government to make contributions—now about £70 million per annum—to the pension scheme in order to fund the pre-1975 unfunded liabilities for railwaymen and women. I give my hon. Friend a clear commitment that the Government will continue to make those contributions; they are under an obligation to do so. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that those contributions will continue to be made in the future because the obligations continue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 March 1993; c. 915.]
    The Minister could hardly have been more clear than that.
    Mr. Freeman: So that there is no misunderstanding, I must clarify that the commitment that the hon. Gentleman cited was given before the meeting with the trustees in July, when they rejected the outcome of our discussions in Committee and said that they wanted a guarantee that the undertaking of cash payments under the 1980 Act applied to a set of circumstances where there was no state guarantee of an index-linked pension. Everything changed in July.
    Mr. Bayley: I refer the Minister to the letter from Derek Fowler, chairman of the trustees, to the Secretary of State, dated 26 October:
    "I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the memorandum, hence its reference to retiming."
    If there is any misunderstanding, it is on the part of the Minister. In the memorandum of understanding signed on 20 July, the words agreed with the chairman of the trustees were:
    "The Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds."
    In October, it became clear to the trustees that that commitment had been abandoned and that the Government intended to return to their previous plan, outlined in their first consultation document on pensions, to grab the pensioners' cash.
    On 15 October, the chairman of the trustees wrote to the Secretary of State saying:
    "the main purpose in writing to you is to record my grave concern, and that of the Trustee Board, at your decision to change the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to support payments to certain BR pension funds under the 1980 Act … If payments under the 1980 Act cease and are substituted by a non-marketable Government IOU, the implications for the Fund would be very serious indeed. We calculate that in 10 years time the capitalised Transport Act payments would represent some 25 per cent. of the assets of the closed fund. 10 years later …over 70 per cent. of the assets might be represented … moving close to an unfunded scheme"—
    274
    such as was first suggested by the Government and which was withdrawn because of the outcry from the pensioners.
    Back in the spring, the Government withdrew their cash grant scheme because the pensioners—the people whose money it is—did not want it. Through a process of leakage of funds that the Government currently have an obligation to pay into the scheme, we shall find in 20 years' time that 70 per cent. of the value of a fund has been removed and replaced with worthless pieces of paper with no tradeable value.
    The fund's real assets will be progressively replaced by IOUs. They are not cash and cannot be spent by the fund. It would be inflationary for the Government to print £70 million to place in the fund. As the IOUs have no tradeable value, if the pension fund wants in future to invest in works of art, it can hardly go to Sotheby's and say, "We want to buy a Rembrandt, will you accept our IOU?" If it wants to buy property, it cannot go to Jackson, Stops and Staff and say, "We want to buy this industrial estate. We want to buy this mansion. Will you accept our IOU?" If it wanted to invest in the equity market, it could not go to a stockbroker and offer an IOU.
    The Government seek to do by the back door that which they sought to do earlier by the front door—remove the fund's assets. Instead of simply grabbing the cash and putting it into the Treasury, the Government intend to dispense with their obligation to fund the scheme to the tune of £70 million a year.
    The second development that arises from the debates in another place is the change in the way in which the fund's surplus will be applied. Pensioners currently have a guarantee that their pensions will rise each year by at least the rate of inflation, and they have the opportunity to benefit from any surplus from the scheme. That has been replaced by an inflation guarantee—I acknowledge that —but also by an ability to benefit from a maximum of only 40 per cent. of any surplus.
    Earlier, the Secretary of State told the House that the balance of 60 per cent. will remain in the fund, but will it remain as part of the assets that the trustees will control, or will it—as I understand will be the case—fall under the control of a Government-appointed commissar? If so, it will be part not of the pension fund but of a separate, Government-controlled fund.
    I would like some of the pensioners to speak for themselves. I represent a large number of British Rail pensioners, and 350 of them wrote to me. Not one was in favour of the Government's proposals. A Mrs. Pratt wrote:
    "I fail to understand the dishonesty of the Treasury, who want to steal our fund to try and get themselves out of the mess they have got themselves into. They seem to have no respect for the elderly, who went without luxuries to pay into the fund."
    Mr. Waite wrote:
    "How they contemplate such an act and condemn Maxwell for exactly the same behaviour makes one gasp."
    Mr. Backshall wrote:
    "Comparisons with the morals of the late Mr. Maxwell are hard to resist."
    Mr. Carey wrote:
    "The sterling work done by the administrators in building up the fund's assets has already benefited British Rail, relieving them of their commitment to contribute to the fund for quite some time …I trust you will do all your best to persuade the Transport Secretary to refrain from his intention to take the funds belonging to the railway staff past and present."
    These funds were those guaranteed under the 1980 Act, and the Government have an obligation to pay £70 million a year into the scheme as a consequence of the change from

    275
    an unfunded to a funded scheme. Those are late payments on behalf of people who paid for and accrued their pensions before 1975. For the Government to pay with IOUs is not to meet their obligation to many of my constituents.
    It is not good enough. The Government may think that they are winning a great victory tonight by forcing through the Bill and this pension change on a guillotined vote, but it will come back to haunt them at the next election. Rail pensioners will not tolerate their life savings being tampered with by the Government, and the Government will face their Waterloo at the next election because of the way in which they have treated the rail pensioners.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be very brief.
    Ministers' record on pensions has been deplorable and devious. As the other place will confirm, there are lies, damn lies and ministerial memoranda.
    What on earth is the value of this so-called memorandum? The Secretary of State tried to argue that it has validity. We all know that it has no validity against statute law, which is what we are dealing with tonight. The terms of the statute are what will be judged in the court.
    The IOU, like so many other provisions of the Bill, is yet another expression of the Government's inability to work out what they want to do. This is their latest gimmick. What is the point of the IOU? Does it count against public expenditure for the year when it is given? Is it real? Is it an asset that can be used by the pension fund? Of course not. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, assets cannot be bought, or good investments made, with an IOU.
    The feature of the pension fund has been the good judgment of its trustees, which has been recognised time and again by the Minister for Public Transport, who has paid tribute to the trustees for the way in which they have managed the money. They cannot manage IOUs. What will be the value of an IOU in 10 or 15 years?
    It is not good enough for the Minister to pretend that this spurious memorandum offers any protection. The one common feature of the Bill and of the pension proposals has been the Minister's attempt to take powers that go well beyond any that he should need if his objectives are as modest or as honourable as he has claimed.
    For proof, one has only to look at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to schedule 10, under which the Secretary of State may amend, may decide who is in or who is out, who contributes, what proportion the employee or employer contributes, what amendments are to be made to the old and new schemes, when the schemes will be wound up and even what proportion of assets will be transferred between an old and a new scheme.
    The Minister says that the Government will guarantee the new scheme. What is worrying is that they have control over the amount of assets that can be allocated from the old scheme to the new one because, as guarantor of the new scheme, they have a vested interest in transferring as much as possible. There is a clash of interests.
    The Bill offers the Government the unprecedented ability to take private assets from people without proper compensation by offering them IOUs that will have a
    276
    diminishing value in real terms. What protection is there? The Bill proposes that Ministers will consult. Who can be taken in by any pretence that this Government will consult?
    I remember the consultation that took place on my local hospital becoming a trust hospital. The representations were about 9:1 against, and virtually every authority of any importance was opposed to the idea. The Minister involved refused to publish the names of those who were in favour but, at the end of the day, he could say that he had consulted, and the hospital became a trust hospital. Consultation does not mean taking note. It is no good the Minister saying that he wants agreement, because the Bill does not state that he needs agreement; the Bill states only that he needs to consult, after which all he needs is an order.
    11 pm
    In Committee, I referred to one of the tragedies of any party that has been in office too long. I say this without meaning to be patronising, but there are now too many Conservative Members who have never been in opposition and been kicked around by Ministers. Those hon. Members who entered the House when I did, or shortly afterwards, can look back and see how many affirmative orders have been defeated over the years.
    What happens when a Minister introduces such an order and the Whips put the squeeze on their Back Benchers? What has always happened will happen with today's rebellion. Let us also bear it in mind that an order is debated for only one and a half hours, so hardly anyone has the opportunity to participate. In addition, an order cannot be amended—one either accepts it or turns it down.
    The Bill gives Ministers the power to do what they like with other people's assets. What would the Conservatives think if a Labour Government told them that they intended to do the same with private pension funds in which their constituents had an interest? We may disagree politically, but that is a genuine question because it could happen, although I would hope that we would not do anything so outrageous. However, let us suppose that we did—how would the Conservatives feel? What reassurance would they find in the unamendable affirmative procedure and a one-and-a-half hour debate? What satisfaction would they be able to give to their constituents? That is how we feel now when talking about the people whose interests we are trying to represent.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: One of the most depressing aspects of this utterly depressing Bill is the shiftiness with which the Government have dealt with pensions. I do not think that the Government understand the extent of the outrage felt by railway workers about the Government's behaviour. That outrage is valid among people who have contributed to pension funds all their lives but are suddenly being told that the control of those funds is being transferred from the proper trustees and put in the hands of the Government.
    During our consideration of this part of the Bill, Ministers said that the original idea was to have agreement. During the negotiations, however, they came to believe that they did not need agreement after all; they merely needed to consult. I am amazed that the Government think that they can treat the House and our constituents with such contempt.
    I have literally hundreds of railway pensioners in my constituency—men and women who, despite very low rates of pay, have contributed to pension schemes all their

    277
    lives. They believed that their interests would be protected and that the future of the railway industry was such that they would always have the security of knowing that in their old age they would have proper pension provision. They now feel seriously—
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who is still relatively new to the procedure of the House, may I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member who chaired part of the Committee's proceedings to take part in the debate when the matter comes back to the Floor of the House?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): There is no rule on that.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have consulted the House authorities, and you may like to know that, in the view of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Lords amendments are not comparable. I chaired one sitting of the Committee, to assist a member of another party who was in a difficult situation. There is no reason why I should have to excuse my behaviour. My constituents require me to speak on their behalf. The intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) shows how ashamed Conservative Members are of the Government's behaviour. They do not even dare to listen to Opposition Members making a legitimate case for their pensioners.
    The Government would like that case to go by default. They do not want an open discussion; they always want to hide behind semantics and presentation, and to suggest that they are offering genuine guarantees. Tonight, for their own ends, and certainly for their own financial advantage, the Government seek to introduce a scheme which, far from protecting railwaymen, railwaywomen and future railway industry pensioners, puts those people in a less advantageous position and damages their interests.
    I believe that the Minister is an honourable man, but I do not think that he realises that many people outside the House are capable of understanding what is happening here. They may not know the difference between an affirmative and a negative procedure, and they may not understand the procedures of the House of Commons or of another place, but they understand something much simpler. They understand that what is important between a Government and the people who vote is trust, faith, understanding, commitment and, above all, the belief that a Government will not seek by some shabby manoeuvre to deprive them of their legitimate rights. People know what the Government are doing, and in due course they will make them pay.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Those who served on the Standing Committee know only too well that the question of what will happen to the British Rail pension fund after privatisation is a nut that the Government have significantly failed to crack time and again. Either they had no proposals prepared, or those that they presented were totally unacceptable not only to the Committee but to the pensioners and to the trustees of the pension fund.
    The Secretary of State opened our debate on pensions tonight by saying yet again that he wanted to clarify the position, to calm fears and to allay suspicions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to make four points, although if my memory serves me well he managed to
    278
    cover only three of those subjects: assets, solvency and what a good deal the Government were giving BR pensioners—as though the pension fund were his to give.
    With regard to the assets, the one chink of light and the one way forward for pensioners seemed to come from the memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister—on behalf of the Government, I presume—and by the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. and by a board member. That document was signed on 20 July, but on 26 October the chairman of the trustees wrote to the Minister expressing grave concern about changes that he thought were taking place, although he had believed the memorandum to be binding on all parties.
    In one letter, the chairman deals with the issue of assets. He says:
    "The indefinite cessation of cash payments under the 1980 Act will accelerate the realisation of marketable assets to pay pensions. It is only on those assets that the Trustees can earn real increases. As those assets are realised the non-marketable Government IOU will represent a larger proportion of total scheme assets, thus diminishing the scope for real increases and disadvantaging pensioners."
    In a letter of 26 October to the Secretary of State, the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. touches on the issue of solvency, which the Secretary of State assured us tonight is entirely safe because it is in the Government's hands. He says:
    "I am sufficiently experienced in public expenditure matters to know that Government guarantees cannot be given lightly and without sensible controls which protect taxpayers' interests. Those requirements were recognised in the Memorandum of Understanding. What I had not foreseen when I signed the Memorandum was that the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee were to be invoked."
    On the issue of the good deal, the chairman, in another letter to the Secretary of State, says:
    "your proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. This is contrary to one of the basic principles underlying the Memorandum of Understanding."
    So a man whose entire professional life has been dedicated to the management of pensions funds and who has written to the Secretary of State about the assertions that he made to the House and the country tonight—that the assets of the pension fund are safe, the solvency of the pension fund is safe and pensioners will continue to get a good deal from the fund—believes that the Secretary of State is being so èconomical with the truth that he 'puts Scrooge in second place.
    One of the points made by the Minister tonight was that there could be no power of veto over Government expenditure. Clearly, that point had occurred to the trustees in the light of the changes that the Government were making to what they had supposed was a binding agreement—the memorandum of understanding.
    The British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. sought legal advice, which I quote:
    "the new Sections 52B to 52D give to the Government a far greater degree of flexibility than is envisaged in the Memorandum …These powers are very broad".
    If the powers are taken out of the hands of trustees, they will be exercised to the detriment of scheme members.
    "The Government's control over public expenditure only exists because Parliament has given it the necessary powers through legislation. Parliament can therefore impose constraints on those powers."
    If only the Government had given Parliament sufficient time to debate that issue.

    279
    The legal adviser to the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. says that there are precedents which discount the Government's argument that they would be handing over the power of veto to the trustees:
    "Section 33(3) of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 provides a precedent for the imposition of duties on the Secretary of State in making orders. We believe that there may be numerous other examples on the statute book".
    I do not think that anyone can argue that the opinions and the evidence that I have presented in this debate come from a party political stance. As hon. Members know, I have the great honour to be a Member sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen [Interruption.] It never fails to amaze me that I continue to give Tory Members the benefit of the doubt that they can read and hear. This is by no means new information, yet every time I say it, certain Tory Members react as though it is the first time in their lives that it has been presented to them.
    My constituents also include British Rail pensioners and their dependents. They believe that, in this as in so many issues, the Government have shown a marked lack of trust for, and sense of duty to, pensioners.
    We know that the Government hold pensioners in fairly low esteem. They intend to introduce a whole range of measures that will impinge on pensioners' life styles with great cruelty. In this regard, however, I feel that the Government have absolutely no right to any respect. As Opposition Members told the Secretary of State earlier, the way in which the Government have attempted to take the British Rail pension fund away from the people to whom it most justifiably belongs in order to buy their way out of their economic incompetence is disgraceful, and they should resign.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Heppell: I shall not speak for long, because I spoke for some time in the guillotine debate. However, I should like some guarantees from the Secretary of State.
    I take great exception to being patronised by the Secretary of State about what he has given me. The fact that I will get an inflation-proof pension, the fact that I shall be able to share in some of the surpluses and the fact that I now have a pension that guarantees solvency do not make me feel a great deal better, as I enjoyed all those benefits before. I had no guarantee, but I had solvency.
    I had an inflation-proof pension, with benefits from the surpluses. Indeed, for some of the last few years of my time on the railways I paid half contributions, because of the contributions holiday for both my employer and myself: the surpluses were that healthy. The scheme was completely solvent: no one had any worries about its solvency until the Government introduced their privatisation plans.
    I will not thank the Secretary of State for his guarantee of solvency. I will not say thank you for something that I had in the first place, which the Government then took away from me; nor will I say thank you to the Government for giving me interest on money that they borrowed from me.
    Let me quote from a statement made by the Minister on 22 April. It is similar to what others have quoted. There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State made a
    280
    promise—a promise like many others that I have been given by him and the Minister about my pension. The Minister said:
    "The Bill does not yet contain amendments to the Transport Act 1980. These are likely to be necessary in order to continue the payment of Government contributions to successor schemes—a commitment the Government have already given. These amendments will be brought forward at a later stage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 22 April 1993; c. 1296.]
    There is nothing ambiguous about that. The Government are going to continue to pay their contributions to the scheme. And so they should: a promise was written into the Transport Act 1980 that, because the Government had underfunded my pension scheme, they would guarantee contributions each year.
    At about 8·30 pm on 25 March 1980, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), now Chancellor of the Exchequer—made that promise. It may be necessary to bring him to the House to explain to the Secretary of State and the Minister what that promise meant. They are seeking to welsh on it—to welsh on me, and on other pensioners. I do not think that that should be allowed. There is no reason why those contributions should be removed.
    However, there is a memorandum of understanding. It seems that the Secretary of State's understanding is different from that of the trustees. I do not like that memorandum and would criticise my trustees for signing it. I do not see why I should be obliged to lend the Government money from my pension fund. The trustees are obviously much more generous than me, recognise the difficulties of the Government, the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have decided that, instead of taking the contributions, they will lend them to the Government, who can have them on loan.
    I should be happy if it were merely a loan, but I have no doubt that it is not a loan. If I am wrong, I am happy to give way to the Minister or the Secretary of State so that I may be told when the loan will be paid back. A loan involves lending money and, at some stage, receiving it back. However, I have heard nothing from the Government to tell me when I will get my money back. One issue that is worrying the trustees now is the fact that the Government sent out a letter to their Back Benchers to placate them and assure them that the trustees were happy.
    The trustees have written to say that the letter is wrong. In their letter to Back Benchers, the Government said:
    "we all acknowledge that whilst the liability to make payments under the Transport Act 1980 would remain, actual cash drawings under this arrangement should be made only when the Fund needed the cash payment."
    Who decides when that payment is needed? That was why the clause had to be included in the memorandum. The trustees recognised the importance of the clause because the loan could be made and the timetable for repayment could be made only with the agreement of the trustees. The Government seek to remove the undertaking that they gave to the trustees. I understand why the trustees are angry.
    As part of their privatisation process, the Government wanted to take part of my pension. They wanted to take the surpluses in my pension because they thought that I was receiving too much. In Committee, some Conservative Members asked me what I was moaning about, as I received a good pension. I do not think that I should receive merely a good pension; I think that I should have the best pension that those funds can provide. Every other

    281
    pensioner is entitled to that. The Government have no right to take part of my pension to stick it in the Treasury because they think my pension is too good—that is not on.
    The Government have made it clear, first with their two options and now by their actions, that their intention throughout was to take my money. The biggest irony of the Bill is that, while the Government talk about competition and privatising, they have nationalised my pension.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: I intervene for only one reason: out in the country, tens of thousands of pensioners and potential pensioners are deeply worried. Although many of the issues raised were entirely legitimate and I would like to hear the answers to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), the pensioners do not have to worry about the fundamental facts. Their pension is protected, they will receive at least as much as they have always expected or hoped to receive, and nobody is bent on filching anything from them.
    If the individual pensions to be received by my constituents and those of other hon. Members were to be tampered with in any way, does any hon. Member believe that a Government of any persuasion would get away with it? Of course they would not.
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cormack: The hon. Lady, who seeks to intervene and to whom I shall give way in a moment, knows that as well as I do.
    Trust has been talked about in the Chamber this evening. There are plenty of hon. Members in the Chamber who always put party interest way below any other. If any Government of any party sought to engage in the sort of pilfering exercise that has been talked of, they would not get away with it. I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. and hon. Friends would ever engage in such an exercise. They know very well that there would be sufficient on the Conservative Benches to stop them if they tried.
    Mr. Prescott: The Department of Transport has already been involved in the very process of raiding pension funds. When the National Bus Company was privatised, the pension fund was broken up in a similar manner and the Department made it clear in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that the sale price of £200 million was made up of about £150 million taken from the pension fund, a surplus which went directly to the Treasury. The Government have already done it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not watching. He could have prevented it but it did happen.
    Mr. Cormack: But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that no pensioner has suffered as a result of—
    Mr. Prescott: They did.
    Mr. Cormack: No, I do not think that that is the case. No individual pensioner has suffered. The point that I am seeking to make can stand any challenge. I of course want to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister will say when he replies to the debate, but I repeat that no Government, Conservative or Labour, would get away with raiding the individual pensions of any of our constituents, and we do those constituents a disservice by fuelling their anxieties at a time like this.
    Mr. John Denham: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has put one version of the history of the past year's debate on the pension scheme. That is the version that the Government would like us to accept; the version that says that a valiant band of honest men and women have been struggling against great obstacles, legal problems, Inland Revenue difficulties and parliamentary procedures in order to guarantee the future interests of British Rail pensioners.
    An alternative view of the history of the past 12 months' debate is that the Government's main objective has been to confuse and to defuse the anger that arose among British Rail pensioners as a result of this move, while at the same time achieving their fundamental objective—a devalued pension scheme which will pay less than would have been the case under the existing scheme, and which brings financial benefits to the Treasury. I believe that time will show that that is the correct view of the past 12 months.
    By the time that the Bill reached Committee, I had received, either directly or through my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), more than 800 letters from railway pensioners in the Southampton area expressing concern about the Government's proposal and supporting the continuation of the existing scheme. That concern continued to mount during the summer months, until the memorandum of understanding was agreed between the Government and the British Rail trustees.
    The memorandum of understanding was given wide publicity. I seem to recall that a letter was sent to every individual member of the fund from the trustees outlining its main terms. When that letter was received, the anger collapsed and the momentum of the campaign against the scheme was diffused.
    Although those who looked at the scheme closely knew that the scheme on offer was less good than the maintenance of an industry-wide scheme which new entrants to the railway industry would continue to join, they did have a letter from the chairman of the trustees of the British Rail pension fund saying that a satisfactory deal had been reached.
    Those pensioners and tens of thousands of others thought that that agreement with the Government was the guarantee. They thought that the agreement was the result of the letters that they had written to their Members of Parliament, and that it would secure their futures in the pension fund. So in July the Government had achieved their primary objective of the past 12 months, which was to stop the wave of anger throughout the country by leading pensioners to believe that their futures were secure.
    11.30 pm
    That explains the tone of the correspondence between the chairman of the pension trustees and the Secretary of State, to which several hon. Members have referred this evening. In a letter to the Secretary of State dated 26 October, Derek Fowler said:
    "I saw the Memorandum of Understanding as a milestone on the way towards securing Government objectives to secure BR Pensions. The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to the Memorandum".
    It is not for me to put words into the mouth of the chairman of the pension fund trustees, but it seems to me that, in the publicity surrounding the memorandum of understanding in July, the chairman of the trustees was asked to put his good name and reputation to what has since been used

    283
    cynically by the Government to defuse pensioner and public opposition to the move. I regard that action as unjustified.
    There are major problems with what is now proposed. They have been highlighted by other hon. Members. If IOUs are substituted for cash payments, as the chairman of the fund points out, that will
    "accelerate the realisation of marketable assets to pay pensions. It is only on those assets that the Trustees can earn real increases."
    The Bill provides no protection which would prevent the timing of the payments being so phased or delayed as to force the fund to realise marketable assets faster than would have occurred under the existing arrangements.
    Every time that the trustees are forced to sell investments which they currently hold, a transfer of the assets of the fund has been achieved, to the saving and the benefit of the Treasury.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the whole affair have the fingerprints of the Treasury all over it? The hapless Ministers are in the hands of the Treasury. If the principles of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) are to be put into practice—we all wish they would be—surely the Government must come back with another Bill to return to the status quo. That is the only way in which the criteria of the hon. Gentleman can be observed.
    Mr. Denham: I agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to Conservative Members. To those Conservative Members who are feeling secure about their pensioners because they have received a briefing note or letter from the Secretary of State, I point out that in the same letter to the Secretary of State, Mr. Derek Fowler said:
    "The letter to your colleagues dated 22 October heightens my concern."
    That is what the chairman of the trustees said about the party political propaganda which has been circulated to Conservative Members and is undoubtedly intended for them to reproduce and send to their constituents who are British Rail pensioners. I hope that any right hon. or hon. Member who intends to do that will ensure that he includes the comments of the chairman of the trustees when he writes to his constituents. To do less would not be entirely honest.
    At the outset of this exercise, the Government proposed nicking the assets of the pension fund in one go. That gave rise to a howl of outrage, so the Government said that they would not. We knew that they would. They knew that we knew that they would. They knew that we did not quite know how they would do it, so they continued to say that they would not, but they continued to know that they would. Now they are, and they know that they are, and we know that they know that they are, but still they say that they are not. It is clever, but it is cynical and wrong, and for hundreds of thousands of pensioners, it is robbery.
    Mr. Stevenson: Having sat through most of the two-day debate without contributing to it, I hesitated to do so at this late hour, but was prompted to intervene by the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
    Many of my hon. Friends, and some Conservative Members, have said that the Government do not understand what is happening. Having listened to the debate, I believe that they fully understand what is happening. They know exactly what they are doing. They know the principles that they are establishing in this rotten
    284
    Bill. If there is a pension fund that the Treasury can get its hands on, the Government will establish the principles, under whatever comouflage or subterfuge afforded by their amendments, to allow that to happen legitimately. My hon. Friends have established that beyond any doubt. The giggling and smiling that I have witnessed from some Tory Members will not camouflage that.
    The Secretary of State said that he wanted to clarify the apparent contradiction between the contents of the memorandum of understanding, which was signed in July, and the Government's amendment, which changes the word "agreement" to "consultation". I know that many Conservative Members think about such matters carefully, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said. There is a great deal of difference between the two words. I do not want to rehearse the points made by my hon. Friends, who have adequately and starkly shown the difference between the two.
    In attempting to clarify the situation, the Secretary of State caused more confusion. Which is it to be? Is it to be agreement or consultation? He said that there would be negotiations between him and the trustees of the fund, and if they are to be based on the memorandum of understanding, in all good faith—I ask Tory Members to think about that—they will have to be based on agreement. The tragic irony is that, if Tory Members troop through the Lobby in favour of the amendment, they will break faith with the memorandum of understanding. They simply cannot have it both ways. That is a fundamental principle.
    Before the Division is called, the House will need a clear statement from the Secretary of State on which word is right. Is it to be the memorandum of understanding or the amendment? Will it be agreement or consultation? I see the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) shake his head. I recognise that I am not a public school person, but the thousands of pensioners who will be listening to the debate with great interest will understand clearly that, no matter how you try to camouflage it, you cannot have it both ways. It must be agreement or consultation.
    If Conservative Members support the amendment in the Lobby they will have broken faith for party and trust.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he should be addressing the Chair.
    Mr. Stevenson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am relatively new to the House and am grateful for your guidance.
    The comments of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South touched on the issue of trust and faith. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), he mentioned the National Bus Company employees. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said that they were British Rail pensioners. I suspect that I am one of the few Members who used to belong to the Bus Employee Superanuation Trust, to which thousands of bus workers contributed year after year. When the Government privatised it, they gave £150 million of our money to the Treasury, which reduced my entitlement. The Bus Employee Superannuation Trust is now all but destroyed as a direct result of legislation supported by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
    If hon. Members want evidence, they need not wait for the film but can read the book. It is all there for them to see.

    285
    The case has unquestionably been made that the Government intend to act in the same way again, and I urge all Conservative Members with a conscience to support us in the Lobby.
    Mr. Wilson: It is fitting, and a metaphor of our proceedings, that we should end tonight's debate with a contrast between fantasy and realism. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a characteristic, Vicar-of-Bray contribution, in which he tried to show the world that all was well. But I fear that anyone who is counting on the happy consensus which he envisaged, based on Conservative Members suppressing party loyalty while they safeguard the interests of pension funds and the national good, will be deeply disillusioned.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Stevenson) pointed out, and as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South clearly did not understand, we have seen this scenario before. He told us that Conservative Members would put aside party loyalties—all the matters which we pray about—and carefully guard pension funds, and that no Government of any complexion would lay their hands on a pension fund, heaven forfend. But it happened with the National Bus Company. The gains to the Treasury from the net receipts from winding up pension funds amounted to £120 million. And one of the people directly involved in it has cast some realism on the debate.
    However, tonight we are discussing not £120 million but big bucks. We are discussing money that makes a serious dent in the public sector borrowing requirement. We are discussing the scale of precedent that could be applied to the coal pension fund, the Post Office pension fund and, I suppose, every other pension fund on which the Government have set their eyes.
    If we are waiting for the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South and his men of no fixed allegiance to pass among us ensuring that none of that ill is visited upon society, few of the thousands of pensioners who have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard that as much of a guarantee. They would prefer a guarantee in the Bill to a verbal guarantee by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
    Ministers have conspicuously refused to give a guarantee in the Bill at every stage of the proceedings because they intend to get the Treasury's hands on the surplus of the British Rail pension fund. The mystery may never be solved. We may never know the answer to my earlier question about which came first to these malevolent minds. Was it rail privatisation or getting their hands on the pension fund? Did the Government think of rail privatisation and then realise what they could do with the pension fund? Rail privatisation is a disruption of our national railway system, a threat to the whole network through privatisation and fragmentation. Is that the by-product of the grand scheme of getting their hands on the pension funds? That is the $64,000 question, or perhaps it is the £4 billion question.
    11.45 pm
    The only reason for the fear in the minds of pensioners about what is being done is the Bill to privatise British Rail. If there were no Bill to fragment BR, there would be no insecurity in the minds of railway pensioners. Everything that has been visited upon those pensioners over the past few months is a by-product of the Bill. The responsibility for that uncertainty and concern, which are
    286
    manifested in the correspondence, demonstrations and petitions, rests with the Government because of what they have set about doing to the railways.
    The Government could have set about privatising the railways and still maintained a single pension fund. That could have been done if it were not the Government's intention to get this vast sum for the Treasury. Their only reason for fragmentation is to serve their wider political agenda.
    This document in my hand will haunt Ministers and Conservative Members who support the amendment. It is the letter from the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. What I and other hon. Members say is of limited relevance, but this letter is an indictment, because it charges the Government with cheating, giving false guarantees and reneging. With a bit of luck in the other place, the House might have to return to these matters tomorrow. I shall read the indictment. It states:
    "I very much regret the need to have written to you three times in less than three weeks on fundamental differences of view between the Government and the British Rail Trustees. I saw the Memorandum of Understanding as a milestone on the way towards securing Government objectives to secure BR pensions. The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to that Memorandum."
    In order to win the vote in the Lords, the man who was prepared to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt while his colleagues were not, said less than a week ago, on 26 October, "I was wrong and they were right." That is an indictment of Ministers and we shall pursue this issue at every stage.
    We hope that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South will remember this night and will not say in three or four years, "We are your guardians." Now is the time to be guardians, and if they fail in that duty no pension fund will be safe, because this is the greatest potential robbery in the history of pension funds. The Members who support the Government in the Lobby will bear a heavy responsibility.
    Mr. Freeman: The performance by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was dramatic, but it was at variance with the facts. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman spoke about the fear in the minds of pensioners. The Opposition, not the Bill, have put that fear there. I shall deal with the six substantive points raised in the debate, because I appreciate that the matter is likely to go to the other place and it is important that the facts are on the record. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that this is a sensitive subject for all pensioners. That is why it should be dealt with properly, soberly and rationally, so that we do not incite unnecessary fears in the minds of pensioners.
    When the Bill left Committee, we were not speaking about a state guarantee for the pension fund. We were talking about a closed fund for the pensioners—part of the joint industry scheme that had its own assets and trustees. It was at the request of the trustees; it was not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who summoned them. They came to the Government and said, "We are not happy with the Bill as it came out of the Standing Committee; we want a state guarantee for the index-linked pensions." That was not part of what we discussed in the Standing Committee and that changed circumstances entirely.

    287
    Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that a state guarantee for index-linked pensions is of great significance to the public sector? Who has to honour that commitment? It is the Treasury.
    Mr. Prescott: The Treasury guaranteed it in the first place.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong; the pensioners were not guaranteed by the state. There was no Government guarantee for the pensioners.
    Both Opposition Front-Bench Members raised a number of issues. Let us be clear about the answers. First, we are talking about payments to the closed funds and not to the other open funds; therefore, we are talking not about £70 or £80 million but about £50 million. The cash payments will continue to be made to the other funds that are not subject to a state guarantee.
    Secondly, we have made it quite clear that the liabilities that continue to accrue under the Transport Act 1980 will be capitalised at the point at which the new scheme is created. The present value of the scheme of future payments will be calculated not by the Secretary of State for Transport, but by the actuaries. That will come to a substantial sum of several hundred million pounds.
    Mr. Prescott: When?
    Mr. Freeman: That will be calculated when the fund is set up on 1 October 1994. That is the intention. That asset will be on the balance sheet of the pension fund. I accept that we have to ensure that it is properly valued and not worthless; that it has the value that the actuaries put on it for the purposes of calculating the surplus in the pension funds which, up to a certain proportion, can be distributed to the pensioners.
    Thirdly, it was agreed by the trustees—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seeks to divide the chairman of the trustees from the others. All the trustees agreed that the memorandum of understanding signed by the chairman was right and proper. They gave him their support and it was quite clear in the memorandum of understanding that, in return for the state guarantee on index-linked pensions, there should be payments from the Government under their accruing liabilities only when there was proven need.
    The hon. Gentleman asked who is going to establish when that need arises. The answer is that the actuaries have to value the fund. They measure the assets and liabilities every three years. It is not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; it is the actuaries.
    Fourthly, I look forward to a resumption of discussions as soon as possible in which we will seek to reach agreement with the trustees on the scheduling of any payments that may be made under the 1980 Act, irrespective of need. The trustees want not only cash payment when there is need, but specific maturities of the amount that has been capitalised and put on the balance sheet.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretay of State and I will seek to reach agreement with the trustees not only about the scheduling of the payments but about the specific interest rate that is to apply. I know that we will be able to
    288
    reach agreement and, as my right hon. Friend has said in any case we have to lay before both Houses orders which are a direct result of those negotiations.
    Fifthly, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North talked about the proportion of the fund that these capitalised assets, the accrued liabilities being paid by the Government, accruing from the Government under the 1980 Transport Act might represent of the fund. The hon. Gentleman quoted a example of 70 per cent. We do not recognise that figure; the actuarial advice to the Government is that the proportion will be closer to 20 per cent.—a normal proportion of any pension fund represented by gilt-edged securities.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the 60 per cent. of the fund—[Interruption.] Of course it is true. That will be retained in the fund.
    In any pension fund, and certainly the BR pension fund in the past, the 60 per cent. that was not distributed to the pensioners, who usually had 40 per cent. of the benefit of any surplus, went back to the employees and the employer. It left the fund and went to British Rail. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), when he was a member of the Staff of British Rail, shared in a contributions holiday. That is an example of where the 60 per cent. went. We are now saying that the 60 per cent. will stay in the fund.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the pensions surplus was stolen from the National Bus scheme. However, that was a balance-of-costs scheme, so—unlike BR—it was not entitled to the surplus. That is the difference. The hon. Gentleman's charge was completely out of order.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of the time, I thank the Minister for giving way. He gave the impression that he wanted to get the facts straight for the benefit of the other place. Derek Fowler, chairman of the trustees, wrote to the Secretary of State saying:
    "I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the memorandum, hence its reference to the retiming."
    That is contrary to what the Minister has just told us.
    Mr. Freeman: It is not contrary—[Interruption.] It is not. We have made it quite plain .that we are not talking about an indefinite cessation of payments. I explained that a few minutes ago, and I repeat it now.
    We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for what he said. He was right to say that the pensioners have not only a state guarantee of index-linked pensions but a share in the surplus. They have a separate, discrete pension fund, managed by trustees under independent management. That is an excellent deal for the pensioners, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong for Ministers in any way to undermine that.
    Ministers in the Department of Transport, led by my right hon. Friend, will honour the commitment to reach agreement with the trustees and to come back to the House with orders that will entirely discharge those responsibilities. I commend the motion to the House.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 284.

    Division No. 383]

    [11.57 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dover, Den

    Alexander, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dunn, Bob

    Amess, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ancram, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arbuthnot, James

    Elletson, Harold

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Ashby, David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Atkins, Robert

    Evennett, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Faber, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baldry, Tony

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bates, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beggs, Roy

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forth, Eric

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    French, Douglas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    Booth, Hartley

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Gallie, Phil

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bowden, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bright, Graham

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorst, John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Burns, Simon

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butcher, John

    Hague, William

    Butler, Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cash, William

    Harris, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawkins, Nick

    Churchill, Mr

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clappison, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Heald, Oliver

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hendry, Charles

    Colvin, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Congdon, David

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Conway, Derek

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Cran. James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunter, Andrew

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Devlin, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    290

    Jessel, Toby

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robathan, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knapman, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erawash)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knox, Sir David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sackville, Tom

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sims, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, David

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stephen, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Stern, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Allan

    Marland, Paul

    Streeter, Gary

    Marlow, Tony

    Sumberg, David

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sykes, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Needham, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Norris, Steve

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waller, Gary

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Ward, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Page, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Watts, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Whittingdale, John

    Pawsey, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Pickles, Eric

    Wilkinson, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Willetts, David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    291

    Yeo, Tim

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dobson, Frank

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Ainger, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Allen, Graham

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Alton, David

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Enright, Derek

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Ashton, Joe

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Austin-Walker, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barnes, Harry

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Barron, Kevin

    Fisher, Mark

    Battle, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Foulkes, George

    Bell, Stuart

    Fraser, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Galloway, George

    Benton, Joe

    Gapes, Mike

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Garrett, John

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    George, Bruce

    Betts, Clive

    Gerrard, Neil

    Blair, Tony

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Blunkett, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Boateng, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boyes, Roland

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bradley, Keith

    Gould, Bryan

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Graham, Thomas

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Byers, Stephen

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hardy, Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cann, Jamie

    Harvey, Nick

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Henderson, Doug

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clelland, David

    Hoey, Kate

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Coffey, Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hood, Jimmy

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hutton, John

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jamieson, David

    Dafis, Cynog

    Janner, Greville

    Darling, Alistair

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dixon, Don

    Jowell, Tessa

    292

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Alan

    Prescott, John

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Radice, Giles

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Randall, Stuart

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Leighton, Ron

    Redmond, Martin

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Reid, Dr John

    Lewis, Terry

    Rendel, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rogers, Allan

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooker, Jeff

    McAllion, John

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCartney, Ian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Macdonald, Calum

    Ruddock, Joan

    McFall, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McKelvey, William

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shearman, Barry

    McLeish, Henry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Maclennan, Robert

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McMaster, Gordon

    Short, Clare

    McNamara, Kevin

    Simpson, Alan

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Mahon, Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marek, Dr John

    Snape, Peter

    Marshall, David (Shettteston)

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Spellar, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Maxton, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Meacher, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Michael, Alun

    Stott, Roger

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Straw, Jack

    Milburn, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Turner, Dennis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Tyler, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Walley, Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Warded, Gareth (Gower)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mudie, George

    Watson, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Welsh, Andrew

    Murphy, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Olner, William

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wise, Audrey

    Parry, Robert

    Worthington, Tony

    Patchett, Terry

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pendry, Tom

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pickthall, Colin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Pope, Greg

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Mr. John Thompson and

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Mr. Alan Meale.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being after five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, designated Lords amendments Nos. 296, 324, 379, 414 to 416 and 423 as appearing to her to involve questions of privilege.
    Madam Speaker then put forthwith the Questions on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords amendment and the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in an amendment, as amended.

  Schedule 10

    PENSIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 416, in page 170, line 51, at end insert—
    ("(1B) After the section 52A inserted by sub-paragraph (1A) above, there shall be inserted—
    ("(1B) After the section 52A inserted by sub-paragraph (1A) above, there shall be inserted—
    "Power to substitute obligations under this section for liabilities under s.52(1).
    52B.—(1) The Minister may make a substitution order in relation to any occupational pension scheme—

    (a) which is a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993;

    (b) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule (designation of schemes which are to be treated as B.R. pension schemes for certain purposes of this Part); and

    (c) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

    and any reference in this section to a "guaranteed pension scheme" is a reference to such an occupational pension scheme.
    (2) The Minister may also make a substitution order in relation to any section of a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993, if the section is one—

    (a) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule; and

    (b) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

    and the following provisions of this section (and sections 52C and 52D) shall apply in relation to any such section of a new scheme as if any reference to a guaranteed pension scheme included a reference to such a section.
    (3) For the purposes of this section, a "substitution order" is an order under this section the effect of which is—

    (a) to terminate, from the termination date, the Minister's liability to make to the persons administering the guaranteed pension scheme in question payments under section 52(1) in relation to the scheme; and

    (b) to impose on the Minister, in substitution for that liability, an obligation to make to those persons, subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section, one or more other payments (the "substitution payments") in relation to that scheme.

    (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount of the substitution payments to be made in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall be equal in the aggregate to the sum of—

    (a) the amount specified pursuant to subsection (5)(a) as the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme; and

    (b) the aggregate amount of any interest which is dealt with as mentioned in subsection (8)(b)(ii) in the case of the scheme.

    (5) A substitution order must specify—

    (a) the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the guaranteed pension scheme in question, as at the termination date; and

    (b) the date which, for the purposes of this section, is to be the termination date in relation to that scheme, being a date not earlier than one month after the coming into force of the substitution order.

    (6) Any determination for the purposes of this section of the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall either—

    (a) be made by the Minister; or

    294

    (b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

    (7) A substitution order may specify—

    (a) the amount or amounts, or the method of determining the amount or amounts, of the substitution payments,

    (b) the date or dates on which the substitution payments are to be made,

    (c) circumstances (which may, if the Minister so desires, be defined by reference to the opinion of any person) in which substitution payments are to be made,

    and may provide for the obligation to make substitution payments to be discharged if the guaranteed pension scheme in question has, in the opinion of a person specified or described in, or nominated under, the order, been wound up.
    (8) A substitution order must provide—

    (a) for interest to accrue from the termination date on the outstanding balance of the capital value for the time being at such rate, and at such intervals, as may be specified in, or determined under or in accordance with, the order; and

    (b) for any such interest which accrues—

    (i) to be paid to the persons administering the guaranteed pension scheme in question, or

    (ii) to be added to the outstanding balance of the capital value,

    (or to be dealt with partly in one of those ways and partly in the other);

    and the provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (a) includes provision for the rate of interest to be calculated by reference to any variable or to be such rate as the Minister may from time to time determine and specify in a notice to the persons administering the scheme in question.
    (9) For the purposes of subsection (8), the "outstanding balance of the capital value", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme, as specified pursuant to subsection (5)(a), —

    (a) reduced by the amount of any substitution payments made in relation to that scheme; and

    (b) increased by any additions of accrued interest under or by virtue of subsection (8)(b)(ii) in relation to that scheme.

    (10) Nothing in this section affects the liability of the Board in respect of any relevant pension obligations.
    (11) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    (12) In this section—

    "the capital value of the unfunded obligations", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means such amount as is, in the opinion of the person determining that capital value pursuant to subsection (6), the capital equivalent of the payments that would, apart from this section, have been expected to be made by the Minister under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme after the termination date in the case of that scheme;

    "occupational pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme as defined in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;

    "the terminal period", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means—

    (a) if a financial year of the scheme ends with the termination date, that financial year; or

    (b) in any other case, so much of the financial year of the scheme in which the termination date falls as ends with that date;

    "the termination date", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (5)(b);

    "the termination year", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means the financial year of the scheme which consists of or includes the terminal period;

    295

    "trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, includes a reference to any persons who, under the rules of the scheme, are under a liability to provide pensions or other benefits but who are not trustees of the scheme.

    Adjustments arising in connection with orders under s.52B.
    52C.—(1) As soon as practicable after the termination date in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, there shall be determined, for the terminal period, what proportion of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under, or incurred in connection with, the scheme corresponds to the relevant pension obligations.
    (2) Any determination under subsection (1) shall either—

    (a) be made by the Minister; or

    (b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary or auditor to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

    (3) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme for the terminal period or the termination year and to notify him in writing of their determination.
    (4) As respects the termination year of a guaranteed pension scheme, the extent of the liability of the Minister to make payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme shall be restricted to a liability to make payments of an amount (the "termination year amount") equal in the aggregate to the product of—

    (a) the proportion determined under section 54(1) for that scheme;

    (b) the proportion determined pursuant to subsection (1) in the case of that scheme; and

    (c) the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with that scheme in the terminal period;

    and payments by way of adjustment shall be made by the Minister to the persons administering the scheme, or (as the case may be) by those persons to the Minister, before the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date of the last of the determinations made under subsection (1) or (3) with respect to the scheme.
    (5) Where, in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, the funding of the relevant pension obligations has, by virtue of subsection (3) of section 54, been left out of account in making a determination under subsection (1) of that section, the termination year amount in the case of that scheme shall be the difference between—

    (a) what that amount would have been, apart from this subsection; and

    (b) the amount of any income accruing for the terminal period which may be applied towards the payment of such of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme as correspond to those obligations.

    (6) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the amount mentioned in subsection (5)(b) and to notify him in writing of their determination.
    (7) Where payments by way of adjustment fall to be made, interest shall be payable, as from the termination date, by the person liable to make those payments, at the rates and intervals from time to time applicable for the purposes of section 52B(8)(a) in the case of the scheme in question, on so much of the aggregate amount of the payments in question as for the time being remains unpaid.
    (8) So much of—

    (a) any payment by way of adjustment which falls to be made, or

    (b) any interest accrued under subsection (7),

    as has not been paid shall be treated as a debt due.
    (9) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    (10) In this section, "payments by way of adjustment", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means—

    (a) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, exceed the termination year amount, payment to the Minister by the persons administering the scheme of an amount equal to the excess;

    (b) if the Minister has made no payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year, payment by the Minister to those persons of the termination year amount; or

    (c) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, fall short of the termination year amount, payment by the Minister to those persons of an amount equal to the shortfall.

    (11) Expressions used in this section and in section 52B have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section. Orders and directions under sections 52A to 52C: supplemental.
    52D.—(1) Any power to make an order under section 52B shall be exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Minister after consultation with the trustees of the guaranteed pension scheme to which the order relates.
    (2) The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made.
    (3) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    (4) At the time when a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B is laid before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3), the Minister shall, if he has not already done so, also lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the guarantee mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of that section; but this subsection is without prejudice to the validity of the order in question.
    (5) Any power to make an order under section 52B includes power, exercisable in the same manner, to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as may appear necessary or expedient to the Minister.
    (6) Any order under section 52B may make different provision for different cases or for different classes or descriptions of case.
    (7) It shall be the duty of any person to whom a direction is given under section 52A or 52C to comply with and give effect to that direction; and compliance with any such direction shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.
    (8) Any power to give a direction under section 52A or 52C includes power to vary or revoke the direction.
    (9) Any direction under section 52A or 52C shall be given in writing.
    (10) In this section—

    "guaranteed pension scheme" has the same meaning as in section 52B;

    "trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, has the same meaning as in section 52B."")

    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment:(a), to leave out lines 254 to 258.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 132.

    Division No. 384]

    [12.13 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Amess, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Ancram, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Arbuthnot, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    297

    Ashby, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forth, Eric

    Bates, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beggs, Roy

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    French, Douglas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fry, Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gallie, Phil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Booth, Hartley

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Boswell, Tim

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bowden, Andrew

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bowis, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gorst, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hague, William

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butler, Peter

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash, William

    Hawksley, Warren

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Churchill, Mr

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Horam, John

    Congdon, David

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Couchman, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jack, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jessel, Toby

    Devlin, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dover, Den

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Duncan, Alan

    Key, Robert

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Elletson, Harold

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evennett, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Faber, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    298

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Legg, Barry

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Sackville, Tom

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lidington, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lightbown, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lord, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maclean, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Malone, Gerald

    Spring, Richard

    Mans, Keith

    Sproat, Iain

    Marland, Paul

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stephen, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Streeter, Gary

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Merchant, Piers

    Sykes, John

    Milligan, Stephen

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thomason, Roy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Needham, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thurnham, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Trend, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Trotter, Neville

    O'Neill, Martin

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Page, Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Paice, James

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Waller, Gary

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Ward, John

    Pawsey, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Watts, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Whittingdale, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Willetts, David

    Richards, Rod

    Wilshire, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Robathan, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Allen, Graham

    Barnes, Harry

    Alton, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    299

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McAllion, John

    Betts, Clive

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Macdonald, Calum

    Bradley, Keith

    McFall, John

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    McKelvey, William

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cann, Jamie

    McWilliam, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Madden, Max

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Clelland, David

    Marek, Dr John

    Coffey, Ann

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Connarty, Michael

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Martlew, Eric

    Corbett, Robin

    Maxton, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Meacher, Michael

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Meale, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Michael, Alun

    Cummings, John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Miller, Andrew

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Morley, Elliot

    Dafis, Cynog

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Davidson, Ian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Olner, William

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Denham, John

    Parry, Robert

    Dewar, Donald

    Pendry, Tom

    Dixon, Don

    Pickthall, Colin

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Enright, Derek

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Etherington, Bill

    Prescott, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Purchase, Ken

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Foulkes, George

    Reid, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Rendel, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Rooker, Jeff

    Graham, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    Grocott, Bruce

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Gunnell, John

    Short, Clare

    Hain, Peter

    Simpson, Alan

    Hall, Mike

    Snape, Peter

    Hanson, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Harvey, Nick

    Spellar, John

    Heppell, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hoey, Kate

    Turner, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Tyler, Paul

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Wallace, James

    Hoyle, Doug

    Walley, Joan

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Watson, Mike

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Wilson, Brian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Winnick, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Wise, Audrey

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    Livingstone, Ken

    Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended:—
    The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 111.

    Division No. 385]

    [12.25 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Ashby, David

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Amess, David

    Atkins, Robert

    Ancram, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    300

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forth, Eric

    Bates, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beggs, Roy

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    French, Douglas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fry, Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gallie, Phil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Booth, Hartley

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Boswell, Tim

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bowden, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hague, William

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burns, Simon

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burt, Alistair

    Hannam, Sir John

    Butcher, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Butler, Peter

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cash, William

    Heald, Oliver

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Hendry, Charles

    Clappison, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Congdon, David

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Couchman, James

    Jack, Michael

    Cran, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dover, Den

    Knapman, Roger

    Duncan, Alan

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Elletson, Harold

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Legg, Barry

    Evennett, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Faber, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    301

    Lord, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Luff, Peter

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shersby, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sims, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Madel, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marlow, Tony

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Steen, Anthony

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Stern, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Stewart, Allan

    Milligan, Stephen

    Streeter, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sykes, John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Needham, Richard

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tracey, Richard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Page, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Paice, James

    Trotter, Neville

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Viggers, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Pickles, Eric

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Ward, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Watts, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Richards, Rod

    Whitney, Ray

    Riddick, Graham

    Whittingdale, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wilkinson, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Willetts, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilshire, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Wood, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Yeo, Tim

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Sackville, Tom

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Keith

    Alton, David

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cann, Jamie

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Berts, Clive

    Clelland, David

    302

    Coffey, Ann

    McKelvey, William

    Connarty, Michael

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Corbett, Robin

    Maclennan, Robert

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cox, Tom

    McWilliam, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Cummings, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Martlew, Eric

    Davidson, Ian

    Michael, Alun

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Miller, Andrew

    Denham, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Dewar, Donald

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Dixon, Don

    Olner, William

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Parry, Robert

    Etherington, Bill

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Pike, Peter L.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Prescott, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Purchase, Ken

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Reid, Dr John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Rendel, David

    Graham, Thomas

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Short, Clare

    Gunnell, John

    Simpson, Alan

    Hall, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hanson, David

    Snape, Peter

    Harvey, Nick

    Spearing, Nigel

    Henderson, Doug

    Spellar, John

    Heppell, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hoey, Kate

    Turner, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Tyler, Paul

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Walley, Joan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Wareing, Robert N

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Watson, Mike

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Wilson, Brian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Wise, Audrey

    Livingstone, Ken

    Wray, Jimmy

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    McAllion, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dr. John Marek and

    Macdonald, Calum

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

    McFall, John

    Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment: No. 423, in page 173, line 26, at end insert—
    ("Government guarantees to trustees of certain new schemes
    9A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary of State—

    (a) shall give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) below, and

    (b) may give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) below,

    a guarantee in respect of their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.
    (2)This paragraph applies in relation to a section of a new scheme as it applies in relation to a new scheme; and any reference in this paragraph to a new scheme, a closed scheme, a pension scheme or a member shall be construed accordingly.
    (3)A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

    (a) all the members of the scheme are persons whose pension rights under the scheme are pension rights which have been transferred, so as to become pension rights under that scheme, pursuant to an order under paragraph 4 above; and

    (b) the rules of the scheme prevent any member of the scheme from being a participant in the scheme.

    (4) A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

    (a) the scheme is a closed scheme; and

    (b) at the date on which the scheme becomes a closed scheme, all the members of the scheme are—

    (i) participants in the scheme to whom pension rights under the scheme are accruing by virtue of their employment with a relevant employer; or

    (ii) pensioners or deferred pensioners under the scheme whose pension rights under the scheme derive in whole or in part from their, or some other person's, participation in an occupational pension scheme as an employee of a relevant employer.

    (5) Classes or descriptions of person may be prescribed whose membership of, or participation in, a new scheme is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the new scheme satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) or (4) above.
    (6) The power to give a guarantee under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above becomes exercisable in the case of any new scheme if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is desirable to give such a guarantee for the purpose of ensuring that the trustees of the scheme are, or will be, able to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme as those liabilities fall to be met.
    (7) The Secretary of State shall consider any representations made by the trustees of a new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) above concerning their ability to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.
    (8) Any guarantee under this paragraph shall be given in such manner, and on such terms and conditions, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this sub-paragraph, the terms and conditions on which a guarantee under this paragraph may be given include terms and conditions—

    (a) with respect to any matter relating to payment under the guarantee, including—

    (i) the circumstances in which payment under the guarantee falls to be made;

    (ii) the amounts, or the method of determining the amounts, of any payments that fall to be so made;

    (iii) the persons to whom any such payments are to be made;

    (b) with respect to any matter relating to the management, affairs or winding up of the scheme, including—

    (i) the policy to be followed in relation to the investment of assets held for the purposes of the scheme; and

    (ii) the distribution of any surplus which may arise under the scheme; or

    (c) requiring or precluding, or otherwise with respect to, amendment of the rules of the scheme;

    and the sub-paragraphs of paragraphs (a) and (b) above are without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of the paragraph in question.
    (9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State to fulfil a guarantee given under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    (10) In this paragraph—

    "closed scheme" means a pension scheme—

    (a) to which no new members are to be admitted; but

    (b) under which pensions and other benefits continue to be provided;

    "deferred pensioner", in the case of any pension scheme, means a person who has pension rights under the scheme but who (so far as relating to those pension rights) is neither a participant in the scheme nor a pensioner under the scheme;

    "relevant employer" means—

    (a) the Board;

    (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

    (c) a publicly owned railway company, other than a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.")

    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 49, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'may, after consultation with the trustees of, and the actuary to, the scheme in question, think'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 100.

    Division No. 386]

    [12.40 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dicks, Terry

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ancram, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Ashby, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkins, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evennett, David

    Bates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fabricant, Michael

    Beggs, Roy

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Booth, Hartley

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    French, Douglas

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fry, Peter

    Bowis, John

    Gale, Roger

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gallie, Phil

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brazier, Julian

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bright, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Burns, Simon

    Gorst, John

    Burl, Alistair

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Butler, Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hague, William

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Harris, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    305

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jessel, Toby

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Key, Robert

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knapman, Roger

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knox, Sir David

    Sackville, Tom

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Legg, Barry

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Leigh, Edward

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, David

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stephen, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Stern, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Allan

    Marland, Paul

    Streeter, Gary

    Marlow, Tony

    Sumberg, David

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sykes, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Merchant, Piers

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thomason, Roy

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Needham, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Norris, Steve

    Waller, Gary

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Ward, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Watts, John

    Paice, James

    Wells, Bowen

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whitney, Ray

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Whittingdale, John

    Pattle, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pawsey, James

    Wiggln, Sir Jerry

    306

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Willetts, David

    Wilshire, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. James Arbuthnot and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Michael Brown.

    Yeo, Tim

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Allen, Graham

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Alton, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Barnes, Harry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bayley, Hugh

    McAllion, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Macdonald, Calum

    Betts, Clive

    McFall, John

    Boyce, Jimmy

    McKelvey, William

    Bradley, Keith

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    McWilliam, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Marek, Dr John

    Coffey, Ann

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Connarty, Michael

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Corbett, Robin

    Martlew, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Meale, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Michael, Alun

    Cryer, Bob

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cummings, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Morley, Elliot

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Olner, William

    Davidson, Ian

    Parry, Robert

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Denham, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dewar, Donald

    Prescott, John

    Dixon, Don

    Purchase, Ken

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Reid, Dr John

    Etherington, Bill

    Rendel, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Spellar, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Graham, Thomas

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Turner, Dennis

    Gunnell, John

    Tyler, Paul

    Hall, Mike

    Wareing, Robert N

    Hanson, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Heppell, John

    Winnick, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Wise, Audrey

    Home Robertson, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hoyle, Doug

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Terry Lewis and

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Mr. Alan Simpson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.
    The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 86.

    Division No. 387]

    [12.53 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Baldry, Tony

    Amess, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Ancram, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Beggs, Roy

    Ashby, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bendall, Vivian

    Atkins, Robert

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    307

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    Booth, Hartley

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bowis, John

    Hague, William

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bright, Graham

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Harris, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hawksley, Warren

    Burns, Simon

    Hayes, Jerry

    Burt, Alistair

    Heald, Oliver

    Butler, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cash, William

    Horam, John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clappison, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Conway, Derek

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jessel, Toby

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Cran, James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Key, Robert

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Day, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Devlin, Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dicks, Terry

    Knox, Sir David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dover, Den

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Duncan, Alan

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Legg, Barry

    Dunn, Bob

    Leigh, Edward

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lidington, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Lightbown, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lord, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Luff, Peter

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evennett, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Faber, David

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Madel, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Malone, Gerald

    Forth, Eric

    Mans, Keith

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Marland, Paul

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Marlow, Tony

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    French, Douglas

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Fry, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gale, Roger

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gallie, Phil

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Merchant, Piers

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Milligan, Stephen

    Garnier, Edward

    Mills, Iain

    Gill, Christopher

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Glllan, Cheryl

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    308

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Steen, Anthony

    Needham, Richard

    Stephen, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Streeter, Gary

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Norris, Steve

    Sykes, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Paice, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thomason, Roy

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Pawsey, James

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Pickles, Eric

    Thurnham, Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Richards, Rod

    Trend, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Trotter, Neville

    Robathan, Andrew

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Viggers, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Waller, Gary

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Ward, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sackville, Tom

    Watts, John

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Whittingdale, John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Shersby, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Sims, Roger

    Willetts, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wilshire, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wood, Timothy

    Soames, Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mr. Robert Hughes and

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Sproat, Iain

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Allen, Graham

    Etherington, Bill

    Alton, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Barnes, Harry

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Graham, Thomas

    Betts, Clive

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hall, Mike

    Cann, Jamie

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Henderson, Doug

    Coffey, Ann

    Heppell, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Corbett, Robin

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cryer, Bob

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lewis, Terry

    Davidson, Ian

    Livingstone, Ken

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    McAllion, John

    Denham, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dewar, Donald

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dixon, Don

    McFall, John

    309

    McKelvey, William

    Reid, Dr John

    Macklnlay, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Simpson, Alan

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Spellar, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Meale, Alan

    Turner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Tyler, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Miller, Andrew

    Welsh, Andrew

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Olner, William

    Winnick, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Parry, Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Mr. Andrew Bennett and

    Purchase, Ken

    Dr. John Marek.

    Question accordingly agreed to.[special Entry.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments involving privilege;—
    The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 82.

    Division No. 388]

    [1.06 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Congdon, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Conway, Derek

    Alexander, Richard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Amess, David

    Couchman, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cran, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Ashby, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamfoid)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Day, Stephen

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Dicks, Terry

    Baldry, Tony

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bates, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Batiste, Spencer

    Duncan, Alan

    Beggs, Roy

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dunn, Bob

    Bendall, Vivian

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dykes, Hugh

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Evennett, David

    Bowden, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Bowis, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Brazier, Julian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bright, Graham

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Forth, Eric

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Burns, Simon

    French, Douglas

    Burt, Alistair

    Fry, Peter

    Butler, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gallie, Phil

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carttiss, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Cash, William

    Garnier, Edward

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Clappison, James

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Gorst, John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Colvin, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealling N)

    310

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Norris, Steve

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hague, William

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Page, Richard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Paice, James

    Hannam, Sir John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Harris, David

    Pawsey, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hawkins, Nick

    Pickles, Eric

    Hawksley, Warren

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heald, Oliver

    Rathbone, Tim

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hendry, Charles

    Richards, Rod

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Horam, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Robinson, Marts (Somerton)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Hunter, Andrew

    Sackville, Tom

    Jack, Michael

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jessel, Toby

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shersby, Michael

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Sims, Roger

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Key, Robert

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Soames, Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Knapman, Roger

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Knox, Sir David

    Spring, Richard

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Legg, Barry

    Steen, Anthony

    Leigh, Edward

    Stephen, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Stewart, Allan

    Lightbown, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Lord, Michael

    Sykes, John

    Luff, Peter

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Maclean, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Thomason, Roy

    Madel, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Malone, Gerald

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mans, Keith

    Thurnham, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Marlow, Tony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Tracey, Richard

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Tredinnick, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Trend, Michael

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Trotter, Neville

    Merchant, Piers

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Milligan, Stephen

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mills, Iain

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Waller, Gary

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Ward, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waterson, Nigel

    Needham, Richard

    Watts, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wells, Bowen

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Whittingdale, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    311

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Willetts, David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

    Yeo, Tim

    Mr. Andrew Mackay.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Allen, Graham

    Lewis, Terry

    Alton, David

    McAllion, John

    Barnes, Harry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Macdonald, Calum

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    McFall, John

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    McKelvey, William

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Betts, Clive

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McWilliam, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Cann, Jamie

    Marek, Dr John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Clelland, David

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Coffey, Ann

    Martlew, Eric

    Connarty, Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Corbett, Robin

    Michael, Alun

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cox, Tom

    Miller, Andrew

    Cummings, John

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Olner, William

    Davidson, Ian

    Parry, Robert

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Dixon, Don

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Prescott, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Purchase, Ken

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Reid, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Rendel, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Simpson, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Spearing, Nigel

    Grocott, Bruce

    Spellar, John

    Gunnell, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hall, Mike

    Turner, Dennis

    Harvey, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Henderson, Doug

    Wareing, Robert N

    Heppell, John

    Winnick, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Wise, Audrey

    Home Robertson, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments [Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified to amendment No.309]:—
    The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 77.

    Division No. 389]

    [1.19 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Alexander, Richard

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Arbuthnot, James

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Ashby, David

    Bowis, John

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bright, Graham

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Baldry, Tony

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Bates, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Batiste, Spencer

    Burt, Alistair

    Beggs, Roy

    Butler, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    312

    Carrington, Matthew

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cash, William

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Clappison, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Congdon, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Conway, Derek

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Couchman, James

    Key, Robert

    Cran, James

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Knapman, Roger

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Day, Stephen

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Devlin, Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Dicks, Terry

    Legg, Barry

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Dover, Den

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lightbown, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Luff, Peter

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Dykes, Hugh

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    Maclean, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Evans, Nigel (Ribbla Valley)

    Madel, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Evennett, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Faber, David

    Mans, Keith

    Fabricant, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marlow, Tony

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Forman, Nigel

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Forth, Eric

    Merchant, Piers

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Mills, Iain

    French, Douglas

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fry, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gale, Roger

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Gallie, Phil

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Garnier, Edward

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Gorst, John

    Norris, Steve

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Page, Richard

    Hague, William

    Paice, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Pawsey, James

    Hannam, Sir John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Pickles, Eric

    Harris, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hawksley, Warren

    Richards, Rod

    Hayes, Jerry

    Riddick, Graham

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Hendry, Charles

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Horam, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    313

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Sackville, Tom

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shersby, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Sims, Roger

    Trend, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trotter, Neville

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Ward, John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spring, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sproat, Iain

    Watts, John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Whittingdale, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Willetts, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wood, Timothy

    Sykes, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    Thomason, Roy

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Lewis, Terry

    Allen, Graham

    McAllion, John

    Alton, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry

    Macdonald, Calum

    Bayley, Hugh

    McFall, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    McKelvey, William

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McMaster, Gordon

    Betts, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Marek, Dr John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cann, Jamie

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Martlew, Eric

    Clelland, David

    Meale, Alan

    Coffey, Ann

    Michael, Alun

    Corbett, Robin

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Miller, Andrew

    Cox, Tom

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Cryer, Bob

    Olner, William

    Cummings, John

    Parry, Robert

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Pickthall, Colin

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Davidson, Ian

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Prescott, John

    Dixon, Don

    Purchase, Ken

    Etherington, Bill

    Rendel, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Simpson, Alan

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Graham, Thomas

    Spellar, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Turner, Dennis

    Hall, Mike

    Tyler, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    Wareing, Robert N

    Henderson, Doug

    Winnick, David

    Heppell, John

    Wise, Audrey

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Home Robertson, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dr. Norman A. Godman and

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Michael Connarty.

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments: Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Roger Freeman, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Prescott; that three be the quorum; that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
    put forthwith pursuant to the Order [2 November]:—
    The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 75.

    Division No. 390

    [1.31

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Duncan, Alan

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Alexander, Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Amess, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Ashby, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evennett, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Faber, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baldry, Tony

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bates, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forth, Eric

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    French, Douglas

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fry, Peter

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gale, Roger

    Booth, Hartley

    Gallie, Phil

    Boswell, Tim

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bowden, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bright, Graham

    Gorst, John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Burns, Simon

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Hague, William

    Butler, Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cash, William

    Harris, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clappison, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Heald, Oliver

    Coe, Sebastian

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Congdon, David

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Conway, Derek

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cran, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dicks, Terry

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Dover, Den

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    315

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rathbone, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Richards, Rod

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Riddick, Graham

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robathan, Andrew

    Knapman, Roger

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Legg, Barry

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Sackville, Tom

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lidington, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lord, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Luff, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sims, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Madel, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marlow, Tony

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Steen, Anthony

    Merchant, Piers

    Stephen, Michael

    Milligan, Stephen

    Stern, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Allan

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Streeter, Gary

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sweeney, Walter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Sykes, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M, (Solihull)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Norris, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Paice, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Pawsey, James

    Tracey, Richard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Tredinnick, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Trend, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Trotter, Neville

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    316

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Willetts, David

    Waller, Gary

    Wolfson, Mark

    Ward, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Yeo, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Watts, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. Andrew Mackay and

    Whittingdale, John

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Allen, Graham

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Alton, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Barnes, Harry

    McAllion, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Macdonald, Calum

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    McFall, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McKelvey, William

    Betts, Clive

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Cann, Jamie

    Martlew, Eric

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Meale, Alan

    Clelland, David

    Michael, Alun

    Coffey, Ann

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Connarty, Michael

    Miller, Andrew

    Corbett, Robin

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Olner, William

    Cox, Tom

    O'Neill, Martin

    Cryer, Bob

    Pickthall, Colin

    Cummings, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Prescott, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Purchase, Ken

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Rendel, David

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

    Simpson, Alan

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Spearing, Nigel

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Spellar, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Turner, Dennis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Tyler, Paul

    Graham, Thomas

    Wareing, Robert N

    Grocott, Bruce

    Winnick, David

    Hall, Mike

    Wise, Audrey

    Heppell, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Home Robertson, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mr. Bill Etherington and

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dr. John Marek.

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Pitsea Post Office, Basildon
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
1.43 am
Mr. David Amess: On the face of it, my debate would appear to be a straightforward Adjournment debate in which I could complain about the closure of Pitsea post office and its transfer to a Tesco superstore, but it is not—it is Basildon's Watergate. I was greatly looking forward to the summer recess, which was to provide me with an opportunity to spend more time with my wife and family. I had no idea of the political furore there was to be throughout the months of August and September. In the time that we have to debate the matter, I shall be revealing correspondence that I have had with the Post Office and Tesco of a most unsatisfactory nature.
Most Members of Parliament are conscientious about their duties and they want to know what is going on in the area that they represent. One can imagine my outrage when I first learned from an article in a newspaper that Pitsea Crown post office was to close. I had had no notification from Post Office Counters Ltd., and I raised the matter first on the occasion of the summer Adjournment debate.
I referred to Basildon's Watergate. When the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. and his staff came to see me in my office in the House of Commons, he brought to my notice a letter which purported to have come from me supporting the closure of Pitsea post office. It was clear that the signature on the letter was not mine and never on any occasion had I authorised the letter sanctioning any enthusiasm for the closure of Pitsea post office.
To get to the heart of the matter, however, I have no quarrel with the Government. I support all current Post Office initiatives whereby different retail outlets for post offices have been selected. But in my constituency I am always mindful of the overall trading position. Far too many people are coming to the town of Basildon, which I represent, and opening an ever-increasing number of larger stores. At this moment, the constituency is over-trading —I have no doubt about that. By 1 January, I will be the only Member of Parliament to have three Tesco superstores. Tesco thought that I would welcome it having its first post office in its store in my constituency.
The three-week consultation period was an absolute fiasco. The Conservative-controlled district council, the Conservative Member of Parliament when he learned about the closure, my constituents at public meetings and the excellent chairman of Post Office consultative committee all opposed the closure of Pitsea post office. But as events revealed, the Post Office had made up its mind. It clearly was working closely with Tesco from the outset. The change would not have inconvenienced a great many of my constituents, but I was concerned about the senior citizens in my constituency and it was to them that I listened. They saw the post office as a social place at which to meet and chat with the excellent people serving behind the counter.
The crazy thing is that the Tesco superstore is a quarter of a mile away from Pitsea post office. The senior citizens, some of whom are disabled and find great difficulty in getting about, did not want to travel the extra quarter of a mile to the Tesco superstore. Those are the people to whom I was listening. At the old site of the post office is a Sainsbury store. However, at this moment Sainsbury does
318
not want post offices in its stores. It was not interested in the measure. At no point during the three-week consultation period did anyone from the Post Office come forward, meet my constituents' objections and say that they would, at the very least, consider one of the newsagents within the precinct having a post office facility.
After the meeting in my office at which the chairman of Post Office Counters mentioned my letter, the chairman understood perfectly well that I had no intention of authorising the letter, and that was the last we ever heard of it.
Unfortunately, on the day on which the Post Office announced that it was minded to go ahead with transferring to Tesco superstores, all the main protagonists bar me were unavailable. They were either on holiday or just not available. So I, the person who had opposed the proposal and supported my constituents from the start, was left to face the flack. I was so angry that I got in my car and drove to see the chairman of the Post Office at 148 Old street. Of course, he was not there. There was no one in a senior position to see me.
I also tried to make contact with Tesco. Again, there was no one available to see me. The chairman of Tesco wrote a letter to me on 9 August, in which he said:
"I acknowledge your letter of the 3rd August and I have spoken this morning to my colleague David Wild who I know has been in contact with you personally, and also your office. Mr. Wild informs me that he will be in further discussions with you this week, and I sincerely hope that we can resolve this situation to our mutual benefit."
All along, Tesco understood that I wanted to meet its representatives before the decision was announced. The decision was announced on the Monday and was leaked to the media the Friday before. That was a great discourtesy to my constituents. The supposed meeting with Tesco was on the following Thursday. So to date there has been no meeting between myself and Tesco.
On the day of the announcement that Post Office Counters intended to go ahead with moving Pitsea post office to Tesco superstores, my letter was mysteriously leaked to the media. It found its way on to television and was on the front page of my evening paper. That action was unforgivable.
The chairman of the Post Office said:
"Having returned from leave I was somewhat horrified to read of the developments that have taken place over the last few weeks in relation to the Pitsea Post Office situation. I have satisfied myself that the consultation process has been followed carefully and that the final decision is the correct one … It has been clear to us for some weeks that you passionately oppose the move of the Pitsea Post Office to the Tesco site and you have done your very best to influence the course of events.
We have tried to discover how a copy of the letter came into the hands of the Press and we have failed. Certainly it did not come from any person in authority in the Post Office but further than that we cannot say. However I feel strongly that the decision to subsequently make the letter available to the TV station, whether under pressure or not, was unprofessional, very unhelpful and I unreservedly apologise that this should have happened."
Fine. I accept the apology of the chairman of the Post Office. However, a lot of damage was done to me locally by the leak. It is not good enough for the Post Office to say that it cannot find out who the person or individuals are who leaked the letter.
So I wrote again, asking the chairman of the Post Office if he had any success in finding out who had leaked the letter. It could clearly be sorted out by a conversation between the editor of the Evening Echo and the chairman

319
of the Post Office. After all, the editor of the Evening Echo knows the source of the leaked letter. But that has never happened.
I am further annoyed by the last letter that I received from the chairman of the Post Office. As the consultation period developed, I asked a number of questions. Where was the support for the closure of Pitsea post office and its removal to the Tesco superstore? I wanted to know how many letters, what were the organisations supporting the move and what surveys had been conducted. I have had no answer on any of those points. All along, I was concerned that the requirements of the senior citizens who did not want to collect their pensions from the new post office were satisfied.
The chairman of the Post Office told me in his last letter that only six people have decided not to transfer their pensions. I have been in contact with the Department of Social Security, which told me that 24 people decided to change their method of collection, and will be getting their pensions from Rectory road in Pitsea, but more than 600 people in the constituency are collecting their pensions through the banks and direct debit. I make no criticism of that, but all along the contention from the Post Office was that the change would make no difference.
It is appalling that those senior citizens who enjoyed going to the Pitsea post office and talking to the counter assistants, who helped with all their queries, have been completely forgotten. All that I get from Tesco is the ridiculous argument that it finds that, whenever it takes over a post office, there is always an outcry, petitions are signed, all sorts of people oppose the move, but after a few weeks things settle down and people have no objections, and that it has asked its customers about the move.
What a silly proposition that is. Of course the customers of Tesco will be delighted to have a post office facility so that they can get their car tax disk and purchase their stamps and television licences. That was never the argument. If one asks a silly question, one gets a silly answer. Of course they will say that they are happy. I am concerned about the people who do not go there. How will their reaction be monitored? It seems as though they have been forgotten, and nobody could care less: we had a bit of a row, now we have got our way, and they are forgotten.
I am not going to forget those people and the way that the consultation was held. As was known full well, the House was about to adjourn for the summer recess and I would not have an opportunity, such as I am delighted to have this morning, to debate the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for such matters. The way the consultation was carried out meant that the decision was a fair accompli from the start.
Will my hon. Friend reflect on my points? I draw to his attention my feeling that it was cruel for the Post Office to go ahead with the proposal without allowing my senior citizens an opportunity to continue to collect their pensions from their local post office. Although many of us would say that it is best to collect them direct from a bank or savings deposit, that is not what they want. It was also greedy to give it all to one outlet.
It would not have taken much to have come to an arrangement. I understand that Martin The Newsagent in
320
Pitsea centre would have been happy to have a post office there. That is the least that the post office should have done —and it should do so now.
It is rumoured that Laindon post office may transfer to the third Tesco superstore, which is to open in Basildon on 1 January. We are told in one breath that we cannot have a post office within less than a mile; yet the post office in the Tesco superstore is less than a mile away from a post office in Vange. If it moved from its present site, it would be about two and half miles away, so will my hon. Friend the Minister look into that matter, too?
What was appalling about Tesco's behaviour was that it kept stonewalling and saying that it was a matter for the post office. That was nonsense; Tesco wanted the business. The very next week, Tesco's manager had the nerve to write to me about Sunday trading and said that I should listen to my constituents on that matter. I have it on good authority that my reply was stuck on the notice board. That is unprofessional. If a manager intends to put a Member of Parliament's letter on the notice board, he should give due warning.
I am not prepared to forget the conduct of the post office and Tesco over that matter, nor the importance of the post office within that shopping centre. I shall not simply put up my hand and support all big stores. As a Conservative, I am worried about the viability of small and medium-sized traders, whom we should not abandon. Neither am I prepared to forget the senior citizens who did not wish to transfer their pensions to Tesco superstore.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on Basildon's Watergate—this whole unhappy, unsatisfactory dialogue between myself and the post office—and I hope that he will ensure, through his good endeavours, that it never happens to any hon. Member again.
2.3 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is renowned as a champion for the rights of his constituents and ensuring that they get a full hearing both through his representations to various people and in the House.
The future of Pitsea post office has generated much interest and concern among my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is important that we consider it in a wider context.
I fully recognise and share my hon. Friend's concern about the leaking of a letter to the local newspaper. As he said, he has received a reply from the chairman of the post office, who has expressed his regret that that should have occurred and his unreserved apologies for the aggravation caused. The post office has investigated thoroughly how the letter came into the media's hands, but has been unable to reach a sound conclusion. If it could be proved that a post office employee had been responsible for such an unauthorised action, it would be regarded as serious professional misconduct and acted on accordingly.
My hon. Friend mentioned Tesco and Sunday trading. He will forgive me if I do not go down that avenue, as I am led to believe that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that matter later.
Post Office Counters Ltd. operates Europe's largest retail network, serving some 28 million customers each week through almost 20,000 outlets. Currently, those comprise 881 main or Crown post offices and some 19,000

321
agency offices, ranging from large franchise offices in supermarkets, open for six full days a week, to community offices in rural areas that are open for just a few hours a week.
The sheer size and diversity of the Post Office network means that decisions about the location and organisation of individual post offices must be an operational matter for the Post Office management and not for the Government. The Government have, of course, an interest in the broad framework of the provision of post offices, in line with our clear manifesto commitment to maintain a nationwide network of post offices. However, if that network is to continue to be viable, it is essential that the Post Office Counters business is run as effectively as possible and in the interests of all its consumers.
It is in that context that Post Office Counters' programme to convert Crown post offices to agency offices must be considered. Within the nationwide network, a large number of rural post offices are run at a loss to Post Office Counters Ltd. To continue to maintain those offices as well as to fund extensive modernisation and customer service improvements, the Post Office must find ways of increasing the efficiency of its operators.
As a commercial concern with nation-wide responsibilities, the Post Office is not, and cannot be, immune to a wide range of economic changes and pressures. Its decisions must be taken against the key objectives of service and cost. Conversion of Crown offices to agency-operated outlets provides an opportunity significantly to reduce the cost of running an individual office through, for example, shared overheads. Frequently, it also means that the accommodation and facilities can be upgrade and longer opening hours can be provided on a cost-efficient basis.
Under the Crown con version programme, since 1988 more than 600 Crown post offices have been converted to agency offices, and 90 of those conversions have been to franchise offices in partnership with supermarket chains and other retailers. In every case, the agency office has continued to offer the full range of services which had been provided at the Crown offices that it replaced. There has been no downgrading of the service, and agency office staff are fully trained by Post Office Counters to the same standard as its own staff.
In view of the cost savings that the conversion of Crown post offices to agency status is delivering, Post Office Counters plans to continue with the programme as suitable opportunities arise. Where such an opportunity is identified, the Post Office will always consult publicly on individual proposals in accordance with a code of practice agreed with the Post Office Users National Council.
The code provides that whenever plans to convert a Crown office to an agency operation are being formulated, the district manager advises the local Member of Parliament and a range of representative bodies of the proposals. At local level, these include the district council, the county or regional council, the parish and rural community council, and where appropriate, the local Post Office advisory committee and the local chamber of commerce.
The Post Office Users National Council is also advised, but, rightly, the emphasis is on seeking local views and comments within a stipulated period. The period is generally one month, but understand that it is frequently extended by a further week or two when extra time is needed to obtain and submit local comments.
322
It has to be recognised, however, that the Post Office looks to the public consultation process to identify any special local circumstances which may have been overlooked in formulating its conversion proposal. If this is the case, plans are modified accordingly. However, it is not putting its proposal to a local vote, as is sometimes presumed. In general, in the Post Office's experience, there tends to be a natural and understandable opposition to any change in what is widely regarded as a traditional institution.
There is a curiously common pattern with these conversions. Proposals which are initially seen as unwelcome and detrimental to service levels and convenience are, once the change has been made, quickly seen to have positive benefits. Independent research has been undertaken into customer reaction to 21 conversions that have taken place in the past two years. That research is conducted on seven criteria—convenience, accessibility, waiting time, speed of handling transactions, staff attitude, staff welcome and convenience of opening hours. For the first six of those criteria, the research showed that for each customer who considers that service has deteriorated, five consider that it has improved and a further five perceive no change.
On opening hours, 67 per cent. of the customers questioned consider them to be better than before, 32 per cent. consider them to be about the same and a mere 1 per cent. consider them worse. That is a consistent pattern which provides a convincing endorsement of the conversion programme and the high levels of service provided by our franchise post offices.
My hon. Friend has forcefully made his views clear about the consultation process in the case of the Pitsea post office. His view results largely from widespread misinterpretation of the essential nature of the consultation process. As I said earlier, it is not intended to be a popular vote, but a means of identifying any factors and concerns which the Post Office has not fully appreciated in drawing up its plans.
In the case of Pitsea, I understand that specific concerns raised during the consultation process relating to better lighting, clearance of overgrown shrubbery on the pathway approach and the provision of more disabled parking spaces have been jointly addresssed by the Post Office and Tesco in the final arrangements for the franchise operation with the opening of the new facility on 11 October. Post office services are now offered for 79 hours a week, compared with 46 hours a week under previous arrangements—a facility which I hope will provide an increased service to a number of my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the case of Laindon Crown post office. He has reported to me the speculation about the future of this post office in wake of the changes at Pitsea. Post Office Counters has confirmed that, contrary to reports of a relocation to a new Tesco store at Dunton, the post office facility in Laindon will remain on the present site for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, I repeat that the decision to convert individual Crown post offices to agency status are the operational responsibility of Post Office Counters. The Government, however, fully support the Crown conversion programme for the important contribution that it makes towards reducing the business overheads in the interests of taxpayers and the Post Office's clients and customers.

323
Franchise offices and sub-post offices are generally more efficient than the directly run Crown post offices, but the financial benefits are not being achieved at the expense of quality to the public. Service provisions and standards remain the same or better and, after some initial reluctance of customers to face the change, within a short period the new arrangements are almost universally accepted as providing a worthwhile and positive benefit. I see no reason why that should not be the case at Pitsea.
324
I believe that residents can confidently look forward to continuing provision of excellent post office facilities in the town. However, I would be wholly wrong to say to my hon. Friend that I do not recognise the serious strength of feeling that he has expressed here tonight in the Chamber and I will certainly draw it to the attention of both the chief executive and the chairman of the Post Office in the hope that my hon. Friend will receive a better response to any future dealings he may have on the matter than he has in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission on what basis the National Audit Office hypothesises its charges for work carried out on behalf of Government Departments and agencies; if, for the purposes of market testing, the NAO calculates its charges on a full cost basis, as defined by the Treasury; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  In line with the National Audit Act 1983, the National Audit Office currently has ministerial consent to charge for the audit of trading funds, for the audit of accounts which are trading type activities, and for all audits undertaken by agreement. The National Audit Office calculates its fees for such work on a full cost basis in line with the Treasury fees and charges guide. The National Audit Office currently contracts out some 8 per cent. of its financial audits and also assumes a full cost basis in line with the Treasury guidance when comparing its internal costs with those of the private sector on these accounts.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what is the annual cost of the provision of the Vote bundle.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The cost of 699,370 copies of the Vote bundle delivered to the House for the year ended 31 March 1993 was £6,670,978.

  Ibbs Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will review the progress of the implementation of the Ibbs report and issue a report to the House.

  Mr. Channon
  Details of the progress of the implementation of the Ibbs report have been set out in the annual reports of the House of Commons Commission for 1991–92 and 1992–93. With the exception of the proposal to transfer the grants in aid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British American Parliamentary Group and the History of Parliament Trust from HM Treasury to the House, the major structural recommendations of the report have been carried out. The Finance and Services Committee will continue to review the financial management of House services in conjunction with the Accounting Officer and the Heads of House Departments, but it is not its normal practice to issue reports to the House.

  Services (Value for Money)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if the Finance and Services Committee will undertake a study of the value for money obtained by House of Commons services.

  Mr. Channon
  A rolling programme of audits of House services is already being carried out by the internal auditor and his staff under the supervision of the Finance and Services Committee as the audit committee of the House. The studies seek to measure and evaluate the systems of internal controls and include a value-for-money scrutiny of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The Committee intends to keep the programme under review and ensure that it covers the activities of all Departments of the House.

  Serjeant at Arms' Conference
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the estimated cost of the Serjeant at Arms' Commonwealth conference proposed for 1994.

  Mr. Channon
  It is too early to give a firm estimate of the likely cost of the conference. The question of funding will be considered by the Finance and Services Committee when it prepares the departmental estimates for 1994–95 for submission to the House of Commons Commission.

  Members' Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many rooms are at the disposal of the Committee for the use of hon. Members.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A total of 535 rooms are, or will soon be, available within the Parliamentary Estate for allocation to right hon. and hon. Members. Some of these rooms are set aside for officer holders. This number includes 113 in 7 Millbank.

  Mice and Rats
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what steps are being taken to tackle the problem of mice and rats in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A new contract has recently been agreed with a specialist company to deal with pest control in the Palace of Westminster. In addition, Departments have been reminded of the formal reporting procedures and disciplines which exist to inhibit these pests.

  All-party Groups
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for guidelines regarding the use by all-party groups of outside companies or organisations as a secretariat.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has responsibility for the regulation of all-party and parliamentary groups; and, as its Chairman, I have been asked to reply. The Committee would be prepared to consider any proposal for the improvement of the regime for their control. If my hon. Friend has any such suggestion, he should submit it in writing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications were made for entry into the United Kingdom from applicants from the Philippines in each of the three latest years for which figures are available; and how many were(a) accepted and (b) rejected.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The numbers of visa applications made, accepted and rejected, from applicants in the Philippines in the last three years are shown in the table.

  11993

  1992

  1991

  Received

  11,255

  13,637

  11,926

  Granted

  10,090

  12,033

  10,571

  Refused

  1,030

  1,435

  1,161

  Decisions outstanding

  135

  169

  194

  1January to September.

  Human Rights
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 19 October, Official Report, column 205, if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reservations on the changes proposed at the Council of Europe summit on 8 and 9 October, in the exercise of the rights of citizens of member states under the European convention on human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have entered no such reservations, and look forward to the presentation of a final text at the Council of Europe ministerial meeting in May 1994.

  Belize
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which countries discussions have taken place to ensure Belize's continued territorial independence; when they started; and with which countries he intends to begin such discussions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The sovereignty and independence of Belize are recognised by all members of the United Nations. Belize is also a member of the Organisation of American States. We have made clear our readiness to participate with others in any consultations Belize may request on its future security. It would not be right for me to disclose the content of any discussions.

  Mafia
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what calls he has received from the Italian Prime Minister, Carlo Ciampi, for international co-operation on tax havens, offshore financial centres and bank secrecy laws, as measures to stop the Mafia laundering money; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Sweden (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to Sweden about its policy with respect to Jewish asylum seekers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. Sweden is a signatory to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and we expect it to abide by its obligations.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on support for the political party of Mr. Vuk Draskovic, the SPO in Serbia; and what pressure has been put on Mr. Draskovic during recent meetings to take part in the democratic process in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message of support to Mr. Draskovic's party at the time of his detention by the Serbian authorities in June 1993. Mr. Draskovic and his party remain politically active. We continue to encourage parties promoting democracy in Serbia.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government will be taking to encourage Mr. Alija Izetbegovic to reach a peace accord with the other parties concerned following the peace accord between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Serbs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our partners continue to make clear our support for the efforts of the co-chairmen of the international conference to secure a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Bosnia, and our readiness to support a settlement which has the full agreement of all parties.

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet identified any public investment projects which have attracted private capital. The Overseas Development Administration associates itself with private finance through the aid and trade provision; through the joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations—where the aid wing matches its contributions on a pound for pound basis—and by sponsoring the Commonwealth Development Corporation which funds investment projects in developing countries, particularly in the private sector, in partnership with a range of public and private investors.

  Overseas Visits
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to public funds of his journeys abroad since April 1992.

  Mr. Hurd
  The total cost of overseas visits by me and my accompanying officials in the period April 1992 to
  89
  August 1993, excluding those in an EC capacity, was £1.377 million of which £656,000 was paid to the RAF for use of its planes.

  The period covers the United Kingdom presidency of the EC during which I paid a number of visits in an EC capacity, the costs of which are borne by the presidency in office. These amounted to £658,000 of which £178,000 was paid to the RAF.

TRANSPORT

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates and the passage of the Railways Bill, the following changes will be made: the cash limit for class VI, vote 2—administration and transport services—will he reduced by £2,069,000 from £204,305,000 to £202,236,000 and the Department's running costs limit will be reduced by £4,215,000 from £432,989,000 to £428,774,000. The changes include the transfer of funds for administration and miscellaneous services to OPRAF class VI, vote 7 and to ORR class VI, vote 8. These reductions are partly offset by the take-up of capital and running costs end-year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993 at columns 512–18 and a transfer of funds from the Defence Research Agency for repayment services.

  The increases will be offset by transfers and a charge on the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish forthwith submissions and evidence made to him by Union Railways about intermediate stations and bids by Stratford, Rainham and Ebbfleet in relation to the channel tunnel rail link; and if he will instruct Union Railways to make its background papers available to the public as regards the intermediate stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The published version of Union Railways' report will include information on intermediate stations. Publication of the bids by individual promoter groups is a matter for them. Commercially confidential material will not be published.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish forthwith the report submitted to him by Union Railways in the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 29 October 1993 at columns 809–10.

  Hams Hall Railfreight Depot
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the announcement of the outcome of the planning inquiry into the Railfreight depot at Hams Hall.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment,Official Report, column 102.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department continues to seek opportunities for joint funding with the private sector of capital and other projects connected with the science base, and to examine the scope for involving the private sector in other areas of the Department's responsibilities. On 10 March 1993, I announced that the United Kingdom is to host the European Bioinformatics Institute at Cambridge, which will be funded jointly by the Government and the Wellcome Trust.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he proposes to the estimates, class XVIII, vote 2—science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cash limit for this vote is being reduced by £1,600,000 from £1,165,150,000 to £1,163,550,000. This reduction reflects the transfer of responsibility for core funding of the Institute of Cancer Research from the Medical Research Council to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) class X, vote 2.

  The opportunity of the winter supplementary estimates will also be taken to change the ambit of the vote to allow the Science and Engineering Research Council to prepare for the establishment of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and for grant to be paid for other initiatives following the publication of the White Paper "Realising our Potential".

PRIME MINISTER

  Human Rights
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 26 October,Official Report, column 589, on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, what representations he made to the Government of India regarding abuses of human rights in Kashmir and the Punjab.

  The Prime Minister
  We regularly raise our concerns about Kashmir, Punjab and human rights with the Indian Government, most recently during a discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Dr. Manmohan Singh, head of the Indian delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October.

  Official Secrets Act 1989
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) Desmond Bristow and (b) Brian Crozier received permission to publish their memoirs under the requirements of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  The legal advisers to the publishers of Mr. Bristow's memoirs were informed on 26
  91
  January 1993 that the text of his book did not contain any material damaging to national security. Mr. Crozier was informed on 27 May 1993 that, while the Crown would not authorise his book, it would not prejudice national security provided that certain amendments and deletions were made to the text.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleages and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  PM's Office
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the Property Services Agency's annual charge at the latest available date for buildings and services relating to his office; and what were the categories of expenditure.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The Property Services Agency ceased to exist in April 1990; Property Holdings took on responsibility for building services on the civil estate from that date.

  Property Holdings' annual charge in respect of 10 Downing street in 1993–94 is as follows:

  £

  Rent

  600,307

  Rent surcharge

  54,028

  New works

  158,021

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to his office in 1988–89 of major redecoration of state rooms and of major and security works; and how these costs were broken down.
  92
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The cost of refurbishing the state rooms in 1988–89 was £499,422.

  It is Government policy not to disclose the cost of works relating to security requirements.

  Major works were the responsibility of the Property Services Agency in 1988–89. No costs for major work fell to my office in this period.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what office services were ascribed to his office in 1986–87 and in the latest available year; and how much was charged for these services and by whom, in each year.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The following office services were ascribed to my office: office manager, typing support, messengers, stationery supplies, postage, laundry and cleaning, office cleaning. The costs were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  543,000

  1992–93

  891,000

  The cost to my office was charged by the Cabinet Office and a number of private sector suppliers.

  Chequers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the annual charge to his office by the Ministry of Defence at the latest available date for(a) the use of aircraft and (b) the use of service personnel at Chequers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: For 1992–93 the charge to my office by the Ministry of Defence for the use of aircraft was £145,559 and for the use of service personnel at Chequers, £230,331.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out in the Official Report either under topic heads related to the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Ministers, or in article order of the latest version of the treaty of Rome, as amendled by both the Single European Act and union treaties, any derogation from its terms applying to the member states of the European Economic Area who are not also member states of the European Community and its associated union.

  Mr. Needham
  The European economic area agreement does not extend Community policies in the following areas to the European Free Trade Association states which are contracting parties to the EEA: the common commercial policy and the common customs tariff—my Department—the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—Agriculture Ministers—cohesion policy—my Department—and Community financial and fiscal policies—Chancellor of the Exchequer. The EFTA states will not be bound by the provisions of the treaty on European union.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that all those matters listed in the proposed new clause 5 to the European Economic Area Bill considered in the House,Official Report, 21 October, columns 467–69, are included in that section of the six-monthly reports to Parliament on European Community affairs which is to be devoted to the European economic area.

  Mr. Needham
  The section on the European economic area, which is to be included in the six-monthly White Paper "Developments in the European Community", will contain a general account of developments within the EEA, nothing any significant decisions made by the EEA council or the EEA joint committee. This will be supplemented by a further report to Parliament on developments in the EEA in the form of an explanatory memorandum accompanying the annual report of the EEA joint committee on the functioning and development of the EEA agreement, which arises from article 94 of the agreement. Under the terms of the EEA, all decisions of the EEA joint committee will be published, including those extending new legislation to the EFTA states, in a new EEA supplement to the Official Journal of the EC. Parliament will already have had an opportunity to consider new provisions to be added to the agreement under scrutiny procedures agreed with the European Legislation Committee.

  Packaging
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to reply to the report of the Lords Select Committee on the European Communities report on packaging and packaging waste—HL 118-I.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I can inform the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent that we will be replying to the report shortly.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the reasons underlying the legal basis evaluation relating to the Euratom treaty made in his 94
  departmental explanatory memorandum 8492/93 of 10 October, on the communication from the Commission to the Council on the future of testing reactors in the Community (Com (93) 408 Final).

  Mr. Eggar
  The reason for the doubt expressed in the Department's explanatory memorandum is that the Commission's proposal for a Council resolution does not specify which article of the treaty it relies on; and it is not clear from the document that such action by the Community is necessary to attain one of the objectives of the Community, nor, if so, which particular objective.

  Carbon Emissior
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of the sources of the "other emissions" of carbon listed in table 2, page 182, of the digest of United Kingdom energy statistics 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The breakdown requested is as follows:

  Carbon dioxide emissions in 1991, million tonnes of carbon

  Source of non-fuel emissions

  million tones

  Incineration:

  Domestic

  0.5

  Agricultural

  1.1

  Cement production

  1.7

  Landfill sites

  0.8

  Offshore gas flaring

  1.4

  Total "other emissions"

  5.5

  Literacy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the contribution of literacy skills to industrial competitiveness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Good literacy skills are essential to industrial competitiveness. According to a recent report by the Government-funded adult literacy and basic skills unit, the cost to British industry of poor basic skills among the work force is almost £5 billion a year. The raising of standards is a top priority for the Government's policies for education, both at school, via the national curriculum and the testing arrangements that go with it, and for adults, for whom basic skills provision is a specific responsibility of the new further education funding councils.

  EC Assistance
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the United Kingdom's population is covered by the Government's application to the EC for objective 2 status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Forty-one per cent.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration his Department's nuclear review has given to the possible cost-effectiveness of investment in nuclear plant to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
  95
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I made to him on 26 October 1993, at column 572.

  Private Capital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's capital investment projects, other than office accommodation, are primarily undertaken at its research establishments. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 4 May 1993,Official Report, column 4, that he was reviewing the future of these establishments with the assistance of independent consultants. The opportunities offered by the private finance initiative will be taken into account in the course of this review. More generally much of the rest of my Department is also under review to identify the scope for increased private sector involvement.

  Oil and Supplies Industries
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what he has done to help the United Kingdom oil and supplies industries in their efforts to secure business overseas.

  Mr. Eggar
  In order to promote the United Kingdom's wide ranging expertise in the energy sector, I have recently visited Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Kazakhstan and Algeria. I hope that my visit to these countries will provide opportunities for the United Kingdom oil and supplies industries to participate in the development of their energy resources. My offshore supplies office will continue to support United Kingdom companies' efforts in this regard.

  Following my visit to Indonesia and Malaysia, the offshore supplies office will hold seminars early next year in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur to present lessons learned and experience gained from recent initiatives aimed at reducing the costs of United Kingdom continental shelf oil and gas developments.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to prevent the EC draft directive currently under consideration which would prevent holidaymakers sending deposits in advance to book hotel and guest house rooms from being implemented in a way which would have the effect of preventing the normal trading operations of Britain's hoteliers, self-catering and guest house operators.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: The United Kingdom has made clear, during the discussion of the draft distance selling directive in Brussels, its opposition to the provision which would ban prepayments in the case of contracts negotiated at a distance. There can be no question of our agreeing to the directive so long as this provision remains.

  Ice Cream
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be reporting on the practice of cabinet exclusivity agreements in relation to ice cream manufacturers and retailers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, referred the supply of impulse buy ice creams to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 7 May 1993. The Commission was asked to report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade within nine months.

  RECHAR II
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress towards establishing the RECHAR II programme from 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer I November 1993]: RECHAR II and all other proposals for future Community initiatives for European structural funds grants are to be discussed by the Council of Ministers, and then by a management committee of officials, before any such initiative is launched. No date has yet been set for such discussion.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has held with the European Commission about the use of funds under the Konver programme to assist larger defence contractors.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: None. In accordance with the Government's usual policy on the use of grant available from the European structural funds, I have proposed that such UK Konver grants as may benefit companies should be confined to small and medium-sized enterprises. As is the case with structural funds grants generally, most UK Konver grants will not be made directly to companies.

  ECGD
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had in relation to the long-term future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, Llanishen and Cathays park, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: I have held two meetings with ECGD's trade union side which included discussion of the long-term future of its Cardiff offices. I confirm my endorsement of the recommendation of the ECGD management board in November 1992 that there should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years from that date.

  Warship Yards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the text of the case for intervention funding for British warship yards referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) of 20 October,Official Report, column 246.
  97
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: No. It is not the Government's policy to make available publicly the details of correspondence with EC commissioners.

  South Africa
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) of 25 October,Official Report, column 433, what actions his Department has taken to ensure that companies file reports under the EC code of conduct relating to South Africa for the year ended 30 June.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Following the decision taken by the EC Foreign Affairs Council on 4 October to discontinue the code of conduct, British companies have been informed that reports are no longer required.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy towards wage levels and employment conditions provided by British comapnies continuing to operate or seeking to operate in South Africa.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: British companies have an excellent record on wages and employment conditions in South Africa. We will encourage companies to continue these high standards.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests of each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  (a) I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 27 July 1993, Official Report, columns 763–64.

  (b) The public do not have a statutory right to inspect the minutes of meetings of any of my Department's executive NDPBs.

  (c) NDPBs publish on a regular basis reports which the public can see.

  (d) NDPBs publish on an annual basis accounts which the public can see.

  (e) All appointments to NDPBs are made in accordance with guidance provided by the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty's Treasury, which requires Ministers to satisfy themselves that there is no conflict of interest.

  London Orchestras
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of(a) total and (b) overseas earnings by the four London orchestras in the last financial year.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is as follows:
  98

  £million

  Total earnings

  Overseas earnings

  LPO

  4.4

  1.04

  LSO

  5.5

  1.57

  Philharmonia

  5.1

  2.27

  RPO

  5.3

  0.95

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the gearing ratio between grant aid and total income of the four London orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is as follows: LPO—19.8 per cent.; LSO—14.4 per cent.; Philharmonia —12 per cent.; RPO—7.4 per cent.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what public consultation was undertaken by the Arts Council before reaching its decision to fund only two London orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Arts Council seeks informed and objective advice in determining its policies and priorities for the various art forms. In addition, the council takes close account of consumer research and monitors box office attendance figures.

  Listed Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which hospitals have had statutory listings changed in the last five years; if he will list the date and reason in each case; and if he will also list current applications for changes.

  Mr. Sproat
  This information is not readily available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 July,Official Report, columns 657–58, what progress has been made by the task force between his Department and the Department of Health about listed hospitals.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 25 October 1993,Official Report, column 470.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what hospitals have been specifically considered by the task force between his Department and the Department of Health on listed hospitals.

  Mr. Sproat
  The guidance being prepared by the Department of Health and English Heritage task force will include examples of good practice from the NHS, and a number of sites have been mentioned informally in the course of discussions. Some sites where particular problems have been met have also been discussed informally. It would not be appropriate to divulge the names of these sites at this stage.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library the reports, or summaries of reports, considered by the task force between his Department and the Department of Health on listed hospitals.

  Mr. Sproat
  The primary role of the Department of Health and English Heritage task force is to prepare
  99
  guidance which will assist NHS authorities to discharge their obligations for listed properties while providing health services of high quality and good value. The task force is developing the guidance from a first draft produced by English Heritage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will place a copy of the final guidance in the Library when it is available.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1993–94.

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

  (i) The cash limit for class XI, vote 3—libraries—will be increased by £202,000 from £114,337,000 to £114,539,000 to meet a new provision for the Royal National Institute for the Blind embossed literature service and to increase provision for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts to meet new administration costs. This increase is being met by offsetting savings on class XII, vote 3 and class XVIII, vote 1.

  (ii) The cash limit for class XI, vote 5—film, tourism, sport and broadcasting—will be increased by £1,022,000 from £129,086,000 to £130,108,000 to meet increased payments for broadcasting regulatory services and for lower appropriations in aid in respect of loan repayments by the Radio Authority.

  (iii) The cash limit for class XI, vote 7—administration—will be increased by £40,000 from £25,294,000 to £25,334,000. This increase is the net effect of an increase of £64,000 in respect of the capital end-year flexibility scheme and a transfer of resources of £24,000 to the Department for Education in respect of certain central services provided by that department.

  (iv) The Department's gross running costs control limit will, however, be decreased by £174,000 from £29,856,000 to £29,682,000 to reflect the transfer of £150,000 to a new provision on class XI, vote 7 for the Millennium Commission and £24,000 to the Department for Education.

  (v) The increases wil be offset by savings and charges to the reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Free Trade Association
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Attorney-General what reports will be published of the proceedings and conclusions of the new EFTA Surveillance Authority; what reports it will make to the EFTA standing committee and to the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, respectively ; where it will sit; and if its meetings will be open to the public.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EFTA Surveillance Authority will prepare reports and assessments in line with the procedure set out in paragraph 5 of protocol 1 of the European economic area agreement. Reports will be submitted to the EEA joint committee. The EFTA Surveillance Authority will also publish information in line with the procedure set out in paragraph 6 of protocol 1. Information emanating from the EFTA Surveillance Authority will be published in a special EEA section of the Official Journal of the EC. In addition, article 21 of the agreement between the EFTA states on the establishment of a surveillance authority and court of justice provides that the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall annually produce a general report of its activities.
  100
  This report will be available to the public. The EFTA Surveillance Authority will sit in Brussels. Its meetings will not be open to the public.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Attorney-General which publication contains the articles or rules defining the powers and procedures of the EFTA Surveillance Authority and court, respectively; by whom and when the documents were approved; what notice was given by Her Majesty's Government to any public or private body in the United Kingdom of the drafts of such articles; and what status they have in(a) international law or (b) the locus of the court of the European Community in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 108 of the European economic area—EEA—agreement requires the European Free Trade Association states to establish an independent surveillance authority and a court of justice. This obligation has been fulfilled by means of a separate agreement—"Agreement on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice"—signed by EFTA Ministers in Oporto on 2 May 1992, in parallel with the EEA agreement. The agreement has subsequently been adjusted by a protocol, to reflect Switzerland's withdrawal from the EEA, again signed only by the relevant EFTA states, in Brussels on 17 March 1993, in parallel with the protocol adjusting the EEA agreement. The agreement is between the EFTA states. Neither the Community nor any EC member state is a contracting party to the agreement. The agreement is binding on the contracting parties in international law.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many flats have accepted the housing action trust's programme in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Liverpool housing action trust became the landlord of 5,337 properties on 4 October 1993. I am pleased that tenants and leasholders voted so overhelmingly in favour of the proposal to transfer to the Liverpool HAT. I am delighted that the HAT is now fully operational and working with tenants in this exciting initiative to improve housing conditions throughout the city.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the names and positions of each person he has appointed to housing action trusts in Liverpool.

  Sir George Young
  The board of the Liverpool housing action trust consists of:

  Mrs. P. Ridley—Chair

  Mr. M. Appleton—Deputy Chair

  Mr. E. McGonagle—Board Member

  Mrs. S. J. Last—Board Member

  Mrs. J. K. Roberts—Board Member

  Mr. R. Dykes—Board Member

  Councillor M. Clarke—Board Member

  Mr. J. Sheridan—Tenant Board Member

  Mrs. M. Gallimore—Tenant Board Member

  Miss D. C. Todd—Tenant Board Member

  Mrs. E. Clark—Tenant Board Member

  101
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the salaries and expenses of members he has appointed to the housing action trust in Liverpool.

  Sir George Young
  HAT board members are paid at standard rates. A chairman who works for two days a week on HAT business is paid £25,315 a year: in particular busy periods where the chairman works for at least an additional day, the remuneration may be increased to £37,975. The chairman of Liverpool HAT has been paid at the higher rate in recognition of the time input she has made to the HAT. The deputy chairman is paid £8,590 a year and other board members £5,030 a year.

  All board members are entitled to travel and subsistence expenses when attending the normal place at which the HAT board works, or when away on HAT business, and for other expenses necessarily incurred on HAT business. These allowances are payable in accordance with the civil service travelling and subsistence rates.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the refusal of building societies and banks to give mortgages on ex-council homes.

  Sir George Young
  I am not aware of the problems on the mortgageability of most homes sold under the right to buy and voluntary sales. There is a particulr problem in relation to ex-council flats in tower blocks, where some lending institutions are currently adopting cautious policies. As the housing market picks up, the situation should improve. Meanwhile we are investigating the scale of the problem and some possible solutions, together with the lenders and the local authority associations.

  Pennines Bridleway
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the proposed new route for the Pennine bridleway national trail; if he will publish a timetable for granting approval for this proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Countryside Commission published its supplementary report and submitted it to the Secretary of State on 1 July this year, outlining revised proposals for the bridleway. I expect to announce my decision shortly.

  Railfreight
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the announcement of the outcome of the planning inquiry into the Railfreight depot at Hams Hall.

  Mr. Baldry
  The issues raised by this planning application are complex and consideration of the inspector's report has taken longer than expected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce a decision shortly.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that local authorities receiving funds under the current standard spending 102
  assessment system will not be disadvantaged by phasing in any subsequent changes resulting from the review of standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to phasing in changes to the SSA system; and what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will consider carefully the effect of any changes in the system of standard spending assessments resulting from the review of SSAs before deciding whether it will be necessary to mitigate these effects, and if so what means and to what extent.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish an ongoing review of the standard spending assessment system with particular reference to the monitoring of the relationship between grant levels and needs of individual authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have just completed a review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95. Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure by each local authority taking account of its physical, demographic and social characteristics, consistent with the provision of a common level of service and the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for all local authorities. We are always prepared to look at new evidence for changes in standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for the future relationship between capping levels and standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend intends to announce provisional capping criteria for 1994–95 at the same time as his proposals for the 1994–95 local government finance settlement.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been held regarding the extended use of 100 per cent. capital receipts by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The local authority associations have raised this with us in discussions. We have no plans to extend the present temporary relaxation in the rules on the use of capital receipts.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he will be giving in the review of the standard spending assessment system to developing an improved system for distributing Government grant or for controlling local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Baldry
  The review of standard spending assessments, which my right hon. Friend has discussed with the local authority associations, is now substantially complete. In the light of that review my right hon. Friend is now formulating his proposals for 1994–95 SSAs, which
  103
  he intends, as for previous years, should be a fair assessment, on the basis of the information and evidence available to him, of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for an authority to incur to provide a standard level of service.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to relate average grant payments and standard spending assessment levels to the relative status of local authorities for the purpose of receiving EC funding.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the area cost adjustment on(a) grants to local authorities in different parts of the country and (b) local authority pay levels.

  Mr. Baldry
  The area cost adjustment aims to ensure that standard spending assessments reflect regional differences in the cost of providing a standard level of service. Revenue support grant is distributed so that, if all local authorities were to spend at the level of their SSA, broadly the same level of council tax could be set in all areas for dwellings in the same valuation band. The area cost adjustment is not based on actual local authority pay levels and does not, therefore, provide any incentive for an authority to increase its pay.

  Housing
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider creating a system of grant allocation to help with the cost of purchasing property to provide a higher return on investor capital and to encourage long-term provision in the private rented housing sector.

  Sir George Young
  We are keen to explore all avenues to encourage growth in the private rented sector.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1991–92 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for the housing action trusts.

  Sir George Young
  Public expenditure on housing action trusts to date has been as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  10.1

  1992–93

  26.5

  Current public expenditure provision for 1993–94 and the two subsequent financial years is as follows. 1992–93 prices are in brackets:

  £ million

  £ million

  1993–94

  86.8

  (84.5)

  1994–95

  88.2

  (82.4)

  1995–96

  90.0

  (81.0)

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department and its sponsored bodies attracted over £2 billion of private investment in support of departmental programmes in 1992–93, and similarly expects to lever in up to £3 billion of private funding in 1993–94. This will assist the implementation of a wide variety of projects, most notably in housing, inner cities and urban regeneration. It is not practicable to list each project.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests.

  Mr. Gummer
  All the NDPBs' annual accounts, and in most cases their annual reports, are statutory documents which are published. In most cases they are also laid before Parliament.

  Local Government, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of local government and the unitary authority proposals for the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today written to Sir John Banham, chairman of the Local Government Commission, giving my decision on the commission's report "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of the Isle of Wight".

  After considering the commission's recommendations for the island and the representations made, I have concluded that effective and convenient local government on the Isle of Wight would be best achieved by establishing a unitary authority for the whole island—Commission recommendation 1—and that this would best meet the identities and interests of the local people. The single-tier Isle of Wight council will be up and running by 1 April 1995.

  All the other commission recommendations have been accepted as submitted with the exception of that for planning—recommendation 3—which I propose to modify. I believe that the planning needs on the island would be better served if the unitary authority were to prepare a unitary development plan rather than to continue with a two-tier planning system. The draft order for the Isle of Wight reorganisation will therefore state that, for the purposes of part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the initary island authority should be treated as an authority to whose area chapter I—unitary plans—of this part of the Act applies, rather than chapter II.

  It is intended that the existing district councils on the Isle of Wight will cease to exist as of 1 April 1995.
  105
  There will be elections to the unitary authority held in May 1995. In order that there is adequate provision for planning the smooth transition to the new structure I intend to give the present county councillors, in consultation with the present district councillors, the necessary powers to plan for change.

  Planning for the new unitary authority will be undertaken by existing county councillors who will consult and involve South Wight and Medina councils.

  An order giving effect to the commission's recommendations, with the planning modification, will be laid before the House in due course. A copy of my letter to Stir John Banham has been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue revised guidelines to the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Curry
  I have today issued revised policy guidance to the commission, incorporating the changes outlined in my right hon. Friend's announcement of 30 September and taking account of the comments we received on our draft proposals. We are re-emphasising the benefits of unitary authorities and asking the commission to give more weight to proposals emerging as a result of local consensus. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library of the House and additional copies are available in the Vote Office.

  I hope that, by removing any doubt about the Government's views on a number of issues, the revised guidance will assist the commission in its important task of recommending arrangements which best combine a reflection of the identities and interests of local people with the need to secure convenient and effective local government.

  We are still discussing with the Local Government Commission the details of the accelerated review programme.

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: My Department has traced only two contacts with companies associated with Mr. Patrick Doyle. The first was when the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre contracted Home Counties Cleaning on an ad hoc basis for the period 2 June to 18 August 1986. The second was when the Deptford task force let a contract for two plastering skills training courses from February 1991 to September 1992. I have no plans to meet Mr. Doyle.
  106

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors are currently employed by the Agricultural Wages Board; and how many were employed 10 years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  Agricultural minimum wage enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Staff undertake wages inspection as one of a range of duties and the time spent on this activity will vary considerably from officer to officer. Total time spent by the Ministry on minimum wage enforcement is therefore the best measure when comparing one year with another. The earliest figures available relate to 1987–88 and show a total input of around 19 staff years. In 1992–93 the comparable figure was also some 19 staff years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits have been carried out during the last 12 months by Agricultural Wages Board inspectors; and how many were carried out 10 years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  Agricultural wages inspections are carried out by officers appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Secretary of State for Wales. During 1992, the latest full year for which figures are available, 554 holdings were visited as part of the programme of test inspections or in the process of following up specific complaints. In 1982, 2,979 holdings were visited. However, this 1982 figure includes visits to collect statistical information for the wages and employment inquiry. This statistical information is now collected by post and, as a result, the 1992 and 1982 figures are not directly comparable.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of eligible farmers had received their hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1993 by 31 October.

  Mr. Jack
  At the end of October, the total number of hill livestock compensatory allowance claims received in the United Kingdom under the 1993 scheme was 64,557. Of these 62,981 have been processed for payment. This represents 97.5 per cent. of the claims received.

  Fisheries Conservation
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on future conservation measures for fish stocks in the Irish sea; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received a report from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations setting out its proposed alternatives to days at sea restrictions including proposals for the Irish sea. We are considering the report urgently and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends responding to the proposals by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for alternative conservation measures to the proposal by the Government to limit the days at sea that fishermen may fish; and if he will make a statement.
  107
  Mr. Jack
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Sheep and Cattle Farms
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the net farm income for mainly sheep and sheep and cattle farms in severely disadvantaged areas in England and Wales, in both nominal and real terms for each year since 1978.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 29 October 1993, c. 798]: Estimates of net farm income, based on results of sample surveys are provided in the tables. The method of farm classification has been changed and results for 1992–93 and subsequent years will only be available on the revised method. In order to ensure a

  Table 1

  Average net farm income on livestock farms wholly or partly in the Severely Disadvantaged Area in England (New Classification)

  Year1

  Specialist sheep farms

  Mixed cattle and sheep farms

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  1986–87

  7.8

  10.6

  115

  147

  8.8

  12.0

  83

  106

  1987–88

  8.0

  10.5

  118

  146

  12.6

  16.5

  118

  145

  1988–89

  11.7

  14.5

  139

  162

  16.1

  20.0

  150

  175

  1989–90

  7.7

  8.9

  103

  111

  12.1

  13 9

  106

  114

  1990–91

  6.7

  7.0

  86

  85

  8.4

  8.8

  75

  74

  1991–92

  10.7

  10.7

  111

  104

  13.2

  13.2

  119

  112

  1992–934

  14.8

  14.3

  157

  142

  16 5

  16.0

  177

  161

  Table 2

  Average net farm income on livestock farms wholly or partly in the Severely Disadvantaged Area in England (New Classification)

  Year1

  Specialist sheep farms

  Mixed cattle and sheep farms

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  1986–87

  8.3

  11.3

  141

  181

  7.9

  10.8

  98

  125

  1987–88

  6.9

  9.1

  117

  145

  11.6

  15.2

  143

  175

  1988–89

  10.9

  13.5

  167

  192

  14.1

  17.5

  170

  197

  1989–90

  5.8

  6.7

  92

  100

  10.4

  12 0

  113

  121

  1990–91

  8.1

  8.5

  85

  84

  8.3

  8.7

  84

  82

  1991–92

  12.4

  12.4

  123

  116

  12.2

  12.2

  104

  97

  1992–934

  16.2

  15.7

  191

  174

  16 3

  15.8

  141

  128

  Table 3

  Average net farm income on livestock farms wholly or partly in the Severely Disadvantaged Area in England (Old Classification)

  Year1

  Mainly sheep farms

  cattle and sheep farms

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices
  3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  1978–795

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8.8

  23.3

  119

  245

  1979–805

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4.2

  9.7

  54

  96

  1980–815

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.1

  12 0

  76

  140

  1981–825

  11.1

  19 6

  100

  167

  9.4

  16.6

  139

  230

  1982–835

  8.1

  13 3

  84

  131

  9.2

  15.1

  125

  193

  1983–84

  10.8

  16.9

  87

  129

  7.8

  12.2

  106

  155

  1984–85

  9.4

  14.0

  79

  111

  9.6

  14.3

  119

  167

  1985–86

  11.9

  16.7

  102

  135

  10.1

  14.2

  120

  158

  1986–87

  9.1

  124

  89

  115

  8.0

  10.9

  95

  122

  1987–88

  9.9

  13.0

  102

  126

  11.8

  15.5

  129

  158

  1988–89

  12.7

  15.8

  136

  159

  15.6

  19.4

  161

  187

  1989–90

  7.5

  8.6

  92

  100

  106

  12.2

  111

  119

  1990–91

  7.7

  8.1

  79

  78

  7.2

  7.6

  72

  71

  1991–92

  10.9

  10.9

  129

  122

  12.4

  12.4

  117

  110

  108
  consistent data series the results for years from 1986–87 have been reanalysed and these are presented for SDA specialist sheep farms and SDA mixed cattle and sheep farms in table 1, for England, and table 2, for Wales. Tables 3 and 4 provide data on the previous method of classification for the years 1978–79 to 1991–92 for SDA sheep farms and SDA cattle and sheep farms.

  Year-to-year comparisons can best be made by reference to the indices shown in the tables, which are based on results from constant samples of farms.

  Forecasts of incomes will be placed in the Library of the House on 30 November when the outcome of the autumn review of hill livestock compensatory allowances is announced.
  109

  Table 4

  Average net farm income on livestock farms wholly or partly in the Severely Disadvantaged Area in Wales (Old Classification)

  Year1

  Mainly sheep farms

  cattle and sheep farms

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real Terms3

  1978–795

  6.9

  18.1

  76

  189

  7.4

  19.4

  73

  181

  1979–805

  2.9

  6.7

  32

  69

  41

  9.5

  40

  89

  1980–815

  5.9

  11.5

  68

  124

  6.2

  12.2

  58

  107

  1981–825

  8.8

  15 5

  95

  157

  7.8

  13.6

  103

  171

  1982–835

  6.2

  10 2

  73

  113

  6.7

  11.1

  86

  134

  1983–84

  8.6

  13 4

  97

  142

  6.6

  10.4

  80

  119

  1984–85

  9.7

  14.5

  147

  206

  7.7

  11.4

  83

  117

  1985–86

  7.9

  11.2

  101

  133

  8.4

  11.8

  96

  129

  1986–87

  9.8

  13.4

  112

  144

  9.3

  12.8

  98

  127

  1987–88

  9.4

  12 3

  105

  130

  12 5

  16 4

  119

  149

  1988–89

  8.3

  10.4

  149

  175

  8.5

  10.6

  154

  181

  1989–90

  9.5

  10 9

  99

  107

  10.9

  12 5

  94

  102

  1990–91

  10 8

  11.4

  89

  88

  8.7

  91

  72

  71

  1991–92

  16.8

  16.5

  112

  105

  13.7

  13.5

  134

  126

  Notes: 1 Accounting years end on average in February.

  2 1989–90—1991–92=100

  3 The information has been derived by deflating the current price estimates by the retail prices index.

  4 Provisional figure at the time of the 1993 autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands.

  5 The estimates for these years are not strictly comparable with those for later years.

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what type and quantities of food she expects to be available for distribution via the EC surplus food scheme in 1993–94.

  Mr. Jack
  I announced on 26 July that 6,200 tonnes of beef will be released under the scheme from intervention stocks to be canned for allocation to designated organisations and that further quantities may be made available later. I am pleased to announce that the Commission has approved the release of an additional 6,000 tonnes of beef for distribution in the United Kingdom during 1993–94. In previous years, butter has also been distributed, but successful reductions of

  Maintained primary and secondary schools2

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  54,407

  53,737

  52,992

  52,993

  53,043

  53,431

  Dyfed

  45,254

  45,727

  45,597

  45,652

  45,754

  45,805

  Gwent

  59,960

  59,142

  59,008

  59,438

  60,149

  61,279

  Gwynedd

  31,663

  31,047

  30,496

  29,956

  29,782

  29,844

  Mid Glamorgan

  76,143

  75,244

  75,054

  75,214

  75,615

  76,795

  Powys

  15,574

  15,498

  15,467

  15,331

  15,335

  15,454

  South Glamorgan

  52,131

  52,128

  52,038

  52,730

  53,703

  54,837

  West Glamorgan

  48,584

  48,505

  48,350

  48,769

  49,002

  49,570

  Wales

  383,715

  381,028

  379,002

  380,083

  382,383

  387,015

  1 At January each year, with ages at 31 August the preceding year.

  2 Includes grant-maintained schools.

  LEA maintained special schools

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  661

  634

  629

  630

  642

  662

  Dyfed

  258

  254

  232

  199

  210

  181

  Gwent

  351

  336

  316

  320

  307

  299

  Gwynedd

  263

  255

  215

  211

  234

  235

  Mid Glamorgan

  646

  587

  589

  565

  597

  648

  Powys

  110

  109

  122

  122

  125

  113

  South Glamorgan

  655

  624

  588

  575

  537

  527

  West Glamorgan

  218

  194

  181

  177

  175

  170

  110
  intervention stocks have meant that butter cannot now be made available under the scheme. I will be announcing the arrangements for the distribution of beef shortly.

WALES

  School Pupils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, columns 54–56, on the placing of full-time pupils aged five to 15 years, when he expects to publish the relevant information for January 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  (a) The number of full-time pupils aged 5–15 years1
  111

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Wales

  3,162

  2,993

  2,872

  2,799

  2,827

  2,835

  (b) The number of children aged 5–15 belonging to:

  (i) other LEAs but attending special schools maintained by the LEA

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  30

  25

  38

  37

  42

  43

  Dyfed

  11

  12

  13

  2

  3

  3

  Gwent

  14

  16

  11

  6

  4

  0

  Gwynedd

  15

  18

  15

  11

  8

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  32

  29

  23

  16

  19

  11

  Powys

  4

  7

  5

  4

  3

  3

  South Glamorgan

  81

  73

  58

  48

  36

  38

  West Glamorgan

  5

  7

  11

  12

  11

  9

  (ii) the LEA but attending special schools maintained by other LEAs

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  33

  29

  25

  24

  24

  22

  Dyfed

  15

  15

  17

  16

  13

  14

  Gwent

  48

  45

  38

  24

  26

  22

  Gwynedd

  15

  8

  10

  8

  7

  15

  Mid Glamorgan

  48

  42

  37

  31

  19

  17

  Powys

  7

  7

  2

  3

  3

  1

  South Glamorgan

  17

  17

  13

  5

  3

  3

  West Glamorgan

  12

  16

  8

  11

  12

  7

  (iii) the LEA but attending non-maintained special and independent schools1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  3

  2

  4

  2

  8

  5

  Dyfed

  10

  16

  8

  12

  21

  21

  Gwent

  36

  45

  56

  69

  32

  41

  Gwynedd

  8

  8

  7

  8

  6

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  52

  53

  58

  61

  51

  37

  Powys

  14

  22

  18

  20

  18

  18

  South Glamorgan

  6

  9

  7

  9

  5

  5

  West Glamorgan

  17

  15

  9

  12

  2

  2

  1 Data for 1988–1991 include children of all ages. Data for 1992 and 1993 include children aged 5–16 years with statements of special educational needs only. Data include children being educated outside of the authority in which they are registered.

  Private Capital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Private finance forms a significant part of many Welsh Office programmes. The total for 1993–94 is estimated to be £278 million. Details of projects commenced since November 1992 are not readily available. Examples of projects currently in hand or in prospect include:

  Croesfoel flyover on A483 (design and build).

  New community development, Cefn yr Hendy, near Llantrisant.

  Patient hotel, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend.

  Multi-storey car park, UHW Cardiff.

  Microwave incinerator—Pembrokeshire NHS Trust.

  Redevelopment at Brynhyfryd Estate, Llangennech.

  NCM Credit Insurance Offices, Cardiff Bay.

  112

  Education Funding
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for (i) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, (ii) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and (iii) the Schools Funding Council for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Provision for the financial year 1993–94 and planning figures for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 were notified to the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils for Wales in December 1992 and January 1993 respectively. The details are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  143.260

  160.924

  168.436

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  178.975

  189.958

  193.013

  These figures are in cash. At 1992–93 prices the values are as follows:
  113

  £million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  139.426

  150.396

  152.087

  Higher Education Fundin Council for Wales

  174.185

  177.531

  174.278

  Provision for 1994–95 will be determined following decisions taken in this year's public expenditure settlement and the planning figure for 1995–96 will be revised as necessary in the light of those decisions.

  No decision has been taken to establish a schools funding council for Wales.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Budget Discipline
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in agreeing a new inter-institutional agreement on budget discipline with the European Parliament.

  Sir John Cope
  The Edinburgh European Council of 11–12 December 1992 concluded:"the Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) for 1988–1992 was a positive development and hopes that the agreement can be re-established on terms ensuring strict budgetary discipline and a smooth passage of the annual budgetary discussions.‖ It calls upon the Council ‖ subject to acceptable terms being attainable, to reach agreement with the Commission and European Parliament on a revised IIA."

  Since Edinburgh, discussions have taken place between the Council—represented by the presidency—the Commission and the European Parliament with a view to fulfilling the Edinburgh mandate. These discussions were difficult at times. However, the Belgian presidency has recently succeeded in negotiating a satisfactory agreement. This was endorsed by the Council at the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 October—Official Report, 19 October:1993, columns 206–7—and the informal meeting of ECOFIN on 9 October—Official Report, 18 October, column 15—and by the European Parliament at its plenary session on 27 October. The agreement was signed at the recent Special Foreign Affairs Council. A copy of the text has been placed in the Library.

  The IIA is a political, but not legally binding, agreement which clarifies the Community's budgetary procedure. Under the treaty, the Council and the European Parliament have joint responsibility for deciding the Community budget on the basis of proposals from the Commission. The IIA sets out the way the three institutions will exercise their responsibilities in accordance with the treaty, and respecting the revenue ceilings which are laid down in the own resources decision. In particular, it provides for the annual Community budget to be set in the context of a multi-annual financial framework. This allows a more orderly development of spending priorities than would be possible if the budget were agreed one year at a time without reference to a longer-term plan.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those cases brought before the courts by the Commissioners for the Inland Revenue in relation to offshore trusts between 1985 and 1992.
  114
  Mr. Dorrell
  The cases were as follows: (in re Clore No. 3) Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and Stype Investments—1985 STC 394, Minden Trust (Caymen) Ltd. and Commissioners of the Inland Revenue—1985 STC 758, Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and Brackett—1986 STC 521, Dawson and Commissioners of the Inland Revenue—1989 STC 473, Montagues Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd. and Commissioners of the Inland Revenue—1989 STC 477, Jones and Lincoln-Lewis—1991 STC 307, and Marshall and Kerr—1991 STC 686).

  All references are to Simons tax cases.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those occasions between October 1992 and October 1993 on which he formally communicated concerning the externally held sterling balances with(a) committees of the Commonwealth, (b) the division of the International Monetary Fund dealing with offshore balances and (c) the World bank division dealing with offshore currency holdings.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have made no such communication.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to institutions and bodies which advertise and offer advice on offshore tax avoidance and who bid for Government business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government Departments seek to ensure that there are no matters which would make it inappropriate for them to have business dealing with particular firms.

  The provision by such a firm of tax planning advice, the adoption of which would be within the confines of tax law, would not in general be regarded as such a matter.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what specific steps the Inland Revenue has taken to investigate untaxed payments from abroad to unincorporated bodies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where appropriate, the Inland Revenue makes inquiries, using its powers to gather relevant information, in order to investigate payment from abroad to unincorporated bodies.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library those reports he has had from the European Commission relating to offshore funds since 1 January 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  So for as I am aware, no such reports have been published.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what studies he has made into the impact on United Kingdom domiciled companies of the capital gains-free regime available to investors from abroad when they make capital disposals; and if he will place such studies in the Library;

  (2) what studies he has made into the effect on United Kingdom industrial domestic capital investment of repatriated tax-free offshore capital gains; and if he will place any such studies in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have made no such studies.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reliefs and exemptions on income tax; and what will be the cost of each to the Exchequer(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the cost of income tax reliefs and exemptions for 1993–94 are available in table 9 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" booklet published by HM Treasury in July. Estimates for 1994–95 will be published next summer.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Wallasay (Ms Eagle) 16 July,Official Report, column 700, giving estimates for 1994–95 and for a full year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest available estimates from the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes projected to 1994–95 are given in the following table. For 1994–95 it was announced in the March Budget that from 6 April 1994 mortgage interest relief and the married couple's and related allowances would be restricted to 20 per cent. and so these effects are incorporated into the base and excluded from the table. No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from the restrictions and figures for the major allowances and reliefs show the yield from restricting each allowance or relief separately. If two or more were restricted the total yield would be greater than the sum of figures for individual allowances. It is not

  Increase in income after tax1 (£ per week) compared with indexation2 in 1994–95 for a married man3 with two children

  Multiple of average earnings4

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Increase derived from

  (i) 1p cut in basic rate

  0.63

  1.57

  2.51

  4.08

  4.08

  4.08

  4.08

  (ii) 8.8 per cent. increase in personal allowance

  1.62

  1.62

  1.62

  2.31

  2.31

  2.31

  2.31

  (iii) increase in child benefit

  (a) £3.75 per week per child5

  7.50

  7.50

  7.50

  7.50

  7.50

  7.50

  7.50

  (b) £2.55 per week per child6

  5.10

  5.10

  5.10

  5.10

  5.10

  5.10

  5.10

  (iv) £1,900 increase in width of 20 per cent. band

  2.29

  2.29

  2.29

  2.29

  2.29

  2.29

  2.29

  1 Disregarding any change to entitlement to social security income—related benefits except in item (iii)b.

  2 Calculations based on the standard assumption that 1993–94 allowances and the basic rate limit have been indexed by 1.8 per cent. with the lower rate band increased to £3,000 as announced in March 1993.

  3 Assumed to have no tax reliefs and allowances other than the personal allowance and the married couple's allowance.

  4 Average earnings assumed to be £37610 per week.

  5 Assuming no change in income support and family credit children's rates.

  6 Assuming corresponding changes in income support and family credit children's rates.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax for 1992 has been remitted or written off as irrecoverable; and how much of this is PAYE contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount of tax that has been remitted or written off as irrecoverable for 1992 is as follows:

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  1992

  1,694,246

  The amount of this that relates to PAYE contributions is as follows:
  116
  possible to provide estimates of the first-year effects as the yield would depend on the administrative arrangements which implemented the changes.

  £ million

  Estimated full-year yield of restriction to

  basic rate

  20 per cent.

  All allowances and reliefs

  2,420

  7,350

  Personal allowance (excluding age-related addition)

  1,420

  5,500

  Age-related personal allowance1

  0

  120

  Pension contribution reliefs2

  620

  1,230

  1 The higher level of age-related personal allowance given to those aged 65 and over, subject to the income limit.

  2 Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and contributions to personal pensions including retirement annuity premia and free-standing additional voluntary contributions.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) 11 January,Official Report, column 546, giving estimates for 1994–95, and including estimates of the effects of widening the 20 per cent. band of tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effects of the various changes to income tax and child benefit on a married man with two children are shown in the table. Each of the changes would cost £1.8 billion a year; that is the cost in a full year of a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax. Estimates are based on projections of the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes.

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  1992

  381,172

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 682 on the tax liabilities of taxpayers in different income bands, giving figures for 1993–94 and estimates for 1994–95 based on the assumption of statutory indexation and including measures already announced in the 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the average reductions in income tax and national insurance contribution liabilities in 1993–94 and in 1994–95, assuming statutory indexation and inclusion of measures already announced,
  117
  compared with liabilities under an indexed 1987–88 regime are in the table. An equivalent assumption has been made about indexation of the national insurance regime for

  Average reduction in 1993–94 compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Average reduction or increase (—) in 1994–95 compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1993–94 or 1994–95 £

  Income tax £

  Income tax and national insurance £

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance £

  Under 5,000

  60

  70

  60

  70

  5,000–10,000

  170

  240

  180

  220

  10,000–15,000

  260

  400

  230

  290

  15,000–20,000

  340

  480

  270

  290

  20,000–25,000

  420

  540

  330

  300

  25,000–30,000

  490

  600

  370

  310

  30,000–40,000

  300

  400

  30

  -40

  40.000–50,000

  590

  680

  240

  170

  50,000–70,000

  1,970

  2,050

  1,540

  1,460

  70,000–80,000

  4,740

  4,810

  4,100

  4,020

  over 80,000

  19,500

  19,600

  19,100

  19,000

  Average

  420

  500

  370

  390

  For the purpose of the calculations the indexed regime of 1987–88 has been applied directly to the income bases of 1993–94 and 1994–95. In practice, retention of the 1987–88 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Economic and Financial Councils
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Economic and Finance Council held on 25 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The European Community Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—met in Luxembourg on 25 October. I represented the United Kingdom.

  Political agreement was reached on proposed secondary legislation designed to ensure that certain treaty provisions relating to stage II of European monetary union are consistently applied. I made clear that the proposed legislation was still under consideration by our scrutiny committees. Subject to that, final adoption of the proposed legislation is conditional on the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty and the opinion of the European Parliament. The Council looked favourably on the candidacy of Alexandre Lamfalussy, the outgoing managing director of the Bank of International Settlements in Basle, for the position as first president of the EMI.

  The Commission circulated a report on progress made on the growth initiative since the Edinburgh declaration in December last year. All member states indicated their intention to complete the remaining procedures to establish the European investment fund by the end of the year. The Council also indicated broad support on widening the scope of the temporary EIB lending facility established by the Edinburgh European Council. I continued to stress the themes in the United Kingdom contribution to the Commission's White Book. A copy of the United Kingdom's contribution is available in the House Library.

  The Council had its first discussion of a proposal to amend the scope of the UCITS—undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities—directive which sets minimum standards for the regulation of certain collective investment schemes. The Council agreed that work should continue in the light of the forthcoming
  118
  1994–95. The 1987–88 income tax regime has been indexed to 1993–94 and 1994–95 by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation.

  opinion of the European Parliament and a study by the Commission of the macro-economic impact of the proposal.

  The Council discussed a proposal for an EC-wide withholding tax on interest from savings, directed at the distortions some other member states believe arise as a result of the differing systems in the Community for the taxation of interest. With support from some other member states, I made clear the Government's doubts about the need or likely effectiveness of a Community-wide approach. The presidency decided to remit the dossier back to the working group.

  The Council adopted a directive on road haulage, tolls and user charges implementing the political agreement on these matters which was reached by the Transport Council in September. There was also final political agreement on the increase in travellers' allowances provisionally agreed during the United Kingdom presidency in November 1992. The tax free allowances will rise from 45 to 175 ecu for travellers from third countries and from 45 to 90 ecu for intra-Community travel. The agreement will be reviewed in 1995 and includes a derogation covering the eastern borders of Germany lasting until 1997. The Council also adopted an important regulation liberalising road haulage cabotage at the same time.

  The Commission presented a report on the functioning of the indirect tax system in the single market in its first six months and applauded the efforts of national administrations in introducing the new systems.

  The Council also noted the recent Commission proposal —8994–93—about changing the way in which annual surpluses and deficits are treated in the EC budget to produce a more regular cash flow. It was clear that the proposal was unacceptable to many member states. However, the Council agreed to look at alternative ways of attaining the same end, subject to respecting fully the annual ceiling on own resources.

  There were no formal votes. The decisions on the road transport liberalisation legislation were taken by consensus.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what contribution the business expansion scheme has made to encouraging investment in the private rental sector;

  (2) what steps are being taken to encourage long-term ownership of rented property following the abolition of the business expansion scheme on 31 December.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The business expansion scheme was extended in 1988 for a limiting period for qualifying investment in private rented housing companies to stimulate investors' interest in a sector which has received little encouragement for many years. By the end of 1992–93, the BES had attracted some £2.1 billion for housing companies, and it is estimated that some 40,000 units of rented accommodation have been provided as a result. Any proposal for future tax policy are a matter for the Budget to be presented on 30 November.

  Private Investment Projects
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Treasury does not undertake or sponsor the sorts of large public investment projects with which private capital is generally associated. It has, however, used leasing for office equipment. The Treasury will explore the scope for further use of private finance where this can be justified on value for money grounds. Such opportunities will be evaluated on the basis of the published Treasury guidance on private finance.

  Executive Share Option Scheme
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic effects of continuing tax relief on executive share options since the March 1993 Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tax relief for approved executive share option schemes is intended to help companies to attract, retain and motivate key executives. A report on employee share schemes by KPMG Management Consulting was published in 1991; and the relief is kept under regular review.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the most recent estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on executive share option schemes in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates are as follows:

  £million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Approved discretionary share option schemes

  45

  55

  European Community
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what esimate he has made of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community over the next three financial years.
  120
  Sir John Cope
  A forecast of the United Kingdom's net contribution to EC institutions, for the years to 1995–96, was given in table 11.1 of the Chancellor's departmental report—Cm 2217—published in February 1993. A revised forecast, covering the years to 1996–97, will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" on 30 November.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC in 1992–93; by what amount this is different from the estimates made prior to April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The estimated outturn for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community in 1992–93 is £1,810 million, £653 million lower than the forecast given in table 68 of the Chancellor's departmental report in February 1992—Cm 1918. The main reasons for a lower level of net payments than originally forecast were higher structural fund receipts than had been forecast and lower gross contributions, mainly as a consequence of a lower UK share of gross contributions resulting from adjustments to the VAT and fourth resources paid in December 1992 and lower agricultural and sugar levies and customs duties.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) of 12 July,Official Report, columns 367–68, to include estimates for 1994–95 based upon changes already announced in the 1993 Budget and assuming indexation otherwise.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimates for 1994–95 are shown in the table. The figures are based on the conventional assumption of no further changes in interest rates.

  Mortgage interest relief by range of total income1:

  Numbers 000's

  Range of total income1 (lower limit) £

  Number of single people or married couples benefiting from mortgage interest Relief Thousands

  Average mortgage interest relief—

  Cost of mortgage interest relief—million

  0

  840

  300

  250

  5,000

  1,050

  270

  280

  10,000

  2,080

  320

  670

  15,000

  2,260

  360

  810

  20,000

  1,360

  380

  510

  25,000

  910

  400

  360

  30,000

  800

  400

  330

  40,000

  700

  420

  290

  Total

  10,000

  350

  3,500

  1 Total income of husband for married couples.

  Child Care
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on revenues in 1994–95 and in a full year of extending the income tax exemption for workplace nurseries as a benefit in kind to(a) child care cheques and vouchers and (b) other employer assistance into child care; and what the effects would be if the relief were limited to the basic rate.
  121
  Mr. Dorrell
  Exempting all forms of existing employer assistance for child care would have a revenue cost at 1993–94 levels of provision and subsidies of approximately £5 million. There is insufficient information to sub-divide this estimate. If such a measure were introduced there would be substantial behavioural effects.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer of 9 March,Official Report, columns 507–8, giving estimates for 1994–95 and for a full year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1994–95 will depend on the levels of invalidity benefit and on tax rates and allowances for that year. The latest estimates for 1993–94 were given in reply to the hon. Member on 21 June 1993, at column 12.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 25 June,Official Report, column 328, what was the corporation tax liability of the 25 largest profitable United Kingdom groups in 1992 both in cash and constant 1987 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The tax assessments currently available are an insufficient basis on which to produce reliable estimates.

  Banking Systems
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the level of United Kingdom liabilities, for sterling and for foreign currencies, and the level of United Kingdom claims, for sterling and foreign currencies, with the banking systems of(a) the British Virgin islands, (b) the Cayman islands, (c) Guernsey, (d) the Isle of Man and (e) Jersey at 30 June.

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

  BT Share Offer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the administrative costs of the third BT share offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The costs of to the Government, during the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94, of the third BT share offer are estimated to be as follows:

  £ million

  Advisers' fees and expenses

  4.7

  Share Information Office

  10.5

  Marketing

  16.1

  Receiving and Agent Bank operations

  18.5

  International Tender Offer and Share Shop Commissions

  44.5

  Overseas Offers

  0.9

  Total

  95.2

  These costs represent about 1.8 per cent. of the total proceeds due from the sale of shares to the Government,
  122
  which are estimated at £5,333 million. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government, which are not net costs to the Exchequer.

  Tax Ready Reckoner
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information provided in the Treasury's "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" on the basis of the September retail prices index.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: Updated information for tables 2 to 6 is as follows.

  Figures for tables 7 to 9 have not been revised as these are not dependent on the September retail prices index.

  Table 2—Income Tax

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Personal allowance

  3,445

  3,515

  Personal allowance aged (age 65–74)

  4,200

  4,280

  Personal allowance (age 75 and over)

  4,370

  4,450

  Married couple's allowance

  1,720

  1,760

  Married couple's allowance (age 65–74)

  2,465

  12,715

  Married couple's allowance (age 75 and over)

  2,505

  12,755

  Additional personal2 and widow's bereavement allowance

  1,720

  1,760

  Aged income limit3

  14,200

  14,500

  Lower rate band

  2,500

  43,000

  Basic rate limit5

  23,700

  24,200

  1 Includes the extra £200 proposed in the March Budget to ensure that basic rate taxpayers aged 65 and over lose no more from the restriction of the married couple's allowance to 20 per cent. than basic rate taxpayers under 65.

  2 Primarily for single parents.

  3 If the total income, less allowable deductions, of a taxpayer aged 65 or over exceeds this limit, the age-related allowances are reduced by £1 for each £2 of income over the limit until the basic levels of the personal and married couple's allowances are reached.

  4 This is the level proposed in the March Budget. If the band for 1993–94 were indexed, the 1994–95 band would be £2,600.

  5 Higher rate income tax is payable on income—less those allowances and reliefs that are allowed at the higher rate—in excess of the-basic rate limit.

  Table 3—Inheritance tax

  £'000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Threshold

  150

  153

  Table 4—Capital gains tax

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual exempt amount:

  Individuals

  5,800

  6,000

  Trustees

  2,900

  3,000

  Table 5—Costs of indexation for 1994–95

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Indexation of income tax allowances and basic rate limit1

  580

  790

  Of which:

  Increases in allowances

  450

  600

  Increase in the basic rate limit'

  130

  190

  Indexation of inheritance tax threshold

  10

  20

  Indexation of capital gains annual exempt amount

  —

  5

  123

  1 Cost includes the consequential effects on capital gains tax, but excludes the cost of the increase in the lower rate band from £2,500 to £3,000, and of the £200 increase in the married couple's allowance for taxpayers aged 65 or over, proposed in the March 1993 Budget.

  2 Additional cost after previous change has been introduced.

  Table 6—Direct effects of illustrative changes in direct taxes1

  £ million cost/yield

  1994–95

  1995–96

  INCOME TAX2

  Rates

  Change lower rate by 1p3

  390

  220

  Change basic rate by 1p

  1,600

  1,900

  Change higher rate by 1p

  270

  440

  Allowances

  Change personal allowance by £100

  470

  600

  Change age-related personal allowances by £1004

  45

  60

  Change married couple's allowance by £l005

  140

  190

  Change age-related married couple's allowance by £1004

  12

  16

  Change aged income limit by £500

  5

  9

  Change all personal allowances by 1 per cent6

  170

  230

  Change all personal allowances by 10 per cent6

  1,700

  2,250

  Change married couple's and related allowances by 1 per cent.6

  25

  35

  Change married couple's and related allowances by 10 per cent6

  280

  360

  Lower rate band

  Increase lower rate band by 10 per cent.6

  240

  310

  Basic rate limit

  Change basic rate limit by 1 per cent.6

  55

  80

  Change basic rate limit by 10 per cent.6:

  increase (cost)

  500

  720

  decrease (yield)

  630

  890

  Allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit

  Change all main allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit by 1 per cent.6

  290

  380

  Change all main allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit by 10 per cent6:

  increase (cost)

  2,800

  3,650

  decrease (yield)

  3,050

  4,000

  CORPORATION TAX7

  Change full rate by 1 percentage point

  390

  630

  Change small companies' rate by 1 percentage point8

  70

  110

  CAPITAL GAINS TAX9

  Change annual exempt amount by £500 for individuals and £250 for trustees

  0

  6

  INHERITANCE TAX9

  Change rate by 1 percentage point

  14

  31

  Increase threshold by £5,000

  14

  29

  1 The estimated revenue effects of the changes on receipts are rounded. The extent of rounding reflects the desire to avoid undue compounding of its effects when numbers are pro-rated, rather than the accuracy of the estimates.

  2 The figures for income tax changes include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax. Changes are assumed to take effect from April 1994.

  3 Including the effects of the change on receipts of advance corporation tax and on consequent liability to mainstream corporation tax.

  4 Allowances for those aged 65–74 and aged 75 and over.

  5 Figures include revenue effects of changing the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowances by £100.

  6 Percentage changes are calculated with reference to 1993–94 levels

  7 Assessment to corporation tax normally relates to the preceding year.

  124
  These estimates are the changes to revenue that would occur if the changed rates were applied to profits from 1 April 1993.

  8 These figures ignore effects arising from the imputation system.

  9 These changes are assumed to take effect from April 1994.

DEFENCE

  Next Steps
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department is responding to the next steps initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's response to next steps is part of the major programme of defence management reform in train. Next steps, in line with the principles of the citizens charter, places particular emphasis on efficiency, standards of service to customers and value for money. The Ministry of Defence's support organisations provide services to internal and external customers, but their primary role is to support the operational units in their delivery of military capability. Higher standards of service and performance will enhance the overall effectiveness of our defence capability.

  Areas now under review include the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation, the naval marine services organisation, RN training, Army logistic information systems, Army Engineer Services, RAF signals, and test and evaluation.

  We are increasing the scale of this. Our aim is to extend the next steps programme to all significant defence support areas. This means that we shall also consider for defence agency status the whole of the naval support organisation including the naval bases and the storage and distribution function; the recruiting, pay and some personnel systems for each of the services; those schools not already in agencies; Army individual training; significant further elements of Army logistics in the base areas and RAF logistics; the medical organisations of each service; human factors research; tri-service communications systems; the Defence lands organisation; and elements of the procurement executive.

  There is no presumption that an organisation included in this list will become an agency. This is a process which involves, inter alia, consideration of operational implications and of prior options, including privatisation and contracting out. Final decisions will be taken case-by-case if it is clear that the best solution is to retain the activity within the Ministry of Defence. Our aim is to have prepared the selected organisations for launch as defence agencies over the period to mid-1996. We expect to have completed a substantial part of the programme by mid-1995.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what means exist for the on-site treatment at AWE Aldermaston of solid radioactive wastes arising from operations at the site.

  Mr. Aitken
  Apart from limited compaction facilities, there are no facilities at AWE for the treatment of solid radioactive waste. All solid radioactive wastes are either disposed via authorised routes, such as Drigg, or stored safely and securely pending the availability of the Nirex repository.
  125
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in resolving the outstanding problems of radioactive waste management, with particular reference to the disposal of radioactive resins arising from submarine reactors, and the measurement and categorisation of plutonium contaminated material, identified at paragraph 6.9 of the 12th annual report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 13 May 1993, at column 571.

  Flag Exercises
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the squadrons whose crew have participated in flag exercises in north America since 1985, giving in each case(a) the date and name of the flag exercise and (b) the location of the squadron's work-up training prior to the exercise.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of RAF participation in red-green flag exercises are not held centrally and information covering all of the period in question could be provided only at disproprotionate cost and effort. From 1988 however, the information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Name

  Squadrons

  October/November 1988

  89–1

  Numbers 15, 16, 17, 56, 92

  April1 1989

  89–3

  Numbers 14, 27, 617

  April 1990

  90–3

  Numbers 16, 16, 31

  April 1991

  91–3

  Numbers 1, 3, 4

  January/February 1992

  93–1

  Numbers 2, 5, 9, 11, 29, 47, 55, 617

  Details on Maple flag exercises are also not held centrally. The exercise takes place in May to June of each year, and RAF participation usually comprises either Jaguars and Harriers, which usually attend in alternate years.

  Most substantive work-up training for flag exercises takes place either in the United Kingdom or at Goose Bay in Canada.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft, and of what types, took part in the tactical leadership course at RAF Lossiemouth in May 1992; how many low-level sorties were undertaken; and how many of these were authorised down to a height of 100 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The tactical leadership training course held at RAF Lossiemouth in May 1992 involved eight Tornado GR1, two Tornado GR1a, six Tornado F3, four Harrier GR5, two Harrier GR7, four Buccaneer and four Hawk aircraft. Ninety-two low-level sorties were flown overland; none of them was authorised down to a height of 100 ft.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations are contained in Joint Services Publication 318 concerning low-level flight over areas of concentrated population and public assemblies.

  Mr. Hanley
  Joint Services Publication 318 requires that aircraft flying over areas of concentrated population do 126
  so at sufficient height to permit a safe emergency landing outside the congested area—not less than 2,000 ft above ground level for fixed-wing aircraft and 1,000 ft for helicopters. If weather or other factors mean that sufficient height cannot be maintained, such areas are to be avoided unless doing so would endanger the aircraft. Flying over any place where a large number of people are assembled is prohibited below 1,000 ft except when specially authorised, or when it is necessary to do so while carrying out the arrival or departure procedure at an airfield or heliport. These regulations do not apply to aircraft participating in air displays or flypasts, to which separate procedures apply.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to extending the system by which aircrew entering a low-flying area broadcast their presence on a common military radio frequency, in such a way as to permit civil pilots to receive such broadcasts.

  Mr. Hanley
  At present there is no system for aircrew entering a low-flying area to broadcast their presence on a common military frequency.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of days in 1992 on which the observed weather was below the minima required for military low flying at(a) RAF Tain, (b) RAF Spadeadam, (c) RAF Wainfleet and (d) Pembrey.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the format requested. The total number of hours lost in 1992 due to adverse weather at each range is, however, as follows:

  Range

  Number of hours lost

  RAF Tain

  152

  RAF Spadeadam1

  Nil

  RAF Wainfleet

  180

  RAF Pembrey

  340

  1 RAF Spadeadam is an all-weather facility.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft, and of what types, took part in the tactical leadership course(a) at RAF St. Mawgan in March and (b) at RAF Chivenor in November-December 1992; how many low-level sorties were undertaken; and how many of these were authorised down to a height of 100 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The tactical leadership training course held at RAF St. Mawgan in March 1993 involved six Tornado GR1, seven Tornado F3, four Buccaneer, four Sea Harrier, two Nimrod and one Sea King aircraft. Fourteen low-level sorties were flown overland. The helicopter tactics instructor course held at RAF Chivenor in November to December 1992 involved three Chinook, three Puma, two Wessex, three Harrier GR7, three Tornado GR1 and three Tornado F3 aircraft. Fifty-nine low-level sorties were flown overland, each involving two helicopters and one or two fast jets. No fixed-wing aircraft sorties were authorised down to a height of 100 ft during either course.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and numbers of aircraft involved in training detachments of Harrier aircraft to West Freugh
  127
  since 1990; how many low-level sorties have been undertaken during these deployments; and which location is now the principal location for night low-level training for the RAF Harrier force.

  Mr. Hanley
  Training detachments of Harrier aircraft were held at West Freugh between 18 to 27 November 1991, 28 September to 2 October 1992, and 4 to 8 October 1993. Eight aircraft were deployed on each occasion. A total of 80 low-level sorties were flown during the three detachments. RAF Harrier night low-flying training is conducted throughout the UK night low-flying system.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR7 pilots have received night low-level training at US Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona; when the training programme commenced; how many sorties are required for each pilot to qualify to fly the aircraft at low level at night; what is the minimum altitude flown during the training; how many aircraft are currently committed to the task; and what is the additional cost of carrying out this training at Yuma rather than(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) at Goose Bay, Canada.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fifteen Harrier GR7 pilots have received night low-level training at United States Marine Corps air station, Yuma. There has only been one detachment to date which took place between 13 April and 12 May 1993. Each pilot, who must already be combat ready by day, must complete a syllabus of 36 sorties in order to qualify as night combat ready. The syllabus includes a mixture of low and medium-level sorties with a minimum altitude flown of 200 ft. Twelve aircraft are currently committed to the task. The additional cost of carrying out this training at Yuma rather than the United Kingdom or Goose Bay is approximately £250,000, as the squadron pilots and groundcrew have to be accommodated commercially. There is also the opportunity cost of the air transport and tanker aircraft required to deploy and recover the aircraft.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the institution of disciplinary proceedings against military aircrew in respect of unpremeditated or inadvertent breaches of flying regulations which come to light as a result of reports submitted under(a) the CONDOR system, (b) the APHAZ reporting system and (c) the air miss reporting system.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no current record of reports submitted under the CONDOR system bringing to light cases of unpremeditated or inadvertent breaches of flying regulations. To take disciplinary action in such circumstances however, directly as the result of a CONDOR report, could seriously undermine a system which depends for its success on its confidentiality and which is of great value in assisting the furtherance of flight safety in the RAF. Under the air miss and APHAZ reporting systems, where aircrew are found to have been negligent, their unit commanders will take disciplinary action under the Air Force Act. The degree of the disciplinary action depends on the nature of the breach.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the categories of incident during military aircraft flying operations which are required to be reported under the CONDOR system.
  128
  Mr. Hanley
  The confidential direct occurrence report —CONDOR—system allows aircrew and ATC personnel to report human error incidents anonymously. There are no categories of incident under the CONDOR system.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many instances of unauthorised penetration of controlled or restricted airspace in the United Kingdom by military aircraft climbing out from low level have been reported in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of reported incidents of unauthorised penetration of United Kingdom controlled and/or restricted airspace by military aircraft climbing out from low level is as follows:

  Year

  No. of incidents

  1987

  3

  1988

  6

  1989

  5

  1990

  7

  1991

  0

  1992

  4

  1993

  12

  1 To date.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received since 1981 from civil aviation interests seeking relaxation of the rules prohibiting entry into the highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1981 the national air traffic services have received 79 requests for entry into the highlands restricted area from a total of 20 civil aviation operators.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations in the United Kingdom low-flying system where flow control has been(a) introduced and (b) withdrawn since the information given by his Department to the Defence Committee inquiry into low flying in 1989–90; and if he will state in each case the direction of the required flow.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. In September 1993, however, the Civil Aviation Authority published a chart entitled "The Chart of UK Areas of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA), Aerial Tactics Areas (ATA) and Military Low Flying System" showing details of all current unidirectional flow controls in the United Kingdom low-flying system. A copy of the chart will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases have occurred of unauthorised entry of aircraft into the highlands restricted area, in contravention of Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 1171; and what action was taken against the aircrew involved.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military aircraft are not subject to Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 1171.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles, dates and type of aircraft involved in all planned RAF participation in flag and similar air exercises in north America over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft planned to take part in the exercises are as follows:
  129

  Dates–1994

  Exercise

  Aircraft Type

  January/February

  Red Rag 94–2

  Tornado GR1s

  May/June

  Maple Flag

  Jaguars

  June/July

  Cope Thunder/Distant Frontier

  Tornado GR1s and F3s

  August/September

  Air Warrior

  Harriers

  October/November

  Red Flag 95–1

  Tornado GR1s and F3s

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the rules governing interception of low-flying aircraft by air defence aircraft in flow control areas of the United Kingdom low-flying system. Mr. Hanley: Where air defence aircraft intercept low-flying aircraft in flow control areas of the United Kingdom low-flying system, all aircraft must be flown in compliance with the direction of the flow control.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft, and of what types, took parl in the tactical leadership course at RAF St. Mawgan in October 1992; how many low-level sorties were undertaken; and how many of these were authorised down to a height of 100 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The tactical leadership training course held at RAF St. Mawgan in October 1992 involved six Tornado GR1, five Tornado F3, four Jaguar, four Buccaneer, two Hawk and two Sea Harrier aircraft. One hundred and six low-level sorties were flown overland; none of them were authorised down to a height of 100 ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown by British military aircraft in each of the 250 low-flying areas in Germany in each month in 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  There were a total of 21,100 recorded entries by British military fixed-wing aircraft into the 250 low-flying areas in the Federal Republic of Germany during 1989. A breakdown by month and area is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current requirement for Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots to maintain qualifications to fly at less than 250 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no current requirement for Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots to maintain qualifications to fly at less than 250 ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown over the United Kingdom by the two German Air Force Tornados which were deployed to RAF Mildenhall between 19 and 21 July; and what was the minimum authorised altitude for each sortie.

  Mr. Hanley
  No low-level sorties were flown.

  Mr.Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the purposes of the deployments of two Norwegian Air Force F16s to RAF Lakenheath(a) from 6 to 11 July and (b) from 20 to 22 July; how many low-level
  130
  sorties they undertook in the United Kingdom; and what was their minimum authorised altitude while flying in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  The two Norwegian F16 aircraft were deployed to RAF Lakenheath to participate with USAF aircraft in air-to-air training over the North sea. The aircraft did not undertaken any low-level sorties; the minimum height at which they were authorised to fly in the United Kingdom was 2,000 ft.

  Secretariat (Air Staff) 2b
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the functions of Secretariat (Air Staff) 2b; and how many staff have been employed there in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Secretariat (Air Staff) 2b is responsible for advising on the policy and political aspects of the United Kingdom military low-flying system and dealing with the staffing of public complaints and inquiries about low-flying training.

  The number of staff employed in that section in each year since 1979 is:

  Year

  Number

  1979–83

  6 0

  1984

  7.5

  1985–86

  7.0

  1987–88

  8.0

  1989

  11.5

  1990

  13.5

  1991

  10.5

  1992–93

  8.5

  Note: Excludes 50 per cent, of one principal grade responsible for whole of Secretariat (Air Staff) 2 throughout the period.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's research and development programmes in the areas listed in appendix II to the annex to the summary of the final report of the NATO CCMS pilot study on aircraft noise in a modern society.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is involved in several studies to further the understanding of noise associated with military aircraft. In parallel, we continue to develop noise modelling and prediction capabilities. In collaboration with authorities in the United States and Canada we have completed initial work into the feasibility of a study to investigate the possible effects on health of noise from low-flying aircraft, and a report is being prepared. In the case of airspace management, a contract has been let to develop an automated low-flying flight planning enquiry and notification system— ALFENS.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the final report of the NATO CCMS pilot study of aircraft noise in a modern society.

  Mr. Hanley
  The NATO CCMS pilot study on aircraft noise was completed in 1989. A follow-up group was created the following year to implement its technical recommendations. This group exchanges information
  131
  between participating countries and encourages individual or multinational studies. The United Kingdom contributed to a major symposium on helicopter noise, sponsored by NATO CCMS and held in the USA, and is currently participating in collaborative working parties engaged in noise modelling around airports and in the investigation and modelling of helicopter noise.

  RAF Flying, Turkey
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum permitted altitude for Royal Air Force aircraft flying over Turkey.

  Mr. Hanley
  RAF aircraft do not conduct any low flying over Turkey. If low flying were carried out, however, the minimum altitude would normally be 500 ft, although flying down to 250 ft could be permitted when undertaking practice bombing runs.

  Tornado
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the minimum authorised altitudes for the flights by two German Air Force Tornados from RAF Lakenheath on the evening of 26 July.

  Mr. Hanley
  Two thousand feet.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the deployment of Italian Air Force Tornados to RAF Honington from(a) 23–24 July 1992 and (b) 12 July to 6 August 1993; what was the date of their departure and their destination; how many low-level sorties they undertook in the United Kingdom; and what was their minimum authorised altitude while flying in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  Italian Air Force Tornado aircraft were deployed to RAF Honington between 23 July and 7 August 1992, and between 12 July and 6 August 1993, to conduct low-flying training and use the electonic weapons training range at Spadeadam. The aircraft subsequently returned to bases in Italy. The number of low-level sorties flown during these deployments could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. The aircraft were athorised to operate down to 500 ft in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken concerning the viability of repairing Tornado GRI serial number ZA597 since its accident in November 1983.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force decided, based on an assessment carried out in 1983 on the damage incurred, that it was viable to repair the aircraft.

  Challenger 2
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to confirm the order of the second batch of Challenger 2 tanks.

  Mr. Aitken
  A number of options for equipping the Army's Challenger 1 tank regiments have been examined; these include the possibility of a further purchase of CR2 tanks. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision on the way ahead has been reached.

  Imphal Barracks, York
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the capital value at current prices of the office accommodation at Imphal barracks, York used at present by Army manning and records staff.

  Mr. Hanley
  The capital value of individual sites on the Defence estate is commercial-in-confidence. The office accommodation currently used by the manning and record office is in the centre of the Imphal barracks site and therefore has no realisable value. The intention is to find other defence uses for the office space once the MRO functions move to Glasgow.

  Naval Forces (Maintenance Payments)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes to the provisions in the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act 1947 relating to the limitations on authorisations of deduction of maintenance from an individual's pay to cases where the service person concerned has actually attended or been represented at the court hearing.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such changes to the provisions of the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act 1947 as were deemed necessary were made in the Child Support Act 1991 (Consequential Amendments) Order 1993.

  Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an offer to the Government of Paraguay for a military officer to undertake a course at the Royal Military academy, Sandhurst; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of training provided for overseas military personnel are not normally disclosed as they are confidential between Governments.

  Devonport and Rosyth Dockyards
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maximum level of foreign involvement in the ownership and management he envisages in the successful bidder for the ownership of Devonport and Rosyth royal dockyards.

  Mr. Aitken
  No decisions have been taken about ownership restrictions, but the Government accept the need for appropriate safeguards.

  Barracks (Tenders)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies which have been invited to tender for the design and construction of married service men's quarters at Redford barracks, new works for junior ranks at Redford barracks and works at Glencorse barracks; and if he will now give further consideration to the case for inviting suitable companies based in Lothian region to tender for these works.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following companies have been invited to tender for the design and construction of married service men's quarters at Redford barracks:
  133

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  West Lothian

  John Laing Construction Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  Wimpey Construction Ltd.

  Glasgow

  Mowlem Scotland Ltd.

  Glasgow

  Alfred McAlpine

  Glasgow

  Miller Construction

  Edinburgh

  The tender lists for the new works for Junior Ranks at Redford barracks have not been finalised.

  The following have been invited to tender for the works at Glencorse barracks:

  Hall and Tawse Scotland Ltd.

  Aberdeen

  John Laing Construction Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  M. J. Gleeson Group Pic.

  Stirling

  Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  There are no plans to add further companies to the tender lists for married service men's quarters at Redford barracks and Glencorse barracks.

  Civil Servant Posts
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civil servant posts have been privatised or contracted out between 1 January 1988 and 1 September 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 9,562 MOD civil service posts have been contracted out since 1 April 1988. Figures are collected by financial year.

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such projects have commenced in my Department since the 1992 autumn statement. Work is, however, continuing on the proposal to establish a new non-profit-making organisation in the private sector to assume responsibility for the ownership and management of the married quarter estate in Great Britain.

  RAF East Camp, Hendon
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who owns the narrow bridge adjacent to the Royal Air Force east camp at Hendon; what assessment he has made of the effect of the existence of this bridge on the possibility of disposing of the site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The two bridges adjacent to the Royal Air Force east camp at Hendon are both owned by British Rail and, at present, only single-lane road traffic can pass beneath them. Employment-generating development, would be road traffic intensive and would require, inter alia, the widening of the bridges, at the prospective developer's significant expense. A use which generates a lower volume of road traffic would reduce the need for infrastructural improvements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Discussions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communications he has received outlining the contents of the recent discussions between the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Gerry Adams; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House on 1 November at columns 19–21.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list for the last 10 years the archaeological moated grange sites that have been demolished;

  (2) if he will list the archaeological moated grange sites that are due to be lost because of planning permission approval being granted.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no known moated grange sites in Northern Ireland.

  Bypasses
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government plans to construct the bypass for(a) Magherafelt, (b) Cookstown, (c) Newtownstewart and (d) Omagh.

  Mr. Atkins
  Magherafelt bypass and Newtownstewart bypass are included in the Department's six to 15-year major road works programme. Whilst Cookstown eastern distributor road is not presently included in this programme, its position is currently being reviewed.

  The first stage of the Omagh throughpass was completed in 1990 while work on the second stage is programmed to start in 1995–96.

  The precise timing of all schemes is subject to future funding levels.

  Fire Certificates
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of the rules regarding fire certificates to Government offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Fire certificates for Government offices in Northern Ireland are issued by the Department of Economic Development under the provisions of the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. The standards which have to be met by Government offices are identical to those which apply to offices in the private sector.

  Republic of Ireland Ministers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next proposes to meet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland; and what topics he will discuss.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I look forward to meeting Ministers of the Republic of Ireland at the forthcoming Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. Discussions are likely to range over a variety of topics, including the security situation in Northern Ireland, political developments, and social and economic themes.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 9 September 1993 there were 108,003 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland—14.4 per cent. of the work force—representing a decrease of 1,388 compared with the previous month and a decrease of 2,383 compared with September 1992.

  Joy Riding
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many joy-riding road accidents have occurred in the Province leading to(a) deaths and (b) injury in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of road accidents involving stolen vehicles that led to deaths were as follows:

  Number

  1989

  1

  1990

  2

  1991

  4

  1992

  0

  Statistics on fatal accidents involving stolen vehicles prior to 1989 and on accidents involving stolen vehicles causing injury are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many confirmed cases of BSE were reported between 1 January 1992 and 30 September 1992 from each county in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  County

  Total

  Antrim

  68

  Armagh

  10

  Down

  39

  Fermanagh

  13

  Londonderry

  29

  Tyrone

  49

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of overseas aid funding actually granted by Her Majesty's Government in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total aid in 1980 to 1992–93 including assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union was as follows:

  £million

  1980

  966

  1981

  1,184

  1982

  1,085

  136

  £million

  1983

  1,174

  1984

  1,316

  1985

  1.324

  1986

  1,350

  1987

  1,295

  11987–88

  1,410

  1988–89

  1,616

  1989–90

  1,800

  1990–91

  1,908

  1991–92

  2,131

  21992–93

  2,391

  1 Prior to 1987–88, British Aid Statistics was produced on a calendar year basis.

  2 This figure is provisional pending publication of 1993 British Aid Statistics.

  Environment and Development Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 265, what was the financial contribution his Department made in support of the Partnerships for Change conference in Manchester.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration did not make a financial contribution in support of the conference.

  Paraguay
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all financial aid projects currently being made by the United Kingdom to Paraguay, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom's small aid programme to Paraguay involves technical co-operation rather than financial aid. The bulk of the programme is focused on the natural resources sector. It currently comprises the following projects:assistance with a major economic review of the livestock sub-sector;
  capability strengthening programme with Pro-Paraguay—the organisation responsible for promoting Paraguayan exports and attracting foreign investment;
  United Kingdom training programme—involving scholarships for some 14 Paraguayans annually;
  assistance in undertaking a post-census assessment survey.

  The ODA is also supporting a number of non-governmental organisation projects in Paraguay through its joint funding scheme.

EDUCATION

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding changes in VAT with regard to schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Taxation policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Department has, however, received several letters about the implications of extending VAT to areas not currently taxed.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he issues as to co-operation between local education authorities and the grant-maintained schools in their areas as a method of enhancing educational provision.

  Mr. Patten
  My Department has recently issued a consultation letter on co-ordinated admissions arrangements between schools and LEAs and will be looking to produce further guidance early next year. The special educational needs code of practice, issued in draft last week, emphasises co-operation between all schools and LEAs in the interests of children with special educational needs. A circular on provision for under-fives is also planned and guidance will be issued shortly on school transport.

  23. Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional resources are available for the expansion of popular grant-maintained schools; what are the criteria for obtaining available resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The popularity of schools is one of the factors taken into account, where relevant, when determining capital allocations between self-governing schools.

  In 1993–94, £56 million was distributed for capital projects in self-governing schools.

  In addition, all self-governing schools receive a pupil-based capital allocation which also provides a direct link between popularity and funding.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the number of(a) secondary and (b) primary schools which have taken on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 514 secondary schools and 182 primary schools are now enjoying the independence that self-governing status brings. This gives a total of 696 GM schools—over three times the number that were operating on the day of the general eleciion last year. A further 16 secondary schools and 37 primary schools are already approved for self-governing status and we look forward to welcoming them to the sector in January and April next year.

  Many parents are deciding that self-governing status is right for their children's schools. In particular there has been a rapid increase in the number of primary schools opting for GM status. Over one third of all primary school ballots have taken place since 1 April this year.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in each of the seven counties of the south-west; how many applications have now been approved but not yet come into effect; and how many applications are awaiting approval.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  County

  GM Schools

  Approvals

  Proposals under consideration

  Avon

  2

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  5

  1

  1

  138

  County

  GM Schools

  Approvals

  Proposals under consideration

  Dorset

  10

  —

  1

  Gloucestershire

  27

  2

  4

  Somerset

  2

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  15

  1

  8

  Total

  61

  5

  14

  In addition, there are five schools in the south-west which have voted "yes" in ballots but which have yet to submit applications, all 11 schools where there are ballots pending.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have now achieved grant-maintained status; how many more schools he expects to achieve this status in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are 696 self-governing schools in England. A further 65 are already approved for self-governing status and 118 more have application in the pipeline or ballots pending.

  Self-governing status is the best form of management for schools and we are confident that schools which have not yet taken the opportunity to embark on the GM process will do so in increasing numbers. We hope that over time all schools will become self-governing, but this will be determined by parents in ballots.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the special purpose grants—VAT —given to each grant-maintained school for each financial year since 1991–92, including the current year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: The information is given in the table.

  Grant-maintained Schools Payments of Special Purpose Grant (VAT)

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  Abbotswood Middle School

  —

  1,538

  3,846

  Abraham Darby School

  —

  —

  644

  Acle High School

  —

  1,271

  174

  Adams' Grammar School

  25,340

  28,477

  14,562

  Alcester Grammar School

  —

  —

  5,613

  Alder Coppice Primary

  —

  —

  266

  Aldridge School

  —

  —

  947

  All Hallows RC School

  —

  —

  29,619

  All Saints CE Primary School

  —

  —

  188

  All Saints CE Primary School

  —

  —

  754

  All Saints RC School

  —

  —

  4,484

  Aloeric School

  —

  671

  1,250

  Alperton High School

  —

  —

  1.283

  Andoversford Primary School

  —

  —

  196

  Anglo European School

  —

  —

  437

  Appleby Grammar School

  —

  —

  2,708

  Applemore Technology School

  —

  —

  296

  Archbishop Temple School

  —

  —

  16,026

  Archbishop Tenision's School

  —

  —

  18,947

  Amewood School

  —

  8,615

  15,945

  Ashton on Mersey School

  —

  —

  2,474

  Ashton St. Peters Lower

  —

  —

  595

  Atherstone Upper

  —

  3,889

  —

  Audenshaw High School

  2,758

  9,897

  4,878

  Aylesford School

  —

  —

  5,082

  Bacup and Rawenstall Grammar School

  7,392

  10,158

  6,093

  Baines School

  —

  38,201

  20,060

  Balcarras School

  —

  1,659

  1,590

  Bankfield High School

  —

  —

  1,240

  139

  School

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  11993–94£

  Barnehurst Infants School

  —

  2,344

  1,065

  Barnehurst Junior School

  —

  1,652

  894

  Barton Court Grammar School

  —

  —

  575

  Bay House Grant-Maintained School

  —

  —

  1,365

  Beacon School

  —

  17,644

  9,220

  Beanfield Junior School

  —

  —

  270

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  —

  11,388

  1,598

  Beechen Cliff School

  8,878

  13,350

  7,124

  Beechview Middle School

  —

  —

  1,280

  Belmont Primary School

  —

  6,257

  3,366

  Bexley Erith Technical Boys School

  —

  —

  261

  Bingley Grammar School

  28,102

  51,517

  26,162

  Bishop Stanford's School

  —

  619

  4,260

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  —

  —

  32,176

  Bishopshalt School

  9,083

  21,291

  —

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne RC High School

  —

  —

  3,134

  Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic High School

  —

  —

  2,775

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained School

  —

  —

  1,551

  Bohunt Community School

  —

  —

  336

  Borough Green Primary School

  —

  1,652

  1,314

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  —

  1,550

  660

  Bourne Primary School

  2,928

  5,599

  2,768

  Bournemouth Girls School

  —

  3,612

  1,537

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  16,820

  3,375

  3,888

  Brampton Junior School

  —

  —

  140

  Branston School and Community College

  —

  —

  1,355

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  —

  —

  4,014

  Bromsgrove CE Middle School

  —

  —

  1,642

  Bruton Primary School

  —

  2,503

  1,932

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  12,802

  18,004

  1,689

  Burgate School

  3,884

  10,817

  2,907

  Burntwood School

  3,089

  23,091

  3,421

  Bushey Hall School

  —

  —

  18

  Bushey Meads GM School

  —

  —

  4,638

  Caistor School

  4,418

  8,625

  4,580

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  —

  —

  5,742

  Calmore GM Middle School

  —

  —

  1,005

  Canon Slade School

  —

  —

  41,139

  Cardinal Griffin RC School

  —

  —

  3,240

  Cardinal Hinsley High School

  —

  —

  3,862

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  47,613

  54,179

  28,038

  Carre's Grammar School

  21,790

  26,897

  —

  Cartmel Priory CE School

  —

  —

  1,308

  Castle Hall GM School

  —

  6,421

  4,113

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  —

  6,169

  6,652

  Castlefield Combined School

  —

  —

  88

  Castleview Combined School

  —

  —

  594

  Chalvedon School

  —

  4,724

  5,136

  Chapel St. Leonards County Primary School

  —

  —

  154

  Charlton School

  —

  —

  338

  Charville Primary School

  —

  —

  683

  Chatham Grammar School

  —

  2,096

  3,579

  Chellaston Junior School

  —

  —

  157

  Chelmer Valley High School

  —

  —

  7

  Chelmsford County High School

  —

  2,844

  1,287

  Cheltenham Boumside School and Sixth Form Centre

  —

  —

  327

  Chipping Camden School

  —

  2,819

  6,570

  Chosen Hill School

  —

  2,978

  7,104

  Christ Church CE JMI School, Chorley

  —

  7,757

  3,930

  Churchdown School

  —

  10,051

  7,410

  Cirencester Deer Park School

  —

  —

  668

  Clacton High School

  —

  —

  502

  Claremont High School

  2,163

  10,615

  4,098

  Cliff Park High School

  —

  —

  2,880

  Clifford First School

  —

  1,044

  1,650

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  29,006

  50,917

  29,433

  Colchester Royal Grammar

  —

  —

  1,043

  140

  School

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  11993–94£

  Collingtree CE Primary School

  —

  —

  163

  Colyton Grammar School

  7,723

  13,281

  542

  Convent of Jesus and Mary

  —

  —

  13,786

  Coopers Company and Coborn

  —

  —

  33,776

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  8,264

  17,911

  7,710

  Copland Community

  —

  2,577

  —

  Coppins Green School

  —

  —

  238

  Corbet GM School

  —

  —

  3,780

  Cranbrook School

  9,703

  43,045

  21,753

  Cranwell County Primary

  —

  —

  257

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  —

  1,803

  1,995

  Crossgates Primary School

  —

  —

  256

  Crosshall Infant School

  —

  1,262

  1,941

  Crosshall Junior School

  —

  346

  789

  Crossley Heath School

  34,283

  36,722

  19,324

  Crypt School

  —

  254

  —

  Dallam School

  —

  —

  17,774

  Dame Alice Owens School

  —

  —

  32,607

  Danesholme Junior School

  —

  —

  1,248

  Dartford Grammar School

  6,043

  10,743

  6,042

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  —

  8,601

  4,188

  Davenant Foundation School

  —

  —

  27,888

  Deacon's School

  —

  —

  1,761

  Deanery Infant School

  —

  —

  815

  Deanery Junior School

  —

  —

  857

  Deanes School

  —

  17,848

  —

  Dereham Church VA First School

  —

  5,812

  3,044

  Dollis Junior School

  —

  —

  625

  Downham Market High School

  —

  19,394

  10,746

  Downton CE VC Primary School

  —

  —

  384

  Ecclesboume School

  26,583

  35,320

  19,323

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  —

  8,427

  3,522

  Elliott School

  —

  16,574

  2,585

  Elmwood Primary School

  —

  4,688

  1,920

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  —

  8,727

  4,536

  Ermine School

  —

  2,291

  1,422

  Ethelburga Primary School

  —

  1,005

  1,058

  Fairfield High School For Girls

  —

  —

  680

  Fallibroome High School

  —

  —

  1,816

  Finchley Catholic High

  —

  —

  4,675

  Frances Bardsley School

  —

  —

  8

  Francis Bacon

  —

  1,640

  —

  Gartree School

  —

  162

  188

  George Spencer School

  —

  —

  5,064

  Glyn School

  1,684

  5,592

  7,728

  Gordon's School

  4,512

  19,254

  9,559

  Graveney School

  10,462

  17,771

  7,323

  Great Barr School

  —

  20,203

  4,822

  Great Totham County Primary School

  —

  —

  309

  Greenford High School

  —

  3,567

  1,429

  Greenwood Dale School

  —

  —

  1,936

  Gresham County Primary

  651

  2,231

  1,092

  Guildford County Secondary School

  —

  —

  371

  Gumley House Convent School

  —

  —

  28,140

  Gunnersbury Catholic School

  —

  —

  27,606

  Hall Green School

  —

  —

  1,476

  Hamilton Combined School

  —

  —

  786

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  36,135

  43,037

  22,390

  Hanson GM School

  —

  —

  2,516

  Harraby School

  —

  —

  5,814

  Hartshill School

  3

  1,490

  4,126

  Hatchford Primary School

  —

  786

  5,025

  Haydon School

  —

  4,996

  2,004

  Hayton CE Primary School

  —

  2,577

  1,308

  Heacham Middle School

  980

  2,229

  1,014

  Heanor Gate School

  —

  —

  1,333

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  12,229

  12,636

  5,922

  Henbury County High School

  —

  —

  624

  Hendon School

  12,299

  17,085

  8,794

  Heme Bay Junior School

  —

  —

  188

  Herschel Grammar School

  —

  866

  1,038

  Hertingfordbury School

  —

  1,957

  3,054

  Highams Park School

  7,680

  378

  5,013

  141

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  —

  199

  258

  Hillbrook Primary School

  —

  —

  4,042

  Hillside Infant School

  —

  —

  9

  Hillside Junior School

  —

  —

  88

  Hillview School For Girls

  —

  —

  1,554

  Holland Park Primary

  —

  —

  489

  Hollinsclough CE Primary School

  —

  —

  75

  Holly Hall School

  —

  —

  129

  Holy Cross CE Junior School

  —

  —

  236

  Holy Cross Convent School

  —

  —

  19,832

  Holy Family Combined School

  —

  2,835

  6,423

  Holy Innocents RC Primary School

  —

  2,338

  4,776

  Holy Trinity

  —

  —

  6,819

  Holy Trinity CE Middle School

  —

  —

  199

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School

  —

  —

  19,081

  Hordle CE GM Primary School

  —

  —

  414

  Huttoft County Primary School

  —

  —

  219

  Jews Free School

  —

  —

  7,565

  John Fisher School

  10,229

  41,184

  21,481

  John Paul II RC School

  —

  —

  18,847

  John Port School

  —

  —

  10,125

  Katharine Lady Berkeley School

  —

  1,220

  2,700

  Katherine's Primary School

  —

  676

  1,014

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  —

  2,445

  1,075

  Killinghall First School

  —

  —

  714

  King Edward VIAston School

  —

  —

  17,994

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys School

  —

  —

  19,028

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls School

  —

  —

  18,276

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  —

  —

  19,286

  King Edward VI G School, Chelmsford

  —

  38,694

  2,766

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Lines

  32,371

  20,893

  1,234

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  —

  —

  23,616

  King Harold School

  —

  —

  171

  King John School

  12,310

  —

  122

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  —

  —

  2,229

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  27,857

  51,592

  26,520

  La Retraite School

  12,550

  43,789

  22,851

  La Sainte Union Convent School

  —

  —

  5,261

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  —

  —

  4,090

  Lady Elizabeth Hastings CE Primary School

  —

  —

  259

  Lady Manners School

  —

  —

  2,276

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  11,269

  14,901

  7,032

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  43,674

  48,885

  25,572

  Lavington School

  —

  3,690

  3,014

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  15,158

  68,201

  34,528

  Lincroft Middle School

  —

  —

  1,229

  Linton Primary

  —

  —

  472

  Lodge Park School

  —

  —

  1,332

  London Oratory School

  93,471

  99,710

  53,360

  Lowbourne GM Infants School

  —

  —

  348

  Lowbourne Junior School

  —

  —

  187

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  —

  —

  1,158

  Magdalen CE/Meth Primary School

  2,079

  —

  454

  Malcolm Sargent County Primary School

  —

  —

  1,726

  Marling School

  17,642

  20,015

  10,146

  Marshland High School

  —

  27,412

  10,560

  Mellow Lane School

  —

  7,690

  1,749

  Mill Hill County School

  —

  11,691

  9,134

  Millbrook Infant School

  —

  —

  79

  Millbrook Junior School

  —

  —

  158

  Monks' Dyke High School

  —

  1,703

  3,210

  Montagu School

  —

  —

  408

  Motram St. Andrew Primary

  —

  —

  211

  Moulton Primary School

  3,879

  6,449

  3,237

  Myton School

  —

  2,811

  2,020

  Netherthorpe School

  38,301

  42,664

  16,650

  Newent Community School

  —

  —

  1,398

  142

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  —

  70

  645

  Newport Free Grammar School

  —

  —

  2,881

  Newstead Wood School

  —

  6,278

  2,400

  Newton CE School

  5,410

  9,566

  4,978

  Nicholas Breakspear RC School

  —

  —

  4,137

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  7,541

  23,448

  9,065

  North Rauceby Primary School

  —

  1,565

  1,096

  Northampton School for Boys

  —

  —

  3,760

  Northlands Junior School

  —

  —

  5

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  —

  —

  506

  Northwood School

  —

  8,283

  1,605

  Norwich Road School

  —

  5,204

  2,822

  Notre Dame High School

  —

  —

  3,286

  Notre Dame School

  —

  —

  4,095

  Oak Farm Infant School

  —

  1,453

  2,493

  Oak Farm Junior School

  —

  2,734

  2,940

  Oakington Manor Primary School

  —

  —

  709

  Oaklands RC Comprehensive School

  —

  —

  4,792

  Old Swinford Hospital

  30,675

  33,108

  16,764

  Oldfield School

  —

  1,474

  2,260

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  —

  —

  153

  Osidge Primary School

  —

  —

  97

  Overstone School

  —

  295

  —

  Parkside First School

  —

  2,027

  1,176

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  0

  7,440

  4,848

  Parmiters School

  30,333

  57,055

  29,076

  Pate's Grammar School

  48,033

  47,881

  24,738

  Pittville School

  —

  —

  89

  Poole Technical High School

  —

  —

  1,947

  Priory Combined School

  —

  292

  1,356

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  6,862

  5,875

  4,526

  Queen Elizabeth GM GS, Alford

  17,939

  21,883

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Horn

  —

  5,878

  2,386

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  33,923

  35,738

  18,012

  Queen Elizabeth's School

  —

  —

  3,043

  Queen Mary's Grammar School

  —

  —

  2,698

  Queen Mary's High School

  —

  —

  2,824

  Queens School

  —

  —

  6,378

  Raines Foundation School

  30,331

  58,544

  33,498

  Rainsford School

  —

  —

  3,963

  Rastrick High School

  —

  —

  25,692

  Ravensdale Middle School

  —

  3,009

  2,068

  Reading School

  5.980

  4,710

  3,843

  Redgate Middle School, Hunstanton

  195

  2,270

  1,038

  Richard Challoner School

  —

  —

  19,716

  Rickmansworth School

  —

  —

  1,329

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  —

  —

  5,736

  Robert Kett Middle School

  —

  2,935

  808

  Robert Napier School, Gillingham

  —

  1,120

  1,284

  Robert Pattinson School

  —

  4,389

  1,284

  Robinswood Primary School

  —

  4,139

  2,205

  Rolph CE VA Primary School

  —

  —

  3,249

  Roseacre Junior School

  —

  —

  261

  Roseberry School, Epsom

  —

  16,459

  11,090

  Rugby High School for Girls

  —

  —

  353

  Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School

  —

  —

  3,610

  Saffron Walden High School

  —

  —

  18,398

  Saintbridge School

  —

  2,643

  5,592

  Salesian College

  —

  11,375

  19,236

  Salterlee Primary School

  —

  1,467

  948

  Salvatorian College

  —

  —

  2,575

  Scotby CE Primary School

  —

  3,088

  3,516

  Send-CE First School

  0

  957

  660

  Sexey's School

  12,686

  33,341

  16,260

  Shambrook Upper School

  —

  —

  612

  Sheldon School

  —

  —

  1,350

  Shenington CE Primary School

  —

  —

  1,572

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  7,885

  —

  35,208

  Sir John Gleed Girls High School

  —

  7,598

  5,906

  Sir Roger Man wood's School

  —

  19,930

  18,372

  143

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  Skegness Grammar School

  13,113

  17,506

  8,650

  Small Heath School

  2,944

  —

  —

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  —

  —

  2,094

  Snodland CE Primary School

  —

  —

  801

  South Wooton School

  —

  300

  404

  Southend Girls High School

  —

  —

  3,180

  Southern) High School for Boys

  —

  —

  561

  Southfields School

  —

  —

  840

  Spalding County Primary School

  —

  —

  203

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  —

  —

  2,904

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School (Hill)

  —

  —

  811

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School (Lincoln)

  —

  —

  229

  St. Augustine's RC High School

  14,641

  29,722

  20,355

  St. Augustine's School

  —

  —

  15,530

  St. Bartholomew's School

  43,802

  19,899

  —

  St. Bede's School

  —

  —

  11,019

  St. Benedict's RC School

  —

  —

  2,248

  St. Bemadette Junior School

  —

  4,287

  4,878

  St. Boniface's College

  —

  —

  19,856

  St. Botolph's CE Primary School

  —

  —

  728

  St. Catherine's RC for Girls

  —

  —

  3,170

  St. Clare's RC Primary School

  —

  —

  692

  St. Clements High School

  —

  —

  1,997

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  —

  —

  20,523

  St. Edmunds RC Comprehensive

  —

  —

  2,977

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary

  —

  —

  10,826

  St. Francis RC Primary School

  —

  —

  866

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  54,629

  64,784

  33,132

  St. George's CE School, Gravesend

  30,253

  56,959

  29,358

  St. George's RC School

  —

  9,067

  2,779

  St. George's School

  6,980

  —

  2,468

  St. Giles CE Primary School

  —

  —

  384

  St. Gregory RC Primary School

  —

  —

  6,741

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comp School

  3,233

  24,789

  St. Helen's Primary School Bluntisham

  —

  —

  792

  St. James CE Primary

  —

  —

  4,100

  St. James' CE School Bolton

  33,437

  39,535

  21,696

  St. John Fisher RC (VA) Primary School

  —

  —

  637

  St. John Fisher RC Comp

  —

  —

  3,161

  St. John Fisher, Chatham

  —

  —

  30,960

  St. John Rigby School

  —

  12,897

  26,777

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  17,648

  38,768

  20,438

  St. John's School

  —

  —

  802

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  —

  —

  7,962

  St. Josephs College

  —

  —

  5,528

  St. Katherine's CE VA Primary School

  —

  —

  735

  St. Laurence CE Junior School

  —

  —

  757

  St. Martin In The Field High School

  —

  —

  3,373

  St. Martin's School

  —

  —

  4,161

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School

  —

  —

  19,371

  St. Mary's CE High School

  —

  —

  5,070

  St. Mary's CE Primary School

  —

  —

  589

  St. Mary's RC Primary School

  1,548

  7,485

  3,816

  St. Michael's Catholic Grammar School

  —

  —

  3,185

  St. Michael's RC School

  —

  —

  3,668

  St. Michaels School

  —

  —

  3,343

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's School

  —

  9,944

  20,045

  St. Osyth CE Primary School

  —

  —

  797

  St. Paul's RC Primary School

  —

  —

  1,335

  St. Paul's School

  —

  —

  19,966

  St. Peter and St. Paul RC High School

  —

  —

  2,104

  St. Peter's RC Primary School

  —

  —

  1,305

  St. Philomena's School

  —

  —

  23,831

  St. Simon Stock School

  —

  12,133

  24,435

  144

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  St. Thomas More High School For Boys

  —

  12,105

  2,545

  St. Thomas More RC Primary School

  —

  —

  616

  St. Thomas More RC School

  —

  37,211

  34,766

  St. Thomas More School

  —

  —

  7,352

  St. Thomas the Apostle School

  —

  —

  3,513

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  —

  —

  7,215

  St. Wilfrid's CE High School

  —

  —

  6,336

  St. Gregorys RC High

  —

  —

  6,346

  Stanground College

  —

  —

  6,717

  Stoneleigh First School

  —

  2,629

  444

  Stroud High School

  15,196

  18,907

  9,600

  Studley High School

  —

  —

  558

  Takeley Primary

  —

  —

  80

  Teign School

  —

  —

  3,406

  Tewkesbury School

  —

  1,145

  264

  The Appleton School

  —

  —

  100

  The Archbishop School

  —

  19,775

  16,737

  The Boswells School

  —

  4,767

  792

  The Canterbury School

  —

  8,163

  5,832

  The Chalfonts School

  —

  1,262

  1,046

  The Douay Martyrs School

  —

  —

  35,457

  The Fairfax School

  —

  —

  1,147

  The GS For Girls, Wilmington

  810

  —

  —

  The Hedley Walter School

  —

  —

  201

  The Holy Family RC School

  —

  —

  677

  The John Henry Newman School

  —

  —

  4,355

  The King's School

  —

  12,070

  15,157

  The Kings School Grantham

  39,158

  15,413

  5,248

  Latymer School

  —

  —

  5,944

  The Leventhorpe School

  —

  —

  1,433

  The Pingle School

  —

  —

  1,948

  The Priory Primary School

  —

  740

  2,066

  The Skinner's School

  —

  36,577

  18,969

  The St. Thomas Becket School

  —

  —

  3,494

  Thomas More GM School

  —

  —

  2,994

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  —

  7,744

  4,011

  Thornton School

  —

  —

  3,150

  Tiffin School

  —

  8,028

  4,690

  Torquay Boys Grammar School

  —

  4,788

  4,770

  Trinity School

  —

  14,868

  22,960

  Tumham Primary School

  —

  1,449

  5,244

  Warwick Bridge Primary School

  —

  —

  103

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  4,745

  —

  3,789

  Watford Girls Grammar School

  —

  —

  2,986

  Weavers School

  —

  2,535

  5,280

  West Hatch High School

  —

  —

  291

  West Hill School

  —

  —

  6,366

  Westborough School

  —

  924

  —

  Westcliffe High School for Girls

  —

  7,182

  7,305

  Westcliffe High School for Boys

  6,078

  11,616

  2,100

  Westlands High School

  —

  —

  657

  Wheatfields Junior School

  —

  1,106

  906

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  —

  —

  486

  Wibsey School

  —

  —

  593

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  —

  6,373

  2,742

  William Farr CE School

  —

  2,276

  1,444

  William Gilbert Endowed

  —

  —

  619

  William Robertson School

  —

  —

  89

  Wilsons School

  37,749

  42,599

  21,793

  Winchcombe Community School

  —

  —

  443

  Windmill Primary School

  —

  —

  60

  Wirral Grammar School for Boys

  —

  —

  2,953

  Wold Newton Primary School

  428

  650

  324

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  15,851

  16,598

  8,752

  Wood End First School

  —

  720

  1,363

  Wood End Middle School

  —

  364

  590

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  0

  0

  894

  Woodroffe School

  5,499

  11,070

  5,861

  Wrenn School

  —

  2,565

  7,974

  Yarborough High School

  2,406

  3,685

  6,630

  Yattendon Middle School

  —

  —

  156

  1 Payments from 1 April to 30 September 1993

  Education Standards
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last discussed education standards with Mr. Tim Brighouse or Mr. Roy Pryke.

  Mr. Patten
  I have held no recent discussions with Mr. Brighouse or Mr. Pryke about their views on educational standards. I am, however, familiar with their work.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effects of cuts in section 11 funding on the educational opportunities of ethnic groups.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provision for the education of pupils from ethnic groups is primarily a matter for schools and local education authorities. There have been no cuts this year in section 11 funding. The Department will monitor the effects of the reduction in the rate of support for future years through the Office for Standards in Education.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the proportion of four-year-olds in local authority nursery educational classes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1992, 13 per cent. of four-year-olds in England attended LEA nursery schools or classes, either full or part time. However, if those attending infant classes are also included, this proportion is 82 per cent.

  Further Education Grants
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the working of the system of discretionary grants for further education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The provision of discretionary awards is a matter for local education authorities. A national survey of LEA discretionary awards—supported by the Department—is in progress. Early results show numbers of awards and total spending above the levels of three years previously.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the capital spending required to ensure that all schools in England are brought into good repair and condition; and how much he expects will be spent on this purpose in the current year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the amount needed to bring all schools in England to a satisfactory state of maintenance.

  Mr. Forth
  An estimate based on the 1986 survey of school buildings suggested that some £2 billion at 1990 prices was required to remedy deficiencies in school buildings. We estimate that over £4.5 billion will have 146
  been spent on schools in the years since, much of it in meeting the deficiencies identified. We forecast that about £760 million will be spent in the current year alone.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the Manchester Education Committee relating to the funding of school repairs; and what plans he has to visit the city in the near future.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the city in the near future. I shall, however, be seeing a delegation from the education committee on 8 November to hear their concerns about the level of funding of school repairs.

  A-levels
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had requesting that A-levels be abolished or diluted.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend receives a wide range of representations about GCE A-levels. GCE A-levels will remain a key part of our strategy to provide high-quality qualifications for students at 16 and beyond and we are committed to maintaining their standards and rigour. Considerable progress is also being made in implementing vocational A-levels.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will alter the regulations relating to the publication of examination results league tables to allow the inclusion of results of children who take examinations early.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The results of pupils who took GCSE examinations earlier than usual will be included in this year's secondary school performance tables, provided that the pupils concerned were in the relevant age cohort and attending secondary schools in January 1993. The results of pupils who took GEC A-levels or AS examinations one year earlier than usual will also be included, in both the secondary school and the 16 to 18 performance tables.

  National Funding
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he is giving to introduce a system of national funding for primary and secondary education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Within the resources available to them and the priorities they set, it is for each local education authority to determine the funding of the primary and secondary schools which it maintains. The Government are in the process of consulting on the gradual introduction of a common funding formula for self-governing—grant-maintained—schools from 1 April 1994.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received over the effects of the standard spending assessments on the standard of education; and if he will make a statement.
  147
  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations in the course of the current review of SSA methodology and he is considering these with care. The standard of education in any local education authority will depend, however, on a variety of factors, including the authority's own spending priorities.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the current review of education standard spending assessments; what plans he has to change the criteria used when establishing education standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations from local education authorities and others about the current review of education standard spending assessments. That review has been based on extensive statistical analyses. We shall weigh the evidence carefully before reaching final decisions and propose changes where the evidence strongly supports such changes.

  Literacy and Basic Skills
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the new initiatives being undertaken by the adult literacy and basic skills unit.

  Mr. Boswell
  The adult literacy and basic skills Unit is currently developing a new family literacy initiative, for which my right hon. Friend has announced funding of £250,000 in the current financial year. Family literacy programmes will help parents with literacy difficulties to improve their own literacy skills and at the same time to support the development of their children's literacy skills.

  National Curriculum
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning his latest proposals for English in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received few such representations, since consultation on the proposals was carried out by the National Curriculum Council and responses were properly addressed to that body. NCC's report of the consultation was published last week by the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, the successor body to the NCC.

  Book Prices
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the impact of a rise in the price of books on reading standards among children.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend lacks the basis on which to attempt such an estimate. There is no reliable evidence bearing on the relationship between book prices and the reading standards achieved by children.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools that have submitted proposals for grant-maintained status offer nursery provision; and what proportion this is of all applicants.
  148
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. Some 20 of the current GM primary schools have designated nursery classes.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many student loans due for repayment the income level is below the threshold necessary for repayment.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes have been made in relation to repayment of student loans since their inception; in how many cases it has been necessary to take action to secure repayment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Standard repayment arrangements remain unchanged. The number of borrowers against whom the Student Loans Company has taken action is a matter for the company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans exist for provision in the national curriculum for pupils in Great Britain to be given increased awareness of Northern Ireland matters.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The implementation of the national curriculum for England and Wales is already providing for pupils to learn about the history and culture of Northern Ireland.

  School Inspections
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the(a) inspections carried out and (b) reports presented by (i) Her Majesty's inspectorate since January 1992 and (ii) Ofsted to date.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The new Government Department Ofsted—the Office for Standards in Education—was created on 1 September 1992. All inspections carried out by HMI or reports published since that date are a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Prior to 1 September 1992, HMI was a member of this Department. HMI undertook a variety of types of inspection visit to schools and other educational institutions. Not all of these inspections were planned to lead to published reports. In the period January to August 1992 HMI published over 180 reports. I have placed a copy of the list of these reports in the Library.

  Single-sex Education
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the availability of single-sex education in the state sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responsibility for the provision of school places, including provision for single-sex education, lies with local education authorities and, from 1 April, the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Fitzherbert School, Brighton
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what price the former Fitzherbert school site in Brighton has been sold.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand from the CTC Trust, which is the beneficial owner of this site, that negotiations for its sale are continuing.

  School Meals and Milk
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing net expenditure on school meals and milk in each year since 1978–79 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest information on expenditure on school meals and milk by local education authorities in England is given in the table.

  LEA expenditure on school meals and milk

  (£ million)

  Year

  Expenditure (Cash)

  Expenditure (1992–93 prices)

  1979–80

  422

  1,012

  1980–81

  397

  804

  1981–82

  396

  732

  1982–83

  411

  709

  1983–84

  426

  702

  1984–85

  428

  671

  1985–86

  436

  649

  1986–87

  457

  659

  1987–88

  443

  60S

  1988–89

  376

  479

  1989–90

  379

  453

  1990–91

  384

  425

  1991–92

  407

  421

  Figures for 1978–79 are not readily available in the form requested.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authority reorganisation proposals are presently being considered by his Department; and how many have been waiting for his decision(a) up to three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and nine months, (d) between nine and 12 months and (e) in excess of 12 months.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At 1 November, 107 proposals published under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 were under consideration. Of these, 56 have been waiting a decision for up to three months, 32 for between three and six months, 11 for between six and nine months, two for between nine and 12 months and six for in excess of 12 months.

  Among the reasons for delay is the need for greater information, consideration of an LEA's capital bid or the need to give simultaneous consideration to related GM applications.

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.
  150
  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not normally fund capital projects on its own behalf. Borrowing approval or capital grant is made available to local authorities, schools, colleges and institutions of higher education.

  The reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 17 December 1992, Official Report, column 347, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) set out the Department's role in supporting the introduction of private finance in schools, further and higher education. The Department is firmly committed to expanding the scope for the use of private finance in education and is currently exploring ways of doing so.

  Funding
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices for (i) the Further Education Funding Council, (ii) the Higher Education Funding Council and (iii) the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures requested for the bodies concerned are shown in the table:

  £ million 1992–93 prices

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

  2,630

  2,699

  2,792

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  2,709

  2,733

  2,634

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  2,500

  4,500

  The figures for the FEFC and the HEFCE are for planned recurrent and capital grant to those councils, including provision for the councils' own running costs, as shown in the 1993 departmental report (Cm 2210), deflated to 1992–93 prices using the GDP deflators published in the March 1993 Budget statement. The HEFCE figures have been increased to take account of the shift from tuition fees to HEFCE grant in 1993–94.

  The Funding Agency for Schools is to be established on 1 April 1994. The figures shown above are based on current assumptions about its further expenditure, which will be dependent on the numbers and size of self-governing—grant-maintained—schools and on the grant regime, which will be the subject of regulations. Part of the expenditure will be recouped from local education authorities. The figure include expenditure on the FAS's running costs.

SCOTLAND

  Joy Riding
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many joy-riding road accidents have occurred in Scotland leading to(a) deaths and (b) injury in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1987–88 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for the new town development corporations.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  155

  1988–89

  154

  1989–90

  171

  1990–91

  173

  1991–92

  137

  1992–93

  115

  1993–94 plans

  128

  1994–95 plans

  119

  1995–96 plans

  108

  Higher Education
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests of the newly established Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council operates fully in accordance with the citizens charter ideals of openness, accessibility and accountability. The information requested is as follows:

  (a) No.

  (b) No. An outline of key decisions is issued to higher education institutions and other bodies following each council meeting. Proposals are issued in consultation papers, of which there have been 17 to date, and decisions in circular letters, of which there were 15 in 1992 and 55 so far in 1993.

  (c) and (d) Yes. The council will publish an annual report and accounts as well as its corporate plan and operational plan.

  (e) No. There is no formal register of members' interests. Biographical details of the membership were issued at the time of appointment and are given in a recent council bulletin—copies of which are available from the funding council.

  Moated Grange Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the archaeological moated grange sites that are due to be lost because of planning permission approval being granted;

  (2) if he will list for the last 10 years the archaeological moated grange sites that have been demolished.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its chief executive, Mr Graeme Munro, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1993:
  Sir Hector Monro MP, the Minister for Agriculture and Environment at The Scottish Office, has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about archaeological moated grange sites.
  152
  You asked if the Secretary of State would list such sites that have been demolished in the last 10 years and that are due to be lost because of planning permission approval being granted. Moated granges are very rare in Scotland. Historic Scotland is not aware of any that have been demolished over the last 10 years nor of any which are due to be lost because of planning permission having been granted.
  If you have concerns about specific moated sites in Scotland I would be pleased to know about them.

  Woodland Access (Grants)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government grants are available to encourage private woodland owners to provide public access to their land; how many such grants have been made in the past 10 years; and in respect of which pieces of land these grants have been made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: The community woodland supplement, which was introduced in 1991 as part of the woodland grant scheme, provides grants for the creation of new woodlands near towns and cities on condition that the woodlands are open for informal public recreation. A special management grant, which was also introduced in 1991 as part of the woodland grant scheme, is available for owners of existing woodlands of special environmental value where work is carried out to set up, maintain or improve facilities for public access or recreation.

  The Forestry Commission has agreed to pay the community woodland supplement in over 250 cases, covering nearly 2,000 hectares of new woodland; special management grants, for access of recreation, have also been agreed for over 750 cases covering some 32,000 hectares. Detailed information on each of these areas could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of the consultants appointed by the forestry review group and their terms of reference; to whom they will report; how much they will cost; which Government Department is paying for the consultants; and what is the consultants' reporting timetable,

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: The forestry review group has appointed three firms of consultants: Samuel Montagu and Co. Ltd., financial consultants, which is being assisted by Jaakko Poyry; John Clegg and Co., land agents; and Environmental Resources Management, environmental consultants. The terms of reference are confidential as they support the development of policy advice to Ministers. The costs will be paid by the Forestry Commission but the amount is commercially sensitive. The consultants will report on a timetable which will enable the review group to advise Ministers early next year.

  Sheep
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total loss of quota income suffered by sheep producers in Scotland as a result of the introduction of the new EC sheepmeat regime, showing the regional distribution of the income lost.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: As the rate of sheep annual premium for the 1993

  153
  marketing year, the first year in which the quota system operates, will not be finalised until early in 1994, I am unable to say whether there will be any drop in sheep producers' incomes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep producers in Scotland have been deprived of sheep quota by the new EC sheepmeat regime.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: Until all the allocations of sheep annual premium quota have been completed, including those from the national reserve, I am not in a position to indicate whether any sheep producers in Scotland will receive no quota allocation.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on the proposal in the White Paper on reform of local government in Scotland to join Berwickshire to East Lothian; how many were received from people living in Berwickshire; and how many were in favour of the proposal and the number against.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: Since the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future —The New Councils", 417 individual letters commenting on the proposal to create a new single-tier authority for Berwickshire and East Lothian have been received, of which 341 came from Berwickshire. About 1,850 postcards, pro forma letters and petition signatures have also been received from people objecting to the Government's proposals for Berwickshire.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations, in Berwickshire have had their views conveyed to him (i) in favour of his plan to detatch Berwickshire from the Borders local authority area, and (ii) against that proposal.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: Since the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the .Future —The New Councils", 341 individual letters opposing the proposal to create a new single-tier authority for Berwickshire and East Lothian have been received from Berwickshire. Three hundred and twenty letters have come from individuals and 21 from organisations. In addition, about 1,850 postcards, pro forma letters and petition signatures have been received from people objecting to the Government's proposals for Berwickshire.

  Smoke Alarms
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the subject of the compulsory installation of smoke alarms as a condition of the award of improvement grants for properties; and what plans he has to include the compulsory installation of smoke alarms by statutory instrument under the terms of section 244(8) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Letters have been received from Ettrick and Lauderdale district council and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Installation of smoke alarms as a condition of improvement grant would require legislation. The grant system is currently being reviewed by a working group on which local authorities are represented. It will be considering this issue along with other possible changes and will make recommendations next year.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of reported crimes in Scotland in each of the past 10 years involving(a) indecency, (b) violence, (c) dishonesty, (d) fire raising and violence, (e) theft of motor vehicles, (f) theft by opening lockfast places and (g) drugs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Information is not collected centrally on the number of crimes reported to the police. Information on the number of crimes recorded by the police in Scotland for the categories of crime requested for each of the past five years is contained in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin "Recorded Crime in Scotland 1992", which was published on 21 April 1993. For earlier years information is contained in previous issues of the bulletin. Copies of the bulletins were placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the nature and timing of the information conveyed to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland about his proposals to alter local boundaries in Lothian and the Borders prior to his statement in the House on 8 July,Official Report, columns 471–87.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 20 July 1993 at column 192, in which I stated that my right hon. Friend conveyed no such information to the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission prior to his statement to the House on 8 July.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing in rank order the percentage of those people who are registered as unemployed who are aged 24 years or under according to the latest available figures in each travel-to-work area in England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Unadjusted data on claimant unemployment levels in travel-to-work areas by age is available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Youth Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people on youth training places are expected to reach national vocational qualification level 2 by 1997; and what steps he intends to take to meet this target.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Forecasts of attainment of national vocational qualification level 2 in youth training and youth credits are published in the Department's annual report —Cm 2205—and currently extend up to 1995–96. Sixty per cent. of young people on YT or youth credits are expected to reach NVQ level 2 and above by 1995–96. The figure quoted includes level 1 for trainees endorsed as having special training needs. Progress towards this figure will be made by agreeing targets each year for the achievement of agreed outputs—mostly NVQs—with training and enterprise councils. TECs are paid between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. of their YT funding on the basis of results achieved. The Department is piloting much higher levels of output funding—up to 100 per cent.—with some TECs to see whether this is effective in improving NVQ performance. The Government also intend that, by 1996, every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer of a youth credit. Youth credits represent an entitlement to train, generally to at least NVQ level 2 or equivalent.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places meet national vocational qualification level 2; and what proportion this represents as a total of the number of training places.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All youth training places are required to offer trainees the opportunity to aim for a qualification at national vocational qualification level 2 or higher, unless the trainee has been endorsed as having special training needs.

  Literacy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those receiving youth training are assessed as having serious problems with reading, writing and spelling.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Of those who left youth training in Great Britain in 1992–93, 1 per cent. had been assessed as having a severe literacy need. Over the same period, 27 per 156
  cent. of leavers had been assessed as having a special training need, which may have included problems with reading, writing and spelling.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the contribution that improved literacy standards might make in reducing unemployment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises the importance of improved literacy standards in helping to reduce unemployment. The Government support the employer-led training and enterprise councils which assess locally what skills the labour market requires, including, where necessary, increased literacy standards for unemployed people to help them back in to work.

  Early Retirements
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many officials have applied for voluntary early retirement in(a) the Department of Employment and (b) the Health and Safety Executive in 1993–94; and what is the quota who will be granted early retirement in 1993–94;

  (2) what effect the number of officials taking early retirement will have on the number of officials newly recruited to (a) the Department of Employment and (b) the Health and Safety Executive.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 250 members of staff in the Employment Department group have so far applied for voluntary early retirement in 1993–94. A further 1,465 staff have expressed an interest and others are expected to apply.

  Separate figures are not currently available for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  The quota for voluntary early retirement releases in 1993–94 is 1,174.

  The number of officials taking early retirement relates to the number of surplus staff in the Department. There is no direct effect on the number of officials newly recruited to the Department or to the HSE. But in general there is no significant recruitment taking place at grades or in parts of the country where there are significant surpluses.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those receiving unemployment benefits have no educational qualifications; and what was the cost to the Exchequer of this group in the latest available year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on qualifications of unemployed people is not available from the claimant count. Results from the spring 1993 labour force survey —not seasonally adjusted—show that 34 per cent. of people claiming unemployment-related benefits have no qualifications.

  It is not possible to calculate the exact cost to the Exchequer of the group who are unemployed with no qualifications given that it is not possible to distinguish exactly what benefits the group receives. However, using the estimated total expenditure on benefits to the unemployed in the 1992–93 financial year, it can be calculated that the cost of the unemployed to the Exchequer is £3,300 per person per year.

  Civil Service (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the expected cost of the scheme in the Department of Employment for voluntary early retirement for civil servants aged 50 years and over(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in subsequent years; and how this scheme is being funded within the overall public expenditure totals for those years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of running voluntary early retirement schemes for civil servants aged 50 and over in the Employment Department group during 1993–94 is expected to be about £17 million. If the quota for whom provision has been made retire during 1993–94, the subsequent cost for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is expected to be £8.5 million. The scheme is funded from within the Department's running costs provision, which is subject to normal overall public expenditure controls.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each training and enterprise council area the number of organisations which have received the Investors in People award.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of Investors in People awards at 29 October by TEC area is as follows:

  Number

  Avon

  9

  AZTEC

  6

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  4

  Bedfordshire

  8

  Birmingham

  8

  Bolton/Bury

  4

  Bradford

  2

  CAMBSTEC

  2

  CEWTEC

  8

  CILNTEC

  1

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1

  Central England

  9

  CENTEC

  4

  County Durham

  7

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  5

  Cumbria

  2

  Devon and Cornwall

  22

  Dorset

  12

  Dudley

  1

  ELTEC

  8

  Essex

  5

  Gloucestershire

  24

  Greater Nottingham

  2

  Greater Peterborough

  1

  Gwent

  7

  HAWTEC

  5

  Hampshire

  13

  Heart of England

  9

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Humberside

  7

  Kent

  2

  LAWTEC

  2

  Leeds

  7

  Lincolnshire

  1

  London East

  2

  METROTEC

  5

  Manchester

  4

  Merseyside

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  Milton Keynes

  1

  NORMIDTEC

  4

  Norfolk and Waveney

  8

  North Derbyshire

  5

  North East Wales

  2

  158

  Number

  North London

  1

  North Nottinghamshire

  6

  North West London

  2

  North West Wales

  5

  North Yorkshire

  8

  Northamptonshire

  5

  Northumberland

  5

  Powys

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Rotherham

  4

  SOLOTEC

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Sheffield

  3

  Shropshire

  4

  Somerset

  3

  South and East Cheshire

  8

  South Glamorgan

  6

  South Thames

  1

  Southern Derbyshire

  9

  Staffordshire

  4

  Suffolk

  4

  Surrey

  4

  Sussex

  6

  Teesside

  7

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  20

  Tyneside

  12

  Wakefield

  2

  Walsall

  2

  Wearside

  2

  West London

  1

  West Wales

  6

  Wiltshire

  7

  Wolverhampton

  3

  Redundant Mineworkers
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the unclaimed European Community social fund moneys is allocated to south Yorkshire regardless of local authority contributions; and how much of it is planned to be spent on retraining .or other projects involving redundant mineworkers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials are writing to local European social fund co-ordinators to invite further applications for support from the ESF to take up additional resources arising from exchange rate fluctuations. Projects will be selected on the basis of established selection criteria, including value for money considerations. The exact amount of additional money in south Yorkshire will depend on the outcome of the selection process in the various operational programmes concerned.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing the proportion of (1) full-time employees earning less than(a) £215.50, (b) £203.07 and (c) £152.30 per week, (2) part-time employees earning less than (x) £5.75, (y) £5.42 and (z) £4.05 per hour, excluding overtime payments, for (i) Great Britain as a whole, (ii) each county in England, (iii) each county in Wales, (iv) each London borough and Greater London as a whole and (v) each regional authority and borough in Scotland.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available from the "New Earnings Survey" is provided in the following tables:
  159

  Full time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: proportion with gross weekly earnings below the following amounts: at April 1993

  Per cent

  £152·30

  £203·07

  £215·50

  GREAT BRITAIN

  9·8

  26·7

  31·1

  South East Region

  5·8

  18· 2

  21·7

  Bedfordshire

  7·4

  21·8

  25·4

  Berkshire

  4·3

  16·5

  19·6

  Buckinghamshire

  7·1

  23·0

  27·4

  East Sussex

  11·2

  33·3

  38·1

  Essex

  9·0

  25·9

  31·0

  Hampshire

  8·5

  25·1

  29·6

  Hertfordshire

  5·9

  21·2

  24·7

  Isle of Wight

  15·4

  35·1

  40·4

  Kent

  9·1

  26·0

  31· 1

  Oxfordshire

  7·1

  24·6

  28·3

  Surrey

  5·2

  17·1

  20·6

  West Sussex

  7·9

  25·6

  29·6

  East Anglia Region

  11·2

  30·1

  34·9

  Cambridgeshire

  8·9

  26·3

  30·8

  Norfolk

  12·2

  31·5

  36·5

  Suffolk

  12·8

  33·0

  38·0

  South West Region

  10·7

  30·8

  35·6

  Avon

  8·2

  25·7

  29·9

  Cornwall

  20·7

  44· 1

  50· 1

  Devon

  13 ·9

  36·0

  41·8

  Dorset

  10·5

  33·3

  37·9

  Gloucestershire

  8·8

  27·9

  33·3

  Somerset

  12·6

  34·0

  37·1

  Wiltshire

  6·7

  25·4

  29·7

  West Midlands Region

  11·6

  30·8

  35·7

  West Midlands MC

  10·2

  27·5

  32·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  13 ·7

  34·8

  40·1

  Shropshire

  15·5

  36·8

  41·7

  Staffordshire

  13·3

  36·4

  41·5

  Warwickshire

  11·3

  29·6

  33·2

  East Midlands Region

  12·5

  31·7

  36·6

  Derbyshire

  11·4

  29·2

  33·8

  Leicestershire

  12·6

  31·1

  36·6

  Lincolnshire

  15·5

  36·5

  41·4

  Northamptonshire

  8·3

  27·9

  32·0

  Nottinghamshire

  14·6

  34·2

  39·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  11·9

  31·1

  35·8

  South Yorkshire MC

  116

  28·8

  32·9

  West Yorkshire MC

  11·0

  31·1

  36·4

  Humberside

  13·2

  32·7

  36·6

  North Yorkshire

  13·9

  33·5

  38·5

  North West Region

  11·6

  30·1

  35·1

  Greater Manchester MC

  11·3

  30·7

  35·6

  Merseyside MC

  11·1

  28·1

  34·1

  Cheshire

  10·3

  26·0

  30·0

  Lancashire

  13·9

  34·4

  39·3

  North Region

  12·9

  30·9

  35·7

  Tyne and Wear MC

  12·3

  29·9

  35·2

  Cleveland

  13·0

  28·7

  33·1

  Cumbria

  12·2

  27·7

  31·8

  Durham

  14·2

  35·1

  40·1

  Northumberland

  14·0

  37·1

  41·8

  Wales

  13·2

  33·6

  38·4

  Clwyd

  13·6

  32·1

  36·0

  Clwyd-West

  15·6

  37·9

  40·6

  Clwyd-East

  12·7

  29·3

  33·9

  Dyfed (excluding Llanelli)

  16·9

  38·2

  43·0

  Gwent

  13·9

  32·9

  38·4

  Gwynedd

  18·2

  39·1

  42·6

  Mid-Glamorgan

  15·1

  37·9

  43·5

  Powys

  15·0

  36·1

  41·1

  South Glamorgan

  8·8

  27·8

  33·7

  West Glamorgan (including Llanelli)

  11·4

  33·5

  37·1

  160

  Per cent

  £152·30

  £203·07

  £215·50

  Greater London

  3·7

  12·0

  14·8

  City of London

  1·1

  4·3

  5·6

  Barking

  3·7

  10·1

  13·9

  Barnet

  6·0

  20·3

  23·9

  Bexley

  4·0

  16·8

  22·5

  Brent

  3·6

  16·8

  20·7

  Bromley

  9·0

  25·0

  28·4

  Camden

  3·1

  11·0

  13·1

  Croydon

  6·5

  16·7

  20·9

  Ealing

  4·5

  13·8

  18·2

  Enfield

  3·9

  14·3

  18·5

  Greenwich

  4·2

  16·2

  22·3

  Hackney

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Hammersmith

  3·0

  9·8

  12·4

  Haringey

  7·4

  15·6

  18·5

  Harrow

  4·8

  18·5

  22·1

  Havering

  8·5

  21·0

  23·4

  Hillingdon

  1·8

  9·2

  11·4

  Hounslow

  3·1

  12·4

  14·6

  Islington

  2·5

  6·4

  8·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5·8

  17·6

  22·3

  Kingston·upon·Thames

  5·4

  16·5

  21·0

  Lambeth

  2·6

  9·4

  12·0

  Lewisham

  5·0

  17·0

  18·1

  Merton

  6·0

  17·0

  20·9

  Newham

  2·7

  11·4

  13·5

  Redbridge

  6·9

  21·1

  25·8

  Richmond·upon·Thames

  4·8

  16· 7

  20·7

  Southwark

  2·3

  8·7

  9·8

  Sutton

  5·6

  16··5

  21·2

  Tower Hamlets

  2·4

  6·2

  7·6

  Waltham Forest

  8·7

  23·0

  29·0

  Wandsworth

  3·6

  13· 3

  16·7

  City of Westminster

  3·0

  9·7

  12·6

  Scotland

  11·7

  31·0

  36·2

  Borders

  23·4

  45·4

  51· 5

  Central

  13 ·3

  30·0

  33·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16·4

  36·2

  39·9

  Fife

  15· 2

  33·3

  38·3

  Grampian

  9·9

  26·8

  31·4

  Highland

  14·1

  38·0

  47·2

  Lothian

  9·1

  29·0

  33·5

  Strathclyde

  11·5

  30·5

  36·1

  Tayside

  12·6

  34·9

  40·7

  Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Highlands and Islands

  13·4

  361

  43·3

  Part time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: proportion with gross hourly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts: at April 1993

  Per cent

  £4·05

  £5·42

  £5·75

  GREAT BRITAIN

  38·3

  59·0

  62·1

  South East Region

  28·2

  51·3

  54·8

  Bedfordshire

  41·3

  60·2

  63·7

  Berkshire

  1—

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  27·1

  48·8

  53·9

  East Sussex

  36·8

  61·2

  63·3

  Essex

  36·8

  59·2

  61·6

  Hampshire

  40·0

  58·5

  63·3

  Hertfordshire

  28· 3

  56·6

  59·2

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  35·6

  57·7

  61·0

  Oxfordshire

  34·4

  54·2

  56·2

  Surrey

  23·5

  47·1

  52·1

  West Sussex

  27·2

  45·1

  48·3

  East Anglia Region

  34·5

  52·1

  54·8

  Cambridgeshire

  33·0

  51·8

  55·7

  Norfolk

  33·8

  51·4

  54·0

  Suffolk

  36·7

  53·1

  54·7

  South West Region

  41·9

  61·8

  64·2

  161

  Per cent

  £4·05

  £5·42

  £5·75

  Avon

  43·0

  62·0

  64·8

  Cornwall

  45·4

  56·7

  60·6

  Devon

  41·3

  61·9

  63·2

  Dorset

  44·8

  64·3

  65·8

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  42·3

  67·1

  68·7

  Wiltshire

  36·0

  62·4

  64·9

  West Midlands Region

  42·8

  62·9

  65·7

  West Midlands MC

  40·6

  62·7

  65·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  44·4

  61·0

  64·2

  Shropshire

  43·5

  58·7

  61·5

  Staffordshire

  47·2

  67·2

  69·7

  Warwickshire

  44·5

  63·1

  65·1

  East Midlands Region

  41·6

  61·8

  64·4

  Derbyshire

  39·7

  57·8

  60·6

  Leicestershire

  40·1

  62·6

  65·0

  Lincolnshire

  40·9

  58·4

  60·8

  Northamptonshire

  41·9

  63·7

  66·3

  Nottinghamshire

  45·5

  66·4

  69·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  43·8

  65·6

  69·2

  South Yorkshire MC

  47·6

  69·6

  72·8

  West Yorkshire MC

  43·1

  64·5

  68·4

  Humberside

  44·6

  66·4

  69·5

  North Yorkshire

  38·0

  60·5

  64·8

  North West Region

  42·8

  63·6

  66·5

  Greater Manchester MC

  42·7

  65·0

  67·5

  Merseyside MC

  45·6

  65·2

  68·6

  Cheshire

  38·6

  59·3

  62·7

  Lancashire

  43·4

  62·5

  65·6

  North Region

  47·3

  66·4

  69·6

  Tyne and Wear MC

  46·0

  66·9

  70·5

  Cleveland

  45·9

  62·0

  65·6

  Cumbria

  44·8

  65·2

  69·1

  Durham

  51·0

  66·7

  69·5

  Northumberland

  52·5

  72·9

  73·7

  Wales

  45·2

  61·4

  64·1

  Clwyd

  41·1

  53·4

  57·2

  Clwyd-West

  —

  —

  —

  Clwyd-East

  44·0

  57·4

  59·8

  Dyfed (ex· Llanelli)

  36·0

  48·0

  52·0

  Gwent

  41·5

  62·5

  65·1

  Gwynedd

  40·4

  53·5

  54·7

  Mid-Glamorgan

  56·6

  70·9

  72·7

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  46·6

  68·8

  71·5

  West Glamorgan (inc· Llanelli)

  44·0

  58·6

  62·5

  Greater London

  18·6

  43·3

  46·7

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  20·9

  49·1

  50·8

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  17·0

  43·0

  45·5

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  16·8

  51·6

  53·9

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  162

  Per cent

  £4·05

  £5·42

  £5·75

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  26·5

  48·9

  51·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  29·2

  60·9

  65·8

  Wandsworth

  21·1

  42·3

  45·1

  City of Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  42·8

  61·5

  64·6

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  39·7

  59·5

  61·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  46·2

  62·8

  65·1

  Grampian

  48·4

  62·7

  64·0

  Highland

  40·9

  52·7

  55·4

  Lothian

  42·3

  61·3

  65·7

  Strathclyde

  42·5

  63·4

  67·3

  Tayside

  41·9

  58·9

  60·8

  Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Highlands and Islands

  37·4

  50·3

  52·9

  "—" denotes sample number too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adult(a) male and (b) female part-time workers there were in Great Britain in April; and what is the proportion of those workers whose earnings, excluding overtime, fell below (i) £5.75 per hour, (ii) £5.42 per hour and (iii) £4.05 per hour.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In March 1993 there were 1,113,000 male part-time and 4,680,000 female part-time employees in employment in Great Britain.

  The information requested showing estimates of the distribution of earnings of those employees at April is as follows:

  Part-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: proportion with gross hourly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts: at April 1993

  Per cent

  £4.05

  £5.42

  £5.75

  Great Britain

  Men

  31.0

  44.6

  46.4

  Women

  39.4

  61 3

  64.6

  Source: New Earnings Survey and Short Term Employment Statistics.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing the proportions of manual, non-manual and all full-time employees earning less than(a) £215.50 per week, (b) £203.07 per week and (c) £152.30 per week, excluding overtime payments, for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) both sexes, by standard economic region, for Great Britain as a whole and for Northern Ireland.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available from the "New Earnings Survey" is provided in the following tables:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: proportion with gross weekly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts: at April 1993

  Per cent.

  £152.30

  £203.07

  £215.50

  Manual men

  Great Britain

  11.8

  38.1

  45.4

  South East

  8.6

  30.0

  36.1

  163

  £152.30

  £203.07

  £215.50

  East Anglia

  11.4

  41.7

  49.2

  South West

  12.9

  42.7

  50.5

  West Midlands

  12.3

  40.0

  47.6

  East Midlands

  13.5

  41.5

  48.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13 2

  41.3

  48.8

  North West

  12.1

  38.9

  47.0

  North

  13 3

  36.1

  44.4

  Scotland

  12.5

  42.5

  50.3

  Wales

  16.1

  43.8

  50.9

  Northern Ireland1

  19.0

  45.0

  51.0

  Non-manual men

  Great Britain

  4.4

  13 5

  16.1

  South East

  2.7

  9.4

  11.4

  East Anglia

  4.6

  14 9

  17.2

  South West

  4.4

  15.3

  18.2

  West Midlands

  5.5

  15.8

  19.0

  East Midlands

  5.6

  16 8

  19 8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.0

  17.4

  20.7

  North West

  5.8

  16 5

  19.2

  North

  5.0

  14.4

  17.8

  Scotland

  5.2

  15.3

  18.4

  Wales

  6.5

  17.6

  20.3

  Northern Ireland1

  8.0

  18.0

  20.0

  All men

  Great Britain

  7.7

  24.6

  29.3

  South East

  4.8

  16.6

  20.0

  East Anglia

  8.1

  28.5

  33.4

  South West

  8.1

  27.4

  32.4

  West Midlands

  9.0

  28.1

  33.6

  East Midlands

  9.8

  29.9

  35.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9.7

  29.7

  35.1

  North West

  8.8

  27.1

  32.4

  North

  9.5

  26.3

  32.4

  Scotland

  8.7

  28.5

  33.9

  Wales

  11.6

  31.5

  36.5

  Northern Ireland1

  14.0

  31.0

  36.0

  Manual women

  Great Britain

  47.6

  79.7

  84.4

  South East

  36.4

  70.3

  74.8

  East Anglia

  53.2

  84.7

  89.6

  South West

  53.3

  86.0

  89.8

  West Midlands

  50.1

  82.1

  86.7

  East Midlands

  55.1

  87.6

  91 6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54.3

  84.1

  88.3

  North West

  51.9

  81.1

  86.7

  North

  50.7

  80.4

  85.2

  Scotland

  48.6

  80 3

  86.3

  Wales

  47.5

  82.7

  87.9

  Northern Ireland1

  63.0

  87.0

  90.0

  Non-manual women

  Great Britain

  13.2

  37.1

  43.3

  South East

  6.5

  23.4

  28.5

  East Anglia

  17.4

  46.0

  52.4

  South West

  15.4

  45.0

  51.5

  West Midlands

  17.5

  45.9

  51.9

  East Midlands

  18.2

  46.7

  53.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  18 0

  45.6

  52.0

  North West

  15.9

  43.6

  50.6

  North

  19.9

  49.6

  56.4

  Scotland

  16.9

  44.1

  51.4

  Wales

  17.2

  44.4

  51.7

  Northern Ireland1

  21.0

  44.0

  48.0

  All women

  Great Britain

  19.2

  44.7

  50.5

  South East

  10.4

  29.6

  34.6

  East Anglia

  24.4

  53.5

  59.6

  South West

  21.4

  51 5

  57.6

  West Midlands

  24.5

  53.7

  59.4

  East Midlands

  28.0

  57.5

  63.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25.1

  53 1

  59.1

  North West

  22.4

  50.3

  57.1

  North

  26.5

  56.2

  62.5

  Scotland

  23.2

  51.3

  58.4

  164

  £152.30

  £203.07

  £215.50

  Wales

  23.7

  52.6

  59.4

  Northern Ireland1

  31.0

  54.0

  58.0

  Manual employees

  Great Britain

  18.3

  45.7

  52.5

  South East

  13.9

  37.6

  43.4

  East Anglia

  18.4

  48.9

  55.9

  South West

  19.7

  50.0

  57.2

  West Midlands

  19.1

  47.6

  54.7

  East Midlands

  21.6

  50.5

  57.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19.9

  48.3

  55.3

  North West

  19.3

  46.5

  54.2

  North

  19.7

  43.6

  51.3

  Scotland

  19.7

  50.1

  57.5

  Wales

  21.8

  50.9

  57.6

  Northern Ireland1

  29.0

  54.0

  60.0

  Non-manual employees

  Great Britain

  8.4

  24.4

  28.6

  South East

  4.4

  15 8

  19.1

  East Anglia

  10.5

  29.3

  33.5

  South West

  9.5

  28.9

  33.5

  West Midlands

  11.0

  29.6

  34.0

  East Midlands

  11.0

  29.7

  34.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11.5

  30.3

  35 0

  North West

  10.6

  29.4

  34.1

  North

  12.1

  31.2

  36.2

  Scotland

  10 8

  29.3

  34.5

  Wales

  11.6

  30.4

  35.3

  Northern Ireland1

  14.0

  31.0

  34.0

  All employees

  Great Britain

  11.9

  31 8

  37.0

  South East

  6.9

  21.6

  25.6

  East Anglia

  13.7

  37.1

  42.4

  South West

  12.9

  36.1

  41.5

  West Midlands

  14.3

  36.9

  42.5

  East Midlands

  15 7

  38.9

  44.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14.9

  37.6

  43.2

  North West

  13.8

  35.6

  41.4

  North

  15.4

  36.5

  42.7

  Scotland

  14.2

  37.1

  43.2

  Wales

  15.9

  39.0

  44.6

  Northern Ireland1

  20.0

  40.0

  44.0

  1 Information is at April 1992 and inclusive of overtime.

  Source: New Earnings Survey, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1991–92 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Provisional gross expenditure on programmes delivered through training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland for each year since 1991–92 and projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 in 1992–93 prices are as follows:

  £ million

  Number

  1991–92

  2,253

  1992–93

  2,247

  1993–94

  2,300

  1994–95

  2,164

  1995–96

  2,108

  Notes:

  1. The total for 1992–93 is the estimated outturn.

  2. The totals for 1993–94 onwards are from the latest plans.
  165
  3. Running costs for LECs are not included.

  4. 1992–93 prices calculated by using GDP deflators as published in the March 1993 Budget.

  5. European Social Fund allocations for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not yet known.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings,(b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests of training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Companies Acts require the accounts of training and enterprise councils be lodged with Companies House where they may be examined by the public. The contract with TECs requires that they make publicly available their corporate plans, hold an annual public meeting and publish an annual report and audited statement of accounts. TECs are private companies and access to their meetings and to their registers of members' interests is a matter for the directors.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by the Department:

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Health and Safety Commission

  Health and Safety Executive

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Remploy Ltd.

  Investors in People

  With the exception of the special arrangements which exist in relation to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, all are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Health and Safety Commission is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Secretaries of State which have relevant interests, and the Health and Safety Executive is responsible to the Commission.

  The public does not have a statutory right to attend board or committee meetings or inspect the minutes for any of the organisations listed above.

  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, Equal Opportunities Commission, Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive are required by statute to produce and lay before both Houses of Parliament copies of their annual reports and account. These are then made available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Remploy is also required by statue to copy its annual report and accounts to the Registrar of Companies and these may be examined by the public at Companies House.
  166
  Although not required by statute, the annual report and accounts for the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the annual accounts for Investors in People United Kingdom are published and copies made available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  With the exception of Remploy Ltd,—where a register of directors interests is available for inspection at its registered office—the public do not have a statutory right to inspect a register of members' interests for any of the organisations listed above. In the case of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, no such register exists.

HEALTH

  Health Care
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the share of gross domestic product devoted in 1992 to health care in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) on 26 October at column 600.

  NHS Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total numbers of beds and private beds in NHS hospitals by region and nationally for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 20 April at columns 77–78. More recent information is not yet available.

  Community Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to relax in 1994–95 the requirement relating to the proportion of the community care special transitional grant which must be spent in the independent sector; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The conditions to be applied to the 1994–95 special transitional grant will be announced in due course.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to establish a special grant to fund the cost of additional care managers, information systems and other unavoidable expenses incurred by local authorities resulting from the institution of community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sum will be available to fund care in the community in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993–94 local authorities will receive an additional £565.4 million to fund their new responsibilities. This will rise to a total of £1,274.5 million in 1994–95, of which £735.9 million will be included in a special transitional grant.

  "Changing Childbirth"
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she plans to take to implement the recommendations of the expert maternity group report on "Changing Childbirth".
  167
  Mr. Sackville
  The report "Changing Childbirth", copies of which are available in the Library, has been the subject of consultation which ended on 29 October. Professional bodies, interested organisations and the national health service were invited to submit written comments. These are being given careful consideration in the Department. Action to be taken in the NHS will be notified as soon as Ministers have completed their study of the responses to the report.

  Patients (Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the most recent available average cost of(a) an in-patient, (b) an out-patient and (c) an accident emergency episode of treatment in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1991–92 is shown in the table. The figures are not comparable with data from financial returns, for earlier years due to the inclusion of capital charges and overheads.

  Average cost of in-patient, out-patient and accident and emergency services 1991–92, England

  Average costs (£)

  In-patient1 per episode

  1,234

  Out-patient2 per attendance

  54

  Accident and emergency3 per attendance

  35

  1 Patients using a bed including day cases.

  2 Figure obtained by using total attendance data.

  3 Total attendance of patients using accident and emergency services.

  Source: Specialty and Programme Cost Return HFR22/TFR2

  NHS Accommodation, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the location of NHS office accommodation in Leeds based outside hospitals and the date when the accommodation was first occupied for NHS use.

  Mr. Sackville
  The location of national health service office accommodation in Leeds, based outside hospitals, is shown in the table. If the hon. Member requires further information on any of these, he should contact the organisation involved.

  NHS Organisation

  Location

  Year of occupancy

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Joseph's Well Complex Hanover Walk Leeds LS3 1AB

  1992

  Leeds Family Health Services Association

  Brunswick Court Bridge Street Leeds LS2 7RJ

  1991

  Leeds Healthcare

  St. Mary's House St. Mary's Road Leeds LS7 3JX

  1979

  Leeds Community Health Council

  Vicar Lane House Templar Street Leeds LS2 7NU

  1991

  Special Transitional Grant
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which London local authorities are forecasting an overspend on special transitional grant; and how she intends to adjust the formula for distribution of special transitional grant in 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information provided by local authorities to joint monitoring teams from the social services inspectorate and regional health authorities indicates that in September some authorities in London were predicting that they would spend the full amount of their special transitional grant, some less and some more. This information was sought on the understanding that it would only be published in aggregate. The distribution of next year's special transitional grant will be announced in due course.

  Secure Units, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of secure units for young people in the areas covering the Greater London area.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is a national network of 295 secure places to which all local authorities have access. London boroughs provide 41 of these places—11 for girls and 30 for boys—in five separate secure units.

  Nursing Homes
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many privately operated nursing homes for the elderly have been closed down under the individual voluntary arrangement procedure provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 in each year since 1986; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has conducted any survey or analysis of the cost or other implications to the NHS of the proposed increase in VAT on gas and electricity.

  Mr. Sackville
  The non-domestic supply of fuel and power, including that to hospitals, is already subject to value added tax at the standard rate.

  Hospital Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new services have been provided in hospitals and community health services as a result of increased funding in the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 29 October at columns 833–34.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the total salaries of each chief executive of each trust in the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and planned for 1993–94;

  (2) how many chief executives of national health service trusts have merit awards according to the actual grade of merit award;
  169
  (3) how many chief executives of trusts are qualified medical doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the guidelines established for national health service trusts in relation to the disposal of property and land.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts, like other public sector bodies, follow agreed Government procedures for the disposal of surplus public land. They are required to consider with their professional advisors how to obtain the best return, which will normally be achieved through a sale of the freehold on the open market, with the benefit of planning permission where there is potential for development. The Department is preparing guidance for national health service trusts on property management which will include advice on disposals.

  Contraceptive Pills
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate deregulation and over-the-counter provision of non-emergency contraceptive pills.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proposal that non-emergency contraceptive pills should be available from pharmacies without a prescription was made in an editorial in the Lancet on 4 September and has been the subject of some media debate. The proposal and reactions to it are being studied in the Department.

  Perioperative Deaths
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the national average perioperative death rate;

  (2) what is the perioperative death rate at the Harrogate district hospital; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what was the result of her Department's contacts with individual hospitals with high perioperative death rates;

  (4) at which hospital in the United Kingdom the perioperative death rate is the lowest; and what is this rate.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health does not collect information on hospital perioperative death rates. The royal colleges encourage clinicians to participate in a national confidential inquiry into hospital perioperative deaths. The results of the inquiry are published in an annual report, copies of which are available in the Library, but the identity of individual hospitals and surgeons remain confidential.

  Night Visits
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-of-hours visits that command a night visit fee for general practitioners took place in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of visits

  1983–84

  682,000

  1984–85

  715,000

  1985–86

  798,000

  170

  Financial year

  Number of visits

  1986–87

  763,000

  1987–88

  825,000

  1988–89

  902,000

  1989–90

  936,000

  1990–91

  1,543,000

  1991–92

  1,712,000

  1992–93

  1,643,000

  Notes:

  1. In 1990–91, the period for which night visit fees are payable was extended from 11 pm-lam to 10pm-8am.

  2. The number of general practitioners increased over this period from 23,640 in 1983 to 25,968 in 1992 (the last year for which figures are available).

  3. The figure for 1992–93 is provisional, unaudited.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the night visit fee for general practitioners in real terms in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table.

  Night visit fee in real terms (in f at 1993/94 prices)

  Year beginning 1 April

  46.65 (higher); 15.55 (lower)

  1993

  46.24 (higher); 15.41 (lower)

  1992

  47.86 (higher); 15.95 (lower)

  1991

  49.17 (higher); 16.39 (lower)

  11990

  24.81

  1989

  24.48

  1988

  24.09

  1987

  23.79

  1986

  23.72

  1985

  23.65

  1984

  1 On 1 April 1990, the "new" general practitioner contract restructured the arrangements for the payment of night visit fees. A two-tier fee system was introduced under which GPs undertaking their own visits or providing cover within a rota of 10 GPs or less qualified for the higher fee, other visits qualified for the lower fee. Figures before 1990 are not, therefore, directly comparable with figures after 1990

  Foster Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of children by age in each year since 1989(a) in foster care and (b) adopted; and what was the time spent in foster care by age prior to adoption in each of those years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of children in local authority care in foster placements by age at 31 March is published in "Children in care, 31 March, England" for the years 1989 to 1991. Figures for 1992 are not yet available at this level of detail. Information about the number of children adopted by age is published in "Marriage and Divorce statistics series FM2, year ending October". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Information about the length of placement has only been collected following the implementation of the Children Act 1989. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 17 June at column. 688 for the information that is currently available.

  Private GPs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline rights private general practitioners have in referring to NHS hospitals.
  171
  Dr. Mawhinney
  All fully registered medical practitioners can refer patients to national health service hospitals irrespective of whether they are treating them privately or under the NHS. The priority afforded to referrals from a private general practitioner, as with those from an NHS GP, is a matter for clinical decision.

  Nurse Training
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on health authorities' and regional health authorities' contracts for basic nursing training colleges in each of the last five years and on projected figures for the coming year in real terms and on a percentage change.

  Mr. Sackville
  Contractual arrangements for nurse training colleges are a matter between regional health authorities and the colleges themselves.

  The demand for basic nurse training places has been employment led since 1991. Employers are focusing their attention on quality and outcomes of care rather than numbers employed within staff groups.

  Pharmacists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the packaging reimbursement to pharmacists per prescribed item.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pharmacists currently receive 6.5p per prescription for the cost of containers.

  London Specialty Review
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to respond to the specialty review of London health services; and when she plans to respond.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The recommendation of the six specialty reviews is part of a complex jigsaw of factors informing the development of proposals for the future configuration of London's hospital services. Proposals for the future pattern of services, including specialist services, will be put forward shortly.

  Cancer Clusters
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by whom her Department was represented at the conference on cancer clusters, organised by the European Commission, held in early October at the Westlakes research institute in Cumbria.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two officials from the Department's health aspects of the environment and food division attended.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to add the functions of the NHS estates to those of the NHS management executive; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  National Health Service Estates is an executive agency in the Department of Health and carries out a number of functions on behalf of the Department including the NHS management executive. The agency's172
  future role and functions are currently being examined in the light of the functions and manpower review, and the first triennial review of the agency's framework document.

  Private Capital Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those public investment projects within her Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The private finance initiative is helping the national health service to capture the skills and expertise of the private sector to give better services, higher quality and more resources for the NHS. Private finance will mean additional capital spending on top of the record £2.1 billion public capital this year. New delegated limits for the NHS have broken down bureaucratic obstacles that were inhibiting effective use of private finance. Twelve projects have been approved by the Department of Health since the 1992 autumn statement, as shown in the table. Health authorities and NHS trusts now have authority to approve other projects themselves where the sums involved are less than certain prescribed limits; as a result many further projects are also under discussion.

  NHS projects using private capital approved by the Department of Health since the 1992 autumn statement

  1. Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust: lease of magnetic resonance imager.

  2. Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education: lease of offices in London.

  3. South East London Commissioning Agency: lease of offices in London.

  4. King's College Hospital, Camberwell: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  5. The Royal Oldham Hospital NHS Trust: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  6. Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust: joint venture patient hotel.

  7. Plymouth District Health Authority: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  8. William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, Kent: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  9. North West Thames Regional Health Authority: provision under contract of new residential accommodation at Steppingley and Biggleswade, Bedfordshire.

  10. Barnet Health Authority: provision under contract of new residential accommodation in Hendon.

  11. Bolton DHA: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  12. North West Thames RHA: staff residences at Carlton gate, London W9.

  Ealing Hospital
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) medical, (b) nursing and (c) administrative and other staff at Ealing hospital for the current year and for each of the past 10 years; how many in-patients and out-patients they tended in each of these years; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Staff at Ealing hospital, by staff group

  September 1991

  September 1992

  Medical

  —

  110

  Nursing

  640

  610

  Administrative

  —

  250

  Other

  —

  220

  173
  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures exclude agency nurses and medical locums.

  1992–93 provisional returns for Ealing hospital national health service trust show 18,226 people treated as in-patients, 5,560 treated as day cases and 117,126 people seen as out-patients. Information for earlier years is not available centrally.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total of public funding for the Ealing hospital NHS trust for the current year; what was the equivalent figure in each of the preceding 10 years, in real terms including those when Ealing hospital did not have a trust status; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ealing hospital national health service trust came into operation on 1 April 1992. Accounts showing sources of income for the first year of operation will be available towards the end of November. Information for earlier years is not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Working Holidays
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) Ghanaian, (b) Nigerian, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Indian nationals who applied while in the United Kingdom to remain as working holidaymakers were refused in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many (a) Ghanaian, (b) Nigerian, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Indian nationals applied while in the United Kingdom to remain as working holidaymakers (i) in 1992 and (ii) in the first six months of 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is of decisions on applications for an extension of stay as a working holidaymaker, and is given in the table.

  Decisions1 on applications made in the United Kingdom for an extension of stay as a working holidaymaker2, by whether granted or refused, for certain nationalities

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993 (first six months)3

  Ghana

  Granted

  10

  200

  860

  1,150

  310

  Refused

  4—

  4—

  40

  90

  40

  Nigeria

  Granted

  70

  860

  1,910

  1,650

  380

  Refused

  10

  50

  120

  300

  110

  Bangladesh

  Granted

  4—

  10

  40

  140

  50

  Refused

  —

  4—

  —

  10

  10

  India

  Granted

  20

  60

  210

  280

  120

  Refused

  —

  4—

  4—

  30

  20

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Including both those whose previous leave was as a working holidaymaker, and those whose previous leave was in another capacity.

  3 Data are provisional and may be underrecorded.

  4 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) Ghanaian, (b)
  174
  Nigerian, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Indian nationals who, having applied while in the United Kingdom to remain as working holiday makers, and been granted permission, were later readmitted for a further period for the same purpose in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many (a) Ghanaian, (b) Nigerian, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Indian nationals who, having applied at British high commission in their own countries, and been granted permission to enter the United Kingdom as working holiday makers were later readmitted for a further period for the same purpose in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not identified separately in the statistics of passenger admissions.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the amounts earmarked by each police authority in England for pension payments and represented as a percentage proportion of their overall budgets.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on local authority budget provision for pensions is not held centrally. The following table gives outturn information for 1992–93.

  Police authority

  Net pensions expenditure1 (Police and Civilians) £000s

  Net pensions expenditure as a percentage of net current expenditure2

  Avon and Somerset

  11,978

  9.6

  Bedfordshire

  2,876

  6.5

  Cambridgeshire

  4,131

  8.3

  Cheshire

  6,840

  9.4

  Cleveland

  6,647

  11.1

  Cumbria

  5,181

  10.5

  Derbyshire

  6,796

  9.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  11,380

  8.8

  Dorset

  4,768

  8.6

  Durham

  6,045

  11.4

  Essex

  9,458

  7.5

  Gloucestershire

  4,145

  8.6

  Hampshire

  10,727

  7.9

  Hertfordshire

  4,851

  7.1

  Humberside

  7,644

  9.1

  Kent

  12,250

  8.9

  Lancashire

  13,889

  10 8

  Leicestershire

  8,433

  11.6

  Lincolnshire

  5,355

  10.5

  Norfolk

  4,877

  8.3

  Northamptonshire

  3,929

  7.8

  North Yorkshire

  7,250

  12.4

  Nottinghamshire

  8,248

  9.2

  Staffordshire

  11,038

  12.6

  Suffolk

  3,671

  7.2

  Surrey

  6,320

  8.9

  Sussex

  11,763

  10.2

  Thames Valley

  8,983

  5.6

  Warwickshire

  2,419

  5.7

  West Mercia

  5,608

  6.8

  Wiltshire

  3,196

  6.2

  Greater Manchester

  27,501

  10.1

  Merseyside

  20,496

  10.8

  Northumbria

  16,063

  11.8

  South Yorkshire

  10,802

  9.3

  West Midlands

  23,113

  8.1

  West Yorkshire

  26,940

  12.9

  City of London

  3,607

  8.2

  Metropolitan Police3

  136,088

  9.4

  Total England

  485,307

  9.4

  175
  1 Figures are net of pension contributions, transfer values and recharges to other authorities.

  2 Current expenditure net of pensions income, sales, fees and charges, interest and other receipts.

  3 Metropolitan Police figures are estimates only.

  Fire and Civil Defence Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 408, if he will list for each county council and fire and civil defence authority and for each year since 1986–87, the amounts deducted by his

  Financial year

  Income

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Avon

  —

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  9,139

  7,101

  5,775

  7,400

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  120

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  582

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  165

  844

  655

  500

  500

  Derbyshire

  —

  2,090

  5,453

  —

  —

  Devon

  525

  1,440

  2,834

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  439

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  105

  750

  750

  —

  Isle of Wight

  30

  30

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  2,345

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  592

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1,200

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  460

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  3,614

  3,620

  2,622

  10

  10

  North Yorkshire

  —

  187

  800

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1,422

  1,096

  1,500

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1,794

  1,680

  1,644

  1,600

  1,600

  Staffordshire

  —

  372

  252

  100

  100

  Surrey

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  218

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  9,223

  3,622

  7,288

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  2,592

  12,192

  14,111

  5,300

  —

  West Midlands

  16,425

  19,997

  11,118

  3,000

  8,000

  West Yorkshire

  8,893

  5,911

  13,463

  13,000

  14,000

  Gwynedd

  167

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  225

  525

  69

  40

  40

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing for each metropolitan fire and civil defence authority and for the London fire and civil defence authority(a) its 1993–94

  (£ Million)

  Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  (a)1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence SSA

  (b)1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence budgeted spending

  (c)Percentage difference between (a) and (b)

  (d)1993–94 Capping limit

  London

  247.910

  247.749

  -0.06

  248.484

  Greater Manchester

  72.754

  70.516

  -3.08

  72.754

  Merseyside

  48.327

  47.429

  -1 86

  48.327

  South Yorkshire

  29 683

  30.104

  1.42

  31.166

  Tyne and Wear

  35.357

  33.803

  -4.40

  35.357

  West Midlands

  69.070

  66.728

  -3.39

  69.070

  West Yorkshire

  50 752

  52.392

  3.23

  53.069

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing for each relevant authority(a) its 1993–94 standard spending
  176
  Department from civil defence grant aid allocations in respect of income generated by local authority emergency planning units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives the amount of income which is declared by each county council and fire and civil defence authority for the five financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95. Figures for earlier years could be retrieved only by incurring disproportionate costs.

  We are not aware of any case in which grant aid was reduced to take account of declared income. It remains our policy that local authorities should continue to benefit from income generate locally and they will be notified of the new arangemetns in time for 1 April 1994.

  standard spending assessment, (b) its budgeted spending for 1993–94, (c) the percentage difference between (a) and (b) and (d) the cap proposed by him for 1993–94.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  assessment for fire services, (b) its budgeted spending for 1993–94 on fire services and (c) the percentage difference between (a) and (b).

  Mr. Howard
  The following table provides the information requested in respect of English county fire authorities.
  177

  £ million

  Fire authority

  (a) 1993–94 Fire and civil defence SSA

  (b) 1993–94 Fire and civil defence budgeted spending

  (c) Percentage difference between (a) and (b)

  Avon

  20.473

  21.829

  6.62

  Bedfordshire

  11073

  11.780

  6.38

  Berkshire

  16.601

  15.798

  -4.84

  Buckinghamshire

  12.360

  12.318

  -0.34

  Cambridgeshire

  12.039

  13.795

  14.59

  Cheshire

  20.103

  21.002

  4.47

  Cleveland

  19.464

  20.128

  3.41

  Cornwall

  7.181

  10.146

  41.29

  Cumbria

  8.753

  11.813

  34.96

  Derbyshire

  17.067

  18.272

  7.06

  Devon

  19.557

  22.240

  13.72

  Dorset

  12.065

  13.748

  13.95

  Durham

  12.973

  13.914

  7.25

  East Sussex

  14.891

  16.600

  11.48

  Essex

  31.445

  34.667

  10.25

  Gloucestershire

  9.605

  10.285

  7.08

  Hampshire

  31.585

  27.823

  -11.91

  Hereford and Worcester

  12.116

  12.025

  -0.75

  Hertfordshire

  20.328

  19.547

  -3.84

  Humberside

  21.322

  22.168

  3.97

  Isle of Wight

  2.229

  3.396

  52.36

  Kent

  30.998

  35.138

  13.36

  Lancashire

  32.276

  33.320

  3.23

  Leicestershire

  16.924

  14.878

  -12–09

  Lincolnshire

  9.583

  11.641

  21.48

  Norfolk

  13.010

  14.999

  15.29

  Northamptonshire

  11.260

  11.460

  1.78

  Northumberland

  5.823

  8.433

  44.82

  North Yorkshire

  12.001

  14.718

  22.64

  Nottinghamshire

  21.087

  20.784

  -1.44

  Oxfordshire

  11.284

  11.326

  0.37

  Shropshire

  7.839

  8.040

  2.56

  Somerset

  7.693

  9.349

  21.53

  Staffordshire

  19.345

  18.577

  -3.97

  Suffolk

  11.023

  12.770

  15.85

  Surrey

  22.133

  26.288

  18.77

  Warwickshire

  8.993

  11.574

  28.70

  West Sussex

  14.836

  16.122

  8.67

  Wiltshire

  10.054

  10.267

  2.12

  Isles of Scilly

  0.053

  0.088

  66.04

  Football Offences
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all persons and organisations in Holland with whom arrangements were made by his Department in the period preceding the England versus Holland football match of 13 October with a view to extending the provisions of the Football Spectators (Corresponding Offences in Italy) Order 1990 to cover offences committed in Holland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government continue to seek bilateral agreements under part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989. In the case of the Netherlands,

  Number of defendants prosecuted and found guilty of offences under sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Football (Offences) Act 19911, 1991 and 19922

  England and Wales

  1991

  19922

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Section 2

  Throwing a missile at or towards the playing area or any area in which spectators or other persons may be present

  2

  1

  34

  27

  Section 3

  Taking part in indecent or racialist chanting

  6

  5

  31

  21

  178
  officials have been in contact with officials in the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior, both direct and through the British embassy in the Hague. My right hon. and learned Friend has also written to the Dutch Minister of Justice on this subject.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal proceedings involving alleged offences contained in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 have been pursued since it came into force on 10 August 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1991 and 1992, which is provisional, is given in the following table. The 1993 data will not be available until autumn 1994.
  179

  1991

  19922

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Section 4

  Going on to the playing or adjacent area without lawful authority or lawful excuse

  23

  23

  275

  246

  1 Came into force on 10 August 1991.

  2 Provisional.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18-year-old(a) men and (b) women held in custody in prisons in England and Wales on 18 October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 November 1993:
  Population of persons aged 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in prison service establishments in England and Wales.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 year old (a) men and (b) women were in custody on 18 October 1993.
  The latest readily available information is for 30 June 1993 is shown in the enclosed table.

  Replica Firearms
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of armed attacks where it has subsequently been discovered that the criminal had used replica guns.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences recorded by the police in which imitation firearms were reported to have been used. This information is published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1991", tables 3.4 and 3.5. The figures include replica firearms and all other types of imitation firearms including toys. A copy of this publication can be found in the Library.

  Police, Bexley
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about police strength in the Bexley division.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have received representations from the Bexley Police Liaison Committee and the St. Michael's Residents Association.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the prison population in England and Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 November 1993:
  180
  Prison Population Since 1980
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what the prison population in England and Wales has been in each of the years since 1980.
  The information you have requested is shown in the attached table.

  Average population in custody1 in England and Wales 1980–1993.

  Year

  Average population

  1980

  43,109

  1981

  43,436

  1982

  43,754

  1983

  43,772

  1984

  43,349

  1985

  46,278

  1986

  46,889

  1987

  48,963

  1988

  49,949

  1989

  48,610

  1990

  45,636

  1991

  45,897

  1992

  45,817

  1993

  245,633

  1 Includes prisoners held in police cells

  2 Latest monthly figure (August 1993).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the agreed normal prison accommodation for each of the prisons in England and Wales and the actual prison population in each prison on 18 October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service accommodation and population.
  I attach a table showing the certified normal accommodation (CNA) and actual population in each establishment in England and Wales on 18 October 1993.

  Establishment CNA and population on 18 October 1993.

  Establishment

  CAN

  Population

  Acklington

  676

  641

  Albany

  313

  302

  Aldington

  133

  97

  Ashwell

  404

  392

  Askham Grange

  129

  98

  Aylesbury

  241

  240

  Bedford

  170

  243

  Belmarsh

  841

  692

  Birmingham

  638

  712

  Blakenhurst

  549

  549

  Blantyre House

  95

  94

  Blundeston

  410

  332

  Brinsford

  446

  440

  Bristol

  374

  414

  Brixton

  518

  604

  Brockhill

  156

  133

  181

  Establishment

  CAN

  Population

  Bullingdon

  635

  610

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  111

  Camp Hill

  406

  342

  Canterbury

  128

  187

  Cardiff

  328

  436

  Castington

  300

  294

  Channings Wood

  594

  572

  Chelmsford

  217

  315

  Coldingley

  222

  236

  Cookham Wood

  120

  113

  Dartmoor

  560

  500

  Deerbolt

  432

  348

  Dorchester

  136

  211

  Dover

  316

  192

  Downview

  287

  280

  Drake Hall

  255

  202

  Durham

  364

  522

  East Sutton Park

  85

  78

  Elmley

  635

  602

  Erlestoke

  206

  206

  Everthorpe

  228

  224

  Exeter

  317

  416

  Featherstone

  599

  588

  Feltham

  874

  784

  Finnamore Wood

  112

  90

  Ford

  536

  455

  Frankland

  339

  325

  Full Sutton

  604

  539

  Garth

  512

  507

  Gartree

  258

  249

  Glen Parva

  854

  755

  Gloucester

  207

  241

  Grendon

  190

  168

  Guys Marsh

  300

  178

  Haslar

  145

  142

  Hatfield

  180

  175

  Haverigg

  345

  295

  Hewell Grange

  136

  158

  High Down

  549

  506

  Highpoint

  679

  646

  Hindley

  317

  324

  Hollesley Bay

  425

  295

  Holloway

  517

  492

  Holme House

  649

  527

  Hull

  269

  458

  Huntercombe

  240

  159

  Kingston

  104

  102

  Kirkham

  620

  597

  Kirklevington

  74

  67

  Lancaster

  186

  258

  Lancaster Farms

  260

  328

  Latchmere House

  131

  121

  Leeds

  700

  1,141

  Leicester

  194

  327

  Lewes

  267

  335

  Leyhill

  410

  409

  Lincoln

  444

  602

  Lindholme

  622

  598

  Littlehey

  543

  529

  Liverpool

  931

  1,219

  Long Lartin

  362

  337

  Low Newton

  199

  260

  Maidstone

  513

  518

  Manchester

  291

  311

  Moorland

  641

  648

  Morton Hall

  168

  169

  The Mount

  484

  472

  New Hall

  205

  155

  North Sea Camp

  204

  200

  Northallerton

  146

  93

  Norwich

  463

  445

  Nottingham

  218

  206

  Onley

  456

  447

  Parkhurst

  286

  236

  Pentonville

  559

  659

  Portland

  424

  346

  Prescoed

  40

  38

  Preston

  324

  542

  182

  Establishment

  CAN

  Population

  Pucklechurch

  56

  54

  Ranby

  331

  329

  Reading

  182

  171

  Risley

  773

  706

  Rochester

  303

  186

  Rudgate

  300

  268

  Send

  113

  110

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  186

  Shrewsbury

  168

  297

  Spring Hill

  210

  203

  Stafford

  532

  505

  Standford Hill

  384

  296

  Stocken

  396

  390

  Stoke Heath

  300

  262

  Styal

  180

  200

  Sudbury

  509

  426

  Swaleside

  504

  503

  Swansea

  213

  261

  Swinfen Hall

  167

  163

  Thorn Cross

  240

  182

  Thorp Arch

  166

  163

  Usk

  201

  192

  The Verne

  552

  542

  Wakefield

  662

  657

  Wandsworth

  838

  801

  Wayland

  580

  548

  Wellingborough

  284

  280

  Werrington

  110

  110

  Wetherby

  120

  150

  Wharton

  217

  213

  Whitemoor

  534

  495

  Winchester

  361

  413

  The Wolds

  320

  315

  Woodhill

  492

  486

  Wormwood Scrubs

  527

  764

  Wymott

  110

  102

  Border and Immigration Control
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what matters were discussed at the recent meeting in Paris of Ministers responsible for border and immigration control; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I assume that my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind the meeting of the Schengen executive committee which was held in Paris on 18 October. The United Kingdom is not a signatory to the Schengen convention and was therefore not represented at the meeting. I understand that its main conclusion was that implementation of the convention should be postponed until 1 February 1994.

  Leicestershire Police
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide additional resources for the Leicestershire police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In view of the need to maintain firm control over public expenditure, no police forces are receiving establishment increases for 1993–94.

  Suicide
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the annual cost of individual acts of suicide and attempted suicide in terms of police investigation, health and social services costs and coroners' costs; and if he will make a statement.
  183
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not collected.

  Prison Ship
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what negotiations his Department is holding with third parties for the purchase of a prison ship; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to commission the construction of a prison ship or negotiate with a third party for the commissioning of the construction of a prison ship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 2 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about prison ships.
  The Prison Service is considering a number of options as part of its contingency planning to identify ways of increasing the capacity of the prison estate. Marine detention facilities are one of the options being considered.
  At this stage, no action has been taken to procure a prison ship, although preliminary discussions have taken place. These discussions are confined to existing ships and do not include the construction of new ships.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private security organisations are engaged in the policing of housing estates in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of patrols by private security firms in England and Wales and Northern Ireland is not held centrally.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a system of licensing for private security organisations.

  Number of offences recorded and persons cautioned, prosecuted and found guilty in Merseyside police force area and England and Wales under the Theft Act 1968, section 12A as added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992

  England and Wales 19921

  Offence description

  Merseyside

  England and Wales

  Owing to the driving of the vehicle, Cautions an accident occurs causing the death of any persion

  offences recorded

  —

  19

  Cautions

  —

  1

  Prosecutions

  —

  33

  Convictions

  —

  21

  (a) the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place; or

  Offences recorded

  45

  2,355

  Cautions

  1

  111

  (b) owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle; or

  Prosecutions

  1

  111

  Convictions

  22

  1,700

  (c) damage was caused to the vehicle

  1 Provisional

  184
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's policy is to support the development of self-regulation within the private security industry. There are no plans to introduce a system of licensing.

  Joy Riding
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of deaths and injuries arising from joy riding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are monitoring the effects of recent legislative measures. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 doubled to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. The Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 was introduced to provide more appropriate penalties for the menace of joy riding.

  We will continue with our strategy to reduce the opportunity for all forms of car crime by encouraging motor manufacturers and insurers to improve vehicle security, and motorists to adopt good security measures.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been involved in joy-riding accidents which have resulted in(a) deaths and (b) injury in each of the past five years (i) in England and Wales and (ii) on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the following table. Provisional information is given for 1992 only on the number of notifiable offences and persons cautioned, prosecuted and convicted under the Theft Act 1968, section 12A as added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992, section 1, which came into force on 1 April 1992. Data for 1993 are not yet available. Prior to 1992, the term "joy riding" related to offences which would have been included in the theft and unauthorised taking of motor vehicles offence classification.

  Metropolitan Police
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many chief superintendent and chief inspector posts he expects to be removed from the Metropolitan police by 1 April 1995;
  185
  (2) if he will estimate the number of chief superintendents and chief inspectors remaining in the Metropolitan police who will be redeployed following the rank changes announced on 28 October;

  (3) what plans he has to meet the cost of any redundancies in the Metropolitan police arising from the deletion of chief superintendent and chief inspector posts in the Metropolitan police service between now and 1 April 1995; and what is his estimate of this cost.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Commissioner has in hand a review of the internal management structure of the Metropolitan police and will need to consider in that context how best to implement the decisions about ranks in the police service which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 28 October. It is too early to say how the necessary restructuring will be achieved.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many superintendents, chief superintendents, inspectors and chief inspectors are currently employed in the Metropolitan police service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  'The following is the information requested:

  Number

  Chief Superintendents

  133

  Superintendents

  229

  Chief Inspectors

  489

  Inspectors

  1,479

  Mr. Constantin Rudaro
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the case of the Romanian refugee Constantin Rudaro was drawn to the attention of the immigration and nationality department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  will write to the hon. Member.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing, for each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c)/ inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests.

  Mr. Howard
  None of the executive non-departmental public bodies for which the Home Office is responsible is required by statute to give the public rights of access in the manner specified in the hon. Member's question, though section 46 of the Race Relations Act 1976 requires the publication of the report and accounts of the Commission for Racial Equality. It is also the practice to publish the reports and accounts of the following executive non-departmental bodies for which the Home Office is responsible:

  —The Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  —Gaming Board of Great Britain

  —Police Complaints Authority

  —Horserace Totalisator Board

  —Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Private Investment Projects
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Howard
  There has been one project: an agreement with Lynton plc to provide new immigration detention facilities at Gatwick airport.

  "Statewatch"
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to how many copies his Department subscribes of the publication "Statewatch."

  Mr. Howard
  Two.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Quarry House (Film)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what requests BBC TV North made to his Department in respect of permission to film at his Department's premises at Quarry house, Leeds on 4 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Benefits Agency national press office has no record of a request from BBC TV North to film at Quarry house on 4 May 1993.

  Benefits for Children
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be spent on benefits for children in low-income families, excluding child benefit in the next financial year.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. It is estimated that in 1994–95, the amount spent on families, excluding child benefit, will be £8,850 million.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information given to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on 7 July,Official Report, column 165, to include estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information is in the tables:

  Numbers claiming benefit

  Date

  Sickness benefit2

  Invalidity benefit

  29 May 1982

  469,000

  684,000

  2 April 1983

  408,000

  737,000

  31 March 1984

  3247,000

  797,000

  30 March 1985

  225,000

  849,000

  5 April 1986

  237,000

  899,000

  4 April 1987

  3187,000

  968,000

  2 April 1988

  228,000

  1,047,000

  1 April 1989

  266,000

  1,126,000

  31 March 1990

  309,000

  1,209,000

  30 March 1991

  372,000

  1,306,000

  4 April 1992

  458,000

  1,439,000

  187
  Notes:

  1 Source: Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants rounded to the nearest thousand. The latest date for which information is available is 4 April 1992.

  2 Includes people receiving national insurance credits who are claiming but are not entitled to sickness benefit.

  3 Statutory sick pay introduced from 6 April 1983 for a maximum eight weeks sickness absence in a tax year. From 6 April 1986 statutory sick pay was extended to up to 28 weeks in a period of incapacity for work.

  Estimated average numbers receiving benefit at any one time

  Year

  Sickness benefit

  Invalidity benefit

  1992–93

  135,000

  1,490,000

  1993–94

  130,000

  1,585,000

  1994–95

  135,000

  1,680,000

  Source: Departmental report.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) of 25 February,Official Report, column 681, including the effect of the taper for council tax benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. The base rate has remained unchanged at 6 per cent. since 26 January 1993. The taper in council tax benefit, which was introduced in April 1993, is 20 per cent. Council tax benefit can meet a maximum 100 per cent. of the council tax whereas in community charge benefit, the maximum rebate was 80 per cent. of the community charge.

  Date 1 April 1993

  Figures

  Base rate (per cent.)

  6.00

  Amount of interest earned on capital of £5,000 invested at base rate (per week)

  £5.769

  Benefit deduction for £5,000 capital in both housing benefit and council tax benefit (per week)

  £8.00

  Tapered amount set against benefit (per week) HB (65 per cent. taper)

  £5.20

  CTB (20 per cent taper)

  £1.60

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts are presently being made to ensure people know of the full range of benefits available; and what strategies are being pursued to ensure everyone gets their full entitlement.

  Mr. Burt
  The provision of information and advice to the public on benefits 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 Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent
  188
  Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what efforts are being made to ensure people know of the full range of benefits available; and what strategies are being pursued to ensure everyone gets their full entitlement.
  As you will be aware, the Secretary of State announced, on 9 September, that the Benefits Agency is involved in a major programme of work designed to improve the service given to customers. The intention is to provide a One Stop benefit delivery service which aims to minimise the points of contact for customers who claim more than one benefit. The first stage towards a One Stop service should be in place by mid 1994 and it is envisaged that customers will then be able to obtain from their local Benefits Agency Office:

  1. Advice and information on all the major benefits regardless of where they are administered.

  2. Access to most benefit claim forms.

  3. Help with claiming benefits even if they are not locally administered.

  In connection with the One Stop project, the Benefits Agency is establishing better links with other Agencies and associated service providers, such as Employment Services and Local Authorities. The Agency is also working closely with a range of advisers and intermediaries to ensure that they have access to appropriate information and support to enable them to brief their clients effectively on benefit related issues.
  The availability and visibility of information materials in non-Benefits Agency outlets is being increased; currently over 70,000 intermediaries have direct access to our material through the Benefits Agency Publicity Register. In addition, steps are being taken to improve the range of material available in other forms, for example in Braille, large print, audio cassette and in ethnic translation.
  The Social Security Freeline Service provides information and advice on all benefits to the general public and as an addition to this the Benefit Enquiry Line gives advice to people with disabilities and their carers; this service now includes a minicom number and expanded form filling facility. To help customers further, a Family Credit Helpline was introduced, coinciding with a major advertising campaign, when the Secretary of State launched the Return to Work initiative in April.
  Finally, a national Customer Service Definition, outlining the standards and range of services to be provided, has been issued to all Benefits Agency offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  State Benefits
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people depend entirely on state benefits for their income.

  Mr. Burt
  In 1990–91, there was an estimated total of 3.6 million adults and children living in families whose only source of income was state benefits.

  Marginal Tax and Benefit Rates
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 682, on marginal tax and social security rates to include estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95, the latter based on the assumption of statutory indexation and including measures already announced in the 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Burt
  Estimates for 1994–95 on marginal tax and social security rates, can be updated only at disproportionate cost. It is anticipated that the information necessary to provide an update will be available early next year. Estimates for 1993–94 are given in the table.
  189

  Number of people with marginal deduction rates including social security

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  100 per cent. plus

  70

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90 per cent. plus

  130

  45

  45

  45

  55

  75

  100

  80 per cent. plus

  290

  345

  210

  235

  205

  250

  200

  70 per cent. plus

  290

  515

  415

  395

  400

  500

  545

  60 per cent. plus

  450

  515

  420

  395

  405

  510

  555

  50 per cent. plus

  680

  515

  420

  395

  405

  510

  560

  40 per cent. plus

  n/a

  n/a

  455

  665

  435

  520

  605

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1985–86 to 1991–92 are for benefit units where at least one partner works 24 hours or more.

  2. Figures for 1992–93 are for benefit units where at least one partner works for 16 hours a week or more. These people would have experienced 100 per cent. deduction rate whilst on income support so their circumstances as a result of the change to family credit, will have improved.

  3. The information is based on family expenditure Survey.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children, broken down into lone parent families and two-parent families, are in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance; and for each type of family for each relevant benefit, how many include a qualifying child.

  Mr. Burt
  The table shows the latest available figures:

  Benefit in payment

  Lone parent families

  Two parent families

  Income support (IS)

  1985,000

  1511,000

  Family credit (FC)

  2206,000

  2281,000

  Disability working allowance (DWA)

  3270

  3709

  Totals

  4,191,270

  4792,709

  Note

  1 Income support quarterly statistical inquiry, November 1992—rounded to nearest thousand.

  2 As at 30 April 1993—rounded to nearest thousand.

  3As at 30 April 1993.

  4 There will be a small overlap because those on FC or DWA may also claim IS in mid-award if they cease work.

  All the above cases include children for whom benefit is paid.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the level of child benefit in 1993–94 and 1994–95 if it had been fully uprated since April 1987 and its structure had remained the same, assuming full indexation of the benefit in 1994–95.

  Mr. Burt
  The rate would be £10.30 in 1993–94 and £10.50 in 1994–95.

  Benefit Rebates
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on revenues in 1993–94 and 1994–95 of reducing the maximum amount of rebate payable for(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit to (i) 90 per cent., (ii) 80 per cent. and (iii) 70 per cent. of eligible rent on council tax payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested for 1993–94 is in the table. Estimates of the effect on revenues at 1994–95 benefit levels and prices are not yet available.
  190

  Percentage of eligible rent and council tax used in the assessment of CTB and HB

  Total savings in housing benefi (£ million)

  Total savings in council tax benefit(£ million)

  90

  1,600

  420

  80

  3,070

  685

  70

  4,365

  915

  Source: Estimates based on the 1989–90–91 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1993–94 benefit levels and prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Pensioner's Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) of 15 December 1992,Official Report, columns 150–51, relating to pensioners incomes, giving the most recently available figures.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested. As with the earlier answer, the requested distribution was in some cases too detailed to give a reliable number of sample cases. Certain ranges have therefore been merged in order to ensure estimates are based on at least 20 sample cases. In addition, the nature of the survey techniques used in the family expenditure survey means that the separate incomes of husbands and wives within a couple cannot be identified reliably. The answer therefore categorises single people—male and female—and couples only. The available information is in the tables.

  Weekly non-benefit income distribution—Pensioners Single Female Pensioners

  £ in January 1991 prices

  Thousands

  Income (£)

  1,477

  0–5

  285

  5–10

  195

  10–15

  178

  15–20

  267

  20–30

  161

  30–40

  135

  40–50

  112

  50–60

  100

  60–70

  72

  70–80

  53

  80–90

  50

  90–100

  167

  100–150

  115

  150–200

  83

  200–300

  72

  Over 300

  191

  Single Male Pensioners

  £ in January 1991 prices

  Thousands

  Income (£)

  266

  0–5

  48

  5–10

  53

  10–15

  53

  15–20

  74

  20–30

  62

  30–40

  48

  40–50

  36

  50–70

  60

  70–100

  72

  100–150

  42

  150–200

  42

  200–300

  41

  Over 300

  Weekly non-benefit income distribution—Pensioners Couples (husband over pension age)

  £ in January 1991 prices

  Income (£)

  Thousands

  0–5

  472

  5–10

  130

  10–15

  89

  15–20

  91

  20–30

  181

  30–40

  160

  40–50

  120

  50–60

  113

  60–70

  79

  70–80

  92

  80–90

  88

  90–100

  86

  100–150

  285

  150–200

  184

  200–300

  198

  300–400

  109

  400–500

  61

  Over 500

  84

  Source: Family expenditure surveys 1990–91.

  Notes: The maximum amount of each category is rounded up to the nearest £1 for ease of reference, eg. where a category is shown as 10–20 it should read £10–£19.99.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on revenues in 1994–95 and 1993–94 of increasing the taper for the withdrawal of housing benefit to(a) 70 per cent., (b) 75 per cent. and (c) 80 per cent.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested for 1993–94 is in the table. Estimates of the effect on revenues at 1994–95 benefit levels and prices are not yet available.

  Housing benefit taper Per cent.

  Total saving £

  70

  130

  75

  240

  80

  340

  Source: Estimates based on the 1989–90–91 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1993–94 benefit levels and prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the external medical advice on which recent changes to the regulations regarding statutory maternity pay were based.

  Mr. Hague
  There have been no recent changes to statutory maternity pay. The Government recently issued a consultation document describing proposed changes to our maternity benefits schemes to implement the maternity pay provisions of the EC pregnant workers directive. The consultation period has ended and the responses are being carefully examined.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures on the same basis as table series 10 of the income support statistics annual inquiry for May 1992 showing for each premium group in Great Britain(a) the average amount of deductions for all cases with more than one deduction and (b) the average amount of benefit before deductions.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Income support recipients Cases with more than one deduction by premium group

  Number of cases

  Average amount of deductions £

  Average IS before deductions £

  Total cases

  333,500

  1599

  68.24

  Premium groups

  Higher pensioner premium

  3,600

  12.47

  39.15

  Enhanced pensioner premium

  600

  14.24

  10.39

  Pensioner premium

  10,100

  13.83

  51.75

  Severe disability premium (higher rate)

  100

  23.80

  66.20

  Severe disability premium (lower rate)

  1,500

  17.71

  78.05

  Disability premium

  35,200

  16.23

  65.66

  Lone parent premium

  176,400

  16.73

  70.41

  Disabled child premium

  4,800

  22.17

  89.07

  Family premium

  245,000

  17.12

  75.97

  Carer premium

  5,100

  20.05

  66.11

  No premium

  54,000

  12.47

  45.24

  Notes:

  1. The numbers of cases given are the same as those published in table 10.2 of the income support statistics annual inquiry, May 1992. For use elsewhere, these would normally be rounded to the nearest thousand as recommended on page 17 of the inquiry.

  2. The average amount of deductions given is the average total sum deducted per case, and is correct to the nearest penny.

  3. The average weekly amount of income support before deduction is correct to the nearest penny.

  4. Income support recipients may also receive other benefits, from which deductions may be made. Therefore the average amount of deductions may exceed the average amount of income support.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, columns 137–38, on income support, if he will update the information to include a breakdown for 1992 and any estimates for 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. 1992 is the latest year for which regional figures are available. Forecast information for claimants and dependants by region is not available.
  193

  Income Support recipients, claimants, partners and dependants by region

  Region

  Claimants

  Partners

  Dependants

  North Eastern

  807,000

  149,000

  449,000

  London, North

  957,000

  185,000

  563,000

  South Western

  398,000

  78,000

  203,000

  Wales

  301,000

  55,000

  170,000

  Midlands

  870,000

  173,000

  506,000

  North Western

  786,000

  126,000

  440,000

  Scotland

  536,000

  77,000

  260,000

  London, South

  856,000

  148,000

  476,000

  Great Britain

  5,511,000

  991,000

  3,067,000

  Notes:

  Source: Income support statistics quarterly inquiry, November 1992.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, and so may not sum to the totals given.

  3. Information is not available for the standard statistical regions. Figures are therefore given by social security regions.

  4. "Partners" are people living as a married couple.

  5. "Dependants" are young people aged under 19 who live in the parental home.

  Spending
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 144–45, to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the change in real terms in social security spending, giving estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95, expressed in 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of total security spending from 1978–79 to 1994–95 are given in the table.

  Expenditure in £ million

  Years

  Cash

  1993–94 prices

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  1978–79

  16,602

  47,615

  —

  1979–80

  19,616

  48,218

  1.27

  1980–81

  23,751

  49,337

  2.32

  1981–82

  28,963

  54,866

  11.21

  1982–83

  33,000

  58,356

  6.36

  1983–84

  36,881

  62,334

  6.82

  1984–85

  39,957

  64,273

  3.11

  1985–86

  43,502

  66,353

  3.24

  1986–87

  46,859

  69,246

  4.36

  1987–88

  49,145

  68,841

  -0.59

  1988–89

  49,967

  65,242

  -5.23

  1989–90

  53,026

  64,965

  -0.42

  1990–91

  59,497

  67,489

  3.89

  1991–92

  69,048

  73,430

  8.80

  1992–93

  78,343

  80,497

  9.62

  1993–94

  84,495

  84,495

  4.97

  1994–95

  88,250

  84,652

  0.19

  Notes:

  1. 1992–93 figures are estimated outturn.

  2. 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures represent anticipated expenditure.

  3. The real terms decrease over the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 is largely attributable to the fall in unemployment since 1986.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on revenues in 1993–94 and 1994–95 of increasing the taper for the withdrawal of council tax benefit to(a) 25 per cent., (b) 30 per cent. and (c) 35 per cent.
  194
  Mr. Burt
  The information requested for 1993–94 is in the table. Estimates of the effect on revenues at 1994–95 benefit levels and prices are not yet available.

  Council tax benefit taper

  Total savings (£ million)

  25 per cent.

  55

  30 per cent.

  95

  35 per cent.

  125

  Source: Estimates based on 1989–90–91 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1993–94 benefit levels and prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to end the payment of mortgage interest to recipients of income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The long-term review of benefits that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set in train is looking at all aspects of the benefits system. No decisions have been taken yet.

  Private Capital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Hague
  There have been no such projects.

  Adopted Babies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what maternity benefit is available for mothers of adopted babies.

  Mr. Burt
  The two main maternity benefits, statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance, are available only to natural mothers and are intended to provide a measure of income replacement to help working women give up work around the time of the birth in the interests of their own and the unborn baby's well-being.

  The social fund, however, provides a non-recoverable flat-rate maternity payment to families receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance. Payment is made to qualifying adoptive parents if the adopted child is less than one-year-old.

  Adoptive parents can also claim child benefit and, where appropriate, increases of other benefits for adopted children.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the questions that are required to be answered by single parents wishing to obtain benefit from his Department's Child Support Agency; and if he will send to the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the questionnaire and the guidance notes issued to his officers at his agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  195
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive to the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the questions required to be answered by single parents wishing to obtain benefit from the Child Support Agency and the questionnaire and the guidance notes issued to officers of the Agency.
  Clients who use the Agency's services are asked to complete a Maintenance Application Form (MAF) giving details of their circumstances. There are three versions of this form; one for those clients in receipt of Income Support, one for those not in receipt of Income Support and one for children in Scotland. In addition to the initial questions asked on the MAF further questions may be necessary depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Many factors need to be taken into account when making an assessment and it is important for the Agency to have all the necessary information about the circumstances of both the Parent with Care and the Absent Parent to ensure that the assessment is accurate. I shall send you copies of the relevant application forms and will also place copies in the Library of the House.
  Guidance instructions to Agency staff are contained in the Child Support Manual and the Field Operations Guide. Copies of this Guide were placed in the House Library in April.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many current Child Support Agency assessments are(a) nil, (b) £2.20, (c) £2.21 to £9.99, (d)£10 to £19.99, (e) £20 to £29.99, (f) £30 to £39.99, (g) £40 to £49.99, (h) £50 to £69.99, (i) £70 to £99.99, (j) £100 to £149.99 and (k) over £150 a week.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 29 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational
  196
  matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking a number of questions about maintenance assessments.
  I am sorry that the information you requested is not routinely available. The number of maintenance assessments completed by the Agency to the end of September 1993 is 36,610, but the level of assessments is not broken down as requested.
  I am sorry not to have been more helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether the code of practice to be followed by the bailiffs appointed to act on behalf of the Child Support Agency will be made available to(a) the Citizens Advice Bureau and (b) other advice agencies;

  (2) what steps the Child Support Agency will be taking to monitor the work of the bailiffs appointed to act on its behalf;

  (3) which firm of bailiffs has been appointed by the Child Support Agency to act on its behalf in levying distraint against absent parents who have failed to pay maintenance due; and whether the firm of bailiffs appointed has an agreed code of practice.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 29 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking a number of questions about the work of bailiffs appointed to act for the Agency.
  Raynor Ferrar and Co. of Iver in Buckinghamshire have been appointed as the Agency's bailiffs. The company currently operates under its own code of practice, endorsed by the Certified Bailiffs Association, but a code of practice relating specifically to the Agency's work will shortly be made publicly available and a copy will be placed in the House Library. All activity undertaken on the Agency's behalf will be closely monitored and the company will provide detailed monthly reports covering every case.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The Earl of Coventry The Earl of Coventry—Took the Oath.

Education and Training: Targets
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether national targets for education and training are being achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the first targets are due to be reached in 1996; meanwhile encouraging progress is being made. The National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets will monitor and report annually.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Did he see the warning by the Institute of Manpower Studies, in a recent report prepared for his department, that more people need to take part in education and training if the national targets set by the CBI and endorsed by the Government are to be met? Did he further note that the institute criticised the targets on the grounds that they do not form part of a coherent national strategy; that they have a poor public profile; and that deliverers of the targets, including training and enterprise councils, are not working in close partnership? Does the Minister accept any of those criticisms; and, if so, what is being done to deal with them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to stress, first, that the report to which the noble Lord referred relates only to the South East of England and not to the rest of the country. I also stress that it relates to the earlier part of this year, and there has been considerable progress since then. We believe that some of the press reports, and particularly those in the Financial Times, failed to reflect accurately the spirit of the report, which was in the main fairly positive.
Nevertheless, I accept that a number of concerns were expressed, all of which, I can assure the noble Lord, we will take very seriously. I should like to stress that NACETT (the national advisory council to which I referred in my original Answer) will carry out a very detailed review of the targets in 1994. It will certainly consider whether they ought to be expanded or extended, and appropriate ways of raising awareness of those targets.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there seems to be inadequate co-ordination between the training and enterprise councils, which after all are the spearhead of the Government's attack in this matter? While I readily agree that in some areas there is some success, will the
992
Minister concur that in some areas of the country—and the problem appears to be growing—there is not that co-ordination, particularly among the providers? The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. referred stresses the need for co-ordination—or rather the lack of it—between the various bodies. Is that not a matter to which the Government ought to be paying more attention?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand the concern. It is one of degree. I do not accept that there is quite the same degree of lack of co-ordination between the TECs and the Government as regards this matter. I can reassure the noble Lord that NACETT, the body set up by the Government but which is very much employer-led, will look at the various targets, their scope and how they can be improved.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the quality of training that is now being provided? Is it such as to fit young people for the jobs market? Is it not a matter of considerable importance, bearing in mind that there are now very high levels of young male unemployment, with obvious social implications? What is being done to monitor the quality of training that is being given?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that I am satisfied with the quality of the various bits of training that are on offer. The point about the national targets, which the CBI launched some two years ago, is that they were aimed at ensuring that we had the absolute minimum necessary standards to maintain our international competitiveness. The Government support those targets which the CBI launched. That is why we then launched NACETT, which will keep them under review, advise the Government on ways in which they can be met, and encourage employers to meet them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that everything is being done that could be done to give full publicity to the national vocational qualifications which are coming on stream now, and about which a large number of people still know very little?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the same relates to the national targets. Again, obviously, it is a matter of increasing awareness. One can never say that one is totally satisfied that absolutely everything is being done. But certainly we would like to increase awareness of the NVQs. Again, that is a matter that NACETT will look at.

Royal Marsden Hospital
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to close the Royal Marsden Hospital and, if so, what will happen to the facilities funded by private and charitable contributions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no decisions have yet been made on any major London hospital. In any case, specific proposals will be subject to public consultation. The Royal Marsden, in common with other London hospitals, is currently out to public consultation in support of its application to become an NHS fourth wave trust from April next year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that the Royal Marsden was the first hospital in the world for the exclusive diagnosis and treatment of cancer? Does she further accept that it is a model for a cancer treatment centre, as recommended by the specialty review into London cancer services? Does she agree that this House ought to make certain that the wonderful work that it has begun will continue? Should not the Government relieve the staff of the hospital, which I visited recently, from the serious anxieties that they are suffering because of the threat of closure of this remarkable, wonderful, world-renowned hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the Royal Marsden Hospital has a very fine reputation, which is why it seeks to become a fourth wave trust and become independent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Royal Marsden is a hospital of worldwide reputation operating in a highly modern, perfectly equipped building? Does she agree that it is a pity to leave it in a state of uncertainty, as the Government have done for some months now?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that uncertainty is now coming to an end since the consultation period on the trust application will end in January. Yes, the Marsden has a worldwide reputation, but very few of the patients treated there come from abroad; 93 per cent. come from the Home Counties.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Question wholly misses the point? It is not what happens to the Royal Marsden Hospital but what happens next door, to the Institute of Cancer Research, which is a postgraduate teaching school of London University. Does she agree that the Royal Marsden Hospital acts as a focus of concentration of clinical material for the work conducted in the research department, which was originally part of the hospital and was converted into an independent charitable trust following the institution of the hospital as a member of the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although the Institute for Cancer Research is independent of the Royal Marsden Hospital and is a separate entity, the two have to work very closely together and in some ways are symbiotic.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the decision from the Ministry about the London hospitals has been outstanding for many months? Were we not supposed to get a decision in October? It is now
994
November. When will we know the decision? Let me say, by the way, that Guy's is just as good as the Royal Marsden.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the decision was that the Royal Marsden should consult on whether to become a fourth wave trust. The end of the consultation will be in January when a firm decision will be made.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that on the site there is a collection of skills and associated tasks which are quite unique in the world? Does she agree that to split them up in any way would be highly undesirable? Are the Government bearing that fact in mind?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of it. I visited the Royal Marsden fairly recently. However, your Lordships will appreciate that there is a difference between clinical teams working together and research and the sites on which they are situated. In the future in some cases it may be necessary to change the sites. We should certainly want to preserve the excellence not only of the Royal Marsden but of other clinical research in other London teaching hospitals.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister tell me something about the second half of the Question, which does not apply purely to the Royal Marsden but to the facilities funded by private and charitable contributions? Is she aware that, with the enormous changes taking place in the health service and many hospitals at the moment under threat of closure, it will become increasingly difficult, as those changes take place over a period of five years, to obtain charitable contributions? Can she give any guarantee to charities? What happens if they fund something in the interim?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She has a distinguished reputation as the president of the League of Friends. I know that she has worked unstintingly in raising charitable moneys for the National Health Service. On the general point of principle on what happens to charitable funds if a hospital closes or indeed changes its use, we are seeking the advice of the Charity Commissioners; and I understand that they are seeking legal advice. If a closure or change of use were proposed, it would be up to the trustees and the trust board—who I am sure would want to discuss it with donors who had recently contributed major amounts—to decide the future use of those past donations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absurd that such uncertainty still continues? Will she confirm that in February the Secretary of State ruled out the closure of the Marsden? Did she not say that closure made no economic sense and should not be pursued? Further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, can the Minister give an assurance that that money will not find its way into the pocket of the Treasury?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the decision has been made by the Royal Marsden Hospital that it should

995
seek trust status. We are seeking the views of the Charity Commissioners with regard to charitable funds. A lot will depend on the advice we receive from them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the whole saga of the Royal Marsden Hospital, and indeed other London hospitals, indicates that the Government must find a solution either through the internal market or through planning? They cannot have both, and at the moment they seem to have neither.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Royal Marsden Hospital has applied for trust status. If the decision is taken by the Secretary of State that the trust shall be agreed, it will then be up to the hospital to survive in the internal market. Clearly it is important that health authorities and GP fund holders value the work taking place in the hospital and place contracts with it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, further to the question from the Cross-Benches regarding the new addition at the Royal Marsden, is the Minister aware that it cost £25 million, and the majority of that was raised from the charities? If the Government close that hospital people from all over the country will no longer take a chance and contribute freely to our National Health Service hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at this moment there is no suggestion that the Royal Marsden Hospital should close. The suggestion is to the contrary. It is seeking trust status so that it can continue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response.

Higher Education Funding
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to review higher education funding.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, Ministers last met members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 25th October to discuss various matters, including the funding of higher education.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I declare an interest as the Chancellor of Staffordshire University. In any future discussions on this issue will the Minister bear in mind the remarkable decline in the pay of the academic staff of our universities? Since 1979 the purchasing power of non-manual employees generally has risen by over 52 per cent. whereas that of university academic staff has risen by less than 10 per cent. That is a remarkable dichotomy. Will the Minister bear in mind also that if the nosedive continues our academic standards will suffer? The best brains will no longer be attracted to our universities, and the only people who will benefit from that will be our overseas competitors.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the cost of academic salaries is only part of the cost of higher education funding. As the noble Lord is aware, there are great pressures on public spending. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note what he says.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of us who have worked in higher education, without enjoying its terms as to pay, hours of work and holidays, find the conditions to be extremely generous? Does not my noble friend agree that terms for higher education academics are already generous, especially when compared to nurses, health workers and indeed all other employees in the public service sectors?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to introduce loans on a compulsory basis? Otherwise, how do they intend to finance the expansion of the student population in higher education?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord should curb his impatience and wait for the Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer on 30th November.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would help in the discussions of what will probably be a major change in the way in which higher education is financed if the Labour Party would produce its policy, about which it appears to be totally uncertain? That prevents political debate on the subject.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I do not believe that I am required to comment on the policies of the Labour Party.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in terms of what is now called by the Government "productivity" the universities have done a remarkable job in the past 10 years? Fifty per cent. more students are being educated, with only a 10 per cent. increase in staff. Is the Minister aware, for example, that in the genetics department at University College, whereas once a tutorial meant an exchange of views between a professor and one or two students, it now involves 20 students? Is he aware also that owing to the cuts in government expenditure that department cannot even purchase enough bottles for the fruit flies to breed in?
Will the Government consider changing a policy which one can only compare with that of Jereboam? The noble Viscount will remember that he prided himself on chastising his people with scorpions whereas his father had only chastised them with whips.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the higher education institutions have shown that it is possible to increase productivity while maintaining quality. But there is probably scope for further productivity. An organisation as large as that which pertains to higher education must have room for further efficiencies.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister say how far government thinking on higher

997
education is governed these days by the Robbins Report? Admittedly, it was produced some years ago. Will he not further agree that there is now a greater need, particularly in the light of what was said by my noble friend Lord Ashley, for anybody who can get anything from a university degree course to do so?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I agree entirely with the second part of the noble Lords' question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister answer the first and main part of the question?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend bears in mind all necessary information when formulating policies on higher education.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a serious crisis in the funding of higher education is developing? It is not only a matter of pressure on academics but also the real financial burden on students. What precise research has the Department for Education undertaken to discover how far present arrangements are a disincentive to students? Does not the Minister agree that higher education is so vital to the future of the United Kingdom that, if there is to be expansion, it must be adequately financed?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, public funding of higher education is at record levels. This year £3.9 billion will be spent, which is a rise of 7.3 per cent. on the previous fiscal year. The second part of the noble Lord's question can be well answered: 345,000 students took out loans in 1992–93; the take-up rate of 44 per cent. suggests that the majority of students are able to cope without choosing to take out a loan.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister ignored the question. What disincentive are the present arrangements to students who might otherwise go into higher education?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when we have to hand the figures of student entries for last year, the noble Lord will find that there has been no disincentive.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the review takes place, can we be assured that a good deal of attention will be given to the need for more science and technology graduates than arts graduates?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it falls under the right of freedom of choice of the higher education establishments to choose the courses according to needs.

Children: Residential Care
3 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they spend money on residential care and training for children in need instead of co-operating with the voluntary sector.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, local authorities are in general responsible for the care of children in need and for training the great majority of staff employed to care for children. Bearing that in mind, the Secretary of State has recently established a children's residential care support force under the chairmanship of Ms. Adrianne Jones. The support force will address the issue of the supply of residential care, including the contribution which the voluntary sector can make.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Question applies not only to the Department of Health but also to the Department for Education and the Home Office? Is she further aware that the voluntary sector is deeply grateful to the Department of Health and to the Minister and her civil servants for the co-operation which they show? Sadly, is she also aware that it is felt in the voluntary sector that the Department for Education is not aware of the needs of children in residential care and that, furthermore, the Home Office is planning to spend the most enormous amount of money on the care, training and education of delinquent children when there are vacancies and facilities in the voluntary sector which could be used to great purpose?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that children's services cover several departments. I am sure she will be relieved to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education to discuss juvenile offenders and other children's issues.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when the Government responded to the Utting Report on residential care services for children mention was made of making the best use of available resources. Does that mean that the Government intend to put no additional resources into implementing the Utting Report and various previous reports on the subject?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly the Government would want to make the best use of all available resources. However, as my noble friend said, there is room for new developments, particularly secure accommodation which in the past the voluntary sector has not been keen to supply.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a saving to the public purse to have children in residential care within the voluntary sector, with some financial help from local authorities, than if they had to be maintained entirely in public places?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government would wish to make use of all the resources that are available, both voluntary and in the public sector. But the voluntary sector has to recognise that some of its services are very costly and that it has to ensure it gives value for money if local authorities are to use its accommodation.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Government give support to residential schools for children with educational and behavioural difficulties, run by both

999
local authorities and voluntary bodies, which may, it seems, have to close because local authorities do not have the necessary resources to pay for the pupils? Surely, it is much better to use the facilities one has rather than to spend vast sums of money, as we are led to believe will happen, on secure units which may be miles from the children's homes and which have proved extremely unsuccessful in the past?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a problem at the moment is the under-occupancy of children's homes. As I said, there is also the problem that the voluntary sector is not very keen to supply secure accommodation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, why has the amount of secure accommodation in children's homes been reduced in the past 10 years, given the concern expressed by Ministers about the level of juvenile crime? Why have the Government allowed that to happen while at the same time announcing that they will move towards Mark 2 borstals which we know perfectly well will be as great a failure on this occasion as they have been in the past?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly, the accommodation has to be used if it is to be effective. In the past local authorities have chosen not to send children to some homes. As I said, the under-occupancy is still there. I understand that the Utting Report showed that there was a 25 per cent. vacancy rate in some homes within the voluntary sector.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is because local authorities do not have the cash from the Government to pay for the places that there are these spare places?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the budget for local authorities has increased year on year. It is up to them to make their own decisions, set their own priorities and use their money more effectively.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that work done in the voluntary sector is much more cost effective than that done by government departments and local authorities due to the voluntary sector's greater flexibility and lack of bureaucracy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it depends. Some of the places run by voluntary organisations are very expensive. If I may reiterate the point about local authority expenditure, it increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1993.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State for Health has announced her own plans for setting up secure units? How is that to be reconciled with the plans of the Home Secretary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a great deal of negotiation, co-operation and discussion between the two departments. Clearly we would want to do what is most effective for children in need.

British Railways (No. 4) Bill Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill London Underground (Green Park) Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of the Motion is to invite this House to agree with the various orders made by the other place last week in connection with carrying over into the next Session of Parliament certain Private Bills which have not completed their legislative stages in the present Session. The second Motion standing in my name has the same purpose. The second Motion is necessarily more detailed than the first because it deals with Bills which originated in this House and which therefore must be deposited again here whereas the first Motion deals with Bills which originated in the Commons. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 28th October.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.] London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 28th October be now considered; and that the promoters of each bill have leave to suspend any Further proceedings thereon in this session in order to proceed with the bill in the next session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session;
That the proceedings on such bill in the next session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the bill has passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the bill has not passed during the present session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Medical Ethics: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Under Standing Order No. 62 the orders appointing many of the House's Select Committees remain in force and effect notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament until such time as the House makes further orders of appointment in the next Session. The Select Committee on Medical Ethics does not, however, come within the ambit of Standing Order No. 62. This Motion is therefore necessary if it is to meet and deliberate as arranged in the week following the State Opening of Parliament. Meetings that week are essential if the Select Committee is to satisfy the wishes of the House that it report by the end of the year. When the meetings were arranged it was not envisaged that the new Session of Parliament would begin on 18th November and that there would therefore not be enough time before the meetings for the committee to be reappointed in the new Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament, the Select Committee on Medical Ethics shall have power to meet in the next Session of Parliament until such time as the House makes further orders of appointment.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that, having been informed of the purport of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, Her Majesty has consented to place her prerogative and interest, and His Royal Highness has consented to place his interest in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Measure.
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that this Measure is one of the most significant pieces of Church legislation ever to be presented to the House. It reaches here following extensive debate and discussion, not only within the Church of England but more widely. Its passage has been accompanied by controversy at virtually every stage, including most recently the unsuccessful action by the Church Society challenging in the courts the General Synod's competence to pass the measure.
It is easy, amid all this controversy, to lose sight of the fact that the Measure is simple in its concept and in its intent. It seeks to enable the Church of England to provide by canon for the ordination of women as priests and to establish a number of safeguards for those who
1002
are unhappy about that step. For those of us in the Church who favour the ordination of women to the priesthood, the legislation is also about a simple theological truth—the inclusion of female as well as male in the priesthood as a visible sign of the inclusion of all humanity in the priestly ministry.
It is, of course, the differing theological views within the Church about the ordination of women as priests which have made the Measure so controversial. The views are helpfully summarised in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Measure, which is also before the House today. I wish to pay tribute to the members of that committee, and in particular its distinguished chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for the very careful consideration the committee gave to the legislation.
As paragraphs 10 to 15 of the committee's report indicate, the theological arguments against the Measure fall broadly under three main heads. First, there is the argument that in the eucharist the priest is called upon to represent Christ in his person, and that only a male priest can adequately do this. For those who favour women priests, this so-called "representational" argument is seriously flawed. It is the humanity of Christ which is important, not his maleness. On this argument, to include women in the priesthood would indicate the inclusiveness of all humanity in the person who celebrates the eucharist.
Those who are concerned to uphold the Church's tradition of an all-male priesthood also argue that to depart from that tradition would compromise the apostolic continuity of the priestly ministry. Those of us who favour women priests contend, however, that the tradition of the Church is constantly evolving and changing. The apostolic continuity of the ministry would not be challenged by the ordination of women to the priesthood.
A second main group of objections focuses on the interpretation of scripture and in particular a few passages which suggest that headship both in the Church and society is essentially male in character. The chief biblical texts are referred to in paragraph 13 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report. The majority of us in the Church who have considered the texts carefully have concluded that we do not see in them a bar to the ordination of women as priests. They also have to be set alongside other biblical texts which point towards allowing the God-given gifts of women full exercise in Church and society.
The third main objection is that as a part only of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Church of England does not have the authority of itself to make the change proposed. Such a change, it is argued, could be made only by an ecumenical council of the whole Church. This argument is unreal. While, with many others in this House, I regret the divisions in Christendom, they do exist. In a divided Christendom, there is no realistic prospect of such an ecumenical council being held. Article XX of the 39 articles of religion—one of the Church of England's foundational documents—states that,
"the Church bath … authority in controversies of faith".

1003
There is in my view no question in law or in practice of the Church of England being unable to proceed independently on this matter, if it so wishes, subject to the will of Parliament.
In considering this matter the House of Bishops and the whole Church have had very much in mind the impact which such unilateral action by the Church of England would have on our relations with other Churches. There is no doubt, as my own conversations with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders have confirmed, that the ordination of women as priests in the Church of England would create a further obstacle to unity with those Churches.
Sadly, there are many other barriers, yet these have not prevented ever closer co-operation, understanding and joint action. I want to express my deep appreciation of the way in which Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders have shown their continuing friendship and commitment to the search for unity in spite of this extra difficulty. That search will continue, and I am passionately committed to it. It must also be recognised that if the ordination of women as priests in the Church of England creates a barrier in some directions, it removes a barrier in others; for example in our relations with the Churches of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, not least our fellow established Church north of the Border.
Moreover, as well as considering our relations with other Churches, I must, as head of the Anglican Communion, also have in mind the situation within that communion. The communion now numbers well over 70 million baptised members throughout the world. Many provinces within it have already decided to ordain women as priests. There are now well over 1,000 women priests within the communion. They have brought great richness to the Anglican family. While other provinces continue to adhere to the tradition of an all-male priesthood, the communion has been markedly successful in finding ways of living with a variety of practice among member provinces on this issue.
The theological arguments on the matter have been rehearsed at length in the House of Bishops. While a minority of the House is opposed to the legislation, a clear majority of the bishops believe that there is no convincing theological argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. On the contrary, we believe that the balance of the arguments points strongly in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood rather than against it.
The majority view in the House of Bishops is clearly reflected more widely within the Church. The legislation before the House began its journey through the General Synod more than five years ago. Thirteen years before that, in 1975, the Synod had passed a motion to the effect that it considered that there were no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood. Before the present legislation was introduced, the justification for, and shape of, the legislation had been extensively considered by the House of Bishops in two separate reports and by the General Synod itself, In accordance with the General Synod's constitution, the Measure now before the House was referred—before it could be considered for
1004
final approval by the Synod—to every diocese in the Church, and was discussed widely in deaneries and parishes. All but six of the 44 diocesan synods voted in favour of the Measure. Finally, it was approved last November by majorities of over two-thirds in each of the three Houses (bishops, clergy and laity) of the General Synod.
Since the legislation was given final approval by the General Synod, it has been thoroughly considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which heard oral evidence on four separate occasions and also held a joint conference with the legislative committee of the General Synod. Quite unusually, the Ecclesiastical Committee heard evidence not only from representative supporters of the legislation but from some of the opponents in the General Synod as well. By a majority, the committee concluded that the legislation was expedient.
The legislation before the House reflects the lengthy and prayerful consideration which has been given at all stages of the matter. The nub of the Measure is in Clause 1(1), which makes it lawful for the General Synod to provide by canon for enabling a woman to be ordained to the office of priest so long as she meets other criteria for such ordination. Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the measure does not open the way for women to become bishops.
The remainder of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure provides a comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who are opposed to the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act contrary to their conscience. These are carefully described in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report. I shall not weary the House by describing them in detail now.
Much attention has been focused on Clause 2 of the Measure which provides that a diocesan bishop, who is in office when the canon enabling women to be ordained priest is promulged, may make one or more of three declarations. By making all three of these declarations, a diocesan bishop could in effect exclude women priests from his diocese. It is not, however, open to a bishop appointed after the canon authorising women priests is promulged to make any of these declarations.
It was strongly argued in evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee that Clause 2 should either be withdrawn or extended to cover future diocesan bishops. Left as it is, the argument went, priests opposed to the legislation would be unlikely to accept senior office in future. To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not. The provision restricting Clause 2 to bishops in office when the canon comes into effect was included at the request of the majority of the House of Bishops in order to maintain the unity and collegiality of the episcopate. Moreover, recent appointments of bishops show that those who opposed the legislation are among those who are selected for senior posts and accept them.
The potential significance of Clause 2 has substantially lessened as a result of the pastoral arrangements which the House of Bishops wishes to put in place once the canon is promulged. These

1005
arrangements are set out in the two Manchester statements of the House, which are reproduced at pages 21 to 32 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report. I pay tribute to my fellow bishops for the unanimity they have shown in developing these arrangements and particularly the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his tireless work on the matter.
The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop. Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject. The arrangements are embodied in an Act of Synod, which the General Synod will be invited to approve when it meets in London next week. An Act of Synod has no legally enforceable quality but is regarded as morally binding on the Church. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, to my Motion reflects the view of those who argue that the provisions of the Act of Synod should be embodied in a complementary measure so as to entrench them in law.
This matter was argued thoroughly before the Ecclesiastical Committee and the committee's conclusions, by a majority, are set out in paragraphs 42 to 44 of its report. I respectfully agree with those conclusions. First, no change in the law is actually required to allow the House of Bishops to make the arrangements it seeks to make. Secondly, it is important that, as soon as the canon enabling women to be ordained priest is promulged, pastoral arrangements should be in place which carry the firm commitment of the Church. An Act of Synod expresses such commitment and carries, as I said, compelling moral authority.
Thirdly, an Act of Synod has the great advantage that it can be agreed without an elaborate process of diocesan consultation. It will therefore provide necessary safeguards for those concerned about the legislation some two years sooner than if the General Synod were to embark on a supplementary measure.
A further consideration, as the Ecclesiastical Committee notes, must be whether there would be the necessary majorities in the Synod for a supplementary measure. That could certainly not be taken for granted.
I believe that the request in the noble Lord's amendment is the more worthy of rejection because it assumes that legislation is the answer to what is in essence a pastoral problem which needs to be treated flexibly. I am at one with the conclusion in paragraph 40 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report that,
"These are ultimately matters which will depend on the good will of members of the Church at all levels".
Having examined the main arguments concerning the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, I turn now briefly to the accompanying financial provisions Measure, which is intended to ensure that those who resign from the service of the Church by reason of their opposition to the ordination of women as priests do not suffer financial hardship. It is examined by the Ecclesiastical Committee at pages 35 to 37 of its report.
1006
The financial provisions measure is integrally linked with the main measure; indeed, the main measure cannot come into effect unless it too is enacted.
It is possible to criticise the financial provisions measure on the grounds either that it is mean or that it is over-generous. Both charges have, predictably, been levelled against it, but I believe that we have got it right. The levels of provision compare well with those in secular life.
The financial provisions measure received majorities on final approval in the General Synod of 100 per cent. in the House of Bishops, 97 per cent. in the House of Clergy and 95 per cent. in the House of Laity. I have no doubt either of our will or our capacity to live up to the commitment which it represents.
I hope that the House will feel that the Church of England deserves some credit for the practical and pastoral arrangements, which alone, I want to say, among members of the Anglican Communion, it has made on this matter.
I have inevitably dwelt today on the concerns of those who are opposed to the legislation before the House. I want in closing to remind the House of the much greater number who welcome it. A resolution of this matter is important for the unity and the mission of the Church; unity, because for many years now we have struggled over this issue. The legislation before us offers the best way of dealing with a contentious subject and moving forward together.
During the debate which follows, we may expect to hear about the divisive effect of the legislation on the Church of England. I ask the House to consider how much more divisive it would be if we were to decline to approve legislation passed with such substantial majorities in the General Synod after such lengthy and extensive debate in the Church, and in the face of the clear finding by the majority of members of the Ecclesiastical Committee that the legislation is expedient, and following such a convincing vote in its favour in another place last Friday.
I conclude on the note of mission. Important though the legislation is, our prolonged concern with it has detracted from the task of making the Christian life relevant for all in this land and from the Church's ministry at all levels in our society. The Church now longs to concentrate on promoting the Gospel of Christ to a society in great need. We have well over 1,000 women deacons who are already offering their skills and gifts to the service of Christ: many of them see the legislation as offering the fulfilment of their ministry. I am confident that they will enrich the priestly ministry of our Church. I admire their patience and their humility. They have never given up hope and neither have many of us who have prayed for this moment to come. But beyond them are all those people, both within our national Church and on its fringes, who look to this change as a reassurance that the Church can minister to society in a fully relevant and effective way in the years and days to come. We need to resolve this matter so that the Church can get on with its true commission.
I ask the House to support the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to decline to approve the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Holderness Lord Holderness rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to give approval to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure in advance of the General Synod's decision on the proposed Act of Synod and in the absence of any undertaking that a complementary measure will subsequently be introduced to safeguard the interests of those who hold traditional beliefs, recognising the historic duty of Parliament to protect the rights of conscience of every citizen and its special obligation to safeguard the historic formularies and doctrinal heritage of the Church of England.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I can at once banish from the mind of the most reverend Primate any vestige of anxiety that the purpose of my amendment is to delay significantly the progress of this Measure. I believe that he will readily agree that the first part of the amendment would delay approval by about 10 days, only until the General Synod has been given an opportunity to pronounce upon the Act of Synod which will be placed before it.
The second part of the amendment involves no delay whatever. It merely asks for a further Measure, complementary to that which we are now discussing. Many of your Lordships will be eagerly awaiting the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the opportunity to share the wisdom with which he has already been dealing with this matter.
Before speaking to my amendment, I hope that I may be forgiven for going back a few months and trying to restate some of the anxieties widely felt since the General Synod approved the Measure that we are now discussing. That is almost a year ago. I do not intend to rehearse in detail the objections of those who oppose the Measure. Many of them are well within the field of theology on which, although I am deeply interested in it, 1 am certainly not competent to pronounce. On matters of more simple mathematics, more within the compass of my intellectual equipment, I managed to grasp rather more firmly the argument of those who supported the Measure in pointing to the overwhelming majority by which it was approved by the General Synod. They, and I think the most reverend Primate this afternoon, could also claim the strong probability, but not, I think they would admit, the absolute certainty, that the decision represented the will of the Church of England.
On the more important claim that the decision either accords with, or runs counter to, the will of God, both supporters and opponents of the Measure must tread and speak with great care. Its supporters cannot argue with certainty and without arrogance that any who oppose it
1008
are deliberately frustrating the divine will, any more than its opponents can suggest, without appearing utterly ridiculous, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit, undoubtedly sought by members of the General Synod was, at that time, in some way defective. We cannot know. Precisely because of that uncertainty, all are justified in urging tolerance and equal treatment for both opinions.
If I may describe the difficulty of the Measure's, opponents in a most untheological way, it appears that the support for the ordination of women to the, priesthood has become the new orthodoxy; and to hold opinions critical of such ordination is beginning to be considered non-U. Certainly, opponents of the Measure, rightly or wrongly (I am afraid that I think rightly) feel that they are engaged upon a playing field that is far from level. They find it, for instance, hard to believe that. men of undoubted ability, and (more importantly) those with outstanding qualities of mind and spirit, will be readily chosen for consecration as bishops if they are opposed to what they consider the new orthodoxy.
It is painful to say, but I see around many signs of deep distress, deep distrust, grave anxiety, and an empty loneliness among those who feel that they are being pushed by this Measure into a Church where many of the familiar landmarks are about to disappear. Whether or not those fears are justified, seems to me irrelevant. Their importance, and their claim to continued attention, exists just because they are undoubtedly real. Unless they are met satisfactorily, they are certain to threaten the continued unity of the Church.
Now, in relation to those fears, the two gatherings of the House of Bishops earlier this year, which the most reverend Primate mentioned, and, in particular, the statement entitled Bonds of Peace, produced conclusions of great significance. Paragraph 3 of Bonds of Peace, which is reproduced on page 24 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report began:
"We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind".
The following paragraph on the same page continued likewise:
"Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained as priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England".
Statements like those brought undoubted comfort to many who had begun to feel excluded from the new orthodoxy. Bonds of Peace went on to add a number of provisions to ease the difficulty of those who preferred the continuance of the existing priesthood. In particular, it provided for the nomination, both at diocesan and provincial levels, of bishops with a special charge to those in need of the spiritual comfort which they will be able to bring.
Paragraph 19, near the end of Bonds of Peace, promised to incorporate those and other arrangements in a draft Act of Synod to be brought before General Synod this very month. That draft Act would confirm:
"the House of Bishops' intention that there should be no discrimination between candidates, either for ordination or for

1009
appointment to senior office in the Church of England, on the ground of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood".
Both the preamble and the first clause of the draft Act return to that theme of non-discrimination.
In the light of all that, I suspect that some noble Lords and, I should include, as many of them are going to speak, noble Baronesses, may well be asking: what doubts can remain? Others, sadly, may well accord with my view that those doubts still remain painfully real. The lack of trust has not been dispelled, and is now heightened (or deepened) by the presentation of this Motion for approval before the General Synod has had any opportunity to consider the draft Act. We cannot at present tell how it will be received. Threatening noises from certain quarters suggest that it will meet opposition, but I hope that the authority of the most reverend Primates and the whole House of Bishops will secure its approval. Even then, for some, the anxieties will remain.
As the most reverend Primate said, during discussions before the Ecclesiastical Committee it became clear that no Act of Synod could carry an authority comparable to that of the present Measure. I became convinced that in any conflict between an Act of Synod—this one is not yet tested and has still to be approved—and, on the other hand, the measure we are now considering, the Measure must prevail. For that reason, I begged that any Act of Synod could be succeeded by a Measure which would carry equal authority. Nor need such a Measure, if it were promised, delay for a single day the approval of the present Measure; but an undertaking to introduce it at some time in the near future will play a significant part in the restoration of confidence.
I hope that I have said enough—I suspect that many noble Lords might say "more than enough"—to make clear to your Lordships my own conclusions in this matter. I believe that women will shortly be ordained to the priesthood, in accordance with last year's decision by the General Synod. But grave doubts remain about the reality of the two integrities—they are the supporters and the opponents—and their future ability to live in harmony as members of one Church.
Moreover, those doubts must be increased by the introduction of the Motion before the General Synod has given any consideration to the draft Act. I fear that even the approval of such an Act of Synod will leave a residue of anxiety which the promise of a later complementary Measure would do much to remove.
The attendance of many noble Lords and the intention of a large number to take part in the debate shows that they care deeply about this issue. During the past 450 years the Church of England has been subject to attacks from without and to frequent strains and divisions from within. Almost miraculously, under the Tudors and Stuarts and for different reasons in subsequent centuries, it has managed to preserve its unity. In that preservation of unity Parliament and the Sovereign have played a part of inestimable value. I hope and pray that when, in a few years time, Parliament
1010
looks back it will find no cause to conclude that the decisions it made in 1993 did anything to damage that precious unity. I beg to move.
Moved, That as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to give approval to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure in advance of the General Synod's decision on the proposed Act of Synod and in the absence of any undertaking that a complementary measure will subsequently be introduced to safeguard the interests of those who hold traditional beliefs, recognising the historic duty of Parliament to protect the rights of conscience of every citizen and its special obligation to safeguard the historic formularies and doctrinal heritage of the Church of England.").—(Lord Holderness.)
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must first make it clear that although I speak from the Dispatch Box the views that I express are my own. I do not speak for my colleagues; they will speak for themselves on this matter of conscience.
I too wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for the way in which he chaired the committee. As the first member of the Ecclesiastical Committee to speak, it is right that I should do so. The noble and learned Lord was called upon to perform small miracles of tact and diplomacy because, as your Lordships are aware, feelings on the subject ran high. He performed his duties to the satisfaction of us all.
I do not propose to go over the theological arguments. For 20 years the best theological brains in the Church have wrestled with the problem and it is unlikely that your Lordships and I can add anything to that debate today. I wish to deal with other issues that are raised.
The most reverend Primate gave the House details of the support for the Measure in the Synod and in the country. The committee received an enormous number of letters during its deliberations. Of the hundreds of letters received, some opposed the Measure but many more supported it. Admittedly some were syndicated, but one would expect that. However, hundreds of letters came from individuals and it was difficult not to be impressed by them. The committee was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling of those opposed to the Measure. It met on 11 occasions and on each there was a full discussion, if I may put it that way. Opposition to the Measure was countrywide but there was special concentration in London. Inevitably that has attracted more media attention because journalists have a tendency to concentrate on the capital. My impression, which is based on the many letters and personal discussions, is that support for the Measure is greater outside London. That is so notably, and perhaps surprisingly, in rural areas. I do not wish to belittle the opposition in the country at large but it is greater in London than elsewhere.
We are warned by opponents that approval of the Measure will seriously damage the Church of England and that many clergy and lay members will feel obliged to leave. That would be a great tragedy and I hope that

1011
it will not be so. But an even greater number will be hurt and may leave if the Measure is not passed. They include many men as well as women. Having come so far along the road their disappointment will be great. There is no easy solution; whatever the outcome, someone will be hurt and there will be pain for many.
The Measure is a little more complicated than it might have been. However, it reflects the strenuous efforts which have been made by the Church to ease the situation of those who do not agree with the decision. It makes it possible for them to remain in the Church or to leave with dignity if that is their wish. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, who made a most moving speech. However, if we cannot have trust in members of the Church, in whom can we have trust? I believe that we should go ahead with the Measure and not wait yet again for a decision.
Clause 1(2) excludes the possibility of women bishops. Many of my colleagues, noble Lords and members of the public believe that to be unjust. However, if the women concerned are prepared to accept that limitation. I do not believe that we should oppose it, provided that it is not unlawful—and I believe that it is not unlawful.
The Church cannot cut itself off from changes in the world outside. It is affected by them and in turn it influences them. It is a living entity responsive to and responsible for society as a whole. It cannot be, nor should it wish to be, preserved for ever at any one stage of its development. It is not an intellectual exercised divorced from the realities of its membership.
No churchman or churchwoman would argue that responsibilities stop at the church door. The role of women in our society has changed and developed. They have emerged as equal partners in most areas of our national life. They bring to what they do a special quality which is accepted as different from, but no less valuable than, the contribution made by men. That is particularly true as regards Church activities. I have received hundreds of letters from parishioners and from male members of the clergy who appreciate that special value and wish to see it given full expression.
For the women who are waiting to have their vocation tested this has been a long and trying time. In most cases they have waited with patience and tolerance despite the increasing difference between their lot and that of women outside the Church. In a moving speech made to Synod in 1987, Sister Carol asked:
"Do these developments stop at the church door? Am I called to walk tall in society and to walk small in the church?".
It is now 1993 and she is still waiting for an answer. Surely the time has come to give her a positive answer.
I agree with the summing up of the most reverend Primate. With so many problems in the United Kingdom to which the Church needs to give its attention, surely the time has come to end this long debate. The Church has given its view and I beg your Lordships to support the Measure and not to delay any further.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I echo the tribute of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. We were not an easy crew to captain and he managed it with quite remarkable skill. I suspect that many a trial in which he had to sit in judgment was far easier than dealing with the Ecclesiastical Committee. Without his skill I believe that we certainly should not have come to the satisfactory conclusion which we finally reached.
I am most certainly no theologian, but I am satisfied to be told by many who are that there are no theological reasons why women should not be priests. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we received many letters. I believe that I received about 1,000 letters: 800 were in favour and 200 were against. Among those letters, I received one from a eminent Roman Catholic theologian who wrote to say that, if it is any comfort to us, in his view there is no reason why women should riot be members of the priesthood. Therefore, let us riot continue that particular argument.
Surely the point is that the Synod is overwhelmingly in favour—after all, there must be a two-thirds majority, and we all know that it is not easy to achieve such a majority in all three Houses—of the proposal that women should be ordained priests. That being so, surely it is not for us to gainsay the will of the Synod. I know that, as it is an established Church, a Measure of this kind from the Synod must be passed by Parliament. But surely Parliament must recognise that the Synod arrived at its conclusion only after a process of participation and democratic involvement which makes the election of Members of the House of Commons, let alone the way in which your Lordships' House is constituted, a positive mockery of democracy. I am quite certain that the Synod would not in the least wish to continue that arduous process.
The Synod—the proper voice of the Church of England—has spoken. That should be sufficient for the two Houses of Parliament to accept that that is what should be done. Of course there are parts of the Measure before us which do not meet with complete approval. There are those who feel—and I am one of them—that some of the consolations offered to those who cannot accept the ordination of women have gone a little too far. I find it difficult to accept that it is set down that there should not be women bishops. However, I suspect that in the way in which we do these things in this country—we have a great preference for salami tactics; perhaps not a very appropriate metaphor on this occasion—before very long we shall find that a way has been devised in which women can become bishops.
It also seems to some of us that some of the provisions made for those who cannot accept the ordination of women have been perhaps a trifle over-generous. But I do not go along with those who say that those compromises should be rejected. I am politician enough to recognise that all progress is made by compromise, and that if you are not prepared to compromise you are in fact saying, "What I say is 100 per cent. right and you must put up with the

1013
consequences". If you do not like it, you call it compromise; if you do, you call it give and take. I am prepared to give and take as regards this Measure in order to get it through and to get it through quickly.
There should be no further delaying tactics of any kind. I do not say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, is a delaying tactic in any pejorative sense because it is obviously most sincerely put forward. But from this House and from this Parliament should go forth today a clear statement that there is to be no more delay and that women are now to be accepted into the priesthood.
Let us remember those women who have waited so very long and so very patiently in order to be ordained. It is not a calling that I have ever experienced and I should not have been a suitable candidate for it, but I have friends who have long wanted to be members of the priesthood. We have heard a great deal about the pain of those members of the Church who do not like the change. But let us not forget the pain of the women who have waited so long, serving in a junior capacity because they have been denied full priesthood.
Important though the concerns and interests of those who object are, in my view there is an even stronger reason why we should go ahead, and go ahead now, with this Measure. Whatever may be the political views of Members of your Lordships' House, no one can deny that religion is an enormously powerful force in the world today, for evil as well as for good. It is probably the most powerful force that exists internationally, with the collapse of communism, which was, after all, in a sense a perverse form of religion. It is not good enough to treat religion as a matter of marginal importance. You may accept or reject particular doctrines but you cannot deny the power that religion has to move people, often in a totally undesirable direction. That being so, it is very important that people who are capable of serving and have the desire to serve religion in the best possible way should be enabled so to do.
If you look at what has been going on in the Church of England from outside—not as a member of this Church, or, indeed, any other—surely it must seem that the priorities of the Church, and therefore of the religion for which it stands, are curiously distorted if it can spend so much time, energy and money on the question of the ordination of women which to a great many people must seem an obvious step in the right direction. Such a situation cannot be good for the Church of England and it cannot be good for religion. It cannot be good for the battle against false religion and its evil consequences that that should continue. In the Church of England, as in all churches, we need as many people as possible of devotion, intelligence and determination to strengthen its work and to meet the challenges of the false religions. There are women waiting who will do just that.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, it is with considerable hesitation and indeed trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate for I am conscious of the convention of your Lordships' House with regard to maiden speeches. However, I have been emboldened in
1014
my resolve to speak by my colleagues on these Benches and others in your Lordships' House who have encouraged me so to do.
I do so because I believe that the Measure before us is unsatisfactory in its present form and I wish to indicate how I believe it should be modified in the longer term interests both of those who are in favour of the ordination of women and of those who are opposed to it.
First, I should like to make a general comment on the nature of the debate. A question frequently put to me is, "If a woman can be queen or prime minister, why not priest, bishop or archbishop?" That seems a perfectly reasonable way in which to put the matter if the view is taken that the work and office of a priest in the Church of God is of the same order. But that is the question which takes us to the very heart of this debate; and the question which some would argue takes us to the very heart of our faith. Of course, natural justice demands that equal opportunities should be open to women, and I wholeheartedly support that as indeed I do the full-time ministry of women in the Church. I believe very strongly that we need the gifts and graces which women bring to the Church's public ministry. However, I have to say that I am not yet convinced, on the basis of scripture, the background and tradition of the Church's life and ministry, that the matter is yet fully resolved in favour of ordaining women. Therefore, I consider that it remains a disputed question theologically.
It has to be admitted that opinion continues to be divided—and considerably divided—in our Church. The General Synod may have voted as it did last November, but the fact is that in the parishes and deaneries of the Church of England nationwide the voting figures are considerably less clear about the two-thirds majority. Indeed, taking account of the overall voting, from the 731 deanery synods where all beneficed and licensed clergy are members and where every parish in the land is represented by at least two members, the legislation failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed.
It was precisely in order to address the divided nature of the Church that the legislation emerged, not simply as a one-clause Measure. It is to the legislative package that I should now like to turn. I indicated in my speech in the General Synod in November last that I was certain that the legislation had not got it right, and I am even more convinced now that that is so.
I refer particularly to Clause 2, concerning the provisions for bishops who are opposed and in office when the Measure becomes law. Let us note the fact that it applies only to bishops in office and not to any successor in the See. Basically, the bishop has the right to make the diocese a "no-go" area to women so ordained under the Canon. Is it really in the best interests of the peace and well-being of our Church that a diocese such as London with 60 or so ordained women deacons should suddenly become a "no-go" area? Does it really further the cause of the very rights and justice on which it is argued that women should be ordained?
Certainly, the Diocese of London, in the Diocesan Synod, rejected the legislation in all three Houses. So it

1015
could be argued that the diocesan bishop would be on very strong grounds indeed to invoke all three declarations. But then such declarations are time-capped. Yes, any future Bishop of London may refrain from ordaining women. He is not free further to extend the declarations made by his predecessor.
I have to say that it is on that one clause alone that the most contentious letters of my whole ministry have been received, both from those fervently in favour—uttering dire threats about making life impossible for the Bishop of London if he even dares to contemplate the possibility of making the declarations of Clause 2—and, equally, from those against who would, similarly, make life impossible for the bishop if he did not so act.
I have consistently maintained throughout the debate that Clause 2 is inappropriate and unworkable. If we are now being told that really no one is going to use it, then why is it still before the House as part of the Measure?
However, perhaps I may presume to echo the scriptures in St. Paul's hymn to charity: I wish now to put to you a better way. This better way is, I believe, set out in the arrangements of the London Plan—the proposals which I put before the Diocese of London at Pentecost earlier this year, and which set out a clear framework which recognises and respects the integrity both of those who are in favour of the ordination of women and those who are opposed. Indeed, similar though not exactly parallel proposals are contained in the draft Act of Synod which is to be put before the forthcoming meeting of the General Synod next week and which is endorsed, as we have heard, by the whole House of Bishops, though there is no guarantee that the Synod will necessarily endorse the Act.
I believe that the reason that the House of Bishops has spent so much time and energy in further discussion and planning after the decision of 11th November last year is because it is considered by a number of us that the legislation before us is not in the longer-term interests of our Church. It is my view that Clause 2 should be deleted and that some reference to the Act of Synod should be incorporated as part of the Measure.
In so doing, I believe that the Church of England would have an altogether more optimistic future recognising and respecting both those who are in favour and those who are opposed and this—not an attempt at facing both ways, nor indeed in any way the creation of two Churches in one as has been suggested by some; but rather an attempt both to ensure and to secure the continuing diversity which has long been a significant and important mark of this Church. Thus it is my fervent hope that the Act of Synod will secure the necessary majority in the forthcoming General Synod.
There is another clause which causes me considerable difficulty and it is one which has already been referred to in today's debate. I refer to the second part of Clause 1 which states:
"Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of Bishop".
Already colleagues on these Benches and, indeed, women themselves, are speaking of women bishops within a few years; and, in my view, rightly so—certainly within the next 10 years if women are now to be ordained to the work and office of a priest in the
1016
Church of God. For what view of ordained ministry is it which actually makes a legal separation between bishop and priest? That is quite contrary to the view expressed in the Ordinal of The Book of Common Prayer and the practice of our Church since its inception—indeed, in the practice of the Church universal since the very origins of the ministry itself. It simply does not add up theologically, nor does it add up practically. It is going to happen. We shall have women bishops. Why retain the clause?
I have felt constrained to set my views before the House not, I hope, in any negative or obstructive kind of way, but as one who has been a faithful, loyal and lifelong member of the Church of England and who yearns amidst our present unhappy divisions to do all in his power to fulfil the aspirations of the prayer prayed daily in this very Chamber; namely, to ensure the: uniting and knitting together of the heads of all persons in true Christian love and charity. Such, I believe, is a key task of the work and office of a bishop in the Church of God at this time and one which I shall continue to do all in my power to pursue both in my diocese and for the sake of ensuring that valued diversity of the past and present into the future, of our beloved Church of England.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Runcie: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first speaker to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. Those of us on these Benches who constantly ask for a stronger lead from the Bishops' Benches will be encouraged by his wise and temperate words. We hope to hear him often on less ecclesiastically exciting days.
Throughout history commentators have employed military terms to describe religious controversy. We may regret it, but battles, campaigns, strategy and tactics are the historians' modes of reference for the development of doctrine and Church practice from the fisticuffs of the Council of Nicea onwards. In the present phase of today's hostilities, I suppose that I figure as one of the walking wounded; someone now far behind the lines, who is in a position to write letters of encouragement to those still on active service in a war drawing to its close. As suits one speaking from the security of the Cross Benches, I am in a position to encourage those on both sides or on neither.
My struggle with the issue has been as much personal as public. I have wrestled with it for many years. At first, I was psychologically uncomfortable with the idea of women priests. I then had the feeling that I was not at all sure that the Anglican Communion, let alone the Church of England, had the right to take such a step independent of the other parts of Catholic Christendom. In that way, I reveal myself as a traditionalist, both temperamentally and rationally. What is more, all my traditionalism is Anglican, bound together by the threefold cord of Prayer Book, King James Bible and poets of the English faith—a cord not easily broken.
However, I grow alarmed when I see the term "traditionalist" manipulated for the propaganda ends of one side of the debate. In spite of the oft stated claims of some opponents of the Measure, it is possible and

1017
even necessary for traditionalists to allow development within Christian doctrine and practice. Old truth needs to be expressed in new ways so that it may convey its deepest, most significant meaning. John Henry Newman was eloquent on that point.
The real duty of the traditionalist is not to oppose all change but to determine the criteria for legitimate development. Thus it is not appropriate, however much our initial feelings and our gut reactions sway us, to class all proposed developments together. The ultimate recognition of the ordination of women as an appropriate development does not entail any series of further developments. The suggestion that it does is a failure of logic used as a tactic of terror.
Incidentally, I was pleased with the temperate manner in which the amendment was moved today. The mover did not fall into an error committed by some Members of another place when they debated the matter on Friday. What is the essence of priesthood? It is the vocation of representing God to the human community and the human community to God. In our English tradition there is a link between the doctrine of the incarnation (God in human form) and the parish priest's commitment to a particular place and a particular community. The parson is a special person ordained to pray and celebrate the eucharist on behalf of all his parishioners, churchgoers or not. So the priest is there for everyone and represents the God who is there for everyone.
In days when exclusively male leadership has been abandoned in other walks of life, it seems undeniable that this representative role of the priest may actually be weakened by a solely male priesthood. The admission of women would be an enlargement and opening up of priesthood rather than its overturning. When men are selected for priesthood we look for certain qualities. We look first for faith, and with it faithfulness, stickability and the capacity to go on when the going gets tough. We look for evidence of a life of prayer because prayer is required of a priest, both to sustain the loneliness of the job and as a sign of the way he is pointing others. We look for commitment to people, both to challenge and to console the strong and the weak, the gifted and the deprived. We look for a willingness to live sacrificially: to choose the less attractive job; to make do with a not very appealing income; and to work long hours without obvious reward. We look for leaders who can inspire without domineering, whose model is that of the Good Shepherd rather than the successful graduate of the management training school.
I believe there are many women who possess these priestly qualities and whose ability to bring men and women to God is tempered by the kind of tough gentleness which nourishes families and challenges the overbearing. Neither authoritarian nor submissive, these women are bringing new life and integrity to the communities in which they work. In my travels to other parts of the world, where women are ordained as priests, I have seen this for myself. In their ministry in partnership with men, they are enabling those men to discover new gifts within themselves.
1018
A fortnight ago in San Francisco I visited the impressive cathedral support programme for individuals and families living amid the fears, shame, anger and abandonment of AIDS. The co-ordination of this interactive programme, which doctors, nurses, teachers, bereavement counsellors, men and women, share together, had as its leader a woman priest. When she stood at the altar, in the traditional Catholic vestments, leading us in the eucharist I found it impossible to deny her priesthood.
The ordination of women may have quite the opposite effect to that forecast by opponents. It may in fact strengthen the Church in precisely those areas where perceived weakness at present worries opponents. I refer to two examples. It is felt that we need more spiritual direction and perhaps less political advice. One only has to instance the large number of women in the religious orders who already exercise extensive ministries of spiritual direction, or the return to a pastoral vision for the parish priest in place of the current managerial and business models. Those are things which I, together with many other traditionalists, believe lie at the heart of our needs for the future.
If I may risk a rather elitist model, I do so as someone who owes much to the Oxford Movement. Many of us thought that the admission of women to exclusively male colleges in the ancient universities would totally change their character. Now few would deny that the presence of women has nourished many of the most creative and oldest traditions and customs of college life which were falling apart.
It is high time to breathe spiritual life back into a Church weighed down by bureaucracy—a Church which has lost much of its mission to serve and encourage. The ordination of women to the priesthood could mark a significant shift in that direction.
The tendency to view priesthood as another cog in a managerial wheel is ironically further enshrined in the formalism and legalism which underwrite the position of opponents to the Measure. The assurances, the special provisions, the extraordinary episcopal oversight are all judged necessary—I accept that—but nevertheless they are symptoms of an illness which replaces trust and good will with the flawed logic of two integrities. It is a sad paradox that those most fearful of one development in the life of the Church should be blind to their collusion with another which seems far more obviously illegitimate within that same spiritual life.
We are a small Church in worldwide terms. Anglican rhetoric should not get too pretentious. To take this step will not halt progress in ecumenical dialogue, bonds of affection and common action for human betterment. It will raise difficulties in our disagreements over the understanding of authority and decision making. Those problems are serious but they are inherent in a Christianity which is divided and we are still, alas, far from the organic unity which we seek.
Meanwhile I have come to believe that we shall win respect if we make up our minds to do what a considerable consensus believes to be right, and if we are seen to be theologically serious and pastorally sensitive in the way in which we have handled this question. A.J.P. Taylor's How Wars End is a pun on the

1019
title of E.M. Forster's novel Howards End which, in a mystical way, seeks to explore the polarities and struggles not only between races, classes and sexes, but also within the individual human spirit. The well-known epigram, "only connect", catches something of the ironies which lie behind today's debate. Those who are now seen as members of opposing armies could be united in a common cause: the renewal of priesthood for its true moral and spiritual vocation to revive and refresh the roots of faith and nourish the capacities of individuals and communities to stick together, to care for one another and to aim for the highest and the best.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have seldom imagined a more difficult position in which to speak than that in which I find myself today. It little occurred to me that I might have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, when he was no longer Archbishop of Canterbury and I no longer a member of Her Majesty's Government. There was a time when we were in a very different position, brother officers in the same battalion one not knowing that he would go into the Church and the other not imagining that there was any likelihood that he would be a politician of any kind. Now I find myself following the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Runcie. I have always found him impressive in the many years we have been great friends. I appreciate that at last I have a chance to speak after him although not daring to say anything against what he said, even if I had wanted to do so.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I greatly admire his courage in making a maiden speech in your Lordships' House expressing such views at a very difficult time for him and for his Church. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I admire him greatly for what he did. I am sure that we shall all wish to hear him again in this House on other occasions. It was a considerable performance on his part.
I shall descend from such high levels. I wish to support the most reverend Primate and the Measure which he has put forward in your Lordships' House. As an ordinary member of the Church of England, who started his life as a Scottish Presbyterian, I support the ordination of women as priests in the Church of England, and I welcome the vote of the General Synod in favour of the proposal. However, that is not the issue that I want to address this afternoon. I want rather to draw your Lordships' attention to the consequences if this House failed to approve the Measure this afternoon.
Your Lordships have every right to throw out a Measure presented by the Church of England for Parliament's approval. I do not for one minute question the powers of this House, nor do I suggest that they should not be used where appropriate. However, I invite your Lordships to consider the wisdom of using that power in relation to this particular Measure.
The question of whether women should be ordained as priests is one on which very strong views are held on the opposing sides. It is for that very reason, as has already been made clear, that the Church has proceeded thoughtfully, slowly and with the utmost care. Last year
1020
the long years of debate culminated in a vote in which a two-thirds majority of the General Synod decided in favour of the ordination of women. (As a politician, and as a former Chief Whip in another place, I regard that as a very large majority indeed.) The Ecclesiastical Committee has scrutinised the Measure in great detail and is satisfied that it is expedient that it should pass. The other place has voted in favour of the measure with a massive majority of 194 votes.
Against that background it has to be asked on what grounds it would be right for this House to frustrate the clearly expressed wish of the established Church. I suggest that there would have to be overriding reasons for doing that. It would be very different if your Lordships were satisfied that the Measure was evidently contrary to the wishes of the country at large or if it was against the public interest. No one is suggesting that that is the case here. The relationship between the state and the established Church has evolved over the centuries. It has always been finely balanced, and I believe that it would be unwise for this House alone to upset that balance unless it was clearly in the national interest that it should do so. I do not believe that it is.
Of course there are Members of this House and of another place who disagree with the majority in the General Synod. I very much admired the speech of my noble friend Lord Holderness, although I do not necessarily agree with his views. I recognise that this development in the life of the Church causes them considerable distress. However, we should be in no doubt of the consequences of defeating this Measure tonight. We would create a major crisis between Church and state which, in my judgment, would do no good to anyone involved in the subsequent controversy. That seems particularly true when your Lordships' House would be on its own. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will appreciate the importance of passing the measure tonight.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not intend to speak on ecclesiastical matters. This is a question for the Church itself and it seems to me that the Church has now determined the issue. I feel that the responsibility of this House is to give effect to that decision.
I speak from the premise of equal opportunities for women and men. I do so from my experience as founder chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission from 1975 to 1983. Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act specifically excluded ministers of religion from the scope of the Act. It was one of the few excepted areas. However, it is interesting to note that the words of the Act refer to the employment of ministers.
The Church has now made its own decision on its own doctrine and theology and, as we have already heard, has determined in the three Houses of the General Synod by majorities in excess of the required two thirds to admit women to the priesthood. We need therefore now to concern ourselves with the employment of men and women in the Church.
The Equal Opportunities Commission made no attempt to try to influence or put pressure on the Church on ecclesiastical matters. However, the fact that

1021
ministers of religion were excluded from the Sex Discrimination Act did not, and does not, mean that the Church should take no action. It was expected that those areas excluded from the provisions of the Act would in their own way move towards equality. Therefore I suggest that in the light of changes that have taken place in the law, and in the light of fast-changing attitudes of the society in which the Church operates, there is a moral responsibility on the Church to provide equal opportunities for both sexes.
The move for the ordination of women was not new even in 1975. It had been raised many times in the previous 50 or so years. However, in 1975 the three houses of the Synod passed a resolution,
"That this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood".
Eighteen years later, I hope that we can reach a conclusion on that principle. That is why I do not accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. Whatever he might say, the effect of his amendment would be to delay even further the ordination of women. I suggest that women have waited too long already. Eighteen years after the principle was accepted is surely long enough to sort out the details.
I suggest that the Measure before us today as outlined by the most reverend Primate adequately caters for the minority view. Indeed, as has already been stated, the Measure leaves women in a disadvantaged position. Women are still excluded from becoming bishops. Parochial church councils can decide that they will not accept a woman as a priest in their parish. I find those two exceptions quite extraordinary. There is a third exception. An incumbent bishop is enabled to exclude women priests from his diocese. However, that issue has been adequately covered by the most reverend Primate, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in a most refreshing maiden speech. Surely once women have entered the priesthood they are entitled to expect the same treatment and consideration as their male colleagues in all respects.
It is not as though women will be coming absolutely new to that calling. Women have performed perfectly well as priests in other denominations; and even in the Church of England itself, as the most reverend Primate stated, there are already some 1,000 women ordained as deacons. Those women have undergone the same training as their male colleagues who have then proceeded to full priesthood while the women have had to remain as deacons. They have fulfilled that function not only adequately but most sensitively and professionally, as those who have heard them perform in Church will testify.
But we are talking about employment. I recognise that to be a priest is a calling, as the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, so movingly outlined. However, it is also a profession and a job. In no other area would an employer be able to say, "Not in this parish", or, "No promotion for women". Even the armed services—they were also an excepted area from the Sex Discrimination Act—are now fully integrating women into the services with opportunities for promotion.
1022
I believe that the Church will have to come back to this. I was encouraged by what was said from the Bishops' Benches. I too hope that it will not be too long before it does so. The Church cannot operate in isolation if it is to meet the needs of today's society. It cannot ignore or in any way erode the principle of equality between the sexes which is so widely prevalent in our community today.
I welcome the Measure so far as it goes. However, I hope that it is only a foretaste of another Measure which would give complete equality to women in the Church.
4.36 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment moved so briefly and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Holderness, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will forgive me if I do not follow her into the labyrinth of secular values on equal opportunities, and the story about the matter having been debated for years. It appears to have been debated for some 20 years in a Church that has been going for 2,000 years. The debate has been confined to a corner of the Church; it is no more than 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. of Christianity at large.
Although the custom of the House allows the speaker following a maiden speech to thank and congratulate the maiden speaker on behalf of the House as a whole, if I may be allowed to breach the rules perhaps I may also say a word of gratitude to and admiration for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for the way in which he made a difficult speech at a difficult time. When he referred to the qualities of priesthood, I could not help reflecting on this. My grandfather was a priest; my father was a priest; my brother was a priest; I look forward to my son, who is a priest, attending my final moments. I have to confess that I funked the issue. I ran away from a life of sacrifice and work which simply scared the hell out of me; therefore I am a defector from our family tradition.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, asked on what basis we can ask the House to pass the amendment. With respect, perhaps I may suggest that the moment has come to consider the issue with a slightly better sense of proportion and history. So far from this measure being progressive, as it is commonly thought to be, it runs completely against the ethos, direction and practice of our national Church as it has unfolded since the 17th century.
The Act of Uniformity of 1662 was directed mainly against Roman Catholics. That hostile direction against our fellow Christians was corrected 200 years later in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. The 1689 Toleration Act was directed against people who in those days were known as dissenters. At that time hundreds of clergy left the Church of England on account of the Act. However, the effect of the Toleration Act was removed when the Measure was repealed in 1828—a move towards further toleration. The 1874 Public Worship Regulation Act was designed to stop clergy who were known as ritualists. Father Tooth, a well known priest, was sent to gaol under it; and Father Mackonochie was suspended for wearing the very vestments which most bishops today are happy to wear.

1023
General public approval of other religious communities has developed. For example, in our own day exceptions with regard to the Marriage Acts have been made in favour of Quakers and of Jews. As recently as 1976, the amendment Act in relation to crash helmets enabled Sikhs to be spared the indignity and the religious humiliation of casting their turbans aside for crash helmets.
Therefore the most reverend Primate, to whom I listened with great interest, attention and affection, might well proclaim, as he did in a notable lecture at Denver, Colorado, only a fortnight ago:
"We are not a communion that forces others out because they cannot utter the same formulas".
Against that claim, how does this Measure stand? First, it was voted against at all levels by about 30 per cent. of Church people—30 per cent. throughout. They voted against being eventually forced—those who resisted, of whom I am one—to accept absolution or the celebration of Holy Communion by a woman priest.
At bishop level from the end of the present range of present bishops, all future bishops, according to this Measure, must—under Clause 2—accept the principle of women priests. That means that bishops, archdeacons, deans, rural deans, and parish clergy must all, as the Measure stands with Clause 2, bow the knee to women priests or get out. That is hardly a tribute to our tradition of toleration.
Our national Church has already been overtaken by the Roman Church in the past 10 years in terms of total effective adult membership. In the past 10 years, our national Church has lost no fewer than 10 per cent. of those who were sufficiently committed to sign up to the electoral roll. Those figures are from Church House. As it stands, this Measure, unamended, unaltered or unaffected by an Act of Synod would bully 30 per cent. of our people—say, about 400,000, taking the Church of England as a whole—and drive them in many cases out of our national Church. The Anglican Church in the United States has lost something like 30 per cent. of its membership within the 14 years since the ordination of women.
We have been told that there is generous financial compensation. Perhaps it is generous. But let us think whom it excludes. There is nothing for missionaries; hospital chaplains; prison chaplains, or chaplains to the forces. There is nothing for young priests who have less than five years' service and may perhaps have given a couple of years of their lives to theological training. There is nothing for lay employees, be they of the Synod, of the Church Commission, of the dioceses, or indeed as ordinary vergers.
We are told that the Act of Synod will correct all that. It would give body to the most reverend Primate's ringing declarations (again in Colorado) that,
"both those for and those against have an honourable place".
Those are his words.
But the Act of Synod has not even been voted on. It is not even before this House. We are not discussing it. We cannot discuss it as we do not have it. It is no more than an appendix of the Ecclesiastical Committee Report. It is not a paper before this House. It has not been voted on. We hear of sharp feminist opposition.
1024
What is more, it can be rescinded. It will have no legal power, whatever its moral authority may be. It can have no legal force like this Measure; and, as I said, is not even before this House tonight. Yet it is held out as a sort of escape to guarantee and safeguard the correction of the wrongs of the Measure now before us.
The most reverend Primate declared—and I so much approve of his language; I support, respect and endorse his language:
"We are a roomy Church, within the parameters of doctrinal integrity. Let us rejoice in that roominess".
But, my Lords, is doctrinal integrity really respected by what I can only call the sneaky device of changing the clear meaning of key words in The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal in order to get round the restrictions imposed by the Synod's own worship and doctrine measure. It says, in effect, that "He", "Him" and "His" also mean "She", "Her" and "Hers". In my view—and I have to put it as moderately as I can to the House—it is a shady device to disguise a deep doctrinal change.
The most reverend Primate and the bishops, and indeed the clergy, all subscribe to the 39 Articles, which include this statement:
"Councils can err and have erred"
In practice, I believe that the effect of this Measure will not be to enlarge our national Church, but to shrink it still further; that it will divide it at all levels, down to the parish itself. I submit that this Measure is premature, unworthy and unfair.
4.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on his maiden speech. Not only did he speak with courage and impressively, but he has—if I may dare to say so in his presence—combined with integrity his clear disagreement with the decision made by the General Synod and his loyalty to the Church that has made that decision. Many of us who have worked with him over the past few years have been immensely impressed by the integrity with which he has held those two difficult convictions together. He has done that at some cost. He revealed to us in some measure this afternoon how he has been on the receiving end not merely of criticism but even of abuse. Handbags have sharp edges in the Church just as they do in the state.
This debate is of significance to both Church and state. It touches the ordained ministry and so is of direct concern to the Church; it is part of the continuing debate about the relationship between men and women, and so is of general concern to the state. There is an appropriateness therefore in the issue being discussed in this House, where Church and state work together, for the most part happily, although from time to time uneasily.
It is said by some that this decision is a breach of tradition which the Church of England should not countenance, and certainly one which it should not countenance on its own. Those of us who are in favour

1025
of the ordination of women to the priesthood do not see this as a break in tradition, but as a restatement of the tradition in order to preserve it.
The tradition that we have inherited is that, in Christ, God took human nature and used it as the means through which to express and live out his divine life. We now see with renewed clarity, both in scripture and in the contemporary world, that human nature is not masculinity, but men and women together in interaction and complementarity. If we are to express that fully and freshly, then we must have within the priesthood both men and women alongside one another, interacting with each other and changing one another. I say that because priesthood is representative of the whole people of God and also of Christ, who is the God who assumed human nature. So although the ordination of women to the priesthood is a break with tradition in the sense that it has not happened before, at any rate in England, it is not a break with tradition in the sense of truth handed down to us.
I suggest that tradition is not a rock-like inheritance of truth from the past which we must bury in the ground in order to preserve it intact. Tradition is a living body of truth with which we have to trade in the modern world; and it has to be stated afresh in each generation. When therefore the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, refers in his amendment to "those who hold traditional beliefs"—I fully understand what he means—I have to say that those of us who are in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood consider ourselves to be wholly loyal to tradition and to hold traditional views, yet recognising our duty to restate that tradition in order to preserve it.
I observe a shift in the arguments which have been used by those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood. Not so long ago many opponents would have argued that it was a step which was wrong in itself and had no sound theological basis. Today not so many people use that argument. They urge rather that the Church of England should not take this step on its own. We should not move out of line with the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. That is a weighty argument. I do not lightly contemplate a step which risks distancing me from my colleagues in the Roman Catholic Church with whom I have close and warm relations. But both Churches make some decisions which have that effect and our relationship still continues. Twenty five years ago the Church of England incorporated lay people into its synods and gave them a formal role in the determination of doctrine, a step which put us out of line with the Roman Catholics and with the Orthodox. So this will not be the first time that we judge it right in the circumstances to act independently. We treasure our ecumenical partnership but not at the cost of waiting at the church door so long that we never move up the aisle.
I want to underline the extent to which the House of Bishops has worked to ensure the continuing openness of the Church of England. The legislation before your Lordships is, I submit, pastoral in intent and generous in spirit, making detailed provision for those who cannot support the decision that has been made. The draft Act
1026
of Synod takes that further and indicates the way in which we shall implement those provisions. The arrangements in the draft Act of Synod are not suitable for legislation. They are more about style and method than about rights and duties; and there is the possibility that the General Synod will not endorse the draft Act. But even if that were to happen, the fact remains that the bishops have agreed the draft Act without dissent and our intention, indeed our determination, is unmistakable. Therefore I imagine that we shall implement this, even if the General Synod were to be so unwise as not to endorse it.
In his very courteous speech when introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, referred to the lack of trust that exists. I do not doubt that that is in fact true in some cases. But I draw his attention to the fact that over the course of the past few months a number of bishops have been appointed who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood. I hope that the mere fact that such bishops are being appointed proves what is set out in the draft Act of Synod and goes a long way towards removing any anxiety about a lack of trust.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate for one moment. Is it not the case that new appointments are indeed replacements of people who held the same point of view?
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in all cases that is not so and in some cases they are new appointments of bishops where the predecessor has not been of that view. With great courtesy I wish to disagree with the noble Earl's suggestion. I noted that he referred to the financial provisions Measure and said that in it there was no provision for such people as missionaries, hospital chaplains, prison chaplains and so on. Perhaps I may correct him. That is not so. There is provision for such people but because of the administrative complexity they are not given provision by right, as are the parochial clergy. Because their circumstances vary so considerably, it was thought right to make provision for them in slightly different terms. I assure him that there is provision in the financial provisions Measure for the people whom he listed.
This is not just a theological or domestic issue for the Church. It touches the relationship and evaluation of men and women in society. We have seen women increasingly taking their place alongside men in every walk of life, not least in your Lordships' House where noble Baronesses are as distinguished, as persuasive and sometimes as formidable as any noble Lord. When the ordained ministry of the Church is virtually the last area where women are not free to make their contribution, we at least have to ask the question: why?
The matter cannot be determined by such considerations alone but the question cannot be sidestepped. Many of us are ready to say that we have learnt, and learnt too slowly, from observing the way in which women have contributed to society an insight which we ought to have learnt earlier from elsewhere.
Everything is now in place for this historic step forward in the life and ministry of the Church of

1027
England, save for your Lordships' approval and the Royal Assent. I trust that your Lordships will recognise that this matter has been debated in depth and at length and that careful provision has been made for those who do not agree. Both Church and nation now await our endorsement. I hope that the approval of this House will be clear, confident and encouraging, as the Church of England looks to the future in its service of God and ministry to the nation.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, so much has been said and written on this subject that I intend to be brief, especially in view of the universally impressive nature of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. On good episcopal advice I understand that there is no scriptural reason why women should not be ordained. There is every reason why the Church of England should take advantage of all the talents God created and all the inspiration that the Holy Spirit provided, whether they are in the hearts and minds of men or of women. I agree with the right reverend Prelate on the question of their working together.
In this decade of evangelism, all Anglicans must be only too well aware of the need to spread the Gospel more widely: "The hungry sheep look up and are not fed". Many people have no appreciation of the opportunity for forgiveness by the grace of God and have no idea of how to carry out the will of God or how His yoke is easy and His burden is light, if faith is present in their hearts.
The admission of women to the priesthood will provide the Church with a new source of inspiration. Not every woman who wants to be ordained will be admitted, which is just as happens to men already. They must he suitable and clearly inspired to follow Our Lord according to Anglican principles.
It will take time before they permeate throughout the Church, which will give time also for those against their ordination to take advantage of the provisions set out and approved by all three houses of the General Synod or stay with a parish and diocese with a male priest and bishop. All the actions on both sides need to be inspired by the words of our Lord that we should love one another and treat each other gently. Gradually, with time, I believe that the Church will come to be thankful for the witness of women as priests and to see its great value. In 100 years nobody will be able to understand why it took so long to be agreed.
I hope that this House will agree to the ordination of women priests within the Church of England as put forward by the most reverend Primate this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I support the Motion so ably presented by the most reverend Primate and at the same time I commend the cogency of the arguments presented on the other side. Nevertheless, I believe that the overwhelming consensus should be that in principle the Motion should be supported; that it is right theologically, and that pragmatically the difficulties are matters of peradventure rather than prohibition.
1028
I am somewhat disturbed that hitherto no reference has been made to some of the underlying difficulties in the recognition of the equality, in substance and in truth, of man and woman. To a large extent I. believe that the Christian Church is to blame for that. From time to time I have endeavoured to commend the Bible but with the proviso that "The Bible says" is a contradiction in terms. It says a number of things. But one makes up one's own mind what one wants to believe and then finds the appropriate text to support it.
There is no way of commending the ultimate truth of the most precious book that we have. But the orthodoxy of the Bible statements and the principles set forth by the Christian Church have been set within a sex relationship and a scientific background which have long since passed away as being unsatisfactory. We should talk a little more about some of the problems which seem to face ordinary people and the assumption that they should take for granted propositions from the: so-called scientific field which no longer apply. I shall briefly refer to two reasons why we should do so.
The suggestion that man is superior to woman relies on the implicit recognition by a great many people—older people, in general, who have never thought about it very much—that the source of life is in the male and that the woman provides something like bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the early stages of life. Thereafter the infant is introduced to the wider world, where the benefits of that bed-and-breakfast spell may be obvious. But there is a world of difference between the man and the bed in which he begins. The assumption that woman is the custodian but not the equal creative agent in the production of life is one of the reasons why it is still incipient in a great many people's minds that, whatever may be the attitude—and it is one that should be cultivated—of courtesy and recognition of the great powers and virtues of woman, she is an inferior creature and does not belong to the creative process.
It may be argued that this is not something which agitates the minds of most people. But I assure your Lordships that it does. I find that it is the kind of question that arises in the open air, of all places. I speak with care, and I dare to do so being of a sufficient age that no one will assume any arrière-pensée. The idea that periodically woman is contaminated by an effusion of blood is part of a dangerous, primitive attitude to the whole concept of blood. I find it represented, all too unfortunately, in a great deal of fascist literature.
Though it may be thought a presumption for me to enter upon these fields, for what it is worth I can say from my own experience that over and over again the argument may prevail, "You win your case and you lose your man", because the man to whom one endeavours to present a truth is already irradiated, so to speak, with a particular venom. That venom is much more difficult to eradicate than I think the courteous and kindly presentation of accurate theological problems is likely to succeed.
What we must do within the Church is to present an answer to many of the reminiscences on the part particularly of middle-aged people who remember the days when they were invited to read the Bible and went to Sunday school and church. They have retained in the

1029
recesses of their minds propositions about man and woman which need to be eradicated and can only be eradicated in a more precise and authoritative presentation. In commending the Measure, I believe that a great deal more education is needed.
I remind myself that I am a Methodist minister and I hope before I die to become a member of the preaching order within the Anglican Communion. We are not yet there, though we have made some advances in that direction, and I was responsible for the initiation of that programme. I would say to my ecclesiastical friends, who are in such an impressive array today that I feel all the more humble in my hope of being a member of the society of the future, rather than the divisive societies of today, that we have an experience already in the Methodist Church of the vocationary priesthood of women.
I have two more points. First, ecclesiastically the question of garments presented a little difficulty. We are not quite sure yet what the women should wear, and they are not sure about it. Some of the contemporary papers that advocate the gestiary programmes for the culture of women today have not helped.
Secondly, a great many of the youngsters who will be in the Church of tomorrow are pretty impatient about the nonsense that they assume people are talking about the vocation of women. It does not bother them, not necessarily because they have thought out the arguments in detail or that they have applied themselves with great consistency to prayerful thought on the matter; but because it seems as obvious as the daylight that the fullness of the Christian gospel depends on the equal opportunity of man and woman, boy and girl to respond in their own way to a common principle and vocation. It is in that field that I believe this is a refreshing Measure of hope for the future.
Finally, I find that within a Church which has equal opportunity for men and women there is a clearer perception of the Kingdom of God. I read my New Testament and I find that Jesus bids us, first of all, to seek that kingdom and in the search and finding of it we shall find the answers to the other problems which now so consistently perplex us. God bless this Measure and God bless the principle whereby it may bring us closer together. Perhaps my ecclesiastical friends can help me to find my way into the Church of England sooner or later and to join with them in the ministry of what I believe to be the way of God for us.
5.9 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I do not question in any way the sincerity of the opponents of this Measure for the ordination of women though I find the arguments hard to understand, let alone to accept. There was much talk in the discussions which led up to the Measure coming before us about the tradition of the Church of England. But surely the value of tradition is not in keeping everything the same but in keeping the best from the past; not stagnation, as the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, and others have said. There has been a long tradition in this House of excluding women; and in law, medicine and business there has been a bias
1030
against women. Was it wrong to make that change? Of course not. It was right to change from those outdated practices.
I shall not go into the theological arguments. They have been very well dealt with by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and they are best left indeed to the well informed such as he. But so far as I can understand the theological arguments, I find them not proven. Equally, the legal and constitutional arguments are best left to lawyers. For laymen and laywomen, surely the strongest—indeed, I believe the almost overwhelming—argument for change is the plea by Jesus to his disciples:
"The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest".
This Measure is the answer to that prayer. We are sending out women to labour with men in the harvest, to take a full part in the work of the Church, to enrich it with their special talents and in the preaching of the Christian gospel more widely. In the words that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury used, "Let us get on with it now".
5.11 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I beg to offer a short account of the role of the Ecclesiastical Committee in these matters. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the legal adviser, Mr. Derek Rippengal, and the clerk to the committee, Mr. Clive Mitchell. Their experience and their ability secured that the affairs of the committee were well administered and that the reports of the committee were well drafted. I should also like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their forbearance and co-operation despite the passionate views which were held and which were firmly expressed.
By the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 every Measure passed by the three Houses of Synod by a two-thirds majority shall be submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee and, in the words of the statute:
"After considering the Measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to Parliament stating the nature and legal effect of the Measure and its views as to the expediency thereof".
The Ecclesiastical Committee consists of 15 Members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker, and 15 Members of the House of Lords appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Without casting any aspersions, I would say that at the moment it consists of 15 male Members of the House of Commons, and 12 male and three female Members of the House of Lords. At one of the first meetings of the committee it agreed that when each Member came to decide for himself or herself whether or not a Measure was expedient, then he or she could do no better than decide whether in his or her view the Measure was a good thing or a bad thing. The word "expediency" is so slippery that one can attribute any meaning to it. That was the principle on which we worked. We had to make up our individual minds whether we thought it was good for Church and state or bad.

1031
In accordance with its usual practice, the committee invited Synod to send representatives to assist the committee in its deliberations. Those representatives were led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and Professor David McClean. As your Lordships have heard, the representatives also included two members of Synod who opposed the ordination of women priests. The committee met the representatives on four occasions over a total period of 10 hours, all of which was spent in the closest cross-examination of the representatives of the Synod on all the issues which were troubling members of the committee. The representatives of Synod exhibited, as one would expect, immense patience, tolerance and goodness; and provided a great deal of information for the benefit of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Next, and pursuant to the power conferred on the committee by the statute, the legislative committee of Synod was then invited to a conference to discuss the measures. The conference took place and lasted for about two hours. The legislative committee was led by the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York and addressed itself fully to the issues which were troubling some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
There were three issues: the principle of whether women should be ordained priests of the Church of England. Your Lordships have heard the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, on the one hand, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on the other. The arguments are also set forth less eloquently in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The second issue was the adequacy of the arrangements to be made to enable clergy who are opposed to the ordination of women priests to remain members of the Church of England. In one sense the established Church was in a great dilemma. If it made no arrangements, it would be attacked for driving out the clergy who disagreed with the ordination of women. If it made some arrangements, it would be accused of not making the right arrangements or of doing something which contradicted the principle of the freedom and equality of women.
The third issue was the adequacy of the financial arrangements for clergy who, as a matter of conscience, would feel obliged to resign from the Church. Here again, as your Lordships have heard, the Church was in the dilemma of being accused of being too mean or too generous. The arguments on all those issues are set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report.
In the meantime, in January 1993 the House of Bishops had issued a statement, the first Manchester statement, outlining the arrangements suggested to ensure continued episcopal oversight and pastoral care for all members of the Church of England. This was followed by a pastoral letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in May 1993 in which, after much consultation within the diocese, he set out a framework of the basic principles by which the diocese intended to proceed. That pastoral letter is also set out in the report and will be carried out by the diocese whether or not the amendment to the Motion is carried.
There then followed in June 1993, after the meetings between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the
1032
representatives of Synod, the statement of the House of Bishops entitled "Bonds of Peace" proposing further arrangements for pastoral care following the ordination of women to the priesthood. Some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and no doubt other persons also had supported the suggestion that there should be an Act of Synod expressing the intention that there should be no discrimination between candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the ground of their views. Your Lordships have heard that the draft Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod which is annexed to the second Manchester statement is to be brought before Synod next week.
On 12th July the Ecclesiastical Committee voted by 16 to 11 that the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure was expedient. It voted by 17 votes to 10 that the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure also was expedient. On 19th July the report on the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure was agreed by 17 votes to one and the report on the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure was agreed by the same majority. That enabled the reports to be cleared and published before the Summer Recess, and it is for that reason that the Motion has been able to be brought on today.
That concludes the account which I thought it right to give to the House of the activities of the committee. Having said that, I feel entitled to say a word about the Motion before the House and about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. There are three choices for the House. The first is to reject the measure lock, stock and barrel. I think only one noble Lord—the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale—is in favour of complete rejection. There are not many still left who are root and branch asking for rejection.
The second alternative is to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. As I understand it, that amendment will not in fact make any radical difference. It will not propose any new arrangements; it will propose that the existing arrangements shall be seen to be embodied in an Act of Synod to start with and shall then be followed by a new measure which reinforces it.
In my view, that is neither one thing nor the other. Your Lordships are faced with the task of deciding whether or not to pass this Motion. The Church of England has been struggling with the problem of the place of women in the Church for more than 20 years. There are many other problems which face the Church, and a continuation of the dispute over women can do no good and will do a lot of harm. Synod has voted by large majorities in favour. Before that the great majority of the Synods of Diocese voted for the Measure. The opposition in the other place has proved to be more vociferous than numerous. The representatives of the Synod met the Ecclesiastical Committee and the members of the Legislative Committee and we found that they all demonstrated, as one would expect, the desire of all Church leaders to enable now, as in the past, men and women of different views to remain and work within the Church.

1033
It has been my task over the past months to consider all the papers which have been written: the letters, the speeches and the questions which were put to the Ecclesiastical Committee. I have formed the view that the time has come to trust the Church and its leaders. Therefore, I shall vote against the amendment and support the Motion.
5.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, it was from a former Member of this House, the former Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, that I learnt that there was a moral strength in being in a minority of one, or nearly one. I am one of those who do not think that the Measure before us is a good thing; I believe that it is a bad thing. But yet, for the reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has just outlined and which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, spoke of earlier, I am not asking this House to reject the Measure or support the amendment. Nor am I against the strengthening, broadening and the increase of the ministry of women in the Church of England. No Bishop of Sheffield could be. He sees the work that they do. He is scandalised at the lack of opportunities for that work which we give them. He sees some good in this Measure in the opportunities—I almost dare to say the career opportunities—which will be justly due to them. I listened with the greatest sympathy to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and did not disagree with them.
Why then do I waste your Lordships' time by speaking? I say this with an absurd arrogance which I hope is really humility: it is because of history. I believe that in 100 years time the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, will have been proved wrong and that it will be about my words that people will say, "how wise he was and how wrong everybody else was". Arrogance—I apologise for that.
One of the curiosities of the Church of England is that one cannot do anything without swearing oaths. It is very curious that we are so fond of swearing oaths. As a result, there are no words with which Bishops are more familiar than those of the declaration of assent. We read over and over again these words:
"The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons".
Then we say to the man or woman who is taking some office in the Church:
"In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?"
Repetition has not staled those words for me. I find them moving every time I read them and they are words to which I can give my personal assent with wholehearted conviction. What worries me about this Measure, which makes it expedient but not a good thing,
1034
is that it seems to me, in the arguments which have been used for it and in the way in which it has been carried through, that it drives a bulldozer over and through those formularies and the foundations of the Church. They are battered and damaged as a result.
It is quite clear, whether we look to the faith uniquely revealed in the holy scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, or whether we look to our historic formularies—the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal—that we do not find anywhere in any of those root documents of our faith statements that encourage, permit or authorise the ordination of women as elders to the presbyterate.
I find that worrying and puzzling. The arguments have been put forward to us very forcefully this afternoon. I can see why in today's world it seems so obvious that we should do this. But if we do claim to have a faith uniquely revealed in the holy scriptures, if we do believe that there is a deposit of the apostolic faith which has been entrusted to the Church to be guarded and handed on, it is embarrassing, puzzling and worrying in that whenever it does not fit the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we are able to gently juggle it around a bit so that we can do something different, something fresh.
It may be right for us to say that the question of ordination and the sex of the ordained minister is of no great importance and we can make this change. But if we can make that change, I want to know what changes we cannot make. The point that worries me is that if we can sit so lightly with the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, the 39 Articles and the scriptures on this matter for such powerful reasons as we have heard, why can we be sure that there will not be other matters? How can we tell? Is there anything which cannot be changed to meet the changing circumstances of the time?
An attractive picture of the Church has been put before us in a number of speeches today, constantly changing to respond to the changing needs and circumstances of the time. But I do worry whether that is really what revelation is about—changing to meet the changing circumstances. Might it not be that, however inexpedient and unpopular it may be, we do have an inheritance of faith which we are called on to protect and guard? I do not want to argue for one second for the superiority of one sex against the other, but I find the argument that one can cross out "he" and write "she" as though it made no difference, difficult to find wholly acceptable. Male and female He makes in His image after His likeness, but surely in our hearts of hearts, whatever is said, we know this to be true: male and female are different. It is just possible that what the Church has called us to—and I recognise that it has been deaf and blind to this over the centuries—is a much richer, more varied ministry than it has had: a ministry of men and women, but not a ministry of men and women who are simply interchangeable. Might it just possibly be right that our Lord, who was so dramatically revolutionary in his response to the world of his day, knew what he was about when he chose 12 men and gave a different ministry to women?
Through the centuries we have been shameful within the Church and outside the Church in our treatment of

1035
women. I recognise and repent of that. I long for change, but I do not believe that this particular change, which seems to be saying that men and women are the same and therefore all ministry can be carried out interchangeably by one and the other, is the right way.
I believe that we are making a mistake. I believe that something of the nature of that mistake is shown in the very wording of the Measure in which the concessions to the minority, to the opponents—Clause 2 about bishops, the compensation formularies and the very curious statement about bishops—are all designed, if the truth were told, to get the Measure through at any cost. It would have been better, I think, if we had just had the courage to be less traditional and more radical and if we had gone for a richer variety of ministry rather than for a pattern which diminishes the richness of God's creation rather than enhances it.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, you will appreciate that I stand in this place because the views that I am about to express are entirely personal and—not surprisingly—female.
There are two concerned parties in today's debate—the Church and women. I would not feel that I had any right whatsoever to interfere or comment on decisions of the former; but as the issue of the ordination of women priests has now arrived in your Lordships' House with a very clear message, so ably delivered by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Church of England is in favour of it, I consider that not only do I have the right, but the need to ask your Lordships on behalf of women to support the Synod and our colleagues in another place in clearing the hurdles for women to become priests. I do so with some confidence as I have never found an establishment which welcomes, assimilates and nurtures its women members more easily and comfortably than your Lordships' House.
I respect the absolute depth of feeling held by those who would not wish to see women ordained as priests, but I do not understand it. Where is the right that says that over half the human race is lesser than the rest? Would they find it as easy to say that by colour or race as by gender? I am told by opponents that the arguments are theological and that this is not a women's rights issue. Let me assure your Lordships that for most women it is most definitely a women's rights issue—a right of equality for both he and she. I am told by opponents that the ordination of women priests will split the Church. I would suggest that continuing failure to allow women to become priests would start to split the community.
I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in congratulating those women involved in the long struggle for ordination on the manner in which they have conducted themselves—no storming of the altar, no mass resignations to join the Methodists or the United Reformed Church where their welcome would have been certain:; instead, frustration contained, argument engaged and, finally, persuasion successful.
1036
Would we wish to replace those expressions of joy which showed on the faces of women when Synod delivered a two-thirds majority with ones of despair?
I suggest that this is not only an issue for women, but also for the future strength of the Church of England. Any area which fails to harness the skills, talents and instincts of women must find itself running a one-legged race. Can the Church afford that? Can our country afford it? We have great need of the Church as a partner to help to restore values of common decency and respect for others. In a week when we mourn more indiscriminate killings in Northern Ireland and watch with horror the trial of two youngsters charged with the murder of a two year-old boy, the country has surely reached a stage of saying, "Enough is enough".
The family of all shapes and sizes will return in importance. Many will have only one parent. Can those of us in Church and state say to women, "You have the responsibility for the future, but you have no future in the Church hierarchy"? It has been proved time and time again that women bring value to any organisation yet all mature bodies have difficulty in letting them play their full role: the financial institutions, manufacturing industry, the trade unions and some arms of the Church. The advancement of women has often been resisted and impeded by the combined forces of vested interest and prejudice masquerading as tradition.
The Church of England is not just the state church of these islands; its influence touches all the global Anglican communions, among whose members several have already ordained women, including New Zealand. That was no surprise to me from a country which was one of the first to grant female suffrage.
In discussing with a woman priest the question of the handicaps that she had experienced, she said that she felt only one—the lack of a wife to help. Women secular Ministers understand that, too. It is not a barrier.
Women can be full and equal partners in the ministry of the Church. We would riot today be breaking new ground; we would be following a path which had proved smooth and relatively painless.
At school speechdays I have some difficulty identifying where bright young girls can now establish a first: Prime Minister is achieved; space is achieved and President of the United States seems almost to be achieved in this administration. But I would go further than the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite: I hope that in due time one may encourage them to focus their vision even higher than bishop. It is, after all, in the Bible that without vision, people perish.
One of the dangers in encouraging women to take their rightful place in society is that we become extreme, and the balance swings totally to the other side. People must have choice and we should welcome the proposals today which make provision for those whose choice would be different from ours.
There is much change in today's world and an organisation which stands still is likely to find itself moving backwards. Synod voted to move forward. I hope that we will not handicap that wish. It would be a difficult story to tell our daughters and granddaughters.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I speak as a lifelong practising Anglican, one who veers towards the Anglo-Catholic side of the Church. Indeed, these days on certain Sundays in the month I attend a Catholic church because I disagree with the service in my own church. I am afraid that I cannot claim for myself, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London did, that I have always been a faithful member of the Church, but at any rate I have tried.
I mention this about myself because I passionately believe in the ordination of women priests. I should like to give three reasons for that. First, from time to time I stay in a parish in the State of New Jersey in the United States. That parish has a small stone church which could pass as an English parish church. It has a rector and a woman assistant priest. On my last visit, I was sitting in the church at the eucharist, watching the procession come down the nave from the vestry at the back. The rector came at the end. He was preceded by the woman priest who was heavily pregnant. I mention that because I did not find that in any way incongruous.
On the contrary, it brought home to me, in a way that nothing else has ever done, that women, because of their special role in the upbringing of children, can bring all the compassion, all the love, all the caring from motherhood to a hitherto wholly male priesthood. I believe that that will complement the rather different pattern of qualities of the male priest. It will give the Church a new and richer dimension in its pastoral work, which in today's society is of tremendous importance. That is the first point that I want to make: that, in my view, women priests will make the Church a more caring, compassionate Church.
Secondly, perhaps I may mention another parish with which I am associated in the County of Cumbria. In the past few years there have been a great many amalgamations of parishes. The parish about which I am talking comprises five amalgamated parishes. It has a small country town; a sparsely populated fell parish; one large village which has two satellite hamlets and two parish churches; and, in addition, two typical Cumbrian villages. Those five parishes, spread over a vast area of countryside, and with six churches, are looked after by one priest. How on earth can he organise a reasonable pattern of services, given all that responsibility? How on earth can there be anything but the most sketchy pastoral care in such a parish? I pay tribute to the dedicated work that so many priests are doing in such circumstances.
Of course, it could be argued that the Church, in its present straitened circumstances, cannot afford more. But its finances will revive, provided that it stays out of the American property market. The finances will improve. But if the Church is to provide an adequate ministry throughout the country, it must have more ordinands than it is getting at present. It is ludicrous to exclude half the human race from the field of recruitment. That is my second point: that the Church needs women priests as never before to make its mission effective.
1038
Thirdly, there have now been 70 years of debate about women priests. "Women priests" have almost come to be regarded as an end in themselves. We sometimes forget that what we are really discussing is the service that the Church gives to the man or woman in the pew and to those who never sit in the pews. To use an inelegant modern phrase, they are the "bottom line" in all this discussion. It is the people in the pews about whom we are really talking tonight. They are hardly ever consulted about what the activists in the various synods are deciding.
I am associated closely with two churches. No synod representative has ever asked me my views on women priests. So what do Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith, sitting in one of the back pews, as they do, well away from the pulpit, feel about women priests? I have a theory about it. I believe that over his lifetime the ordinary churchgoer thinks long and hard about his faith. He will probably never admit it, but I am sure that he does. That is especially true about the great verities: does God exist? and the divinity of Christ, life after death and so on. I am sure that in his own mind he reaches certain conclusions. Those conclusions are every bit as valid as those that he hears from the pulpit, as those of the most erudite theologian. Indeed, I do not believe that theology is a matter solely for theologians; it is a matter for all human beings in their own minds and hearts.
I believe that most churchgoers have thought hard and long about women priests. I would not presume to speak for Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith sitting in that back pew, but I count myself, like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as an average sort of churchgoer. I can find no theological argument against admitting women to the priesthood. The right reverend Prelate answered the points one by one. The silliest argument I hear is that all our Lord's apostles were male, and therefore we have to have a male priesthood for ever more.
If a great rabbi arose today and decided to carry out a three-year mission, tramping up and down the country, sleeping wherever he could find shelter, and taking with him a small band of disciples, I am sure that it would be a mixed band of young men and women. That would have been unthinkable in the time of Christ. That is a thoroughly silly point which has no relevance to this discussion. That is my third point: there is no theological argument that convinces me, or anyone that I know in the pews, against women priests.
There are 30 autonomous Churches in the Anglican community throughout the world. More than half have admitted women priests. It is high time that we did so in this country. Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Primate that I hope that it will not be long before the next slice is taken off the salami and the Church also admits women bishops.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, my first remarks concern the relationship of doctrine to the Measure. The prayer book is the yardstick of the Anglican doctrine, and it is unequivocal about the male priesthood. But I am afraid that the Synod has wriggled here with Canon C4B which does not come before Parliament. The point was

1039
well dealt with by Enoch Powell at the AGM of the Prayer Book Society in June, and his speech has just been printed in the journal of the Prayer Book Society.
It was argued before the Ecclesiastical Committee that the text of the prayer book and the Ordinal is not altered by the Canon, but that instead we have here an interpretive clause. It is worth remarking that only the clergy is obliged to sign a declaration of assent to the formularies of the Church of England, which will imply acceptance of that Canon. The laity is under no such obligation. We do not know whether the Canon will receive Royal Assent. Royal Assent to canons has been refused previously.
Then there is the judicial review which had to decide whether the Synod was acting ultra vires in changing the doctrine of the Church of England. We have to lodge a complaint here: that there was no transcript of that judicial review available in the Library of the House of Lords before the debate. I cannot suggest to a Chamber of legislators that the judges, there to interpret the law, bent it owing to the imminence of the Measure coming before Parliament which makes the law. Leave was given a week previously for a judicial review. We were told that, owing to the Bill of Rights, if the judicial review went the other way, Parliament would be able to keep to its present time schedule.
However, one can suggest that there is a distinction between the intention of legislation and its effect. It is a distinction to which we as legislators are accustomed. The Ecclesiastical Committee was misleading to say that female ordination was a matter not of doctrine but of ecclesiological order. There is no distinction. Ecclesiology used to mean the study of old church buildings. The meaning of the word has shifted to indicate the branch of the theology concerned with the nature of the Church; that is to say, the basis on which decisions are made about order and doctrine.
When the enabling Act of 1919 was passed to set up a Church Assembly the Archbishop of Canterbury then said that it was not an Act which would enable the Church Assembly to change the doctrine of the Church of England. The position did not change in 1969 when the two Houses of Convocation added to the Church Assembly, which then became the Synod.
We know how we obtained the Prayer Book. The old Houses of Convocation prepared formularies which were accepted by Parliament. During the Whig or Hanoverian period of the 18th century the Houses of Convocation were suppressed owing to Jacobite difficulties. They were revived only in the 19th century. When in 1969 the Houses of Convocation were added to the Church Assembly to become the Synod, as the governing body of the Church of England, the Synod did not have and has not had the same kind of spiritual authority as did the old Houses of Convocation.
With this Measure we have a change of doctrine. In his diocesan magazine Sarum Link the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury stated that there is a change of doctrine of which he approves. Other highly-praised churchmen have said the same. With everything going wrong with the Church of England since the enabling Act set up the Church Assembly, as regards matters of doctrine the Church is not a
1040
democracy with majority voting no matter how fashionable democracy may be elsewhere. We cannot say that because social conditions have changed, we can change the doctrine.
The ordination of women is not what the Church has taught for 2,000 years; nor is it grounded in scripture. The best speech was made in Synod on 11th November by Mrs. Lowe. She said that either Christ was God's disclosure or he was not. Such thinking has already given ample difficulty to the secularisation of Christianity in the revision of the liturgy, which is really a repetition of the old Arian heresy. There are no new heresies; they are all old ones.
I am sorry that the Measure will cause so much disruption in the Church. What is the alternative long-stop? The Third Province, put forward by Mrs. Brown in Synod, is a fine dream but unworkable with its proposals for its own archbishops and Synod. It would not be worn by the Church of England. The best option would be the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), of which I have personal experience having been to lecture three times at its seminary at Holyrood in New York State.
The story of the ACC in America is that it started 15 years ago with fragile origins when the Prayer Book was ditched and women were ordained. Since then the ACC has grown, and not only in the USA. There are branches throughout the world. The formation of the Bishop Hamlet diocese at Stoke-on-Trent is not premature. It is needed to set up the administration, which is ready for the present emergency. In the USA Archbishop Lewis is sensitive to the fact that there should not appear in this country to be an American takeover; we need to go to the Americans rather than that the Americans should come to us.
The chief need of the ACC is buildings. The Church of England has too many churches and therefore I hope that an accommodation can be reached. The Synod has not done its homework on the fate of churches whose congregations disagree with the Measure. A good starting point would be: who owns a church? At present there is no clear answer to that. Above all, the ACC needs a proper building in this country as a theological college and a general centre for traditional Anglicans. Holyrood is not working properly. It has a crash course of only two years, often for four ordinands. Other ordinands must take their instructions privately from their bishop, as was the case in the 18th century.
Furthermore, there is no proper theological college in this country for the Prayer Book. Following the introduction of the Prayer Book Protection Bill 1981, the bishops passed a resolution about the theological colleges. The debate, which took place in this House in 1987, showed that the bishops had not implemented their own recommendations. They could do so if they were so minded. Theological colleges are visited by bishops' inspectors and their reports could be published like those of schools' inspectors. If the bishops withdrew their recognition from the theological college, it would have to close. Sadly, the position here is unlikely to change.
A proper building is also needed by the ACC as a centre for traditional Anglicanism generally. Otherwise,

1041
meetings must take place in an hotel for which it might be difficult to find money. I hope that present plans will succeed and that we will find such a building in our old family home at Toddington in Gloucestershire. It has been lost to us for 100 years and therefore I can hardly have an interest to declare. The place is rich in history. In 1985 a public conference was held there. It lasted for four days and there were 18 speakers. The house is an important architectural monument and was personally designed by the first Lord Sudeley, who afterwards became chairman of the Commission for the Rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament and two similar buildings. Since 1985 Toddington has been in the hands of Saudi Arabians. They have left the house empty and do not know what to do with it. The ACC, as a friendly scholastic institution, would assure Toddington of its very best future.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. If it were not for that interest I should not have presumed to intervene in a debate on a matter of such tremendous importance to the Church of England as the ordination of women. My interest is that I have the honour of being President of the Prayer Book Society. I wish to make it clear that I am expressing my personal views; I am in no way speaking as a representative or on behalf of the society.
I begin by declaring that I am in favour of the ordination of women for the excellent reasons which were expressed so eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. My conviction that there is nothing that women cannot and should not do has not been uninfluenced by having had the great honour to serve a female Monarch for 40 years. However, I recognise that the issue is divisive in the Church.
The Prayer Book Society has some members who believe in the ordination of women and others who do not. They believe on the one side or the other with considerable passion. In their public statement—what is called the Grimsdyke Public Statement—the Prayer Book Society has been restrained and has managed not to come down too firmly on one side or the other. That is, except on one issue—the issue to express strongly the objection to the use of a canon which does not come before Parliament to achieve the desired ends. I am fairly ignorant about this matter but, as I understand it, the new canon, which I think is going to be C4B will, without altering the actual words of the Book of Common Prayer, allow it to be interpreted differently so that if one says "he" it may mean he or she and if one says "him" it may mean him or her. It is rather like putting an erratum slip in the Book of Common Prayer 300 years after its publication.
I am glad that there is no suggestion at present to alter the actual words of the Book of Common Prayer. I would mind terribly about that. I hope that that will not creep in later on. Anybody who loves the Prayer Book must fight violently against intrusive language; for example, we do not wish to have "Our parent who is in heaven", or anything like that.
1042
There is one further point which I wish to make with great humility. I have a feeling that at the bottom of the hearts of quite a lot of people who are bitterly opposed to the ordination of women is the fear of aggressive femininity. I share that view to a certain extent. However, generally speaking, I believe that women will make the most marvellous priests for the reasons which have already been expressed. I believe that to receive the sacrament from a woman would be absolutely perfect. But some women will be a bit uppity and the best protection against that uppitiness will be adherence to the Book of Common Prayer because it has a dignity of language and most wonderful prose. It is difficult to explain such matters. Nobody using the Book of Common Prayer could possibly behave improperly in any way. Let us hang onto it.
I believe that this matter has been rather hurried. I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, but after a great deal of thought I believe that it is better that we should go the whole hog straightaway.
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is rather daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. He sticks to his Prayer Book, and I am glad to say that I still have the Prayer Book that I was given at my First Communion in 1934 and I can still use it in my parish of Tisbury which has considerable trouble with the alternative services. I have even more trouble with them.
The most reverend Primate said that this matter is in some ways divisive but that it would be more divisive not to proceed with it. It is divisive, and it is not for the Church to be divisive in this way. Why should we fly in the face of ecumenical communion? After the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon had spoken, I felt that he had read my speech for me and I need say nothing further. However, I shall go on because the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, said—and I agree with him—that familiar landmarks are disappearing in the Church. Indeed, many of them seem to have been forgotten altogether.
This is not the moment to speak of moral values and the laxity in the country, which the Church should be addressing and which I believe it is not. However, as regards the ordination of women, I do not believe that women were meant to be priests and that deep in the heart of every churchman a small niggling doubt remains that we may be doing the wrong thing.
It is terrible that the Church should begin to behave a little like ICI, with golden handshakes for those whose spiritual convictions are deeply offended by the new Church which is being imposed upon them. My illustrious grandfather, who was the Bishop of Peterborough, is no doubt revolving rapidly in his grave, and I suspect that my grandmother is pushing him even harder. As a mere member of the congregation, I am appalled and horrified by this Measure. Ordained priests of the Anglican Communion are being deprived of their vocation, and that deprivation of spirituality cannot be recompensed with notes from the Bank of England.

1043
In a recent speech to the Anglican clergy—the most reverend Primate is having his Denver speech quoted to him yet again—he said (I stand to be corrected if I have taken his words out of context):
"A healthy Church does not need to keep examining her identity'".
Suddenly, after 2,000 years we are examining that identity and we are having women priests. That seems to me quite wrong. Certainly for the past 20 or 30 years during which the subject of women priests has been discussed, it was thrown out of court immediately. It is only since the question of women's rights has come to the fore that this matter has been revived.
Indeed, one of the main arguments for women priests is the logic of comparing them to the professions where women are coming to the fore. They are doing magnificent work and are introducing an enormous degree of honour and morality among their male colleagues, many of whom deeply need to be helped in such matters. But I do not wish to receive the sacrament from a lawyer or an accountant. It is not what a priest is. A priest is of a different breed—indeed, a breed apart, as the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, said. To compare the Church with a business is monstrous. The argument of comparability certainly does not wash. It is an irrelevance. It clouds the issue of the main work of the Church.
At the same time, no one would deny that the work of women in the church is of unique and enormous importance, no less than that of a priest. It is special to them and can be likened to the role of the disciples and their descendants, and has been through the centuries. The argument of who was chosen has been well rehearsed and I shall not argue the point again. I merely adopt the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who spoke more clearly than I can on the issue.
To some degree it is a feminist related activity and not spiritual. Ardent anti-feminists—my wife allows me to include her in that category—are universally against the ordination of women. But they are the silent majority of women. I hesitate to mention this, but after the Synod had given its decision women waiting for ordination were standing in the streets swigging champagne from the bottle. It was a disgraceful sight and it is not behaviour one would expect of deacons awaiting ordination. We are at one: we do not need self-examination but rather the proclamation of the true faith and the teaching of moral values. Those values do not relate to the ordination of women.
6.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by pointing out gently to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, that the speech with which he showed such agreement was that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the speech of the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Ripon is now to come.
Perhaps I may also take issue with the noble Earl when he says that it is no part of the Church to be divisive. Conflict has always been part of the life of the Church of God. Indeed, it may be argued that the Church is most alive when it is in conflict. The New
1044
Testament depicts a Church in conflict over a. fundamental matter, the terms on which Gentiles should be admitted into the Church. Later centuries show equally sharp debate over the nature of God and the person of Christ. The reason for such conflicts is clear: that the Church is concerned with truth and that Christians do not always see truth in the same way.
The Church of England, as part of the universal Church of God, has also, in its past, known conflict over truth. One has only to read some of the debates of the 19th century concerning such matters as the literal truth of the Bible, to discover how sharp and deep those divisions went. I believe that the present debate is of such a kind. Clearly, it has been raised for us in the Church in the way in which society has moved on and in the fact that the place of women in society has come to be seen differently from previous centuries.
Therefore, the Church is required to ask the question: what part do women play in the life of our Church and its ministry? In answering the question, I believe that we should look—and here, perhaps, I may say, with respect, that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley—not to the Prayer Book, but to a more universal and a more ancient tradition. We should look to the truth enshrined for us in the doctrine of the incarnation. The teaching of the universal Church is that, in Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity were brought together and that in that bringing together by God was achieved the salvation of all humanity. It is central to that teaching that the gender of Jesus is irrelevant. Men and women are saved through Christ for ever because he took human nature (not male human nature) upon himself. What is true for the doctrine of salvation—namely, that the gender of Jesus is irrelevant—must be true also in any doctrine of ordained ministry which, therefore, has to be inclusive of men and women. I find that argument both compelling and irresistible.
However, perhaps I may take up a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He asked: if we can change the teaching on ordained ministry in that way, what then can we not change? I would suggest one thing that we cannot change and it arises out of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. We cannot change the doctrine of the incarnation. It is upon that doctrine that I find myself standing in this debate.
However, I recognise that others do not believe as I do. For the moment, those of us who take the two views will have to live together in the one Church. Here, once again, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. I suggest—and indeed the Church of England is following—a very different path from that which he outlined; namely, one in which those who hold the two views will strive to remain together.
In my view, there is a remarkable determination in the Church of England that we shall continue to live in the same Church. Therefore, I believe that we need to ask whether the Measure enables us to continue this common life. When the Measure was passing through the General Synod, I opposed Clause 2, which allows bishops in office at the time of the passing of the measure to make certain declarations which would effectively forbid the ministry of women ordained as priests in their dioceses. In fact, I moved that the clause

1045
should not stand part of the Measure, but I was defeated. I opposed the clause because I believed that, if the Measure was passed in that form, it would divide the Church of England into dioceses which accepted and those which did not accept the decision. Those clergy or laity who did not accept the decision could find safe haven for a while in no-go dioceses, but as new bishops were appointed without the power to make the declaration, such havens would shrink and eventually disappear. I argued that, from the beginning, the Church of England should be finding ways of enabling both groups—that is, those who agreed and those who disagreed—to live together.
I share with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London his distaste for Clause 2. However, it seems to me that matters have moved on since the clause was debated. It is clear that at least the bishops of the Church of England are determined to hold together. It is also becoming increasingly clear that most within the Church of England intend to remain within it.
There is no convention in your Lordships' House which enables those of us on these Benches to refer to our friends in the House. If there was, I would want to refer to my right reverend friends the Bishops of London and Southwark. Not so long ago we were all immediate neighbours in Yorkshire. In those days, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, we met together to reflect upon the situation of the Church of England should the Measure be passed. Many of the ideas that we shared in those days have now become part of the common thinking, partly in the Act of Synod and partly in the pastoral letter which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has issued. It has become clear that we are determined to move forward together and to find a way of structuring the Church so that those who are opposed to the Measure can find space within it.
I am well aware that, although there is this measure of trust among bishops, it is not universal in the Church of England. I have sat with clergy and lay people of my diocese, both individually and collectively, and I have listened to their profound hurt and anger, much of it directed towards me personally as a bishop who was in favour of the Measure. I have had to take on that anger myself. I realise that it is still around and within our Church.
I do not believe that trust will be built by the passing of further legislation. Legislation is only necessary when no trust exists. I believe that if trust is to be built, it will have to be done not by legislation nor indeed by words: it will only be done as the Church in its actions demonstrates that it means what it says. That will have a great deal to do with appointments, not only to those in senior positions but also to parochial appointments. I think that a great responsibility lies on us in the Church, not least upon the bishops, to match what we are saying in our words by the actions that we subsequently undertake.
The last occasion upon which the Church of England was divided so dramatically was, I would argue, over the issue of the Stuart succession. The divine right of kings to hold their thrones and to rule their people was
1046
held as a doctrine with great fierceness. Those who continued to hold that teaching, the non-jurors, left the Church of England, in those days without compensation. However, in these days of greater consideration towards opponents, opportunity and space to remain within the Church, together with proper compensation for those who feel compelled to leave, are provided. Therefore, I believe that the Measure provides a good way forward.
I have talked about conflict, the anger generated and the difficulties that we experience in handling that conflict. However, my final thought in relation to the Measure is not about that conflict but rather about the opportunities that it will provide. I believe that the enriched priesthood which we shall discover as women enter it will be of enormous benefit to the Church. With other right reverend Prelates, and other noble Lords, I also believe that it will be for the good of our Church. I urge your Lordships to pass the Measure.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I was very diffident last week about taking part in the debate and I feel even more diffident today in the face of the serried ranks of bishops before me. I am not a member of the Church of England nor of any other Church. However, I was persuaded last week by those who are deeply involved in such issues that the debate is also about the social fabric of our society and about giving equal value to all human beings within our society.
As the Church of England is the established Church of this country, its role is inevitably entwined with the role of Parliament and other pillars of our society. Its role is to set an example and to provide a model for the people of this country, as well as to carry out its more obvious religious duties. My ancestors include English Quakers, Irish Protestants, Catholic Lithuanians, Calvanist Scots and German Jews. I can therefore perhaps view the issue with some degree of objectivity.
The history of religion, and not just of the Christian religion, has been characterised by conflict, wars, crusades, persecution and massacres. Most of the religions, especially those originating in the Middle East, have been dominated by men. Some of the conflicts between different religions are still perpetuated in the world today, for example in the Middle East, Bosnia and Cyprus. I have to declare an interest as I was born in Cyprus. I feel that the conflicts might have been long since settled, because of the common ethnicity of the people who live there, if intermarriage had been possible. Such marriage was not, of course, possible because of the different religious faiths of the people.
Many of the most bitter conflicts in the history of Europe have occurred between different sections of Christianity which have attempted to impose their interpretation of Christian doctrine upon each other. There is the ferocity of the 13th century crusade against the Cathars, for example, where the indignation of orthodox Christianity was exacerbated by the alleged sexual practices of the Cathars. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned the anti-feminine bias of the Christian Church and I believe that that is exemplified in what I have just said.

1047
The Spanish Inquisition, the 16th century wars of religion in France and the present bitter tragedy of Northern Ireland are all examples of different factions of Christianity at war with each other. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in Northern Ireland most of the politicians and terrorists are men whereas those in the peace movement tend to be women. That is perhaps a hopeful sign for Christianity as we move into the next century and women are encouraged to take a full part in the Christian Church in this country.
Those conflicts are extreme examples in comparison with the debate over the ordination of women which has been much more civilised and on the whole has been conducted with words and not swords. Nevertheless, the present conflict between different factions of the Church of England has some similarities with the wars of religion. There has been the stereotyping of opponents who have been considered not only misguided but also somehow morally inferior. There has been a tendency to elevate one's own supporters as morally superior and more enlightened. There have been bitterness and anger on both sides.
All of these aspects of the debate in many ways deny the complexity, subtlety and range of behaviour of which human beings are capable, whether we are Jews, Moslems, Catholics, Protestants, male or female. Whether a man or a woman will make a good or a bad priest—or for that matter a good or bad doctor or police officer, or in any other position in society—will surely depend on his or her personal qualities of compassion, courage and intelligence and not on some abstract formalism or simplified categorisation of race or gender. If the Church of England is to continue as an integral part of our greatly changed society and to go forward into the next century with confidence and with the unity that was mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, it has to accommodate the changed role and status of women in this country. In so doing it may perhaps be able to incorporate more of the female virtues of co-operation and compassion and less of the male qualities of ambition and respect for hierarchy. That is perhaps exemplified by the presence of the bishops here today.
That should lead to fewer conflicts between different parts of Christianity in future. Through making the best use of the qualities of all its members, male or female, the Church of England can provide a model for the rest of our society. Our country needs to be much less stratified by class, race and gender, and the Church of England has now embarked upon a course which can take us forward into the future and be an example to us all.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I regret that we have a compromise Measure before us today and that women are not able to become bishops at present. However, I hope that in the near future further expression will be given to these principles by removing that bar to women. I therefore support the substantive Motion before the House.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. As there is a large number of speakers I shall endeavour to be brief and to weary your Lordships as little as possible. I have always taken the view that the ordination of women is a secondary rather than a primary issue. It seems to me that the primary role of the Church—in this I include, of course, the Church of England—is the faithful proclamation of the Gospel. It saddens me that it seems that during the past few months the Anglican Church has by and large been facing inwards rather than outwards. It has argued and debated earnestly and with great conviction and sincerity the subject of the ordination of women. Nevertheless this is an important matter and one that has generated a great deal of heat. It is important that right decisions are made and not wrong ones because right decisions lead to right results and wrong decisions lead obviously to wrong results.
I was delighted to hear the most reverend Primate in his opening address—which I thought was both balanced and authoritative—say that he would be glad to have this issue behind him to enable the Church to focus on its main task of proclaiming the Gospel. The Church, being a family of believers, should in the scriptural view have as the head and leader a man. Secular or business life does not have that need for spiritual responsibility to be exercised by a man and can just as ably be undertaken by a man or woman on the grounds of merit.
My main objection to the ordination of women is that it is contrary to scripture. Let us listen to God and not to men's or women's ideas or disappointments. There are a number of scriptures that are against women taking up leadership in the Church. Each of these can be reinterpreted by wrestling with their meaning in today's terms. However, I do not believe it is our task today to rewrite faith or to modify truth revealed by God through scripture.
The Bible is very clear that a man is the head of the family. That does not mean that the woman is second or second class, less spiritual or inferior in any way. Many women have wonderful ministries which they accomplish, in some cases far better than men. However, when it comes to leadership—spiritual leadership of a church—man, as the scriptures show, has been created to fulfil that responsibility, although he may sometimes be weak and not want it. In my view, if the House fails to vote decisively for the amendment, we will in due course look back on the decision to ordain women as a major error of judgment.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. I fear that for many people the whole issue of the ordination of women has been taken out of the Church arena and become an equal opportunities issue, not, I hasten to add, by the members of the movement for the ordination of women but by the media and by the feminist movement. The equal

1049
opportunities movement has achieved much—a very great deal—but in my personal view it is not relevant in this issue. The espousal of the cause of the ordination of women by the media and the feminist movement is seen by some to lead to the imposition of secular trends on a religious matter.
In speaking against the Motion of the most reverend Primate and for the amendment I am representing nobody but myself—a committed and practising Christian—but I know that there are very many people in the Church of England who are as deeply troubled as I am about this issue and who feel, as I do, that it has been decided without sufficient account being taken of the views of those opposed to it. The decision of the Synod last November pleased many people but it also caused enormous distress to many others. I have heard it said that the decision will have the effect of making the Church of England inclusive; namely, that nobody would now be excluded. Sadly, I do not believe this is so.
The decision of the Synod results in many people being excluded, including those Christians who cannot accept the decision on theological grounds; those men who have been ordained into the Church of England and who now cannot subscribe to this fundamental change; and those young men who are currently considering whether to pi forward for ordination but who are unable to envisage a situation where their basic adherence to the tradition of the Church is being undermined. This does not add up to an "inclusive" Church. It is difficult to understand why the Synod was willing to go beyond the authority which has pertained for years.
As a practising Christian I must confess that the Synod used to appear an irrelevance to my Christian life but now it has become much more than just a talk shop. It has taken a decision in my name which deeply upsets me. I dare say that if I had been sufficiently interested I could have voted for my Synod representative, but the matter always seemed to go through on the nod at the annual parochial church council meeting—and how many of us go to them? I guess that my opportunity to influence the Church of England has gone by default. I am sure that it is too late to change the Synod's decision, but it is a salutary lesson to many of us: be sure that your Synod representatives know your views.
I object to the Synod's decision on four grounds: from my study of the Bible, the traditional aspects, the ecumenical issue and on the basis that the whole issue is a huge distraction from the much more important matters on which the Church should be giving a lead. It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.
From my personal study of the Bible I find it hard to believe the suggestion made by the supporters of the movement for the ordination of women to the effect that society was so male-dominated in Christ's day that he could not appoint a woman to a position of leadership within His church. Christ upended all conventions. Why would He have hesitated at that—unless He just did not wish women to be leaders in the Church?
Christ spent a great deal of time with women. He valued them; He healed them; He taught them, as no rabbi would; He evangelised them; and He appeared
1050
first to a woman after His death and sent her to be a witness to the disciples. No woman could be a witness in a Jewish court at that time, but Christ upended that convention and asked a woman to be a witness. He went out of His way to be with women, but He did not name a woman as an apostle.
Paul has often been accused of being a misogynist. I do not believe that that is true. Nine of the 26 people he specifically mentions in Romans 16 who helped him greatly were women. He recognised the great work done by women in those early years of Christianity, but he did not state that they should be leaders in the Church.
The strongest argument of all from my reading of the Gospels is the knowledge that the authority of the Church comes from God through His Son—the Son of God, not the daughter of God. Men and women stand as equals before God, but both are given different responsibilities by God, which have nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. The New Testament emphasises that there is to be complementary harmony between them both in the home and in the Church. The Bible uses masculine language for God because that is how God revealed Himself. Let us not forget that the biblical Christian faith is a revealed religion.
The structure of the early developing Church did not ignore the great contribution being made, and to be made, by women. The structure is clear—bishops, priests and deacons. Bishops were the direct link from the apostles and had the responsibility to represent that same faith to the contemporary world. As the Christian community grew in numbers the bishops were physically unable to minister to all the community, so they ordained men to whom they delegated their authority—the authority which in turn they had received in direct line from the apostles.
Deacons had a specific role in the Church: a ministry of service, caring for the poor and needy, the pastoral care of others, assisting with the liturgy and being of unique service to the ordained ministry. Women were created deacons, and their contribution was greatly valued. It was not regarded as being subservient, just different. There is no evidence whatsoever that women were admitted to the ordained ministry as represented by the episcopate or the presbyterate. That is the tradition of the Church. That is the tradition which the Synod's decision of last November now wishes to throw out.
The feminine is very well assimilated into the Christian tradition, but it is never confused with or regarded as a substitute for the masculine. I do not believe that sufficient reason has been given for this change.
From the ecumenical standpoint the vote by the General Synod to ordain women will, according to a report issued following the April Conference of the Roman Catholic Bishops:
"change our relationship with the Church of England, adding a real obstacle to our hopes for unity".
One of the principal sadnesses is that the Church of England went out on its own on this issue without the agreement of the rest of the Christian Church.
Finally, I turn to my point concerning distraction. To me it seems almost incomprehensible that the

1051
established Church, the Church of England, which must give a lead in our society, is involved in such internal controversy at a time when its influence on society as a whole was never more essential. For over two years I suspect that a great majority of the population has thought that the sole issue of concern to the Church in this country has been the ordination of women. At a time of acknowledged falling moral standards, a frightening increase in divorce rates and a deeply worrying increase in violence it seems that the Church's voice on those matters is a mere whisper by comparison with the debate concerning the ongoing problems of the ordination of women.
Several Members of your Lordships' House had a unique opportunity last week to listen to a paediatrician and a child psychiatrist describing the effect on young children of the violence they view on television. Two statements made by those experts have haunted me ever since: first, it has been estimated that children spend on average 27 hours per week watching television; and, secondly, and frighteningly, by the time a child has reached the age of 14 he or she will have seen some 11,000 murders on television. That is horrifying information, and the Church should surely be taking a strong line in bringing those facts to the attention of all. But, no, it is too involved in the controversy surrounding the ordination of women.
Feeble, weak Christians like me look to the Church for guidance as to how to conduct our lives as good Christians. Such guidance is hard to find. Is that why lay Bible study groups are sprouting up all over the country? However, there is plenty of guidance about the ordination of women. The moral lead on all other issues seems to be going by default. The vacuum will be filled. I dread to think how.
I have deliberately not concentrated on the genuine wants and needs of many women who desperately wish to be ordained. Points on their behalf have been made by most of the speakers in this debate. Please do not think that I have no sympathy for them. I have, and I recognise that their plight has been an intolerable one. However, this measure goes only part of the way towards solving their plight. As has been said many times, the Measure does not provide for ordained women priests to become bishops. Eventually that new plight of ordained women priests who wish to become bishops will come before us, and will no doubt be dealt with sympathetically.
However, the plight of those who firmly believe that for theological, traditional and ecumenical reasons the ordination of women is wrong is also worthy of sympathy. That is why I have taken part in this debate today.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, as one of the 11 Baronesses who wrote a letter to The Times in early November last year urging acceptance of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure on 11th November I felt that it was only right that I should speak in support of the Measure today. Those 11 Baronesses came from every party in the House and from the Cross-Benches. I am glad that six of them will have spoken by the end of the debate.
1052
We urged that the matter of the ordination of women, about which legislation had first been brought forward 20 years ago and which had been discussed for more than 70 years, should finally be settled so that women would be able to take their full place as members of the priesthood. It seemed wrong that the matter should be taking up such an inordinate amount of time when there were so many other worrying and distressing things going on in the world. As we said in our letter:
"To spend still more time and resources on this issue must convey to the world at large a curious message of the Church's priorities. The world, in widespread confusion and distress, urgently needs the mission of the Church, but that mission is limited and handicapped by the exclusion of women from the ministry".
For many members of the general public with real good will towards the Church the relief was great when the two-thirds majority was reached on 11th November.
A number of people have asked why MPs and Peers, who may be of different faiths or no faith at all, should be expected to be involved in discussing these Measures. I have heard a number of colleagues say that they saw no reason to take part because it was riot their affair. The answer is that as the law stands it is their affair and they are involved, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said. It is essential for both Houses, guided by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which found the Measures expedient, to declare themselves in support and to pass the Measures in the same way as we perform our other legislative duties. Therefore, I was relieved to hear that, although the matter was discussed on a Friday, when attendance is usually low, the other place voted in favour. Two hundred and fifteen Members took part and there was a large majority of 194.
I hope that a large number of Peers will show their sense of responsibility today and stay to vote in favour of the Measures if the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, decides to proceed to a vote.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, to paraphrase Macaulay, the catholic and apostolic Church has seen the Flavian sacrifice in the amphitheatres of Rome; arid it has seen the fall of communism in Russia. It is an organisation that is longer and older that anything else on earth. It is also an organisation which suffers from the difficulties of being a monotheistic Church which automatically states that any other faith must: be in the wrong. That is the definition of monotheism—that Jewish certainty. That organisation has then had laid upon the top of it Greek intellectualism and the arguments of the nature and substance of Christ. Those arguments have continued for years. I refer to the heresies of Arius and of Nestoris; and to the modern heresies produced by one of the distinguished Members of your Lordships' House that the virgin birth did not take place. That argument was first produced by Bishop Eusebius in either Hippo or Carthage in 283 AD. He was allowed to continue in his see, according to the great Edward Gibbon, only because of the tolerance of his superior who was also of either Hippo or Carthage—(I cannot remember which way round it was).

1053
The Church of England is part of that holy, catholic and apostolic Church because it revolted quite reasonably and correctly against the overriding ambition of the bishops of Rome. It was Gregory VII who changed his title from Vicar of the Romans to Vicar of Christ. He humiliated Henry at Canossa and produced the authoritarian certainty of Rome. It was the fight of Rome to avoid at all possible costs another General Council of the Church. At Constance the then Pope (whose name for the moment escapes me) had signed up to the authority of general councils and then repudiated the matter the moment he returned to Rome.
With respect to the most reverend Primate, it is important that the Church of England stays part of the catholic and apostolic Church. I believe that his dismissal of that argument was the weakest part of a very good case which he put forward, even though I do not agree with it. I shall not vote tonight because the Measure will obviously go through. Christianity has been troubled with schism after fight. Let us consider the old believers in Russia. It was stated that the bishops either had to give their two-finger blessing to signify the dual nature of Christ, or the three-finger blessing to signify the Holy Trinity. (I can never remember which way round it was.) However, those who believed in the blessing with two fingers were torn to pieces on the rack rather than give the three-finger blessing. History is full of Christian intolerance. Therefore I shall not vote against the Measure today. However, I believe that the Church of England makes a grave error in divorcing itself from the remainder of the catholic and apostolic Church.
Since my time in this House, the Church of England has shed its bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and now has altered its priesthood. It cannot continue to change with every whim. The Church then makes a mistake about changing its priesthood. It states that women can be only partial priests: they cannot be bishops. Is that because the Church has a vision of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, taking Holy Orders and becoming a bishop? That would even tempt me to be in favour of that movement.
The Church of England has taken a dangerous step which would be correct if the remainder of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church were to take the same step. However, I find myself deeply perturbed by the Measure.
6.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I hesitated a great deal when deciding whether to attend today to take part in the debate. I hesitated because I am not sure about the propriety of a Member of the House of Bishops opposing in this House an issue which the Synod has decided in the way that it has. However, I believe it right that Members of your Lordships' House should hear the reasons for our actions from those of us who are Members of this House and who voted against the legislation in the Synod. I shall probably abstain from the final vote tonight.
I have followed the debate for a long time. I spoke in the Synod debate in 1975 to which reference has been
1054
made. I am clear that arguments on equal opportunity and all such secular considerations are not relevant to the issue. There is one fundamental question. Does the tradition that the Church has held from our Lord's time that the Christian ministerial priesthood is male rest simply on cultural circumstances, or does it relate to the divine creation of the two distinct sexes, the incarnation of Christ as a man, and the bearing of those considerations on the nature of the ministerial priesthood. Is the inclusive argument correct?
The long discussions on the issue, and the many volumes written about it, underline the importance of those questions throughout the Christian world. Those arguments come from many different quarters. The importance is recognised in the report of the House of Bishops on the matter. Such fundamental questions cannot be rightly settled by any one part of the Christian Church alone, least of all by a part as small as the Church of England. We are a small body in relation to Christendom as a whole. Those questions can be settled only by ecumenical agreement. I emphasise that by that I do not mean the Pope; nor do I refer to the General Council. I believe that if the discussion continued it would become clear in time whether there was a general agreement throughout the Christian world that such a change was right. It is a matter of truth; and it is a matter in which truth and unity go hand in hand. I do not believe that one can rightly pre-empt that decision by deciding to act now.
This is not a happy time in which to be a bishop, least of all in a diocese which voted against the legislation and in which the majority of the clergy is clearly opposed to it, and a large number of the laity too. I have already lost two good young priests. I know that more will go as soon as the Canon has been promulged. I know that others who are delaying in making up their minds are unhappy and undecided about what they should do. At almost every parish gathering that I attend, after a service some lay person will come to me and express his distress, saying, "What can you do to help us?". I try to explain what the House of Bishops seeks to do in the proposed Act of Synod. The House of Bishops is grateful for the leadership that the two Archbishops have given us.
My great fear relates to the timing of this debate. I wish that it could have been left until after the Synod. We know that there is opposition to the Act of Synod. I fear that the passing of this Motion by both Houses of Parliament at this time will strengthen the opposition, and that many will say: "It is now all safely through Parliament. We do not have to bother any more". That may be unfair to many of them, but I am afraid that there is a serious truth in it, as many of us will know. I shall vote for the amendment. If that is lost, I shall abstain on the main Motion.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I must first apologise for absenting myself for half an hour, during which I had to chair a meeting in another part of this building. I am particularly sad to have missed the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London; but I am

1055
delighted to find that he has obviously impressed the House on all sides, whatever view is taken of this matter.
I rise to speak with some trepidation and much humility. Like my noble friend Lord Glenamara, I do not think, with great respect to the Bench of Bishops, that questions of theology should be entirely left to them; or indeed to the General Synod. I have no great expertise in matters of theology. I have a little more in respect of politics; and it is the other side of the question—namely, the democracy of the Church of which I am a member—that I wish to address. I am encouraged to speak by the words of Archbishop William Temple—words which I have always held rather dear—when he said that God's greatest gift to man was that of individual free will. That means that I cannot allow the Synod or the Bench of Bishops to do my thinking for me. I must do my own thinking. Hence I decided to participate in this debate.
On the question of democracy, the most reverend Primate gave us overwhelming evidence in the figures that he cited in relation to the support for this Measure in the three houses: the House of Bishops; the House of Clergy; and the House of Laity. I believe therefore that the Church is perfectly entitled to proceed with this Measure.
Although I want to do everything that I possibly can in great charity to help those who will not accept this Measure, it might be said that the Church has perhaps gone further than most people would have thought it ought to go—and certainly further than most other professions or people working and finding themselves redundant at this point in time would expect in their own employment. That is regrettable. I am glad that the Church is going that extra distance—though we can hardly expect the Church to provide continuous and ongoing support, particularly to members of the clergy who might wish to join another denomination. That would seem to be incongruous.
I listened with great interest to the moving speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. Obviously he is very concerned in his conscience about this matter and where he should go. At least the right reverend Prelate did not fall into the error of Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, who raises my ire more and more on these matters, as well as on normal political matters. Mr. Gummer has taken up the habit of using Parliament as a court of appeal in regard to judgments of the Synod in which he has participated. I have a slight objection to that. I remember that he did so in relation to the clergy ordination Measure when I served in another place. I thought that his tactical approach to those questions left a great deal to be desired. He now says that if we pass this Measure, we shall be excluding him from the Church. From this side of the House—noble Lords will not mind if I say so—he sounds like a member of the Militant Tendency. That is the argument used by members of that group when they cannot get their way in the Labour Party. I have no doubt that if he were a member of this side of the House instead of that side, his position would be such that he would become a member of the Militant Tendency, and create the disturbances about which we know.
1056
I move rapidly on to the theology of the matter, as I see it. I have thought about this a great deal. Indeed, in my church we discussed it, and in my diocese in Birmingham we took votes. After much thinking, we reached a decision. With great respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who also made a very fine speech, the biggest argument used in my church was the argument that he used; namely, that Jesus appointed disciples, and they were all men. That is a point that was recently made to Peers.
I wish that people would face up to the logic of that statement. What was our Lord doing when he took the cup, drank from it and said:
"this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me".
He was addressing an audience composed entirely of men. Are we to assume that he was excluding half the population from taking Communion? That is the logic of that argument. If one says that the Lord appointed only men as disciples, one has to face the fact that at that time he offered the cup, and drank from the cup, with men alone. I do not believe that that argument stands up. We know possibly why there were no women present: it was because of the nature of society at that time.
We have to look at the law and the position of women in the Bible. What are we to make of Mary Magdalene? Are we to say that she was less than the disciples? She may well have been superior to most of the disciples. Indeed, I believe that one of the Gospels which is not printed in the Bible (an apocryphal gospel) may suggest that she was in fact a disciple.
What are we to make of the fact that at the Crucifixion it was Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Christ's Mother, who were there throughout his agony, when (I have to say) most of the men seem to have departed. Therefore, in my thinking, the women come out of this with enormous credit.
At the Resurrection, to whom did our Lord declare himself? Again, it was to women. It was to Mary Magdalene in the first instance. To me that is an argument of a very compelling nature. Our Lord was either saying that these women were equal as disciples; or perhaps he was saying that they were even superior to the disciples whom he had appointed.
If we look at the story of Mary and Martha, it was quite uncommon at that time for any woman, since women would normally have been veiled, to be sitting being taught at the feet of the Lord. If we put all these points together, they are of tremendous significance in respect of the witness and the place of women in the Church.
I should like to give one practical reason why I hope this Measure goes through. I have a flat in Cornwall. I am sorry that the Bishop of Truro is not yet a Member of this place. I do not wish to criticise him in his absence, although as I understand it he would not support this Measure. In one of the parishes where I often go to church when I am on holiday he had had a lot of trouble finding a priest. He finally came upon a lady deacon, a very splendid lady who has almost trebled the congregation and who does a first class job, to general acclaim. As I understand it, she can serve the sacraments but she cannot bless them. She has to get a retired priest from the next parish to come and bless the

1057
sacraments so that she can serve them on the following Sunday. It is a nonsense. As I understand it, the only difference between a priest and a deaconess is that she is not allowed to bless the sacraments which she is allowed to serve. I put to the House that that is absolute nonsense. Certainly it is in my view.
Therefore I support this Measure, although I have two reservations about it. However, I believe that we have to reach a consensus or compromise. I take the point about women bishops and also the point (on which I feel even more strongly) about whether bishops who do not approve of the Measure will be allowed not to ordain women or appoint women in their dioceses. That worries me considerably.
I hope that the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops Bench will give those two matters their further consideration. Despite my reservations, I agree that we have to reach consensus and a compromise. We must move on. I hope that the House will give this Measure its full support.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I feel, as the longest serving member of the Joint Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee, that there are still a few matters to spell out. Before I do so, I declare that I support this Measure wholeheartedly.
Many of your Lordships both spiritual and temporal have reminded the House of how the Measure has overcome all hurdles in the General Synod. All Measures, like this one, start there. Then, when a measure has a special type of doctrinal significance it is voted on in the diocesan synod. In this case the Measure also went to the deanery synods, to which every parish can send a representative. It was also voted on there. Although the clergy and laity discuss the matter together, they vote separately. Throughout almost the whole of the country this Measure had very widespread support. The final figures in the General Synod were even more convincing.
My next and only remaining point is that, like other members of the committee, I received about a thousand letters. Many of them were of a statistical nature. But of most significance were those from parishes in which there was a woman deacon. All those letters stated firmly how happy those parishioners were. I did not receive one single negative comment.
Furthermore, I discussed the matter with the bishop, who told me that in his experience as a diocesan bishop he knew of many dyed-in-the-wool anti-woman parishioners who had humbly eaten their words and said how successful and enjoyable it was to have a woman deacon in their parish. I urge your Lordships to support the most reverend Primate in this Motion and sadly disagree with my noble friend Lord Holderness.
7.4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the masterly chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber. He
1058
had a very difficult task, which he carried out with great courtesy and fairness. I should also like to pay tribute to the clerks, who coped with a vast extra workload caused by the deluge of letters with which the committee was inundated, and those who recorded the proceedings, which at times must have been most confusing.
Ever since I became involved with the question of the expediency of passing these Measures, I have considered that the majority of arguments in favour of doing so were at best shaky and at worst frivolous and invalid. There was one exception, and that is an argument which has not been used by its proponents: that the calibre of male would-be ordinands coming into the Church was so low that it was becoming difficult to maintain an adequate level of ministry and an adequate standard of ministry. Therefore it was necessary to seek recruits from a sex which the immortal Miss Jenkins of Cranford considered to be far superior. That, I believe to be the only sensible reason for deeming the ordination of women to be expedient.
The majority of the arguments against the Measures seem to me to be valid and unanswerable. I shall not rehearse them all. I want to concentrate on the safeguards for those who hold orthodox Anglican views, because I am concerned that those safeguards will be short lived. If they were to be enshrined in a Measure which could not be repealed without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, I should be happier. But they are not. They are to be enshrined only in an Act of Synod, which can be amended or rescinded at any time by a simple majority in the General Synod. Since we have no real guarantee that diocesan bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women will continue to be appointed, we wonder how long it will be before there is not one single bishop in the Church of England who does not support the ordination of women and who can therefore act as a provincial episcopal visitor to those who do not. Even for so long as there are such bishops, they will not, as provincial visitors, have a voice in the House of Bishops. As I understand it, they will only be able to attend bishops' meetings.
When the Ecclesiastical Committee interviewed the Legislative Committee of the General Synod on 5th July and various members pressed the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York on the question of why they were prepared to support an Act of Synod but not a complementary Measure, it emerged very strongly that there was no guarantee that even the proposed Act of Synod would definitely be enacted; and that a Measure would be likely to have a very rough ride indeed, suffering amendment on the way and far from sure of a safe passage to the end of the journey. I am sure that that is true because I believe that there are some bishops who have said openly that for people who cannot accept the ordination of women the proper course to take is to leave the Church.
I understand that only the week before last, on radio and television, a woman—I do not know who she was, whether she was a member of the Synod or of the Movement for the Ordination of Women, or of both or neither, because I myself did not see the programme—said that her bishop had said that anyone who did not like it should get out. I interviewed a clergyman last

1059
weekend for a living of which I am patron. He thought that the safeguards went far too far and should only apply to the present generation. With such pressures, I am afraid that it will not be very many years before an Act of Synod, if one is passed, will be rescinded.
I myself asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether it was envisaged that the Act of Synod would operate in perpetuity or whether it would be in the nature of a temporary measure which would cease to operate at some future date. He replied that it was the intention that it should be permanent and that they were not thinking of rescinding it or anything like that. Then he added the caveat, "with the goodwill of the House of Bishops". He went on to say that of course anything could happen in the future.
That is just the trouble. The fact is that the safeguards should have been incorporated in the Measure for the ordination of women. I feel that the General Synod underestimated the strength of the opposition to the Measure and thought that it would get it through with only such safeguards as are in Clause 2. I believe that it became clear to them that the majority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, even many of them who supported the ordination of women, were concerned as to the efficacy of those safeguards and felt that they might be faced with an adverse vote in the committee. They produced the Manchester Declaration Mark II and the proposed Act of Synod very quickly. I am cynical enough to suspect that that was done out of necessity in order to get the Measure through Parliament and that, had the Ecclesiastical Committee in general not expressed such concern at the unfairness with which it was proposed to treat orthodox clergy and members of the Church, nothing would have been done at all.
In any event it was made clear to us that all we could do was to trust that all would be well. The difficulty is not that we distrust the intentions of the most reverend Primate; it is that we doubt his ability to deliver. I find it difficult to trust too when an assurance in which trust was placed, given by a previous Archbishop, that the Prayer Book would continue to be used in the parishes, has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is now extremely difficult to find a simple Prayer Book service anywhere, even in London where, 15 years ago, there was a choice within walking distance wherever one lived.
It is because we trusted before and have been let down that we now feel, in the interests of a fair deal for those who cannot accept what they see as a radical doctrinal change, that we must have the safeguards entrenched in law. That is why I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lady always holds the attention of the House and on this occasion she possesses two qualifications which I do not. The first I have never possessed—she is a woman. The second I have not possessed for 53 years—she is an active member of the Church of England.
When I approached this question I recalled the story of the late Lord Attlee on his first visit to a Labour Party meeting. He noticed that all the gentlemen were wearing
1060
beards and said to his brother, "I hope I don't need a beard to belong to this show". Apparently the answer was that he did not. I hope therefore that, not wearing a beard—not being a member of the Church of England—I shall be allowed to participate. After all, the Church of England is the established Church of this country, and long may it remain so. As Cardinal Newman said, it is a famous bulwark against infidelity. That being so I believe that every citizen and every Member of Parliament, in this House or the other, has a right and possibly a duty to offer a few thoughts.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad that somebody agrees with me. I certainly do not speak in any representative capacity. My religious leader in this House, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, would be horrified if he thought that I was speaking on behalf of any Church, including his and mine. I speak as an individual citizen, a member of this House. I speak also as an unrepentant feminist. I read an article in the Evening Standard today headed, "Is feminism a dead duck?". I do not know whether or not feminism is becoming a dead duck, but I remain an unrepentant feminist. I do not mean that in every possible respect, however. Extreme feminists come out against all kinds of things, including being in favour of abortion. Therefore I am not a blind feminist but an unrepentant one; one who believes that all men and women are equal in the sight of God and should be so treated in human affairs.
I was biased by my experience of anti-feminists. When I first came to this House I remember being taken aside by a distinguished old fellow. He said to me, "You must realise that it is impossible that this House will ever be open to women". Of course, women had sat in the other House for many years. He said, "What would we do about the lavatories? Suppose we were in the Library and they came in. Would we have to get up? My dear boy, the thing is not on". That was how I was met when I first came here.
Eventually four women were admitted. One of them I am glad to say—the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—is still with us, but the story I shall tell does not refer to her; it refers to one of the others. I said to the Leader of the Opposition—a distinguished admiral—after that lady had been with us for some little while, "Do you not think that that lady is doing a good job?". He paused and said with deep feeling, "When I see that long neck bending over I wish I had my chopper and I would go chop, chop, chop", suiting the action to the words. The House may not believe that. But that represented the anti-feminism which was dominant for so many years in this much revered Chamber. So, one might say, I approach the matter with a little bias.
I turn to the great question. I shall not spend more than a few minutes. I listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who is so much revered throughout the whole of Sussex, where I too live. But if one had not listened to him one would still realise the convictions involved here. I agree with the general line taken on such matters by my noble friend Lord Howell. I can give another illustration. We are

1061
familiar with all the bishops, of course, but possibly not with every layman except an ecclesiastical layman like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. We are all familiar with such eminent scriptural scholars. While at Eton the noble and learned Lord won the school divinity prize and will therefore know what I am about to say.
In St. Matthew's gospel—curiously enough only in St. Matthew's but we do not have time to bring in comparative studies—we are told that 5,000 men were fed, not counting women and children. That is how women were looked at; they did not count. I commend that simple example to illustrate how things have changed beyond all recognition, as my noble friend Lord Howell pointed out.
Men with deeply felt convictions like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester will not be moved by passing remarks of that kind. I can only hope therefore that they will find peace and happiness within the Church of England under the new arrangements. I very much hope so. If any of them decide to join my Church—again I speak without any trace of authority—the Roman Catholic Church, I am sure that they will receive as warm a welcome as I did half a century ago.
Opinions in the Roman Catholic Church today—I speak mostly of England and do not profess to have a worldwide knowledge—are very much divided. Not long ago I spent the evening in a Roman Catholic monastry and we got into an argument on this subject. I was arguing for women priests and the monks were arguing against it. Finally I got a little desperate and said, "What is the argument against women priests?" They all looked at the senior monk. He paused, smiled and said, "Trad, I suppose". I suppose that is an argument that is thought to be extremely powerful. No one who cares for any institution, including this one, but certainly anyone who cares for his Church will ignore the importance of tradition. But traditions develop. Cardinal Newman was the first to speak of this in his famous essay on the development of doctrine. It would never have occurred to me when I joined the Roman Catholic Church that we would have had Vatican II or the tremendous developments that have occurred since that time. Who knows, therefore, how things will be a few years from now? I can only record my opinion, for what it is worth, that within 20 years women priests will be accepted within the Roman Catholic Church. I may be quite wrong but I can only offer my own conviction. It would certainly be true if it were confined to England. Taking the world scene I can only offer that opinion without trying to be dogmatic.
I conclude by offering genuine sympathy for those who find the Measure hard to bear and greet it with disquiet, even anguish. Nevertheless, I shall certainly vote for it and hope that it will bring strength and inspiration to the established Church of this country.
7.19 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, one of the slight problems of being Irish is that it is very difficult to fail to rise to a bait that is given in a debate
1062
such as this. During the past half hour certain baits have been offered, and I must depart from my prepared speech for a few moments to respond to them.
I have spent my ministry in Ireland and in the diocese of Bradford trying to reject stereotyping and when I hear it in your Lordships' House I cannot fail to try to reject it as well. The Church of England has not thrown out the Bible, or the Prayer Book, or the priesthood. In the diocese of Bradford, which I left two years ago, I carried out a survey. Sixty per cent. of churches still used the Book of Common Prayer. I know that many of your Lordships who go to church on Sunday endeavour to find, and do find, a church that has a Prayer Book service.
The Church has not jettisoned or thrown out the Bible. Many of my colleagues on these Benches have just returned from Canterbury, where the most reverend Primate the Archbishop was this morning consecrating a new bishop. Part of the vow that the new bishop has to take is that his life and ministry will be formed and reformed by the scriptures. Every time I ordain a man or a woman, exactly the same question is put to them. Every Sunday when I teach or when I preach or when I confirm, I do so on the basis of the scriptures, and I encourage those who listen to me to do exactly the same thing. It is simply not good enough to say that the Church of England has thrown out the Bible, the Prayer Book and the priesthood. It is not true.
Nor is it true to say that Bishops—it may be second or third hand—are saying that if you cannot accept this Measure—
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate says that the Church has not thrown out the Prayer Book. But it has changed the Bible and the Prayer Book. They are different. We have the Alternative Service Book. We do not have the service using the Prayer Book.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, we still have the Prayer Book and we have the Alternative Service Book. Both are used in our churches.
It has also been said that bishops might be saying that if one does not agree with the ordination of women the only proper procedure is to get out. The Members on these Benches today represent the House of Bishops, which has publicly declared its determination to stay together not only for the sake of the Church but for the sake of the mission to the nation. The pain expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and by others who have spoken from these Benches is the pain of trying to create and hold together unity. It is not the pain of excluding people. It is the pain of drawing their pain into oneself in order that they may be held together.
Nor is it true to suggest that the Church has been so preoccupied during the past two or 20 years with the ordination of women that it has not been getting on with its main task. That also is not true. I could take noble Lords into the 110 inner city parishes in Southwark where, metaphorically speaking, both men and women ministers daily get their hands soiled with ministering in those very difficult areas; women deacons who have been mugged on their way home from evening service; women deacons who have had their jaws broken by

1063
drunken beggars coming to the door. Please do not tell us that we do not know what is out there in the world and that we are whispering or are silent. The evidence in my experience and in my diocese is that that is not true.
Perhaps I may gently correct a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, when she spoke about London being the most difficult area for the ordination of women to the priesthood. I remind the House that the diocese of Southwark includes a large part of the City of London. It was one of my predecessors who put down the original Motion that went to General Synod in 1975 for the ordination of women to the priesthood, and he did so fully supported by his synod.
Most of my time has been used up answering statements that have been made in the House. I shall end with two points. First, by the very nature of the case, the one voice that we have not heard in our debate is the voice of one of those 1,000 female deacons who have been waiting, some of them for 20 years, for ordination. Several noble Lords and noble Baronesses have attempted to mirror their feelings by saying that they know how it feels to wait. The truth of the matter is that we do not. Let me give the House one authentic voice from one of those non-stipendiary female deacons in the diocese of Southwark who is also a medical doctor. This is how she described the experience of waiting:
"The waiting time is a kind of waiting to give birth. My priesthood is like a child conceived within me many years ago, and strangely I wait for permission for this child to be delivered. Time has elapsed—and while I have been waiting to be told it is time to give birth, it is as if the baby has somehow been born for I hear those I serve tell me often 'You are a priest … you are our priest!' and my heart tells me this is true. I am being a priest already in all but the sacramental functions which the Church tells me it is illegal to perform. When I am with the dying, hearing their confession, or when I have spent hours listening to the story of someone whose shame and guilt makes confession to a man impossible, then by my very self (whether I give formal absolution or not) I am somehow embodying God's acceptance and channelling forgiveness—and this embodiment seems to them to be the absolution they have been seeking. I see it happening before my eyes. So the waiting is the more strange—for I am waiting to be told, in the eyes of the official Church, that t am that which others already find me to be!"
My Lords, it is that kind of patience, that kind of perception, that kind of loyalty in the face of apparent rejection, that convinces me that there is something embodied in the lives of women clergy; something in the way a woman experiences God that will not only complement the masculine qualities already embodied in male clergy but, more importantly and biblically, bear witness to the female qualities that there are in God. It is for this reason that I believe that the priesthood of the Church will be enriched by the ordination of women.
I wish to make one other point which I believe is an important one. In the months since the vote in General Synod and throughout this debate much attention has been focused upon our fears for the Church. Certainly the ordination of women to the priesthood will indeed pose new challenges to our ability to understand and to work together across huge differences of belief. But, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, the answer is not to split apart and go our separate ways. These challenges are in themselves opportunities to live out the very message that is at the heart of the Christian gospel and which is the crux of the purpose and meaning of our Christian belief. The Church is in the business of
1064
reconciliation. She is called to struggle with the paradoxes and contradictions of division and difference. Her task in this situation is the same. It is to find ways of meeting each other across our divisions without dissolving them or negating their pain. Her task is to be a sign to the world that such an endeavour is possible.
In the Diocese of Southwark—and I am sure it is true elsewhere in the Church—the debate has already produced new groupings among Christians. Even where these have come together to oppose or support a particular stance, they have in themselves allowed new relationships and new unities to emerge.
Perhaps more important still have been the groups that have come together from positions of strongly held difference in order to hear and listen to each other's points of view. There is a growing feeling of mutual respect coupled with a determination to stay and work together for the sake of the mission of the Church.
These are clear and unmistakable signs that the Church is being able to live out, within this new situation, its fundamental purpose to heal, to reconcile and to enable growth to happen in new and unexpected ways even, and perhaps especially, out of the pain of conflict and change.
That is a message which many parts of our nation and our world, particularly my own homeland, needs to hear. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give a resounding and positive vote to the main Motion before us, thus enabling the Church of England to get on with the ministry of healing and reconciliation, not only within its own ranks but also, and more importantly, in the nation as a whole.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, when I first put down my name to speak in this debate I wondered whether, after all the words which have been written and said on this issue, there would be anything new to say. Certainly, after hearing 34 speakers in this debate, noble Lords may wonder whether it would not be best to be exceedingly short and to pass on to the conclusion of our debate.
But I want, first, to thank those who, I have to say, "endured" the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee and most of all for the report which came out of it in such great clarity. I believe that we have a guiding document. I speak because I am a relative newcomer to Synod. I was elected in 1990. I came to that body after discussions at PCC level, in deaneries, at the hustings and going round speaking at every deanery in the diocese. I was left in no doubt that the people at those meetings wanted us to get on with the job of passing these Measures. There were of course dissentients to that position but the main thrust was that we should clear this issue out of our way.
Since I have become a member of Synod and since the vote, I have been privileged to be engaged in two committees which have given me further insight into what we are about. I chaired a very small group in our diocese that looked at the report, Deacons Now. It considered the position of deacons in the Church of England after three years and after ordination. I am at the moment chairing an audit commission where, in one

1065
of the dioceses, the vote went against these Measures. I believe that those two experiences have given me very different insights into the present situation of deacons who have been ordained and their problems in deployment and employment terms which, in the secular world from which I come, I would consider to be inequitable.
I believe that those women deacons have been very patient in their situation and that it is time for us to move on in their interests. At the audit commission where most of the diocese are of another view, I hear the grief and the pain of those people. Again, it is impressed on me that we must deal with them in compassion.
As I read the Ecclesiastical Committee's report I found myself warming very much to paragraph 13—the objections to the ordination of women on scriptural grounds. I come from a very strong biblically-based background. I would want whatever we do to be consonant with the position of scripture. I could not go forward with this matter in all conscience unless it were consonant with scripture. It is interesting that, although I held very firmly these views which are expressed in paragraph 13 perhaps 40 years ago, over that period and by all kinds of circumstances, I have been helped into a deeper insight as to what those scriptures really mean. That helps me to see that I can hold those scriptures in integrity but also in balance with the rest of scripture and what that says about the place of women.
So I have moved from the position that I held 40 years ago. It has been a gradual process. It was only completed when, about four years ago, I sat next to somebody at a wedding reception who was a Bible translator and who expounded to me more fully one of those verses.
Therefore, I want to approach this issue with scriptural integrity. When I look at those who hold the representative view of the priesthood I have, as I have worked with them, tried to put myself where they are. I tried to do that before the vote in Synod. I tried to sit where they sat. I know that if I held their views, I would be full of grief, sorrow and pain now. But I cannot hold that view with integrity. So I revert to what is a strongly biblical faith and a position which I believe is consonant with scripture.
But I believe that in all the agony that some people are going through, Clause 2 (as do the financial provisions) makes provision for those people. I am glad about the irenic statements that came out of Manchester. As one who worships in Manchester I am glad that its name is associated with those two statements. I support the Act of Synod.
I cannot support the amendment because to me that is a delaying tactic. By the wish of Synod and so many others who are behind us in Synod and not just the substantial two-thirds majority of the laity and the many who, from the hundreds of letters which we have all received, are with us in this issue, we are supported in the view that the time is ripe for us to move on.
I have recently been reading the revised English Bible. Last week we were re-reading the messages of the Lord of the Church to the Churches in Asia Minor. It came to me with great freshness: "I know what you are
1066
doing", and at the end of every letter, "You have ears. Then listen to what the spirit is saying to the churches". That is what I feel that we should be about. We should now be liberating the Church to go on with its essential work which is so needed in our society.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, has spoken from a scriptural theme, which is entirely proper, but I must reflect that Parliament is a secular body. It makes its decisions on political grounds for social purposes, whereas the Synod is an ecclesiastical body which makes its decisions on theological grounds for spiritual purposes.
The contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Hilton, and of my noble friend Lady Denton, were proper parliamentary approaches because they dealt with the secular aspects. They would have been very appropriate in a debate which would have been timely last week on the winding up of the Women's Royal Naval Service. The WRNS marched into history yesterday and that debate would have been about a question of status. However, the debate that we are now considering is not, as I understand it, about status; it is a debate about function and about whether women and men can perform the same priestly function.
I have already said that Parliament is a secular and non-theological body. It follows that I warmly endorse what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said ages ago in the early stages of this debate when he drew the limits within which we would be on the right grounds to resist this Measure, whatever we think of it, as Parliamentarians. As a secular body, I do not think that we can properly forbid an ecclesiastical body making and implementing its own decisions on theological grounds for spiritual purposes. In spite of what the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Howell, have said, I do not think that we are fit to join in theological arguments with that massive, impressive and unusually large phalanx on my left. However, we can observe the battle. As the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, reminded us, we can observe what appears to be a battle in terms of conflict, but to understand the conflict one has to put it into proportion and to see it in the context in which it is being fought.
Your Lordships do not have to look at Yugoslavia, Somalia or Nagorno-Karabakh in order to see that there is massive and violent evil afoot in this world and that the Church is needed to fight it. One needs to look only at Greysteel, at what befell Jamie Bulger or under the arches in this city. Your Lordships could look at the scene that was drawn to your attention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark or at the cultural devastation to which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred in her moving speech.
The Church is needed to minister in these tragic fields, in which a much greater battle is being waged in which we are all engaged. When we turn to look at the battle which the Church has been fighting within itself, standing even safer and further back than the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, we see the casualties streaming back. They are recognised, I suppose—and this has been prayed in aid in support of this Measure—in Clause 2 of

1067
the principal Measure and, I suppose, in the whole of the financial Measure. However, that is all expressed in the language of statute, and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, has pointed out how powerful and important language is in determining people's conduct and in expressing their intentions. We cannot express compassion and charity in the language of statute, and that is what has been lacking from a great deal—although not the whole—of this debate.
I am greatly heartened by the account that was given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon of the early discussions in York and what is happening there. I was greatly encouraged by the recognition by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark of the pain that has been suffered by those who felt excluded and who would continue to feel excluded if this Measure were not carried. But let us not forget the pain of those who will feel themselves excluded if this Measure is carried, as I believe that it must be. I have deep sympathy with them because I fully understand their scriptural and, in so far as I am able, their theological position. If we were the right body to conduct such a debate, I should be speaking on that.
This has been conducted as a conflict. But let us remember that it is a conflict within a family and that the people who succeed in the argument—I decline and refuse to call them "victors" because that would be a disaster—are members of the same family as those who do not succeed: they are brothers and sisters. They are not victors and vanquished in a battle. We in the laity need the Church to be whole and loving and expressing the love of God. God is love and it is our duty to express that love among one another, and the clergy to the clergy and the people to the people. It is not going to be easy. It is easy for me to stand up and say that we should love one another because, that is the second commandment. It is easy to say that, but it is very far from easy to do it. There is pain in the giving as well as in the receiving. We have to face this as an extra, but a purifying, burden. I believe that if we pass the Measure with that message, there is yet hope that our Lord will lead us to quieter pastures and a real victory.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as we draw towards the end of this debate, one thing of which I am very much aware is the depth of feeling that is held and the degree of pain that there will be whichever way the vote goes. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said, all of us have to understand that pain and we must try to ease it. The decision to allow the ordination of women will be taken—I feel that in my bones—and I think that it is right that it should be.
We have heard some moving speeches and among the most moving have been those from the women, whichever side they have been on. It is right that their voice should be heard in this important debate. I was glad also that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, in moving his amendment, spoke with great restraint and dignity and not in a sense of seeking to divide the waters.
1068
It could be asked, "What more can be said, especially by someone who is not a member of the Anglican Church?". I am a spiritual man but I am not a member of the Church of England, and I should like to record my view that the time must come when the Church of England is neither the established Church of this land nor has to come before Parliament to gain support for decisions which are clearly decisions for the Church and not for a political body such as the House of Commons or your Lordships' House. I do not think that I am as optimistic as Tony Benn, who in the debate in another place said that he thought that the Church of England would cease to be the established Church by the turn of the century. It will take longer than that. However, it seems absurd that in this day and age such a measure should be decided by the House of Commons, which is dominated by elected men, many of whom practice no religious faith, and by your Lordships' House, again dominated by men (but unelected), many of whom practise no religious faith. Finally, such a measure will be signed by the Monarch who, whatever the views of the Monarch are likely to be, is the Defender of the Faith.
I think that the time must come for a change. So, yes, I am in favour of the disestablishment of the Church. But that is not what we are debating. I know that the serried ranks of the bishops will say, "Thank. God we are not debating that tonight. It is not what we are here for". So long as we have the power, we must use it with responsibility.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in what I thought was a brave maiden speech, when he said—he did not put it in these words—that we cannot have women priests and then go on to say, "Yes, but you cannot become women bishops". Of course it is a step along the road. I suppose that we shall have to debate that issue at the right time. This country has had a woman Prime Minister who survived for a long time. We have a successful woman Speaker. We struggle, some more obviously than others, to give a special boost to women to be selected for parliamentary seats, even to the Shadow Cabinet, although we do not seem to have much success in that.
Women have equality by law in pay and conditions at work. That owes much to the Equal Opportunities Commission and the work carried out by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. We call for more and more women to be in the courtroom; in the boardroom; in the council chamber; and wherever things are decided. Although we call for it, we have to call loudly, because there is still massive discrimination against women in almost every field of human endeavour. "No", it will be said by those who have been arguing the theological case, "this has nothing to do with equality of women". That was said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I believe that it has; I believe that it has everything to do with women who strive, in this case to do the best that they can for the Church and the law in which they believe. I share, if I can, the misery of those women who have, for years, hoped that this day would come. Gosh! If we do not vote the right way this time, just imagine

1069
the misery for those who have given their lives to God and to the community, and who will be told, "Thus far, but no further".
We have heard that this issue is not a theological one. That was said by the Synod some time ago, and so I shall not delve into that issue, although I see that some extremists—
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the flip side to the involvement of women in other activities is a factor in the collapse of family life in this country?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, every decision we take has all sorts of consequences. When we decide whether we will do this, that or the other, we have always to take into consideration how that decision will affect our other responsibilities to society.
The World Council of Churches noted in a document in 1982 that those Churches—I am thinking of Churches in other parts of the world which have done so—which have accepted women into ordination:
"have found that women's gifts are as wide and varied as men's, and that their ministry is as fully blessed by the Holy Spirit as the ministry of men".
I am certain that 10 years from now we shall be saying that. There will be some people who will leave the Church of England once the decision is taken, but there will be others who will come into the Church of England because of the freedom and wisdom that has been shown by the synod that we shall be endorsing this evening.
This is—no one has said this previously—the International Year of Multi-Religious Understanding and Co-operation. I was proud to chair the launching event in Britain in January and to take part in many events in which different faiths have come together. As we look at the different faiths in the world, we see that the Church of England is by no means the most discriminatory against women. I look forward to the time when Islam, the Sikhs, the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church all see the same central role for women who give service as for men who give service.
I am certain that that time will come. The decision to be taken this evening will be a step in that direction. I do not know how, even now, we can say to Islam, "Why do you discriminate against women?" when we discriminate against women ourselves. We need to set a lead in all these fields. I hope that the issue will be decided clearly tonight. As I said, I know that there will be much sadness, whichever way the vote goes, but, as has been said by others, so much time has been taken in this debate in the Church and elsewhere that it must be settled. I hope that, after it has been settled, there will be a great coming together of people who recognise that there was a genuine and honest debate through which people sought advice to enable them to do the right thing. I believe that the Church itself will seek to bind the wounds whichever way the decision goes.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suppose that most of us were brought up on the legend of Drake staying to play a game of bowls before going on to fight the
1070
Spaniards. Bowls is a game of passion, but not, I think, a game of bitterness. If Drake's admirals had stumped off Plymouth Hoe in a rage, the main battle and conquest of the Spanish Armada might have been imperilled. My worry is that the Church is beginning to fight this battle in the wrong mood. It is a mood—not so much in this House or the other place, although it appeared occasionally in the debate of the other place that I read—of growing bitterness. That worries me, because that could detract from the real campaign, the war between good and evil.
The Church of England is, in one way at least, similar to a political party. At least it is in my simple-minded definition of a political party, which is a group of people who agree on more than they disagree. Disagreement which is passionate can be strengthening, but disagreement which is bitter can damage, or even destroy, a political party, and indeed a Church.
In supporting the Measure, I speak only as a member of the grass roots of the Church in rural Suffolk; as a member of my PCC; and as a church warden. We are lucky enough to have an excellent rector who lives in our village. He looks after four churches, but we are aware of the tremendous problems that exist in areas less fortunate than ours. I doubt whether one should ever reject service which is offered when it is needed, and particularly when it is offered by people who are as dedicated to giving it as women priests would wish to be.
The debate here and in another place has, I suppose, focused upon arguments on a higher plane: on, if one likes, moral issues. Moral issues are hard to define. They may be easier for an individual to recognise, but many of us still find it hard to distinguish between a moral issue and an issue of emotion or, indeed, of tradition, all of which are important. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, would mind if I were to say that the Prayer Book is primarily an issue of tradition, and the value of that tradition, rather than a great moral issue.
Whether or not the ordination of women is a moral issue, certainly for most of us, it is an issue of conscience. We have to respect the view of those who disagree with us, and to respect that view in practice. Perhaps I may give an example which your Lordships may feel is irrelevant, although I think that it has some relevance. Let us think about doctors. There are a number of women who prefer not to be examined by a male doctor. There are, I suppose, a number of men who prefer not to consult a woman doctor. Arrangements can be made, have been made, and must be made to meet those feelings. But surely no one will suggest that the logic of that is that there shall not be men doctors or that there shall not be women doctors.
Let us therefore adapt to the conscience of those who disagree with us. I am unhappy with the idea of paying people off with money for adhering to their consciences. That slightly devalues the great value of conscience. But we must respect and provide for the conscience of others, and let us ask that they shall do the same for us.
Never perhaps was respect for conscience more generously expressed than by Winston Churchill in

1071
November 1940 at the death of Neville Chamberlain, a man with whom he had disagreed widely and deeply on vital issues. Winston Churchill said:
"The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour".
I believe that, in the light of what Churchill described in that same speech as "the flickering lamp of history", this Measure will be seen to have strengthened the Church of England.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I rise in an exposed position as the last speaker on the general list of speakers before those who are to wind up the debate. I am the only member of the inferior clergy to speak in the debate—no one would consider the noble Lord, Lord Soper, to be a clergyman inferior to anyone. I belong to the inferior clergy, but I have the advantage of having been ordained in Hong Kong by the great bishop who was the first to ordain a woman in the Anglican Communion. I have always been swayed by his example and opinions because he was a great bishop and a great saint.
In the tasks that we have before us today we have the normal duty that we are given when matters come up to us from Synod. I believe that usually we should accept the will of the Church of England as expressed by Synod. It is our duty, as we perform it in the Ecclesiastical Committee—on which my noble friend Lady Seear and I and other noble Lords sat for many hours in order to deal with this matter—to ensure that minorities are not in any way oppressed by what is being put forward. The Ecclesiastical Committee did its job. Although there has been an argument about that today and it is the subject of an amendment, it is not the point at issue.
The special task that Parliament has today is to let the Church of England back into the area of society. Through us society has passed various pieces of legislation with which almost all Members of your Lordships' House will agree relating to the equality of men and women in our society and in their jobs. For reasons which seemed good to the Church of England—I have no doubt that at the time they were good—the Church together with other religious bodies asked for exemption; and they were granted it. If the Church now asks to be relieved of that exemption and to come back into the mainstream of what British society is doing, we have an extra duty to support it.
I have slight doubts about whether we are taking the disregard of gender differentiation too far. I have great sympathy with the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. I have never heard him make a bad speech in this House, and what he said today was most interesting. I should have been more convinced if he had been able to give an idea of what would happen if in 100 years he were able to come back or to look down from the House of Bishops in the sky and see that he was right, and that some of the rest of us were wrong. I should have been more convinced if he
1072
had been able to give me an idea of the society and the Church in which women would have an equal but differentiated ministry. It is difficult to visualise that because they do not have it at present.
In the last resort, I return to what was said by Dorothy Sayers. She was a traditionalist Christian and a good theologian. At the time she was writing, I am sure that she would have been opposed to the ordination of women, although one can never make guesses about what people would have become had they lived today. She commented about another matter which is relevant to our discussions today, and therefore I venture to paraphrase her words. She said that the question is not whether women should be ordained. The question is whether Jane Smith, who is theologically qualified, judged by her parish diocese and the appropriate bodies of the Church to have been called by God, should be rejected just because she is a woman when John Smith, with exactly the same qualifications, is ordained because he is a man. That is the question at issue and I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Motion and against the amendment.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to the most reverend Primate for rising to speak in the gap in the speakers' list, and evidently I must explain why. I have stayed in the Chamber almost all afternoon while other noble Lords have been going in and out. I have done so because I received appeals from various sources, including the Church people, to be in attendance in order to demonstrate that they are interested in this subject. Well, I have remained here and that is more than can be said for other noble Lords who have not been present.
I am left with this problem. I read as much as I could of the debate in the other place, and I am left with a question which was posed in that House. A Member wanted to know what the Church thought of the eucharist. What is the meaning of it today? I ask the right reverend Primate to deal with that matter in reply.
The second reason for speaking is that I listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. If I had not heard him perhaps I should have been content to ask that question privately and not have bothered to intervene in the debate.
I was reared in a very Christian family and was told many things. I went to Sunday school and to church and was told all about Adam and Eve, how God created the world, how Jesus Christ was crucified to pay for our sins. I was told many other things. I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield is far wrong in appearing to imply that the Church of England has changed from its original concepts. It has changed a great deal. Even now—I once got into trouble for making this suggestion in this Chamber—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham appears to have doubts about the Resurrection and the Virgin birth. He may be right; he may be wrong. The point that I am trying to make is that the Church has changed. It has changed from the time at which it became the established Church of England. Therefore, when we talk about disestablishment, we are not disestablishing the

1073
Church but rather the Church is changing and the Church is disestablishing itself because it now believes something entirely different from that which it believed when it was first established.
Why do I believe that the Church should be disestablished? I believe that one thing is more important than all that we have discussed today—that is, the unity of the Church is the unity of mankind. I have said that before and I shall continue to say it whenever I have an opportunity to do so in this House. That is the most important thing which matters to humanity. There is no possibility whatever of that being achieved while some of the fundamental religions are still operating. There is no question of unity between Islam and Christianity if they remain the same. Let us come nearer home. This measure will widen the gap between Protestant and Catholic elements in Ireland.
I shall not say much more although I could go on for a long time. I have done that before because somebody tried to stop me. I suggest to the Church of England, which is still the established Church, that it should stop talking about women. It should allow them to be ordained immediately. It should then get down to the real fundamental problem which faces humanity. It should start a campaign to unite the religions of this world which are mainly based on myth and propaganda. The Church should get down to uniting mankind and nobody else.
8.12 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, it would take us too far from our main theme were Ito respond to the challenge to expound the meaning of the eucharist, important though that is. However, I wish to take hold of the kite flown briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who asked why this House should be debating this matter at all. The answer lies in the long and distinguished list of speakers who have felt that it was right to speak in the debate. I thank them all for their contributions to it. I confess that I am quite unable to pick up all the points which have been made and I shall simply concentrate on picking out a few salient points.
Many of the points have been answered in the course of the debate but I believe that all would agree that this has been a serious, well informed and searching debate and one in which we have engaged because we sense that what affects the Church of England deeply affects the nation. Indeed, that is what establishment is about.
We have seen something of the emotion on both sides. Your Lordships' House has also seen something of the healthy diversity within the House of Bishops. That has in no way been orchestrated. As always, the bishops have been themselves and perhaps I may say that they acted entirely in character. We have also seen some of the depths of the emotion which we as a Church, and particularly as a House of Bishops, has been engaged in for many years. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that, having gone through that, we come to your Lordships differing over the legislation but nevertheless as a united House determined to work together and determined to hold together the Church of England. But we recognise that it is not a monolithic
1074
Church and, therefore, that must be done with the kind of compassion and sensitivity about which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke so movingly just a few moments ago.
It is not simply on such a matter that it is necessary to try to hold together the Church. That is a continual problem of any church but perhaps particularly focused in the Church of England which tries so hard to maintain that proper diversity which has always been its glory.
But the Church constantly tries to live holding on to eternal truths, to what we believe has been given by God and being faithful to tradition. And yet it lives under the motto coined by Luther: semper reformandum, always being reformed. It is always open to change because, as the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, said right at the beginning of the debate, there are things which you can be faithful to only in so far as you allow them to be changed. Simply to have a treasure, bury it in the ground and imagine that it will remain there for ever the same is to lose it. It is by using what we have, by developing it and by taking it forward as we believe under the guidance of God that we remain faithful to what we have been given.
All change is dangerous. We have been reminded movingly of possible slippery slopes. Your Lordships' House is always coming up against the slippery slopes argument and always says, quite rightly, "Yes, what you do with a slippery slope depends on whether you are wearing crampons or skates. You can stop". It is precisely the purpose of debates, legislations and decisions to know where to stop. Because we make a solemn decision about this particular matter concerning the possibility of ordaining women as priests does not mean that we are then letting our tradition go out of the window wholesale.
We have safeguards. The Church of England is totally hemmed in by safeguards. I particularly liked the view of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, as regards the Book of Common Prayer as a prophylactic against "uppitiness" and many other things. The point is that conflict is endemic in life and, indeed, endemic in the Church. But we recognise that, as the Church of England, we have made a decision. We now ask this House to ratify it. But in making that decision, we recognise also a substantial minority, though not quite such a large minority as some have said, who nevertheless have doubts about the matter. There are some who reject it so deeply that, alas, they may reject the Church of England altogether. One recognises that that is inevitable, for, I believe, a very small minority.
I was asking my suffragan bishops this morning how many clergy in the diocese had expressed an interest in going to the Church of Rome or had gone to the Church of Rome. I was told that one retired priest went to the Church of Rome and then decided to come back. There are those who have doubts and what the Church is concerned about and what the House of Bishops has been working hard at is to make sure that there is space for them so that they can be themselves. That is what the Act of Synod is about.
The Act of Synod is not a desperate expedient to try to get this Measure through the Houses of Parliament. The Act of Synod was a way in which the Bishops believe that they can preserve the proper diversity of the

1075
Church of England while respecting the consciences of those who have doubts about this legislation. That diversity is for the Church's sake and for the nation's sake.
In allowing space, we recognise that in terms of the Universal Church, the matter is not decided. Not all Christians accept the possibility of women being priests. Therefore, we enter what we call a process of discernment or testing. It is through that process that we allow certain anomalies to exist within the life of our Church. There are anomalies within the Act of Synod. However, we allow that discernment because, although we have made a local decision as the Church of England, we are in no way turning our backs on our nature as a Church and as one part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Universal. We are deliberately keeping our eyes on that Universal Church, both that piece of it that is represented in the Anglican communion and also that which is represented ecumenically by the whole Church of Christ worldwide. We tread the difficult path of deciding something locally, as decisions usually have been made in the Church, while also maintaining those roots within the Universal Church with that universal intent.
That is why, within the legislation, there is the clause concerning bishops which has caused so much offence. It is not about saying that women are not good enough to become bishops; it is nothing of that kind. It is about the particular role of the bishop as a focus of unity and of authority. If you are trying within the Church to maintain your character as part of the Universal Church, then what you do about bishops has a particular significance, even more so than is the case with what you do about priests. You can contain women priests within the Church, use their gifts and let them develop, and let the process of the Church Universal considering the matter continue until at length—please God—the Church as a whole will once again find its unity around a united ministry.
There is an openness in the process. I should like vigorously to refute the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. He said that in the future all bishops must accept women priests. That is only true in a marginal sense. It is true in the sense that, if you are part of a Church which legally ordains women priests, then you must accept that they have been legally ordained. You may have doubts about precisely what that ordination achieves, but the rather complicated arrangements set out in the Act of Synod are there to allow such doubts to be exercised by bishops as well as by others. That is why it is perfectly possible for bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women as priests still to be appointed as bishops in our Church, as some have been in the past few weeks. The bishops must accept the legal implications of the decision made by the Church of England.
There has been some discussion in the debate of theological issues and., having been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I do not propose to enter into them, save to make one comment about the very different ways in which people can appeal to the Bible to support their particular position. That is especially odd when it comes to priests. I say that because the New Testament
1076
does not actually mention priests. The priesthood, as described in the New Testament, is "the priesthood of Christ"—that is, a priesthood which is then shared by the whole body, male and female.
We have heard a good deal about the inclusive humanity of Christ. There are theological roots in the New Testament concerning what the Measure seeks to do. Clearly, springing out of the New Testament is a whole historical process in which you get this constant interaction which has taken place all through the history of the Church between the actual circumstances in which the Church is set and the theological understanding through which it is trying to operate. Indeed, we are in that same game today.
I turn now to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. As he is, in a sense, a parishioner of mine, I hate to have to say that I hope your Lordships will not vote for the amendment. The amendment is entirely well intentioned. The noble Lord shares with the House of Bishops the desire to hold the Church of England together. However, the House of Bishops has, I believe, been unfairly criticised for the timing of the debate, in that it comes before the debate in the General Synod. Perhaps I may say, most respectfully, that the timing of the debate in this Chamber is entirely a matter for your Lordships and nothing whatever to do with the General Synod, or any machinations by the bishops; it has simply worked out: this way. In some ways, it would be more convenient if we were debating the matter after the Synod has its debate next week. However, after today's marathon, I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to debate the matter again.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment has a sting in the tail. I say that because it entails a commitment to go forward to legislation. I want to resist that very strongly, for reasons which were most movingly spelt out by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, although she did riot quite make the point. She talked about the distraction which all this has been to the life of the Church and to its proper mission towards the nation. I do not believe that it has been a distraction, as many matters have been worked out through the process. However, we do riot want to go on being distracted. If the Synod undertook to turn the Act of Synod into legislation, it would take two more years. It would mean at least three debates in the General Synod, a reference to dioceses and the matter would then have to return both to the House of Commons and to your Lordships' House. If we are talking about distraction, it seems to me that that process would drive us to it.
Moreover, in the end, it would all be unnecessary. I say that because the two key issues in the Act of Synod relate to non-discrimination and safeguards. There are already safeguards in the Measure. The principle that it is possible to dissent from the decision is already written into the Measure, with provisions for bishops, for clergy and for parishes. If, as I trust, the Synod approves the appointment of the provincial episcopal visitors, the creation of new suffragan sees will be part of the law.

1077
The main safeguard of those who dissent from the Measure lies in the role of those provincial episcopal visitors as kinds of ombudsmen. Therefore, there are already provisions built into the whole process which pass beyond the goodwill which has been expressed by the Synod and by the House of Bishops.
People have said, "Well, it is possible to revert an Act of Synod". Of course, it is possible to revert anything, even legislation. However, as I am sure that your Lordships realise, it is not very easy to reverse things in the Church of England; indeed, it is not easy to do anything in the Church of England, especially if one is trying to undo something. Any motion of that kind requires the approval of all three Houses. Therefore, once you have something, it is really quite hard to get rid of it. I believe that the House can, with confidence, vote for the Measures before us unamended. I feel that we will all come together and that the synod will, next week, see the point of enshrining this treasured diversity of the Church of England in the Act of Synod.
I believe that we are witnessing one of those changes in human affairs which are indeed permanent. We are not responding to fashion. The fact that women have found a new dignity and a new role in our society is not a matter of fashion. It would be deeply disrespectful to what has happened in recent decades if we were to say that the Church is responding to fashion. There has been a movement of the spirit in secular as well as in religious society and the Church has tried to respond as honestly as possible to that. We are trying to be obedient to the truth as we see it but we are not closing the door on other visions of truth. This is our human condition—to live with this element of muddle.
We cannot escape from the kind of risks involved in going forward and making a change of this kind. The patron saint of archbishops is Gamaliel. He was the character in the New Testament who said, "Let us try it. Let us do it. If it is of God, then God will show us and if it is not of God, then God will show us that too". In the name of Gamaliel, I ask noble Lords to resist this amendment and pass these two Motions.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I wish I had time, without the danger of being torn apart, to thank individually all those noble Lords who have taken part in our debate. I can do so only collectively but I do so none the less sincerely. My problem in making this final speech is that the debate has centred largely on the central issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood. Obviously my difficulty is that I have expressed my conviction that women will shortly, in my opinion, be so ordained. My amendment, as noble Lords will remember, asked for two other provisions to which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop has just referred, one of which was to await the imminent decision on the Act of Synod. I am afraid I was not responsible for raising either the Synod's business or business in your Lordships' House. I also pressed for the need for a subsequent Measure to follow that Act.
1078
As I still believe it is wrong to part with the Measure before the approval of the Act of Synod, particularly in view of the stern warning by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, and also to part with it without the promise of a supplementary Measure, I must ask noble Lords to express their opinion. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the original Motion was that this House,
"do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent".
Since when an amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "House" and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ashboume, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Blatch, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Burnham, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Salisbury, M.

Chichester, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Clanwilliam, E.

Seccombe, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Sudeley, L.

Cross, V.

Swinfen, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Swinton, E.

Donegall, M.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Ackner, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elton, L.

Alport, L.

Ennals, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Benson, L.

Flather, B.

Blackstone, B.

Geraint, L.

Bolton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Greenway, L.

Brentford, V.

Grey, E.

Bristol, Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Caldecote, V.

Guildford, Bp. [Teller.]

Canterbury, Abp.

Hacking, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haig, E.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hampton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hamwee, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Chester, Bp.

Harrowby, E.

Coggan, L.

Henniker, L.

Combermere, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Coventry, Bp.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cox, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

David, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Judd, L.

Desai, L.

Kennet, L.

Dixon-Simth, L.

Kimball, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Dundonald, E.

Kitchener, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Lichfield, Bp.

1079

Lincoln, Bp.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rochester, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Runcie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Longford, E.

Saint Albans, Bp. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

Lyell, L.

Bp.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Seear, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Serota, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Slim, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Middleton, L.

Strange, B.

Monson, L.

Templeman, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Teviot, L.

Mulley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Wakeham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Prentice, L.

Warnock, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Weatherill, L.

Raglan, L.

Westbury, L.

Rea, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Redesdale, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wynford, L.

Richard, L.

York, Abp.

Ripon, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That the original Motion be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Citibank International Bill [H.L.] Unibank Bill [H.L.] Woodgrange Park Cemetery Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  BOSNIA: CURRENT SITUATION
  BOSNIA: CURRENT SITUATION
  CROATIA: CURRENT SITUATION
  CROATIA: CURRENT SITUATION
  TUZLA AIRPORT
  TUZLA AIRPORT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MEMBERS' PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MEMBERS' PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  ANGOLA: WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION PROPOSAL
  ANGOLA: WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION PROPOSAL
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONFLICT VICTIMS
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CONFLICT VICTIMS
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: POLICY
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: POLICY
  EC MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  EC MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  EC: COMMISSION MEMBERS' PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  EC: COMMISSION MEMBERS' PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONER'S REQUEST FOR REPATRIATION TO GERMANY
  PRISONER'S REQUEST FOR REPATRIATION TO GERMANY
  SELBY COMPLEX COALFIELD
  SELBY COMPLEX COALFIELD
  DRAX POWER STATION
  DRAX POWER STATION
  DIRECTORS' CONTRACTS: SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL
  DIRECTORS' CONTRACTS: SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL
  ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR RELEASE: MINISTER'S LETTER
  ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR RELEASE: MINISTER'S LETTER
  COAL AND THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY
  COAL AND THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY
  GATT AGREEMENT AND RIO DECLARATION
  GATT AGREEMENT AND RIO DECLARATION
  OPTING OUT: SECRET BALLOTS
  OPTING OUT: SECRET BALLOTS
  OPTING OUT: EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE
  OPTING OUT: EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE
  TRANSPORT SECURITY: DIRECTOR's REPORT
  TRANSPORT SECURITY: DIRECTOR's REPORT
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  PRINCE OF WALES'S GATE, HYDE PARK: REOPENING
  PRINCE OF WALES'S GATE, HYDE PARK: REOPENING
  BRISTOL TRAFFIC RESTRAINT STUDY
  BRISTOL TRAFFIC RESTRAINT STUDY
  DoT: CASH AND RUNNING COSTS LIMITS
  DoT: CASH AND RUNNING COSTS LIMITS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: POLICY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: POLICY
  PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY: POLICY
  PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY: POLICY
  "GUINNESS" TRIALS: PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY
  "GUINNESS" TRIALS: PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY
  GENERAL SIKORSKI
  GENERAL SIKORSKI
  BUCHANAN CASE: INQUIRY
  BUCHANAN CASE: INQUIRY
  BREAST SCREENING
  BREAST SCREENING
  BREAST CANCER STATISTICS
  BREAST CANCER STATISTICS
  DENTAL TREATMENT: GENERAL ANAESTHETICS
  DENTAL TREATMENT: GENERAL ANAESTHETICS
  UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
  UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: POLICY GUIDANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: POLICY GUIDANCE
  ISLE OF WIGHT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  ISLE OF WIGHT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT