Sitting of 24 April 1995

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

    Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been refused emergency medical admission to a hospital in Wales in the last year because of beds being reserved for elective surgery. [18721]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Health authorities have confirmed to me that no one requiring emergency treatment has been refused admission to a hospital in Wales for the reason alleged by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Wardell: I am delighted that the Welsh Office has taken so much trouble to find out that information, and I am delighted with the result. What I would now like from the Minister is a confirmation that the Welsh Office will guarantee that no one will be refused emergency medical treatment and that all such treatment will be given within a patient's locality. Will the Minister tell us that the Welsh Office will, instead of reducing the number of forms that it sends out, collect the relevant information so that it is not guilty of the mockery of issuing statements on which it cannot deliver, with the result that people have to travel longer and longer distances for emergency medical treatment?
    Mr. Richards: I can confirm that it is the Government's policy that patients requiring emergency treatment should always take priority over those awaiting elective care.

    Industrial Development
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further measures he will take to encourage industrial development in Wales. [18722]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I shall pursue many policies to ensure a strong and vigorous manufacturing industry in Wales. They will include raising education standards; encouraging more engineers and apprentices and ensuring that the strengths of Wales for investment are understood at home and abroad.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his help, but may I urge him and his Cabinet colleagues to redouble their efforts to help my beleaguered constituents who work for Raytheon in north-east Wales? Will be confirm that, together with the Welsh Development
    504
    Agency, he stands ready with cash and grants for the Raytheon board if it is prepared to alter its strategy to close down that great factory? Does he also agree that such a closure would be bad for Britain and for Deeside? At the very least, the service station should be on track until the end of the century. Surely he will help my constituency, because Britain, Deeside and Wales cannot afford to lose that company. I urge him to help quickly.
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important industry and facility. As he knows, I shall do everything in my power to try to keep that company with us, but unfortunately the omens are not good. I agree that regional selective assistance and WDA money are available—as I explained to the company's executive management when they visited Wales recently—for suitable investment projects, should the company wish to develop that facility or to put it to a different use. I again urge the executive management to look at other ways in which they can use the talents of the people and the facilities available for other components, at sub-assemblies and for servicing. I shall continue to argue that case right up to day when the company finally implements its decision, in the hope that it will change its mind. Raytheon has a good work force, who deserve better.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend mention education in his original reply. Will he take all possible steps to ensure that there are plenty of young entrants to manufacturing industry, because he will know that some companies in south Wales in particular have complained about inadequacy in that respect?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He will be pleased to learn that, following meetings at the local training and enterprise college, Panasonic now reports more interest in its job opportunities. We are working closely with TECs and others to ensure that there are more apprentices in manufacturing, as we require them. That also means better results at school, which, as Opposition Members will know, I am keen to encourage. I am pleased to say that the Minister with responsibility for education in Wales will shortly be able to announce to the House that the budget prospects for education in Wales are nothing like as bleak as those portrayed by the Labour party during the settlement.
    Mr. Wigley: What on earth does the Secretary of State for Wales think he is doing, siding with Shropshire and with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) against the Development Board for Rural Wales when it is trying to attract work to Wales. Surely he realises that Shropshire has enough incentives, by virtue of its motorway link-ups, and that we are fighting against regions with objective 1 status, such as Merseyside, in trying to attract jobs to Wales. Does he not realise that his job is to stand up for Wales and to attract to Wales as many jobs as possible, from wherever they come, and not to side with authorities on the other side of Offa's dike?
    Mr. Redwood: That was synthetic anger if ever I saw it.
    As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is exactly what I do, and I proudly stand up for Wales. It is a first-class place for investors to come to. However, we have a common policy in Merseyside and in north-east Wales,

    505
    because it does not make sense for the British taxpayer to pay grants to move a business from one side of Offa's dike to the other in either direction.
    If a company wishes to change its premises or to expand, or seeks a new location, I hope that the Welsh agencies will be the first knocking on the door with an offer that it cannot refuse, but we shall not waste British taxpayers' money on moving a company that is happy where it is, and we certainly do not want the English authorities to do that to our businesses.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I assure the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) enjoys the full support of Opposition Front-Bench Members in his campaign on behalf of Raytheon, and we wish the Secretary of State well in any intervention that he can make on its behalf.
    Does the Secretary of State realise, however, that he would enjoy far greater credibility if he intervened where he had the power to intervene—for example, to save the hundreds of aircraft maintenance jobs that are threatened by the Government's policy at RAF Valley in Anglesey? Does he realise that, as a result of the Government's disqualification of the in-house bid there, market testing has degenerated into forced privatisation, and that there is every likelihood that jobs will be exported from Anglesey in exactly the same way as they will be exported from Raytheon? How on earth can the Secretary of State justify the double standards that he is applying there?
    Mr. Redwood: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am worried about the position arising from the RAF Valley decision. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), is in discussions with the Ministry of Defence, and we have asked the training and enterprise council to make absolutely sure that as many people as possible in that district either have the skills or can be trained to gain the skills, so that there is the opportunity of employment for them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish something to be salvaged by way of employment for local people, and my hon. Friend and I shall try to do that.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what developments there have been in respect of the sale of Welsh Development Agency land. [18724]
    Mr. Redwood: The WDA will be selling land and property currently valued at £180 million over two years. That will include 1,000 acres of land, much of it with development potential.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State comment on some correspondence that I have received from a local employer in Blaenau Gwent? He states:
    "Estates which were to form the bedrock of the modernisation of industrial Wales, are to be handed over to a single landlord, who will by that fact, be empowered to determine the economic development of the area … Had such been the case when we were seeking to relocate we would not have"
    come to Wales. Does the Secretary of State believe that Wales should be run by landlords—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is not aware that we do not use
    506
    quotations during Question Time. However, I think that he has asked his question. Perhaps the Secretary of State will attempt an answer.
    Mr. Redwood: How wise you are, Madam Speaker. I did understand the question.
    Of course I wish a multitude of landlords and of people to develop property in Wales for industrial and commercial purposes in places where councils wish that to happen. The plan of selling some of those industrial parks does create more choice because at the moment there is only one landlord in many cases—the WDA.
    I believe that the issue of whether a tenant can or cannot buy his own property underlies the hon. Gentleman's question. I am urging the WDA to offer the property to the tenant first whenever possible. In the case of the company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I believe that negotiations are under way to ascertain whether that tenant company can purchase, which may well be the best answer.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the WDA's budgeted expenditure has never until this year been made conditional on land sales and European regional development fund receipts? Does he agree that he has perpetrated an outrageous act of book cooking on the people of Wales, which would shock his previous superiors at N.M. Rothschild and Sons, the merchant bank where he used to work—I am not sure whether it would have promoted him or sacked him—and that ERDF receipts can be harvested into the Welsh Development Agency's coffers only if they are stolen from the local authorities, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds every year to council tax payers in Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: That is another muddled effort from the hon. Gentleman. As he should know, the ERDF moneys are additional; they have nothing to do with the main argument between us. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I expect the sales proceeds from those property sales to be used to finance part of the WDA's programme. He is also right to say that I want to step up the sales. It seems common sense to want to recycle the money—a green policy—and to ensure that the money is reused to good effect. There is no need to warehouse all the successful tenanted properties in the public sector when the money can be freed for something else. There is no book cooking—the matter is transparent and I have announced that policy many times to the House.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of hospital beds in Wales in each health authority; and if he will list the projected number for each of the next five years. [18725]
    Mr. Richards: I refer the hon. Member to the latest information on hospital beds published in the 1994 edition of "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    As for future provision, health authorities must ensure that sufficient beds are available to meet the health needs of local people.
    Mr. Jones: I hope that the Minister, when he addresses the health needs of local people, will pay attention to the King's Fund report, which recommended hospital closures

    507
    in London, but whose authors, in the light of evidence of an increasing need for emergency care, have reviewed the process. They now see that there is a need in London and elsewhere for more hospital beds. I hope that the Welsh Office will not allow the health authorities to continue to close hospitals and to reduce the number of hospital beds unless it is clear that those beds are not needed.
    Mr. Richards indicated assent.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad to see that the Minister agrees—perhaps there is some electoral advantage for the Conservative party in doing that.
    Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated the Government's policy on that subject. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman further by saying that my Department has a working group currently looking at accident and emergency provision throughout Wales. I believe that that will help to steer the health authorities in Wales towards ensuring that sufficient numbers of beds are available to meet the demand.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)—even though he is a Whip—in his call for Cardiff royal infirmary to be kept open. As someone who has lived in Cardiff for a long time, may I say that when a hospital is threatened with closure, as Cardiff royal infirmary is, it develops a sort of planning blight? I was there at the weekend visiting a patient and I was shocked at the level of cleaning services resulting from management cuts. Will the Minister investigate levels of cleanliness? For example, the toilets in the ward that I visited had not be cleaned for three days. Such things should not happen in 1995 in our NHS. Will the Minister investigate that matter forthwith?
    Mr. Richards: I can understand the hon. Lady's concern for hospitals in Cardiff as she is, of course, a resident of Cardiff. However, she makes a serious point about the hospital and I shall, of course, have my officials look into that problem as soon as I reasonably can. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the University Hospital of Wales NHS trust is in discussion with the community health council in Cardiff.

    Nurses' Pay Award
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received following the announcement of the nurses' pay award. [18726]
    Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend received 44 representations.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that, of the 23 trusts in Wales, only six have made any offer to nurses for their annual pay award, and two of those—South Gwent community and Bridgend—offered less than the 3 per cent. that they were supposed to have offered under the pay review agreement? Is he aware that representatives of nurses and doctors feel that local pay and performance-related pay will only set trust against trust, nurse against nurse and doctor against doctor? If we are to have a national health service that takes account of the needs of recruitment, particularly in peripheral trusts in Wales, do we not need a national health service with a national pay policy?
    Mr. Richards: I do not agree that local determination of pay will set trust against trust or nurse against nurse. It
    508
    will give local trusts the opportunity to be flexible and to reward staff according to local needs and local pay provision. Six trusts have already declared what they intend to do about nurses' pay and I hope that the other trusts in Wales will soon come up with their own proposals for their staff.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister confirm that, under the local pay arrangements about which he is so keen, there will be yet another expensive tier of management, and that even more funds will be diverted from essential nursing services to inessential management activities? Does he realise that, in many cases, the bureaucrats are considering tying the nurses' 3 per cent. pay award to their acceptance of contracts with the trusts? For example, in one Welsh trust, nurses are being asked to forgo premium payments for night and weekend work, while in another trust sick pay and overtime have been targeted. Is it any surprise that the Government are neither believed nor trusted when they say that they believe in a truly national health service?
    Mr. Richards: Local trusts will discuss the matter with local employees and decide what their remuneration will be. Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in interfering at a local level. We believe in devolution of the right kind.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that, since 1979, nurses' pay has increased in real terms by 53 per cent., after allowing for inflation. When the Labour party was in government from 1974 to 1979, nurses' pay fell by 3 per cent. in real terms, after allowing for inflation.

    Patient Care
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve patient care. [18727]
    Mr. Redwood: I set out my proposals for improving patient care in my recent speech to the Welsh Grand Committee. Today, I have announced further measures to improve cancer care in the years ahead.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State proud of the Tory do-it-yourself health service in Newport, where last week two infant victims of accidents were forced to wait two and three hours respectively for treatment? One infant had sliced off the top of a finger almost entirely and the other infant had severed her big toe almost entirely. At the end of that long wait, the families were informed that no treatment was on offer and that they would have to travel themselves 60 miles to Morriston hospital.
    Is it sensible or safe to expect distraught parents to act as ambulance drivers and travel to strange towns? Is the Secretary of State concerned about the fact that one family were told that it was too late for their child to undergo microsurgery? They were then told that they could find their own way back to Newport or wait 16 hours for transportation by ambulance. Is that patient care or patient neglect?
    Mr. Redwood: Those cases sound very worrying indeed. Of course I will look into them specifically, immediately following Question Time and I will provide the hon. Gentleman with a written answer. That is not the kind of thing that I wish to hear. Many hundreds of thousands of people receive very good treatment from the

    509
    NHS in Wales and we must make sure that that is true of everyone. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am rather worried by that story.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the issue of constitutional change in Wales following local government reform. [18728]
    Mr. Redwood: I have received a number of representations in the course of local government reform, quite a lot of which were of a party political nature.
    Mr. Jones: Given that the Conservatives have all but given up fighting local elections in Wales, with only 20 per cent. of Tory candidates fighting Welsh seats, how can the Secretary of State continue to justify ruling Wales through the unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic quango system—which is the only way that he can outrule us? Must he not now recognise the moral, democratic imperative of establishing a parliament in Wales so that we can decide our own policy priorities, which, incidentally, would include protecting jobs in RAF Valley?
    Mr. Redwood: We are fielding more candidates than ever before—I would like to field rather more. Also, a number of independent candidates vote Conservative at general elections and agree with much that this Conservative Government are doing. Local government in Wales is given a great deal of trust by this Parliament, spending almost half the total Welsh Office budget through revenue and capital allocations—most in the form of block grant. Local elections are important. I recommend that people vote Conservative on 4 May because that will result in better service at less cost.
    Mr. Sweeney: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting the Vale of Glamorgan on Friday and making an excellent speech on the occasion of the Primrose dinner at Dufferin gardens—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government reforms that he has just introduced will increase accountability and improve efficiency? Does he further agree that were we to accede to Opposition desires for a Welsh Assembly or Welsh Parliament, the likelihood is that new accountability would be destroyed, the influence of Wales would be reduced, taxes would increase for the Welsh people and Welsh influence at Westminster would be substantially lessened?
    Mr. Redwood: Like you, Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend is extremely wise. I agree with everything that he said. Opposition Members are jealous because they were not at the Vale of Glamorgan dinner on Friday night. It was a most enjoyable event and I thank my hon. Friend for his hospitality. He is right to say that a Welsh Parliament would take power from local people and local government as well as from this Parliament. It would be a totally unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. It is a policy on which Labour is so keen that it still has not made up its mind what such a parliament would do, who would sit in it, how it would be elected or how much it would cost. We await progress, when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has done more thinking.

    Rare Cattle Breeds (Export)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to promote the export of rare Welsh cattle breeds; and if he will make a statement. [18729]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): That matter is essentially for the industry, but the Welsh Office is able to help via the market development scheme.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that, whereas many Scottish breeds are well recognised in England and in other countries in Europe, the Welsh Black—which is more lean, tender, succulent and tasty than any Scottish breed of cattle—is not? Why is my hon. Friend's Department not doing more to promote the Welsh Black in Europe? Perhaps the first thing that he could do is to have it on the menu of the restaurants in the House.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his most helpful suggestions, particularly the latter. I assure him that we are already very active. Welsh Beef Promotion was recently established to undertake such work. Apart from the menus of this place, a group of west Wales producers has combined to sell Welsh beef to London restaurants, and the beef is rightly commanding a premium price.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total Welsh Office allocation for local government expenditure for 1995–96; and how much of that total county councils have allocated to education. [18730]
    Mr. Richards: Local government expenditure, or total standard spending, for 1995–96 has been set at £2.78 billion. Not all local authorities have yet provided us with returns showing the education budgets that they have set. However, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that section 42 budget statements already received from four counties show healthy increases in budgets for schools.
    Mr. Williams: Can the Minister explain to my constituents why the council tax bills that they are now receiving have increased by 16 per cent.?
    Mr. John Marshall: They are from Labour-controlled councils.
    Mr. Williams: No, they are from independent-controlled Carmarthen district council and Dyfed county council. Council tax bills are increasing by 16 per cent., yet Dyfed county council finds that it must cut £4.5 million from its education budget. Is it not the case that, under the Tories, we pay more taxes but receive fewer services?
    Mr. Richards: I suggest that, when the hon. Gentleman returns to his constituency, he speaks to the chairman of his education authority. The general schools budget for Dyfed will rise 3.3 per cent. compared with last year. It will rise 4.2 per cent. in Gwent, 2.8 per cent. in Powys and 2.2 per cent. in South Glamorgan. Those are real increases when set against education inflation, which by definition is the increase in teachers' salary of 2.7 per cent. So I hope that that is evidence that the councils are

    511
    doing what we want them to—prioritising their front-line service budgets, and making savings on their central and administrative costs.
    When the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency and talks to the chairman of the education authority, will he tell him that there is no need for any cuts in numbers of teachers in his constituency or anywhere else in Dyfed? There has been a real increase in the education budget, so the education authority in Dyfed should stop frightening parents, teachers and pupils.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to improve access to NHS dentists in Wales. [18731]
    Mr. Richards: On 30 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he is making £2.5 million available to improve dental services in the community. Proposals from health authorities and family health services authorities are currently under consideration by the Welsh Office.
    On 5 April, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced the Government's plans for the reform of NHS dentistry, following the consultation on their Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry". We believe that the measures proposed will provide stability and security for NHS dentistry, deliver increased quality of treatment for patients and promote better use of resources by targeting care on areas of greatest need.
    Mr. Hanson: It is about time too, because many of my constituents face journeys of more than 25 miles to find an NHS dentist—some even have to travel to England to get NHS dentistry care. Has that been the achievement in the NHS dental service in Wales of 15 years of this Government? Many of my constituents cannot get basic national health service dental care, so I hope that the money will be made available and will be taken up.
    Will the Minister assure me today that, after 5 April, my constituents, having paid their national insurance contributions, will all have easy access to an NHS dentist, wherever they live?
    Mr. Richards: Perhaps I should bring the hon. Gentleman up to date. Clwyd family health services authority has applied for one additional salaried dentist, an application that we are currently considering—
    Mr. Hanson: One!
    Mr. Richards: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there are 110 dentists in Clwyd, representing an increase, since his party was last in government, of 57 per cent. So I must assume that his constituents were travelling a lot further in 1979.

    Farmers (Suicide)
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many working farmers have committed suicide in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales in each of the last 10 years. [18732]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: With permission, Madam Speaker, as the information is a little lengthy, I am arranging for
    512
    the figures to be published in the Official Report. The total numbers for the 10-year period are eight for Clwyd and 84 for Wales.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful for that answer. I am sure that the Minister will have looked at the figures before asking for them to be published in the Official Report, so he will have noticed that there is a worrying trend in the suicide statistics for the farming fraternity. Has he examined any possible connection between the use of organophosphorous sheep dips and the tendency to suicides in the farming community? There is evidence that there may well be a connection; if there is, it is very worrying.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. Whatever the figures are, they are too high. He will be pleased to know that appropriate research is being done under the Powys mental health strategy; a study in north Powys is seeking to identify predictive factors. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has commissioned research from the university of Oxford. I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that this research will make progress.
    Following is the information:

    Deaths of farmers recorded as suicide

    Year

    Clwyd

    Wales

    1984

    3

    12

    1985

    1

    6

    1986

    1

    17

    1987

    —

    2

    1988

    —

    9

    1989

    2

    7

    1990

    —

    10

    1991

    —

    8

    1992

    1

    4

    1993

    —

    9

    Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment; and what was the figure in December 1992. [18733]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Last month, the figure was 107,300; in December 1992, it was 133,400. That represents a fall of 26,100, which I am sure will be warmly welcomed on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that no Opposition Member has pointed out the fact that there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of unemployed people in Wales since December 1992? What does he think would have happened to that figure if Britain had signed up to the social chapter or had introduced a national minimum wage? Is not ours the party that is reducing unemployment? Is it not the Labour party that would increase unemployment?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—except in one respect: expressing surprise about what we hear from the Opposition. We know that the Opposition are comprised solely of merchants of doom and gloom, who would adopt every possible policy to ensure that such doom and gloom came to pass.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that 50 miners at Pentreclwydau pit, which is in my constituency, were made temporarily redundant this morning, because Ryan

    513
    Mining claimed that it was not able to conclude an agreement with subcontractors because of the failure of the Coal Authority to progress the licensing arrangements speedily? Is he further aware that a whole series of other private mines in Wales, including some in Neath, have been forced to close because of the unsatisfactory licensing arrangements, which are being discussed with the Coal Authority? Will he investigate that matter as a matter of urgency and protect those jobs?
    Mr. Jones: I am aware of the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am certainly generally aware of the matter, having met a delegation of small mine owners, including those from his constituency. I hope that progress can be made, particularly on the matter to which he refers.

    Bridle-paths
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bridle-paths in the Principality are available also to drivers of horse-drawn vehicles; in which main locations; and if he will make a statement. [18734]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Bridle-ways are for use by those on foot, those on horses and those who are leading horses. I must tell my hon. Friend that bridle-ways are not for use by vehicles, even horse-drawn vehicles.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend and ask him whether he is doing anything to produce more bridle-paths in Wales. One cannot have too much of a good thing. Will he consider the position of one or two disabled ex-riders whom I know, who are now able to drive but not ride any more? Is it possible for them to be allowed to drive small horse-drawn vehicles on good, firm bridle-paths, which would not be cut up by their doing so?
    Mr. Jones: I am afraid that the problem is that many bridle-ways are just not suitable for any form of vehicle, including horse-drawn vehicles. I cannot hold out a prospect to my hon. Friend of a change in the legislation that regulates that subject, but I understand that the British Horse Society has produced a leaflet to help carriage drivers and others to consider whether particular rights of way would be suitable as byways and be able to accommodate carriages. I am sure that that is a suitable step in the right direction, and I would encourage consideration of that possibility.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of nursery education. [18735]
    Mr. Richards: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last October, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a place in nursery education for every four-year-old whose parents want to take it up. We are considering carefully how to deliver that commitment in Wales.
    Mr. Rowlands: We do not want another half-baked education experiment with vouchers. We want nursery education that will reach many wards and communities in my area, and others, which have no provision of nursery education at all.
    Mr. Richards: The only half-baked ideas that I have heard on education in the House have came from the
    514
    Opposition. As for vouchers, we are considering an awful lot of options at the moment. Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.
    Mr. Knapman: Could the benefits of nursery education be made available to Mr. Howard Davies, the new deputy governor of the Bank of England, as surely that is the most bizarre appointment since Caligula made his horse a consul?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I had a hunch that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was going to be miles away from the question, and he had a twinkle in his eye. That matter is certainly not relevant to the question. Let us have a sensible question.

    Feral Mink
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has undertaken of the effects of feral mink on indigenous wildlife. [18736]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The impact of feral mink on indigenous wildlife is very difficult to assess, as there are often a number of possible causes for any decrease in the indigenous wildlife population and these may be interrelated. The Living Water project of the Welsh Wildlife Trust was established in 1994 and funded by, among others, the Countryside Council for Wales. It will provide valuable survey data in due course on the status of the otter, water voles and feral mink.
    Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and am delighted that there is a research project going on into the status of wild mink in Wales, as elsewhere. Does he recognise, however, that feral mink pose one of the greatest dangers to small mammals and bird life in Britain—in Wales havoc is created as the mink spread along river systems—and that the problem needs to be taken very seriously?
    Mr. Jones: Certainly, the matter is being taken seriously; there is no underestimating of the problem. As well as the research which I have already mentioned, there are recommended procedures for cage trapping and humane disposal.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on proposals to amend the system of charging for water in Wales. [18737]
    Mr. Redwood: Welsh Water has written to me seeking an extension to the use of rateable values and the release of council tax data. I receive other representations on water charging from time to time.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not follow the advice of Mr. Ian Byatt, Director General of Water Services, that there should be a move towards compulsory water metering? That would be wholly unacceptable in terms of public health and it would also be inordinately expensive, imposing additional costs on the already very high water charges. Will the Secretary of State work in co-operation

    515
    with Welsh Water to achieve a system based on the banding or an amended banding, and avoid the crazy suggestions from the Office of Water Services?
    Mr. Redwood: There is a great deal to be said for stability, which I believe can best be achieved by using the current rateable values—while giving people the option, where circumstances permit, to choose meters if they think that that would be advantageous or fairer for them. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's representations fully into account in any further discussions we may have with colleagues in England and with the director general.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Legal Aid
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions took place in 1994 for fraudulent applications for legal aid. [18742]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Specific statistics are not kept in this form, but I understand that there were three prosecutions for offences involving fraudulent applications for legal aid concluded in the financial year 1994–95.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1993 there were 1 million applications for legal aid? Does he think that the criminal fraternity suddenly become honest when applying for legal aid? Will he look, in particular, at the application by Mr. Gordon Foxley, who received £160,000 in legal aid despite the fact that he was reputed to be a multi-millionaire who had received many millions of pounds in bribes while working for the Ministry of Defence?
    The Attorney-General: It is a matter of record that Mr. Gordon Foxley was imprisoned for four years, having been convicted of 12 offences of corruption. He was ordered to pay £1,503,901.80 under a confiscation order. There are currently civil proceedings against him and others connected with him to recover other assets. It is perfectly clear that he had been concealing what he had been doing.
    Mr. John Morris: What consideration is being given to the repayment of legal costs where it is subsequently discovered that assets are available or have been recently transferred to members of a defendant's family? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there is grave disquiet about the huge sums that have been made available in some high-profile cases? Very grave concern is felt by, I am sure, both his and my constituents on modest means who are unable to obtain legal aid for civil cases involving personal injury or modest claims of negligence.
    The Attorney-General: Yes, I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points. He will know that they are primarily a matter for the Lord Chancellor, who has consulted on the question of legal aid for those who are apparently wealthy. A number of responses have been received and they are being considered.
    516
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that it is possible to recover legal aid from assets that are, for example, recovered during the course of litigation. Indeed, if it is subsequently discovered that assets have been concealed, action can and should be taken.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take seriously the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and, indeed, by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) because widespread concern exists that the legal aid system is not helping people who should be helped and that aid is misdirected, whether through fraud or otherwise, to people who have assets of their own and who do not merit that assistance?
    The Attorney-General: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are a number of investigations, and there have already been charges in one case in relation to alleged widespread defrauding of the legal aid system. I shall take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments, and I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will also do so.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General in how many instances in 1994 the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence when a case came to trial. [18743]
    The Attorney-General: During 1994, the Crown Prosecution Service brought cases to a conclusion by offering no evidence in 2.7 per cent. of cases before the magistrates court and 7.3 per cent. of cases before the Crown court. These figures do not include other methods of discontinuance.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Attorney-General accept that one of those cases before the Crown court involved my constituent, Mr. "D", who had to put up with a two-year nightmare for him and his family, facing six charges, some of which involved forgery, and on all of which no evidence was offered and Judge Cole declared that a not guilty verdict be ordered? Will the Attorney-General ask the appropriate authorities to re-examine my constituent's case from start to finish, with a view to ascertaining whether his former employers, ADT Auctions plc, were not involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as the case was started at that company's instigation?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he was going to raise a particular case of concern to his constituents. That case was reviewed. The House will take an interest in the fact that it is the Crown Prosecution Service's duty to keep a case under review at all stages. That duty is sometimes criticised, but it was exercised in the case of his constituent. As a result, no evidence was offered. I make it clear that that means that the gentleman left the court without a stain on his character. I shall invite the CPS to have another look at the matter in so far as that is appropriate.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that figures are actually falling in other categories of reasons for discontinuance of trials? Should not that obvious trend be warmly welcomed?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right. Some two or three years ago, the discontinuance level caused

    517
    concern to the House. Since then, the proportion of cases that are discontinued in the magistrates courts has fallen from 13.3 per cent. in 1992, to 12.8 per cent. in 1993 and to 11.7 per cent. in 1994.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's latest position on war crimes in respect of (a) the second world war and (b) Rwanda. [18745]
    The Attorney-General: With regard to second world war crimes, having carefully considered the initial advice from senior Treasury counsel, further inquiries are in hand in relation to certain potential defendants.
    With regard to Rwanda, the United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of United Nations Security Council resolution 955, which has established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Investigations and the conduct of any prosecutions will be in the hands of the appointed prosecutor, Mr. Richard Goldstone.
    Mr. Cunningham: On Rwanda, given the events of the weekend, particularly in relation to massacres, will the Attorney-General say what discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary with a view to talking to the Rwandan Government through the UN to bring the perpetrators to book?
    Is the Attorney-General aware that many people in this country, especially war veterans, are extremely concerned about the lack of progress made in bringing people guilty of war crimes in the second world war to book? Is he equally aware that serious concern also exists among the vast majority of the public about people who deserted the German army during the war and refused to fight against this country not being allowed to receive pensions?
    The Attorney-General: Although the hon. Gentleman raises a matter of concern, he will not expect me to answer the final point in relation to pensions. Although the House will be keeping a careful watch on the tragic events in Rwanda, I must say that these are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and they will no doubt arise in Overseas Development questions which are to follow.
    In relation to the investigation of war crimes during the second world war, I can tell the House, as I did five weeks ago, that these matters are being examined with great care and with no delay or hanging about. None the less, they have to be investigated extremely carefully and in detail before any decisions can be taken.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that bringing such people to justice for their crimes during the second world war has been hanging about for 50 years? Could he please ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to get on with it?
    The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the House reached its own determination only four and a bit years ago. Investigations have been carried out extremely carefully by the police who, earlier this year, provided a detailed report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has obtained the advice prepared by senior Treasury counsel, and matters are now being
    518
    examined in great detail. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but one does not rush carelessly to justice in such matters—one examines the issue very closely.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Mine Clearance
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department gives to mine clearance around the world. [18752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have provided £10.9 million of bilateral aid over the past four financial years for land mines clearance.
    Mr. Robathan: The House will welcome the Government's positive action in clearing up these dreadful weapons which maim civilians, and children in particular, around the world, but will my hon. Friend join me in regretting the fact that some hon. Members attempt to make political mischief out of this issue? Instead of recognising the benefits of the Government's positive action, they try to blame the Government in some way for the mines laid in trouble spots around the world such as Cambodia, Afghanistan, Mozambique and Angola whereas, in fact, none of the mines there originated in the United Kingdom, nor were they laid with this Government's assistance.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. We are not exporting or laying land mines, but we are funding mine clearance. The United Kingdom is one of the leading donor countries supporting humanitarian mine clearance programmes in some of the most seriously affected parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, northern Iraq and Mozambique, through the Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust, which comprise brave and resolute men doing dangerous and difficult work. I am sure that we are all proud of the work that they are doing.
    Mrs. Roche: Although I appreciate the contribution that Britain makes to the clearing of mines—of course, I also pay tribute to the men and women who undertake such dangerous and hazardous work—could not Britain be doing much more in terms of international agreements to ensure that such appalling weapons of war, which attack not soldiers but innocent men, women and children, are not exported?
    Mr. Baldry: Let me make it clear that we have not exported any anti-personnel land mines for well over a decade. We want to put an end to any trade anywhere in the world of the types of anti-personnel land mines that are most dangerous to civilians. We want a complete ban throughout the world of non-detectable anti-personnel land mines. We want a strengthening of the United Nations weaponry convention and a significant extension of it to cover not only international conflicts but civil wars and other internal conflicts. I think that the hon. Lady will find that, wherever international action has been taken on mines, the United Kingdom has been in the lead.
    Mr. Jopling: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be fewer greater contributions that we could make than improving the archaic and dangerous method currently used for finding mines which involves sticking

    519
    pieces of steel into the ground to feel them? Is he aware of the encouraging research being done here, in the United States and elsewhere into the use of, among other things, radar, infra-red techniques or the detection of gamma rays which would revolutionise the detection of mines? Will he pay close attention to this research and see whether we can make a contribution to hurrying it along so that these weapons, which cause so many casualties, can be eliminated?
    Mr. Baldry: The Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group are probably among the leaders in terms of expertise on mine clearance in the world. If they ask us to support the sort of research that my right hon. Friend suggests, we shall gladly look at that suggestion.

    Bilateral Aid
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom bilateral aid is targeted towards meeting basic needs. [18753]
    Mr. Baldry: All our aid policies are focused on helping countries poorer than ourselves to achieve sustainable social and economic development.
    Ms Jackson: Does the Minister agree that a basic need for all children is the right to education? In the light of increasing evidence of the brutal use, in many instances, of child labour, culminating last week in the report of the dreadful murder in Pakistan of a young boy, allegedly because he was attempting to improve the working conditions of his colleagues in a carpet-weaving factory, what precisely are the Government doing to ensure that children in the third world are carrying a burden appropriate to the size of their shoulders?
    Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Lady will know, we are supporting basic education programmes in Pakistan. Our aid programme throughout the world is targeted at assisting poorer countries to achieve sustainable economic development, in many instances by supporting basic education. The whole House will share the hon. Lady's concern that child labour should not be exploited as it was in the instance she cites. When we discuss our bilateral aid programmes with countries, we obviously draw to their attention concerns that young people should be at school and that they should not be exploited in that way.
    Mr. Ottaway: When considering bilateral aid to Rwanda, will my hon. Friend recognise that the dispute there is primarily a territorial dispute brought about by overcrowding, as a result of excessive population growth? Will he recognise that the stork is the bird of war? Will he take every step to implement the Cairo plan of action which will do something about that?
    Mr. Baldry: The causes of unrest in Rwanda are complex and many. However, as my hon. Friend will know, because he was at the United Nations conference on population and development in Cairo, the United Kingdom Government have been taking a leading role in supporting projects to ensure that parents can have children by choice and not by chance.
    Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind what the Minister has just said about his belief in education for children, does he agree—this was confirmed by my recent travels in parts of
    520
    Africa—that structural adjustment has undermined many education programmes and that many families are now having to pay for education rather than having it free?
    Even allowing for some changes, which the Minister has pointed out, in the definition of low-income countries, the British Government now spend a lower percentage of our bilateral aid budget on the poorest countries. According to Overseas Development Administration figures, 80 per cent. was spent in 1992–93, whereas the figure for 1993–94 was 69 per cent. Will the Minister enlarge a little on the answer he gave a few moments ago? What plans does he have to ensure that aid is more focused on low-income countries and, in particular, on the poorest people in those countries?
    Mr. Baldry: First, on structural adjustment, I remind the hon. Lady of what the Zambian Minister of Finance said, Zambia being a country to which we give sizeable bilateral aid. He said:
    "We have all heard the many arguments both for, and against, structural adjustment. In Zambia, the argument is very clear. Our history has shown that the costs of not adjusting have been very much higher than the costs of adjusting."
    The Zambian Government have said that the results of structural adjustment are impressive, that their economy is stable, that consumer and business confidence has revived and that growth is evident in several areas. Countries that have undertaken structural adjustment are beginning to see their economies strengthen.
    Secondly, on basic needs, part of the problem is that the UN definition of a basic need is completely meaningless. For example, emergency assistance to refugees is excluded, as are the ODA's joint funding for British non-governmental organisations, support for Voluntary Service Overseas and any projects to encourage sustainable forestry or better water management. The definition is totally meaningless. The hon. Lady talks about the support that we are giving for basic needs. All our aid programme—all of our development programme—is intended to help poorer countries and to ensure that countries poorer than ourselves can achieve better social and economic systems through sustainable development.

    Burundi and Tanzania
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what immediate plans he has to increase humanitarian aid to Burundi and Tanzania. [18754]
    Mr. Baldry: The United Kingdom has committed £89 million to the region during the past year. Specifically, we have provided around £3 million of bilateral and emergency aid for Burundi since November 1993 and £6 million for Tanzania since the start of the Rwandan crisis. In addition, around £13 million has been provided in support of United Nations agencies for humanitarian assistance to refugees in the region, which includes those in Burundi and Tanzania.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge the shock, horror and disgust of many people in Britain at the events of the weekend and that what we need is not only continued humanitarian support but a political solution to the problems of Rwanda. Could the Minister use his influence with the United Nations and other countries in the region to find a political solution to

    521
    the problem by holding a regional conference in the area, to try to get the regional countries, together with the Organisation of African Unity, to start out on the tortuous road to a solution? If that does not happen, I fear that the problem will continue and it will be an indictment of humanity.
    Mr. Baldry: We are deeply concerned at the loss of life in the camp at Kibeho. Of course it is a tragic setback for the internationally backed effort for national reconciliation in Rwanda. We still need to establish the full facts. There seems to be no doubt that armed elements have been operating within the camps. Equally it appears that elements of the Rwanda Patriotic Army have overreacted, with severe loss of life, including those of unarmed women and children, which is totally
    522
    unforgivable. Together with European Union and UN Security Council partners, we are taking the matter up urgently with the Government of Rwanda. We want an urgent inquiry into the events and firm action taken against those responsible.
    It is essential that those who have been displaced from that and other camps are brought to safety, to their own communities or rehoused pending a settlement. We are urging the Government of Rwanda to give free access to and co-operate fully with the UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. As the hon. Gentleman and the House can imagine, we have been in touch over the weekend with NGO partners and made clear our support for their efforts. Funds are being provided in response to their direct requests. In most cases, materials, medicines and foods are available, but we are providing extra supplies as requested.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention the story that has appeared on the front page of the Evening Standard this afternoon, which suggests that members of the Public Accounts Committee are demanding the release of details about the royal household's money? Is not it quite wrong that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) should have sought to pre-empt a meeting of the Committee, which is not meeting until 4.30 pm today, when most of us are interested not in pursuing his prurient inquiries into the royal household, but only in value for money?
Madam Speaker: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly take a look at it. If the situation is as the hon. Gentleman says, I certainly take such matters quite seriously. I hope that he will leave it in my hands.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you expecting a statement from the Government about reports this morning that the number of gas complaints have gone up by 150 per cent.? Is not that an example of the privatisation shambles, when the number of gas complaints go up and the chief executive's salary goes up as well?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Government that they are seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware of the article in this morning's edition of Today, which shows that Britain tops the league in crime—
Madam Speaker: Britain what?
Mr. O'Brien: In this morning's Today newspaper—
Madam Speaker: I understood which newspaper, but I did not understand what followed it.
Mr. O'Brien: My point of order, Madam Speaker, is that the paper says that Britain tops the league of shame in its rise in crime since 1979. Given that that information became available—it appears—after Home Office
524
questions last week, should not the Government make it clear in all candour when answering questions that their crime record is appalling and not as good as they claim?
Madam Speaker: These points of order are totally bogus. Therefore, I am taking no more. [Interruption.] Just a moment—I shall determine whether they are bogus points of order, not the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) was not bogus, if I may say so. However the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) is bogus. I am not expected to read every newspaper that comes out and I have no intention of doing so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Sit down. I have not finished answering yet. It is for the Government, if they have anything to say, to say it to the House and not through the hon. Gentleman or me to newspapers. I will take only genuine points of order now. I will listen to Mr. Shaw. If it is not a genuine point of order, he will be sat down.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that it will be as genuine as I can possibly make it in the circumstances.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not saying very much at all.
Mr. Shaw: My concern is about the order in the House of Commons in terms of whether we have balanced reading material. It is obvious from the first two points of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is nothing whatever to do with me. I warned the hon. Gentleman. Any more points of order? Very good.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Income Support (Amendments) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 625) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
That the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 188) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Pensions Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: Memoranda submitted to the Social Security Committee on the Operation of Pension Funds: the Pensions Bill [Lords] (HC 336).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I should like to begin by putting the Bill in context. Pensions are a matter on which Conservatives can be proud of their record. Pensioners retiring now are on average 52 per cent. better off than those who retired in 1979, after allowing for inflation. More of them have private pensions than ever before. Their savings produce a flow of £50 billion a year into industry. The success of private pension provision has enabled us to channel an extra £1 billion to help the less well-off pensioners.
  We also need to see the Bill in an international context.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress. He may find that I answer his points.
  Throughout the world, more people are living longer and enjoying longer in retirement, but there will be fewer people of working age to support them. How to pay for those pensions is the most important single issue facing every Government. In most countries, the bulk of all pensions is provided by the state. Indeed, that is the approach that the Labour party would always have preferred for pensions in Britain. When the state finances pensions, this year's pensions are invariably paid out of this year's taxes. It is pay-as-you-go. Nothing is saved or set aside for the future. So in most countries, more and more retired people will impose an ever more crippling burden of tax on the declining number of people of working age.
  Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State said at the beginning that there had been a substantial improvement in the lives of pensioners, but is he not aware, as he should be as Secretary of State, of the literally millions of people in Britain who are retired and live on a pittance on the state pension and income support? They believe that they have been victimised as a result of the Government's changes of the past few years. The Secretary of State should be aware that, with growing unemployment and the rest, it is difficult for potential pensioners to make safeguards for their retirement.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is as ignorant as he is insufferable and I do not know why I gave way to him. He knows full well that every pensioner in Britain is or can be better off. No one need be at the level at which he or she was left by the last Labour Government, who wiped out a quarter of people's savings in a single year of inflation.
  526
  In Britain, the Conservatives' strategy has been to encourage private pension provision, building on the basic state pension. When people opt for private pensions, their money is genuinely saved. It is invested in industry. It goes into the assets that will generate the profits which will pay for their pensions in 10, 20 or 30 years when they retire, without taxing the economy to death.
  Our policy has been increasingly successful. About three quarters of those eligible have opted out of the state earnings-related scheme and invested in occupational or personal pensions. Collectively, funded pension schemes have accumulated £500 billion of assets to pay for future pensions. That is more than all the assets in all the equivalent schemes in the rest of the European Community put together, which is why other countries look enviously at our system as a model for themselves to follow.
  Mr. John Denham: The Secretary of State said a moment ago that when individuals have personal pensions, their money is genuinely saved. Does he agree that a significant number of low income earners, who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, find that all their savings are absorbed by the fees and charges of the private pension companies from which their pensions are meant to be paid?
  Mr. Lilley: Although the hon. Gentleman did not mention it, he must know about and welcome the fact that the Securities and Investments Board has guaranteed that anyone who has been mis-sold a pension in that way will have redress. He is wrong to try to scare people by suggesting that that is not the case.
  When I came to the Department of Social Security, there were four outstanding issues on my desk, all of which are addressed by aspects of the Bill. The first set of problems arose from the gaping hole left in the Maxwell pension schemes by that socialist millionaire who, strangely, is never mentioned when wrongdoing is discussed in the media. Existing pensions were then about to be cut off and remaining assets were about £400 million short of those required to pay for future liabilities. The prospect of prolonged and costly litigation looked set to consume much of any assets regained, and confidence in occupation schemes generally was threatened by fears that the regulatory structure was inadequate.
  So I appointed Sir John Cuckney, who has successfully brought about a major settlement of the various Maxwell pension disputes. That was an enormous achievement. He has secured the position of 30,000 of our constituents and put their fears at rest. The House will want to join me in thanking him for what he has so skilfully done.
  Mr. David Shaw: As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend because he set up the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and made the arrangements that made that settlement possible? May I also demand an answer from him as to how one of the people responsible for managing about £75 million of the Maxwell money that went missing is on the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his complimentary remarks. I honestly think that his last

  527
  question should be addressed to the Opposition Front-Bench team, and no doubt those hon. Members will tackle it in subsequent speeches.
  Mr. John Butterfill: As honorary adviser to the Mirror Group Newspapers pension trustees, may I put it on record that they are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the changes that he and his officials made to the regulations, which have enabled them to restructure schemes in such a way as to secure the pensions of all the employees?
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am also grateful for the helpful advice that I received from him, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and others—and, indeed from Opposition Members—when we were in the early stages of trying to tackle the Maxwell pension problem.
  To restore confidence in the regulatory regime for occupational pensions, I asked Professor Goode to chair the Pension Law Review Committee. His invaluable report provided the essential framework for the parts of the Bill that deal with occupational pensions, which incorporate all that report's major recommendations. Following the committee's recommendations, the Bill establishes six lines of defence against fraud and misuse of pension scheme assets.
  First, the members are given new rights, notably to nominate a third of the trustees. Of course, that is not a panacea—the main Maxwell schemes had 50 per cent. member trustees. None the less, it will ensure that trust boards have a range of different perspectives on the responsibilities that they are required to discharge. That is why we have gone somewhat further than the Pension Law Review Committee recommendations and proposed that the new requirements should apply to all schemes regardless of their size.
  The second line of defence is the trustees themselves. Their powers and duties will be clearly defined and they will be responsible, of course, to the scheme. The third line of defence is the professionals—the actuaries, auditors, lawyers and so on, who will report to the trustees rather than to the employer. Actuaries and auditors will have the duty, and other professionals the right, to blow the whistle to the new regulator if they suspect any abuse.
  The fourth line of defence is the minimum funding requirement. We have adjusted that in the light of consultation and the arrangements now proposed are as often criticised for being too onerous as for being inadequate, so I suspect that we may have got them just about right.
  The fifth line of defence is the new regulator—the occupational pensions regulatory authority. That authority will have all the main powers recommended by the Pension Law Review Committee, but it will not have to get bogged down in the bureaucratic processing of routine forms. It has been suggested that the cost of the regulator should be met from taxation. We believe that a levy on schemes is more appropriate since the benefits of well-regulated schemes accrue only to members and employers. Many taxpayers are not members of schemes, so why should they pay? Finally, if all else fails, we have the compensation scheme, which stands ready to restore up to 90 per cent. of misappropriated funds if an employer is insolvent.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Given that pension funds—occupational pension schemes—exist solely for the
  528
  purpose of providing pensions to their members and not for the purpose of supporting the companies for which their members work, why does not the Secretary of State accept that those members should appoint 50 per cent. of the trustees of a pension fund? That would ensure that the interests of the members, who are the beneficiaries, were properly represented.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will know that all trustees have to act in the interests of the trust and the scheme and not in the interests of any particular section that may have appointed them, whether that be the employer or some particular section of the members. We believe that it is right to insist that a minimum of one third of the trustees be appointed by the members in normal circumstances—it could be more if necessary—to ensure the diversity of backgrounds. It is not the case that members appointed by the employer will represent that individual. Those members have a duty under trust law to look after the best interests of the scheme.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Consumers Association is not happy with the strength of the regulator's powers. In particular, concern has been expressed about the absence of any specification of the duties of the regulator, which exist in other areas where regulators are appointed. Can my right hon. Friend explain why that is the case?
  Mr. Lilley: As I said, we have included in the Bill all the powers recommended by the Pension Law Review Committee. Some people thought that we would water down those powers, but we have not done so. We have reflected the full powers that the committee wanted us to incorporate. I do not think that anyone need have any worries that the regulatory authority will lack those powers.
  After we dealt with the problems arising out of Maxwell, the next big issue was that arising from the European Court ruling in the Barber case. In the 1986 directive on equal treatment and occupational pension schemes, we specifically negotiated the right for occupational schemes to reflect unequal ages as long as they persisted in the state scheme. Unfortunately, the European Court overruled that in the Barber case and required occupational pension schemes to give men and women equal treatment. The appalling prospect that that obligation might be retrospective was ended by the protocol successfully negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht and the subsequent Coloroll judgment.
  None the less, all private pension schemes had to equalise all rights accruing from the date of the Barber judgment—17 May 1990. That placed British occupational pension schemes in a dilemma. They were simultaneously required, under European law, to offer equal pension ages and, under British law, to mirror the unequal rights that would have accrued had members remained in the state earnings-related pension scheme.
  The Bill brings domestic legislation into line with European law and it resolves the dilemma by breaking the links for the future between benefits due under occupational schemes and those due under SERPS. Instead, contracted-out schemes will have to be certified as offering benefits that overall match or surpass those available under SERPS.

  529
  It is paradoxical, to say the least, that the majority of European Community pension funds are in Britain and only for us are occupational pension schemes a crucial part of pension provision, yet British policy is largely being driven by decisions taken by 15 unelected judges in Luxembourg. For that reason, Conservative Members have no intention to sign the social chapter and extend those powers further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Still less are we likely to follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and go even further and propose majority voting on subjects such as the environment and the others that he specified.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I will, but I hope that I shall be able to make some progress afterwards.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many British companies are delighted with his firm stance on the matter that he has just mentioned? He might be interested to know that, this very morning, I was with representatives of a successful British multinational company who have witnessed the harm that the social chapter has done in continental factories in the ways that he mentioned, and do not want to have any of that nonsense here.
  Mr. Lilley: I think that such people are even more grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the firm stand that he took in obtaining that protocol and in obtaining the opt-out on the social chapter.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall make progress, if I may.
  The third issue on my desk when I took over was how best to fulfil our election promise to equalise the state pension age. My predecessor had initiated a public consultation about the main options for implementing that. After studying all the evidence, I concluded that the arguments in favour of equalising at the age of 65 were overwhelming.
  People are living longer, healthier lives. Women increasingly expect to work and to earn their own pension. The trend worldwide is to equalise at the higher pension age and even to increase that age. The support ratio of people of working age to those above the existing pension age is on course to decline to 2.1:1—only slightly more than two people of working age to one who has passed the present retirement age—by the year 2030. Moreover, by then the cost of equalising at age 60 rather than 65 would be an extra £12 billion a year; hence our decision to equalise gradually between 2010 and 2020, so that no woman born before 1950 will be affected by that decision.
  At present, people can defer drawing their pension for up to five years after they reach the basic state pension age, and in return they receive an extra 7.5 per cent. on their subsequent pension for each year of deferral. In future, we shall extend that period of flexibility indefinitely and boost the increment to 10 per cent. for each year of deferral.
  530
  The decision about equalising the state pension age is of enormous importance; in terms of expenditure, it is almost certainly the biggest single decision taken during this Parliament, so it is reasonable to ask the Opposition where they stand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As usual, the Opposition have refused to commit themselves to a clear policy. Usually, there is a total vacuum. In this case, we have a profusion of policies.
  The Labour party's most recent manifesto promised to equalise the state pension age at 60.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: May I make a little more progress before I—as always—give way to the hon. Gentleman?
  Last year, the Labour party's annual conference reaffirmed that commitment to equalise at 60. That is a £12 billion spending pledge—not bad for starters.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman just said that we did not have any policies.
  Mr. Lilley: I said that the Opposition had a profusion of policies in that area.
  Labour's Commission on Social Justice, on the other hand, has supported the Government pretty unequivocally. It says that it is quite reasonable to start phasing in a common pension age of 65 in the next century.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has attempted to hedge his bets. In an article in The Independent, he argued that it should be possible to draw a pension at any time between 60 and 70. He stated:
  "The argument points to 63 as a pivotal age"
  at which people draw their full pension. But the hon. Gentleman needs to explain three things about flexible decades. First, in practice, nearly everyone opts to take his or her pension the first year that he or she can. That is certainly the case at present—well over 90 per cent. of people do so. Secondly, a pivotal age of 63 for when people would receive the full basic pension at its present value implies that the pension available at 60 would be about one quarter less than the current pension. Thirdly, because people would retire earlier, the hon. Gentleman's scheme would result in up-front costs in the early years of £5 billion a year more than under our proposals.
  Therefore, in practice, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion means that the majority of pensioners would take their pension at the beginning of the decade, at age 60, but at a lower level than is currently available, and struggle into old age on pensions smaller than they currently receive. As usual, however, the hon. Gentleman will not commit himself firmly to that or to any other of the array of policies in the Labour party's portfolio.
  The House will want a clear answer today to the £12 billion question. What would Labour do in government? Would they equalise the pension age at 60, 63 or 65? I shall give way to the hon. Member for Garscadden now if he cares to put us out of our misery and end our uncertainty. He obviously needs more time to think.
  Mr. Bayley rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has yet made the Front Bench, although that promotion will doubtless come.

  531
  The Government's policy intentions on pensions are clear. We want a system that offers the best chance of security to pensioners while not placing unsustainable burdens on future taxpayers. The Labour party's pension policies are a study in vagueness, ambiguity and evasion. The reasoned amendment that it has tabled today is devoid of reasons, opaque as to meaning and in breach of assurances that the hon. Member for Garscadden previously gave the House. When I announced my pension plans in the White Paper, the hon. Gentleman promised:
  "No one in the House will deny the need for urgent reform."—[Official Report, 23 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 362.]
  However, in its reasoned amendment the Labour party seeks flatly to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading. The reform that it previously accepted as urgent, it now wishes to put off for another year. The reasons given for that volte face are so opaque that I genuinely cannot understand what the Labour party is getting at in the reasoned amendment. I offer the hon. Member for Garscadden the opportunity to explain his reasons.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I must make further progress.
  The Bill addresses the issue of giving more choice in pension provision, as we promised in our manifesto. The Government have done a great deal and the Bill further extends that choice.
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I think that I am answering the hon. Gentleman's point and he will have to be content with that.
  It is important to continue to encourage the provision of personal pensions. For those who change jobs frequently or whose employers do not run pension schemes, personal pensions can be by far the best way to build up savings for retirement—indeed, for the latter group, they are the only way. But as people grow older, their funds have less time to grow, so under the present system, personal pensions become less attractive than SERPS for those above a certain age. The Bill solves the problem by introducing an age-related rebate to make it equally attractive for people of all ages to stay opted out of the state scheme.
  We also propose to allow individuals on retirement to withdraw an income from their personal pension fund while deferring the purchase of an annuity until the age of 75. That extra flexibility will allow personal pension holders to time the purchase of their annuity to obtain the best possible income in retirement.
  I now refer to some of the amendments introduced during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords.
  Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was waiting with bated breath for his fourth point, because I assumed that it would be a response to the commitment that his Department gave to me on 10 December 1992, when I sought to introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject of takeovers. The Minister at the time said:
  "I can confirm my support for the general intention of your Bill"
  532
  and he went on to praise the intentions of my Bill. Where are takeovers addressed in the Government's Bill? Are the six principles of my private Member's Bill in the legislation? If they are not, I hope that the Minister will find a place to insert them.
  Mr. Lilley: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is using this opportunity to remind me about his measure. However, it was not one of the four most important items in my in-tray when I assumed responsibility for the Department. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will refer to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised when he has found out what it is all about.
  In this 50th anniversary year of the end of the second world war, the whole nation wants to recognise those who sacrificed their lives so that we could be free. This country has rightly long made generous pension provision for the war widows whom they left behind. Nearly all war widows receive almost £143 a week tax free, which is not means-tested, for life unless they remarry.
  However, as a result of debates in the House and in the other place, it has become clear that the position of some former war widows who lose their second husbands is unacceptable. I have decided that the war widows pension should be restored to war widows who are widowed a second time, divorced or legally separated. The change will benefit an estimated 16,500 war widows and it will cost about £40 million in a full year. It will be one of the first measures in the Bill to come into effect. Subject to the Bill's progress, claims will be dealt with from this October. I am sure that that announcement will be well received by the whole country as it demonstrates this nation's recognition of the debt that we owe to so many.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that announcement and I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to the amendment proposed in another place by the noble Lord Freyberg. It will go a long way towards alleviating the pain, hardship and unfairness endured by those who have suffered under the present arrangements. On their behalf and on behalf of all those who have been involved in the campaign in both Houses of Parliament, I express my appreciation of the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played a not inconsiderable part in highlighting the problems in that area. I hope that the whole House will be content with the change that we have announced.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the Minister's announcement on behalf of the Opposition. The amendment that he has accepted was backed by the Labour Front Bench in another place. As far as I am aware, the only hon. Members who voted against it were those on the Government Front Bench. Why was that so?
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has tried to make a party political point about a matter of national importance, which will alter rules that have been in force for 50 years under a variety of Governments, at such an inappropriate time.
  I refer to another amendment that was also introduced in the House of Lords. We are aware of the strength of feeling about the issue of equal treatment of pensions upon divorce and we have listened to the concerns

  533
  expressed. It is a complex issue and we believe that the courts already have powers to offset pension rights against capital assets in divorce settlements. We have responded in the House of Lords with proposals that re-emphasise the courts' ability and that enable the courts to value those pensions.
  The amendments carried in the other place will allow pension payments to be included in a deferred maintenance order. They will also allow courts to require pension schemes to make payments under deferred maintenance orders rather than require individuals to pay their former spouses. We accept the intention behind the amendments, although their details will have to be resolved in Committee and there may be further technical amendments to achieve the required effect.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be preferable if those arrangements could be more immediate and if the separation of assets was made at the time of divorce? Would not it also be better if they reflected the number of years that the couple concerned had been married?
  Mr. Lilley: The amendments are enabling, not requiring. They do not require the courts to make such orders in any or all cases, but enable the courts to do so when they think that that is right in the circumstances. In general, the courts have preferred to make clean-break settlements. If my hon. Friend is referring to the possibility of the courts having power to split the assets in the fund, that extremely complex issue certainly could not be resolved in the time span of the Bill. When hon. Members study the details, as I have done, they will see that the problems are far greater than at first sight. The cost could be considerable, with something like £300 million in tax revenues forgone. The reason is that a divorced couple would effectively be in a more privileged tax position than a married couple. I do not believe that the House wants to create a tax advantage on divorce. Perhaps the Opposition will say if they want to do so.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall, but the hon. Gentleman is always more interested in making partisan points than in informing the House of Labour's policies in response to my questions.
  Mr. Dewar: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall say something about that issue when I make my contribution to the debate. There will be some disappointment at the Secretary of State's remarks about the possibility of splitting the pension fund at the time of divorce. I shall return to that point. I want to ask him a specific question. If it is to be a form of deferred maintenance, with the pension split in payment between the ex-spouse and the pension holder, a proposition that found favour in the House of Lords was that the duty to pay should be on the pension provider and not on the pension holder. Do the Government accept that, or do they intend to reverse that policy?
  Mr. Lilley: I was explaining that we shall accept that and make it technically more feasible.
  Mr. Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I want to make progress. I have given way a number of times on that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points in his own speech.
  Mr. Cohen: I had a ten-minute Bill on the subject.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman has been pursuing the issue. I am happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful for the general principle of accepting the division of a pension on divorce, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, there will be disappointment that the courts will not be given the power to split the fund money. Why not give the courts that power in principle? That proposal is supported by the Pensions Management Institute. The cost could be met by the couple themselves.
  Mr. Lilley: The Pensions Management Institute and others discovered how complex the issue is when they examined it. The more that one does, the more complex it becomes. For example, what would be the treatment of SERPS, especially when one does not know the rights that an individual will have until the end of the whole period, because of various allowances for years off and the interaction between husband and wife? The matter is far more complex than it even struck me at the beginning. The more that one studies it, the more one realises that a snap, off-the-cuff judgment would be the wrong way to approach such a serious issue.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I am sure that the House agrees with my right hon. Friend that there should not be financial advantage in divorce. I welcome his desire to ensure a fair deal for occupational pensioners, but I invite him to agree that we ought to act to remedy a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs in this respect. If a married person enters long-term residential or nursing home care, the local authority is entitled to take the whole of that person's occupational pension, leaving the spouse—most often a wife—worse off than if she or he were divorced or widowed. Will my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to act to remedy that state of affairs and provide that, in such circumstances, the spouse should be entitled to half the occupational pension?
  Mr. Lilley: I know that that is a matter of concern, but the Government give advice to local authorities, which have some discretion in that matter. I hope that local authorities will act in the spirit of that advice and not as my hon. Friend and a number of others have suggested they do. We are talking usually about Labour authorities, which could perhaps be influenced by Labour Front Benchers.
  Mr. Dewar: No partisan points.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman brought them in first.
  Another point endorsed by Labour Front-Bench Members in the House of Lords was to be found in the amendment to the way in which the state earnings-related pension scheme will be calculated. The amendment stated that SERPS should be based on the best 44 years of earnings instead of on a full working life. The amendment would increase expenditure in a poorly targeted way and would cost more than £2.5 billion a year by the middle of the next century.

  535
  I believe that my proposals provide for a viable and affordable SERPS in the longer term, and I shall therefore be asking the House to reverse the effects of that costly Labour amendment.
  As I said at the beginning, pensions are a Tory success story. Pensioners' incomes have risen nearly as much every year under this Government as they did in the entire four years of the Labour Government. That is because we have routed inflation, which was destroying pensioners' savings at the rate of 25 per cent. a year under Labour, and we have encouraged an ever rising proportion of people to make pension provision for themselves by means of occupational and personal pension schemes.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I shall try in future to give way to the hon. Gentleman: he is a regular.
  In 1979, 43 per cent. of pensioners had occupational pensions. Among those currently retiring, the proportion is nearer 70 per cent. The Labour party is in a state of confusion and disarray over its pensions policy, as I have shown. The Opposition cannot make up their minds, because their political instincts are in conflict with their electoral calculations. Instinctively, the Opposition still hate private pension provision. They seize on any problems with relish and they pour scorn on successes. They would prefer compulsory monopoly state provision; but they know that the British electorate will not stand for it and that the taxpayer cannot afford it.
  By contrast, this Conservative Government have a clear, coherent and successful strategy. It is being copied abroad and has been endorsed by the World bank. The recent Federal Trust report makes it a paradigm for pension provision throughout Europe.
  When the Bill is enacted, I believe that we can give a fresh impetus to the pension-owning democracy in Britain—safer occupational pensions, more group personal schemes and more flexible personal schemes. The Bill will bring greater security, equality and choice to our pensions, and I commend it to the House.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill [Lords] because although it contains some welcome proposals drawn from the report of the Pensions Law Review Committee intended to strengthen the regulatory framework within which occupational pension schemes operate, it does not fully reflect the importance of pensions as a form of deferred pay, takes too rigid an approach to the equal treatment of men and women under the State pension scheme, and includes a range of proposals designed to undermine the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme and disadvantage occupational as against private pension provision."
  I am afraid that I may occasionally stray into what the Secretary of State will call a partisan point—but his own record of the past 40 minutes allows me that luxury.
  I start, non-contentiously, by repeating our welcome for what the right hon. Gentleman said about war widows pensions. I welcome the decision to accept the amendment moved in another place. It was agreed to after considered debate, and I shall no doubt raise the Secretary of State's ire when I say that he is now making something of a virtue of necessity. According to the newspapers, there was a battle in the Cabinet Committee between the Treasury and
  536
  the DSS. Perhaps, therefore, I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on beating the Chancellor—although I do not know whether he would welcome that accolade. I suspect that the decision had a lot to do with the approaching anniversary; that, too, was mentioned in the reports. Nevertheless, I welcome the decision; it is a change that will mean something to an important group in the community.
  The Secretary of State made a somewhat slighting reference to the fact that we are to vote tonight. I concede that it has not been entirely easy, because there is a balance to be struck, there are points to be made and there are points of importance, which I shall come to, but that does not detract from the fact that the Opposition support much of what is in the Bill. The regulatory framework for occupational pensions needs strengthening. It is all too clear in the aftermath of the Maxwell disaster that that is so. It is not just a matter of Maxwell. There has also been an enormous increase in the amount of litigation over pensions, which reflects the unhappiness about the way in which the system has been working. There is an increasing public awareness, which I welcome, of the importance of pensions as assets of the individual. For all those reasons, there has been a spotlight on the regulatory framework, and it is clear that it needs strengthening, hence the Goode committee report, which Opposition Members have consistently welcomed.
  The Bill undoubtedly goes some way—although I am not convinced that it goes far enough—to meet the requirements. We welcome what we have, but for reasons that I shall explain I think that there is a case for more.
  We have tabled an amendment because the Bill departs from the Goode agenda and moves on to a darker side when it feeds on what I believe are the Government's prejudices. I was asked recently by a brave optimist whether I could send him a copy of the Bill, because he wanted to read it and know what was intended. I have met many optimists in my time, but I fear that he will learn little from reading the text. Hon. Members may remember that Alice in Wonderland thought that no book without conversation and pictures was worth reading. The Bill certainly fails that particular test. It is a peculiarly opaque document.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I wish to make a little progress.
  One of the problems is that this is very much government by regulation—enabling and empowering, not the people, but certainly the Secretary of State. That concern was mentioned in many of the representations that we have had. The Bill prescribes change in the balance of the system. That is one of my concerns. It is a change that has been largely unnoticed, but it is undoubtedly a change of intent. The arithmetic has been weighted in a number of ways and there is an undermining of rights on a scale that demands debate. It will be of major interest for hon. Members who are fortunate enough to obtain a place on the Standing Committee—I can hear the rush of tiny feet from Conservative Members.
  Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the point is to draw the attention of the House to the Government Actuary's report on the Bill—Cm 2714. It contains some helpful tables and projects the expenditure on the state earnings-related pension scheme to 2050. It shows it as it was and as it will be after the Bill is enacted. There are some

  537
  revealing facts. In 2050, for example, it is envisaged that SERPS will be worth, or that it will cost the Treasury—whichever way one likes to put it—some £19.3 billion. After the Bill is on the statute book—admittedly, we are talking about a long-term time scale—that sum falls to £9.9 billion. It is almost halved. That fact does not appear on the face of the Bill, in the explanations or in the briefings. No one could accuse me of being partisan if I said to the House that there is a very strong case for a genuine debate about what is happening in that area, why it is happening and what it means. We are determined to have such a debate.
  Mr. Tim Smith: What significance should we attach to the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just given to the House, when the oldest person who will be affected by what he has just announced is aged 10 at present?
  Mr. Dewar: That is a very interesting view: the House of Commons is not to bother about what happens to our children. Now there is a piece of Conservative philosophy that is quite remarkable. I am almost moved to agree with the hon. Gentleman, because he could have a word with the Secretary of State, who looks at any changes that are proposed over that time scale and immediately takes them as a pledge of spending intent for the next five years. The Government cannot have it both ways. Although the shift will occur over a lengthy period, it starts quite quickly and it will involve many people in this House and many of our friends, colleagues, children and successors. It would be blind prejudice were we simply to take what is before us without proper inquiry.
  There is a fallacy that savings are painless and good. In fact, there is a converse, which is that almost always savings are at the expense of someone or something. That must be balanced in the equation, but it seems to be lacking in this Bill. For example, the Bill dealing with incapacity benefit will result in substantial savings, but they have been clawed out of the budget for the long-term sick and disabled. I do not sneer at savings; I accept that the Treasury has a natural interest in controlling public expenditure—that is the business of every Government. However, balances must be struck and in the immensely important area of pension provision we have a duty to consider these matters.
  At least arguably under attack are contributions that are currently being paid and that will be paid in future—investments in people's futures which are the result of thrift and proper provision through the state pension scheme, which I would have thought the House would hesitate to reduce in the way now proposed.
  The proposed reduction is dramatic. I remind the House of the proposed change to the SERPS calculation—a highly technical matter. Currently, we value the total earnings for each year in line with the increase in average earnings and then deduct the annual lower earnings limit for the last complete tax year to produce the surplus on which the pension is based. In future, the annual lower earnings limit will be deducted before revaluation takes place each year. So what? Over the projection period I have mentioned, that will reduce the value of SERPS by £2.7 billion annually. It is an enormous change and an enormous deduction.
  There is the equally difficult and technical matter of the contracting-out provision and the consolidation of female
  538
  SERPS entitlements, which will be aligned with those for men. The Government Actuary reckons that by 2050 that will mean taking £4.2 billion annually from the value of SERPS.
  Those are enormous sums, but they have been nodded through in the fine print without any of us having had the opportunity to raise and debate the issue. I give the Secretary of State fair notice—which I hope he will take in the spirit in which it is offered—that we will want to look closely at this area in Committee. I know that he will not personally be in Committee, but I hope that he will receive reports and closely monitor what emerges. There is no doubt that the drop from £19.3 billion to £9.9 billion, at a time when national insurance contributions have just risen to 10 per cent., is a remarkably serious matter that is worth a thought and a pause for further reflection.
  I am aware that the Government have not established a major reputation for keeping their promises, but they have kept one promise. This point will be especially important to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). When he halved the value of SERPS—to put it in shorthand—it was promised that there would be no further devaluation until the year 2000. The Government have kept their promise—the changes will come into effect on 6 April 2000. The Government have not hung around in the general task of dismantling and demolishing, although I stress that they have kept to the letter of their promise.
  The Bill represents a major shift. The Secretary of State fairly said that we live in a pay-as-you-go system. That produces difficulties and burdens that have to be shouldered. However, I object to the fact that the Government are altering the inter-generational contract by stealth, in a way that I do not think is defensible. It represents a substantial shift, which is something that we must take into account.
  I raise another case of a little local difficulty for the pension industry.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that SERPS was originally established in the mid-1970s on a completely unsustainable basis, and that the changes that have been made in the 1980s by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and subsequently in the Bill, put Government finances and pensions on a more sustainable basis? What robs pensioners is financial irresponsibility such as the high inflation that we had under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Dewar: None of us enjoys inflation's impact on any fixed income or any savings—I concede that. I shall not fight the battles that were fought in the late 1980s with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—that is history. If, however, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is saying that we must do this to SERPS because we cannot afford to provide for pensions, I would question that. I think he is saying—certainly the Government are saying—not only that we cannot afford to provide those pensions, but that we must provide for more. The question is how we do it. Should it be through SERPS or some other form of state-provided scheme, or should it be through personal pensions in particular? Admittedly, risks are involved in both solutions, but, given the history of recent years, no great confidence exists that private pensions are the obvious way forward.

  539
  The argument must be conducted in that way. It is fallacious and totally irresponsible to say that we must knock down SERPS because the community cannot afford to pay for decent retirement in old age. If we take that view, we will not provide for that in the private sector either, and we are all in trouble. Let us fight on the argument seriously, sensibly and on the grounds on which it must be contested. We should not put up bogey men in the way that is far too common.
  Let me turn, because it is important, to the second level playing field argument. I was talking about private and public. Let us consider occupational pension schemes and private pension schemes—approved private pensions and private pensions themselves. In the time available to me, I cannot go into details—again, that will happen in Committee—but burdens exist on occupational pension schemes in terms of indexing, for example, and in terms of the pension level that they must provide, where no equivalent exists in the personal pension sector.
  I see the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) nodding at least in partial agreement. I do not want to pin him down too completely, but he recognises that point, and well he might as he is connected with the industry, and he knows that the National Association of Pension Fund Managers and a number of other organisations feel anxious and, in some ways, angry about what they regard as the further weighting of the balance against occupational pensions and in favour of personal pensions. Again, having considered the record, I ask: is this the right time and does any justification exist for a further weighting of that sort? Let me give an example.
  I read the story—I think first in the Financial Times in an article by Norma Cohen—that, when the contracting-out settlement was made, and when the framework for contracting-out payments was redrawn, a heavy weighting would be introduced in favour of personal pensions, which would receive an administrative payment within the contracting-out payment three or four times greater than that given to occupational pension schemes. The Government were saying that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for the charges and the commissions of selling private pension schemes. I did not believe the story. I did not think that that would happen because it seemed such a preposterous proposition, but it has happened.
  I protest that we are picking up the tab for charges that I think most of us believe should be minimised—not feather-bedded—in the interests of the public. It is another example of the lack of a respective and level playing field. It has been tilted on the basis of prejudice. We have a duty to examine it and it justifies the reasoned amendment that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled today.
  Mr. Butterfill: I know from having shared platforms with the hon. Gentleman that he recognises the importance of occupational pension schemes. I hope, however, that he will not be tempted to go down the road that some trade union colleagues are urging him to go down in terms of imposing additional burdens on occupational schemes through the Bill, and then damaging them in the way that has occurred in the United States of America, where they have virtually disappeared.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman and I have shared platforms at what I might call trade gatherings, if those people who were at them do not mind the term. I said then and I will say now that I recognise that there is a
  540
  trade-off, a balance to be struck. Of course, I do not want to frighten employers out of, for example, the provision of defined benefit schemes. I am clear, in my own mind at least, about that and I will perhaps say a word or two about it when we discuss the difficult matter of the minimum funding level, in respect of which that trade-off is peculiarly painful and difficult to adjust.
  I do not believe that we should again artificially encourage private pension provision, but not because I believe that there is no market for it. I believe that there is a market for it and I hope those who would benefit from it will use it. However, the advertising campaign in the late 1980s, and the 2 per cent. premium that was offered, showed how it was possible to stampede many, many people, who were rather uncritical in their enthusiasm, into buying pensions that were totally unsuited to their needs and which those people imagined were building up an entitlement for their retirement when they were not.
  I was interested in the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the Secretary of State. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. Friend, although that would have been difficult, but it is not, I fear, true that the Securities and Investments Board, the Personal Investment Authority, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation or any other regulatory body has given a guarantee in the cases of many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who are buying personal pension plans, sometimes in disregard of the opportunity to enter an occupational pension scheme, and who are contributing the minimum contracting-out payment and building up almost no reasonable entitlement. I would be delighted if the sort of guarantee that is being offered on the mis-selling of transfers and opt-outs was being offered on that wider basis, but it is not. I ask the House to bear those matters very much in mind.
  I do not have time to say anything about the guaranteed minimum pension but I mention it at this point simply because it is another matter that was not covered by the Goode report.
  Mr. Brandreth: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman set himself, rightly, against opacity. Now that he has mentioned the guaranteed minimum pension, perhaps he could clarify this point, which was raised with me at the weekend by a constituent who understood that the Labour party's Commission on Social Justice favoured a guaranteed minimum pension and that that has been endorsed—I did not know this—by the Leader of the Opposition. Is that the case and, if so, would the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of setting himself against opacity, make clear the level of the guaranteed minimum pension?
  Mr. Dewar: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, in no hostile sense, that his question shows a misunderstanding. We have, of course, been considering a scheme for a minimum guaranteed pension, but I am talking about the guaranteed minimum pension in the present legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that distinction. The importance of the guaranteed minimum pension is that it gives protection.
  When the Maxwell crash happened, the Government made a great virtue—and perhaps I would have done the same—of the fact that they were giving the pensioners a guaranteed minimum pension. That was a statutory need. It is, therefore, a protection in hard times.

  541
  Even with the compensation fund in place, there may be examples where there has not been theft, fraud or misappropriation and, in those circumstances, the guaranteed minimum pension, together with its indexing, may be an important safeguard. That is why we believe that the guaranteed minimum pension should be retained. However, if the hon. Gentleman is volunteering for the Committee, he will have lots of time to discuss that with me and many of my hon. Friends in the weeks ahead.
  May I now move on—
  Sir Norman Fowler: Swiftly.
  Mr. Dewar: Not at all swiftly. I am not usually accused of being swift when I am on my feet. However, I will do my best to push on at this stage.
  I now turn to the Goode agenda which is enormously important. Many people have congratulated Professor Goode and his colleagues; perhaps it is now time for sober thanks. To be fair, they must take some satisfaction from seeing many of their recommendations being implemented. There is much to endorse without reservation, but there are some gaps and difficulties and I hope that the House will not forget our general endorsement if I move on to talk about some of them.
  The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who has now left us, made the fair point that there were anxieties—he instanced the Consumers Association—about the role of the regulator. Some are the fault of the Secretary of State. I notice—I have referred to this before in his presence and I shall do so again—that he uses in the White Paper, presumably with much thought, the word "long-stop" as a description of the regulator's role. Coming from Scotland, I have little experience of cricket although I occasionally tried to play it. I used to be sent to field at long-stop on the ground that that was out of sight and out of mind. I later rose to be scorer, which showed a certain political aptitude, and got myself out of those embarrassments. The very idea of the regulator as a long-stop has reinforced a number of fears.
  We have had reassuring noises from, for example, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Under-Secretary of State. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to make reassuring noises than him; his manner is custom built for it. I am sure that, in a sense, his comments are well meant.
  There is, however, a case for looking at what is not there. The Secretary of State said that the Government had implemented Goode. I think that we were all meant to sit back relieved and to cast away our worried frowns. One has only to look at the role of the regulator to see that there are gaps. I take one example, albeit not a dramatic one. Goode recommended in paragraph 83 that the annual certificate of solvency should go not only to the pension fund concerned, but to the regulator. The Government said that that was not necessary. Clearly, they do not think that the regulator should be bothered with that.
  There was an important point about surpluses in which Goode recommended a role for the regulator. The committee said that he should have to give permission if there was to be a transfer of funds in strictly defined circumstances. That is gone and scored out; it is not now the business of the regulator.
  542
  There is also a great argument about whether the expenses should be met by the state or by a levy on the industry. The House will remember that Goode said:
  "most fundamentally, we believe that the protection of individual rights is properly the function of government and that the disinterested status of the Regulator will be best protected through government funding."
  The industry feels strongly about that and, to be fair, its concern goes beyond merely wanting to avoid a £10 million levy for the regulator's expenses. The recommendation was rejected despite the tremendous weight that Goode put on it.
  Obviously, we shall have to probe these matters in Committee. However, I point out to the Secretary of State that there are reasons for worry. The regulator is seen as someone who waits for trouble—an ambulance party sent in to pick up the casualties—rather than someone who is trying to prevent the trouble at source. It is important that we get the matter straightened out to the best of our ability and we shall look for suitable amendments to achieve that.
  My next point concerns the number of trustees. The Government have accepted the recommendation that one third should be selected by the active members. Strangely, they have not accepted Goode's point about money purchase schemes where two thirds of the trustees should be selected by the active members. Again, that is something for the Committee to think about. We have consistently taken the view—it was the Goode committee's declared intention—that the Government should put best practice into legislative form. We shall try to persuade the Committee, and ultimately the House, that the one third figure should increase to 50 per cent. It is a figure that is used widely by some of the best blue-chip companies in Britain, which tell me that it works to their total satisfaction. To use the 50 per cent. figure would also be an important symbolic reflection of the fact that, as European courts consistently maintain, a pension is a form of deferred pay. We shall also look at the possibility of a pensioner trustee as well.
  Hon. Members may say—I would understand it—that this is all rather foolhardy optimism because the Government are unlikely to concede anything in this area. However, I turn with hope to the Minister of State, who will serve on the Committee. I read with great interest his remarks in the August 1994 edition of Pensions World when he was interviewed by the editor, Stephanie Hawthorne. He was asked:
  "Why did you settle for one third only of member trustees?"
  The answer was interesting and the Minister will remember it. He said: "To avoid additional complexity." Obviously, a third is easily understood, but 50 per cent. gives rise to additional complexity. All that, no doubt, can be explained when we come to it. The Minister went on to say:
  "The main point about trustees is that some should not be appointed by the employer. The precise proportion doesn't probably matter that much."
  If that is the Minister's view, I hope that he will listen to those who believe that the proportion matters quite a bit and that he will give way on that issue. We look forward to later comments.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: May I put to the hon. Gentleman an admittedly somewhat tangential point about trustees? Does he agree that many trustees of pension funds are in one capacity industrialists, who routinely complain about

  543
  City short-termism, and in another capacity are for ever applying pressure on pension fund managers to deliver short-term performance? Will he say something about how the Labour party would ensure that the massive resources of pension funds—of the order of £500 billion—are invested not only in the best interests of pensioners, but in the best long-term interests of the economy as a whole?
  Mr. Dewar: I have a great deal of sympathy for that point, and it would be a fascinating road down which to go, but I am already up against certain time constraints. It is important that trustees remember their legal duty and their role under trust law. That goes for those who are appointed by employers or those who may be selected by active members. In Committee, we should certainly look at the training arrangements and the need to give a sophisticated and balanced view on important matters of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I hope that he will spare me criticism if I say that it would make it impossible to deal with other points if I went down that road.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. May I make a little progress, since I really am up against time?
  I shall briefly consider another area: the famous minimum solvency requirement argument. I was at one time in the market for jokes about the Pensions Bill; it was a rather unrewarding market which produced very little despite the demand. It was an imperfect market, if I could put it that way. I went to a seminar just after the Barings collapse, at which a very learned actuary explained that if one wished to adjust one's portfolio to track the minimum solvency requirement profile, a little hedging in the derivatives market was recommended. That certainly raised a laugh. I heard a gentleman at another conference say that minimum solvency requirement meant what it said, but he has been upstaged by the fact that it has become minimum funding requirement, although nothing else has changed.
  I referred to the matter in response to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and I mean it when I say that it is extremely difficult to get the balance right because there are clearly competing priorities. Security must be given a very high priority, but I recognise that there are dangers of putting burdens on employers which may persuade them to withdraw and simply to hand over to either group money purchase or individual contracted-out money purchase schemes. That is a genuine danger which we must keep in mind.
  We must consider a compromise. The name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has become—I suppose—a sort of shorthand. The Butterfill letter contains the present compromise arrangements. He has achieved a sort of passing immortality thanks to the Minister. We must consider very carefully whether that formula, with its assumption that 25 per cent. of the pension liability should be calculated on the basis of equity returns, is right or whether we can do better.
  There was some debate in the House of Lords, which I take seriously and perhaps more so today having talked to a number of parties about it, about the possibility of a contributions approach; the idea of trying to obviate the possibility of a gap appearing with a comfortable thought that at some future date there could be an injection of
  544
  capital. If something goes wrong and there is a gap, everyone is in trouble. That gap may be able to be obviated by a contributions schedule, actuarially calculated, which would ensure that the gap was minimal, if gap there be at all. We should consider that in Committee, as well as looking at the possibility of a discontinuance fund of the kind practised, I understand, in some Scandinavian countries and in America.
  I am not so arrogant as to imagine that I know the right answer. I am consoled by the fact that, having attended several actuaries conferences which have discussed the subject at length and with learning, I came to the conclusion that they were not very sure about it either. I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister will be prepared to consider matters in Committee.
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Dewar: May I say a word or two about the retirement age, unless the Secretary of State wants to intervene?
  Mr. Lilley: My point was not relevant to that.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman says that his point was not relevant to what I was saying, but it has never stopped him before.
  Mr. Lilley: It was relevant to the clock. The hon. Member has now been speaking for 31 minutes. I am not sure, although he has made some interesting observations and promised to look at some things and to examine some others, that he has yet told us a single policy on anything which is attributable to the Labour party. We are dealing, among other things, with the biggest expenditure decision that any Government will take this century. We have a right to demand that the hon. Gentleman tell us the Labour party's position.
  Mr. Dewar: First, I had just started a sentence in which I was turning to the retirement age when I unwisely gave way to the right hon. Gentleman; and, secondly, I was—I hope—addressing my remarks to the Bill that he has produced, which I think is the point of the debate. I know that a certain amount of leeway is allowed, but basically one is supposed to be discussing the Bill, which seems to be important. I am aware of the fact that the Government have picked 65 as a retirement age. The Secretary of State will know that the Labour party has long and consistently argued for a flexible decade of retirement.
  No doubt the Secretary of State is about to read to me a passage from the report by the Commission on Social Justice. May I say—I hope that it will get through this time—that that report runs to 400 pages. The commission was an independent body, separate from the Labour party. Many of the things in the report will have influence and will have to be taken into account in formulating policy, but there is nothing more childish than the right hon. Gentleman taking a report, which says that it is a report over several Parliaments and not necessarily for one party, and assuming that its suggestions would be implemented in the first two years of a Labour Government and that it is therefore a public spending commitment. That does not do anything for the standard of public debate.
  Mr. Lilley: I was not going to do that at all. I was merely going to cite the comment of the Commission on

  545
  Social Justice on the hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should advance the retirement age. It says, "It does not make sense."
  Mr. Dewar: That is—[Laughter]. The laughter of jackasses. All that I can say is that I have read the report, I am well aware of it and I shall deal with what it says in a minute or two and be delighted to do so. The right hon. Gentleman cited an incomplete sentence, but never mind. Let us move on.
  The Labour party has consistently and over a period of time been in favour of a flexible decade of retirement. It seems to us that the emphasis should be on choice. It seems to us sensible that people should be able to take a pension, which will have to be actuarially adjusted in exactly the same way as that after 65, as the Secretary of State is proposing, with some, not necessarily the same, actuarial adjustments. That is important because choice matters. It seems strange that I should have to preach that point to the Conservatives. It matters.
  As more and more pensioners are looking forward to their state pension and feeling as if they are looking through the wrong end of a telescope, the state pension is only one and often not the dominating factor in determining when retirement should start. The idea that we should have a retirement age at which everyone is expected to shuffle obligingly off into the shadows and disappear from sight is strangely old-fashioned and seems to be totally inflexible. I have no doubt that a flexible decade makes sense and is sensible.
  In that context—I know that the Secretary of State will come at me if I do not mention it—we still have to have a pivotal age. Such an age is a little less central in that context, but always a matter a importance. I have made it clear that we think that there is a case for the age of 63 because it is cost neutral, or rather better than cost neutral, based on figures in both the Government's White Papers on the matter. It would save more than would be possible were the present system to continue. There is also an element of equity in the proposal, which all hon. Members will be able to appreciate. It is therefore a sensible suggestion, but I am honest enough to say that I do not have access to the actuarial resources that are available to the Government and we shall obviously review the matter when we get into office.
  The flexible decade of retirement seems to be an extremely reasonable approach to the problem which will command widespread support. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware that such a decade is, for example, a policy of Age Concern. I do not know how much that will impress him because he does not like those who look after particular interest groups which are concerned with pensions, although I do. It is the policy of the National Association of Pension Funds although, to be fair, it feels that the matter has to some extent been closed by the Government's decision. It remains the association's preferred option. It is the preferred option of the Confederation of British Industry. So it is not some oddity dreamt up by the Labour party for its own ends. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I wish to finish this passage. Of course, several organisations—the Minister is right to draw them
  546
  to my attention because they have to be taken seriously—including the Commission on Social Justice, the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Third Age Enquiry all came out in favour of 65. I recognise that. It is not an easy balance to strike. However, all of them said that if the Government insisted on going with 65, some of the so-called savings that the Minister hoped to achieve should be routed back into the pensions system to help those who were not properly covered. That was the point of the House of Lords amendment, which the Secretary of State, not to my surprise, says that he intends to reverse.
  The amendment was moved in the context of the Government's insistence on 65. It said, "Let us do something by providing a right to drop the five weakest years of one's working career to help women in particular and low-paid men." I accept that there is an argument about the measure. The Minister says that it is poorly targeted. Perhaps something can be done that is better targeted, but the principle is important and we support it.
  I recognise that many hon. Members want to speak, but may I say a word or two about pensions and divorce. It is important.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. I must go on. I have been generous in giving way. I will abuse the House if I run on for more than another two or three minutes.
  The Government have made a volte-face on pensions. I make no complaint about that. I like volte-faces by Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, will remember that on 20 February, when he was answering questions in the House at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he explained that it was impossible to do anything. He said that he could not possibly tackle the problem until major research had been carried out, the results of which would not be available until the end of the year.
  At the same time, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was in full and confused retreat in the House of Lords. I make no complaint. As I have not yet congratulated Lord Mackay on his appearance as a Minister of State at the Department of Social Security, I do so now. It gives me great pleasure. He was a very competent Minister at the Scottish Office and a great friend of mine when he was chairman of Glasgow university Liberal club many years ago. The impossible has become possible.
  We will pursue the issue of pensions and divorce more fully at a later stage. Earmarking is a difficulty. It is a form of deferred maintenance. A divorce takes place. There is a clean-break settlement between the parties. Any children that there might have been have grown up. Some 15 or 20 years have passed and suddenly the parties have to come together again for the purpose of splitting the pension in payment. That is not an absence that will make the heart grow fonder. I am relieved that at least the Secretary of State has accepted the amendment moved by Baroness Hollis from the Labour Front Bench in the other place to put the duty of paying on the provider so that we do not have sheriffs' officers in Scotland and bailiffs, or whatever is the equivalent, in England pursuing non-payment.
  Under the amendment, if a couple split, a capital sum will be removed from the original pension fund to start a new pension for the divorcing spouse. That is an

  547
  important safeguard. Let us leave aside the problems of the future career of the spouse, whether he stays in employment, how his fund does and so on. Let us assume that he dies before he can enjoy his pension. Normally, his widow would receive the survivor's benefits. If he has remarried, they will presumably go to the wife of the second marriage. Not only will the divorced spouse not receive provision for her pension at the time of the founding package but she will receive no share in her ex-husband's provision if he dies.
  I presume that the position is as I have described. Otherwise, we will have a notional widow and a real widow dividing the widow's rights between them. That is a prospect which most of us would not like. I use that as one example. I suspect that many more will be forthcoming when we reach Committee stage and given as reasons for believing that the Government have taken too narrow a view.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), whose private Member's Bill was so relevant to the argument about pensions and divorce. Let us turn one of the qualifications of the Bill to advantage. Everyone has said that it empowers, enables and allows regulations to be made in the future, but that it tells us nothing now. Let us on this subject give the courts an enabling power. Then, if it takes time to work through, provision can be made before the regulations emerge. There is genuine merit in that. I hope that the Government will give it some thought.
  There is much to support in the Bill. I apologise for the fact that I have talked about very little of it. It is in the nature of a speech that one talks about areas in which there is disagreement. Measures which we support include the compensation scheme and indexation from 1997—although there are many technical arguments, I approve of it. Protection of accrued rights is enormously important. Of course we are behind it.
  There is much to probe in the Bill. I have not even mentioned part-time workers—the European Court cases, the impact of the provisions in the Bill and whether, in preserving a right, they are in fact restricting it. I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on independent custodianship, even though I fear that we may not be allowed to have the pleasure of his company on the Committee. He is right about the tragic cases in which a spouse is driven on to income support because the other half—usually the husband, although that will vary later—is in residential care and the entire pension is taken to pay the charges. There are many such areas to which we shall return, but at the end of the day, the one thing that we have in common is that we all want to banish the nightmare that enveloped the Maxwell pensioners. There are answers in the Bill. There is still work to be done.
  Where there is a measure of agreement, we will try to improve, consolidate and strengthen, but always support. Where the Government have gone wrong, we will press our case. The end product must be a better framework so that people have security and peace of mind. On other issues, we may have to wait for another approach and another Government.
  4.56 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said
  548
  about war widows; the whole House will do so. It is entirely right that the Government should have devoted resources in that way. It is entirely right that we should devote resources now to present need rather than always to make promises for the future. I welcome the move and I believe that the whole country will do so, too.
  I do not complain that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was party political. Having spent five or six years being opposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I think that what the hon. Gentleman had to say was relatively mild. However, at the end of 45 minutes, rather like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am not a great deal clearer about the broad strategy of Labour policy than I was when we started.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden made a great deal of the Government's omissions—what they did and what they did not do. The House should be reminded that the reason why we are discussing this long, detailed and important Bill is not the acts of Ministers but the fraudulent actions of Robert Maxwell. That is what lies behind it. The Bill is certainly about the deliberate and dishonest action that he took to defraud Daily Mirror pensioners. It is further about preventing members of other occupational schemes being threatened and defrauded in the same way. That is the evil which the Bill tackles.
  I, for one, welcome the provisions on the new occupational pensions authority and the provisions on pension trustees, as I am a pension trustee on the Bardon scheme.
  I find the Opposition's attitude to the debate rather curious. I should have thought that the message that the House wanted to send out this afternoon was a united message that people such as Maxwell would not be able to raid pension funds in future. Instead, the amendment contrasts with the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Garscadden, when he grudgingly acknowledged the action that the Government are taking, but moved swiftly on to other ground as if embarrassed by it.
  Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in his list of people who should not raid pension funds those companies engaged in taking over other companies? Does he agree that surplus assets in funds should not be the subject of takeover warfare?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: May I make some progress, otherwise I will end up making a 45-minute speech when I want to speak for only 10 minutes?
  In their amendment, the Opposition are arguing that the Bill does not
  "fully reflect the importance of pensions as a form of deferred pay".
  Frankly, that is an extraordinary argument. The Bill is about ensuring that pay that is deferred is paid out in pensions at the end and that the money is not stolen or misappropriated.
  We must also remember the other changes that the Government have made to protect and improve the rights of occupational pensioners. The hon. Member for Garscadden was lecturing the Government, but let me

  549
  remind him of the position that we inherited from the Labour party. The state earnings-related pension scheme was the limit of Labour ambition. The party did nothing to improve the position or the rights of people whose pensions were frozen—people who were forced to leave their pension entitlement frozen in value with a previous employer.
  The Labour party did nothing to make it possible for members of occupational schemes to transfer their rights. Those changes—that revolution—were carried out by the Government. As a result, people in occupational schemes get a better and a fairer deal today. That was not a measure that was forced on us by eager pension funds or, frankly, by the official Opposition. It was this Government putting the interests of members of occupational schemes first and ensuring, to use the words of the Opposition amendment, that
  "the importance of pensions as a form of deferred pay"
  was recognised.
  We also sought to give the public more options on pensions. Occupational pensions had made an enormous contribution and there is no question about that, but in the mid-1980s they had ceased to expand and were stuck in the mud. The attitudes of some funds to the rights of their members were stuck in exactly the same way—there is no doubt about that. That is why the scandalous problem of frozen pensions endured for such a long time. We tried to introduce reforms, to give more people the opportunity to have a pension that was separate from state provision. Every opinion poll showed that that was what people wanted and so the extra option of personal pensions was introduced.
  I do not for one moment defend the actions of those insurance companies that mis-sold policies. Ironically, several of the companies that were prominent in their opposition to the introduction of personal pensions were guilty. It is not part of my brief to defend wrong advice given in that way.
  We should distinguish, however, between the personal pension product and the methods that some companies used to sell their products. At the end of last year, Andrew Large, the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, said:
  "I want to emphasise from the outset that our concern is not with personal pension products themselves, but with how they were sold. I would add that, because of the action that regulators and the industry have already taken, people can now have greater confidence that personal pension products are being properly sold. They do offer an efficient and flexible way of saving for retirement for many people, provided they are marketed, advised on and sold properly."
  That is very much my view of the position.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is not necessarily the fact that inappropriate pension products are sold, but that there has been a growth in the number of tied agents? As a result, the agents selling financial packages do not have the full range of products available and are limited to those of one company. When I had the honour to be a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, we heard that the number of independent agents had shrunk to only 20 per cent. of those acting in the field.
  Sir Norman Fowler: A major problem exists with the giving of advice and with where people can get
  550
  independent and impartial advice on what they should buy and what is in their best interests. Clearly, in some cases people have been badly advised and I will come to that in a moment.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Garscadden made it clear that the Opposition see a place for personal pensions in the range of pension provision. He also made that clear last March in a debate in the House. That view is a million miles away from the view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West when we started the pensions debate. Then, the Labour party saw no place for personal pensions and opposed them, not on merit, but because they were private provision and the hon. Gentleman did not want them. I therefore welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Garscadden is leading the Labour party on to much wiser ground.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the action being taken to put matters right where companies and advisers have given wrong advice and I obviously welcome that. I must make some additional points, however. First, we must make it clear to the public that personal pensions are a sensible option for many people. The idea that everyone who has taken out a personal pension has been wrongly advised is ludicrous. Some exceptionally good and reputable companies are providing such pensions.
  Secondly, we must review and improve the independent advice that is available to the public. Usually, it is wrong for someone to decide to come out of an occupational, funded scheme for a personal pension. If the employer's contribution does not remain the same, which it almost invariably does not, but is reduced, there is little or no chance that the return will be comparable.
  Thirdly, we must reconsider employers' contributions. I left the Department of Health and Social Security in 1987 and I tried to re-enter the debate a little later, when I was at the Department of Employment. I suggested that public sector schemes should set an example by making a contribution that was above the minimum to any of their members who wanted to move to a personal pension scheme. The suggestion was resisted fiercely by the public sector schemes—again, it was partly the curse of asking schemes to pay now when the option is to pay tomorrow and later.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden proposes that the National Savings scheme should provide such personal pensions—I do not think that I am misquoting him—and I agree. I have always thought that to be a sensible course and a sensible extension of its business. During my review of pensions in the mid-1980s I proposed that, but I regret to say that it was rejected out of hand by the National Savings authorities at the time. Now that Marks and Spencer is entering the personal pensions business, perhaps it is an opportunity for the National Savings scheme to reconsider the position.
  Finally, I shall try to follow the important remarks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about where we are in the pensions debate—a debate that is taking place not only in this country, but in every other country in western Europe.
  As people live longer, there is no question but that there will be a greater demand for taxpayers' resources, devoted to health, social services and pensions. That is why Governments everywhere are looking at ways of providing options for people to save for their own retirement. That is why the Government, who deserve

  551
  credit, started that process about 12 years ago. That is partly why we are better placed today than most other countries, because we have massive funds that have been built up for occupational and personal pensions.
  That review of pensions involves looking at the type of debt that we are leaving for future generations of taxpayers. By creating SERPS, the Labour party did not launch a funded scheme but a "pay-as-you-go" one. No funds or investments back it up. It relies entirely upon the willingness and ability of future generations of taxpayers to finance the second-tier pensions that are now being promised. That unfunded scheme comes on top of the unfunded basic pension. It is therefore entirely sensible for any Government to consider what can be afforded. If hon Members want any proof of that, they need only look at the report of the Labour party's so-called social justice commission.
  Mr. Dewar: So-called?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that the commission is a pretentious means of setting out a pretty ordinary set of recommendations, but obviously the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise. In due course, we will try to probe him about what recommendations he will or will not accept.
  I have a specific question for the hon. Member for Garscadden. For years, the Labour party has argued that the basic pension should be uprated by earnings and not by prices. That was the basis of the Opposition's appeal to the nation. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Liberal spokesman, remembers only too well, the hon. Member for Oldham, West—the Opposition spokesman—always argued that the Labour party would uprate the basic pension according to earnings.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, unless my hon. Friend wants to speak for the Labour party.
  I should like to know from the hon. Member for Garscadden whether the Labour party remains committed to the policy that the basic pension should be uprated by earnings, because that is not the meaning of the proposal by the Commission on Social Justice. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that. I am surprised that he has not sought to intervene.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, pensions are a fundamental issue, because there is hardly anything that costs more in present or future spending than pensions. The Labour party has gone to the country in election after election claiming that it would uprate pensions according to earnings. That has always been the great distinction between the Conservative party's policy and that of the Labour party. We have been attacked constantly by the Labour party on that very issue, but now the hon. Member for Garscadden is unable to say whether the promise to uprate the basic pension according to earnings remains a policy of the Labour party. The public will draw their own conclusions. It is clear that the Labour party is scuttling that particular policy—yet one more policy is going down.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: As I failed to get a reply from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when the Labour Government first introduced that pension provision, they did so at a time when prices were rising faster than wages? They therefore cheated the pensioners.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with the force of my hon. Friend's point. The Labour spokesman, however, remains quiet on the fundamental issue of uprating pensions.
  There is one reason why the public sensibly want to rely on something more than just state provision. The hon. Member for Garscadden may talk about the security of the state, but let me remind him that, in recent years, the people who lost out most were state pensioners under the Labour Government when Barbara Castle changed the uprating system midstream. As a result, pensioners lost out by more than £1 billion according to the value of current money. That happened because Barbara Castle changed the entire uprating system with the effect that the Labour Government went from following the historic system of validating past inflation to forecasting inflation when the inflation rate was dropping. That is why it is so important that we should have good private and occupational schemes, which is the purpose of the Bill.
  It is the first duty of any Government to ensure that present pension provision is adequate. That is why I strongly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about war widows. We obviously owe them a particular debt. It is right that the Government should devote extra resources to them now, but the issue goes wider than that.
  It is good news that about 60 per cent. of retired people now have some form of additional provision, but we should recognise that some of that additional provision is modest and that, in any event, some 40 per cent. of retired people have no such additional provision. The problem is that some people now living in retirement have been unable to build up an occupational pension through no fault of their own. There are a variety of reasons for that. For example, their firm may not have had an occupational pension scheme at that time, or they may have been members of a scheme, but, because of the scandalous early leaver rules and frozen pension rules, were prevented from receiving the full value of their pension. They may have been caught by a number of historic employment practices. Whatever the reason, those people now depend absolutely on the basic pension with little or nothing more.
  We introduced family credit because we accepted that we were unable to help the families we wanted to help through the general child benefit. It is open to us to help those pensioners we consider most in need by introducing a pension credit system. In other words, we should add to the basic pension of those whose income most urgently needs supplementing.
  Mr. Dewar indicated assent.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Garscadden agrees with me.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I have no intention of allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene when he failed to do so at my earlier request.

  553
  Rather than relying upon general increases in the basic pension, we should direct resources to where they are needed. The basic pension would remain price-protected and would continue as now, but to those who do not have the benefit of other retirement income or have only a limited income, the pension credit would be given as an additional weekly payment. It would operate in the same way as family credit, which the Government introduced and which has been widely welcomed.
  I welcome the Bill. The Government have taken the action needed to combat the Maxwell scandal and other similar scandals. The Bill builds on the new rights that we have already awarded to occupational pensioners and assures the public of the security for their investment. Most of all, I congratulate the Government on continuing to encourage occupational schemes and personal pensions. I hope that the Government will now consider the position of those living on the basic pension, or close to it, and take further action because I profoundly believe that such action is also necessary.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Bill, as it has emerged from another place, is widely felt to be in need of some very important further amendments. One of them is the amendment so ably moved by my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, which would allow a carer to keep 50 per cent. of his or her occupational pension if the spouse enters long-term residential care. The Secretary of State will know how very important that amendment is to the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I have the honour to hold office as vice-president, and to the very deserving people the society exists to help. The amendment, on which doubtless there will be an opportunity soon to vote in this House, has my total support.
  I am anxious also to see an early opportunity to revise the decision taken in another place in regard to the exclusion of British pensioners in Commonwealth countries from pension upratings that are paid to all who live in the UK, as well as to expatriates in the European Union, the United States and some 30 other countries. I need hardly emphasise again today how badly that decision was taken in Australia and Canada, among many other Commonwealth countries.
  The House will not be surprised, however, that I rise mainly to speak in this debate about the widows of men who gave the best years of their lives in the armed forces of this country. In this 50th anniversary year of victory in the second world war, their claim to our attention is one of very high importance. They live with a deep sense of grievance and their unhappiness about the unfairness to which they have been subjected is visible to all of us who meet them. As Major-General Sir Laurence New, who is held in special regard on both sides of the House, said in a letter published by The Sunday Times yesterday, they are widows who feel "forgotten, neglected and wronged." While millions of people will be celebrating the end of the war against Germany on 8 May, for them it will be another day of mourning for men who fought and died that we might live.
  Of course, I applaud the indication given by the Leader of the House last Thursday—and confirmed by the Secretary of State today—that the Government will not now attempt to overturn the new clause added to the Bill
  554
  in the House of Lords which automatically restores the Department of Society Security war widows pension on second bereavement or divorce. That improvement to the Bill was secured by the young Lord Freyberg who, although he is a Cross-Bencher, I am delighted to call my noble Friend. He was strongly supported by peers of all parties and of none, and they, too, have my gratitude for achieving one of the four purposes of my early-day motion 186 in support of war and service widows' claims.
  I am sure that the Government's most praiseworthy change of heart towards the new clause will be welcomed on both sides of the House, but it would be helpful if it could be made clear, as the debate proceeds, that the concession has no provisos. I say that because I did not hear the word "automatic" in what the Secretary of State said this afternoon; nor does it appear in the DSS press release, which, hot from the press, I have been given by hand.
  If the Minister can clarify the position now, I am sure that it will be very warmly appreciated by the War Widows Association of Great Britain, the Officers Pensions Society, the Royal Air Force Widows Association, Help the Aged and the many other organisations that have been campaigning for the change.
  "Automatic" is a word the war widows will certainly want to hear, just as they will want to hear that there is to be no question of means-testing.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The right hon. Gentleman is chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme. Are the changes that he seeks for the war widows in that scheme?
  Mr. Morris: Yes, they are; so, the Members of Parliament who are supporting the war and service widows' claims this afternoon are not saying that they want other people to "do as we say" but saying "do as we do".
  But welcome as the concession the Minister has announced is, he will be unwise not to realise that he has addressed but one of the rightful claims of our war and service widows. If he stops there, he will be seen as having taken this one step merely to counter mounting criticism of the Government's response to the widows' claims as a whole.
  The Minister will know that those claims are not new. The 1989 campaign to make life better for war and service widows was directed at achieving their purpose. This Bill affords us a further opportunity to correct the injustices to which they relate.
  My early-day motion now has 245 signatories from all parts of the House, and 42 other Members have written to the Officers Pensions Society expressing their unequivocal support, at the same time making it clear that, were it not for the conventions that prevent their signing early-day motions, they would have done so. The spread of support for the motion is comprehensively all-party and includes 72 Conservative signatories.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, war and service widows are presently being discriminated against—I choose my words carefully—in each of the three still outstanding areas of concern dealt with by my early-day motion. Make no mistake, they are asking not for special treatment but for an end to discrimination, for, by comparison with other similar schemes provided by our allies, and by comparison with commercial pension provision in this country, Britain's war and service widows are uniquely disadvantaged.

  555
  As General Sir Peter de la Billiére said in his letter to The Sunday Times yesterday:
  "Neither our Allies nor our former enemies treat their widows in such a penny-pinching way."
  He went on to
  "urge the Prime Minister to look beyond the well-crafted defensive briefs emanating from his Ministers … and to see to it that the widows of those servicemen who served our country are able to live out their lives with dignity and some small financial security."
  I remind the House that, whereas a war widow's husband died attributably and a service widow's husband died naturally, both sets of widows had to watch their husbands go off to war. Some never came back, some came back broken in body or in mind, some came back apparently unharmed but died soon thereafter. All these widows are our "victory widows". They are our inheritance, our legacy of war. Far from discriminating against them, we should be seeking to repay in full the very special debt we owe them. They are mostly over 75 and many of them live on some form of income benefit. So it could hardly be described as expensive or open-ended to provide for them financial assistance that the war and service widows of our allies and former enemies already enjoy as of right.
  What are the remaining three problem areas? First, there are the service widows who married their husbands after they had left the services and then, invariably, nursed them to the end of their lives. Because they married after retirement, they get no pension at all, in spite of the fact that their husbands contributed fully towards a pension. The armed forces pension scheme is almost completely isolated in not offering an unabated pension to the widow who married a service man after he retired. That is not the case in any other comparable scheme studied by the Officers Pensions Society.
  It is true that post-retirement marriage pensions were introduced in the armed forces in 1978, but only service after that date counts towards a pension. That does not help the older service widow who receives nothing. All that is being asked for now is that, where the post-retirement marriage took place before the service man was 65—the end of his recall liability—and provided it lasted for at least three years, there should be a pension for his widow. As ever, the Treasury pleads cost, but we should remember that these service men effectively contributed towards their pensions, initially at 11 per cent. From 1988, their contribution was one of 10 per cent., and from 1991 it was 9 per cent.
  The second remaining area of concern affects the younger war widow. Today she loses both her DSS war widows pension and her occupational attributable war widows pension on remarriage. Her DSS war widows pension can never be restored and her occupational attributable pension can be restored only after a second bereavement or divorce if she fails a means test. Yet 83 per cent. of all commercial widows pension schemes of which the National Association of Pension Funds has evidence are paid for life. That applies to almost all the equivalent allied schemes. The Bett independent review, in its report, recommends that all war and service widows pensions should be for life.
  While the Treasury again pleads cost, we should remember that these women are the widows of men who paid for their pensions. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), then the Secretary of State for Defence, said so in the House on 11 December 1989.
  556
  Moreover, the Government pay anyway because 99 out of 100 younger war widows are not remarrying. They thus remain a full charge to Government for both Ministry of Defence and DSS pensions. If our proposals were accepted and if younger, post-1973 war widows were paid for life and therefore encouraged to remarry, the DSS war widows pension would cease so long as the war widow remained married, and there would thereby he a saving to the DSS budget.
  Our third and last concern is for the older war widow. Military service before April 1973 earned only a one third rate pension for widows, while service after that date earned a half-rate pension. Those still serving on 1 April 1973 were allowed to buy in their previous service at the half-rate and almost everyone did so. But those who had already retired, even by a day, were not allowed to buy in. The result is severe hardship.
  A study by the Officers Pension Society of 14 other countries shows that provision in the United Kingdom is the meanest. It may come as a shock to many hon. Members that Britain is now alone among all the countries with which it can be compared in paying any service widow who is entitled to a pension less than a half-rate pension. In the United States the minimum figure is 55 per cent., in Germany it is 60 per cent., in Australia and Belgium it is up to 67 per cent. and in the Netherlands it is 71 per cent. All we seek now is that widows on the one third rate should be lifted to the half-rate pension. By definition, most of them are at least 75 and in the evening of their lives.
  The case of Mrs. Margaret Woods exemplifies the severity of treatment that such women receive. She is the widow of a Fleet Air Arm pilot. He flew throughout the war and took part—flying a Swordfish—in the famous raid on the Tirpitz in Alten fjord. He died at 37 of a massive heart attack while still serving as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm, but his death was said not to be attributable to service. After tax, his widow's current Ministry of Defence pension is £29.06 a week; hardly enough, it may be thought, for a main course fit to put before a regional gas company chairman.
  To show how pushed Mrs. Woods is on her income, I quote a comment she made in a recent television interview. She said:
  "a half-rate pension would give me another £800 a year—which would revolutionise my life."
  I have briefly stated our still outstanding proposals. Their implementation is long overdue. This is not a matter for party animus, but one of honour for the House and the nation as a whole.
  5.34 pm
  Sir Andrew Bowden: We have just heard a moving speech from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I should like to associate myself with his comments.
  The House welcomes the changes in benefits to war widows announced by the Government, and endorsed and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The war widows have made enormous sacrifices. But for their menfolk and many others, the House would not be meeting here today in peace and freedom.
  I say with great regret that I believe that all Governments since the end of the second world war should hang their heads in shame at the way in which we

  557
  have treated our war widows. I say, again with great regret because he is a man I respect, that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he says that we treat our war widows well. We have not done so and we do not do so today. I hope that in this 50th anniversary year the Government will look again and give more help to war widows.
  I emphasise just one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe in relation to older war widows. The fact that they have to exist on just a one third rate is disgraceful; it should be a minimum of 50 per cent. I think that it should be 60 per cent. It would be a declining commitment from the budget and, even at present, it would be a figure of only £27 million to £30 million per year—what a tiny price to pay for those who have sacrificed so much.
  I welcome the Bill; I think that it is overdue. I should like to pay my compliments to the Ministers, who, with their Department officials, have clearly carried out an enormous amount of hard work. But I am deeply concerned about parts of the Bill. I must, inevitably, concentrate my comments on those parts, but I do not want not to pay tribute to the work that has been done and to many of the proposals contained in the Bill.
  I believe that the Bill should include provisions dealing with British pensioners living abroad. I shall touch on that subject only briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) will be going into the subject in greater detail. I accept that it is not possible to carry out an immediate uprating for all those pensioners, but they include one group, some of whom suffer hardship because their pensions will be only £4 or £5 a week. I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of implementing a discretionary scheme to look at each case to see whether some of those people can be helped. I understand that immediate full uprating would not be possible as it would be extremely expensive, but perhaps the Government will think hard about making a commitment to future years' uprating, thus going some way towards reducing the unfairness of the position of those living in many Commonwealth countries.
  I refer now to some specific proposals in the Bill, particularly the balance between the number of employee and employer representatives on trustee boards. I have no doubt that the balance of one third to two thirds is not fair. The employers' representatives must clearly be in the majority, but that could be achieved by having a 50:50 representation with a chairman appointed by the employers.
  Millions of pensioners are very concerned about their representation on trustee boards. There is deep unrest about the matter and I ask the Government not to underestimate the strength of that feeling. I believe that at least one elected representative who is also a beneficiary should serve on a trustee board. There are a number of reasons for that, not least that that person would understand very clearly the position that he or she faced and would reflect that position during board meetings.
  When there is a substantial majority of employer representatives on a trustee board, it is inevitable that they will often be high-ranking officials, such as the chief executive, managing director or chairman of a company. Those representatives will certainly have a great influence over the career and the future of the employee
  558
  representatives who also sit on the board. Human nature being what it is—I am sure that all hon. Members would feel exactly the same—we could not really expect the employee representatives serving on those boards to stick out their necks too far on behalf of the employees.
  However, a completely independent, elected trustee who is also a beneficiary would have no personal axe to grind, other than representing the beneficiaries, would have no fears about his or her future prospects or job, and thus could speak very freely and bluntly. There is a very strong case for electing a beneficiary pensioner to sit on trustee boards.
  Some thought should be given to arriving at a clear definition of the purpose of pension funds. In essence, they are part of the contract of employment. People join companies that have established pension fund arrangements, often having already studied the terms and conditions of those pension funds. They may be aware of their obligations and those of their employers in financing the scheme. One could argue—I would not take it right to the line—that money paid into company pension schemes is deferred salary or wages. Therefore, one could also argue that only in the most exceptional circumstances—I believe that there would be some cases—should that money be used for any purpose apart from safeguarding the pension scheme in the interests of current and future beneficiaries. We must think through that definition very carefully.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to examine clause 17(1)(a). It should be scrapped completely because it would enable employers to avoid their responsibilities under clause 16. That would have a real effect upon some of the Bill's excellent aims and intentions. I cannot understand the argument—perhaps my hon. Friend will address the matter in summing up the debate—for including that paragraph in clause 17. There is a strong argument for increasing the strength and the powers of the occupational pensions regulatory authority. It should not only deal with emergencies and problems but have some powers—although perhaps not as wide as some right hon. and hon. Members would wish—to try to prevent disasters. That could be achieved by ensuring that there was proper funding, and that could be assured only through payment from the state.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked why people who are not involved in the funds should contribute, through their taxes, to the cost of state funding. However, about 20 million people either are or will be beneficiaries. If we also take their families into account, that is a substantial proportion of the total population. There is a real case in favour of state funding and for giving the occupational pensions regulatory authority much sharper teeth.
  The Maxwell disaster occurred partly because there is no real control over the custody of pension scheme assets. Surely there is a case for ensuring that in most circumstances—I am not saying in all cases—there could be a custodian of a scheme's assets who is independent of the employer. I suspect that a large number of employers would welcome an independent custodian as it would remove a lot of worry and concern from their shoulders.
  Clause 36 also concerns me. The Bill states that regulations may require the provision of documents to scheme members. It is absolutely vital that members

  559
  receive such documents if they are to know what is going on in the scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister should eliminate the word "may" and insert instead the word "must". People who contribute to the scheme over many years have a right to know what is happening in the scheme. They should know how the money is being used and they should receive a proper statement of accounts.
  I am particularly concerned that the word "must" should replace the word "may" because other parts of the Bill clearly state that the employer's representatives can agree at trustee meetings that all decisions should be decided only on a majority vote. I am not saying that many employers would abuse that provision—I believe that only a minority would. However, under the present wording of clause 36, a minority could abuse it by not providing information to members, which should legitimately be made available. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine the situation carefully in Committee.
  As to the balance between employer and employee representatives and the importance of trustees, there is a case for arguing that all trustees should receive some compulsory training. After all, the duties of trustees are becoming increasingly complex and demanding and trustees should benefit from the help and support that some fundamental training would provide.
  My last point, which was touched on by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, is about a matter of deep concern to me and my fellow officers on the all-party parliamentary group on pensioners. I refer to an elderly married couple, one of whom must enter permanent residential or nursing home care. We must establish without a shadow of doubt the right to keep 50 per cent. of a spouse's occupational pension when such a situation arises. If that is not done, in many cases the spouse left behind will be unable to support himself or herself in the property where the couple live. They may have alternatives. They may have a right to income support, but that is robbing Peter to pay Paul. They may have to sell their property and move to an entirely different area. Such problems should not confront elderly people in our country today.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: If a person was eligible for income support, that would be psychologically the wrong way to do it. Sometimes, we do not pay enough attention to the need of people to feel that they can support themselves, rather than have to call on statutory money.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's point. I hope that I shall not stretch your tolerance too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in reminding the House that 750,000 pensioners who could claim income support do not, because they look on it as charity or are not prepared to ask for that money.
  A 50 per cent. guarantee would ease the worries of a large number of people. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that as more and more people each year retire with—thanks largely to this Government—a good pension, such a provision would assist a growing number of people.
  Mr. Frank Field: Did not the Secretary of State's remarks about dividing capital at the point of divorce add force to the hon. Gentleman's argument?
  560
  Otherwise, elderly couples may have to divorce in the last years of their lives, so that the spouse remaining at home can keep part of the pension.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: The hon. Gentleman pinpoints a problem that has confronted Governments for some years—creating situations that damage the family. Because of the way in which some laws have operated over the past 20 or 30 years, in some circumstances people are better off divorced or living together unmarried than being married. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on the discretionary powers of local authorities to help in cases where a spouse is taken into permanent care. I do not share his confidence that local authorities will be as fair and balanced as they should. There is already evidence of discretionary powers being used in widely different ways, varying from authority to authority. When local authorities had powers in relation to transport schemes, sometimes people living on one side of a road enjoyed totally free public transport whereas those living on the other side did not. People felt a great sense of unfairness. If we rely on local authorities in this instance, the same will happen.
  The Bill has a remarkable number of things going for it, and Ministers deserve to be warmly congratulated. However, deep concern is widespread among the 20 million people who are or will be recipients of pension scheme benefits—and there will be more and more of them in future. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends in all sincerity that they must not ignore those concerns but meet them. If they fail to do so, it will be at their peril.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I commend the speech by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has for many years been a champion of pensioners as co-chairman of the all-party pensions group. I pay tribute to his work. He made a compassionate and powerful speech, with much of which I agreed. I hope that members of the Treasury Bench will study with care the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman is also a distinguished colleague on the Committee of Selection, so I shall be twisting his arm to serve on the Committee as a result of his erudite contribution to the debate. He certainly staked a powerful claim.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's final, powerful point about the Government's argument that local authorities have discretion not to use all of a pension for the upkeep of a partner in residential care. All the evidence from Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Disease Society is that that is not happening. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in an intervention, mentioned that spouses would almost be obliged to consider divorce to protect 50 per cent. of their pension.
  Age Concern estimates that only 10,000 men and 5,000 women are in that situation, so it would not cost a tremendous amount of money to remedy. We will return to that matter in Committee. I hope that the Government Front-Bench team will carefully study the information about the costs, justification and consequences of allowing such a situation to survive consideration of the Bill.

  561
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) pointed out that huge macro-economic consequences must be kept in mind, in terms of the money under the control of pension funds and the effect of their use on the country's economic future and prosperity. Although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) did not have time to deal with that point in detail, I hope that such wider questions will be considered in Committee.
  The Bill's long title states that its purpose is
  "to amend the law about pensions and for connected purposes."
  That offers extensive prospects of amendment and discussion. When the Standing Committee is set the task of examining the Bill in detail, I hope that it will take full advantage of that latitude to scrutinise and cross-examine the totality of Government pensions policy. Although I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, it does not add up to a coherent pensions policy.
  I listened to the good speech made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I will argue for that right hon. Gentleman also to have a place on the Committee, because there was a strong sense of déjá vu of the debates that he and I endured at the hands of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I could not resist chuckling when the right hon. Gentleman compared Labour's current and much better Front-Bench team with its predecessors in the 1985 and 1986 debates.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a timeous escape in 1987, just before the personal pensions bribes scandal started to take hold—but he is a master of timing, and timing is important in politics. He made a powerful point, to the effect that we need to target help via the state retirement pension at those who need it most. My party is beginning to look responsibly into such a change. The lowest 10 per cent. in terms of income—the 1 million or so people who rely exclusively on the state pension—definitely receive inadequate help. Evidence for that is to be found in the fact that they usually require immediate means-tested support to meet their assessed needs, as defined under current DSS rules. Much more needs to be done, therefore, but I accept the principles behind the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  This debate finds me in a bit of dilemma as regards the Labour party's reasoned amendment. The hon. Member for Garscadden made a good speech. Although I share his anxiety that the Bill does not go far enough, I would add that we desperately need to reach a consensus on pensions policy. This Bill may come into effect in 1997; but by some happenstance there may be another Government by then. Putting aside all our usual political divisions we should remember that the last thing that the industry, pensioners or trustees—those who try to look after pensioners—want is another upheaval in policy. Hence we must make the best of the Bill that we have. I am prepared to do that, but it will require some work and some concessions on the part of the Government to guarantee the sort of cross-party agreement that could be reached with good faith on all sides. It is certainly well worth trying to achieve it.
  The Government really had no option but to introduce the Bill. It has its provenance in a combination of the Maxwell scandal and the Barber judgment in the European Court. I may be a lone voice when I say—this is not an argument that I intend to pursue, and in any case
  562
  the time to pursue it has probably passed—that I do not believe that trust law is the best framework for occupational and personal pensions policy. I was attracted by some of the arguments made by the Select Committee in 1991–92. The Committee decided that it would be better to start with a clean sheet and to put pensions policy immediately on a statutory footing.
  In a previous incarnation I was a humble Scots solicitor; speaking as one, I do not think that it will be easy to reconcile the terms of the regulations—we have not yet seen them—with differing English and Scots trust law. Trust law was never designed to deal with £600 billion worth of assets, and it may not be easy comfortably to interpret trust law north and south of the border under the statutory framework for which this Bill legislates. Beginning with a clean sheet and aiming at purely statutory provision might have taken longer, but it would have been worth attempting.
  I regularly complain about the extensive use of enabling legislation in such key areas of law. The Government should have taken a little longer to draft their Bill. It is not particularly well drafted, judging by the amendments that the Government had to table in the House of Lords. This is largely a piece of enabling legislation, and the devil might easily arrive in the detail—as happened with the Child Support Agency legislation. I freely confess that I did not spot some of the mistakes in that, in my capacity as spokesman at the time. Subsequent problems exploded in an unanticipated way. It is therefore with some misgivings that we contemplate the arrival of another piece of enabling legislation.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden about the Government's retreat from the Goode report. Thanks have been proffered to its chairman and his committee team, but I add my congratulations to the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose reports have brought to this subject an illumination that I for one would not otherwise have found. I am sure that the same applies to other hon. Members. There is evidence to show that the Government have significantly diluted and distorted Goode's proposals—no doubt because the Government were subjected to extensive lobbying by interest groups. That is politics, I guess, but I regret it. The Standing Committee should carefully scrutinise this Bill and try to strike the right balance. Liberal Democrats are very good at striking balances.
  I am especially concerned to find that the regulatory authority will be neither regulatory nor an authority, a view shared by Help the Aged. Sue Ward, a distinguished member of the Goode committee said, no doubt referring to Maxwell:
  "Given the costs of a major investigation, and of court proceedings to put right what has gone wrong, this seems a very distorted set of priorities".
  I agree. I am not sure that I share the Government's optimism about the protection afforded by the Bill.
  I expect, as did the hon. Member for Garscadden—he is not one to miss a trick when it comes to the odd £4 billion here or there—that some of the changes being made to the schemes for contracting out of SERPS, in the course of this reform, will have to be very carefully looked at. Moreover, we shall have to take a close look at pensioners' possible future losses owing to the requirement to index-link pensions, under SERPS, by up to 5 per cent. If inflation increases—it has happened in the past—pensioners could lose out heavily.

  563
  In 1985–86 I was a lone voice in arguing that personal pensions have a part to play, so I am not in the same position as the Labour party in that regard. I am, however, worried about some of these age-related rebates, which might cost up to £300 million a year. Certainly, we must try to improve the choice and availability of personal pension schemes, but we should not allow that to prejudice occupational schemes. To do so would be a grave mistake.
  Rightly, the Bill includes a proposal to deal with the state pension age. I have some real concerns about the effects on women, however. A recent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission stated that the equalisation of retirement ages will make it much more difficult for retired women to be financially secure, because women's lifetime earnings would be averaged over an additional five years. EOC researchers say that women will end up with lower state pensions in real terms unless they can secure well-paid work between the ages of 60 and 65. But only a fifth of women of that age are in paid work.
  My party has looked into the homogenisation of retirement ages and we have come to the conclusion that a pivotal retirement age of 65 would make it possible for the state pension to be significantly more generous. But the qualification is that some of the savings are routed back, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, in some way, so that the present entitlements can be improved.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been following what the hon. Gentleman has said with considerable interest; he referred to the retirement age. Does he accept that there is one group for whom there is considerable difficulty: the agricultural fraternity, the members of which very often do not have any personal plans of their own or an occupational pension? Often, because of their circumstances in earlier life, they do not have the full benefits of a state pension, either. As a result, they work beyond normal retirement age, which leads to an industry with an age structure that is detrimental to its future. Given the broad long title of the Bill, might there be a possibility in Committee to examine that to see what can be done to help them?
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman is another volunteer for the Standing Committee. I am picking them up rather well. The Committee of Selection will be a lot easier than it usually is. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Coming from an agricultural constituency myself, I am sure that that matter is something to which the Committee will want to give its consideration.
  As a party, the Liberal Democrats have looked at the possibility of redeploying some of the savings that would be made by using 65 as a pivotal age, to enhance the pension that would come into play at 75 and 80, so that as people become older and lose the ability to go into part-time work or deal with their own personal circumstances they could pick up some extra support. The hon. Member for Garscadden made the point well and I am sure that it has been taken by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  On pension splitting, will the Minister look carefully at the differences in the law on pension rights north and south of the border because, in the matrimonial context,
  564
  Scots courts are entitled to regard pensions as part of the matrimonial property to be split? There are difficulties about that.
  Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State shakes his head. I am quoting the Lord of Ardbrecknish—
  Hon. Members: Lord Mackay.
  Mr. Kirkwood: He was chairman of the Liberal committee so long ago that I had forgotten his name.
  Mr. Lilley: I was shaking my head at the use of the word "split". In Scottish law, there is not the power to split the assets. There is an explicit duty to take into account the value of pensions north of the border, and a long-standing implicit duty south of the border. We made it explicit south of the border in the Bill and gave the enabling right, but splitting is a different matter.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I withdraw. The Secretary of State is quite right. The use of the word "split" is wrong. There are still significant differences, which I urge the Minister to look at carefully. We shall return to it in the Standing Committee, but there are lessons to be learnt—as there always are—from the Scots legal system, when looking at amending laws in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  My final point is about British pensioners living abroad. We as a party have looked at that carefully. We have listened to all the arguments. I think that the time has come. I know that £200 million is involved, and I do not think that that is a mere bagatelle. It is a lot of money, but I think that it is a duty that we should shape up to. If we are not to go straight for indexation, we should look at reciprocal arrangements with the countries to which such arrangements do not apply. The Liberal Democrats have decided to make that a commitment that we would seek to introduce if we have the opportunity. The Government would be well advised to look carefully again at the arguments.
  The Bill, I am sure, can be improved in Committee, but it will be improved in Committee only if the Government act in good faith. It is my concluding plea that if the Government really are attached to the idea of establishing consensus in the framework of pensions policy that will survive a change of Government, it is incumbent on them to listen carefully to the suggestions that will be made—responsibly, as far as I am concerned—for effective changes that can and would improve the content of the Bill.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I am grateful to him for the support that he expresses for the campaign that I and others have waged in the House to secure justice for expatriate pensioners.
  There is much that is good in the Bill, both in the way in which it strengthens the regulatory framework for occupational pensions, in the wake of the Maxwell scandal—clearly, that was something that was long overdue—and in the way in which it takes steps to equalise the retirement ages of men and women. I warmly welcome the Government's acceptance of Lord Freyberg's amendment in another place, which will be of

  565
  great assistance to the nation's war widows. As sponsor of early-day motion 279, which calls for an end to discrimination against British state pensioners living abroad, I should like to devote my remarks to their plight.
  My early-day motion, which, in the past Session, secured the support of no fewer than 288 colleagues on both sides of the House, has been signed thus far by some 248 in the current Session. It expresses the House's
  "grave concern at the discrimination … against British State pensioners"
  depending on the hazard of where they choose to make their place of retirement.
  I and my colleagues, from both sides of the House, who support this measure are not seeking handouts for people who have not paid their proper contributions, although one sees day by day the Department of Social Security standing ever ready to give a vast number of people who have never contributed a penny to the national insurance scheme lavish handouts, including foreign citizens who enter our country illegally, because there are no effective measures in place to establish the true identity or nationality of those who claim benefits.
  In a recent case, which was so notorious that it attracted the headlines, some 15 citizens of Nigeria arrived here and chartered a stretch limousine and two apartments in an up-market area of Knightsbridge, in order systematically to defraud the social security system by taking on the identities of more than 2,000 individuals. Thanks to the assiduity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they were eventually uncovered, but one wonders how many such scams are in operation. The sooner that we have effective steps in place to stop the monstrous fraud that is being perpetrated on the social security fund, the better.
  I was particularly intrigued by a statement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, on 8 February 1993, when speaking in the public expenditure review. He stated:
  "We must adhere to our important manifesto commitments to pensioners. People make provision years in advance for their retirement. I do not wish to be deprived of any contribution that I have made to my pension—so these are important issues."
  I think that we would all endorse that sentiment. But the fact is that the very same Secretary of State is a member of a Government who are effectively depriving some 381,000 British overseas pensioners of the pension to which they have contributed throughout a lifetime's work. I and my colleagues are seeking justice and equal treatment for those who have paid those national insurance contributions throughout their working lives. Because of where they have chosen to spend their retirement, 3 per cent. of British pensioners are deprived of their full pension. Of 676,000 British retirement pensioners living abroad, more than half—about 381,000—have their pensions frozen.
  The selection of countries where British pensioners have their pensions frozen is, to say the least, bizarre—indeed, insane would not be too strong a word. Those who choose to retire to one of the old dominions—which played such a key role in the very victory which, a fortnight today, the Government will be rightly spending significant sums to celebrate—have their pensions frozen.
  566
  However, those who retire to the land of our former enemies—Germany or Italy—naturally get their pension payments and all upratings paid in full.
  I invite Ministers to ponder that point as we approach the 50th anniversary of VE day. Where is the justice? Why is the full pension payable to someone who retires to Detroit, but not to someone who lives just across the water in Ontario, Canada? Why should those who retire to Jamaica or Barbados receive a full pension, but not those who retire to Trinidad or Tobago? Why should those who retire to Iceland receive the full pension, but not those who retire to India or Pakistan? Why are pensions frozen for the 14 remaining British pensioners in the Falkland Islands, when billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent reclaiming those islands from Argentina?
  Where is the justice; where is the logic? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister, when replying to the debate, would, for once, deal with the question of justice. Where is the justice in these arrangements? I am bound to say that successive Ministers have ducked that question because they have never dared defend such discriminatory, unfair arrangements on the ground of justice. It is about time that they did so and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
  I recently received representations from the Canadian high commissioner in London. He pointed out that the average pension of the 118,000 British pensioners in Canada is currently £20.36 per week—barely one third of its full value. As he poignantly said—and I have passed his remarks on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "The unfairness of the issue is very striking in Canada where for instance a British pensioner in Windsor, Ontario does not receive an indexed pension, but just across the river in Detroit a fellow British pensioner does."
  I want to quote one or two excerpts from some of the many thousands of letters I have received, in particular from pensioners living in the old dominions. One letter from Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, Canada states:
  "Living in Canada, as I do, and having left the UK in 1968, my pension is frozen at the princely sum of £4.50 per week. If I had moved to the country of one of our former enemies, such as Germany, I would receive the full current pension … twelve and a half times as much … I urge your Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Major to press for this reform and not to let Britons abroad suffer any longer."
  Of course, the most poignant cases come from South Africa, where there is no effective net of social security, unlike in the other old dominions. Edna Thompson wrote to me from Victoria embankment, Durban, saying:
  "I am an 86 year old widow living alone along with many of my peers, I am almost destitute. Please try to get the British Government to do what is right by us regarding equality of pensions for us overseas oldies—we would come back to the UK to claim a living but haven't the fare. My pension is £24.30 every 28 days, that is … R 100. I dread the winter as I cannot afford to use any heat. Please help us."
  How is it possible that this Government, who in so many ways are caring and compassionate towards so many in our society, can turn their back on those who have served our country so well? They are the very hero generation whose victory we shall be celebrating in a fortnight's time, yet the Government are turning their back on them.
  Another letter from Noordhoek, South Africa, states:
  "My wife and I have lived here since 1951. I am now 85 and she 77. We receive £6.75 for Self and £4.15 a week frozen."

  567
  Intriguingly, in a recent Adjournment debate that I initiated, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that
  "retirement pension upratings are not generally payable abroad. That has been the position since 1955 … It is fair to point out that, since 1955, people affected would have known, or could have found out, that that would be the position".—[Official Report, 6 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 431.]
  However, I have received comments on that statement from Mr. James Rogers in Victoria, British Columbia. He writes that he received a communication from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance dated 6 December 1956—a whole year after the year to which the Under-Secretary referred—stating clearly:
  "Your title to British National Insurance benefits, providing, of course, that contributions are maintained, will not be affected in the event of your becoming a citizen of Canada, or the United States of America."
  That has been proved to be a direct lie. I call on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government to honour the promises that were made.
  During the late 1940s, after the war, and the 1950s, many thousands of people consulted Government agencies about the effect on their pensions if they lived abroad, and time and again they were told, "Provided you maintain your contributions to the age of 65"—or 60 for women—"you will get your pension." There was no mention of a devalued or frozen pension.
  Great play has rightly been made about how monstrous it is that occupational pensioners should have been defrauded in the Maxwell scandal. However, I regard it to be a monstrous fraud that many thousands of British ex-service personnel and others have gone abroad, having been misled by the then Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance into believing that by making extra payments they would receive their full pension entitlement. It cannot be right to treat those who have served this country so well in our hour of need in such a shabby and unfair way. I know that the standard reply, which I am sure will be trotted out this evening, is that the cost is exorbitant. Amazingly, the cost seems to have come down by almost a third as a result of a rejigging of the figures in the Secretary of State's Department. I am glad that they are coming down the right way. According to the latest reply that I have received, they have come down from more than £350 million to some £235 million.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, to you and I, £235 million might seem a large sum of money, but it is no more than one third of 1 per cent. of the social security budget. In this 50th anniversary year of VE day, I call on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, above all, on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to do the right thing by this hero generation, who should not be deprived and required to live in circumstances of great destitution and misery.
  I look forward, therefore, to bearing that the Government will at least come to an arrangement. If they cannot pay the full amount, how about going for a scheme whereby people aged over 75 would at least have their pension restored to what it should be? According to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in his written reply to me on 12 July last year, the cost of that would be £138 million—little more than half the figure that I quoted. That would give enormous help to people who need it most. People who have been retired for 10, 15, 20 or even 25 years are suffering most. It is my earnest hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Earlier, we were reminded that the Bill has an omnibus long title, which offers hon. Members an enormous opportunity to table amendments on Report. About 240 hon. Members have already signed his early-day motion—
  Mr. Churchill: It has been signed by 248 Members.
  Mr. Field: With 248 Members signing the motion, if a suitable amendment is tabled and supported we hope that the Chair will select it. We will then find out whether hon. Members vote as they sign early-day motions; one hopes that they will.
  In opening today's proceedings, the Secretary of State for Social Security rightly reminded us that the Bill results directly from Robert Maxwell's theft of what were euphemistically called, here and elsewhere, the Maxwell pension funds. Merely to call them that raises in an acute form the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in relation to whether trust law is a suitable framework to safeguard pensions. As he and I say, that, sadly, is water under the bridge; we must deal with the Bill as it is.
  In reminding us of the Bill's genesis, the Secretary of State was in order formally to give his thanks for the work of Sir John Cuckney in securing funds to safeguard what are still called the Maxwell pension funds. I shall go further: I want to compliment him on his stand. The position was difficult for the Maxwell pensioners, given the uncertainty that they faced, but Sir John was 100 per cent. right to resist calls made not only in the Chamber but outside that taxpayers should cough up the money immediately. The result of the way in which he has played his hand is that companies have returned funds on which, presumably, they thought other people had claims.
  Taxpayers are not being asked to make a substantial contribution to pension funds and all pensions will be paid, but the mechanism by which that success was achieved was Sir John Cuckney. I hope that, at some suitable stage, the Government will not only thank him in the House but reward him suitably for the skills that he has deployed on behalf of pensioners.
  The Secretary of State rightly reminded us that half a dozen measures will be put in place to protect funds in a way that the Maxwell pension funds were not protected. He did not say, although I am sure that it was in his script, that, no matter what we do, we cannot give a cast-iron guarantee on the safety of pension funds, or of any other funds, come to that. It is proper, therefore, for us to consider whether the six measures should be strengthened, and proceedings in Committee and on Report will give an opportunity to make suitable amendments.
  The Secretary of State said that he would introduce the Goode committee report. The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at a conference that was organised by Sir Roy Goode, who said that he was disappointed that the regulator was not more carefully defined on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations. He also envisaged that the regulator's role would be more proactive than the one proposed in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State may reassure us that we are wrong on that, but it is wrong for him to put up straw figures and to say that somehow the Government propose to have a regulator who is really a glorified filing clerk

  569
  receiving all pension fund accounts. We want a proactive agency whose staff are streetwise, who know where problems occur or are likely to occur and who will act to prevent fraudulent actions from taking place, rather than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, manning an ambulance afterwards. We shall return to that issue.
  An issue to which we will not return after the Bill has been passed is the equalisation of pension ages. When the measure hits the statute book, I shall be surprised if anyone campaigns in the election to change that commitment. Although it is right for groups to represent their concerns about the issue, it is of much greater import to consider the use of the funds that will be saved for the national insurance fund when the pension age is equalised at 65.
  I wish to emphasise my belief that 65 will not be the end of the story. In saying that, I wish to remind hon. Members of the beginnings of pension schemes. When the first pension scheme was introduced in 1908, the average of life expectancy was 45, and pensions were not drawn until 70. It seems extraordinary that we think in set terms of when pension ages should be set, and that it is not a moveable feast as the population becomes more healthy and lives longer.
  The Old Age Pensions Act 1908 was enacted because of pressure from the friendly societies, which found that their pension requirements were a substitute for sick pay and that people had to withdraw from the labour market because they could no longer work. I hope therefore that, before the general election, we will have clear plans about the benefits structure before what is called retirement age, because the more we get that structure right, the less pressure will exist to seize on retirement pension as a form of income.
  At the end of my speech I shall talk not about the flexibility that will result from our making all sorts of funny definitions about when we think people should retire but about the real flexibility that will come from people owning capital on the basis of which they can decide when to retire.
  In debating the raising of the pension age to 65 in all cases, I hope that we shall give some thought to how the substantial sums of money that will be saved should be spent. I know that the Government have taken their decision in the context of trying to contain the social security budget. Indeed, for 15 years the Government have been saying that they will cut that budget but even the current Secretary of State finds it difficult to slow the pace of its increase, let alone cut it. The Secretary of State raised various important issues around this theme.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) talked about people moving into residential care. He allowed me to intervene to say that, if we do not make some changes to allow people to keep part of their occupational pension schemes when their partner moves into residential care, we shall be creating the farcical situation in which people will be divorcing their elderly spouse so that they can keep part of their pension when the spouse moves into residential care.
  Under the social security system, we must not have the forms of provision pitted against human nature. The Government rightly tell people about the importance of saving but woe betide anyone who becomes frail and ill
  570
  at the end of his life because the Government will take away his savings. One cannot expect people to respond rationally in those circumstances, so many grannies lie about their assets and get help fraudulently.
  The proper approach is to consider the need for a care pension, which should be part of the national insurance fund and which would be partially paid for by the savings made from the raising of the retirement age. The rest would be paid for by contributions from workers and employers, but it is immensely important that, if we are trying to encourage people to build up their pensions and to buy assets and houses, they know that they will not lose everything if they tell the truth at that point in their life when they most need help, when they are frail and elderly and need residential care.
  I believe that the debate that we have had for 15 years about the level at which the retirement age for the state pension should be set will be closed by the Bill. A new chapter will begin and the debate will not be about whether it should be overthrown by a future Government but about how the age itself will have to reflect the increasing health and length of life of the pensioner population.
  My final point fits in with other themes that have been raised and certainly touches on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) which was, as always, interesting. He mentioned how the Bill fits into the future pattern of pension provision. Less than two and a half years ago, a colleague, Matthew Owen, and I wrote a pamphlet about what we saw as the future of pension provision. We said that it was to guarantee that everyone should have two forms of pension—a state pension and a private pension, whether it be a company or personal private pension.
  It is amazing how the debate has moved on in the past two and a half years. Not only are organisations such as the National Association of Pension Funds backing that dual approach—even the Commission on Social Justice almost backed it. It dressed it up with some ideas to the effect that perhaps the state earnings-related pension scheme was an alternative but, if we are honest, we all admit that SERPS is dead in the water and can now play a part only for those currently in it or perhaps, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, as a way of making special additions for the poorest pensioners so that their entitlement dies with them and does not live on for the rest of us to draw.
  The only question, therefore, in this part of the jigsaw puzzle is whether the approach should, as Ministers maintain, be exhortation to get people to enter a second pension scheme or compulsion. Should we legislate so that everyone working a certain number of hours a week must be covered by a second pension and so that the compulsion would extend to contributions from employers and employees? In those circumstances, thought would clearly need to be given to the form of pensioner savings.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned his plan some years ago to try to get the Post Office to sell private pensions. All good ideas presented to the House have long roots, and I have news for the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Gladstone tried to introduce such a reform, but the Pru and other organisations realised that they would have great difficulty competing with such a scheme and, needless to say, that reform did not see the light of day—nor did the right hon. Gentleman's.

  571
  I hope that there will be a real divide between the parties. Ministers will hope that everyone is covered and perhaps leave it to the taxpayer at a later stage to pick up the bill. I hope that our position will be one of compulsion so that everyone is in the state and a private scheme. I hope that that will be one of the big issues that we debate in the general election, but I end as I began.
  The Bill contains many important and worthwhile clauses but no doubt many will be improved by debate. It will close one chapter while opening many others. It is the result of the wicked theft by Maxwell of the Maxwell pension funds. Although the Secretary of State set up the framework whereby those funds were to be regained, the hero of the hour was Sir John Cuckney to whom I, too, extend my thanks.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I begin by declaring an interest. I am chairman of the management company of the Pension Trustee Forum; adviser to the consulting actuaries, Alexander Clay and Partners; and chairman of the seminar company, Westminster and City Programmes. All those interests are relevant to the aspect of the debate on which I shall concentrate.
  This is a far-reaching, sound and much-needed Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in particular on the care that he and his Department have taken to consult all interested parties at each stage of the debate. The Bill embraces most of the important recommendations made by the Goode committee, and my right hon. Friend has undertaken a separate consultation exercise on the equalisation of pension ages. In my view, he has responded effectively to the reports of the Select Committee on Social Security.
  In that context, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for his work on the subject as a whole but especially for his contribution through the Select Committee. I am bound to say, however, that I do not agree with the view that he apparently shares with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that trust law was not necessarily the right basis on which such legislation should have been framed. I believe that it is the right way to proceed.
  I am relieved that the legislation was not rushed. In the aftermath of the Maxwell saga, it would have been all too easy to rush through proposals which, inevitably in such circumstances, would have been ill considered. The fact that the Government have taken the time and trouble to prepare the legislation as they have is to be commended.
  As we have heard, a key aim was to put in place measures to provide additional security for pension fund assets and, as far as possible, to reduce to negligible proportions any risk that those who made contributions in the expectation of enjoying benefits later should have them snatched away by negligent or criminal activity.
  The Secretary of State spoke about six lines of defence to ensure security of those assets. Underlying what he said was the desire to achieve additional security without undue additional regulation and without avoidable cost. One must always bear in mind the possibility that if the additional burdens put on employers are too great, it is open to them to disengage themselves from pension provision altogether. A fine balance must be struck.
  572
  The White Paper fully acknowledged the important role of trustees, alongside the role of the occupational pensions regulatory authority and the role of professional advisers—the three key figures of the regulatory framework. It is clear that the role of the trustees will be greater than it has been. Trustees will have increased duties and increased responsibilities, and their effectiveness will be crucial to the safety and security of the schemes. The trustees will be legally responsible when something goes wrong. The Bill sets out a range of penalties to which trustees will be liable, ranging from suspension or removal from office to fines or, in the worst cases, imprisonment. A key component is that the occupational pensions regulatory authority will be able to impose some of those penalties.
  The fines regime in particular presupposes that penalties are likely to be necessary. I consider it rather more important that the need and occasion for the imposition of fines should be reduced to an absolute minimum. In that sense, I associate myself with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) about the need to train trustees thoroughly to enable them to fulfil the responsibilities that they take on. We are talking about lay trustees who act in a voluntary capacity. They will, of course, have professional advisers such as solicitors, accountants and scheme actuaries.
  By their very nature, the trustees should be people who try to act in the best interests of the scheme; that is what should be and, no doubt, will be uppermost in their minds. They will bring to the task the appropriate, sound common sense that lay trustees have always tried to bring to bear in the past. It would, however, appear from the Bill that the trustees will not necessarily have had the benefit of any form of training. I fear that that is a mistake and to that extent, I fully endorse the views that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown expressed.
  There is a parallel with the position of school governors. With the introduction of local management of schools and grant-maintained schools, the task of school governors was made much more complex and the consequences of doing the job less than competently were made much more serious. One result has been a reluctance among people who would otherwise be well qualified to act as school governors. I fear that the same may happen with pension fund trustees.
  Mr. Jenkin: We on the Select Committee on Social Security carefully considered what training should be apposite or, indeed, required by law. We took evidence from a wide variety of sources, including from trustees of schemes in which members were already represented. The conclusion that I firmly reached was that the less interference we stipulated by law the better, as the best schemes would naturally wish to train member trustees. I felt that to burden good schemes with too much regulation could be counter-productive.
  Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I have read the Select Committee report and I was extremely interested in how the Committee arrived at its conclusion; there is no clear explanation. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
  My fear is that some people who would otherwise be willing to be trustees will be less willing and that some able people will, therefore, be lost to that important responsibility. Trustees will, after all, be accountable, as

  573
  they are at the moment, but more so under the Bill, for billions of pounds of funds and for the future well-being of millions of people, but they will not necessarily have had any special training. I am puzzled why that should have happened because the importance of training has been emphasised at each stage of the consultation. All the reports emphasise how important training is yet everyone, whether the Select Committee, the Goode committee or whoever, then comes to the conclusion that it would be wrong to impose any training requirements.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Training is vital. If the regulator is to rely on whistle blowers, we need people who fully understand their responsibilities and duties. I echo the point that training is a must.
  Mr. French: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The conclusion on training is to be found in other forms, such as in the Goode report, which says:
  "We do not consider it would be practicable to require all trustees to complete even a preparatory training course, but we strongly recommend schemes arrange this as a matter of good practice".
  It is not explained why the Goode committee regards a requirement for training as impracticable, yet goes on to say that training should be a component of good practice. That seems inherently contradictory.
  Much the same appears in the Select Committee report. The Committee said that it believed in
  "a policy of comprehensive training for trustees which should ideally commence before they take up their role and should continue throughout their time in post … training should consist of both an introductory training course as well as regular updates. We would also support the proposal that trustees should be strongly encouraged to obtain a certificate of qualification in trusteeship. We reluctantly accept it is not possible to make such training a compulsory requirement".
  That is an inherently contradictory position.
  The closest that the Bill gets to requiring training is to require employers to permit trustees who are employees of the company to take paid time off work for training. It is, of course, entirely optional for the trustee. Why—I continue to search for the answer—has it been felt that it is better to leave the trustees' knowledge to chance? It has been suggested that it is a matter of cost. If it is, it is a short-sighted point of view because costs are extremely small compared with the entire value of the assets of the pension fund that one is trying to keep safe.
  On 13 March, amendment No. 89 was tabled in the other place. It stated:
  "Every person appointed as a trustee shall undertake a short course of training approved by the Authority"—
  OPRA—
  "(unless he has already undergone such a course or holds a relevant professional qualification)."
  The other part of the amendment said:
  "The appointment as trustee of any person who fails to undertake such an approved course within six months of his appointment shall lapse and may not be renewed without the approval of the Authority".
  The amendment was seeking the right approach, although I regard that formula as more prescriptive than it needs to be. That point was reflected in the response of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish when he said:
  "The Government do not dispute for a moment that trustees should be properly trained but we believe there are very sound reasons why such training should not be made compulsory."
  574
  He went on to explain those reasons, which I found extremely unconvincing. He said that the amendment proposed did not take account of different training needs and that trustees will have varying experience, knowledge and abilities and need different amounts of training. He regarded that as an insuperable practical objection to the proposal of requiring training. I find that unconvincing, especially since he later said:
  "Training for trustees is essential. It is vitally important that trustees boards should contain properly trained and informed trustees".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 670–72.]
  It is apparently not so vital that any requirement is to be placed on trustees.
  The training requirement does not have to be as mechanical or prescriptive as the amendment proposed. It is perfectly possible to establish a requirement for training without specifying exactly what courses or how much training should be undertaken. A requirement could be placed on the board of trustees to ensure that all trustees have had appropriate training. That leaves the responsibility to the trustees but makes it mandatory for them to have had the required training to fulfil their responsibilities. That is a halfway house between the Government's view and the amendment proposed in another place and it should be examined with great care.
  It is very much more important to have training in place than it is to argue about the proportion of trustees who come from different sources. There is some argument about whether the requirement for member trustees should be one third or 50 per cent. That seems to be rather irrelevant. The key is how qualified, competent and well trained are the people who are selected to be trustees. The percentage argument presupposes that whenever conflicts arise people will take the view of the party that they allegedly represent and that therefore a member trustee will always take the view of the members. That is quite contrary to the spirit and role of a trustee, which is to be an independent person. I would much prefer the stress to be put on training rather than percentages.
  To that extent, I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was supposed to have said in an interview in Pensions World, which was the quoted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). My hon. Friend was quoted as saying:
  "The precise proportion doesn't probably matter".
  If that is a correct quotation, I totally agree with my hon. Friend; it does not matter at all. It is by no means the key issue.
  I would like to ensure that provisions are put in place so that one may be confident that trustees know when to be on their guard and when to ask the right questions and know if something is amiss with the advice that professional advisers are giving. A reasonable amount of formal training is absolutely essential in that case.
  The arrangements made for each fund in relation to custody—who holds the assets—are a key consideration. Custody was a vital ingredient in the Maxwell saga, when the rules were not sufficiently spelt out, and they are not sufficiently spelt out in this Bill either. The trustees should be required to ensure that proper custody arrangements are made. That could be done through the professional advisers to the fund, but trustees need to know enough to ensure that the custody arrangements in place are safe and appropriate to the fund.

  575
  I also believe—I very much agreed with the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—that the new regulator should have a proactive role. He has to ensure that custody arrangements are correct and he should not have to wait until a trustee comes along—albeit at the moment an untrained trustee—and says that he is not sure that everything is quite right before acting. By that time, it would be almost certainly too late. If we are determined to ensure that trustees are able to fulfil their role—that is what the Maxwell-related part of the Bill is all about—training is absolutely essential.
  I would like to comment on many other aspects of the Bill, but I shall refrain from doing so in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak. I would simply like to endorse the emphasis which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) placed on the difficulty of the long-term arithmetic for pension provision. We have begun to face that difficulty in the Bill, but there is much more work to be done because the arithmetic simply does not add up. One would not have to get very far into the future before that message came home in a striking way.
  I endorse the formula that has been adopted for the equalisation of the state pension age. I also very much welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made this afternoon on war widows. That will be greatly welcomed by people up and down the country.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) about the need to improve the training of trustees. I have enjoyed listening to a number of erudite speeches on this complex subject. The Bill is also complex. It had, at the last count, 162 clauses and seven detailed schedules.
  As has been said, the Bill derives from the Maxwell scandal. I noted that the Secretary of State made his usual gibe about Robert Maxwell being a socialist. Some of us who are socialist would very much refute that definition of Mr. Maxwell. He was, in fact, a private sector potentate who stole his workers' pension money. I emphasise that he was a private sector employer. The Government are increasingly putting emphasis on the private sector. They spent £9 billion of public money to bribe people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and buy private pensions, many of them often worse than their occupational pensions. There is a hint that there will be new contracting-out arrangements in this Bill, which could be matched by yet more taxpayers' money.
  As has been said, the Goode report came out of the Maxwell debacle. It made significant recommendations, some of which are in the Bill. Many recommendations, however, have been watered down or even distorted. One concern, which has already been mentioned, is about the powers of the regulator. It seems that the Government may weaken whatever powers the regulator is given. There is a fear that, if the Government go down that route, standards of routine checking will fall below those that exist. We shall closely scrutinise the Government's decisions on the regulator's powers.
  The Bill contains serious flaws and it could be a missed opportunity to provide real security in retirement for everyone. Pensions are deferred pay. Those to whom the pay belongs should have most of it in their stewardship,
  576
  yet, under the Government's proposals, employer trustees will be able to outvote the member-nominated trustees. There is a strong case for the majority of trustees being member-nominated. The Minister says that that is not important. Well, I think that it is a matter of importance. Certainly, employees and their representatives think that it is a matter of importance and that they should have at least 50 per cent. of the votes on the board of trustees.
  I agree with the point that pensioners should have representation on the board of trustees. The training point has been made. As other hon. Members have said, there should be no intimidation of member trustees. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) said that some member trustees could face intimidation or threats to their job or promotion prospects. We should write into the Bill that no intimidation of member trustees will be legal.
  We should be far more restrictive of employer contributions holidays. Over the past few years, employers have taken millions of pounds out of pension funds in contributions holidays for their own benefit. As the Bill is drafted, it would enable that to continue. That could endanger a scheme's long-term ability to meet its commitments.
  There is a case for better inflation-proofing than the Bill provides for. It provides for inflation-proofing to the retail prices index or 5 per cent., whichever is the lower. We live in relatively low inflation times, but that may not be the case in the future. An employer will have the power to allocate only 5 per cent. for inflation, so the actual value of the pension fund could diminish. That matter could be investigated in Committee.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned representations made by Age Concern, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and various other organisations, about occupational pensions and state pensions when one partner of a couple goes into care. Age Concern's letter says:
  "Age Concern also sponsored an amendment to improve the state pension of women separated rather than divorced. Age Concern's amendment would have allowed women who were separated, particularly those separated by their husband going into care, to claim the full pension."
  That was a sensible amendment, but it was not accepted by the Government. Age Concern says:
  "Unless the government amends the pensions bill, some women will be financially more secure if they get divorced when their husband goes into long term care."
  We should not inflict that on those spouses. Such an amendment must be considered again closely in Committee. I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on such issues and that we can get a reasonable change.
  There is a quietly spoken agreement that retirement at 65 for women is acceptable. I do not think that it is. It discriminates against women. It is unfair to women. Women under the age of 44 will lose about £15,000 at today's prices if their retirement age is raised. That is straight robbery of those women. It is unjust. It is indirect discrimination.
  Far fewer women than men have occupational pensions, so a far greater proportion of them will have to work right up to 65, especially as many women take career breaks during their working life. Many men will not have to work up to 65. Perhaps twice as many women as men may have to work to 65. So I do not agree that the argument should be settled by a common retirement

  577
  age of 65. I am in favour of lowering the retirement age to 60 for everyone—for men to join women. That could be phased in over a considerable period. The Government are phasing in the increase in the retirement age to the year 2020. We could phase in a reduced retirement age over an extended period. We could perhaps reduce the retirement age for men by one year each decade. That would at least take us towards equal retirement at 60. That is the direction in which we should go. It is not the direction in which the Government are going.
  I wish to concentrate my remarks on pensions and divorce and the need to arrange for equitable distribution of pensions in the event of divorce. I have presented to the House two ten-minute Bills on the subject, one in the last Session of Parliament and one in January this year. My measures have been published, so there are Bills that show how pensions could be divided in law.
  I pay tribute to Baroness Hollis and the others in the other House who pressed an amendment and had it carried. The Government were defeated by five votes. That is to be welcomed. I appreciate that the Government have accepted that amendment in principle today. There is a powerful case for equalising pensions in the event of divorce. I shall deal later with how that could be done.
  I wish to read to the House two quotations. One is from Sallie Quin of the organisation Fairshares, to which I pay tribute for its campaign on the issue. In a paper which it submitted to the House of Commons Library, it says:
  "The wife suffers a double betrayal, she is betrayed by her partner and then by the system which dashes her hopes and all too often condemns her to a life, if not of poverty, of very reduced circumstances. Even if she has pension entitlement in her own right it is below that of her husband's through career breaks and periods of part time work…
  The wife is treated like a chattel. She is totally at the mercy of her estranged husband. If he decides to continue working until the age of 75 she will not receive her entitlement until then, and while he has a comfortable salary on which to live she must survive on state benefit. If he dies before retirement she will receive nothing as she has no entitlement, as an ex-wife, to a widow's pension. If he dies after retirement her source of income will dry up for the same reason, you cannot be both his widow and his ex-wife. It is accepted that women live longer than men, therefore there will be many wives spending their last years thrown on to state benefit…
  We believe that it is possible to divide pensions on divorce. It will not be easy, but with conviction it can be achieved. In every other country in the EU to a greater or lesser degree it is law…
  There is over £600 billion accrued in occupational pensions alone, over 25 per cent. of the privately held wealth in this country. 90 per cent. of payments of occupational pensions are to men. 1.14 million retired women are dependent solely on income support.
  It is time for better treatment of the wives and mothers, the carers, of this country".
  I agree with her on that.
  On the same issue, the Equal Opportunities Commission says in its briefing paper to Members of Parliament:
  "In research carried out for the DSS, women aged 55–69 who were divorced and not remarried at the time of retirement were the poorest group of all pensioners…
  As women still shoulder the main responsibility for the care of the family, they can miss out on pension rights in years when they do not have paid work, or combine caring with part-time work.
  Many of them expect to share in their husbands' pensions when they retire, but divorce takes away this prospect and leaves them facing very low post-retirement incomes. For women who are older
  578
  when divorce happens, even though a Court may order an ex-husband to pay maintenance, when he dies they are not entitled to a widow's pension and so become dependent on the State."
  The report continues:
  "the problem remains that the Court cannot make an Order requiring an occupational pension scheme to split the pension rights between the two spouses. This is unsatisfactory and in some cases prevents an equitable distribution of matrimonial assets."
  The EOC sums up:
  "Divorce can devastate some women's pension expectations and leave them financially insecure in retirement. The Courts should be able to divide pension rights in the same way that they now have power to allocate other matrimonial property on divorce."
  The EOC makes a powerful case and the Government have not gone far enough. By accepting the principle of dividing pensions in the event of divorce, they have gone most of the way down the route that Fairshares, the EOC and others want, but they have not gone the whole way and given courts the power to split pension fund money between the fund member and his or her spouse.
  The Secretary of State said that such a split would be complex. I am sure that a probing amendment on this subject will be tabled in Committee—I hope to table it—and we shall find out just how complex it would be. I do not believe that it is complex to give the courts such a general power. The Pensions Management Institute said that it need not be complex and that the costs could be allocated equally to the two parties and need not fall on the pensions fund. All those issues will have to be explored during the passage of the Bill.
  On a more general point, between 1979 and 1992, the poorest tenth of the population suffered a 20 per cent. fall in real incomes, while the richest tenth enjoyed an increase of more than 60 per cent. That disparity is reflected in the disparity of pensions. There is a massive case for an improvement in the basic state pension. About 1.4 million single pensioners and 250,000 elderly couples have to rely on income support to top up their basic pension, and one in four old-age pensioners—about 570,000 people—who are entitled to income support do not claim it because of their dignity, or for some other reason. They need an increase in the basic pension.
  In 1977–78, the basic pension was worth 20 per cent. of average male earnings. By the early 1990s, it had dropped to 15 per cent. and, on current trends, by the year 2020 it will be worth less than 9 per cent. Under the previous Labour Government, the link was between prices and earnings. If that link had been maintained, a married pensioner couple would be £30 a week better off and a single pensioner £20 a week better off. Pensioners are kept poor because the Government stopped that link.
  Beyond what we have done with private pensions, there is a case for an increase in the basic state pension. I have asked to be a member of the Standing Committee. I look forward to the debates there and to trying to get the Government to change some of the clauses in the Bill. I hope that they will listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House and that they will make some of these changes so that we get a better Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I must point out that there is clearly great interest in the debate and that, unless speeches are shorter during the next two hours, I am afraid there will be some disappointed Members at the conclusion of the debate.
  7.24 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I was unable to be here for the opening speeches. I followed my right hon. Friend's speech closely, however, and was delighted with its content.
  I was fortunate enough to come into the Chamber just before my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) spoke so movingly about overseas pensioners, or non-pensioners, and the difficult situation in which they find themselves.
  I became chairman of Conservatives Abroad in 1985 and for the next eight or nine years received the sort of letters that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme has received from people suffering very great hardship. It is an exceptionally difficult problem for any Government and I hope that this Government, our Ministers and those speaking for the Opposition will tread very carefully indeed before making promises in advance of a general election that they might not be prepared to keep. I say that because, before the last election, the Opposition made promises to overseas pensioners, saying that their case would be heard and that something would be done to rectify the problem, and I know that they would not have lived up to their promises.
  It is not easy for any Government to fulfil in total the commitments for which my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme asked, but he made it clear that we could at least make a start and many others have pressed for the same thing. For example, we could look after the over-80s rather than the over-70s because that is where the real hardship lies. We could and should make some small move towards recognising that hardship.
  I have to declare an interest as I am the honorary adviser to the Royal British Legion and I am proud to hold that office here. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted, in very broad terms, early-day motion 186 on the 50th anniversary of victory on behalf of war and service widows. I shall not read it out in full as we all know what it called for—better and special treatment for war widows.
  The fact that an amendment was carried in the House of Lords—moved very ably by the noble Lord Freyberg—with a good majority shows that there is recognition across the board that we are not creating a precedent by dealing differently with war and service widows. I am certain that no other groups of widows will try to follow through on that front—this is recognition for war and service widows.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here at the moment. The decision to accept clause 117 was taken by the Cabinet, and none of us knows what goes on in Cabinet. However, I am sure that no one did more to support the case for accepting clause 117 at the Cabinet meeting than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I know where his sympathy has lain all the way through and I am delighted that he will receive the recognition and thanks that he deserves from war widows and all ex-service men.
  May I query the cost of clause 117? It has been said that it will cost £40 million a year, but my understanding is that this is not an annual cost but a capital sum, part of
  580
  which would be held back or returned as the numbers who claimed under the clause decreased. I would like some clear information about that.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is back in the Chamber because, as I have already said, we are grateful for what the Government have done, but it is only the beginning. A little more tidying up to the Bill should be done in Committee to make it absolutely clear that all war widows and service widows will receive just treatment. I know that Treasury Ministers will say that £40 million is a lot of money and that special cases always exist. However, other amendments with minor financial implications could be introduced in Committee. We are talking not about sums of between £10 million and £40 million but of between £1 million and £5 million to redress the injustices suffered by under 2,000 widows. Treasury Ministers should be happy to know that it is an absolute certainty that the sums involved will decrease with the years.
  I should like to quote a letter that illustrates the difficulties that need to be tidied up:
  "Dear Sir,
  I am writing to you, hoping you can help me to understand the problem I have. My dear husband died on 13 November 1994. It was our second marriage, he lost his wife the same time I lost my dear husband, but knowing him 46 years ago, we met and married in Sherborne Abbey in May 1993. He made the Army his career for 30 years and came out a Warrant Officer. Before he died, he always said there would be part of his pension for me when anything happened to him. He was such a sticker for things to be right, everything was left in order, that when I found out that I am not entitled to anything I just can't believe it. I am his wife, and dependant, and this dear man has gone still thinking I am being looked after. Surely 30 years mean something. How many more people get married as we did and rely on their pensions. I get my widow's pension—but it's very hard. Is there anywhere I can go to? I think you are my last hope. What does it matter if I am his second or third wife, I am still his dependant and he gave 30 years to the Army knowing"—
  or thinking—
  "that his wife would be looked after. I am not asking for much, just a little help from what we thought was mine.
  I await your reply".
  I cannot reply to that letter at the moment to say that all will be well, but I hope that those serving on the Committee considering the Bill will take up such cases.
  I hope that everyone will agree that in this 50th anniversary year, those who served their country—many of them died for it—deserve the recognition that we can give them. They are a special case and should be treated as such. They do not create a precedent.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to take part in the debate. The thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber show that we accept that the Bill has a long way to go. If I am successful in my application, I look forward to serving on the Committee, so that I can go through the Bill in more detail.
  The Secretary of State said that the Maxwell pension scheme fraud was the inspiration for the Bill. I should like to declare an interest as I am sponsored by the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, formerly known as SOGAT and the NGA. That union represented many Maxwell pensioners who successfully fought for compensation. If accolades are to be given, the union deserves some of

  581
  them because of the support that it gave to its members. The Maxwell pensioners also deserve congratulation, particularly Mrs. Ivy Needham, who led them. Had she not fought so diligently, their case for compensation would not have been recognised.
  Before I came to the House, I served as a full-time union officer for 14 years. I had first-hand experience of employers who abused pension schemes. In many cases, that abuse was unintentional, because they did not understand the framework of the legislation. Those employers did not have the necessary knowledge and training that they required not only as employers but as trustees. I agree with other hon. Members that it is imperative that adequate training is given to trustees because they have a great responsibility.
  The impact of pensions on our society is not immediately significant to the vast majority of our constituents. People may not have thought about them until the Maxwell fraud and the equalisation of state retirement age received media attention or until they faced their impending retirement. They then delved into the pensions arena, where they need an aptitude for mathematics and a good understanding of a language all of its own, which is bewildering to mere mortals.
  The simple principle of pension provision is based on the need to provide adequate resources through pension contribution and investment, so that there is a reasonable income for an individual at and beyond the age of retirement, whatever that age may be. Pensions and their impact on individuals mean much more than that simple principle.
  The Goode report offered an opportunity to overhaul pensions in such a way as to re-establish faith in the integrity of pension provision, which has been undermined by the failure of personal plan selling, the failure of regulation and the failure to provide adequate funding and to offer a simple explanation of pension schemes.
  Great play has been made of the changes made by the Labour party. There appears to be a Tory identity crisis, because Tory Members consistently ask us for our view of the future when we are discussing their Bills and they are in government. I am sure that they will not have to wait much longer to find out what we will do in government as the election is just around the corner.
  The country survives on a mix of provision, which allows flexibility and for the increasing pension burden to be shared. It is important that we have the backdrop of an appropriate state fund. It is essential that pension provision is controlled sensibly, so that huge gaps do not appear between assets and liabilities, which could lead to a pensions nightmare.
  I have some concerns about agencies such as Marks and Spencer selling pension plans. I understand that Abbey National is looking to take over the National and Provincial building society. The Government need to study seriously pension provision and the financial sector in general because, in future, people may not understand which companies are providing pensions.
  The great worry is that the Government's failure to provide a level playing field will increase future risks. Occupational pension schemes represent 20 million members, for whom, collectively, £550 billion is invested
  582
  to provide pensions. Those members are not encouraged by a Bill that offers them less protection in the future. After Maxwell, the Government promised that more effective regulation would be introduced. Goode recommended an independent, state-funded regulator with adequate powers. Instead, we have been offered the occupational pensions regulatory authority, OPRA, with a meagre budget of £10 million—[Interruption.] It is a meagre budget when one considers the £550 billion available for investment. Help the Aged has described OPRA as neither a regulator nor an authority. Its powers will not be wide ranging, nor will it be well resourced.
  Mr. Jenkin: May we take it that the hon. Gentleman is judging the effectiveness of the regulator by how much money it spends?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Money is a contributing factor, as are the powers of the regulator. According to the powers offered to OPRA, it will not require the same information as that currently requested by the Occupational Pensions Board. OPRA will rely on the whistle-blowing principle and will have the power to deal only with the statutory requirements set down in the Bill. That is why training is vital. Some hon. Members may argue that training is unnecessary, but it is vital that training is offered so that people know what whistle to blow and what problems exist in certain poor schemes.
  Breaches of trust will not be covered by OPRA, but will be left to private enforcement through the courts. What will happen to individual pensioners who are unable to meet huge legal costs? The Government benefit from occupational pension schemes as the members of those schemes opt out of SERPS. There is therefore an unquestionable onus on the Government to ensure that those schemes are properly managed.
  As other hon. Members have said, the Bill fails to address the make-up of the trustees of the schemes. The Bill is too wide and allows too great a flexibility to employers. Employees and retired pensioners should be allowed adequate entitlement to join the boards of trustees. There should be statutory requirements to allow time off with pay for training of trustee representatives, and that training should be mandatory. Retired pensioners must have a voice to express their worries and aspirations. The number of takeovers that have taken place mean that retired pensioners have not had the opportunity to follow through what has happened in individual companies. Machinery must also be introduced to enable reporting-back procedures to fund members.
  The law remains uncertain, even with the Bill, as regards the transfer of schemes in mergers and takeovers. I worked at a company that was taken over by a Swedish company that had no occupational pension scheme. The Swedish company became interested only when it knew of the assets of the existing scheme. Fortunately, that company was taken over again and the pension scheme was sorted out, but no information was available to subscribers, and former employees were left completely in the dark. There should be tighter controls.
  I also represented members who were in a scheme where the employer borrowed £150,000 from the fund, quite legally. That was agreed to by the trustees, some under the pressure of their jobs because they wanted the company to exist. The company went into liquidation and it became almost impossible to get the loan back.

  583
  We have been made aware of many aspects of the Bill that need to be considered in greater detail. I welcome, as do other hon. Members, the position on the war widows pension, but I wonder why the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that does not pay a war veterans pension. If one compares our pension schemes, pound for pound, with similar schemes in Europe, the quality of ours is well below the standard that is acceptable in the rest of Europe.
  We also need to consider pension fund investment policies, because they have a substantial effect on our economy. We need to ensure that we know where those pension funds are investing. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we shall have the opportunity to discuss that more fully.
  The Secretary of State spoke—with some arrogance, in my opinion—about the way in which British pensioners have never had it so good. He should talk to some of the pensioners in my constituency, who feel aggrieved about the level of their state pension and about the amount of unemployment in my constituency, in the wider Bradford region and, I believe, in many other hon. Members' constituencies.
  We need to examine state provision properly and to ensure that people receive an adequate pension. In this 50th anniversary year of the ending of the war, many of the pensioners of today who fought for this country feel aggrieved that they have not received the benefits to which they were entitled and that promises that were made to them, that they would live in a land fit for heroes, have not been kept.
  If Robert Maxwell has done nothing else, he has inspired the Government to formulate a Pensions Bill, but as has been evident from the contributions that have been made by other hon. Members, it still has a long way to go. I look forward to the passage of the Bill to its next stage.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall endeavour to be brief. I have sat through the whole of the debate, which has been interesting. The range of arguments made from both sides of the House reflects the breadth of the long title of the Bill and the fact that almost anything to do with pensions is in order while we are discussing the measure, but it is a matter for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide whether that is true.
  If I may say so to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, it is a pity that the Labour party saw fit to oppose the Bill and then to table the reasoned amendment. Having listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), which I thought was very good, I think that it would have been better if the Labour party had supported the Bill, in the ecumenical spirit that is necessary, in my opinion, to long-term pensions legislation, and had then argued, properly, for its suggested amendments or changes during the proceedings in Committee.
  I was interested in what was said about the idea of a flexible decade of retirement, which appears to continue to be the policy of the Labour party, as far as one can tell. It appears to me sensible for the Government to maintain
  584
  the opinion that there needs to be a set retirement age, and I am glad that, under the terms of the Bill, it is being equalised, over a future period, at 65 for men and women.
  However, a distinction should be drawn. Although one has a set retirement age, and that is sensible from an actuarial and from a policy point of view, none the less, in policy, all Ministers should take account of the drive towards flexible pension arrangements, which are much more flexible these days than they have ever been, to take account of the growing variety of individual and family circumstances. I shall return briefly to that subject later.
  Naturally, like other Conservative Members and indeed hon. Members on both sides of the House, I warmly welcome the concession made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on war widows in clause 117. That can only do good in the broadest sense. I would advise him and his Front-Bench colleagues to consider carefully the question of the splitting of rights to pension assets on divorce. I think the best way forward would be to take the advice of the Institute of Actuaries, with which I had lunch last week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the extent of my interest in the Institute of Actuaries—simply to take note of the argument that the Institute of Actuaries has made that, on balance, there is a strong argument, much of which has already been made, for the clean-break principle on divorce to be applied to the capital assets of a pension fund.
  That issue having been, as it were, on the agenda for the past 10 years or so—the Lord Chancellor was talking about it a full 10 years ago—it might be sensible for the Government to take slightly more time over the matter and ensure that they get it right. The best formula would be to say to the House, either when replying to the debate tonight or subsequently, that, yes, in principle the Government accept this approach to the matter, but they wish to get it right and to spend slightly more time getting the detail right. It is a complicated issue, as our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier.
  I shall now briefly discuss a couple of the things that the Secretary of State said. I was very struck by my right hon. Friend reminding the House that in 1979, 43 per cent. of the relevant population had occupational pensions, whereas the latest figure is approaching 70 per cent. I hold the opinion that this leaves—even at today's figures—30 per cent. or thereabouts who do not have the benefit of those very secure and, on the whole, desirable forms of income stream.
  I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use an opportunity at an appropriate stage to urge our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire whether it would be possible to have a carefully ring-fenced boost to the income of that dwindling minority of people who depend solely on the state pension. I believe that the way to do it is to relate any income boost to the age of the potential beneficiaries, rather than to their income, so that the problem, to put it crudely, solves itself with the passage of years as that generation fades from the scene.
  One might do that elegantly by relating a special supplement for very elderly people to all those born, let us say, before 1920, which would effectively, in the year of grace 1995, link it to people aged 75 and over. That would be much appreciated, and it happens to be the part of the retired population in which the greatest poverty is concentrated. There might be objections. People would draw attention to the fact that Lord Hanson would qualify,

  585
  but Lord Hanson pays quite a lot of tax, even if he orders his affairs well. It seems to me that the neatest way of dealing with the issue would be to make the supplement age-related in this way.
  I also sympathise, in the same spirit, with the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he spoke about a special pension credit for the super-elderly, as it were. I believe that he was seeking to hit much the same target as myself, and I hope that Ministers will consider it carefully.
  On another subject that has been mentioned many times in the debate, I am very sympathetic to the idea that there should be some type of amendment, perhaps in the Bill, to allow spouses to retain as much as half of the occupational pension of the couple when the other spouse has to enter long-term health care or residential care. The suggestion has repeatedly been drawn to my attention by my constituents, and there appears to be a great deal of common sense and natural justice in the arguments that have been made.
  The Bill deserves a Second Reading in the House because, first, in the light of the Maxwell scandal and the other scandals and disasters, it will make pensions more secure than they would otherwise have been, by introducing a clear framework of statutory obligations and the powerful new pensions regulator, together with the compensation scheme in the event of eventual insolvency.
  Secondly, I hope and believe that the Bill will encourage greater flexibility and choice in pension provision, making money purchase or appropriate personal pension schemes more attractive across the age range. I hope that it will allow pension holders to draw down their funds between the ages of 60 and 75 without tax penalties. That is a good step and moves some way towards the American idea of an individual retirement account. As many hon. Members will know, such accounts can be used for a variety of different contingencies under American law.
  Thirdly, the Bill will enable the House and Parliament to fulfil their obligations in European law to equalise pension rights for men and women in the light of the Barber judgment. It will also make legislative provision for the equalisation of the British state pension age at 65, phased in from 2010 to 2020. To my female constituents who are concerned about that change, may I place on record the fact that no woman born before 6 April 1950 need be affected by the change. There is ample opportunity for those born after 6 April 1950 to begin to make the sort of prudent provision for their old age that I would imagine any woman would wish to make.
  Against this background there are three significant issues that need to be touched on: first, the question of how to strike the right balance between improving pension security for pension scheme members while avoiding excessive extra costs, both financial and regulatory, on employers and those, such as auditors, who have been given whistle-blowing duties. I do not know whether I shall be fortunate enough to be selected for the Committee, but I declare an interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Clauses 90 to 95 cause considerable concern to the accountancy profession. I shall return to that issue if I am chosen to sit on the Committee.
  586
  It is important that we get the balance right between the benefits of security and the costs of regulation. The matter was expressed succinctly in the brief provided for the debate by the Association of Consulting Actuaries. It said:
  "We are concerned that the right balance should be struck between improving security for scheme members and avoiding excessive extra costs on employers who, after all, provide occupational pensions on a voluntary basis.
  Any 'toughening up' of the Bill has to be seen against this backcloth and is likely to damage future occupational pensions at a time when Parliament should be doing everything it can to encourage private pensions."
  This issue should be taken seriously.
  Secondly, the House must be clear that we should see how to avoid the selling of inappropriate pension schemes of a money purchase variety to people who, for their own interests, should remain in SERPS, while encouraging greater flexibility and choice in the pension market to reflect the significant changes in the labour market. I wonder how many hon. Members have caught up with the extent to which the labour market has been changing.
  The House of Commons Library provided me with some interesting figures from the labour force survey that clearly demonstrate that in the period as recent as 1984–94, the proportion of all part-time employees has increased by about 27 per cent., and the proportion of all those who are self-employed has increased by 22 per cent. while, over the same period, the proportion of those in full-time employment—the traditional model—has increased by only 4 per cent. It is right and proper that the changing nature and pattern of the labour market should, after due delay, be reflected in the changing and more flexible nature of pension provision. With less permanent lifetime employment, more part-time and casual employment and much more self-employment, it is only logical that pension arrangements should broadly reflect those changes.
  I welcome the tougher line recently taken by both the Securities and Investments Board and the Personal Investment Authority in trying to deal with the problems of mis-selling and bad advice. If there is to be a greater reliance on personal pensions and appropriate pensions and less reliance on SERPS or the state pension, it is vital that people should not be vulnerable to financial sharks who give them advice that they take in haste and repent at leisure. That will provide an important part of the answer to the problems.
  Thirdly, we must consider how to address the demographic prospects of an aging population that is largely dependent for its income in retirement on saving enough during its working years and, in the case of the most elderly, on transfer payments from those in work at the time. We must do so without, at the same time, overreacting and damaging the engine of consumption or imposing an intolerable burden on inter-generational transfers.
  An interesting article appeared in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, quoting some research done by Ian Shepherdson of HSBC Markets. It said that, over a long period, until recently, the proportion of consumption in gross domestic product had been steadily increasing in this country and the proportion of investment and exports had been consequently declining. But now the long-term trend seems to be pointing in the reverse direction. The latest figures suggest that the proportion of consumption

  587
  as a percentage of GDP is now falling—it is about 63 per cent. today and is likely to be well under 60 per cent. by the year 2000. This trend could continue. As consumption is the engine of the economy and as consumption helps to contribute to economic activity, which in turn enables a pay-as-you-go system to be funded to pay for pensions, it is important to attempt to achieve the right balance between savings and consumption in the interests of today's and tomorrow's pensioners.
  In broad terms, the burdens of a pay-as-you-go system can be relieved by the change in the Bill to a uniform state pension age of 65. They can also be relieved by the growing build-up of occupational pension rights among new pensioners, notably the growing proportion of women who, I suspect, are and will be working full time rather than part time and over a longer period. They will build up more substantial pension rights.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers are to be commended on introducing the Bill as it is probably the most significant measure in this Session of Parliament. It is a long-term measure that shows a due sense of prudence and responsibility towards the future. If the policy turns out to have been too cautious—if we err too much on the side of the Treasury phobia about public expenditure—it can always be relaxed in future if we can afford to do so.
  We shall need to keep the closest watch to minimise the risks of regulatory overload on personal and private pension providers because, in terms of occupational pensions, regulation will fall disproportionately on employers, scheme members and the professionals involved. We must remember that, ultimately, the price has to be paid by someone. That may mean greater contributions if the regulatory overload is too great or lower benefits than would otherwise have been the case.
  Having expressed my broad reservations, may I say that it is a good Bill and definitely deserves the support of the House.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: As the Ulster Unionist spokesman on the subject may I say that my party gives the Bill a general welcome, but aspects of it should be changed to make it more effective. Unfortunately, due to the lateness of the hour and the time available, I shall have to keep my remarks short and the House must forgive me if my speech sounds a little disjointed.
  When we examine the Bill we must bear in mind the events surrounding the Maxwell fraud, and the despair and heartbreak felt by many of the pensioners involved. We must also take into account the fears of other pensioners and deferred pensioners who are not directly involved, but who are worried that their pension scheme may not be as secure as they thought it would be. Having had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on Social Security which investigated the Maxwell scam in detail, I can fully understand their concern, and I share it.
  While listening to and reading the evidence given to the Committee over many sittings, my most worrying impression was that, of all those who were officially connected to the Maxwell schemes in one way or another, no one was responsible for the shambles discovered when Robert Maxwell went overboard from his yacht and drowned. No one else—not the trustees, auditors, accountants, actuaries, solicitors, managers or directors—
  588
  had seen, heard or had their attention drawn to any sign of trouble or to any hint that things were not as they should have been. I also thank the Secretary of State, Sir John Cuckney, the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and the civil servants involved for their great work in recovering the funds that had disappeared.
  Perhaps the House will forgive me for taking a rather jaundiced view of those parts of the Bill that I do not believe will remedy problems, such as the Maxwell fiasco, which may arise in the future. I draw the attention of the House to the law which governs the present pension schemes—and I disagree with other hon. Members on this point. Trust law, with modifications, will continue to guide the proposals in the Bill. I firmly believe that we have lost an excellent opportunity to replace trust law with a new, specific statutory trust regime for the administration of occupational pension fund schemes.
  I have listened to many opinions about the matter and I believe that the legal framework of trust law is inadequate to deal with pension fund schemes. After all, trust law was developed in the middle ages as a means of preventing the dispersal of large estates and protecting the interests of children and widows who were thought to be unable to administer their own assets. Like clause IV, surely the time has come to bring such laws up to date and into the modern world.
  I am very disappointed that the Bill does not contain a new legal framework. Even with the new modifications, employers are still largely unrestricted in the way in which they decide to set up schemes. Accepting for the moment that trust law may continue, I turn to the Bill's proposals for trustees.
  My party disagrees with the proposal for only one third employee representation on trustee boards. We strongly support 50 per cent. employer and 50 per cent. employee representation by right, coupled with the undertaking that one of the employee places should be allocated to a pensioner trustee who is democratically elected by secret ballot from all of the scheme's pensioners. That arrangement would be widely accepted outside Government, particularly as the one third representation arrangement carries with it the possibility of an opt-out.
  Personally, I also support identifying one existing trustee who would look after the interests of deferred pensioners. We support the view that all trustees should be trained properly and should possess a final certificate testifying to their competence to carry out their duty to the scheme. That would be in the best interests of everyone, including the employer. That training should be in the hands of the occupational pensions regulatory authority.
  We welcome the establishment of that authority, but we believe that it should have stronger powers. Although the Bill makes modifications to the existing trust law, the authority's rights and duties appear to be fragmented. It also appears to have little jurisdiction over those areas which continue to rely on trust law. Perhaps the new authority will convince Government that the best way to encourage scheme members to monitor the performance of their schemes is to insist upon their being sent an annual report by right.
  Perhaps the Government will consider funding the authority by way of 50 per cent. state funding matched by 50 per cent. industry funding. I think that that would ensure greater independence for the authority, while at the same time preventing the full cost falling on the taxpayers. As other hon. Members have said, we would like the

  589
  authority to be more proactive and thus be in a position to monitor pension schemes. That would be better than depending on the whistle-blowing abilities of actuaries and auditors—an arrangement that I believe will create a great deal of difficulty and resentment in the future.
  The authority is expected to act, even in a whistle-blowing circumstance, only if the assets have been reduced by illegal acts. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that assets can be reduced drastically without illegal acts—the Church of England can testify to that fact. I contend that a more proactive authority could pick up such things at an earlier stage and perhaps prevent honest, well-meaning people from being their own worst enemy. We welcome the arrangement which will allow OPRA to co-operate and share information with the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and other regulators. However, we are disappointed that the Bill does not propose independent custodians for pension fund investment assets. We are also puzzled that the suggestion that the ownership of all such assets should be clearly designated has not been included in the Bill. Bearing in mind the difficulties experienced in tracing assets belonging to the various Maxwell pension schemes, it is an even more surprising omission from the Bill. Anyone who heard or read the evidence presented to the Social Security Select Committee about Maxwell's missing assets would have thought that the stable door would be closed at the earliest opportunity.
  Changing the minimum solvency requirement to a minimum funding requirement has considerably weakened the reason for its inclusion in the Bill. Watering it down in that way means that what was once regarded as a key safeguard no longer offers very much for scheme members. The compensation scheme established by the Bill is very welcome, although its effectiveness will become apparent only when the regulations relating to the list of prescribed offences are published. We welcome the arrangements whereby scheme members will be given notice of the trustees' intention to return a surplus to an employer and such members' right to refer decisions taken about such a surplus to OPRA.
  We believe that it would have been useful to consider amending the Inland Revenue surplus regulations at this time in view of the Pension Law Review Committee's recommendation. We hope that some consideration will be given to the position of early leavers when the regulations are published. We look forward with interest to hearing what the prescribed period will be where due payment has not been met.
  As to raising the pension age for women to 65 years, we support a decade of retirement between 60 and 70 years of age for everyone. Of course, that raises the question of finance, as it could be argued—it was mentioned in the House—that it would be an invitation for everyone to retire at 60. That need not necessarily be the case as many men and women are anxious to work to 70 years and beyond. Surely the law of averages would even out retirement in a way that would benefit most people and the country as a whole. I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the amendment regarding war widows but draw attention to other aspects of that category, which I hope will also be considered. We also support pensioners residing overseas and trust that their position will be speedily addressed.
  590
  Perhaps the Minister can say why the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. It would be most unfortunate if all its safeguards were introduced in Great Britain but pension funds such as that of Harland and Wolff—about which we took evidence—were omitted. They will probably be included by order, but I wonder why Northern Ireland has been left off the face of the Bill.
  As the Bill progresses in Committee, I hope that the clear message will be sent that it supports pension schemes already known for their good practices, but that it will come down hard on schemes that indulge in bad or illegal practices. Above all, I hope the pensioners will feel that their future benefits will be much safer because the House has passed the measure. The Bill may not be all that we want, but it is all that we have. We will support the Bill and amendments that seek to improve it.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I welcome this necessary Bill. Having served on the Social Security Select Committee and been involved in eight reports over the past few years, it is clear to me that not all was well in the pensions industry. Maxwell accounted for much of our work, but that inquiry identified many problems that were repeated elsewhere. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) took us to Northern Ireland to study the Harland and Wolff pension fund and we were shocked at the way in which some members of that fund were treated. We took evidence also in relation to Belling and other pension funds.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned the recent report on the Church Commissioners, which showed that even the Church has not had a full understanding of pension arrangements to ensure that people enjoy the benefits that they expect. The big problem is that too many people in pension funds have not enjoyed the benefits that they were expecting and should have received in justice. We as constituency Members of Parliament have to deal with smaller-scale problems than that of Maxwell.
  I congratulate the Government on the way in which they dealt with Maxwell. Interest was shown by more than 100 Back Benchers. Apart from the Social Security Select Committee, an all-party committee was established to monitor the general situation. As a result of much lobbying and activity, the Government made a good response. The Maxwell pensioners unit was also formed, resulting in £400 million being obtained from a variety of sources, including some recoveries. Much of that money came from extra-statutory contributions from a number of financial institutions in the City. It was rumoured that one particular institution made a contribution of £100 million. I called for that some years ago, and I was pleased that Sir John Cuckney, by whatever method, managed to make certain that such contributions were obtained. Members of Maxwell pension schemes have not lost out, as was originally expected, but have seen a full recovery. One wonders whether they will enjoy the growth that they might otherwise have enjoyed. It is certainly to be regretted that Maxwell happened at all.
  Maxwell gave rise to too many concerns for us not to pay attention to the lessons to be learnt from that case. I hope that the Bill reflects many of those lessons—not least the provisions dealing with whistle-blowing. Several people had knowledge that something was wrong at Maxwell. No one had the complete picture—probably

  591
  only Robert Maxwell and one or two other individuals, whom we cannot mention because of sub judice laws, had an overall understanding—but a number of people had an inkling of what was going wrong. Quite a few knew that there had been minor breaches of the law. A lot of legal and accounting advice was being taken and there should have been some whistle-blowing much earlier.
  It is gratifying that this country has the best pension system in Europe. We know that we can probably meet the country's liabilities. I say "probably" because there is no certainty that even the British pension system and SERPS can meet their liabilities because many more people in the next century will be claiming pensions on the state. Other countries in Europe are facing the reality that their pensions commitments are greater than their assets—whether they are tax revenues from pay-as-you-go systems or funded, they are still insufficient to meet the liabilities. Europe has hundreds of billions of pounds of unfunded pension liabilities. They are so great that it is unlikely that there could be a single currency before the year 2000 at the earliest. Not many people have made that their cause celebre or understand it.
  I hope that the Treasury will calculate in the not-too-distant future Europe's unfunded pension liabilities; people may then begin to understand that a single currency is not a simple concept that can be implemented in the next few years but something far more complex. Because Britain has a much more sensibly funded pension system and is in a stronger position, France is desperate to enter a single currency—if possible, next year. If it were not for Italy and Sweden, France would have the worst-funded pension system in Europe. Sweden's system is so had that the foreign currency bond markets do not want to buy its debt, which is being rapidly downgraded.
  In considering the strength of the German economy, I hope that people will bear it in mind that although that country's pension system is just about able to pay its way now, in 2005 a greater proportion of Germany's population will be elderly and of retirement age. Germany will then have immense difficulties meeting its pension liabilities. If it wants to enter a single currency, it must do so by 2005, when Germany's liabilities will hit. One may ask who will pick up those liabilities in the next century, if a single currency exists.
  Mr. John Greenway: We will.
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain will have to pay for the liabilities of Italy, France, Sweden and Germany because they have not properly funded their pension systems. The Bill is about making sure that Britain can meet its commitments. I want to make sure that we do not end up meeting the commitments of other countries, which a single currency would bring about.
  Many people argue that 50 per cent. of trustees should be pension fund members, rather than one third. I remind the House that 50 per cent. of Maxwell's trustees were fund members. The issue is not numbers or quantity but quality. That is not to say that Maxwell trustees—pensioners or members—lacked quality; they simply lacked the ability to do the job. It was not a question of their personal abilities; it was a question of their access to information, and of their training. I know that the Opposition have some sympathy with this point. We must
  592
  ensure that trustees are properly trained and are given proper information. We must also ensure that there are people to whom they can go with that information.
  It is at this point that the regulator's interaction with pension trustees will be critical. It is not an issue of quantity. Trustees must have the ability to question and they must have full access to information. If there is one part of the Bill that I want tightened up—even though it is a good Bill—it is the ways in which we can make sure that trustees have more access to information about how funds are invested and about the custodial arrangements for them.
  There should be plenty of declarations of all such arrangements in the accounts and the annual report. Everyone should know that there is an annual report, filed somewhere. At one point I thought that it should be filed with the regulator; I then realised that such a large number of reports was involved that he or she would be wasting time on massive amounts of paperwork. Still, it is important that outsiders—journalists, if necessary—should be able to get hold of sets of accounts. There must always be a healthy debate whenever there is a legitimate public interest in how pension funds operate.
  I suggest that the regulator should not be too bureaucratic. Yesterday, The Observer, not known as a right-wing newspaper, carried an article under the heading "Pensions Watchdog Too Costly", suggesting that the costs of regulation could be as high as £80 million a year. I do not want too much regulation. We discussed this in the Social Security Select Committee. Over-regulation could cause many pension funds to close and upset the balance between occupational, private and other pension funds. Such a move would be a major mistake.
  I should like next to discuss minimum funding and solvency requirements. As soon as the Bill was published, I lobbied the junior Minister—not because I have a vested interest but because, when I did my sums on the back of an envelope to find out whether there would be any Government gilts in the next century, it became obvious to me that if Governments stick to this Government's anti-inflation policy, there will not be enough gilts around to meet the minimum solvency and funding requirements that were originally included.
  Many of us are also worried that the Government will be forced to issue gilts to ensure that pension funds can meet their minimum solvency requirements. I could not support that; I want the Government to stop issuing debt and to start balancing their accounts. The fact is that the bond markets show no great enthusiasm for taking up Government debt these days. We should therefore not be issuing large amounts of it.
  I am delighted that the Government have accepted the point about war widows. It is a great tribute to them that they are paying for something that no previous Government have managed to fund. [Interruption.] It occurs to me now that I need to truncate my speech, even though I was asked earlier to deliver a slightly longer one by those who dictate—or request—these things. I now find myself being asked to shorten comments that I took the trouble to write out at great length. That is one of the oddities of the operations of this place.
  SERPS was based on commitments to be made today for the next century—commitments that no Government could sensibly make. With fewer children being born and fewer people available to pay the bills for the elderly in the next century, we were going to have a shrinking tax

  593
  base with ever greater demands on it. The statistics in the Government Actuary's report are amazing. Sadly, I suspect that it will not prove to be a bestseller; it is called "Pensions Bill 1994: Report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Provisions of the Bill on the National Insurance Fund". Appendix E may prove to be even less widely read, but it informs us that, by the year 2040—without a change in the pension age—there would be 17.4 million pensioners. That compares with about 11 million pensioners today. Even with the proposed changes to the pension age, there will be 15.6 million pensioners. That is a serious problem that must be met and a heavy burden that will have to be borne by taxpayers of the next century. The problem can be dealt with only by the Government's proposed changes. The Opposition are wrong to propose a flexible decade of retirement. We simply cannot afford it.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has had to leave the Chamber, because I welcomed his suggestion to have a probing amendment. If I am chosen to serve on the Committee, I shall join him in tabling such an amendment on divorce reform in this context. The present system is not fair, and something must be done about it. It will not be easy; there are plenty of problems associated with it. We already have a high divorce rate, and it could be argued that the current system encourages it. It encourages husbands to drop their wives and take their pensions with them. I should like to believe that that does not happen, but the fact is that many wives are not aware of their pension rights or of how much pension they are losing—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Their solicitors should tell them.
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend, who is a lawyer herself, makes her own suggestion. Sad to say, my experience of the legal profession is that it has not always properly advised wives. The Child Support Agency has shown that wives have taken houses without realising that they have given up pensions. They have been badly advised.
  I come finally to an important subject that needs dealing with—low-paid and part-time workers. Although I do not support some of the judgments emerging from Europe, I was rather pleased to learn that part-time workers are to be involved in pensions. Many more people should be brought into the private pension system. For that, we need low-cost private pensions. I am delighted to see that Marks and Spencer and Virgin are looking at this area. I suspect that they will cause a bigger shake-up than the Pensions Bill. I should like many more low-cost schemes for those on lower incomes, to enable them to get into private pensions. The friendly societies have a significant role to play. I hope that the Government will take steps to encourage an expansion of this facility.
  I support the Bill's Second Reading. I believe that the Bill will result in better and safer private pensions, and that the public sector will have a much more realistic liability in the next century, so that we as a nation are able to afford it.
  8.27 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I was planning to confine my remarks to the subject of trustees
  594
  and how their role will change as a result of the Bill, but some of the comments by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) cause me to begin by discussing the equalisation of retirement age. What we are actually talking about is equalising entitlement to state pensions. For many people, the effective date of retirement comes much earlier than that.
  It was my privilege to work with Liverpool city council social services staff during the 1980s, when I was an elected representative of the National Union of Public Employees. I spent a lot of time working with home helps. Women who work for local authorities, if lucky enough still to be fit and well and able to continue working, will often keep going until the age of 65. If they have been able to join an occupational pension scheme, they will not receive their benefits from it until they are 65, so many of them continue working, and find it in their financial interests to stay in work until they are 65. Many of those home helps in their 60s would say to me, "Is there nothing you can do about reducing the age of retirement of men to 60 so that I can get my occupational pension at 60, as well as my state pension?" As home helps, the people whom they looked after, for whom they did the shopping and the housework, were often younger than they were. The home helps pointed out the anomalies of that and said that it really was ridiculous.
  Many hon. Members may feel that such people should, perhaps, value more the opportunity to work until that age. We talk about the flexible decade of retirement, of people being given the chance to choose when they can retire, but for many women occupational pension schemes have been irrelevant. The majority of women with whom I have had the chance to work have not been able to join such a scheme because they have not worked sufficient hours for it to be of any value to them. The supervisors, I am sad to say, of many women who worked for more than 20 hours a week in their local authority, did not regard them as being "proper" people entitled to join such a scheme. The benefits and value of their joining were never sold to them, and therefore they never joined. So there are many women who have been let down by occupational pension schemes.
  The Bill was an opportunity—perhaps we could take this further in Standing Committee—to change the rules of occupational pension schemes to make it much more beneficial for women to join them. I am looking forward to discussing that in Committee, should I be selected for that role.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Lady accept that the best way to tackle the problem is to admit that her objective, which is shared on both sides of the House, should be to encourage more women to qualify for, or take up, a pension rather than join a campaign for the state pension age to be brought down to 60, which at the end of the day we all know is something that will not be delivered and is a complete con?
  Mrs. Kennedy: I do not accept that it is a complete con to argue that the state retirement age should be reduced to 60. I accept that the cost factor involved must be taken into account, but when one takes into account the fact that the value of the state pension is being eroded over time anyway, the actual costs are perhaps not as great as stated. In fact, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) produced an interesting pamphlet on that, which discussed the much-vaunted demographic time-bomb that we were

  595
  said to be facing. He said that many people now approaching retirement age are better off than they have ever been, particularly men, who have been able to enjoy a sustained period of employment in one job. They have been able to build up sufficient benefits in an occupational pension scheme, so, for them, the state pension is a small part of their income.
  There will increasingly be, in my view, people who will not have the opportunity to work to that age, either because they cannot find employment or because their health breaks down. I see in my surgery many examples of men and women who are not fit to continue to work up to the age of their entitlement to state pension, and therefore I feel that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) needs to be underlined. We need to develop a system of benefits that allows people to face their future with equanimity, not the fear of poverty, which I believe we will face unless we do something to deal with the reducing value of the state pension.
  I now deal with trustees. The Select Committee, on which I was fortunate to serve for a short time, said, in response to the Goode report:
  "It is important to the well being of pension schemes that the Pensions Bill reserves such powers to the trustees as are necessary to ensure that the scheme is operated in the best interests of its members and is not open to manipulation by the employer."
  I accept that it is now established that there are a number of beneficiaries from an occupational pension scheme, including the employer, but the Bill waters down the suggestion in the White Paper that schemes could opt out of the one third requirement of member trustees if the members demonstrate by a referendum that they could do so. The White Paper watered down the Goode committee's suggestion of having a third of the members of trustee boards as elected or member trustees. I am not discussing here what happens to money purchase occupational pension schemes. The White Paper watered that down. The Bill takes it even further. Clause 17 relaxes the White Paper's suggestion further by allowing employers to continue with existing arrangements, and placing the onus on members to take an acting stance of opting in if they want member trustees.
  Why is it so important that we have member trustees, or even pensioner trustees, on the boards of the occupational pension funds in Britain? We heard a lot of evidence in the Select Committee, from pensions groups in particular. I remember the pensioners who came to us from BT after it was privatised. The company wished to lose much of its work force, to shed labour. It had a vast surplus in its pension fund, and the employers and employees' representatives—the employee members—on the trustees board conspired to use the surplus to put together a very good package for its current employers, who were active members of the scheme, to take early retirement. For those individuals, it was a very good scheme indeed.
  The pensioners from other companies—we heard this time and again—however, felt aggrieved that their assets, the funding that they were relying on to pay their benefits, were being manipulated in a way which they felt unable to influence. That is why I believe that it is important that a number of the trustees, or at least one, should be pensioner trustees.
  596
  I accept that there is a continuing inconsistency in the requirement to have members of the trustees board as representatives of a particular group. Once they become trustees, they have effectively to shed that responsibility. I echo the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on the need for properly trained trustees who are able to fulfil their function properly. They will be able to do that and to stop being delegates or representatives only if they have the required training. Failure to train them properly will leave them entirely dependent on the help and support of the group whom they represent.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I listened with concern to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) had to say about the apparent failure of some local authority employers to encourage their women employees to join occupational pension schemes, because I am an enthusiastic supporter of such schemes and believe that all those who would benefit from them should be encouraged by their employers to join them.
  Occupational pension schemes have been hugely successful over the years. The remarkable fact is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset of the debate, that today, 70 per cent. of those who retire do so with the security of an occupational pension. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of that and the increased standard of living that comes with it. They have been hugely successful. I hope that they will continue to be so. They have also provided huge sums of money for investment in British industry, which is equally important. If one compares that with the situation in the rest of Europe, I hope that the whole House accepts just how successful those schemes are.
  I support the Second Reading of the Bill because I think that the time has come for a comprehensive review of the legislation. It tended to be rather piecemeal previously. The Occupational Pensions Board was asked to look at this problem or that problem. The Maxwell affair prompted that comprehensive review. The Goode committee did an excellent job in looking at all aspects of schemes and has come up with something that represents a reasonable balance.
  The most fundamental point—indeed, the only point—that I want to make in the course of my short remarks is about balance. It is a simple but important point. Different interests are involved in pension schemes. No pension scheme exists without the consent of an employer. They are all voluntary. They have to be funded by the employer, and clearly there is a balance between that and the interests of the members.
  It is self-evident that whenever the House makes a regulatory change, that has an effect on the market. It is not possible to make a regulatory change that does not affect or influence market behaviour. What is happening in the market at the moment, even before the Bill has become law, is that most small employers setting up new schemes are choosing money purchase rather than final salary schemes. There are a number of reasons for that, one being low inflation. If there is low inflation, it is less important to give a guarantee of a final salary pension. Another reason is the sheer complexity of the present arrangements, especially the guaranteed minimum pension regulations, which are to be simplified.

  597
  It is clear that regulatory burdens and the costs associated with them are important. The cost of funding a final salary scheme is uncertain, compared with the cost of funding a money purchase scheme—and cost is important to employers. That argument arises in discussions about surpluses. It is always the employer who is expected to fund any deficit, but when there is a surplus the members think that they have a right to the whole of it. That is an important point and it is relevant to what is now called the minimum funding requirement. There is a real concern about the additional costs that that will bring for some large, mature, closed schemes. We must consider that point in Committee.
  I am also concerned about the effect that the requirement will have on the equity market. One reason—indeed, the main reason—why schemes were so hugely successful in the 1980s was that success was achieved on the back of a rising equity market. If there are regulations that push trustees into investing in gilts, that will be bad for the schemes because they will not be able to achieve the same growth in income, and it will also be bad for British industry, which will be deprived of funds. Therefore, it is important to achieve a sensible balance between the interests.
  We all want to achieve the same thing—good occupational pension schemes for as many people as possible. However, we must be sure that in the process of trying to improve the benefits, we do not discourage employers from setting up schemes.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: All sorts of people take risks with other people's money and we are dealing with one aspect of that today. Mention has been made of the Church Commissioners. The most recent report of the Social Security Select Committee uses strong language about one particular investment. It says that the best interpretation that it can put on the Church Commissioners' activities is that they displayed unbelievable naivety. That is very worrying. The spectrum goes from the seemingly responsible Church Commissioners, to the complex trust arrangements that exist in pension schemes, through to the great scandals such as Maxwell.
  I do not think that Maxwell is a solitary case. I actually sailed down the river with Mr. Maxwell today, in the company of the Campaign for Pension Fund Democracy. Today's version of Mr. Maxwell was somewhat more inflated than the original and one journalist suggested that we should symbolically throw him over the side. However, as the Port of London authority was present, that was not thought to be a good idea.
  I am concerned about some of the issues surrounding Maxwell, which I believe have been entirely missed in the Bill. On several previous occasions, as well as when I introduced a Bill in 1992, I made a point about the importance of takeovers. I understand that within the complexities of the Maxwell empire, the works pension fund represented dozens of companies that merged. The complexities of the merger process actually created an environment in which it was possible for Maxwell to slide off with some of the share certificates. Some of the detail of that is still before the courts.
  598
  The process of takeover and the management of funds are remarkably important, but thus far they have been ignored in the Bill. In many cases, concern has been expressed about that issue. The most important case was Hanson v. Imperial Tobacco trustees a few years ago. There has been a series of similar court cases. The most significant one in which I was involved was the GEC takeover of Plessey. Some 14 firms of lawyers were appointed, representing all the various interested parties. Enormously large sums of money were spent on issues that should have been determined in statute—something that could have been tackled within the framework of this Bill. There have been many similar cases.
  In the first attempted takeover of Plessey by GEC, I was responsible for negotiating on behalf of the staff side of the pension fund. I found myself in the most extraordinary position of receiving a phone call from the then company secretary—now long since deceased—the day before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was due to be published. He asked me to come urgently to a meeting because he wanted to settle all the outstanding issues stemming from the last claim submitted by the trade union side in respect of the triennial review.
  Of course, from the point of view of the members that was a wonderful arrangement—but it could not be said to be the rational and constructive expenditure of the assets of the pension fund. It should have been dealt with in a much more carefully thought-out way. The whole mechanism revolved around how best to manipulate each side's benefit in the context of the takeover. That cannot be right. I could list nine different cases—but I will not—where the interests of members during the process of takeover have been disadvantaged by the manipulation of one party or another.
  Thus in 1992, when I sought to introduce a private Member's Bill, the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security wrote to me saying:
  "I recognise and sympathise with the focus of your Bill to protect the rights of members of occupational pension schemes where a company undergoes a change of ownership. Coming as it does in the wake of the Maxwell affair it addresses the concern shared by us all that within the Maxwell group of companies ownership was changed, and pension scheme members were moved from one scheme to another, without regard to their long term pension security."
  The Under-Secretary was exactly right in that paragraph and it is a great pity that that point has not been dealt with in the Bill. I hope that tonight the Government will say that they will take cognisance of that letter and that they will support any relevant amendments tabled in Committee. The relevance to all the schemes with which we are dealing is absolutely clear. It is not simply the Maxwell-type arrangement; it is necessary to protect sums of money in a more positive way.
  At the time of my Bill the Government invited me to submit documentation to Goode, which I did. Goode referred to the takeover issue in one small paragraph. However, if we analyse the matter politically we must recognise that many of the issues of the Maxwell scandal could have been avoided. I urge the Government to rethink the matter.
  The Government need to reconsider the whole question of member trustees. I accept that it is right for trustees to have a clear responsibility, not simply to the part of the population that elected them, but to the scheme in its entirety. There can be no doubt about that. It is difficult to explain to fund members that that is so. They say, "But

  599
  I elected Mr. So-and-So; why can't I expect him to do as I say?" They cannot expect him to do so as he simply has responsibilities that are set out in the trust deed. That relationship is difficult to explain to the ordinary fund member.
  What makes it more difficult, however, is that fund members say, "But this collective sum of money is defined by the trust deed, broadly speaking, and that pot of money is ours"—notwithstanding the quirks that give rise to circumstances where employers can partly be the beneficiaries of schemes. They say that European legislation or European Court decisions have decided that the money is part of pay. They ask why they cannot take broad control of that money within the constraints of the trust deed.
  The arguments have been set out both by proponents of the 50 per cent. or more proposal tonight, and by supporters of the Government's position. If the numbers do not make any difference because the responsibilities are set out in the trust deed, the answer is that it is symbolic; something that the Government should concede. We should give members a feeling of a great deal more control over investment of the portfolio by increasing that number. It will provide a better basis for trust in schemes.
  I could say a lot more, and I hope that some of the points are taken on board by the Government in the spirit that they are intended. We have gone a long way with the Bill. It is not good enough yet. I have set out one of the reasons for that in the context of my 1992 Bill. With some amendments, the Pensions Bill could potentially become an important piece of legislation that could develop support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It could return us to the position in the early 1970s when the pension legislation was developed on a bipartisan basis. I hope that, in the long term, the House achieves that.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I begin by declaring my interest of having worked in the insurance and pensions industry for 25 years. Most people tend to associate me with having been a former policeman, but it is 25 years since I left the police. Had I stayed, I could have retired next Wednesday, 3 May, and I would have received a police pension that no one would have funded by creating a pension fund. I can see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is amused that one so young could possibly be a pensioner as early as next Wednesday. That probably says more about the police pension age than anything else, but it is a fact.
  I want to make some serious points. Unfunded public sector schemes are a problem with which we must deal. The Committee will have to consider them when it debates the Bill's provisions on divorce.
  I should declare my interest in the industry. I sit on the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, which is one of the industry's regulatory bodies, and I am a salaried employee of the Institute of Insurance Brokers. None of those interests reflects greatly on what I want to say tonight, but, for good order, I mention them.
  In 10 minutes or so, one cannot do justice to a Bill of about 150 clauses. It is probably the most far-reaching Bill affecting pensions for a decade or more. It has been warmly welcomed, both in the House and outside, but
  600
  the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who I am glad is in his place, pinched my line because he prayed in aid the Child Support Agency. As I approached the Bill, the one thing that worried me slightly was my recollection of the universal acclaim for the Child Support Act 1991. I am therefore slightly reassured by the fact that the Labour party will vote against the Bill tonight, so we hear, although not for particularly sound reasons.
  An important point has been made: that, in the euphoria of the dreadful events surrounding the Maxwell scandal, which has rocked many occupational pension scheme members to the core, and of the Bill, which attempts to deal with those problems, we will not keep a careful and detailed eye on all the issues in the Bill. The Bill's intentions are undoubtedly laudable but the eventual judgment will be based not on its universal acclaim but on whether and to what extent our objectives are realised.
  Conflicts exist that we cannot ignore. We want to improve the security and the trusteeship of occupational schemes. I greatly welcome that. We want to secure benefits for pensioners, but the rules must not be so onerous as to discourage either occupational schemes or, if there is an occupational scheme, the choice of the right scheme. Defined benefit or final salary schemes have great advantages, but they require the voluntary agreement of the employer; otherwise, people will go for money purchase, which is less attractive, or more people will go into personal pensions and will not have an occupational scheme.
  I carefully followed the Bill's passage in the other place. I warmly welcome the Government's response to it. Some of the changes that have already been made are clear evidence that they are listening to the genuine concerns, and I welcome their aim of getting the measure right.
  I want to make two points about occupational schemes, the first of which involves compensation. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made one of his statements about the Goode report—I think that it was the one about the Maxwell scandal—I said that we should not lose sight of the fact that more than half of all occupational pensions are funded not through a self-administered arrangement but are insured schemes. Insured pension schemes have the benefit of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. We must be careful not to penalise insurance companies that are subject to the provisions of the Act. They should not have to finance a significant part of any levy to fund compensation.
  The Government have not adequately responded to the genuine concerns of insurers, particularly those expressed by the Association of British Insurers on behalf of life offices, but that is something for the Committee to consider.
  Reference has been made to the vexed issue of the minimum funding requirement. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who has worked tirelessly on the matter, but I want to disappoint him as well as praise him because we have not got it quite right yet. He will know that a number of major employers with big schemes remain concerned about their commitments if the Bill, as drafted, is passed. British Airways is one of the companies that has expressed those concerns.

  601
  A number of big companies' schemes are or are about to become closed schemes. They may suddenly find that if the solvency or minimum funding test is wrong on a particular day, they will be required to put more cash into a closed scheme with no facility to get the money out when, at some future date, it becomes clear that the extra money was not needed.
  A number of suggestions have been made and, as usual, people go for the belt-and-braces approach whereas what we need is one or the other. Rather than having to invest more cash in such schemes, which have never had any difficulty meeting their obligations, I rather like the idea of either a bank guarantee or some form of subordinated loan. No doubt we shall discuss the matter in detail in Committee, but I nevertheless flag it as one of the issues that still needs some thought.
  It has become obvious from the debate that there is a philosophical divide between the Government and the Opposition about how much we should rely on the state to fund pensions well into the next century and how much we can and should rely on the private sector. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in his interesting speech, he has grave concerns about the ability of private pensions, especially personal pensions, to deliver what is required. I have no such doubts but I share his concern about mis-selling, which is my final point.
  The Bill undoubtedly increases the trend towards personal pensions rather than the state earnings-related pension scheme. I have often said on public platforms that the Government should have been bolder with regard to SERPS five or six years ago. We have ended up with the feeling that SERPS will continue for a number of people, and we did not send a strong enough message as to what we had in mind.
  The point is that the work force of the future—I am looking 30 or 50 years hence—cannot afford to fund the commitments being entered into by this generation for future pensioners who have all the time in the world to make their own provision. We have to face the serious problem of the mis-selling of personal pensions that occurred when people transferred from an occupational scheme or, indeed, opted out of an occupational scheme or failed to join when they could have done so. I want to make it clear, as I have done a number of times—most notably at the Chartered Insurance Institute's annual conference in Aberdeen last September—that it is a scandal that we have to put right.
  I cannot understand why some of the transfers and opt-outs were ever accepted by life offices. They, of course, would argue that they did not know in every case that there was such an opt-out or that there were a number of non-joiners. However, I am not convinced that we are going about resolving the difficulty in entirely the right way. I should like the issue to be explored in Committee because the Bill endeavours to put right mistakes that have been made on a number of fronts, and this is one issue that we cannot ignore.
  The Personal Investment Authority has now set up its pensions unit. It will be run by Miss Joanne Hindle, who is well known to the industry and greatly respected. She faces the formidable difficulty of transfer values. What disturbs me and fellow members of the all-party insurance and financial services group—two of my most able
  602
  supporters, my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Gloucester (Mr. French), are here tonight—is how we calculate transfer values.
  Some of the evidence given to us concerned a teacher who was given a transfer value of £22,000 on leaving the teachers' scheme but 15 months later the reinstatement cost was £84,000. A staff nurse who was given a transfer value of £5,000 was two years later quoted a reinstatement cost of £53,000. As long as such a problem exists—as long as there is such a difference between the transfer value on leaving a scheme and what it costs to rejoin—there is no doubt that elements within the insurance and pension industry will resist what the Securities and Investments Board and the PIA wish to achieve. That will not help to clear up the matter once and for all, which is what is needed if we are to restore the confidence of ordinary people in private pension provision.
  I cannot do other than agree wholly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—personal pensions are a very good thing. What we have to be sure about is that the right people buy them in the right circumstances, which is something that we should consider before the Bill passes all its stages.
  9.4 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate; I regret that I missed the opening speeches. I have waited four and a half years for this debate because I am a Maxwell pensioner. There is a sense in which hon. Members on both sides of the House say, "Oh well, at last a lot of the loopholes are about to be closed. We can put the Maxwell experience behind us and a chapter is being closed." For the many people who have been affected by the Maxwell scandal, the chapter will never be closed.
  There is an assumption that because of the good efforts of Sir John Cuckney many people have now had their pensions restored and everything is hunky-dory. That is not so. The members of the Maxwell works scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred, had only 80 per cent. of their pensions paid to them for a long period. Elderly people who had to count the pennies to work out what they would have for the extras in life will not get that money back. Indeed, many pensioners in the Maxwell scheme have not lived to see today.
  I make that point with some feeling because one of my misfortunes was that on 2 December 1991, the day that the frauds were discovered, I was taken from the Daily Record and Sunday Mail subsidiary and seconded to Mirror Group Newspapers for the crisis period. I lived through the Maxwell crisis, so hon. Members should believe me when I say that there are those who still suffer psychologically and financially as a result of what happened.
  I regret that many aspects of the Bill do not meet the needs that the crisis revealed. I hope that the Committee of Selection will consider me to serve on the Standing Committee because there are a number of matters that I should like to address.
  It is not often that I find an opportunity to agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). However, one key point he made this evening was about the need for information for pension fund members. One of the reasons why few people managed to spot that something was

  603
  going wrong in the Maxwell scheme was that the pensions department was permanently in chaos. In the four years during which I was a member of the scheme before the frauds were discovered, I received not one item of correspondence from the pensions department telling me either of the state of my pension or of the state of the fund. I was not alone; many thousands of people in the scheme were in exactly the same position.
  Much was said earlier about the need for training for trustee members. Training is absolutely crucial, but that lesson has not, I fear, been learnt. An awful lot of people assume that the Maxwell frauds took place because of the strength of Robert Maxwell's personality, but that was only a fraction of the issue. In reality, many pension fund trustees were bamboozled by the fact that Maxwell had set up a network of organisations, not least of which was the Maxwell-owned fund management company. Many distinguished economists and actuaries appeared to give advice to pension fund members, but they were repeatedly bamboozled and had the wool pulled over their eyes. They were not weak or stupid people, but they were not given the opportunity to get the information that they needed.
  I pay tribute to the Maxwell pensioners because before the fraud was discovered they were agitating, although not because they felt that there was a fraud. Indeed, it is interesting that they believed that there was not a fraud. The first public evidence that there was a hole in the Maxwell pension funds came when Lord Stevens of Ludgate said to a reporter at a cocktail party that there was a hole in them. The pensioners' representatives were phoned up and their reaction was shared by most people—that it could not be true because it was such an absurd suggestion.
  Some weeks later it was found that the suggestion was not absurd and that there was a massive hole in the funds. The pensioners' representatives—elderly people, some of whom were very frail—rallied round and managed to put a strong and convincing case that kept those who could take decisions to protect pensioners very much on their toes.
  The Maxwell affair convinces me that there is a strong case for pensioners' representatives serving on the board of trustees. The role of auditors is also relevant. Lay members of pension funds seek the comfort of an audit. With the audit of the Maxwell fund, the auditors—I do not suggest that there was any irregularity—were the auditors to the network of Maxwell companies. Only a few months earlier, they had been the auditors to the verification of the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers, the detail of which was approved by the stock exchange. To give comfort to pension fund members, we must ensure that auditors are independent of the operation of the company. I would wish to pursue that in Standing Committee should the opportunity arise.
  We must also consider the role of the regulator. I noticed the Secretary of State shaking his head when it was suggested that the regulator was under-resourced and underpowered. Believe me, the sums put aside for the regulator pale into insignificance when compared with the fees that have been paid to blue-chip City firms to help untangle the dreadful scam perpetrated by Robert Maxwell. A considerable amount of money has gone to the City. To stop that happening again, we must ensure that the regulator is adequately funded and has the powers to be proactive. A proactive regulator would have stopped the debacle of the Maxwell scheme.
  604
  Compensation must be addressed in some detail. If it had been available in the right way and speedily enough, much of the anxiety of pensioners would have been overcome. Indeed, many people would have been able to face the future with much more confidence.
  I am glad that we are debating this Bill, but I greatly regret the fact that many of the lessons that should have been learned from the Maxwell debacle have not been learned. I hope that in Committee some of that may be put right.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Obviously the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) has been a doughty fighter on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners. I would that she had been in the House for earlier speeches because she would have heard tributes being paid to the Secretary of State and to Lord Cuckney for their role in the affair in making sure—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir John Cuckney. Well, it was a suggestion from the Opposition. Hon. Members have paid tribute to their role in bringing about a much more satisfactory resolution to the Maxwell affair than was envisaged at the outset. It would be apposite if the hon. Lady joined in paying those tributes.
  I must declare an interest as an adviser to the Legal and General Group plc. Naturally, I am tempted to comment at length on mis-selling, but I guess that the House would think that anything that I said would be coloured by that interest, so I shall refrain from doing so. I shall do no more than endorse thoroughly the comments made by hon. Members of all parties, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that, whatever the benefits of personal pensions, mis-selling must be rooted out. Indeed, the entire industry is committed to rooting out mis-selling. If that is not believed by the general public, more must be done by the industry to ensure that that is so.
  I very much welcome the Bill. It represents a balanced approach and a balanced response to the Maxwell affair, which started the process. I endorse very much the measured pace at which the Government have proceeded towards the Bill. There was an extensive period of consultation following the Goode inquiry and, of course, a long period during which we have been able to consider the White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions". The riskier form of consultation of sending the Bill to the House of Lords first ensures that, by the time the Bill comes to this House, we are well versed in many of the issues and in a position to decide finally on them.
  It would be a great mistake to regard the Bill as the final word on pensions, as a variety of hon. Members have said, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). Indeed, I dare say that the chapter will never be closed on the Maxwell affair, as the hon. Member for Monklands, East said. It would be wrong to think that we could ever close that chapter. It would be wrong to think that any Bill could provide a totally comprehensive answer to every possible fraud that could be committed in any occupational pension scheme. That would be the sledgehammer that completely cracked the nut. We would see a diminution in what employers could provide in terms of benefits for their employees. There is a necessary balance to be struck. There is an inevitable temptation to trammel the possible

  605
  consequence of every wrongdoing possible. That would be a mistake. To that extent, there is a shared understanding across the House of the issues which face occupational pensions, although naturally we have to find our areas of disagreement as well.
  The watchwords for the Bill are maintaining choice and ensuring security and sustainability. Sustainability is one of the most important aspects. We must sustain the commitment to the public sector and make sure that it is sustainable over the long term. We must ensure that the dramatic and fantastic contribution that the private sector makes to pensions in Britain is also sustained. The success of private provision in Britain must remain a key consideration when we formulate policy. It was the key consideration of the report of the Select Committee, of which I am a member.
  We must remember that the vast majority of occupational pension schemes are extremely well run. To tar all occupational schemes with the Maxwell brush is a great mistake. We need to recognise that the vast majority of pension schemes do not require any tighter regulation. The only reason we are regulating in a heavier way than previously is to ensure that we catch the tiny minority of pension schemes that might not obey all the rules.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, East and others who have spoken about the dangers of a recurrence of Maxwell will bear it in mind that what they perceive as weakness in the powers of the regulator might be a weakness if the establishment of the regulator were the only measure that the Bill introduced to improve the regulation of occupational pension schemes. We are creating a plethora of trip wires.
  For example, on the points raised about takeovers, any trustee, member trustee, actuary or accountant who gets an uneasy feeling about the complex and opaque structure of a company and overlapping pension arrangements will naturally be the first person to blow the whistle. The hon. Member for Monklands, East failed to receive information as a Maxwell pensioner. Under the new arrangements, she would be able to blow the whistle. In the Maxwell circumstances, one imagines whistles blowing all over the place and the new pensions regulator having a very busy time.
  One must remember that the fantastic contribution to the retirement costs of old people in Britain has largely grown out of voluntary arrangements. There is no obligation on companies to provide large occupational pension schemes, as they have been provided. If it becomes too much of a major burden, more and more companies will retire from the fray and go for the simpler schemes outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale.
  My last point is a criticism of the Opposition amendment. We are told that the Government fail to recognise
  "the importance of pensions as a form of deferred pay".
  Yet the thrust of other Opposition criticisms, for example, on trustees, fails to recognise pension funds as an asset already owned by the employees. There is a danger that European, less adequate pension schemes will colour the regulation of pension schemes in Britain, to the detriment of pension schemes.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly mentioned the judgments of the European courts on the matter with some warnings. I warn him that I doubt
  606
  whether the European Court of Justice has had its last word on equal treatment, pensions, part-time workers and all the issues involved in article 119.
  I hope that we will protect pension and financial schemes from the uncertainties created by litigation in the European Court and from the threat of over-regulation and interference from European Court judgments that will ultimately cost the people in occupational pension schemes, whose benefits will not be so good in the long term.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: The debate has been wide ranging and informative. Most contributions have added to the sum of knowledge on the issue, and it is significant that every contributor expressed reservations about many aspects of the Bill—apart from the Secretary of State, who was without criticism for his own measure. Every other Conservative Member pointed to where improvements could be achieved.
  I must comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and his criticisms of the Bill. It would be good to see him in the Standing Committee, but I suspect that his independence of mind and spirit would preclude that. If he does serve, he will get a warm welcome for many of his comments today.
  As we heard from many of the speeches, the Bill is far removed from the events that caused the Government, somewhat reluctantly, to consider the weaknesses in the regulation, monitoring and operation of occupational pension schemes. The Goode report on pension law reform was produced in the wake of the Maxwell scandal. It was undoubtedly a definitive piece of work—not without flaws, but none the less a powerful examination of the key issues arising from the Maxwell scandal, with possible solutions to avoid such events in the future. If the House had been debating the conclusions of the Goode report today, I hazard a guess that not much would be dividing us on the key issues in it.
  Of course, the Government had another agenda. As with everything else that the Government do, the presentation belies the reality. We are asked to believe the promotional promise of the Government's White Paper in response to the Goode report—that the justification for the Bill is improving security, equality and choice across a range of pension provision now and in the decades ahead.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is the security in a regulatory system that has limited investigative powers and is forced to operate reactively and not proactively? Where is the equality, when the Government are proposing a levelling down of standards and benefits, with both men and women losing out? Where is the choice, when the Government are proposing to create an unlevel playing field in favour of personal pension schemes and against defined benefit schemes, which will provide only minimal protection to the low-paid and other at-risk employees, through reductions in the state earnings-related pension scheme?
  The Bill fails to deliver properly on those promises of security, equality and choice. In many ways, the Government are like those personal pension salesmen who have been mis-selling pension schemes to millions of vulnerable people for the past eight years or so and, in effect, saying, "What we promise you, you won't get." In

  607
  our consideration and scrutiny of the Bill, it is important that we deal with the reality of the measures involved and that we are not deflected by the Government hype.
  We must welcome the good news that the Government have announced on war widows. Although many Conservative Members and the Secretary of State seem to take the credit, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the measure was vigorously opposed in the Lords and was introduced as a result of a Government defeat. We are grateful that the Government have now accepted that defeat, and I am sure that the measure will be warmly welcomed throughout the country.
  As we know from today's debate, the Bill is an amalgamation of three separate issues, all of which are important in their own right and will have major, long-term effects on pension provision. The Bill sets out to modify the law on occupational pensions, although in a much watered-down version of what Goode proposed. It will provide less protection than was set out in the Government's White Paper. It introduces a further reduction in the value of SERPS and will give an additional boost to personal pensions, while failing to tackle the mis-selling of such schemes. The Bill will diminish the pension entitlement of women by raising their retirement age to 65 without providing any worthwhile compensating benefits in return.
  Much has been made in the debate of the operation and regulation of occupational pension schemes. Since 48 per cent. of all employees are members of those schemes, it is right that such emphasis has been given to that aspect of the Bill. Despite the Government's encouragement to draw employees away from employer-based schemes to personal pension schemes, the National Association of Pension Funds has revealed that 81 per cent. of new employees eligible to do so join occupational schemes. They make that choice despite the many attractive offers put before them.
  Although the numbers in occupational pension schemes are declining, they account for a significant proportion of the British work force and have combined assets of about £500 billion. We therefore welcome the establishment of a framework to oversee the operation of occupational pension schemes, although we significantly differ from the Government on the way in which the new regulatory regime should work in practice. That difference was graphically highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) in her description of her experience of the Maxwell fund.
  In Committee, we will try to convince the Government that the provisions laid down for member trustees need to be extended beyond the one third employee-two third employer principle set out in the Bill. It is important that a proper balance is struck between those to whom the scheme belongs—the contributors—and those who act as trustees. The proposal for one third nominated trustees is too cautious and we will push for a 50:50 split between employer and active members.
  We also believe that there is a strong case for pensioners to be allowed to have direct trustee representation. That would obviously depend on the overall number of trustees on a particular scheme and the number of pensioners in it. It would be wrong simply to argue that the concept of pensioner trustees should be accepted as a matter of course for a scheme that had just three trustees and represented a small number of pensioners.
  Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman not in danger of misunderstanding slightly the concept of a trustee in English law? Does he accept that a trustee is not supposed to be a delegate of any group of people, but is meant to act in the best interests of the whole?
  Mr. Ingram: Other hon. Members have made a strong argument for pensioner trustees, but no one raised the issue of trustees looking after the interests of deferred pensioners. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that trustees are not direct delegates and that they should consider the wider interest. Those of us who have been in consultation in recent months with those involved in the pension sector know that a large constituency of pensioners feel that they can offer particular expertise to the management of particular schemes. Many of them are former senior managers of particular companies. The case for pensioner trustees can be made, but it must be set against a number of other factors relating to the way in which particular schemes are established. For example, the number of trustees on a particular scheme and the number of retired members within it should be taken into account.
  Mr. Duncan: So the hon. Gentleman is against them.
  Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be happy to give way. I have said that the proposal is one for debate in Committee.
  Mr. Duncan: In the hon. Gentleman's long answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), it struck me that he was equivocal about whether he wants 50 per cent. of pensioner trustees on pension funds. It strikes me that he is halfway between admitting their trustee role and saying that he wants pensioner democracy in the way that a fund is managed.
  Mr. Ingram: I am sorry that it was a long answer, but I got a nod of agreement from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) as I tried to explain some of the issues involved. There is nothing clear cut in many of the matters involved, which is why the Committee stage is of such benefit. It will help those of us who are trying to better the structure of pension schemes. Obviously the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has no interest in achieving that and is simply a yes man for the Government and the Treasury Bench.
  It is important that a proper balance exists between the contributors and the trustees. Member trustees must be able to operate in an unfettered way, free from employer pressure. We shall therefore propose amendments to protect member trustees and to promote a better system of training provision for trustees than the system that is set out in the Bill.
  As other hon. Members have said, the new occupational pensions regulatory authority falls far short of what is required to ensure complete confidence in the regulation of occupational schemes. In its proposed form, OPRA will have nothing to do with issues of indexation, equal treatment or compensation. As the organisation will be reactive, not proactive, it may prove to be wholly ineffective in preventing illegal plundering of funds. It is not sufficient to leave the whistle-blowing role to fund actuaries and auditors. We shall propose amendments to tighten the functions of the new regulatory body and those of the pension regulator. Conservative Members and

  609
  others made that argument during the debate in relation to the suggestion that auditors and actuaries might be left to carry out their functions without proper protection.
  It is equally the case that, to ensure confidence in an occupational scheme, the funds of such schemes must satisfy certain minimum standards of solvency. The Government have now partly recognised that the original proposal in the Bill was misleading and required a different definition. However, the changing of the minimum solvency requirement to the minimum funding requirement provides no comfort; if anything, it exposed the weaknesses of the Bill's provisions in that respect.
  We shall therefore explore in Committee the alternative means of ensuring the security of the funds and the solvency guarantees of those funds. The alternative concept, proposed by the Trades Union Congress and others, of a minimum contributions requirement, discussed at length during the Lords stage of the Bill by Lord Eatwell, has strong support in sections of the pension industry. One hopes that the Government are prepared to consider that proposal constructively.
  It is known that many contributors to the debate outside the House—experts in the field—strongly criticise what was called a minimum solvency requirement and is now known as a minimum funding requirement. That issue needs further examination and greater consideration.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in his opening remarks, the issue of what the role of the state should be in pension provision is central to the Bill. It is obvious that the current Government want to disengage from supplementary pension provision in its entirety. We contend that that is the wrong approach.
  It is equally wrong that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money—more than £9 billion paid in 1992–93 alone—should be used to bribe people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and to buy into personal pensions. Experience has shown that those bribes will prove disastrous for 1.5 million people who switched from an occupational pension scheme to a personal pension or chose a personal pension in preference to their company-based scheme. That has proved equally disastrous for the 3 million people who have taken out personal pensions on a SERPS rebate-only basis.
  To satisfy the demands of the Treasury in achieving reductions in the public sector borrowing requirement, millions of our fellow citizens are now effectively in receipt of worthless personal pensions. When they retire, they will join the 1.5 million pensioners who currently have to depend on income support to supplement their basic state pension.
  The overall changes in SERPS provision are not a small technical change, as Lord Mackay said during consideration of the Bill in the other place. How right he was. As the Government Actuary details in his report relating to the Bill, the effects of the changes to SERPS will effectively halve spending from £19.3 billion in 2050 to £9.9 billion at current prices. That cannot be achieved without losers.
  That is one of the most unsatisfactory features of the Bill. It has received little attention to date and it obviously was the Government's intention to seek to obscure what they were up to. It means that, in effect, many people
  610
  who currently pay into SERPS will receive much smaller benefits for their contributions than they had expected. Women especially will lose out as a result of those changes, as they will lose out as a result of many other aspects of the Bill.
  It is an undisputed fact that women receive a raw deal in pensions, primarily as a result of their small and intermittent earnings and their child care and caring responsibilities. Only one woman in four receives income from SERPS; only one woman in five receives some occupational pension and only one woman in six receives a state old-age pension in her own right. That is why the state has to retain an active role in the provision of pensions at all levels. If the state does not do so, pensioner poverty will escalate because those at the bottom of the economic pile will suffer from the Government's intention as set out in the Bill, which will prove disastrous for them in their old age.
  The debate has also dealt with the equalisation—
  Sir Norman Fowler: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of state provision, will he answer the following question? Over the past decade, the Labour party's policy has been to uprate the basic pension by earnings—is that still the Labour party's policy?
  Mr. Ingram: I know that my answer will not please the right hon. Gentleman, but he should wait for the general election. I am glad that he intervened, because I had intended in my introductory remarks to mention his contribution to the Bill. It is worth while bearing it in mind that he was Secretary of State when many of the changes relating to SERPS were laid down. They led to the mis-selling of private pensions. The right hon. Gentleman did not apologise to the House about the 4.5 million to 5 million people who have lost out as a result. I think that I have answered the question although the right hon. Gentleman may not like the answer. It is as good as the right hon. Gentleman is going to get.
  Mr. Lilley: Would the hon. Gentleman advise anyone to buy a personal pension on the sort of information that he proposes to give the electorate?
  Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State should talk to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and ask about his responsibility for the 4.5 million to 5 million people who are suffering as a result of the mis-selling of personal pensions. The guilt and responsibility lie on the shoulders of the Government. Many of their fellow citizens will be in poverty in their old age when they retire.
  The debate has dealt with the equalisation of the state pension age at 65. There is strong evidence that this country is not facing a demographic time bomb or a financial time bomb in funding the state pension. This country's demographic trends show that over the next 20 years the number of people over 65 will rise by just 700,000 people. By the year 2040, three quarters of the population will be under 65 and we will have the best support ratio bar one in western Europe and within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The financial cost of elderly people per person of working age will be the lowest bar one in the OECD by 2010, and thereafter it will be by far the lowest. It has been calculated that the additional cost of aging

  611
  during the next 50 years will add less to the social security budget than the rising cost of unemployment during the past five years.
  Mr. French: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House the source of the information that he has just given?
  Mr. Ingram: I shall certainly give the House the source of that information. It came from the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not denigrate that body, which has set out that information in detail.
  All that information needs to be properly analysed before we jump to the decision to equalise the pension age at 65. One of the litmus tests of any decent society is how it treats its elderly population. By pushing through the change for a common retirement age of 65 and, at the same time, reducing the level of financial support through changes to SERPS and in other ways, it is clear that the Government are prepared to fail that test, not just for the current generation but for elderly generations to come.
  The complexity and scale of the Bill mean that it has not been possible in the time available to cover all its aspects.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ingram: No, I shall not give way.
  I have not mentioned the vexed question of divorce and pensions or the importance of retaining the guaranteed minimum pension or the treatment of part-time workers in relation to their pension entitlement. I have not mentioned, in relation to occupational schemes, the strong case that can be made for independent custodianship of funds. All those issues will receive the greatest scrutiny in Committee. No one should underestimate the importance of the measure, which has wide-ranging implications for each and every person in this country. If the Government are serious about their commitment to provide security, equality and choice in pension provision, they must respond positively to the many criticisms made of the Bill inside and outside the House.
  The Committee stage will allow the Government every opportunity to address those criticisms. Only by taking them on board will the Government ensure that their pension promise of a choice of scheme—public, private or occupational—in return for an appropriate contribution is not broken and that people's pensions will be both secure and adequate enough to avoid poverty in old age. I ask the House to support the Opposition's reasoned amendment.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): The debate has been a serious one, but it has had its pleasant and encouraging moments—not least being the number of hon. Members who have volunteered or been volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee which will consider the Pensions Bill. A number of hon. Members also made some very pleasant remarks about my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there could be no more reassuring spectacle than that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wanstead and
  612
  Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must be reassured about the Bill, which is largely the work of my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman also paid tribute to our noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in the other place, to whom he attributed a skilful retreat. Given that he supplied the information that our noble Friend was also once president of the university Liberal society, one must conclude that he knew how to accomplish a substantial advance. I think that that is a comfort to us all.
  More seriously, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) echoed the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of Sir John Cuckney. It is worth pausing for a moment to note what has happened to the pension funds which gave rise to much of the debate about scheme security.
  The position of the Maxwell pension funds in 1992 created much controversy in the House and elsewhere, with a number of calls for the Government to commit very large sums of public money to rescue or underwrite the schemes. Three years on, thanks to the patient work of Sir John Cuckney and others and at a relatively small cost to public funds in securing pension payments in the interim, the position of the Maxwell pensioners has been secured. However, until today it was largely unremarked on in the House. It is important for us to recognise the successful outcome of that work. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead gracefully acknowledged, it totally vindicates the judgment and the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1992. That fact should be respected across the House.
  It will be impossible in the time available to respond to every point that has been raised during the debate, but I will do my best to respond to the largest possible number of them. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) inquired about the position of Northern Ireland in relation to the Bill—a question with which I am becoming familiar from one Bill to another. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill's provisions will be reflected in a corresponding Order in Council for Northern Ireland. The need to legislate for Northern Ireland in that way arises from the fact that the current legislative framework there is somewhat different.
  The hon. Gentleman also expressed the hope that some consideration would be given to early leavers from pension schemes. It is worth noting that the Government have done a lot for early leavers in recent years. Pension rights exist after only two years' service, deferred rights are protected against inflation and there are transfer rights—all of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) introduced in the Social Security Act 1986. The Bill goes further, notably by extending the statutory right to transfers to most pre-1986 early leavers and by speeding up the payment of transfer sums.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) asked about clause 36 and the provision of particular documents to scheme members. I assure him that the Bill achieves the effect that he seeks. We intend to make regulations under clause 36 which will require schemes to make available to scheme members and to others the documents mentioned in the clause. The schemes will have to comply with those regulations; it will not be a discretionary matter.

  613
  My hon. Friend also inquired, as did some other hon. Friends—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)—about compulsory trustee training. I agree that trustees should receive appropriate training. The Bill will facilitate that by implementing the Pension Law Review Committee recommendation that trustees who are employees should be entitled to paid time off for training and for undertaking their trustee duties, but the Government are greatly concerned about the practicality of establishing and policing any compulsory training requirements. There would be no point in making a statutory requirement if there were no possibility of monitoring or enforcing compliance. To do that would require someone—presumably the regulator—to specify the level of competence a trustee should have and to find some way of determining the individual training requirements of each and every trustee. That would not be a simple matter and could mean statutory responsibilities and complexities that would be disproportionately expensive. No doubt we will return to that aspect later in the Bill's progress.
  I will refer briefly to three matters that sparked particular interest and controversy following debates in the other place. One is pensions and divorce. The hon. Member for Garscadden was worried that Government policy would require contact between a husband and ex-wife many years after their divorce, to divide a pension in payment. That would not be so under the spirit of the amendments made in another place, which we indicated that we intend to accept. Pension schemes could be required by the courts to make payments under deferred maintenance orders direct to the ex-wife. I make it clear that the Government intend to accept the spirit of that provision, so further contact between the parties would not be necessary in most cases.
  Some hon. Members argued for pension splitting—such as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has a private Member's Bill on the subject. The Government are extremely concerned about the complexity involved in pension splitting, particularly in relation to SERPS, and the more favourable tax treatment thereby given to people who had divorced as opposed to couples who remain married. We would of course be concerned about the large amount of tax revenue thereby lost, particularly in view of the spending commitments urged on the Government in the debate.
  The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regarding war widows was unanimously welcomed in all parts of the House. I noted the additional issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), but general retrospective changes to occupational pension schemes raise questions of fairness and precedent not necessarily raised by changes to the DSS war widows scheme. They are distinct from questions of obligations to war pensioners, which many people would prefer to discuss.
  Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme.
  Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend mistakes me if he imagines that I was particularly pressing any case other than that of expatriate state retirement pensioners. Evidently my hon. Friend misunderstood the point that I was trying to put before him. I was referring to people who, in a lifetime's work, contributed through national insurance contributions to a retirement pension, and who are being cheated by the Government of the entitlement for which they have paid. Will my hon. Friend explain the fairness of denying to people who live across the border in Canada—in Windsor, Ontario—the full pension that they would receive in Detroit?
  Mr. Hague: I did not misunderstand my hon. Friend. I was referring to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, which I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme to be supporting. He is talking about another matter, to which I was about to refer—the payment of state pensions overseas. He was worried that his eloquent and forceful pleas would fall on deaf ears. They do not fall on deaf ears, but they do fall on the ears of Ministers who have to manage a huge budget on which there are constant upward pressures. For now I shall just say that we will have to debate these issues later in more detail. When we come to debate them, I hope that the House will remember that any increase in spending commitments involving sending money to people overseas will of course mean corresponding reductions in our expenditure here at home. Hon. Members should bear that in mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was worried about the position of large, mature schemes in relation to the minimum funding requirement. As he acknowledged, I am well aware of the concerns. The position of such schemes will have been considerably eased by the decisions that we have made on the operation of the minimum funding requirements, announced on 8 December last year. In particular, my hon. Friend might like to reflect on the fact that if a scheme is found to be less than 90 per cent. funded on a particular day, the sponsoring employer will have a year in which to restore funding to that level, and could do so in part by using bank guarantees or subordinated loans of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned. There must also be a funding plan to restore 100 per cent. funding within five years, but that could be changed if the fund recovered as a result of market changes during that period. So it seems most unlikely that a properly funded scheme could be seriously affected in the way my hon. Friend has described; but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be happy to set out the Government's thinking in more detail in the Committee.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister referred to my speech about war widows and service widows. With regard to the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon of his acceptance of the Lords amendment, questions are being asked about whether the restored entitlement will be automatic and whether it will be subjected in any way to means testing. I raise those points

  615
  immediately; there was no reference to them in the DSS press statement about the Minister's announcement this afternoon. Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us now?
  Mr. Hague: People will need to apply for the announced changes, but there is no question of their not taking place or of their being means-tested. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.
  Listening to all today's speeches, I thought that the speech that did most to put things in perspective was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He drew attention to the importance of the 1986 Act, which did so much to boost the prospects of occupational pension funds and to protect the accrued rights of people who had left schemes, thereby encouraging job mobility. Those changes permitted and encouraged the growth of occupational pension funds, to the extent that this country now has at least as much funded occupational pension provision as does the whole of the rest of the European Community. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) reminded us of the huge unfunded pension liabilities that have built up across Europe. They mean that other European Governments are extremely puzzled as to how they will meet those liabilities, for which they have not provided.
  The interesting thing to note is that if we had continued the policy bequeathed to us by the Labour Government, we would now be joining countries that have large unfunded state pension liabilities. The Opposition like to pose today as the friends of occupational pension provision, but they undertook none of the reforms that were undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and his colleagues. They saddled the future taxpayers of this country with the colossal and unsustainable burden of a state earnings-related pension system which, in the next century, would have cost more than £30 billion a year—and which they had no idea how to pay for. They introduced a pay-as-you-go system which everyone is now willing to criticise, intending people of the future to pay for it long after they had left the scene. It was left to the Government to reform that, to ensure that it was an affordable system. Now, of course, it would be interesting to know whether the Opposition would plan to reintroduce such a scheme. We do not know, because they do not know.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield asked whether the Labour party now thought that earnings or prices were the right basis for uprating state pensions in the future. That question has been asked again of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), in the closing moments of his speech. It was one of the Labour party's most important pledges in four general election campaigns. If it had won and implemented that policy, expenditure would now be nearly £9 billion a year higher than it is. We have heard rumours that the Labour party has changed its policy, but they remain rumours and the country remains in the dark because the Labour party has declined the opportunity to confirm it in the House.
  If those are not big enough spending commitments on which the Labour party does not know what it is doing, we also find that, on the state pension age, where the arguments are obvious to the Governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
  616
  Portugal, Spain and the United States—all of whom have moved or are moving to a common retirement age of at least 65—only the Labour party remains unaware of the arguments—[Interruption.] And the Liberal Democrats. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Garscadden said that the Government's policy is rigid. It is not. There will be a 10 per cent. increment for every year in which the taking of the pension is postponed. I hand it to the hon. Gentleman. No one could accuse him of having a rigid policy. He would be lucky to be accused of having a policy at all. Two years ago, the Labour party conference voted that the retirement age for both men and women should be equalised at 60—a policy that sounds very nice but which would cost £12,000 million a year more than that of the Government. Seeing the danger, the Commission on Social Justice, in its report, said:
  "It is quite reasonable to start phasing in a common pension age of 65 in the next century."
  That is the policy of the Government. But then the Trades Union Congress announced last year that it had stepped up its campaign to achieve a state pension age for all at 60.
  Mr. Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Hague: It is against that background that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is trying so valiantly to attract my attention, said that major pension changes should take place only if there is a consensus. How long would we have to wait for a consensus if Labour Members cannot even arrive at a consensus with one another on the central question of pensions policy? Faced with the choice between stark reality on the one hand and the demands of the unions on the other, Opposition Front-Bench Members have opted for a fudge—a pivotal age of 63, which splits the difference between the groups but would bring the worst of every world. It would mean that people could claim a reduced pension at 60, topped up by other benefits, leading to an escalating bill for the taxpayer of billions, and a growing number of pensioners dependent for life on income-related benefits.
  On these three questions: the right future for SERPS; the basis of pensions uprating; and the equalisation of the state pension age, each of which dwarfs almost every other public expenditure decision taken by the House, the Opposition do not know their policy. It ranges from the largely uncertain on the one hand to the completely unknown on the other. They have clutched at a flexible decade of retirement as a fig leaf form of words to cover the embarrassment of a flexible decade of not having a clue what to say.
  That is no basis for government. Governments have to know what they are going to do. Governments have to calculate the costs and benefits of their policies. Governments have to arrive at the right balance, which means that we will have strong, funded occupational pension provision, in this country, thoroughly regulated without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is what we are setting about in this major piece of legislation. It is the right legislation. It will bring security, equality and choice to pension provision. It deserves the support of the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 267.

  Division No. 134]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ainger, Nick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Allen, Graham

  Fraser, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Barnes, Harry

  Garrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benton, Joe

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

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

  Hanson, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Church, Judith

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  618

  McFall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooney, Terry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McWilliam, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maddock, Diana

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pearson, Ian

  Watson, Mike

  Pendry, Tom

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Dr John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Ms Estelle Morris and

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Colvin, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Bowis, John

  Conway, Derek

  619

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mates, Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  620

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Sykes, John

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

PENSIONS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in defraying the expenses of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority or the Pensions Compensation Board.

(b) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State, and

(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

PENSIONS BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the levying of charges towards expenditure under the Act or the Pension Schemes Act 1993 in connection with provisions relating to—

(a) the compilation and maintenance of a register of occupational and personal pension schemes,

621

(b) the investigation and determination of complaints and disputes relating to occupational and personal pension schemes.

(c) the making of grants by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.

(d) the expenses of that authority (including the expenses of establishing the authority), and

(e) the expenses of the Pensions Compensation Board (including the expenses of establishing the Board), and

(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
10.15 pm
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Team and Group Ministries Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Measure makes a number of amendments to the existing legislation on team and group ministries in the parochial system of the Church of England. It follows the recommendations of two working parties, one of 1982, chaired by Dame Betty Ridley, and one which reported in 1991, chaired by the now Bishop of Ludlow.
Colleagues present this evening may be aware that a team ministry is a collaborative form of ministry established by a pastoral scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1983 or its predecessor the Pastoral Measure 1968, whereby a team of clergy and other ministers work together in a legally constituted partnership, usually in the area of a single benefice. Essentially, it is characterised by parity of team membership rather than by hierarchy. That is to be distinguished from a group ministry, which is an association of adjoining benefices in which each incumbent has authority under the pastoral scheme to officiate throughout the area of the group ministry, although when doing so in a benefice other than his own, he is subject to the directions of the incumbent of the benefice concerned.
The only provision in the Measure concerned with group ministries as opposed to team ministries is clause 5(3), which enables an alteration to an existing group ministry to be made by pastoral order rather then pastoral scheme. It is essentially a limited and marginal provision. All other provisions in the Measure relate to team ministries.
In 1992, there were more than 430 team ministries in the Church of England and the clergy in those team ministries numbered more than 10 per cent. of all stipendiary clergy. The essential point of the Measure is to develop and prove what is now a well-established and well-tried feature of the Church of England's varied forms of ministry. To promote more effective collaboration, the Measure seeks to enhance the status of team vicars and experienced deacons in teams by creating greater parity between team vicars and experienced deacons on the one hand and the presiding team rector on the other.
That aim has been achieved by amendments of the existing legislation in four areas—first, by abolishing the freehold for future appointments of team rectors in clause 1(3).
Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of the parson's freehold. Does he accept that many people welcome the abolition of the freehold in respect of new team ministries and would like the Church of England to re-examine the whole principle of the parson's freehold, which unfortunately acts as an effective encouragement to some vicars not to do as good a job as they might?
Mr. Alison: I take note of my hon. Friend's point about the parson's freehold. I know that there have been unsatisfactory cases of over-extended incumbencies, so to

623
speak, but I stand very close to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), whose father enjoyed the freehold tenure of his parish for 46 years. In that period, my hon. Friend's father rebutted attacks from various powerful episcopal battleships, which threatened to try to sink him. I have to be very careful in trying to maintain a balance that I think is appropriate to the Church of England, between those who feel that the freehold gives too much security of tenure and those, such as my hon. Friend's father, who make good use of the security of tenure to reinforce an acceptable position. I hope that in making those references to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, I may even have persuaded him not to intervene in the debate.
Secondly, the amendments give experienced deacons a special responsibility for the pastoral care of an area, which is in clause 1(5) of the Measure; thirdly, they give bishops power to grant a fixed-term licence to deaconesses and lay ministers in teams, which is also in clause 1(5); and fourthly, they enhance the standing of team vicars and team members regarding housing, trusteeship of parochial trusts, chairing of parochial church councils and so on.
The proposal that the Ecclesiastical Committee was most anxious about was the one to abolish the freehold for future appointments of team rectors. I return to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). The proposal had been one of the recommendations of the Ridley report of 1982. The later 1991 Saxbee report—named after the current Bishop of Ludlow—endorsed the recommendation on the basis that collaborative ministry depends on the good will and consent of those concerned, so the team rector, the team vicars and experienced deacons in the team should be appointed for the same specified term of years. Under the existing legislation, team vicars can be appointed only for a term of years and a team rector may either have a freehold or a term of years. At the end of 1994, incidentally, 159 team rectors held freehold offices and 294 had a specific term of years.
At the general approval stage in the General Synod in February 1992, the draft Measure contained a clause abolishing the freehold for future team rectors, which would have rung a bell with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. The Revision Committee of the General Synod then agreed by seven votes to six to remove that abolitionist provision. At the revision stage in Full Synod in November 1993, the General Synod decided by 144 votes to 199 to restore the clause, precluding future freehold appointments of team rectors. That is now clause 1(3) of the Measure.
From the annexe to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, hon. Members will have seen the questions raised by the committee and the written answers provided on behalf of the Synod. The main point to bring out from those answers is that it is not envisaged that team ministries will become the normal pattern of ministry. Nor is it envisaged that the parson's freehold will, by that means, be supplanted by the back door, as it were. As has been stated before, the reason for the abolition of the freehold for future team rectors is to enhance the standing of the team vicars and other team members and to give a balance and a sense of equal partnership of parity rather than hierarchy throughout the team. However, that is not in any sense to preclude or determine what is to be the final position, approach or attitude of the Church of
624
England as a whole to the matter of the freehold, which is still very much a matter for consultation. There is no provision before the Synod on that matter at present.
Some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee were also worried that a team rector appointed for a term of years might find that he was not reappointed at the end of that term. The draft code of practice deals with that point in paragraph 51. It has to be a draft code of practice because it cannot be formalised unless and until the House passes the Measure this evening. It recommends a review procedure initiated by the bishop in good time before the term is due to end.
In February 1994, the General Synod gave final approval to the Measure by 326 votes in favour and 25 against. On the basis of that substantial endorsement of the Measure, it would be appropriate to invite colleagues in the House this evening to give it a fair wind and let it proceed to Royal Assent.
10.25 pm
Mr. Frank Field: It is a topsy-turvy world, is it not? In an intervention a moment ago in the speech of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), we heard a plea for the abolition of freehold. In the world in which I grew up, I would have expected people on the Tory Benches to be mindful that organisations, particularly large ones that web through the whole of our history, were immensely complicated and that freedom was not an abstract word taken out of the dictionary, but something built up by a series of checks and balances over the years. One would have expected that message to come clearly from the Tory Benches.
From the Labour Benches, as Michael Oakeshott said, one would have expected the 1940-type rationalistic view of the world, which could not comprehend anything that was not open to sheer, straightforward logic; which recognised only one sort of knowledge, that is, technical knowledge that could be learnt in books; and which held that the wealth of experience of the world built up through ages, which I believe is an equally important form of knowledge, was something to be discarded.
I wish to speak against the Measure, although not necessarily to vote against it, on the very point of the clause that deals with the freehold. No one in his right mind or, I hope, not in his right mind, would ever doubt the word of the right hon. Member for Selby, but over the years we have become accustomed to how Synod presents Measures to the House. We are assured that, even if part of the area of freehold is surrendered tonight, that does not mean that the issue of freehold is up for discussion or up for grabs.
Of course, we know that within a year or so, there will be another Measure that will quote the surrender of freehold in this Measure as a reason for further erosion of that principle. Indeed, we see it in this very Measure. The main reason why we should agree to the abolition of the freehold for those who are newly appointed to the position of rectors is that team vicars do not have it. The rule that team vicars should not have freehold did not come down from Mount Sinai. The journey was much shorter than that. It came over the road from Synod. That is where that particular rule was made.
We are told that a further erosion should occur because the position is inconsistent. We are told that we are all chums together, all mates in the same old boat, and that

625
there should not be any distinctions, so it is important that the person who leads the group should be brought down to the same basis as other members in the team.
The matter of team ministries is largely rubbish. We have one in our area. It would be run more satisfactorily by a vicar with some senior curates and some younger curates. They would all know where they were and would have tasks, and the team rector would have the crucial role of training people so that, at some stage, they would be able to take over their own parishes. The team ministry is part of the nonsense with which we have to indulge ourselves.
In my short contribution, I hope that I have made a case against the further erosion of freeholds. All privileges can be abused and freehold is no exception. If one treasures freedom, sometimes the price is to get terrible old duffers—or young duffers—whom one cannot move out of their parishes, but who are not doing their job and clearly ought to give way to someone else. Freeholds give security to those brave souls who are saying things that are not fashionable and that people do not want to hear.
We should not view this Measure separately from the catastrophe that has overtaken the Church Commissioners' funds. Ever since the Church began in this country—it is a show that has run longer than the nation and the Government, let alone the state—individual parishes have depended on endowments to survive. Now, large tranches of the Church will not gain such additional help from those historic resources, which have been built up over the centuries and were there for the lean times when people were not going to church, or not giving, or to prevent one of the factions of the Church from taking control.
At the moment, a strong evangelical party is in the driving seat. Never before in our history has one party been able to control the whole show, because the Church Commissioners' assets have been too powerful to allow it to do so. Now, those with the numbers, the power and the money come overwhelmingly from one faction and there will be no effective counterbalance from the Church Commissioners' assets, which probably give a capital base that is only half what it was a few years ago, once losses from gambling and the moneys that will at some stage have to be transferred into a new pension fund are taken into consideration.
The Measure will erode the freedom of some parish priests to say what they think and blow the rest of us, and we should view it very seriously. We should not let it go past without registering our disquiet and, in the most friendly terms, telling the Synod that, once it is passed, we know that the Synod will put it in its armoury for the next round of Measures, to erode further the principle of freehold. It will be abolished not by this one Measure, but by the continual dripping away of those institutions and, within them, the aspects that have guaranteed the freedom that English men and women have known and still treasure. For that reason, I am sad that the Synod continues to send us Measures of this nature.
10.33 pm
Mr. William Powell: It is not often that the House has the opportunity to listen to a speech of such unalloyed Toryism as that by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to whom we just had the pleasure
626
and privilege of listening. I was unable to disagree with any word. I just wish that those profoundly Tory sentiments, which have been expressed so often in the House down the years, were expressed more often.
We are fortunate indeed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) introduced the Measure. His calm and measured introduction will have done much to dissuade the Tory ultras like myself from going into the Lobby against him tonight. I shall not do so, but I will register in the House—as I did in the Ecclesiastical Committee—my total opposition to the Measure. Its effects will be precisely as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has outlined.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if not my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, my right hon. Friend's successor will, in due course, come to the House with further Measures to enlarge the team ministry concept. That will increase episcopal patronage and lead to the further destruction of the traditional Church of England, which I know is passing, but in which I was brought up and to which I remain nostalgically extremely attached.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: As I listen to my hon. Friend's profoundly Tory remarks, after those of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I feel that one thing is missing. The Church of England is not an end in itself; it is the care of souls to which it is devoted. In a changing world, the Church must change to deliver its responsibilities to the parishioners who are in its charge.
Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the purpose of the Church of England is to administer to souls. Whether the new management structure which the Measure introduces is most likely to deliver that care of souls is something about which I have considerable doubts.
I was born and brought up in the countryside and I live in the countryside today. I have seen the way in which country parishes have first of all been joined to one other parish, then to two, three and, increasingly, to a dozen and sometimes to a dozen and a half. Who knows, we could end up with three dozen parishes joined together, with only the occasional form of divine worship at each parish—perhaps once a month, then once every three months and then perhaps once a year. We see that trend.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead was absolutely correct when he suggested that people—the souls for whom the Church of England exists—find it easiest to identify with a local parson, who is resident in their community and who has perhaps been among them for a long time. That parson may well have baptised them, and married their parents, and they look forward to him doing the same for their children.
Between 1898 and 1989, in two of the three parishes for which my father had responsibility there were only two parsons. I do not expect that record to be replicated often, but it is not a record that should be denigrated merely because my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—I do not wish to tempt him too far—wishes to introduce managerial structures. Those structures may be appropriate now for the Church Commissioners, because, my goodness me, it certainly looks as though some other structure over and above that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is necessary in that respect.

627
I fear that the old Church of England, which so many of us knew and loved, will pass even more speedily as a result of the passage of the Measure. I am quite certain that parish life, particularly in the countryside, will not be enriched as a consequence.
I also fear the growing explosion of episcopal patronage. The purpose of bishops in the history of the Church of England of modern centuries has been to attend the House of Lords and to support the Government there.
Mr. John Marshall: They do neither.
Mr. Powell: There is some truth in that.
The job of looking after the diocese was left to archdeacons and to parsons and their freeholds. From time to time that arrangement was criticised, but let not my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, in his enthusiasm for new managerial structures, imagine that the Measure will not lead to difficulties and unsatisfactory clergy, just as any other human system will. On the other hand, the more bishops take over the control of the management of their dioceses, the worse, I am afraid, the management tends to become. I say that although, if the House will allow me to put it in a slightly facetious way, some of my best friends are bishops. That does not mean that they are necessarily the best people to control the lives of so many and an increasing number of parishes.
I am opposed to the Measure, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby will draw some comfort from the fact that I will not oppose him in the Division Lobby.
10.39 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I speak in favour of the Measure. I hold the opinion, which I assume that the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) holds, that the Church must respond to the changing pattern of residence, activity and occupation in the country and that its job is to reach people and bring them in.
In that context, there are strong arguments in favour of team and group ministries. They provide a support system for the clergy; one does not leave what is in some cases traditionally one minister or priest, vicar or rector, on their own, unsupported. The Church has developed, and has tried to ensure that there are training parishes in which there is a curate or more than one curate, but some residual parishes continue to be one-person parishes. That can be a very lonely ministry, no matter how good the incumbent is.
The Church has tried to ensure that there is shared responsibility to cover for illness, strain, stress, difficulties and holidays, and to give pastoral, spiritual and practical support. The Church was never intended to be a series of one-man bands. The Church was all about a group of 12 people going out, supporting one another and reinforcing the message in that collegiate style.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another advantage of a team ministry is that some clergy have special gifts with, for instance, the young, which they are able to exercise more effectively in a team ministry, whereas others, regrettably, are perhaps not so good with the young and therefore can be relieved of that responsibility?
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Not only is that so, but in teams one can rightfully engage both women and men in appropriate activity. I know that that is more controversial.
One can sometimes bring in people such as hospital chaplains and specific chaplains, who otherwise would not be linked into the parochial structure. There are all types of advantages of team and group ministry to its members.
Another common advantage is that a team or group ministry gives a sense of belonging to the wider Church without necessarily breaking down the parish structure. I shall give an example.
I strongly support the proposition that, even though in many cases there should be teams or groups of clergy, none the less it is very important to people who attend a specific church that a member of the clergy has specific and leading responsibility for that church.
When I went with my family to Herefordshire as a teenager, we moved into a lovely little village called Hampton Bishop, just outside the city of Hereford, with a beautiful old church. A little later, a discussion took place about with which parish we should merge. There was eventually an order which meant that Hampton Bishop was linked with its daughter parish of Tupsley, which is inside the city of Hereford boundary. In many ways that was a good idea although many people argued that the better grouping was with the other rural parishes nearby, outside the city boundary.
It was not satisfactory at the beginning, when the people of Hampton Bishop felt that they were not specifically anyone's responsibility—that the minister who turned up for the 8 o'clock communion was simply whoever happened not to be on duty for the main service in the bigger church with the bigger congregation. When there is a group ministry, it is important that each of the churches in the group of parishes has someone whom members of the congregation know to be their lead person. Whether it is the team rector or the team vicar, or perhaps a curate or even a lay person, they need a person to whom they can attach, so that they can be supported.
The other reason why it is right to go down the road—I say unreservedly that I think that it is right to go down the road which may, I do not say will, follow from the Measure—of ending the freehold, is that sometimes the freehold can be a positive disadvantage to the ministry of the Church. I could name—but I will not—two clergy in the diocese of Southwark who have had freehold and who have been a positive hindrance to the ministry in their parishes. No one else has been able to work those parishes, those clergy have stayed there for a long time and congregations have diminished to a mere handful.
I remember going to one of the churches once. People said to me as I arrived, "We are surprised and honoured to see the Member of Parliament here. We do not think that we have ever had a Member of Parliament in this church." It took all that I was worth not to reveal what I was thinking—that I was not surprised. It was a parish with six souls, of whom three were from outside the parish and no one else would darken the doors. If one is trying to bring people to Christ, one cannot have no-go areas in the Church where one person sits for decades and says that nobody can come in, which is what has happened. The Church has to deal with that in a managerial way.

629
Just as we are on fixed-term contracts, and increasingly everyone else in the country is on fixed-term contracts, so the Church should increasingly have fixed-term contracts. That may be true for bishops, archbishops and everyone else. I do not see why the great advantage of the freedom, which of course comes from the independence—which we have given to judges—should mean that people are allowed to continue to have that freedom when they are not doing the job. We are becoming a society in which people, including the judiciary, will be expected to show that they are doing the job properly and where there is a review system. If people do not do the job properly, they should be asked to move so that somebody else can come in—that is true of judges, bishops and the rest. The past system within the Church has been a hindrance. Team and group ministries are a good idea.
I welcome the Measure. We cannot say that the Church has rushed it through; it has been deliberating on the proposal for 13 years. It will have been 13 years from conception to delivery. The Measure has not been passed undebated—the Church has changed its mind on the issue of freehold. There was a marginal vote of seven to six in favour of one view on the freehold. As the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, there was a change of attitude when the Measure returned to the Synod, and the majority voted to remove the freehold.
The debate has been held; the Church has decided that it is better in the context of team and group ministries not to have one person with a freehold and others without. The structure of the Church should give a sense of commonality. I hope that people welcome the Measure, which will make the Church more flexible in times when human resources may be more difficult to find. It may not be possible to have as many ordained ministers as we have had to minister across the length and breadth of the country. It is better that cover be provided by a range of people. I hope that the Measure gains the support of the House, whether or not another Measure is later introduced to deal with the more thorny issue of freehold which, if it came, I would also support.
10.46 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: I did not arrive in the Chamber this evening with the slightest intention of speaking. It is a tribute to those who have spoken that I should have felt inspired and provoked to do so.
I start on a personal note. I lived for 18 years in a 1720 former vicarage that now looks—or certainly did when I resided in it—more like a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station than any other 1720 vicarage in the country. It was immediately adjacent to the church and, in the tradition of the Church of England, I was always the last person into church on any Sunday.
I have moved into a hamlet where there is no church—such church as we had was turned into a private house about 40 years ago. I suspect that it was probably originally of Victorian design. The holy spirit has placed the hamlet on the border between two team ministries—one of five parishes and one of eight parishes. We are situated in a diocese that the Ecclesiastical Committee's report says is one of the three leading dioceses in the country for team ministries. It will not have escaped the
630
attention of anyone in the House that being on the border of 13 churches that form two team ministries allows one the option of attending each one of them once a quarter and each of them four times a year.
The variety of service—from the Eucharist, which was primarily said in my former parish, to matins and evensong—is enormous and the number of rituals, rites and prayer books from which the services are taken is large. As a result, there is the most marvellous opportunity for choice and, on the strength of that and the manner in which the two team ministries are conducted, I support the proposal introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
However, I worshipped in the past in a parish where the parson was enormously preoccupied with the parson's freehold. He arrived in the parish at the age of 50 to succeed a man who had been rector for 43 years. He announced in his first week in the parish that he proposed to surpass him; he did so and remained the rector for 44 years, reinforced by the parson's freehold. During that time, he drove my father from the front pew of the parish church with his constant attacks on Parliament for what it was seeking to do to the parson's freehold. He also drove away the church warden, a most distinguished accountant who had been in the habit of regularly giving the parish a large cheque. The parson said that he did not believe in having parish audits, to which the most distinguished accountant replied that an audit did not suggest that there was anything wrong; it was simply the right thing to do. The accountant said that if there was not to be an audit in the parish he would leave as well. He subsequently left, and the last five quinquennial inspections by the diocesan architect also passed by. By the time the parson died, the fabric of the church was in a state of disorder and the congregation was reduced to seven.
Despite that sorry tale, I wholly support the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in seeking to defend the parson's freehold as one of the remarkable institutions of the Church to which we both belong. I certainly hope that the Measure will not be prayed in aid in the future in order to make a separate point.
The marvellous curate's egg that the Church of England is, and to which all of us subscribe, is such that I disagree—despite his advocacy of the hon. Member for Birkenhead—with what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said about bishops and archdeacons. I think that we can perhaps carry on that dispute better outside the House and I may misunderstand the roles that are fulfilled by both.
I was brought up by a house master, one of whose Oxford contemporaries was sent to be the archdeacon in Norfolk. My house master sent him a postcard to say that his principal duty would be to detect concubinage in various parishes in the diocese. He received a postcard in return to say that that was of course ridiculous. A fortnight later, he received another postcard which said, "By God, you were right."
I think that my hon. Friend takes a rather distant view of the role and function of bishops. I wholly agree—although from a slightly different quarter—with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the loneliness of individual parishes. I believe that it is a major responsibility of the bishop to reinforce the faith of those who find themselves preaching in that way.

631
The debate has been thoroughly worth while and I suspect that, as the dodo said, it will end up as a case of all have won and all shall have prizes. We shall not come to blows over the Measure. However, I suspect that, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, we will have to take a rather more solid stand on another occasion.
I close with a sermon preached in a rural church at evensong to my father and six rustic members of the congregation by a vicar who began with the words:
"Those of you who have been to Thermopylae will remember …"
I suspect that some of us at some stage in the future will find ourselves at Thermopylae with something serious to do.
10.53 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I did not intend to speak in the debate and I will not detain the House long.
Sadly, I cannot match my right hon. Friend's anecdotes about parsons who have been in place for 43 or 44 years. However, as someone who has the best interests of the Church of England at heart and who has a great affection for it I express unease about the Measure. I suspect that this country desperately needs decent moral and spiritual leadership, which, sadly, seems to be lacking from all the Churches—but particularly from the Church of England. The state of the Church is not as one would wish—indeed, some might say that it is parlous.
I am uneasy because one wishes to see more spiritual leadership and one wonders whether team ministries will lead to that. A team ministry has just been introduced in my constituency. Although it seems to work reasonably well, the suspicion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that one may turn up at a Church with no idea who may take the service is well founded. The loss of the relationship between the congregation and the minister is something that happens in team ministries.
I know that there is a shortage of good ordinands and of clergy, but we should not pursue the path that we are taking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said, modern management techniques and structures do not necessarily lend themselves to a Church that is thousands of years old—hundreds if one takes the Church of England.
I rose only to express my unease because although I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), I respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, who I suspect are more in touch with the congregations of the Church of England than the General Synod seems to be when it speaks.
10.55 pm
Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the debate. I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend—on having accepted the substantial office of shadow second Church Estates Commissioner.
Mr. Frank Field: When I was sacked by Neil Kinnock for voting against Government policy on GCHQ, I asked
632
whether he wanted me to resign my other post as well. He said, "What other post?" When I mentioned shadow Church Estates Commissioner he said, "No—that is a divine appointment." Whether or not it is divine. I also had the Whip removed from me at some stage and thought of yet another deselection, but I am now back with the Whip and glad to be welcomed.
Mr. Alison: I am delighted to learn that Neil Kinnock makes an occasional reference to divinity. I thought that was a dimension of his life that he kept under wraps. He was certainly divinely inspired in appointing the hon. Member for Birkenhead. My only fear is that his status is such that if shadow becomes substance, he is likely to become rather more exalted in any future Administration than second Church Estates Commissioner. He would not then be able to employ his enormously powerful debating skills defending the freehold, which he suggested might be under threat in future.
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's Cassandra-like foreshadowing of the shape of things to come, it is worth remembering that it is probable and possible that the General Synod will be less flexible and less willing to move in the direction of further damage to the freehold notion than might appear from the Measure. The General Synod consists of the House of Clergy as well as the House of Laity, alongside the bishops. I suspect that on the general principle of the freehold, there will be a substantial consensus among clergy and laity to hold on to a lot of the best aspects of the freehold.
Tonight's Measure affects only 10 per cent. of the stipendiary clergy of the Church of England. Team ministry provisions in a particular locality can be rescinded. There is no ratchet effect, because in certain circumstances a team ministry may be wound up in a particular location, with a return to the freehold in an appointment to that benefice. It does not necessarily follow that, for the clergy and laity, the General Synod will be quite so sympathetic as the vote for the Measure seems to imply in relation to the freehold. I hope that reinforces the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) not to vote against the Measure.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—whom I may also call my hon. Friend—brought a whiff of the pavements of Bermondsey and Southwark to us this evening. It is a parish where, alas, the worst features of the freehold manifest themselves.
It was enormously to the enhancement of our short debate tonight that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) contributed to it. He has now accepted a distinguished official post in the Church of England in respect of our heritage. We are extremely fortunate that he has moved from a Cabinet position of responsibility for heritage matters into what is—in many ways—a much more enduring and even more fundamental responsibility. It will probably be remembered long after many of the duties that he had to perform as Heritage Secretary have been forgotten. It is enormously to our advantage that he has been willing to take on these new responsibilities. He delivered a perfectly balanced exposition of the merits both of the freehold system and of the team ministry Measure before us this evening. Unlike the curate's egg, which was good only in parts, his speech was the perfect balance of everything that is good and wholesome.

633
It was refreshing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He referred to the need for the Church of England, whether through the parson's freehold or through a team ministry, to get out and exhort and pursue what it alone can: the promotion of fundamental ethical and moral values, without equivocation, on a firm rock-like foundation. I am glad that he made that point. What we have been discussing this evening in a sense represents only the shell of the process; the kernel, however, to which my hon. Friend referred, is of the essence. We all hope and pray that this Measure will enhance and extend the possibility of successful and fruitful ministry in the Church of England.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Team and Group Ministries Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Chemical Weapons
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
11.1 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: I wish to raise the question of the chemical weapons convention and the threat from chemical weapons.
In January 1993, after 20 years of negotiations, the chemical weapons convention was opened for signature. It bans the development, production, possession, transfer and use of chemical weapons. In last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates'', the Ministry of Defence described the chemical weapons convention as
"a major step forward in enhancing world stability".
To date, 159 countries have signed the chemical weapons convention. That shows the depth of international commitment to outlawing such weapons. Thirty-one states had not signed as of the end of March, including Egypt, Angola, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Taiwan. They must be persuaded to do so.
This treaty is clearly in our national security interests, because it reduces the risk of British troops being subjected to chemical attack when deployed overseas, whether on national, NATO or United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Recently, the world has seen the awful horrors of terrorist chemical attack on civilians in Japan. That shows the relative ease of making chemical weapons, as well as the problems of preventing their use, but it also demonstrates the need to impose much tighter controls on the trade in chemicals and the purposes to which they are put. That is why Japan is now rushing to pass the legislation necessary for it to ratify the convention.
The chemical weapons convention cannot enter into force until 180 days after the 65th state has deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Nations Secretary-General. The earliest date on which the convention could have entered into force was 13 January this year. It has yet to do so, because, to date, only 27 states have ratified the convention. They include Australia, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland—all of which are industrialised countries, many of them with significant chemical industries and facilities, which will be greatly affected by the convention.
Surprisingly, given our own proud record in successful negotiation of the chemical weapons convention, and our signature of the treaty at the earliest opportunity in January 1993, this country and Her Majesty's Government have not yet ratified the convention. Why not? Before Britain can ratify the convention, legislation needs to be introduced which, among other things, must provide rights of access for international inspectors to commercial chemical facilities, for verification of compliance. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for introducing the necessary legislation.
In a written answer last year, the President of the Board of Trade said:
"Primary legislation is required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention."—[Official Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 297.]

635
At the Group of Seven economic summit in London, in 1991, the United Kingdom and its G7 partners reaffirmed their
"intention to become original state parties to the convention"—
that is, to be among the first 65 signatories to ratify.
In the 1993 Gracious Speech, the Government said that they would
"work for the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 7.]
Yet, more recently, when asked if it remains Government policy for Britain to become an original state party of the convention, Ministers have avoided restating their earlier commitment.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on 26 September 1994, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"We certainly hope to be among the first 65 states to ratify the convention."
It does not appear to be the Ministry of Defence that is delaying United Kingdom ratification, because, in last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates," the MOD actually
"expected"—
the CWC—
"to enter into force at the earliest possible date in 1995".
In a written parliamentary answer earlier this year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"Once fully implemented it will make a significant contribution to international security."—[Official Report, 27 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 437.]
At the end of 1993, the Prime Minister confidently asserted:
"The United Kingdom played an active role in the negotiations leading to the opening for signature of the chemical weapons convention … The United Kingdom signed the Convention in January 1993 and we intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity."—[Official Report, 16 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 795.]
That was 16 months ago.
Are Her Majesty's Government seriously telling the House that there has not been an opportunity to introduce that legislation since then? Is the Foreign Office responsible? Is it the Foreign Office that is resisting ratification? No. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is rightly proud of its performance in this field. Its memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in February this year stated:
"The chemical weapons convention … after 20 years of negotiation, was a landmark for proliferation and arms control in the post-Cold war era. The UK played a major part in its negotiation, and it intends to ratify the CWC as soon as the necessary implementing legislation is in place".
Is it, perhaps, because the legislation is likely to be met with resistance from the civil chemical industry? Again, no; the Chemical Industries Association has been clear in its support for the chemical weapons convention. It wants to ensure that the United Kingdom is an original state party, able to play a full part in shaping the control regime and able to ensure that it will not suffer the trade discrimination that might arise if the UK remained a non-party.
Perhaps there is some other explanation. Might there be some detrimental consequences for Britain's chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down? Again, no; on the contrary, it will continue to conduct
636
research into protective measures against chemical attack and will also play a central part in the new arms control regime.
Is it, perhaps, because legislation is likely to prove controversial? Again, no; presumably, on this issue, the Government could expect to carry all their Back Benchers with them, and both Labour Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrats have pledged their broad support for the legislation. During business questions just before Easter, the shadow Leader of the House offered the Labour party's full co-operation in getting legislation through the House.
Is it because the legislation is likely to prove complex and to require a great deal of preparation? I do not think so—not according to the paper presented by the Government to a regional chemical weapons convention seminar in Brno in the Czech Republic in June last year. It stated:
"Our legislation will be quite short and we think its preparation will be quite straightforward."
The President of the Board of Trade has said that the necessary Bill will be introduced
"as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit."—[Official Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 297.]
The excuse of finding it difficult to fit a Bill into the legislative programme may be a fair one over a short period of a few months, but surely not over a two-year period. That leaves me asking whether it is all about a sense of priorities. In that case, perhaps we should look at the President's words when he was Secretary of State for Defence. On 8 May 1985 he told the Defence Select Committee:
"I can only tell you the priorities we … in this Government have—to secure agreement to the limitation and, hopefully, the abolition of chemical weapons."
Yet, 10 years later, when the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to carry that legislation through to fruition, he fails to act. Why? Could it be something to do with his aversion to imposing regulations and controls on industry? Surely, in this area that would be misguided and contrary to the security interests of our country.
I would have thought that people in general might think that, following the Post Office fiasco, the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the opportunity to introduce a simple piece of legislation that could be relied on to receive widespread support from his Back Benchers and, perhaps, unanimous support from both sides of the House.
At least the right hon. Gentleman's Department has begun work in preparation for the entry into force of the convention and the UK is playing a full part in the preparatory commission in The Hague that has been charged with the task of developing detailed administrative and verification procedures in preparation for the entry into force of the convention.
As I understand it, the British embassy in The Hague has two people at first secretary level playing major roles in the work of the commission and six British citizens have posts in the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, which is the provisional technical secretariat. One of them is its head. After it comes into effect, that organisation will monitor the implementation of the convention.

637
However, as the Royal Society of Chemistry and others have pointed out, if the UK fails to be among the first 65 countries to ratify the convention, that will have serious detrimental consequences for personnel, for employment and for Britain's influence within the convention. In the words of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report entitled "UK Policy on Weapons Proliferation and Arms Control in the Post-Cold War Era",
"a failure to ratify amongst the first 65 member states would mean that few, if any, UK nationals would be employed as inspectors or in the Technical Secretariat, at any rate in the first instance, and might prejudice the UK's right to a seat on the Executive Council."
The Committee said other things that were strongly critical of the Government. It said:
"there is a risk that the UK's diplomatic efforts to promote the Convention may be undermined by its own apparent reluctance to ratify … it is clear that a number of detailed points of importance to the UK chemical industry remain to be resolved in relation to the scope of the Convention and it is important that the UK interest is adequately reflected in discussion of these."
At the end of January this year, the Department of Trade and Industry issued its discussion document, and responses should have been returned by 31 March. No doubt, the results will be useful to the Department, but, after the UK signed the convention, why did two years elapse before the consultation document was issued? Surely, the Government conducted consultations before they agreed to sign the convention, and what were they doing between January 1993 and January 1995?
On 18 January this year, the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that legislation was not likely in the present Session of Parliament. That would mean that our Government would not intend to introduce the necessary Bill until at least November 1995, nearly three years alter we signed the chemical weapons convention.
It looks fairly certain that that convention will not come into force until 1996, but by the end of this year, we are likely to be a lot closer to 65 countries having ratified. By delaying until the next Session of Parliament, the Government risk either not being an original state party or having to scramble to put the Bill through to spare them the embarrassment of being left behind. That is hardly a dignified position to have got Britain into—a leading proponent of the chemical weapons convention being one of the last to ratify.
Why is the DTI prepared to risk tarnishing the country's admirable record in chemical arms control? The reasons still remain obscure. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office wants the treaty ratified as soon as possible. The Ministry of Defence wants it. DTI officials want it and they are preparing for it. The legislation is straightforward and could be passed quickly. The main Opposition parties support the Bill's principles. Even the Chemical Industries Association is quoted as saying that it believes that the
"UK chemical industry is overwhelmingly in favour of ratification. We are not the cause of delay—we need the convention to show that we are not [involved in making clandestine weapons]".
Given all that, why has it been necessary to ask the Minister to come to explain his Department's reluctance to introduce required legislation? One might have expected the DTI to do that months ago and to trumpet
638
the move as proof that our Government were committed to chemical weapons disarmament and to the tremendous achievement of securing the convention.
When it eventually comes before the House, the Bill will need to provide powers for an effective, transparent and properly accountable national authority to oversee the country's compliance with the treaty. It is important that a country such as Britain, which has an excellent record on chemical weapon disarmament and which is not likely to be suspected of building chemical weapons, nevertheless demonstrates that it is taking seriously the job of putting in place effective mechanisms to prove its compliance.
11.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on the way in which he has presented his case and, indeed, on securing the Adjournment debate in the first place as it gives me my first opportunity since I became a Minister to speak in the House on this subject. I am delighted to do so and can confirm that the Government fully endorse the convention and have every intention of ratifying it.
The hon. Gentleman made an extended point, so perhaps I can reverse the usual order of ministerial replies in order to avoid running out of time before I get to the key part. I disagree with the official who said to whatever conference it was that this might be only a simple procedure. There are complexities. The Bill covers a subject matter that is more complex than may be widely realised and we discovered some points during the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation period with industry earlier this year which, as the hon. Gentleman said, finished on 31 March. We are now reviewing the conclusions, and I shall deal with them in a moment.
It might help the House and the industry if I were to say that the intention is, at a fairly early date, to publish a draft of the Bill. That will enable those affected by it or those who take an interest in it to comment on the provisions before they are formally introduced. It is a wise precaution and certainly one that I advocate. I am entitled to say on behalf of the Government that that is our intention after consultations across Government Departments. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, although I am a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, other Departments take an interest in the matter, but we are all of one mind in wanting to try to make progress.
Work is going ahead to prepare the necessary legislation and, as I said, we intend to publish a draft of the Bill with a view to introducing it in the 1995–96 Session. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about this not being a matter of controversy between the parties. I welcome that as I can envisage the Bill having a speedy passage. I am sure that that would please him and the other hon. Members who take a considerable interest in the Government's achievement, with support from Opposition Members, in signing the convention in the first place in 1993.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If we had to wait until the 1995–96 Session, how would the Minister respond to the Royal Society of Chemistry's third cause for concern in relation to parties

639
"in certain industrial chemicals that are defined in the CWC under Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 as being dual-use compounds"
and the trade in them? Might not it create difficulties if we did not proceed immediately?
Mr. Taylor: It would not create difficulties until a period after the coming into force of the whole treaty. We are well aware of that and one of the things that came out of the consultation between January and the end of March was that we should listen to industry's worries. However, I am satisfied that that possibility will not arise thanks to the timetable that I have announced this evening. Indeed, any of the outstanding points touched on by the Select Committee about the way in which the treaty is defined and implemented in this country could be dealt with during consultation on the draft Bill rather than when it is debated in the House. That would then simplify the procedure in the House.
I welcome those parts of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report that refer to the chemical weapons convention. Clearly, I am not this evening going to reply formally to the report on behalf of the Government—that must await the normal channels—but I have read the sections that are relevant to this debate.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South gave the correct background to the convention and I do not wish to go over it again. In the time that remains I shall highlight some matters that may be of interest to anyone who may be listening at this early hour of the evening or who is a devotee of Hansard because I should like to provoke a much wider debate on the subject.
The chemicals involved fall into different categories. Clearly, schedule 1 contains the most toxic chemicals, including many of the agents themselves. These chemicals have few alternative applications. The UK must not possess on aggregate more than 1 tonne of schedule 1 chemicals and all holdings must be justifiable for research, medical, protective or pharmaceutical purposes. Schedule 2 contains chemicals that, although toxic, have some legitimate industrial uses. Schedule 3 contains chemicals that occur commonly in industry, but which can be used in the production of chemical weapons, such as phosgene which is also used in plastics.
The discrete organic chemicals category covers carbon-based chemicals which are widely used in industry. International discussions in the preparatory commission continue to tighten the definition, which is important for industry as a whole.
In our view, the chemical weapons convention provides an effective and powerful verification regime which we warmly welcome. Declarations are required periodically from companies and others using chemicals of concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, inspection will be undertaken by an international inspectorate based in The Hague, there being two sorts of inspection: a routine inspection which will check declarations of the scheduled chemicals, and challenge inspections which will be undertaken at 12 hours' notice at any site where there are grounds for suspecting that it is in breach of the convention. Challenge inspections can be requested by any state party.
Trade controls will be imposed progressively. Initially, trade in the most toxic chemicals—those in schedule 1—will be controlled. Schedule 2 chemicals will be controlled after three years. I hope that that background is of help.
640
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the international body which will be set up—the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons—and which will be based in The Hague. The main function of its staff will be the inspections to which I have just referred. The preparatory commission working in The Hague on the detailed arrangements for implementation is a commission in which the British Government are playing an active part; we will continue to do so. My announcement tonight about timing underlines the fact that we are confident that we shall have a considerable influence in the discussions that are rolling forward.
The CWC enters into force six months after 65 countries have ratified it. As was mentioned, 27 countries have ratified it so far. The Russian Federation and the United States have not yet moved to ratification. Obviously, we are interested not only in their timetables, but in encouraging as many other countries as possible to move forward. We have been influential in trying to talk both to countries that have signed and are likely to move slowly towards ratification and to countries that have not yet signed the convention, but which might be encouraged so to do.
From my departmental point of view, I mention that the DTI will be the national authority which each state is required to set up as a focal point for the implementation of the convention. It is inevitable that the controls required by the convention will affect industry. The Government have kept in close touch with the representatives of the chemical industry during the negotiation of the convention and continue to work with industry to ensure that, in the compliance process, we keep the burdens on business to the minimum necessary. That is welcome.
We are preparing reporting forms and information for the industry, as far as this can be done on the basis of decisions taken in the preparatory commission. Industry has given us its views in the consultation period, which was designed to let all firms that were affected come forward with their views and to seek industry's views on points in relation to declaration procedures. We have found that industry particularly wants to avoid avoidable burdens and wants other burdens to be minimised. Strict measures are needed to preserve commercial confidentiality. Definitions must be precise and industry will need guidance during inspections. I am confident that as the DTI will be the national authority, the discreet and confidential nature of DTI civil servants will safeguard the interests of industry in relation to confidentiality.
In all the discussions that are going ahead, both in this country and through The Hague, the British Government are doing their job. I do not accept the strictures in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because I believe that the timetable that I have announced will satisfy it and does not in any way undermine our diplomatic efforts to promote the treaty. I am satisfied therefore that we shall continue to be influential and that our voice will be heard on unresolved industry matters. We are a participant in the discussions in The Hague. Indeed, we chair the expert group on industry issues in The Hague.
I do not believe that we shall fail to be part of the first 65 countries. Therefore, I believe that we shall have a seat on the executive council, although I am aware of and shall be watching the rate of progress in the next few months. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Ilford, South that I

641
am aware of the consequences of late ratification, which is why, as a new Minister, I have endeavoured to make as speedy progress as possible. Therefore, I think that we shall be a founder state party to the convention.
In the last couple of minutes of the debate, may I mention one area of concern which has been raised with me in correspondence, although the hon. Member for Ilford, South did not raise it tonight? I have been asked whether the ratification of the convention, which is coming into force, will make terrorist attacks impossible. The obvious answer to that, I am sad to say, is no. There is no convention yet invented which can avoid or prevent terrorists from carrying out deeds such as those that we have recently seen in Japan. I must confirm that this convention by itself will not be sufficient to remove the threat of those terrorist activities. Clearly, in as much as certain highly toxic chemicals will be brought under control or destroyed, access to certain chemicals will be made more difficult. On the other hand, some chemicals can be manufactured—in small quantities but nevertheless creating a danger to the public.
642
Ultimately, it is possible to continue to make certain agents, of which sarin is an example, from chemicals which, because of their wide commercial applications, fall outside the convention's controls. Defence against chemical terrorism depends on good intelligence, vigilance and public support, as does defence against other forms of terrorism. The police and other agencies have served us well, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be keen to see what we can learn from the experience of others and especially from recent events in Japan. There is contingency planning in existence for responding to a wide range of terrorist attacks, including chemical ones.
I am grateful for the opportunity to reply.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Taylor: I am about to run out of time, so I shall not give way. I hope that I have clarified the timetable to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Ilford, South. I am determined that the Government should be at the forefront of this very important—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.

HEALTH

  Pay Offers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region all health trusts for which she has departmental responsibility showing(a) pay offers made, to date, to staff covered by national pay review machinery and (b) in how many cases pay offers are linked with financial penalties for unjustified absence; and if she will make a statement. [19044]

  Mr. Malone
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine recommended that there should be local negotiations on pay in addition to a 1 per cent. increase in national rates of pay and similar offers have been made to most staff groups covered by negotiations in various Whitley councils. Negotiations on local pay are a matter for individual national health service trusts but I understand that in some 120 NHS trusts which have made offers about 75 per cent. are of around 3 per cent. overall.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of trusts have made formal pay offers of 3 per cent. or more. [20619]

  Mr. Malone
  Negotiations on local pay are a matter for individual national health service trusts but I understand that in some 120 NHS trusts which have made offers about 75 per cent. are of around 3 per cent. overall.

  Centre for Epilepsy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the Centre for Epilepsy in relation to the re-organisation of neurosciences at the Kings Healthcare trust in the south-east [20056]

  Mr. Malone
  The Centre for Epilepsy has a positive future as part of the major new neurosciences centre being developed at King's College hospital, announced on 4 April. King's Healthcare trust will be working with the centre to relocate its facilities to purpose-built accommodation on the main Denmark hill site.

  Executive Letters
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation was undertaken before issuing executive letter EL(95)5 on purchasing home-based hospital care. [20255]
  322
  Mr. Malone
  The Department consulted representatives of health authorities and national health service trusts and informed a number of bodies representing clinicians and patients before issuing EL(95)5.

  Rehabilitation Equipment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received claiming a conflict of interest or unfair competition in respect of the practice of local and health authorities in granting the procurement and servicing of rehabilitative equipment to a manufacturer or supplier of such equipment. [20260]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations have been received from a supplier of disability aids alleging a conflict of interest within the industry. This claim is being considered.

  Psychologists
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the steps taken to ensure that enough professional clinical psychologists are available to meet the demands of care in the community. [20258]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for local employers to determine the staff needed to deliver the services that they have contracted to provide. Since 1991, the number of clinical psychologists employed by national health service trusts and the number of training places commissioned on their behalf by regional health authorities has continued to increase to meet the growing demand for clinical psychologists. Officials from the NHS executive and from regional health authorities meet regularly with representatives from the British Psychological Society to review progress.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the four-partner practice at Hornsey Rise health centre, a first-wave fundholder, which is leaving the scheme. [20621]

  Mr. Malone
  It is regrettable that this practice feels unable to continue within fundholding, but the strength of fundholding is its voluntary nature. The fact is, however, that many more general practitioners are opting to enter the scheme, taking the population covered by a general practitioner fundholder to over 42 per cent.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings there have been in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1991–92 between herself, a health Minister or parliamentary private secretaries and representatives of private health insurance companies; and if she will make a statement on the content of these discussions. [20625]

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been numerous meetings to discuss a range of topics relevant to private medical insurance, including taxation policy, long-term care and advertising. The available information is shown in the table.
  323

  Date

  Minister

  Company

  1 September 1993

  Secretary of State

  Private Patients Plan

  9 November 1993

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health—Mr. Sackville

  Private Patients Plan

  22 November 1993

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health—Mr. Sackville

  Norwich Union

  23 November 1993

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health—Mr. Bowis

  Association of British Insurers

  12 January 1994

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health—Mr. Sackville

  Association of British Insurers

  14 March 1994

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health—Mr. Bowis

  Prudential

  12 July 1994

  Secretary of State

  Association of British Medical Insurers

  31 October 1994

  Minister for Health—Mr. Malone

  BUPA

  15 February 1995

  Secretary of State

  Association of British Insurers

  6 March 1995

  Secretary of State

  Association of British Insurers

  31 March 1995

  Minister for Health—Mr. Malone

  Norwich Union

  Appeals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors under notice of dismissal are awaiting appeal to her; and for how long they have been waiting. [20620]

  Mr. Malone
  Doctors subject to paragraph 190 of the national health service terms and conditions of service may appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health if they consider that their appointment has been unfairly terminated for reasons other than personal misconduct. Appeals are determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the light of advice from a professional committee. Six appeals are awaiting determination: four were lodged within the last 12 months, one in June 1993 and one in September 1993.

  Private Facilities
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the policy of patients in casualty being asked whether they will go into private facilities within that hospital. [20624]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for the individual patient or their guardian to request private medical treatment. No pressure should be placed on patients in accident and emergency departments to be treated privately.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of acute private beds in England in 1993–94 in(a) NHS facilities and (b) in total. [20626]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  GP Appointments
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what representations she has received regarding the 324
  procedures for appointment of general practitioners to vacant practices; and if she will make a statement. [20535]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received representations on various aspects of the general practitioner appointments procedures from both the profession and the national health service. In response to that, we amended regulations on 1 April 1994 to allow family health services authorities to readvertise vacancies up to three times where the aggregated number of applications was fewer than 20. We will continue to consider any further representations that are received.

  Healthcall
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the cost so far to the NHS of legal actions taken by Healthcall against family health service authorities. [20622]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if civilian staff currently employed by the Ministry of Defence at Queen Elizabeth military hospital will be offered employment on their current terms and conditions within the NHS when the hospital becomes a civilian NHS hospital; and if she will make a statement. [20533]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Greenwich Healthcare trust in consultation with interested parties. I understand that the hon. Member has already written to the trust, which will reply direct to him.

  Patient Calls
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require deputising services medically to triage calls from patients in the same manner as general practitioners. [20623]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each of the last four years what were the number and total cost of extra-contractual referrals requested from each district health authority, and in total; and what were the number and total cost of such referrals approved by each district health authority. [20627]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of extra-contractual referrals requested and approved by health authorities is not available centrally.

  Income Generation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise how much income has been received by NHS bodies since the introduction of the income generation initiative. [20404]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is contained in the annual national health service national summary accounts, copies of which are available in the Library and which set out income receipts by health authorities and trusts under a number of headings.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the methods by which nurses' pay has been determined between 1974 and 1995 [17561]

  Mr. Malone
  For the period 1974 to 1983 nurses' pay was negotiated between the sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley council. In July 1983 the independent Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine was set up to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on remuneration. Since the review body was established all 12 reports have been accepted in full by the Government. Settlement levels over the period to 1994 increased by over 130 per cent. in a period when inflation rose by less than 69 per cent.

  Patient Transfer (Kent to Southampton)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish the report on the transfer of a patient from Maidstone to Southampton referred to in the report of south Thames region concerning the transfer of a patient from Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup to Leeds. [20534]

  Mr. Sackville
  Mid Kent Healthcare national health service trust published the detailed conclusions and an action plan arising from its investigation of this incident on 5 April.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of

  In post 19 April 1995

  Appointments 19 April 1990 to 19 April 1995

  Retirements 19 April 1990 to 19 April 1995

  1Resignations 19 April 1990 to 19 April 1995

  Law Lords

  12

  9

  7

  0

  Heads of Division including Lord Chancellor

  5

  4

  2

  0

  Court of Appeal

  32

  20

  9

  0

  High Court Bench

  95

  55

  16

  0

  Circuit Bench

  516

  222

  108

  1

  Industrial Tribunal including President2

  83

  48

  39

  0

  Social Security Appeals Tribunal including President2

  41

  26

  3

  23

  Immigration Appeals Tribunals including President

  3

  1

  1

  0

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals

  4—

  1 Resignations:those who retire without being entitled to an immediate pension.

  2 These President also hold Circuit Bench posts.

  3 Presidents who returned to full time Circuit Bench Posts.

  4 no full-timeposts

ENVIRONMENT

  Road-side Advertising
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the planning law on road-side advertising; and if he will make a statement. [19748]
  326
  5 April, Official Report, columns 1174–75, concerning public appointments, if he will list the names and positions of the four people who have been appointed in consultation with the Prime Minister and the name of the person appointed in consultation with the Government Chief Whip. [20317]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The four people appointed in consultation with the Prime Minister were:

  Lord Griffiths, MC, as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct in October 1990;

  Lord Justice (now Lord) Steyn as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct in October 1993;

  Lord Archer of Sandwell as chairman of the Council on Tribunals in November 1992; and

  Sir Tim Chessells as member of the Legal Aid Board in January 1995 and as chairman from May 1995.

  Mr. David Sumberg MP was appointed to the Advisory Council on Public Records in November 1992 in consultation with the Government Chief Whip.

  A Member of Parliament from each of the main parties serves on the Advisory Council on Public Records, but only Mr. Sumberg was appointed in the period covered by the question.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the current total number of positions held and the number of new appointments, retirements and resignations in the last five years with respect to(a) the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, (b) the Court of Appeal, (c) the High Court Bench,(d) the Circuit Bench, (e) the Industrial Tribunal, (f) the social security appeal tribunal, (g) the immigration appeals tribunal and (h) valuation tribunals. [20318]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information relating to the numbers of full-time office holders in post as at 19 April 1995 and to the numbers of appointments, retirements and resignations of full-time office holders in the five-year period between 19 April 1990 and 19 April 1995 is set out in the table.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 controlling road-side advertising. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is consulting publicly on proposed changes to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 with regard to traffic signs for tourist destinations and facilities.

  Swinden Quarry
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed extension of Swinden quarry at Cracoe in the Yorkshire Dales national park; and whether he intends to call in and review the planning decision on this matter. [19752]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has received approximately 70 representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals; a petition has also been received.

  In exercise of his powers under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act General Development Order 1988, the Secretary of State has directed the planning authority not to grant planning permission on this application without specific authorisation.

  This direction has been issued to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether he should direct under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the application should be called in for his own decision. No decision has yet been reached.

  Car Ban, Athens
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain regular reports on the environmental effects of the ban on private cars in the centre of Athens and consider the implications for traffic policy in British cities. [19988]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am advised that the Athens experiment is scheduled to last three months. I will study reports as and when they become available.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total staffing level of the Government office for London. [20237]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Three hundred and thirty-seven.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the effects of subsidence on housing in mining areas caused by mining operations in the last 10 years; what action his Department has taken to limit the effects of subsidence on housing in mining areas caused by mining operations; and how many letters he has received concerning subsidence on housing in mining areas. [19835]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 19 April 1995]: My Department has carried out a number of general assessments of mining subsidence in the last 10 to 15 years under the planning research programme and derelict land grant. The Review of mining instability in Great Britain, published in 1992, gave a broad general picture of the extent of mining in Great Britain and its effects on land use and development; regional, technical and case study reports provide a concise summary of the mining and mining-related subsidence events and the methods of investigation, monitoring and remedial measures that are available. In addition, specific assessments have been
  328
  made in a number of areas such as the black country, the Wrekin district of Shropshire, south Wales and Norwich.

  Derelict land grant has also been used to fund investigations and remedial measures, principally the limestone mines of the black country but also in the sand mines in West Yorkshire and Surrey, chalk mines in Norwich, Reading and Bury St. Edmunds, metal mines in Cornwall and Shropshire, salt mines in Cheshire and stone mines in Bath.

  Planning guidance issued in 1990 advised local planning authorities and developers of the need to take account of the possibility of subsidence when considering all development in past, present and future mining areas.

  There is no central record of the number of letters received concerning subsidence on housing in mining areas.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Tanzania (Aid)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being given to Tanzania to cope with the influx of refugees from Rwanda. [18656]

  Mr. Baldry
  In addition to the substantial and continuing bilateral emergency aid that we have been providing for Rwandan refugees in Tanzania, we are also seeking to help local affected Tanzanians. We are designing a project with Help Age International to support Tanzanian elderly and disabled people in the region.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid provision is being made for the development of sport in South African townships. [18757]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently funding, in conjunction with the British Council, an initiative with the United Kingdom Sports Council to develop sports administration and coaching, and we are about to embark, with Voluntary Service Overseas, on a two-year sports development pilot programme. Both projects are aimed specifically at disadvantaged communities in the townships and rural areas.

  Aid Targeting
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that aid is targeted towards those people most in need. [18758]

  Mr. Baldry
  The whole of the aid programme already has a strong poverty focus. In 1993–94 over two thirds of our bilateral aid went to the poorest developing countries. We are increasing our assistance through non-governmental organisations and have strengthened our capacity to design and implement projects of direct benefit to the poor.

  Kenya
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of aid
  329
  is currently given to Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [18759]

  Mr. Baldry
  British bilateral aid to Kenya amounted to £31.3 million in 1993–94, the last year for which figure are available.

  Bilateral Debt Commitments
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources the Overseas Development Administration is making available to severely indebted countries to help them meet their bilateral debt commitments. [18761]

  Mr. Baldry
  Aid is not used to finance bilateral debt commitments directly. However, the United Kingdom has converted £1.1 billion of bilateral aid to grants and links its programme aid to adjustment programmes, which often involve rescheduling of other bilateral debt.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of current humanitarian needs of Liberia; what is being done by the international community to meet those needs; and what is Britain's contribution. [19915]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are closely monitoring the situation in Liberia and remain ready to consider further support. The UN is seeking US$65.3 million this year for emergency relief programmes which can be implemented under existing security constraints.

  We have provided £500,000 in response to this appeal to agencies working in the agriculture, food security and health sectors, thereby increasing our emergency aid to Liberia to over £900,000 since April 1994.

  Nepal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what British aid is being given to Nepal for forestry projects, designed to ameliorate flooding. [18963]

  Mr. Baldry
  British aid for forestry in Nepal addresses two main issues. Through our community forestry project we are helping the Government of Nepal to develop a community-based approach to sustainable forest management for the benefit of people living in the hills. At the same time, our support for forestry research is helping to provide the information needed to develop and improve sustainable forest management interventions. Neither project is designed primarily to ameliorate flooding but both will help by slowing water run off and reducing soil erosion in the hills of Nepal.

  Afghan Refugees (Pakistan)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional bilateral aid Her Majesty's Government intend to make available to the Government of Pakistan from September when UNHCR stops all funding of Afghanistan refugees in Pakistan, including food and schools; what discussions Her Majesty's Government are undertaking with EU 330
  states to assist Pakistan in supporting Afghan refugees, including the supply of wheat; and if he will make a statement. [19989]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our assistance to Afghan refugees is channelled through NGOs and international agencies, rather than through the Pakistan Government. In the past year we have provided approximately £3 million for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, and in March 1995 we provided £1.28 million of food aid through CARE for relief programmes inside Afghanistan. We will consider further contributions during the course of the year.

  The EU has for many years been one of the main providers of food aid for refugees in Pakistan and those returning to Afghanistan. A joint UNHCR—World Food Programme food assessment mission arrived in Pakistan on 21 April. It will discuss its findings with representatives of donors, including EU member states, in Islamabad.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government against decisions by UNHCR to reduce and, from September, to stop all aid to refugees from Afghanistan in Pakistan except to those families deemed vulnerable; and what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government against a decision to stop funding all schools for Afghan refugee children in Pakistan from September. [19987]

  Mr. Baldry
  UNHCR has made no decision to stop all funding of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, including food and schools, from September.

  However, last year's joint UNHCR—World Food Programme food assessment mission concluded that the across-the-board care and maintenance programme should not continue after 30 September 1995. Aid will continue to be targeted at those most in need, the food assessment mission having found that many Afghan refugees in Pakistan were self-reliant and enjoyed a higher economic and nutritional status than rural Pakistanis. This year's food assessment mission is due to review the situation about now. We and other donors support the view that more UNHCR emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation efforts inside Afghanistan in order to encourage refugees to return home.

  UNHCR has no plans to cease primary education for all Afghan refugee children in Pakistan.

  Desertification Convention
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what obstacles there are for the ratification of the desertification convention by the United Kingdom. [19807]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: We intend to ratify in concert with other EU and OECD countries in the light of further progress in the intergovernmental negotiating committee on various provisions of the convention, including administrative arrangements.

  Tropical Rainforests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made
  331
  of the principal reasons for the general failure of initiatives taken so far, including the tropical forestry action plan and the International Tropical Timber Organisation, not to prevent the destruction of tropical rainforests. [19803]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Much forest loss is caused by local land use pressures which are not subject to resolution through international initiatives. TFAP and ITTO have assisted and encouraged Governments to develop and implement sustainable forest management policies in their own countries, but they cannot replace the overriding importance of national action and local political commitment.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the willingness or otherwise of the British public to pay, through taxation, for additional measures to conserve tropical rainforests. [19806]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Sustainable management of tropical rainforests is principally the responsibility of the Governments of the countries in which they occur. It is not evident that measures taken by them would be directly assisted by taxation levied in the United Kingdom. In due course, producer countries might aim to fund forest conservation partly from a premium on tropical timber certified as being from a sustainable source, but there are differing views on the willingness of consumers to pay such premiums.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom Government's policy regarding the involvement of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in the issue of tropical rainforest conservation. [19805]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: FAO is responsible within the UN system for forest issues and has considerable expertise in forestry. We believe that FAO should increase the proportion of its existing resources which it devotes to assisting the sustainable development and conversation of forests.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19367]

  Mr. Hague
  In the first three months of 1995, 32 statutory instruments were laid, not including commencement orders, Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure, of which five introduced new regulatory requirements which had costs for business. Compliance cost assessments were published and copies have been placed in the Library. These statutory instruments also repealed eight rules and regulations.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mrs Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many competitive tendering exercises carried out by his Department in each of the last two years 332
  were caught by the provisions of the public services directive but were not subsequently advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in compliance with the relevant regulations. [19227]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All contracts for services awarded by this Department since the public services directive came into effect on 1 July 1993 have been awarded in compliance with the relevant regulations.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received expressing opposition to the new incapacity benefit; and what plans he has to review the working of this benefit. [20371]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit since the changes were announced in December 1993. We will closely monitor the effects of the changes but we have no plans to review the benefit.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the revised charter for national insurance payers will be published. [20757]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have today published the revised contributor's charter. It highlights the progress the Contributions Agency has made since its launch four years ago. It demonstrates the agency's continuing commitment to providing a quality service. I am particularly pleased to see that the charter's complaints section has been revised. Customers now have access to an independent adjudicator and are clearly directed to other sources of independent advice. The agency is now better placed to deal with customers dissatisfaction effectively and positively.

  Self-Employed Farmers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide injury benefit to self-employed farmers who paid class 2 national insurance contributions and who are now suffering from organophosphorous poisoning as a result of the compulsory use of organophosphorous dips. [20259]

  Mr. Hague
  Injury benefit was abolished in 1983. Disablement benefit may be payable under the industrial injuries scheme to employed earners who suffer organophosphorous poisoning as a result of their work. We have no plans to extend the industrial injuries scheme to the self-employed in agriculture. However, incapacity benefit is available to self-employed farmers who satisfy the relevant incapacity and contribution conditions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Annesley Bentinck Colliery
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of Annesley Bentinck colliery. [21001]

  Mr. Page
  Discussions with Coal Investments plc on its proposed acquisition of Annesley Bentinick are at an
  333
  advanced stage and we hope to complete the sale very shortly.

  The bid has been subject to a detailed process of clarification and negotiation since Coal Investments was selected as preferred bidder in October 1994. Agreement has now been reached, subject to contract, that Coal Investments will acquire Annesley Bentinck colliery, which has been on care and maintenance since February 1994, for a nominal consideration of £1. Coal Investments will take over British Coal's substantial liabilities in relation to the colliery—for example, in relation to site restoration when production ceases. In order to conclude the transfer at the earliest opportunity so as to minimise the on-going costs currently being incurred by British Coal, the Government will pay Coal Investments a contribution of up to £270,000 towards continuing care and maintenance costs for a limited period.

  The Department will shortly lay a minute before the House describing certain limited warranties which it proposes to give in relation to the sale.

  Exploration Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the fee paid by Canuk Exploration Ltd. for the exploration licence covering the Windsor area will correlate to the proceeds of any oil discovery; and if he will make a statement. [20042]

  Mr. Page
  Application fees and rental payments for all petroleum licences are not related to future proceeds from any oil discovery but are charged on a standard basis. All third round licensees, including Canuk Exploration Ltd., paid a standard application fee of £1,000 and a non-recurrent rental of £75 per square kilometre when it was awarded exploration licences. The rental paid by Canuk amounted to £7,500. Licensees wishing to develop any discoveries would need first to apply for an appraisal licence, which currently attracts a non-recurrent rental of £75 per square kilometre, and then a development licence, for which the charge is £1,500 per square kilometre per year. Licence fees and rentals are agreed with the Treasury prior to each licensing round and are currently being reviewed. I hope to announce the new rental structure shortly.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used to access the adequacy of the financial and technical resources of applicants applying for oil exploration licences. [20043]

  Mr. Page
  Before awarding an onshore exploration licence, my officials make the necessary checks to ensure that applicants have sufficient technical resources to perform their proposed work programmes and have access to the funding required to enable these to be carried out.

  Crown Post Offices
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Crown post offices in Britain which are earmarked for conversion to agency status and the constituencies within which they lie. [19483]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I understand from the Post Office that it has begun or completed consultation on the conversion of the following Crown post offices in Britain to agency status but has either not yet taken a decision to proceed or has not yet proceeded with the conversion.
  334

  Crown Office

  Constituency

  Banstead

  Epsom and Ewell

  Caterham

  East Surrey

  Cranleigh

  Guildford

  Downham

  Lewisham East

  East Grinstead

  Mid Sussex

  Elephand and Castle

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  Greenwich

  Greenwich

  Melville Road Hove

  Hove

  Rye

  Hastings and Rye

  South Kensington

  Chelsea

  South Norwood

  Croydon North East

  Southsea

  Portsmouth South

  Waterlooville

  Havant

  Wimbledon

  Wimbledon

  Walton

  Liverpool Walton

  Nelson

  Pendle

  Whitehaven

  Copeland

  Ulverston

  Barrow in Furness

  New Ferry

  Wirral South

  Speke

  Liverpool Garston

  Skelmersdale

  Lancashire West

  Hightown

  Manchester Central

  Atherton

  Leigh

  Bury

  Bury North

  Stalybridge

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  Bodmin

  North Cornwall

  Bude

  North Cornwall

  Launceston

  North Cornwall

  Tewkesbury

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  Brighouse

  Calder Valley

  Derby

  Derby South

  Long Eaton

  Erewash

  Willenhall

  Walsall North

  South Wolfe Street Stoke on Trent

  Stoke on Trent South

  Greenock

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Nicholson Street

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Westerhailes

  Edinburgh Pentland

  Maida Hill

  Westminster North

  Stanmore

  Harrow East

  Highbury

  Islington North

  Islington

  Islington South

  Muswell Hill

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  Southgate

  Enfield Southgate

  Cricklewood

  Brent East

  Halstead

  Saffron Walden

  Dunmow

  Saffron Walden

  Saffron Walden

  Saffron Walden

  Chadwell Heath

  Dagenham

  Newton Aycliffe

  Bishop Auckland

  Raytheon
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has written to the chief executive of Raytheon asking him to meet representatives of the Raytheon campaign. [19956]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Ministers at the DTI and the Welsh Office have written to the chief executive of Raytheon asking him to meet representatives of the Raytheon campaign.

  Public Information Telephone Line
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of
  335
  establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17456]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The information requested is as follows.

  Environment Helpline 0800 585 794
  The Environmental Helpline is a freephone service which provides up to two hours of free advice to firms on environmental issues affecting their business. Until 1994, it was run by the DTI's Warren Spring Laboratory. Since June 1994, it has been run by the National Environmental Technology Centre (NETCEN) as part of DTI/DOE Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, for which it is the first point of contact. The figures below for the period 1990–91 to 1993–94 relate to the cost of operating the helpline, excluding any DTI staff involved, and to the number of calls received during this period:

  Year

  Costs (£)

  Calls

  1990–91

  2,076

  5,052

  1991–92

  3,311

  6,735

  1992–93

  4,184

  6,441

  1993–94

  2,262

  2,962

  Since the transfer of the helpline service to NETCEN as part of the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, the full cost of providing the helpline service, including the provision of a site visit advisory service and the associated staff costs relating to this are available. For 1994/95, a total of 6,322 calls were handled by the helpline service, at a total cost to the Department of £259,793.

  Business in Europe Hotline (0117 944 4888)
  The Business in Europe Hotline superseded the Single Market Helpline in April 1993 and was further streamlined, with consequent cost savings, in May 1994.
  This Hotline now concentrates on taking orders for free publications, providing names of government contacts for specific areas of legislation and signposting to private sector sources of advice. Cost since the changeover and the number of calls to date are as follows:

  Year

  Costs (£)

  Calls

  1993–94

  94,850

  30,169

  1994–95

  126,129

  19,986

  Innovation Enquiry Line 0800 44 2001
  The line provides a single point of contact for those seeking information about the Department's innovation services; it signposts enquirers to other sources of help and advice, and takes orders for the despatch of relevant literature.
  Costs (excluding staff costs) since inception and the number of calls to date are as follows. The 1994–95 call figures reflects steps taken to discourage irrelevant enquiries.

  Year

  Costs (£)

  Calls

  1991–92

  3,700

  7,980

  1992–93

  3,700

  7,430

  1993–94

  5,400

  9,584

  1994–95

  4,1001

  4,872

  Services for Business Line (0800 500 200)
  The Services for Business line (formerly known as the Enterprise Initiative Helpline) provides a signposting and publication-ordering facility across a wide range of the Department's business services. From April 1995 it will be known as the Business Link Hotline. Costs and number of calls to date are as follows:
  336

  Year

  Costs (£)

  Calls

  1987–88

  67,000

  44,971

  1988–89

  106,700

  43,413

  1989–90

  163,600

  38,496

  1990–91

  166,400

  37,606

  1991–92

  120,500

  26,833

  1992–93

  124,200

  31,009

  1993–94

  118,000

  26,608

  1994–95

  1112,000

  21,513

  1 Estimated

  A Biotechnology Means Business Helpline (0800 432 100) was launched on 22 March 1995 as part of a three-year awareness initiative but it is too early to make an assessment of its effectiveness.

  These lines provide a valuable and necessary function in enabling the Department to measure and respond to interest generated by its various awareness-raising marketing campaigns and in most instances provide gateways into various DTI best-practice programmes and services.

  The costs, call levels and nature of inquiries are under constant assessment and subject to periodic formal review and, where necessary, appropriate steps are taken to improve value for money. Such steps include contracting out, streamlining services, changing service suppliers and screening out inappropriate calls.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quality standards he will require when the marketing and information technology section of the Patent Office is opened to competitive tenders. [20028]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office will require prospective tenderers to demonstrate commitment to quality standards as part of their proposals and quality standards will be incorporated in the specifications. Deciding the nature and scope of appropriate standards will form part of the process of drawing up those specifications.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to invite tenders for Patent Office work including the marketing section and duties undertaken by the London Front section. [20027]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office will seek to contract out activities wherever this is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money. It is currently assessing the scope for contracting out and some candidates have been identified. Before tenders can be invited, operational requirements need to be assessed and specifications drawn up. In the case of marketing and the London Front office, it is likely that consultants will be appointed in May to help with this stage of the work, on which the subsequent timetable depends.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he is now expecting the house to receive the findings of the Scott inquiry. [18746]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Sir Richard Scott has advised me that he hopes to publish his report in late June or shortly thereafter.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the extent to which British companies have been involved in the export or arrangement for sale of electro-shock equipment since 1984. [19510]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The export of portable anti-riot devices for administering an electric shock and specialised components therefore has been controlled since 1984 under the terms of various Export of Goods (Control) Orders which have applied since and before that date. In considering any applications for licences for the export of such equipment the Department of Trade and Industry and advisers in other Government Departments would take special care and consider very carefully the political and military implications of allowing such goods to be exported. Particular attention is paid to proposed exports to countries with poor human rights records, where the equipment might be used for internal repression. Evasion of UK export controls is a criminal offence and investigation of such evasion is a matter for Customs and Excise; any evidence that evasion may have taken place should be supplied to that Department. Controls on the exports of such goods from outside the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the appropriate authorities in the countries from which the goods are supplied. In these circumstances I do not think that inquiry is necessary or appropriate.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the number and location of Accounts Services Agency, Companies House, Insolvency Service, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, National Engineering Laboratory, National Physical Laboratory, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Patent Office and Radiocommunications Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20299]

  Mr. Heseltine
  One clerical post in Radiocommunications Agency was transferred to Scotland during the period in question. No other work carried out by any of the Department's executive agencies has been transferred to or from Scotland from or to the rest of the UK during the period.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those companies in the Corby area which have qualified for regional selective assistance since 1991–92, together with the total value of such selective assistance in each year. [20277]

  Mr. Page
  Discussions about regional selective assistance grants are confidential between the company 338
  concerned and my Department. I am, therefore, unable to provide a full list of companies which received RSA during the period in question. However, where RSA exceeds £75,000, details are published in the Employment Gazette once the first payment has been made.

  I can provide figures which show the total amounts of RSA approved for projects in the Corby travel-to-work area from financial year 1991–92 onwards, and these figures are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of offers

  Amount offered £000s

  1991–92

  4

  553

  1992–93

  6

  588

  1993–94

  11

  1,295

  1994–95

  4

  843

  As my hon. Friend is aware, Corby lost its development area status when the new assisted area map was published on 1 August 1993. The above totals for 1993–94 and for 1994–95 include figures for projects which were submitted to my Department prior to 1 August 1993 but which were not officially approved until after that date.

  Business Links
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the viability of Business Link outlets which have already been created. [18106]

  Mr. Page
  All Business Links which are open have convinced a national assessment panel that they have sound financial plans, including their long-term viability.

  Business Links are private sector companies. It is for their boards to ensure that they remain solvent and that they keep their expenditure within their income. This includes, for 1995–96 alone, £38.5 million from the Government for pump priming, in addition to £50 million which will be provided for services. The amount available for services will be known three years in advance in a rolling programme for funding. Over and above Government funding, there will be additional funding from other partners, membership fees, charges for services and sponsorship income.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Debates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what debates have been held in the past year as a result of requests made by hon. Members at business questions.

  Mr. Newton
  Alongside a wide range of other factors, representations at business questions frequently have considerable influence on the content and timing of the business scheduled. Examples of debates where this has been particularly clear so far this year are the Commonwealth, civil service, tourism and Hong Kong.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of written parliamentary questions were answered(a) directly by Ministers and

  339
  (b) in letters from officials of executive agencies in the first three months of (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 5 April,Official Report, column 1131.

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer on 5 April Official Report, column 1132, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), on what date the report by the Government Actuary on the valuation of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, placed in the Vote Office on 4 April, came into operational effect, as it affects hon. and right hon. Members' contributions to the fund.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The report of the Government Actuary on the valuation of the parliamentary contributory pension fund as at 1 April 1993 covers the general financial position of the fund and, as required by legislation, recommends the Exchequer contribution needed to meet the balance of the cost of the scheme.

  The Government Actuary Department's report will not affect the contribution payable by hon. and right hon. Members. The Exchequer contributions rate recommendation is in respect of the financial year beginning after the Actuary's report is made, in this case, 1 April 1995.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the work in which he has been involved aimed at tackling the problems related to drug misuse in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  I chair the ministerial sub-committee on the misuse of drugs which has co-ordinated a series of reviews of the Government's strategies to tackle drug misuse in the United Kingdom

  A new drugs strategy for England for the period 199598 will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly. The White Paper is a revised version of the consultative document "Tackling Drugs Together", which was published in October 1994. In Scotland, work is underway to implement the recommendations of the report "Drugs in Scotland: Meeting the Challenge" produced by the ministerial drugs task force, which was also published in October 1994. In Wales, a strategy on drug and alcohol misuse is being prepared. It is intended to set up a Welsh drug and alcohol unit to oversee the implementation of the strategy. The Northern Ireland committee on drug misuse has reviewed existing drug policies in Northern Ireland and last month issued a new policy statement for consultation.

  Overtime and Sickness
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours
  340
  of overtime worked for which payment has been made,
  (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested under(a) could not be provided except at disproportionate cost. As to (b), overtime costs incurred by the Privy Council Office were as follows: 1992–93 £36,000 (estimate), 1993–94 £34,121, and 1994–95 £41,137. The total number of days lost through sickness in the PCO was 100 in 1992 calendar year and 237 in 1993. Figures are not yet available for 1994. It is not possible to attribute accurate monetary equivalents to days lost through sickness.

  I am not responsible for any agencies.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Newton
  No relocation expenses were claimed by staff of the Privy Council Office in the years in question. I am not responsible for any agencies.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Newton
  Separate figures for subsistence costs incurred by the Privy Council Office in 1992–93, when such costs were aggregated with travel costs, are not available. Subsistence costs in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were as follows:

  UK £

  Overseas £

  1993–94

  680

  —

  1994–95

  747

  202

  I am not responsible for any agencies.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about progress in the case of Asil Nadir. [18747]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General when he now expects Asil Nadir to return to this country to face the charges against him [18749]
  341
  The Attorney-General
  A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Asil Nadir. The Crown is ready to proceed as soon as he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.

  Witnesses
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the procedure by which the Crown Prosecution Service informs its witnesses of the scheduling of the court case in which they have to appear. [18744]

  The Attorney-General
  Witness warning has been recently under review. Two independent reports have recommended that it should continue to be carried out by the police who already have the necessary liaison with both victims and witnesses and are currently best placed to do the job effectively.

  Government Departments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what arrangements exist for liaison between his Office and the Crown Office in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There are established procedures for liaison and consultation on matters of mutual interest to Government Departments. Close co-ordination between the English and Scottish law officers ensures effective contact between my office and the Crown Office.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of charges prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service has resulted in conviction in each of the years of the Crown Prosecution Service's existence.

  The Attorney-General
  Crown Prosecution Service records are based on the number of defendants whose case results in a conviction, rather than the number of charges resulting in conviction.

  Since 1987, expressed as a proportion of all defendants whose case proceeded to a hearing, the percentage convicted in magistrates court proceedings has been 97 per cent. each year. In the Crown court, the percentage was 91 per cent. between 1987 and 1991, and 90 per cent. thereafter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 545–46, and to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 10 April, what response he has had from the United States authorities as to the authenticity or otherwise of a signal, a copy of which was sent to him and to the US embassy in London, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, purporting to be a threat to the life of Major Charles McKee, who died over Lockerbie by the agencies of the United States Government. [20316]

  The Prime Minister
  The United States authorities' examination of the document concerned is continuing. They have not yet been able to establish its authenticity.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the total number of workplace nursery places provided by each Government Department; and what plans there are to increase this provision [20292]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on individual Departments and agencies' number of workplace nursery places is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, as detailed in the childcare bulletin, to be published by the Cabinet Office later this month, 39 Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are currently involved in 71 workplace nurseries, in which there are over 1,800 places. Copies of the bulletin will be placed in the Library of the House.

  It is for Departments and agencies to decide whether to increase their childcare provision in the light of their own circumstances, provided they can justify this in value-for-money terms and contain costs within their existing budgets. I am aware of plans for two further workplace nurseries—in Falkirk, 30 places, and in York, 33 places.

  VE Day (Poland)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government alleging disparity of treatment between Poland and other allied countries in respect of Poland's exclusion from the principal allies Heads of States and Heads of Governments visits to allied countries in and around the days of commemorating victory in Europe; and if he will make a statement. [20227]

  The Prime Minister
  We have had no such representations. Her Majesty's Government invited the Polish Head of State, President Walsea, to attend the United Kingdom's VE day commemorations. The Polish Foreign Minister, Wladyslaw Barotszewski, will attend as his representative. It is for other countries to decide who to invite to their commemorations.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the policy of his Government on the existing United Nations resolutions on Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [20370]

  The Prime Minister
  Britain supported, and both India and Pakistan agreed, the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which provided the basis of a possible solution of the Kashmir disputes. Neither side fully implemented those resolutions which have, to some extent, been overtaken by events. The 1972 Simla agreement represents the most recent formal agreement between India and Pakistan on the handling of the dispute. It envisages settlement through bilateral negotiations or other peaceful means mutually agreed between them. We believe this to be the best way forward.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his
  343
  Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purpose and the costs. [19839]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 April 1995]: None.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting,Official Report, coluiri 764, where civil servants who undergo vetting are informed as to why they have been refused security clearance; whether they are given an opportunity to contest the accuracy of information held against them; whether they are informed of any appeals process; and if he will make a statement. [19104]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the security vetting system introduced on 1 January 1995, civil servants in post must always be informed of the outcome of their vetting. An individual who is refused security clearance will be informed of the reasons for this. In a small number of exceptional cases, considerations of national security and maintaining the confidential nature of the information provided by referees may limit disclosure. If a clearance has been denied on the grounds of criminal convictions, or as a result of financial inquiries, the individual will be shown the information on which the decision was based and will have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies. Under the grievance procedures provided for in the civil service management code, it is open to civil servants to appeal against any management decisions which affect them adversely, including vetting decisions.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting,Official Report, column 764, if he will outline the safeguards he has put in place to protect those who are vetted; and if he will make a statement. [19105]

  The Prime Minister
  All candidates for security vetting are asked to complete a security questionnaire which explains the purpose of the procedure and invites them to provide the personal details required for the necessary checks to be carried out. Only the checks listed in my statement to the House of 15 December 1994 are carried out. All information given for the purpose of the vetting process is treated in confidence and protected accordingly.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting,Official Report, column 764, to what extent the basic check involves the use of criminal records and criminal intelligence to ensure that potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy; whether contractors, needing to carry out basic checks, will be able to access information from police sources to access whether potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy; and if he will make a statement. [19103]

  The Prime Minister
  The basic check is designed to assure Departments that potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy primarily through the verification of identity, the taking up of character references and self-declaration of unspent criminal convictions. In some exceptional cases, however, it may be decided, with Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science approval, that additional checks are necessary. This may involve a check against the national collection of criminal records. Contractors are not able to access these records and the department or agency placing the contract conducts this part of the check.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister how many advisers his department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19418]

  The Prime Minister
  My Department employs seven political advisers. Their salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. My department employs no professional economists; economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns.

  Acceptance of Gifts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have been approached during the last 15 years for advice on the suitability of accepting any financial gift, payment or commission by a Minister, a relative of a Minister, an hon. Member or a relative of an hon. Member. [19447]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Advice to Ministers on the acceptance of gifts by themselves or by members of their families is contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" Advice on specific cases sought by and given to individuals is private.

  Hon. Members are guided in these matters by the rules of the House.

  Ministers (Car Hire)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1131, if he will publish the rules governing the use by members of the Government of private hire cars at public expense. [20309]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: I have nothing to add to the answer given on 5 April. There are no rules governing the use of private hire cars.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; [19561]

  (2) if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible (a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years; [19653]

  (3) if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible (a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time

  345
  in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19678]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 April,Official Report, columns 258–61.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minster what is the target time that each Government Department aims to take in replying to letters from right hon. and hon. Members and if he will give the reasons for variations; and if he will make a statement. [18987]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on 18 April,Official Report, columns 21–24.

  The nature of correspondence varies greatly between Departments. In some Departments, for example, a high proportion of correspondence requires reference to individual casework before a reply can be sent. Targets are set to reflect the particular circumstances of Departments and consequently target times may differ.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20203]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what the figures were for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20202]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 21 April,Official Report, column 290.

SCOTLAND

  Drugs-related Crime, Strathclyde
  Mr. Mcmaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on recent levels of drugs-related crime and violence within the 'K? Division of Strathclyde police; and what measures he has put, is putting or will put in place to support the police and the local community in their endeavours to tackle these problems. [19034]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend fully understands the concerns of Paisley residents about increased drugs-related crime, which often involves violence, in their areas. He trusts that the police will receive the support of the local community in the actions which they are taking to curb 346
  such incidents and to bring the perpetrators to justice. He fully supports the chief constable of Strathclyde police in the mounting of "Operation Dragon", which will, it is to be hoped, result in the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the recent spate of shootings. My right hon. Friend will continue to seek to ensure that the police have adequate resources and equipment to tackle the full range of policing requirements for which they have responsibility.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what safeguards exist to prevent Scottish Homes giving without permission the names and addresses of their tenants to organisations other than registered housing associations; [20281]

  (2) if he will list the occasions since its inception on which Scottish Homes has been requested to give the names of its tenants to organisations other than registered housing associations and the occasions on which it supplied this information; [20283]

  (3) if Scottish Homes sought permission from its tenants in Strathkelvin before giving their names to Gemini housing association. [20282]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19366]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Rules and regulations made by the Scottish Office cover a very broad field of activities, and many have little or no consequence for business. The total number of statutory instruments, including orders, schemes, rules and regulations which were repealed in the first three months of 1995 was 45. In the same period the number introduced by my Department, but excluding instruments made jointly with other Departments, was 77.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19352]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Scottish Office officials are required to comply with the procedures which were agreed by Ministers and informally introduced on 1 April 1993 and which were subsequently formally agreed with the House authorities in October 1993. The Scottish Office has issued one compliance cost assessment in the period January to March of this year.

  Ferguslie Park
  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the directors and nominating organisations of the board of Ferguslie Community Business Securities, their holding companies and predecessors. [20223]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr right hon. Friend is not involved in the running of these companies and so cannot supply the detailed information requested which should be available from Companies House. However, through the involvement of the Scottish Office in the Ferguslie Park partnership, he understands that Strathclyde regional council, Renfrew district council and the Ferguslie Park Training, Employment and Enterprise Development—TEED—Company Ltd. are entitled to nominate directors to the board of Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. The directors appointed by the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd. have been members of the Ferguslie Park business support group appointed to offer business expertise in the running of the company's affairs in line with the recommendations of management consultants' report prepared in 1989.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for an inquiry into the accounts of Ferguslie Park Community Business Securities, its holding company or companies and their predecessors; if he will ensure that the scope of the inquiry includes employment practices and accounting procedures; and if he will make a statement. [20225]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend has no involvement in the management of the companies and has no locus to establish such an inquiry.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number, and sources, of representations received by him, or by the Ferguslie Park partnership, into the activities of Ferguslie Community Business Securities, their holding companies and predecessors. [20224]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: No such representations have been received by my right hon. Friend or the Ferguslie Park partnership.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place a copy of the annual report of(a) FCB Securities, (b) FCB holding companies and (c) Ferguslie Park partnership in the Library. [20222]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend has no involvement in the management of either FCB Securities or Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. and does not, therefore, hold copies of their annual reports. These should be available from Companies House. The Ferguslie Park partnership is a voluntary grouping of parties dedicated to the regeneration of Ferguslie park. As such, it does not produce annual reports. Members of the partnership agreed in 1989 to establish a limited company, the Ferguslie Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development Company Ltd., to promote the economic regeneration of the area. I shall arrange for a copy of the most recent annual report of that company, relating
  348
  to the year ending 31 March 1994, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the involvement of(a) the Scottish Office, (b) Ferguslie Park partnership, (c) Strathclyde regional council and (d) Renfrew district council with Ferguslie Park Community Business Securities, their holding companies and their predecessors; [20226]

  (2) if he will list the amount of money deriving from Scottish Office sources including Ferguslie Park partnership which has been made available to FCB Securities, its holding companies or its predecessors before its establishment or since its establishment. [20216]

  (3) if he will specify any changes in status or structure which have been made to F.C.B. Securities, its holding companies or their predecessors since the formulation of the Ferguslie Park partnership; and if he will make a statement. [20217]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The Scottish Office is not and has not been involved in the running of any of these businesses.

  Over the period 1980–81 to 1983–84 Flagstone Enterprises (Ferguslie) (Manufacture and Service) Ltd. received urban programme grant of £80,174 for establishment, management and administration costs. Over the period 1986–87 to 1992–93 Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. received urban programme grant of £132,610 for acquisition and improvement of premises and purchase of equipment and £270,294 for management and administration costs. The purpose of these urban programme grants was to create and sustain jobs for local people in an area of high unemployment. Seventy-five per cent. of these costs were met by the Scottish Office, 25 per cent. by Strathclyde regional council.

  In 1990 the Ferguslie Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development—TEED—Company Ltd., which was established by members of the Ferguslie Park partnership in 1989 to promote the economic regeneration of the area, provided a grant of £62,500 to Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd., as part of a rescue and restructuring process. This followed preparation of a management consultants' report which had identified trading difficulties and a number of management issues to be addressed. As part of this restructuring, the company's board of directors was augmented by representatives of the Ferguslie Park business support group, who were in a position to offer their business expertise to the board. Since the restructuring of the business, the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd. has bought services from the business—including security services—on a commercial basis. As part of its training services, which are available to all employers of Ferguslie park residents, the Ferguslie Park—TEED—Company Ltd. has offered assistance to the business in the training and development of its staff.

  The contribution of £62,500 to the rescue and restructuring of Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. was matched by an equivalent contribution from Strathclyde regional council which, as noted, also provided 25 per cent. of the urban programme grant to the company and its predecessor. Apart from this, the

  349
  Scottish Office is not in a position to comment on the involvement of Strathclyde regional council and Renfrew district council in these companies.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the external auditors of(a) Ferguslie Park partnership, (b) FCB Securities, (c) FCB Holding Companies and (d) their predecessors. [20214]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The Ferguslie Park partnership is a voluntary grouping of parties dedicated to the regeneration of the area. As such, it does not produce annual accounts and so there is no external auditor. Members of the partnership agreed in 1989 to establish a limited company, the Ferguslie Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development TEED Company Ltd., to promote the economic regeneration of the area. The external auditors of the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd., are J. Bruce Andrew and Co., chartered accountants, Paisley. My right hon. Friend is not and has not been involved in the running of Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd., or its subsidiary companies and the external audit of these companies is therefore not a matter for which he has responsibility.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of inquiries into the operation of FCB Securities its holding companies or their predecessors with regard to their compliances with the laws and regulations governing insolvency or bankruptcy. [20218]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such inquiries.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of reports made to him by the Accounts Commissioners for Scotland into(a) FCB Securities, (b) FCB holding companies, or their predecessors and (c) Ferguslie Park partnership. [20220]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: No such reports have been made to my right hon. Friend.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the date, (b) the purpose and (c) the participants of each ministerial visit to the Ferguslie Park partnership since its establishment or the most recent period for which information is available; if he will highlight any of the visits which involved Ferguslie Community Business Securities, its holding companies or predecessors; and if he will make a statement. [20221]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Details of the visits by Ministers to the Ferguslie Park partnership are set out in the table:

  Date

  Visitor

  Purpose of visit

  March 1989

  Right hon. Malcolm Rifkind QC MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  Launch of Ferguslie Park Partnership

  January 1990

  Mr. Ian Lang MP, Minister of State, Scottish Office

  General visit to Partnership Offices.

  350

  Date

  Visitor

  Purpose of visit

  March 1990

  Right hon. Malcolm Rifkind QC MP, Secretary of State for Scotland

  Official opening of Partnership's new offices.

  August 1990

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton MP, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in Scotland

  Discuss development plan for Glencoats area.

  November 1990

  Mr. Richard Needham MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Overview of work of Patnership.

  February 1991

  Mr. Robert Key MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Environment

  Overview of work of Partnership.

  March 1991

  Mr. Allan Stewart MP, Minister for Industry and Local Government in Scotland

  Official opening of community workspace units

  October 1991

  Right hon. Ian Lang MP, Secetary of State for Scotland

  Launch of Glencoats Area redevelopment.

  July 1993

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Minister for Education and Housing in Scotland

  Official openings of Glencoats Lodge and Hillview Nursery.

  September 1993

  Right hon. David Hunt MBE, MP, Secretary of State for Employment

  Overview of Partnership activities, meeting Job Centre staff and visit to Hillview Nursery.

  October 1993

  Right hon. Ian Lang MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton MP, Minister for Education and Housing in Scotland

  Launch of "Progress in Partnership" consultation paper and turf cutting for new Civic Centre

  The visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in March 1991 involved the opening of workspace units operated by a subsidiary company of Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. The visit by myself in July 1993 included the official opening of the Glencoats lodge, part of which is occupied by Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the job titles of employees or secondees of the Ferguslie Park partnership who have been or are responsible for the supervision of FCB Securities, its holding companies, or its predecessors since their establishment; and if he will make a statement. [20215]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: There are no employees of or secondees to

  351
  either the Ferguslie Park partnership, or the Ferguslie Park Training, Employment and Enterprise Development Company Ltd. who have been or are responsible for the supervision of these companies.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify the role of the Ferguslie Park partnership in(a) establishing and (b) supervising Ferguslie Community Business Securities; when the most recent audit or check was carried out; if he will publish the finding of the check or audit; if he will list (a) the average number of employees each week during that period, (b) the number of employees required for FCB Securities to fulfil its trading obligations each week during the same period; and if he will make a statement. [20219]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Both Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiary company providing security services were established some years before the formation of the Ferguslie Park partnership. Neither the partnership nor the Ferguslie Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development (TEED) Company Ltd., a company established by partnership members in 1989 to promote the economic regeneration of the area, has any role in the supervision of FCB Securities or its parent company. As part of the rescue and restructuring of Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Ltd. in 1990, the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd. agreed to commission a monitoring report six months after the injection of additional funds into the company. This report established that the company was operating on a commercial basis and to the satisfaction of the funders, namely the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd. and Strathclyde regional council. Neither the Ferguslie Park partnership nor the Ferguslie Park TEED Company Ltd. has any role in auditing the company nor do they have access to the detailed information on employment levels and requirements requested.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the scope of investigations and inquiries which(a) have been and (b) are being conducted by the Charity Commissioners into FCB Securities or its holding companies; and when the reports will be published. [20213]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The supervision of charities in Scotland is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate and the supervision legislation is implemented by the Scottish charities office. No investigations have been or are being conducted into Ferguslie Park Community Holdings Limited by the Scottish charities office.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, in cases where jobseeker's allowance claimants do not have right of appeal, this will be made explicit when the agreement is being drawn up and before the claimant is required to sign.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: There will be no circumstances in which the claimant will not have the right to ask for his case to be reconsidered,
  352
  by way of either review or appeal. The conditions under which a claimant is entitled to benefit, and the consequences of failure to meet those conditions, will, however, be made clear to the claimant when the agreement is being drawn up at the beginning of his claim.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days' training will be given to(a) adjudication officers and (b) Employment Service advisers about the requirements and procedures associated with the jobseeker's allowance prior to its introduction in April 1996; what timetable will be followed to ensure that all the appropriate staff will receive the training prior to the date of implementation; and if he will make a statement. [19754]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A wide variety of modular training courses, based on a detailed analysis of training needs, are being developed for staff who are to deliver the jobseeker's allowance, depending on the duties that they are to perform. Current plans are that existing, trained adjudication officers in the Employment Service will receive five days training on JSA rules and their effect on adjudication procedures. Existing, trained ES advisers will receive 16 days training which will cover additional interviewing skills, use of new IT systems and policy and procedural changes arising from the introduction of JSA. All the training needed to ensure that JSA is delivered effectively will take place before April 1996, but training courses will continue to be run after that date to help staff further develop their knowledge and skills, as part of an overall move towards multi-skilling. Training for managers has already started and training for all staff will run from now until well into 1996.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18546]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18545]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18543]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10,15,20 days or longer. [18541]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available only from 1 January 1991 and is detailed in the following table:
  353

  Questions answered within (working days)

  Year

  Total number of questions for ordinary written reply

  10

  15

  20

  20+

  1991

  834

  824

  3

  4

  3

  1992

  861

  857

  2

  —

  2

  1993

  966

  954

  6

  3

  3

  1994

  1,090

  1,044

  21

  3

  22

  19951

  470

  468

  —

  1

  1

  1 Information provided up to and including 6 April 1995.

  Restart
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews were carried out at the jobcentre in Corby; and what evaluation he has made of their impact to date on(a) jobs, (b) other benefits, (c) signing off and (d) enrolment on Department of Employment programmes. [20271]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. William Powell dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Restart interviews carried out at the Employment Service (ES) Jobcentre in Corby.
  All ES local offices provide a structured and coherent advisory and information service which is aimed at helping clients back into work as soon as possible. This service is based on regular interviews with an adviser, at which clients are able to discuss their situations, consider the options available and agree a course of action which will offer the best prospects of finding employment.
  Those who remain unemployed for six months are required to attend a Restart interview during which employment and training programmes specifically designed to help longer term unemployed are discussed. Programmes discussed include Jobclub, Training For Work, Jobplan Workshop, and Restart courses. These interviews are carried out on an ongoing basis at six monthly intervals.
  The following table provides a breakdown of Restart interviews carried out at the Corby Jobcentre over the last 2 financial years.

  12 months to April 1995

  12 months to April 1994

  Number of Restart Interviews

  3,476

  3,104

  Clients gaining employment

  100

  41

  Clients entering ED programmes

  888

  893

  Clients claiming other benefits

  148

  57

  Clients signing off

  267

  33

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20197]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20196]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The annual presentation of Departments' expenditure information contained in 354
  reports meets a Government undertaking to Parliament. The preparation of the report is part of the normal duties of officials within the Department and as such no record is kept of the amount and costs of staff time involved in either the preparation of individual contributions or editing the report. However, three staff in the Department were involved in editing and preparing the report for publication between November 1994 and March 1995 as part of their normal duties.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number and location of Employment Services offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20045]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the transfer, loss or gain of jobs and opening or closure of Employment Service offices in Scotland due to the movement of agency work throughout the United Kingdom.
  There has been no transfer of Employment Services (ES) agency work into to or out of Scotland.
  The network of local offices nationally and in Scotland was reviewed in 1990 as part of the ES's integration programme, which seeks to merge Jobcentres and Benefit Offices into a single location where possible.
  The location of the ES Jobcentres is decided on the basis of how the best possible service can be provided to clients taking economic, demographic and geographic factors such as travel to work patterns into account.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 335, how much in total was spent by his Department on consultancy in 1993–94; and if he will list the 10most valuable consultancy contracts issued that year, indicating the nature of the work undertaken, the body awarded the contract and the fee paid in each case. [19996]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when new arrangements will be in place in the South Thames TEC area. [21052]

  Mr. Paice
  I am very pleased to announce that contracts have now been signed with central London TEC to provide training and enterprise council services from
  355
  24 April 1995 for the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark and with South London TEC to provide TEC services from 24 April 1995 for the London boroughs of Greenwich and Lewisham. This will ensure the delivery
  356
  of Government programmes in the area and provide a sound base for the future. I know that CENTEC and SOLOTEC are keen to play a full part in the wider economic regeneration of the area as soon as possible.

EDUCATION

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20199]

  Mr. Forth
  The production of the departmental report is co-ordinated by the finance and information branches of the Department. Much of the work, however, comprises relatively brief contributions from branches across the Department, This work is submerged in the annual financial planning of individual divisions and is not identified as a separate item in the Department's resource planning exercise.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what the figures were for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20198]

  Percentage1 of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in voluntary aided schools, grant-maintained schools, selective schools and all secondary schools for each local education authority and in England

  January 1994

  Voluntary aided schools2

  Grant maintained schools3

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Selective schools2 3 4

  All secondary schools

  Corporation of London

  50.5

  —

  50.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  39.4

  28.3

  34.8

  —

  14.2

  14.2

  —

  26.9

  Greenwich

  31.2

  27.9

  29.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36.4

  Hackney

  45.7

  47.9

  46.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59.2

  Hammersmith

  36.0

  32.4

  34.4

  —

  10.8

  10.8

  —

  36.3

  Islington

  39.3

  39.4

  39.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  30.9

  33.7

  31.4

  37.5

  14.3

  22.2

  —

  40.6

  Lambeth

  41.5

  —

  41.5

  34.9

  41.4

  39.5

  —

  51.4

  Lewisham

  32.1

  35.7

  33.2

  50.8

  —

  50.8

  —

  40.4

  Southwark

  37.3

  59.8

  41.7

  38.0

  39.5

  39.0

  —

  55.9

  Tower Hamlets

  44.8

  53.0

  47.7

  —

  24.6

  24.6

  —

  64.0

  Wandsworth

  30.1

  —

  30.1

  31.3

  32.2

  32.1

  —

  34.5

  Westminster

  41.0

  35.3

  39.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44.1

  Barking

  17.9

  19.8

  18.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.5

  Barnet

  10.3

  5.8

  9.3

  13.1

  11.7

  11.8

  2.1

  14.7

  Bexley

  8.4

  —

  8.4

  8.1

  9.3

  9.2

  4.0

  10.9

  Brent

  27.8

  —

  27.8

  31.7

  26.9

  27.2

  —

  27.4

  Bromley

  17.1

  —

  17.1

  5.2

  9.4

  9.1

  0.8

  13.0

  Croydon

  16.4

  9.7

  13.0

  15.7

  13.8

  14.2

  —

  18.7

  Ealing

  21.6

  19.1

  20.7

  29.4

  29.1

  29.1

  —

  29.8

  Enfield

  10.4

  11.3

  10.6

  17.2

  15.7

  15.7

  1.5

  18.5

  Haringey

  25.6

  32.6

  27.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40.2

  Harrow

  4.5

  11.7

  5.7

  —

  10.6

  10.6

  —

  13.8

  Havering

  8.9

  3.8

  6.9

  —

  6.2

  6.2

  —

  10.4

  Hillingdon

  4.7

  2.4

  4.1

  12.0

  12.9

  12.7

  —

  13.0

  Hounslow

  16.9

  14.8

  16.4

  —

  12.5

  12.5

  —

  20.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  7.8

  —

  7.8

  23.0

  8.9

  10.0

  2.3

  9.4

  Merton

  13.1

  10.9

  12.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.6

  Newham

  29.5

  24.6

  27.3

  —

  44.8

  44.8

  —

  39.4

  Redbridge

  19.3

  7.5

  15.6

  —

  17.2

  17.2

  3.3

  16.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  21.4

  39.2

  24.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.3

  Sutton

  8.4

  —

  8.4

  8.4

  3.7

  4.3

  1.8

  8.7

  Waltham Forest

  17.7

  24.5

  19.9

  —

  12.3

  12.3

  —

  34.1

  Birmingham

  31.8

  26.6

  30.5

  5.1

  20.1

  19.6

  5.4

  31.6

  Coventry

  28.2

  24.1

  26.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23.8

  Dudley

  19.2

  38.0

  23.8

  9.1

  16.4

  15.8

  —

  16.7

  Sandwell

  23.6

  13.4

  21.6

  —

  36.8

  36.8

  —

  25.3

  358
  Mr. Forth
  Figures are not available for staff time spent on preparing the departmental report. Work on the report takes place across the Department, and is submerged in the annual financial planning of individual divisions.

  Free School Meals
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what proportion of children in voluntary aided schools are entitled to free school meals in each local authority; [20287]

  (2) what proportion of children in grant-maintained schools are entitled to free school meals in each local authority; [20287]

  (3) what proportion of children in selective schools are entitled to free school meals in each local education authority; [20287]

  (4) what is the proportion of secondary age children who are entitled to free school meals in each local education authority. [20287]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentages of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in each of the categories requested are shown in the table.
  359

  Percentage1 of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in voluntary aided schools, grant-maintained schools, selective schools and all secondary schools for each local education authority and in England

  January 1994

  Voluntary aided schools2

  Grant maintained schools3

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Selective schools2 3 4

  All Secondary schools

  Solihull

  14.0

  17.3

  15.1

  42.8

  —

  42.8

  —

  12.0

  Walsall

  17.0

  25.5

  20.1

  3.2

  11.9

  11.1

  3.0

  25.1

  Wolverhampton

  24.7

  16.3

  21.1

  —

  24.9

  24.9

  3.1

  25.3

  Knowsley

  44.7

  57.8

  47.8

  —

  55.1

  55.1

  —

  51.8

  Liverpool

  38.4

  35.8

  37.4

  —

  26.7

  26.7

  —

  39.2

  St Helens

  22.2

  13.1

  19.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.4

  Sefton

  24.7

  24.9

  24.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20.7

  Wirral

  28.3

  35.1

  30.2

  —

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  25.8

  Bolton

  18.2

  11.3

  16.4

  24.7

  8.8

  11.0

  —

  16.4

  Bury

  17.4

  8.9

  14.6

  21.6

  —

  21.6

  —

  13.5

  Manchester

  43.1

  38.4

  41.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43.4

  Oldham

  24.8

  9.5

  19.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  53.5

  Rochdale

  22.0

  22.2

  22.1

  15.5

  16.9

  16.3

  —

  28.9

  Salford

  30.8

  29.2

  30.5

  —

  15.6

  15.6

  —

  26.3

  Stockport

  13.6

  12.8

  13.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.4

  Tameside

  18.9

  13.7

  17.6

  —

  11.3

  11.3

  —

  19.8

  Trafford

  14.7

  35.0

  16.2

  —

  22.9

  22.9

  6.3

  20.0

  Wigan

  20.5

  12.5

  18.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.5

  Barnsley

  16.8

  —

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22.8

  Doncaster

  19.0

  16.1

  18.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22.5

  Rotherham

  21.7

  19.5

  21.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.5

  Sheffield

  24.7

  —

  24.7

  12.0

  16.7

  15.6

  —

  24.2

  Bradford

  21.1

  18.7

  20.3

  33.7

  21.3

  21.9

  —

  31.2

  Calderdale

  15.8

  15.4

  15.8

  2.4

  9.4

  9.2

  7.0

  18.1

  Kirklees

  17.8

  12.7

  16.9

  —

  6.2

  6.2

  4.0

  17.6

  Leeds

  16.4

  19.5

  17.3

  4.5

  7.6

  7.4

  —

  18.7

  Wakefield

  14.7

  8.9

  13.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.3

  Gateshead

  27.9

  27.0

  27.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  34.4

  19.8

  28.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27.4

  North Tyneside

  22.9

  14.0

  20.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.2

  South Tyneside

  29.6

  19.2

  25.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25.8

  Sunderland

  21.0

  13.4

  17.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25.8

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35.8

  Avon

  19.0

  12.3

  17.4

  —

  9.4

  9.4

  —

  15.5

  Bedfordshire

  15.6

  15.7

  15.7

  18.6

  12.4

  12.9

  —

  16.6

  Berkshire

  10.0

  5.6

  8.7

  13.5

  8.1

  9.4

  4.5

  8.5

  Buckinghamshire

  2.6

  7.1

  3.5

  15.0

  8.4

  9.7

  1.5

  8.6

  Cambridgeshire

  18.1

  13.4

  17.7

  7.6

  12.8

  12.2

  —

  13.1

  Cheshire

  15.5

  15.9

  15.6

  4.6

  12.0

  10.9

  —

  12.0

  Cleveland

  25.6

  22.5

  24.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28.0

  Cornwall

  14.4

  —

  14.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.9

  Cumbria

  14.1

  11.5

  13.6

  10.7

  8.3

  8.7

  —

  12.1

  Derbyshire

  14.2

  14.4

  14.3

  9.6

  10.3

  10.2

  —

  13.5

  Devon

  17.2

  11.0

  16.0

  35.0

  9.7

  11.2

  5.3

  12.9

  Dorset

  6.0

  5.9

  5.9

  5.1

  9.4

  9.2

  7.4

  10.2

  Durham

  19.3

  13.0

  16.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.4

  East Sussex

  19.0

  19.1

  19.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.1

  Essex

  13.0

  12.3

  12.8

  14.2

  10.8

  11.5

  2.7

  12.3

  Gloucestershire

  10.2

  12.0

  10.5

  17.1

  9.5

  10.0

  4.4

  11.0

  Hampshire

  10.7

  13.5

  11.2

  15.1

  9.1

  10.3

  —

  10.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  8.1

  4.9

  7.4

  —

  7.1

  7.1

  —

  9.6

  Hertfordshire

  9.6

  6.0

  8.7

  15.1

  7.9

  8.3

  —

  9.6

  Humberside

  32.3

  15.6

  26.5

  10.3

  —

  10.3

  —

  17.3

  Isle of Wight

  24.9

  17.3

  22.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21.0

  Kent

  15.1

  14.9

  15.0

  15.5

  12.1

  12.4

  3.9

  13.2

  Lancashire

  19.5

  14.8

  18.5

  6.2

  7.3

  7.2

  2.7

  19.7

  Leicestershire

  10.6

  8.7

  10.1

  —

  12.2

  12.2

  —

  12.5

  Lincolnshire

  4.7

  4.6

  4.7

  8.2

  9.9

  9.4

  4.3

  9.8

  Norfolk

  15.0

  7.2

  13.1

  14.3

  12.6

  13.0

  —

  10.7

  North Yorkshire

  8.9

  5.3

  7.3

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  7.4

  Northamptonshire

  10.3

  12.9

  11.5

  8.3

  15.0

  13.4

  —

  12.5

  Northumberland

  11.6

  9.2

  10.9

  —

  8.5

  8.5

  —

  12.7

  Nottinghamshire

  16.4

  13.9

  15.3

  —

  24.0

  24.0

  —

  20.0

  Oxfordshire

  10.8

  13.9

  11.4

  2.5

  —

  2.5

  —

  9.8

  Shropshire

  14.0

  12.8

  13.8

  9.0

  14.4

  14.0

  0.7

  13.6

  Somerset

  8.8

  13.7

  9.2

  3.6

  1.5

  2.9

  13.2

  10.7

  Staffordshire

  16.2

  9.0

  14.0

  0.0

  14.1

  14.0

  —

  13.3

  360 361

  Percentage1 of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in voluntary aided schools, grant-maintained schools, selective schools and all secondary schools for each local education authority and in England

  January 1994

  Voluntary aided schools2

  Grant maintained schools3

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Primary

  Secondary

  All

  Selective schools2 3 4

  All Secondary schools

  Suffolk

  10.7

  9.8

  10.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.7

  Surrey

  9.2

  5.2

  8.3

  9.5

  6.0

  6.5

  —

  7.2

  Warwickshire

  14.0

  5.5

  11.7

  —

  9.6

  9.6

  1.7

  8.7

  West Sussex

  12.0

  8.8

  10.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.2

  Wiltshire

  11.8

  14.7

  11.9

  19.9

  7.5

  9.1

  2.3

  9.8

  England

  19.9

  20.3

  20.0

  14.8

  12.5

  12.8

  3.7

  17.7

  1 Pupils known to be eligible for free meals in each category expressed as a proportion of day pupils in each category.

  2 Some voluntary schools are selective.

  3 Some Grant-maintained schools are selective.

  4 Schools which admit pupils wholly or mainly with reference to ability or aptitude—there are no schools of this type in the LEA.

  Administration Costs
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost per local education authority school in Kirklees for administration in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is the forecast for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average LEA expenditure on administration per local authority maintained school in Kirklees is as follows:

  £

  1993–94 (outturn figure)

  13,480

  1994–95 (budget estimate)

  13,050

  1995–96 (budget estimate)

  14,245

  These figures are derived from statements published by Kirklees LEA under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of schools included in the authority's scheme for the local management of schools. For reasons of comparability the 1993–94 figure therefore excludes expenditure on administration for special schools which were formula funded under LMS from 1 April 1994. In 1993–94, the LEA expenditure on administration for special schools amounted to £30,030 per school according to LEA returns published under section 50 of the Education Reform Act.

  No outturn figures for 1994–95 are yet available. No data for LEA nursery schools or pupil referral units are available.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over 30 in January in each local education authority and in total; what was the change in numbers compared with January 1994 in each local education authority and in total; and what the change in numbers between January 1994 and January 1995 represents as a percentage change in each local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils in classes of 31 and over in maintained schools in January 1994 is shown in the table. Information for January 1995 will not be available until the autumn.
  362

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size 31 and over in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England—January 1994

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  City

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  542

  6.1

  Greenwich

  2,301

  13.3

  Hackney

  499

  3.7

  Hammersmith

  795

  11.1

  Islington

  892

  6.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  454

  9.0

  Lambeth

  816

  5.2

  Lewisham

  1,318

  7.2

  Southwark

  2,331

  12.3

  Tower Hamlets

  638

  4.9

  Wandsworth

  1,666

  11.8

  Westminster

  428

  5.9

  Barking

  1,415

  9.9

  Barnet

  2,434

  11.6

  Bexley

  5,910

  32.0

  Brent

  2,157

  11.4

  Bromley

  10,385

  47.5

  Croydon

  4,896

  20.5

  Ealing

  4,146

  20.3

  Enfield

  7,237

  35.4

  Haringey

  732

  4.3

  Harrow

  3,544

  22.6

  Havering

  4,176

  22.1

  Hillingdon

  4,896

  27.5

  Hounslow

  5,319

  33.5

  Kingston Upon Thames

  5,484

  57,9

  Merton

  3,114

  25.3

  Newham

  1,317

  6.0

  Redbridge

  8,456

  52.8

  Richmond Upon Thames

  1,134

  11.4

  Sutton

  4,696

  40.1

  Waltham Forest

  3,200

  18.4

  Birmingham

  27,164

  28.4

  Coventry

  5,541

  21.9

  Dudley

  7,497

  31.1

  Sandwell

  10,175

  37.5

  Solihull

  6,711

  36.9

  Walsall

  5,577

  25.1

  Wolverhampton

  5,155

  24.1

  Knowsley

  5,915

  34.8

  Liverpool

  12,620

  26.6

  St. Helens

  5,437

  37.5

  Sefton

  8,258

  33.7

  Wirral

  5,928

  20.4

  Bolton

  9,046

  41.0

  Bury

  6,239

  40.0

  Manchester

  9,619

  23.4

  Oldham

  8,617

  41.1

  Rochdale

  8,020

  43.8

  363

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in single teacher classes of size 31 and over in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England—January 1994

  Number of pupils

  Percentage1

  Salford

  6,817

  30.6

  Stockport

  8,179

  33.8

  Tameside

  12,079

  56.4

  Trafford

  9,151

  49.6

  Wigan

  9,997

  38.2

  Barnsley

  5,656

  28.3

  Doncaster

  7,548

  28.4

  Rotherham

  2,569

  11.5

  Sheffield

  8,281

  21.9

  Bradford

  8.781

  27.3

  Calderdale

  5,268

  30.1

  Kirklees

  9,372

  29.9

  Leeds

  19,405

  32.7

  Wakefield

  9,996

  37.0

  Gateshead

  1,862

  11.2

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  5,843

  28.5

  North Tyneside

  3,905

  26.0

  South Tyneside

  3,456

  23.9

  Sunderland

  4,244

  16.2

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  18.5

  Avon

  26,753

  35.5

  Bedfordshire

  9,064

  24.4

  Berkshire

  16,290

  28.9

  Buckinghamshire

  19,072

  33.3

  Cambridgeshire

  15,079

  27.2

  Cheshire

  30,193

  36.2

  Cleveland

  13,386

  23.2

  Cornwall

  13,441

  35.1

  Cumbria

  9,385

  24.2

  Derbyshire

  29,982

  39.9

  Devon

  21,175

  27.3

  Dorset

  18,142

  44.0

  Durham

  15,012

  28.9

  East Sussex

  19,297

  40.7

  Essex

  30,729

  25.8

  Gloucestershire

  11,123

  26.5

  Hampshire

  44.304

  34.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,910

  21.1

  Hertfordshire

  21,344

  27.7

  Humberside

  25,914

  33.4

  Isle of Wight

  1,862

  26.6

  Kent

  41,570

  33.6

  Lancashire

  45,112

  38.5

  Leicestershire

  14,433

  20.2

  Lincolnshire

  12,642

  26.6

  Norfolk

  11,175

  19.5

  North Yorkshire

  13,702

  24.8

  Northamptonshire

  9,590

  20.6

  Northumberland

  7,901

  41.4

  Nottinghamshire

  19,947

  24.2

  Oxfordshire

  5,850

  15.3

  Shropshire

  9,085

  27.2

  Somerset

  10,476

  30.1

  Staffordshire

  30,738

  35.3

  Suffolk

  5,608

  13.8

  Surrey

  13,741

  20.2

  Warwickshire

  12,740

  30.6

  West Sussex

  10,934

  21.6

  Wiltshire

  12,185

  26.5

  England

  1,076,173

  28.2

  1 Pupils in single teacher classes of 31 and over expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  Education Expenditure (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on education in Northamptonshire at constant prices in each of the last 20 years. [20275]
  364
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total expenditure by Northamptonshire local education authority from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices) £ million

  1974–75

  217.0

  1975–76

  226.1

  1976–77

  235.1

  1977–78

  225.0

  1978–79

  225.8

  1979–80

  225.7

  1980–81

  229.4

  1981–82

  234.5

  1982–83

  232.7

  1983–84

  239.9

  1984–85

  241.9

  1985–86

  243.7

  1986–87

  256.6

  1987–88

  263.8

  1988–89

  272.0

  1989–90

  267.8

  1990–91

  265.9

  1991–92

  262.4

  1992–93

  263.8

  1993–941

  225.3

  1Provisional.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in Northamptonshire in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the last 20 years at constant prices. [20274]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows expenditure in schools maintained by Northamptonshire local education authority on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and (b) secondary pupils, from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Nursery/Primary (£)

  Secondary (£)

  1974–75

  1,097

  1,960

  1975–76

  1,109

  1,960

  1976–77

  1,117

  1,972

  1977–78

  1,051

  1,788

  1978–79

  1,051

  1,773

  1979–80

  1,168

  1,786

  1980–81

  1,044

  1,573

  1981–82

  1,086

  1,636

  1982–83

  1,130

  1,652

  1983–84

  1,165

  1,720

  1984–85

  1,368

  1,883

  1985–86

  1,169

  1,790

  1986–87

  1,249

  1,950

  1987–88

  1,281

  2,027

  1988–89

  1,594

  2,188

  1989–90

  1,376

  2,117

  1990–91

  1,424

  2,087

  1991–92

  1,481

  2,153

  1992–93

  1,455

  2,200

  1993–941

  1,553

  2,231

  1 Provisional

  University Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money was spent on each university student by her Department in real terms in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) 1992. [19995]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The average funding council grant and income from tuition fees per higher education student for the financial years 1980–81, 1985–86 and 1992–93 in real terms at 1992 prices was about £6,800, £6,300 and £4,700 respectively.

  The average maintenance grants received by mandatory award holders in the academic years 1980–81, 1985–86 and 1992–93 in real terms at 1992 prices were £2,400, £1,700 and £1,600 respectively. Since 1990–91, students, including those who do not qualify for mandatory awards, have had access to student loans. The average loan in England and Wales in the academic year 1992–93 was £700.

  University Admission Procedures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure that university admission procedures are not subject to racial discrimination. [20008]

  Mr. Boswell
  University admission procedures are a matter for the universities themselves. It is unlawful, under the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, for universities to discriminate on grounds of race in their admission procedures.

  Pupil: Teacher Ratios
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a table showing the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) all public sector schools and (b) all non-maintained schools in each year since 1970. [19371]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Pupil:Teacher ratios (PTR) in Schools in England 1970–1994 Position in January each year

  1 2Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools

  1 3Independent Schools

  1970

  n/a

  13.7

  1971

  n/a

  13.7

  1972

  n/a

  13.6

  1973

  n/a

  13.6

  1974

  20.7

  13.6

  1975

  20.0

  13.5

  1976

  19.8

  13.4

  1977

  19.7

  13.2

  1978

  19.4

  12.9

  1979

  18.9

  13.0

  1980

  18.7

  12.7

  1981

  18.6

  12.5

  1982

  18.5

  12.2

  1983

  18.1

  11.9

  1984

  17.9

  11.6

  1985

  17.8

  11.4

  1986

  17.6

  11.3

  1987

  17.3

  11.3

  1988

  17.0

  11.3

  1989

  17.0

  11.1

  1990

  16.9

  10.9

  1991

  17.2

  10.8

  366

  Pupil:Teacher ratios (PTR) in Schools in England 1970–1994 Position in January each year

  1 2Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools

  1 3Independent Schools

  1992

  17.4

  10.6

  1993

  17.7

  10.4

  1994

  18.1

  10.3

  1 Counting each part-time pupil as 0.5 full-time equivalents.

  2 This is the Overall PTR which includes the full-time equivalent of all qualified teachers (including those not in schools and teachers providing short term cover), student teachers, instructors and licensed teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector, including grant-maintained schools. Includes Sixth Form Colleges prior to 1994.

  3 Includes the full-time equivalent of all teachers employed by independent schools, whether qualified or not. Includes CTCs and direct grant nursery schools.

  n/a Not readily available.

TREASURY

  Medals and Decorations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what firms tendered in each of the past five years for medals and decorations ordered by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. [20257]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Tendering firms

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  JW Barrett and Son

  *

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Collingwood

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Thomas Fattorini

  *

  *

  *

  —

  *

  Firmin and Sons

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  Garrard

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Royal Mint

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Spink and Son

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Toye, Kenning and Spencer

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current costs of each medal awarded during the current year by the Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood. [20256]

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest unit costs, including VAT, of the medals awarded in 1994–95 are:

  Honour

  £

  GCB (Military)

  3,031

  GCB (Civil)

  1,733

  KCB (Military)

  1,755

  KCB (Civil)

  1,527

  CB (Military)

  474

  CB (Civil)

  213

  Order of Merit

  3,650

  Companion of Honour

  199

  367

  Honour

  £

  Knights Bachelor

  149

  DSO

  587

  DBE

  699

  KBE

  658

  CBE

  93

  OBE (Ladies)

  28

  OBE (Gentlemen)

  25

  MBE (Ladies)

  26

  MBE (Gentlemen)

  25

  GCMG

  3,231

  KCMG

  2,106

  CMG

  725

  GCVO

  1,363

  KCVO

  1,052

  CVO

  482

  LVO

  374

  MVO

  339

  RVM (Ladies)

  38

  RVM (Gentlemen)

  35

  BEM

  38

  ISM

  28

  QGM

  31

  George Cross

  247

  George Medal

  136

  Queen's Police Medal

  32

  Queen Fire Service Medal

  35

  Some are returnable after the recipient has died and, after renovation, are re-used.

  Taxation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the changes made to(a) increase taxation and (b) decrease taxation since May 1992. [20064]

  Sir George Young
  Details of all recent tax changes are shown in successive editions of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  European Monetary Committee
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the work of the European Union's monetary committee; for what reasons its activities are closed to the press; what is its policy regarding press inquiries about its activities; and if it is examining the design of notes and coins for the new monetary system. [17510]

  Mr. Nelson
  The present monetary committee was established under article 109c of the EC treaty. Its tasks include advising the Council and the Commission on EMU. Member states and the Commission each appoint two members of the committee.

  Its policy regarding the press is a matter for the monetary committee. As part of its tasks in preparation for EMU, the committee helps prepare for ECOFIN's discussions on ecu notes and coins.

  Earnings, Sutton and Cheam
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the proportion of total pay taken home in Sutton and Cheam by a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings(a) between 1979 and
  368
  the latest year for which figures are available and (b) between 1974 and 1979. [19151]

  Sir George Young
  No reliable figures are available for the lowest 10 per cent. of earnings in Sutton and Cheam.

  However, the position of single men at the lowest decile of earnings in Great Britain has improved. The proportion of their gross earnings taken home, after income tax and national insurance contributions, has risen by just over four percentage points since 1978–79, compared with a fall of around three percentage points between 1973–74 and 1978–79. Real take-home pay for this group fell slightly between 1973–74 and 1978–79, but it has risen by around a quarter since then.

  Inland Revenue Office, Leicester
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimated costs in each of the first three years of operation of the office in Leicester being established as a result of the decision to tax incapacity benefit; and if he will define the range of work being undertaken there and give the number of staff employed there. [19284]

  Sir George Young
  An Inland Revenue tax office, Leicester 4, has been opened to deal with the tax records of claimants in receipt of incapacity benefit who do not have another source of income currently subject to pay-as-you-earn and who therefore have a tax code applied to their benefit by the Benefits Agency.

  About 10,000 recipients are expected to have tax deducted by the Benefits Agency. The Leicester office will also maintain records in 1995–96 for around 100,000 claimants who are not expected to have a tax liability for that year, but whose tax position may change in future years.

  The office will review the tax codes operated, finalised those claimant's tax liabilities each year, and deal with inquiries. It will also act as a liaison office with the Benefits Agency.

  There are presently 34 staff, but the final figure for 1995–96 will be dependent on the number of claimants whose records are handled by that office.

  The projected running costs for the first three years of operation are as follows, but are subject to the number of records which are handled by the office and the number of staff employed:

  1995–96:£593,100

  1996–97:£788,900

  1997–98:£963,900

  Crown Estate Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the proceeds received by the Crown Estate Commission in the last year for which figures are available; from what sources they derived; how they are distributed; and to which bodies. [20055]

  Mr. Aitken
  The Crown Estate Commissioners operate under the provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961. They do not distribute their proceeds. Under the terms of the Civil List Act 1952, their surplus revenue, after deducting
  369
  operating costs, is surrendered direct to the consolidated fund each year. In 1993–94, the amount was £78.9 million. Details of the Crown Estate's financial performance is contained in the commissioners' annual report to Parliament, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created in Wales since 1979 as a result of inward investment from(a) Japan, (b) The European Union and (c) the United States of America. [18738]

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures in the form requested are not readily available. However, over 68,000 people are now employed by overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Wales. Almost 30,000 of these are employed by companies from the United States; over 14,000 by companies from the European Union and almost 12,500 by companies from Japan.

  Casualty and Surgical Services
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his strategy for casualty and surgical services in Wales. [18739]

  Mr. Richards
  The provision of casualty and surgical services in Wales is a matter for health authorities and individual trusts. However, a Welsh office working group is reviewing accident and emergency provision across Wales. Advice from this group should assist health authorities and provider trusts in planning future services.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the Cardiff bay barrage. [18740]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Good progress has been made to meet the target my right hon. Friend has set the corporation of completing 54 per cent. of the construction of the barrage by 31 March 1996.

  The current final cost forecast of the barrage project is £191 million. After allowing for £15.4 million for preliminary design work and the presentation of the Bills to Parliament and £5.7 million for bird compensation measures, this forecast is consistent with the costs indicated to Parliament in October 1992 converted to outturn prices.

  Manufacturing Skills
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of suitably qualified young people to meet the needs of manufacturing industry in Wales. [18741]

  Mr. Redwood
  Improving the supply of suitably qualified young people to meet the needs of manufacturing industry in Wales is one of my priorities. My plan to strengthen the supply of skilled workers at 370
  both craft and technician levels is set out in "People and Prosperity—an Agenda for Action in Wales", which was published on 20 March.

  Deprivation Payments
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with(a) chairmen of the Welsh family health services authorities, (b) representations of the medical profession and (c) community health councils concerning the relative merits of postcodes and electoral wards as the basis for awarding deprivation payments to general practitioners; [19875]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the relative remits of postcodes and electoral wards as the basis for awarding deprivation payments to general practitioners. [19876]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have held no specific consultation with the three bodies mentioned, nor have I received any representations from them. I have recently received seven representations from individual GPs in South Glamorgan.

  The present deprivation payments scheme was negotiated and agreed with the representative body of the profession in Wales. My officials have discussed the merits of the scheme with representatives of family health services authorities on several occasions. My officials have also been involved in discussions between health departments and the negotiating team of the General Medical Services Committee about the deprivation index. Both parties put forward evidence to the independent Doctors and Dentists Review Body on pay and the Government have accepted its recommendation that payments should be based on the 1991 census Jarman scores.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to base deprivation payments to general practitioners on electoral wards. [19877]

  Mr. Redwood
  Since the inception of the deprivation payments scheme in 1990, payments to GPs in Wales have been based on the under-privileged area scores relating to electoral wards in accordance with an index of deprivation that was negotiated and agreed with the representative body of the profession in Wales. With effect from April 1995, payments to GPs will be updated using the 1991 census data.

  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of swine vesicular disease were reported in each year since 1985. [19728]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of swine vesicular disease have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated number of people aged over 17 years with glaucoma in Wales. [19731]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in respect of the introduction in Wales of planning policy guidance operating at present in England but not in Wales. [19895]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Work continues on the preparation of draft planning policy guidance for Wales and consultation with Welsh interests will follow.

  General Development Order
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to issue a consolidated version of the General Development Order of the Town and Country Planning Act 1988. [19896]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Two separate orders, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, were laid before Parliament on 6 March 1995 and come into force on 3 June 1995.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council area(a) the list of all dentists in Wales and (b) those dentists accepting NHS patients. [20044]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. Family health services authorities maintain local directories of general dental practitioners and are best placed to provide up-to-date information on the availability of NHS dental services in their areas.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanism exists to enable the newly established ambulance trust to absorb Powys in order that coterminosity is established with the new geographical boundaries of the health authorities. [19932]

  Mr. Richards
  Either or both of the NHS trusts concerned may propose to me a reconfiguration of their boundaries. Neither has yet done so. Any such proposals would be subject to public consultation under existing legislative arrangements.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute a review into the operational boundaries of the South East Wales ambulance trust and the Mid Glamorgan ambulance trust. [20527]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so and have received no such request from either of the NHS trusts concerned.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South-East Wales ambulance trust and the chairmen of the South Glamorgan, Gwent, and Powys health authorities concerning cash transfers from the health purchasers to the ambulance trust with respect to reassessment of the financial set-up costs of the trust; and if he will make a statement. [20529]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I understand that the trust has reached agreement with Gwent, South Glamorgan and Powys health authorities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for 372
  Wales what representations he has had concerning the financial viability of the South-East Wales NHS ambulance trust. [20528]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The financial performance of all NHS trusts in Wales is the responsibility of the trusts and is monitored by my Department.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit the Alyn and Deeside district council office to discuss the future of chief officers and their staffs consequent upon the 1996 reform of local government; and if he will make a statement. [20342]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have no such plans.

  The future of staff depends mainly on decisions to be taken by the new authorities. The Staff Commission for Wales has a duty to advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of staff.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have changed their religious tuition following his request for an increased Christian content in the curriculum. [20024]

  Mr. Redwood
  In accordance with my statement, I have asked the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales to prepare guidelines for the revision of locally agreed religious education syllabuses. The guidelines will assist local authorities and their standing advisory councils on religious education over the next statutory syllabus reviews. They will also reflect the important place that Christianity holds in the religious traditions of this country.

  Union Flag
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales flew the Union flag following the advice of his predecessor. [20025]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not held centrally.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reason section 19 of "This Common Inheritance—UK Annual Report 1995", on rural White Papers, refers to Scotland and England, but not to Wales. [19804]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The Welsh Office's rural policies were brought together in December 1991 in the publication "The Rural Initiative" which set out the Department's principal policy objectives for rural communities in Wales. Those objectives remain valid and continue to inform the activities of the Department and its agencies.

  I am keeping in close touch with the development of the White Paper in England and Scotland and Welsh Office officials are fully informed on the discussions which are under way. I will be considering whether any further consequential action is required in Wales in the light of progress in England.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Draft Legislation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the proposal to allow the private sector to draft legislation. [18751]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 February 1995,Official Record, column 298, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14 March 1995, Official Report, columns 463–65.

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new posts were vacant at administrative assistant and administrative officer level in each quarter between September 1993 and April 1995 available for internal appointment. [20589]

  Mr. Horam
  Individual Departments and agencies are responsible for filling their own posts at administrative assistant and administrative officer level. Within my Department, no posts at administrative assistant or administrative officer level for which staff have been sought have remained vacant for any significant period of time.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how and where declarations of possible conflicts of interest involving special advisers and civil servants formally are recorded. [20403]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Civil Servants, including special advisers, must declare conflicts of interest to their Department or agency and comply with any subsequent instructions regarding the retention, disposal or management of such interests.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard terms and conditions for appointment for special advisers. [20477]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am placing a copy of a model appointment letter for special advisers in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what joint international action he is proposing to curb the production of torture equipment; [20294]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his European and United States colleagues to curb the British manufacture of torture equipment; [20295]

  (3) what discussions officials and Ministers have had to curb the manufacture of torture equipment with colleagues at the United Nations and the European Union. [20297]
  374
  Mr. David Davis
  There have been no discussions on curbing the manufacture of torture equipment.

  Officials at the European Union working group on conventional arms transfers have recently held preliminary exchanges on information on export control practices covering these kinds of weapons. These discussions are on-going.

  A wide variety of innocuous equipment could conceivably be misused for torture, including goods which it is not practical to control. Prohibited weapons are controlled under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended. They cannot be manufactured, possessed or sold without the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20193]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling, the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20192]

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. All Government Departments are required to present departmental reports to Parliament. The report therefore forms part of the normal FC0— diplomatic wing and ODA—work load. Accordingly, no separate assessment of the costs and staff implications of compilation is prepared.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Kashmir with the Pakistan Government; and if he will make a statement on the issues which were discussed. [19948]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Kashmir most recently with the Pakistani Government during his visit to Pakistan in January this year. The main topics of discussion were the prospects for elections in Kashmir and violence in Kashmir. I also discussed Kashmir during my visit to Pakistan last month.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Kashmir with the Indian Government; and what issues were discussed. [19949]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Kashmir most recently with the Indian Government during his visit to India in January this year. The main topics of discussion were the prospects for elections in Kashmir and human rights issues.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UNOMIL military observers there were in Liberia in October 1994; how many there are now; and for what reasons the number changed. [19914]
  375
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were 98 UNOMIL military observers in Liberia on 31 October 1994 and 77 as at 31 March 1995.

  In October 1994, the UN Secretary-General recommended that the number of UNOMIL military observers should be reduced because the worsening security situation and ECOMOG's inability to provide the necessary protection for the observers meant that UNOMIL was unable to carry out many of its mandated activities.

  Expatriate Civil Servants (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is able to provide figures on the cost of arrangements for expatriate civil servants currently based in Hong Kong on the resumption of sovereignty by China. [20210]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Members of Her Majesty's Overseas civil service who worked in Britain's dependent territories received compensation and pension protection when British sovereignty over these territories came to an end. We intend to provide Hong Kong HMOCS with compensation, and a scheme to give members and former members of HMOCS some protection against a decline in the value of their pensions. The proposed compensation scheme would cost about £40 million at 1992 prices.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the subjects discussed and outcomes reached during his visit to Slovakia. [20250]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had valuable discussions with President Kovac, Prime Minister Meciar and Foreign Minister Schenk. These covered bilateral relations, Slovakia's political and economic Development and its relations with the EU and NATO. He expressed strong support for the consolidation of the new Slovak democracy and for Slovakia's movement towards full membership of the EU and NATO. He agreed with Prime Minister Meciar to take further steps to strengthen bilateral co-operation.

  Human Rights (Iraq)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations about human rights in northern Iraq he made to the deputy Prime Minister of Turkey during his visit to London. [19907]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey for talks and lunch when he visited London on 6 April. He took the opportunity to repeat our call for the early withdrawal of Turkish troops from northern Iraq. He reminded Mr. Cetin of the need to honour the Turkish commitment not to harm non-combatants in the region or disrupt relief activities.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will suspend all military deliveries and subsidies to Turkey in light of its recent actions against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. [20323]
  376
  Mr. David Davis
  Turkey is a NATO ally with legitimate defence requirements. Proposed United Kingdom arms sales to Turkey are subject to stringent licensing procedures. We do not grant licences for the sale of equipment which we believe is likely to be used for internal repression.

  Human Rights Violations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from embassies and other sources as to the use of British-made equipment for human rights violations. [20293]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not issue licences for the export of equipment likely to be used for internal repression. When considering applications for licences we pay particular attention to human rights in the countries concerned. We take account of all relevant information received from our embassies and other sources.

  Military Personnel Costs
  Mr. Michael Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the costs of posting military personnel to embassies and high commissions falls on his Department; and what is the total cost. [19959]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO normally meets the following costs of service attaches and their UK-based support staff who serve at our diplomatic missions overseas:

  residential accommodation, furniture and maintenance;

  office accommodation, furniture and maintenance;

  office utilities;

  office telephone, fax and secure communications.

  This expenditure is not recorded separately but included with that for all other diplomatic service staff. It would therefore be possible to identify it only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  Other costs of service attaches, including pay, fall to the Ministry of Defence.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number and location of Natural Resources Institute and Wilton Park offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20301]

  Mr. Baldry
  No Natural Resources Institute or Wilton Park offices have been opened or closed, and no jobs have been lost, transferred or gained over this period as a result of the transfer of agency work from or to Scotland.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Russia is meeting its obligations under the conventional forces in Europe treaty in the Caucasus; and if he will make a statement. [20475]
  377
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conventional armed forces in Europe treaty was signed in 1990 and establishes numerical limits for different types of military equipment in different regions of Europe. These limits are to be achieved by this November. We are working with our NATO allies and with Russia to ensure that this target is met.

  Transport Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff from his Department based overseas rely upon(a) bicycles, (b) horses or other equines, (c) private cars or (d) other means for local transport; at what estimated cost in each case; and if he will make a statement. [18760]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO and ODA have some 2,600 UK-based and 7,100 locally engaged staff serving overseas. Information about the mode and cost of local transport is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have been made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad in the last three years, to date, by applicants from Mirpur for(a) visits to and (b) settlement in the United Kingdom; and how much time on average entry clearance officers in Islamabad have allocated to interview applicants applying for (c) visits to and (d) settlement in the United Kingdom. [19986]

  Mr. Baldry
  As Islamabad does not record visa applications by locality the information requested in parts(a) and (b) of the question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The proportion of ECOs' time allocated to settlement and non-settlement interviewing is subject to fluctuations but, on average, the respective proportions are 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. The remaining 30 per cent. is spent on related work—writing explanatory statements, making local enquiries and so on.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of improved standards of customer service applicants from Mirpur in Pakistan for visas to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad for(a) visits to and (b) settlement in the United Kingdom from establishing temporary facilities for checking application forms and documentation by entry clearance officers being available for parts of each year in Mirpur; what enquiries have been made of the Government of Azad Kashmir about the availability of suitable offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Antarctic Treaty Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral talks have been held with Argentina concerning the location of the Antarctic treaty secretariat. [20235]
  378
  Mr. David Davis
  The location of the Antarctic treaty secretariat has been raised periodically during the course of UK-Argentine bilateral meetings on other matters.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent representations he has received from other countries concerning the location of the Antarctic treaty secretariat; what form these took; and what meetings have been held; [20234]

  (2) what discussions have been held with other signatory states to the Antarctic treaty concerning the location of the secretariat authorised by the treaty. [20236]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Argentines regularly promote their candidacy of Buenos Aires for the location for the Antarctic treaty secretariat. Several of the Antarctic treaty parties have raised the issue during bilateral talks on Antarctic issues. Specific aide memoires were delivered to the FCO by representatives of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States in December and January on this subject.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many inspectors his Department employs to visit meat wholesalers; how many visits each inspector makes; and how many visits each supplier expects a year; [19486]

  (2) if meat wholesalers are notified in advance of visits by his Department's meat inspectors; [19487]

  (3) if he will list the number and types of incidents in meat wholesalers detected by his Department's inspectors for the last year for which figures are available. [19489]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Agriculture Departments are responsible for licensing fresh meat premises—abattoirs, cutting plants and some cold stores, all of which could be considered wholesalers—under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. Visits for licensing purposes are carried out by officers of the State Veterinary Service. At end 1994, there were 1,580 licensed premises in Great Britain and SVS time spent on visits to meat plants is estimated at 58 man years in 1994–95. Some SVS visits to licensed premises are unannounced.

  The purpose of SVS licensing visits is to monitor standards and to advise on remedial action where deficiencies are identified. Information on SVS assessments of hygiene standards was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 1 March 1995, Official Report, columns 626–28, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland's reply to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 14 March 1995, Official Report, columns 480–82.

  On 1 April 1995, responsibility for meat inspection and hygiene enforcement in Great Britain transferred from local authorities to the Meat Hygiene Service, an executive agency of the Department. The MHS currently employs 817 meat hygiene inspectors and 42 official veterinary surgeons, and also obtains vet services and relief cover for meat inspection through contract. MHS personnel are present in abattoirs on a daily basis and make regular visits to cutting premises and cold stores.

  379
  Premises are notified in advance of the overall level of supervision to be expected but will not always know the precise timing of the visits.

  Until this month, day-to-day hygiene enforcement in fresh meat premises was the responsibility of local authority environmental health departments, and the Department does not hold records of incidents detected by their inspectors.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department's inspectors carry out on the accuracy of date labelling by wholesale meat suppliers to supermarkets. [19488]

  Mrs. Browning
  Date-marking requirements apply to pre-packed foodstuffs which are ready for sale to the ultimate consumer or a catering establishment. Enforcement of these requirements is the responsibility of local authorities. Inspectors from local authorities will check on compliance with date-marking requirements as part of their routine duties.

  Bovine Offal
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 156, which industrial organisations and individuals made representations to the Government regarding the collection and disposal of specified bovine offal prior to their consideration of the need to require specified bovine offal to be stained with a specified dye and for changes to be made concerning collection and disposal of offal. [19568]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 April 1995]: In the course of discussions on aspects of the controls on specified bovine offals, representations were made to the Department on a confidential basis by individuals and bodies from various sides of the industry with a direct concern in this issue.

  In line with the Department's policy on openness, responses to the public consultations on these new controls were sought on the basis that they would be made publicly available unless respondents clearly indicated a wish to be excluded from the arrangements. The results of the consultation letters are in the House Library and copies of the responses are available in the MAFF library at Whitehall place.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep were exported to Spain between 1 October 1993 and 30 September 1994; how many of these had an export certificate(a) for slaughter and (b) for further fattening; where the sheep exported to Spain with an export certificate for further fattening were slaughtered; and under what conditions. [19701]

  Mrs. Browning
  During the period, export health certification was issued for 28,423 sheep for further fattening, and for 630 sheep for slaughter. Bi-lateral arrangements with the Spanish veterinary authorities aim to ensure, by a system of spot-checks, that transport arrangements are satisfactory and that the sheep for further fattening reach their declared final destinations. We have no information on the places of slaughter for sheep exported for further fattening.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide figures arising from the survey commissioned from the Office of Fair Trading on the impact of the establishment of Milk Marque on 1 November 1994, on the provision of milk to the marketplace and its impact on the consumer in terms of(a) prices, (b) quantity and (c) delivery, including the likely impact on doorstep delivery; and if he will make a statement. [19453]

  Mr. Jack
  The Office of Fair Trading has not commissioned a survey on the impact of the establishment of Milk Marque.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19429]

  Mr. Jack
  The Department currently employs one political adviser whose salary and conditions of work have been negotiated individually in relation to previous work and earnings and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The numbers by grade in full-time equivalents are:

  Number

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  8

  Assistant Economist

  13

  Common Fisheries Policies
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is within the remit of the common fisheries policy review group to question the principle of equal access to a common resource. [19546]

  Mr. Jack
  I shall want the review group to look at any constructive and realistic proposals for improving the common fisheries policy.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to lift the moratorium on bovine somatotropin at the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [19499]

  Mrs. Browning
  At its meeting in December 1994, the Council of Agriculture Ministers decided, by a qualified majority, to extend the moratorium on bovine somatotropin until 31 December 1999. Although the UK voted against that decision, as it was without scientific justification, it applies in all member states. It is for the Council of Agriculture Ministers to consider any change to that decision. I am not aware that it has any plans to reconsider the subject.

  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of swine vesicular disease were reported in each year since 1985. [19727]

  Mrs. Browning
  The last case of swine vesicular disease in England was in 1982.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he is going to pay in compensation for individuals harmfully affected by the use of organophosphorus sheep dips; and if he will make a statement on compensation claims in respect of his policy on harmful effects of organophosphorus dips. [19787]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The question of compensation for those who claim to be affected by exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips is a matter between the individuals and pharmaceutical companies concerned.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further controls his Ministry plans on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips; and what steps his Ministry is taking to enforce the present regulations. [19788]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: I have no plans for further controls on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips at this stage. It is important to give the new certificate of competence arrangements, which only came into full effect on 1 April 1995, sufficient time before coming to any judgment over their effectiveness. The arrangements will continue to be kept under review, and I will be taking stock of the position at the end of the year. If they are not found to be working properly, then changes will be considered in the light of any further advice the Veterinary Products Committee might offer. Enforcement of the controls on sales of organophosphorous sheep dips is carried out by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and on their use by the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1998.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out his reasons for excluding from the common agricultural policy review group a representative of consumer interests. [19615]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In deciding upon whom to invite to become members of the CAP policy group, I chose people who would make their contributions according to their own individual ideas rather than as representatives of particular organisations or sectors. I am always concerned to have a consumer view on the CAP, and have already made this the main agenda item for my next meeting with consumer organisations on 13 June.

  Artificial Insemination
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the use of separated sperm to reduce the number of surplus male calves; and if he will make a statement. [19817]

  Mrs. Browning
  Recent research has shown that the use of separated sperm is feasible but that at present it is 382
  not economic for the technique to be used for commercial insemination purposes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Danny Aloysius Riley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reasons were given by the governor of Durham prison for not sending Danny Aloysius Riley to Wakefield magistrates court; and if he will make a statement; [17131]

  (2) if he will investigate the circumstances in which his Department was unable to establish in which prison Danny Aloysius Riley was being held when he was due to appear at Wakefield magistrates court; [17135]

  (3) on what grounds a prison governor can decline to send a prisoner awaiting trial to court; and if he will make a statement. [17134]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the grounds on which a prison governor can decline to send a prisoner awaiting trial to court, the reasons given by the governor of Durham prison for not sending Danny Aloysius Riley to Wakefield Magistrates' Court and the circumstances in which the Department was unable to establish in which prison Danny Aloysius Riley was being held when he was due to appear at Wakefield Magistrates' Court. The prisoner you refer to is Danny Aloysius Reilly.
  Where there is a warrant or court order addressed to the governor of a prison requiring him to produce a prisoner, such a warrant must be obeyed unless alternative arrangements have been made with the court. This is usually in cases where the prisoner is ill or, where there are serious difficulties in meeting the production date, perhaps because of distance or staff availability.
  In the case to which you refer, a production order was received at Durham prison on 13 March 1995 to produce Mr. Reilly at Wakefield Magistrates' Court on 23 March. The governor considered that it would cause staffing difficulties with security implications at Durham prison to produce Mr. Reilly on that date. The matter was therefore discussed with the court on 17 March and the court agreed to reschedule the hearing for 20 April. Arrangements have been made to transfer Mr. Reilly to Leeds for production on that date.
  The prisoner referred to was charged and convicted under the name of Reilly and his name is recorded as such on his prison records. On 23 March, Durham prison contacted with a query from the Yorkshire Post about a Mr. Aloysius Riley. A check was carried out using the spelling Riley. No Aloysius Riley could be found. As it was known that the prisoner being traced was serving a life sentence, it was suggested that enquiries be directed to Frankland prison, which as a dispersal prison, holds a large number of prisoners serving life sentences. Enquiries at Frankland proved fruitless and Durham prison was contacted again about half and hour later. This time the records were checked using the spelling Reilly and Mr. Danny Aloysius Reilly was identified.
  There was no question of the Prison Service being unable to trace Mr. Reilly but rather a need to establish the full and correct name.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and location
  383
  of Fire Service College, Forensic Science Service, United Kingdom Passport Agency and HM Prison Service offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the last five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [19971]

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Subsistence Allowance
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19556]

  Mr. Howard
  Following is the available information about expenditure by my Department on subsistence allowances for travel:

  £000

  Inland travel

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 provisional

  Home Office (excluding Agencies)

  1—

  3,094

  1,936

  HM Prison Service

  7,097

  6,386

  6,622

  Forensic Science Service

  102

  166

  131

  Central Home Office

  Prison Service

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Fire Service College

  Forensic Science Service

  Number of hours of overtime for which payment has been made

  1993–94

  1,623,028

  3,586,949

  210,052

  7,230

  36,368

  1994–95

  1,548,521

  3,820,594

  180,843

  9,726

  19,736

  Total amount in paid overtime

  1993–94

  10,840,249

  16,768,020

  1,206,632

  33,943

  446,034

  1994–95

  10,013,139

  18,488,256

  1,042,150

  46,759

  233,828

  Information is not available for the financial year 1992–93. The overtime figures include all premia payments in respect of rostered weekend or rest day working, payments for additional hours worked and travel time. There may also be some overtime claims for 1994–95 still being processed.

  The total number of working days lost through sickness in 1992 and 1993 in the Home Office, including its agencies, is as follows:

  1992: 415,575

  1993: 499,695

  Data for 1994 are not yet available. Neither separate comparable information for the Home Office agencies, nor the monetary equivalent of the total number of days lost through sickness absence, is available.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects
  384

  £000

  Inland travel

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 provisional

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  66

  136

  88

  1Not available

  £000

  Overseas travel

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 provisional

  Home Office (excluding Agencies)

  1—

  1—

  784,946

  HM Prison Service

  75

  38

  38

  Forensic Science Service

  4.6

  10.2

  2.7

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1.5

  0.4

  2.2

  1Not available

  Note:

  Information in respect of the Fire Service College is not available in the form requested.

  Overtime and Sickness
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each agency and central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19683]

  Mr. Howard
  The available information on overtime, taken from the Home Office pay computer, is as follows:

  of taking into account individual defendants' past behaviour on sentencing policy. [18748]

  Mr. Maclean
  A special exercise was undertaken to monitor the effects of the Criminal Justice Acts 1991 and 1993. It found that there was a rise in the proportionate use of custody for adult males at both magistrates and Crown courts—most noticeably for property offences—following the implementation of the provisions of the 1993 Act which, among other things, restored to courts their power to take account of the previous convictions of offenders and their responses to previous sentences. This rise was most significant for offenders sentenced for property offences who had between six and 20 previous convictions. The rise effectively restored the proportionate use of custody for these offenders to the level evident prior to the implementation of the 1991 Act. The exercise also suggested that for adult males sentenced at the Crown court there appeared to have been an increase in the length of sentences given to those sentenced for all types of offences where they had between six and 20 previous convictions.1
  385
  A comparison of the sentencing of a sample of offenders with and without previous convictions in 1991 taken from the offenders index is included in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1993". Information about offenders convicted in 1993 will be available later this year.
  1Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 20/94 "Monitoring of the Criminal Justice Acts 1991 and 1993—Results from a Special Data Collection Exercise".

  Cameras, Shoreham
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) video and (b) still cameras are currently used by the Sussex police; how many are specifically dedicated to the monitoring of protestors at Shoreham port; and what is the cost of this latter category as a proportion of the police force's overall cost on cameras. [19816]

  Mr. Maclean
  These are operational matters for the chief constable.

  Law and Order Pack
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total production and distribution cost of the "Action Against Crime (Strategy on Law and Order)" pack; how many copies were produced; and to whom they were distributed. [20253]

  Mr. Howard
  The total production cost, including value added tax, was £12,168. Distribution cost to date is £346.

  The primary purpose of the pack is to provide information for members of the public who inquire about law and order policies. Distribution costs will therefore be restricted to postage.

  The print run included 2,000 packs, each containing printed sheets covering eight law and order subjects; 8,000 wallets; a stock of blank insert sheets. The latter will be used as stock for updating information as necessary.

  A complete pack was sent to all Members representing constituencies in England and Wales.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements were made for distribution of the transcript of the proceedings of the resumed inquest into the deaths of some of the passengers drowned in the Marchioness disaster, during its sittings between 13 March to 7 April; and if he will make arrangements for a transcript of the proceedings to be made available to those legally represented at the inquest, and a copy to be placed in the Library, and be available for public inspection at a convenient location in central London. [19776]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: This is entirely a matter for the coroner who conducted the resumed inquest. Coroner's actions are governed by the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984 which require the coroner only to take notes of the evidence at the inquest and which contain no requirement to provide a transcript of the proceedings to any person.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control
  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of air traffic control services in the highlands and islands area in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. of the provision of air traffic control staff both employed and contracted from Civil Aviation Authority, together with the cost of engineering and technical support to the company for the last three years was:

  £(000)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1.CAA Sumburgh

  480

  529

  499

  2. Employed ATC

  590

  732

  768

  3. Engineering

  437

  455

  397

  4. Technical Support

  222

  147

  96

  Total

  1,729

  1,863

  1,760

  Driving Test Centre, Rhyl
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many driving tests Mr. John Morris of the Driving Test Standards Agency stated were held annually at the Rhyl driving test centre at a meeting in Rhyl on 18 November 1994; [18924]

  (2) how many representations have been received with regard to the closure of the Rhyl driving test centre (a) since 30 November 1994 and (b) in total. [18923]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Driving Standards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Bernard L. Herdan to Mr. David Hanson, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your questions about the Rhyl Driving Test Centre.
  My letter to you of 7 February advised that some 25 individuals and organisations responded to our public consultation exercise which concluded on 30 November 1994. Since that date a further 13 responses have been received, including 2 petitions with 110 signatures.
  John Morris, who attended the meeting with the local driving instructors on 18 November 1994 indicated as a rough guide that the maximum potential for tests at Rhyl, and its outstation at Llandudno, was 5760, i.e. 3 examiners conducting 40 tests per week for 48 weeks.

  Gospel Oak to Barking Line
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what compensation will be available to passengers on the Gospel Oak to Barking line whose trains have been cancelled through delays caused by Railtrack or the train operator; and if he will give passengers parity with freight customers in respect of the imposition of penalties when trains are delayed. [18700]

  Mr. Norris
  Under British Rail's passengers charter, season ticket holders are entitled to a discount on renewal if average performance over the previous year has been below the advertised standard by more than a small margin. For non-season ticket holders, British Rail offers an ex-gratia system in response to all claims, and each is treated on its merits. In addition, North London Railways
  387
  is currently offering ex-gratia compensation to season ticket holders affected by the severe disruption to Gospel Oak to Barking services on 27 and 28 March.

  Any compensation from BR to freight customers is a contractual matter between BR and the individual customer.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains have been delayed for more than five minutes on the Gospel Oak to Barking line since 1 March. [18702]

  Mr. Norris
  During the period 5 March to 1 April, 108 trains have been delayed for more than five minutes on the Gospel Oak to Barking line.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what remedial works to bridges and other structures on the Gospel Oak to Barking line Railtrack has completed to permit the passage of trains with wagons of tare weight of 100 tonnes with 25 tonne axle loadings over the weight restricted section of railway between south Tottenham and Woodgrange park; and if he will make a statement on the safety implications of currently operating such trains over that section of railway. [18699]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that after reassessment, Railtrack's engineers have concluded that it is safe to run freight trains on this line subject to some restrictions, such as limiting access to some bridges to one freight train at a time.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains have been cancelled on the Gospel Oak to Barking line since 1 March. [18701]

  Mr. Norris
  During the period 5 March to 1 April, 101 trains have been cancelled on Gospel Oak to Barking line.

  Mr. Gerrard:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if train services on the Gospel Oak to Barking line since 1 March meet his standards laid down under the passengers charter in respect of delays and cancellations. [18703]

  Mr. Norris
  Passengers charter performance standards are set by the British Railways Board and apply to route groups, not to individual lines. The Gospel Oak to Barking line is part of the North London lines route group. The latest BR performance figures for the period up to 3 March, show that north London lines are failing to meet both their punctuality and reliability standards.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the merits of the complete privatisation of free—standing or potentially freestanding projects, with special reference to the second Severn Valley bridge. [18843]

  Mr. Watts
  We are always willing to consider the scope for new projects to be taken forward entirely within the private sector. The second Severn crossing however is subject to both legislative and contractual arrangements which we do not intend to amend.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are currently being used to purchase properties along the line of the channel tunnel rail link that are blighted but are outside the area defined in safeguarding directions; and if he will place all relevant information in the Library. [18692]
  388
  Mr. Watts
  For residential owner-occupied property which is outside the safeguarded areas for the channel tunnel rail link, Union Railways is operating a discretionary purchase scheme. This applies, in particular, where the property is expected to be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation regulations in cases of serious hardship. New guidelines for the operation of the scheme will be published following completion of the current review of discretionary purchase arrangements in the light of the Owen judgment and a copy of those guidelines will be placed in the Library.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the national road programme scheme milestones that were achieved in 1994–95 and the date they were achieved. [18663]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is contained in the following tables.

  Highways agency achieved milestones in 1994–95

  Public consultation

  Date

  Business plan

  A10 M25-Hoddesdon Imp

  14 July 1994

  A1(M) Baldock-Alconbury

  22 September 1994

  A1(M) Bramham-Wetherby

  29 September 1994

  A1(M) Peterborough-Stamford

  28 November 1994

  A1(M) Wetherby Bypass

  29 September 1994

  A2 Lydden-Dover Imp

  30 November 1994

  A4 Henlys/Waggoners Corner Imp

  1 December 1994

  A595 Duddon Bridge Imp

  23 June 1994

  M1 J25–28 Widening

  20 July 1994

  M11 J14 Imp

  23 June 1994

  M11 J8–9 Widening

  23 June 1994

  M42 J1–7 Widening

  24 June 1994

  Additional to business plan

  A127 M25-Rayleigh Weir Imp

  9 November 1994

  A14 Thrapston-Brampton GSJ

  2 November 1994

  A1(M) Stamford Bypass

  28 November 1994

  Preferred route

  Business plan

  Date

  A1(M) Redhouse-Ferrybridge

  14 June 1994

  A249 Iwade-Queenborough Imp

  27 October 1994

  A30 St. Erth-Newtown Imp

  5 December 1994

  A31-Poole Link Road

  13 October 1994

  A36 Beckington-East of Bath Imp

  11 November 1994

  A38 Liskeard-Bodmin Imp

  23 November 1994

  A38 Saltash-Trerulefoot Imp

  23 November 1994

  A5 Weeford-Fazeley Imp

  20 June 1994

  A595 Carlisle Southern Bypass

  13 September 1994

  A6 Bedford Western Bypass A6-A428 Link

  20 July 1994

  A65 Coniston Cold Bypass

  25 November 1994

  A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass and Imp at Winderwath

  21 September 1994

  A6(M)-M56 Manchester Airport Link West

  11 May 1994

  M1 J10–15 Widening

  30 November 1994

  M1 J6A-10 Widening

  6 July 1994

  M25 Terminal 5 Spur (Heathrow)

  21 July 1994

  M4 J3–4B Widening

  21 July 1994

  M62 J18–21 Widening

  27 September 1994

  Poole Harbour Crossing

  13 October 1994

  Additional to business plan

  M1 J23A-25 Widening (including A6-M1 Link)

  17 March 1995

  389

  Order publication

  Date

  Business plan

  A13 Movers Lane Junction Imp

  1 June 1994

  A1(M) Dishforth—Leeming

  18 October 1994

  A1(M) Ferrybridge—Hook Moor

  15 February 1995

  A1(M) Leeming—Scotch Corner

  13 April 1994

  A23 Handcross—Warninglid Imp

  10 November 1994

  A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western Bypass

  23 September 1994

  A259 Hastings Eastern Bypass

  23 September 1994

  A259 Pevensey—Bexhill Imp

  23 September 1994

  A303 Ilminster Marsh Imp

  13 April 1994

  A428 Norse Road Link

  11 July 1994

  A453 Clifton Lane Imp

  29 June 1994

  A46 Alcester—Stratford Imp

  28 October 1994

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass

  1 July 1994

  A650 Hard Ings Road Imp

  6 October 1994

  A2/M2 Cobham—J4 Widening

  17 November 1994

  M23 J8—9 Widening

  17 May 1994

  M25 J12—15 Link Roads

  7 April 1994

  M25 J5—7 Widening

  30 June 1994

  M4 J8/9—10 Widening

  23 September 1994

  M6 J11A—16 Widening

  30 September 1994

  M6 J16—20 Widening

  30 September 1994

  M62 East/M606 Link Roads

  17 June 94

  M63 J6—9 Widening

  15 November 1994

  Additional To business plan

  M1 J10—15 Widening

  30 November 1994

  M1 J6A—10 Widening

  28 September 1994

  M25 Terminal 5 Spur (Heathrow)

  13 October 1994

  M4 J3—4B Widening

  13 October 1994

  Public inquiry

  Date

  Business plan

  A1 Willowburn-Denwick Imp

  20 September 1994

  A12 Wickham Market-Saxmundham Imp

  7 March 1995

  A13 Ironbridge-Canning Town Imp

  14 June 1994

  A1(M) Leeming-Scotch Corner

  10 January 1995

  A259 Dymchurch-M20 J11 Imp

  25 October 1994

  A259 New Romney Bypass

  25 October 1994

  A259 St Mary's Bay and Dymchurch Bypass

  25 October 1994

  A303 Sparkford-Ilchester Imp

  8 September 1994

  A35 Chideock/Morcombelake Bypass

  12 April 1994

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  29 November 1994

  A45/A445 Leamington Turn Junction Imp

  17 May 1994

  A5225 Wigan-Westhoughton Bypass

  12 October 1994

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  21 June 1994

  M11 J5 North Facing Slip Road Imp

  1 May 1994

  M20 J3–5 Widening

  25 October 1994

  M23 J8–9 Widening

  4 October 1994

  Additional to business plan

  A13 Movers Lane Junction Imp

  7 March 1995

  A428 Norse Road Link

  17 January 1995

  A46 Alcester-Stratford Imp

  28 March 1995

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass

  17 January 1995

  A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass

  19 April 1994

  M62 East/M606 Link Roads

  21 March 1995

  Completions

  Date

  Business plan

  A650 Park Road Advance Works

  22 April 1994

  A14 Catthorpe-Rothwell

  3 July 1994

  A19 Easingwold Bypass

  25 November 1994

  A23 Handcross-Pease Pottage Imp

  5 July 1994

  A40 Long Lane Junction Imp

  26 August 1994

  A40 Long Lane-West End Road

  17 October 1994

  A406 Hanger Lane-Harrow Road

  24 November 1994

  390

  Completions

  Date

  A52 Ashbourne Relief Road

  14 October 1994

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass North

  8 November 1994

  A66 Stainmore-Banksgate

  22 December 1994

  M1 J1 Imp

  27 September 1994

  M3 Bar End-Compton

  15 December 1994

  M56 J4–6 Widening

  21 December 1994

  M62 J14–17 Widening

  8 August 1994

  Additional to business plan

  A17 Leadenham Bypass

  10 March 1995

  Start of works

  Date

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  8 August 1994

  A406 Silver Street-Fore Street Imp

  15 March 1995

  M1/M621 Link Road

  29 March 1995

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass and Derby Spur

  16 January 1995

  M66 Denton-Middleton Con 2

  12 September 1994

  M1 J21–21A Widening Phase 1

  27 February 1995

  M5 J18–19 Widening

  29 March 1995

  A12 Hackney Wick-M11 Link Con 2

  24 March 1995

  A50 Blythe Bridge-Queensway Phase 2

  15 March 1995

  M65 Blackburn Southern Býpass Con 2

  6 March 1995

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass South

  31 March 1995

  M25 J8–10 Widening

  20 February 1995

  M6 J20–21A Bridge Renewal

  31 March 1995

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the national road programme summary of milestones for 1995–96. [19072]

  Mr. Watts
  The summary of milestones for 1995–96 will be contained in the Highways Agency's 1995–96 business plan to be published shortly.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the success of the Highways Agency is to be measured(a) against the original list of milestones or (b) against the revised list. [19073]

  Mr. Watts
  The success of the Highways Agency in achieving its milestone target in 1994–95 will be measured against the revised list published on 2 March.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received since Christmas(a) in favour of and (b) against the building of the proposed Newbury bypass; and if he will make a statement on his proposals. [18088]

  Mr. Watts
  Between 19 December 1994 and 7 April 1995 we have received some 440 letters and 2,770 pre-printed postcards in favour of proceeding with the Newbury bypass. Most of these came from the local Newbury area. We have also received two petitions in favour of the bypass, containing a total of 10,700 signatures. During the same period we have received some 320 letters and 50 pre-printed postcards opposing the bypass. The majority of these came from outside the local area.

  Road Accident Fatalities
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many days after a road accident fatalities are still counted as road deaths for his Department's
  391
  statistics; what is the basis for this length of time; and what consideration his Department has given to extending it. [19535]

  Mr. Norris
  A fatality resulting from a road accident is defined as a road death if the death occurs within 30 days of the accident. This definition arose from the Convention of Road Traffic (Vienna 1968) and is adhered to by most European countries. My Department has no plans to extend this definition to a longer time period.

  Dangerous Goods Advisers
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 145, to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), how member states voted on the draft directive on dangerous goods advisers at the Transport Council on 14 March. [19511]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As reported in the previous answer, the United Kingdom voted against this proposal in the Council. I now understand that Sweden also voted against the draft directive and Luxembourg abstained. Other member states supported the proposal.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19414]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department employs one political adviser. His salary and conditions of work were negotiated in relation to his previous earnings and are confidential.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following professional economists are employed in my Department:

  Number

  Salary range £

  Grade 4

  1

  47,043 to 56,953

  Grade 5

  4

  38,341 to 56,953

  Grade 6

  6

  29,482 to 48,879

  Grade 7

  15

  25,837 to 40,012

  Senior Economic Assistants

  5

  13,144 to 24,139

  Economic Assistants

  4

  13,144 to 24,139

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990; [20173]

  (2) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20174]

  Mr. Norris
  Publication of the annual transport report is a parliamentary requirement. A large number of staff contribute to the report, but no separate records are kept 392
  of the total staff time involved: a meaningful estimate could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  Blood Alcohol Limit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received regarding the present blood alcohol limit in the last two years. [20009]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department regularly receives representations on this subject from individuals and organisations, the majority calling for a reduction in the present limit.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the blood alcohol limit. [20010]

  Mr. Norris
  None at present, but this is a matter we keep regularly under review.

  North Circular Road
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvement to the A 13 between the north circular road and Butcher row are currently being undertaken; at what cost; when will they begin; and when they will be completed. [20266]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William Powell, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to write to you about your question in the House about improvement to the A13 between the North Circular Road and Butcher Row.
  The following major improvement schemes are currently being undertaken in the National Trunk Roads Programme for that length of the A13:

  Scheme

  Estimated cost £ million

  Programme start

  Completion

  A117 Junction Improvement

  26.3

  Autumn 1997

  Autumn 1999

  A112 Prince Regent Lane Junction Improvement

  37.0

  Summer 1997

  Summer 1999

  Ironbridge—Canning Town Junction Improvement

  55.5

  Summer 1996

  Summer 1999

  Blackwall Tunnel/Cotton Street Junction Improvement

  11.9

  May 1994

  Spring 1996

  For the schemes on which work has yet to commence the programmes are subject to the satisfactory completion of outstanding statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  In addition to the major schemes for this length of the A13 the Agency has in its 1995–96 programme of Regional Schemes a proposal to resurface the westbound carriage of the A13 between Noel Road and the North Circular Road and a small number of low-cost minor improvements.

  Motorcycle Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) drivers and (b) motorcyclists were (i) killed

  Number of drivers and motorcyclists killed and injured in road accidents: GB 1984–93

  Casualties

  Drivers

  Motorcyclists3

  Accident year

  All drivers1 Killed

  Injured

  Of which car drivers2 Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1984

  1,379

  87,814

  1,237

  79,693

  766

  42,030

  1985

  1,390

  91,891

  1,253

  82,949

  626

  37,424

  1986

  1,500

  99,108

  1,340

  89,832

  588

  34,860

  1987

  1,468

  100,103

  1,327

  90,683

  577

  30,559

  1988

  1,457

  108,694

  1,280

  98,307

  547

  29,395

  1989

  1,678

  118,814

  1,498

  107,681

  573

  30,039

  1990

  1,587

  122,380

  1,432

  111,416

  547

  28,217

  1991

  1,388

  117,330

  1,261

  107,377

  472

  22,378

  1992

  1,377

  121,519

  1,228

  112,115

  413

  19,988

  1993

  1,224

  123,281

  1,099

  114.270

  369

  19,104

  1 All drivers—includes drivers of all motor vehicles except two-wheelers and motorcycle combinations.

  2 Car drivers—includes drivers of three—and four wheeled cars, taxis, invalid tricycles, minibuses and motor caravans.

  3 Motorcyclists—includes riders in control of two-wheeled motor vehicles or combinations, except motor scooters and mopeds.

  Driving Tests
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many driving examiners were injured whilst conducting driving tests in each of the last five years; [20334]

  (2) how many days were lost due to driving examiner sickness in each of the last five years; [20335]

  (3) what was the pass rates for driving tests in each of the last 10 years: [20336]

  (4) what was the driving test fee in each of the last 10 years; [20337]

  5) how many candidates took driving tests for each of the last five years. [20338]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Driving Standards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Bernard L. Herdan to Ms Joan Walley, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to the Questions you raised on:-

  a. the number of driving examiners injured whilst conducting driving tests in each of the last five years;

  b. the number of days lost due to driving examiner sickness in each of the last five years;

  c. the pass rates for driving tests in each of the last 10 years;

  d. the driving test fee in each of the last 10 years; and

  e. the number of candidates who took driving tests for each of the last five years.

  The information for the first two questions is as follows:

  Calendar year

  Numbers of examiners injured

  Numbers of days lost due to examiner sickness

  1990

  271

  16,869

  1991

  262

  16,338

  1992

  281

  17,749

  1993

  277

  25,891

  1994

  308

  29,965

  The information for car tests for the next three questions is as follows:
  394
  or (ii) injured in road traffic accidents in each of the last 10 years. [20339]

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

  Financial year

  Pass rate percentage

  Car test fees £

  Number of applications received

  1985–86

  48.5

  14.40

  —

  1986–87

  49.2

  14.40

  —

  1987–88

  50.0

  15.00

  —

  1988–89

  52.0

  16.50

  —

  1989–90

  52.2

  18.00

  —

  1990–91

  52.4

  19.50

  1,905,412

  1991–92

  50.8

  21.50

  1,774,938

  1992–93

  49.8

  23.50

  1,602,778

  1993–94

  47.9

  26.00

  1,578,232

  1994–95

  —

  27.50

  1,536,630

  The pass rate information for the whole of 1994–95 is not yet available but for the first 9 months it was 47.2 per cent. We do not collate data on the number of candidates applying for a test, only on the volume of applications. Clearly many candidates apply more than once in the course of a year.

  Road Building
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 560, what estimates are available from the regional aggregate working parties of the tonnage or road stone required for the next 10 years of road building. [17873]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: None.

DEFENCE

  Armament Sales (Nigeria)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what make of armaments the Government have sold to the Government of Nigeria since June 1993. [20324]

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Makhzoami Brothers
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions on which the
  395
  right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had meetings with the Makhzoumi brothers or their representatives while a Minister in his Department, (a) in property owned or occupied by the Ministry of Defence and (b) elsewhere. [20325]

  Mr. Freeman
  Our records show that the right hon. Member for Thanet, South, while he was Minister for Defence Procurement, met Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi on 25 February 1993 at a dinner held at the Dorchester hotel in honour of the Lebanese Minister of Information; on 20 October 1993 in the Ministry of Defence, main building,Whitehall; and on the 17 November 1993 when he briefly joined a dinner party at the Dorchester hotel given in honour of the Lebanese chief of the naval staff. Officials were present on all these occasions.

  Other meetings with the Makhazoumi brothers or their representatives, not on MOD business, held outside property owned or occupied by the Ministry of Defence and without civil servants, are a matter for the right hon. Member for Thanet, South.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which contracts notified to his Department, for the export of military or security-related equipment from Britain to the Lebanon, the Makhzoumi brothers have been involved as principals or intermediaries, since 1 January 1992. [20326]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no record of export contracts for licensable military or security equipment with the Makhzoumi brothers or any of their companies. It is for companies to decide on whether and whom to employ as advisers or intermediaries.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions have taken place since 1 January 1992 between(a) Alvis and (b) Racal and his Department concerning the export of security-related equipment from Britain to the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement. [20327]

  Mr. Freeman
  As part of their normal duties of promoting the sale of British defence equipment, officials from the Defence Export Services Organisation have had numerous discussions with Alvis, Racal and a number of other companies about the prospects for the sale of defence equipment to Lebanon.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of Future Management Services in the promotion of arms sales to the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [20328]

  Mr. Freeman
  Future Management Services has discussed export prospects to the middle east for UK companies with DESO officials on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates between April 1992 and July 1994 Ministers in his Department met Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi to discuss arms sales; which Ministers were involved; and if civil servants were present during such meetings. [20486]

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South met Mr. Makhzoumi on several occasions between April 1992 and July 1994 to discuss the prospects for the sale of defence equipment to Lebanon and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
  396
  There are no records of meetings between other Ministry of Defence Ministers and Mr. Makhzoumi between April 1992 and July 1994.

  Asturion Foundation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he authorised the receipt of hospitality from the Asturion Foundation by the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken); and if he will make a statement; [20329]

  (2) what information his Department has on the work of the Asturion Foundation. [20330]

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD has no information about the Asturion Foundation.

  Old Sarum Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the purchaser of Old Sarum airfield will be required to maintain on the property an operational airfield for civilian and military use. [20368]

  Mr. Freeman
  The terms of the 999-year lease of the airfield have been carried forward into the terms of the current sale. Neither the lease nor the sale terms carry an obligation for the maintenance of an airfield for civilian and military use, although my Department retains in the lease and sale documents the right to land military helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft on no more than 150 occasions per year, and has been exercising that right. Any change of use by the purchaser of the property would be subject to the usual planning laws in the ordinary way.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which official or officials within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency are responsible for marketing test ranges and the capabilities of the work force on each range. [20521]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 24 April 1995:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question (No 20521) about which official or officials within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency are responsible for marketing test ranges and the capabilities of the workforce on each range.
  Within DERA, the test ranges are managed by the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO), one of the four constituent divisions of the Agency. Marketing of DTEO and its capabilities is the responsibility of the Managing Director and his management team.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which officials of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have the responsibility for allocating tests and trials between ranges for customers within ranges. [20523]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 24 April 1995:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question

  397
  (No 20523) about which officials of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have the responsibility for allocating tests and trials between ranges for customers within ranges.
  Within DERA, the test ranges are managed by the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO), one of the four constituent divisions of the Agency. Trials are offered to the customer at the range with the ability to perform the trial. Where more than one range can conduct the trial there is normally a site which specialises in this kind of trial and this would generally be the one offered. The decision on which site to use is taken by the customer, not DTEO, on a value for money basis.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Sea Dumping (Munitions)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the position of the sites of current and disused sea dumping grounds for(a) explosives and (b) chemical weapons; [20525]

  (2) if he will list the tonnage and type of (a) explosive and (b) chemical weapons which have been dumped at sea since 1965 in each of the current and disused dumping grounds. [20524]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 31 March to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)Official Report, column 875.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times a customer's preference for a particular range has not been agreed to by officials of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [20526]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 24 April 1995:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your (No. 20526) about how many times a customer's preference for a particular range has not been agreed to by the officials of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  I am aware of no such cases. In any event, DTEO, like the rest of the Agency, is dependent upon customers to pay for its services. If a customer is unhappy with the service offered, the decision rests with the customer as to whether to proceed.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which officials within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency allocate projects to ranges when a customer has expressed a preference for a particular range to carry out trials and tests. [20522]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 24 April 1995:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question (No 20522) about which officials within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency allocate projects to ranges when a customer has expressed a preference for a particular range to carry out trials and tests.
  Within DERA, the test ranges are managed by the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO), one of the four constituent divisions of the Agency. Where a customer has expressed a preference for a particular range this is taken into account by the assignment manager responsible for the particular customer's programme. If the proposed location is not suitable the customer would be appraised of this. If the customer's trial is one for which more than one range is suitable he would be made aware of any
  398
  additional costs associated with performing the trial at any alternative site. Since DTEO is part of an Agency its trading status ensures it places great emphasis upon customers' preferences.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich in his letter of 19 April concerning civilian staff at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; [20531]

  (2) what representations his Department has received from civilian staff at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, about their future; and what was the response. [20530]

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble friend the Under Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member shortly answering fully the points raised in his letters.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the most recent position regarding the future of the site of the former Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. [20532]

  Mr. Freeman
  The future of the site at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich is the subject of detailed negotiations between my Department and the Urban Regeneration Agency and English Partnerships. The east site is still occupied by the Defence Research Agency, who will vacate the site this summer. Disposal options are being discussed with the local planning authority, the London borough of Greenwich.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19654]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not fully available in the Northern Ireland Office or in all the Northern Ireland Departments in the form requested. However, the information available is as listed.

  Department

  Total amount of removal costs £

  Amount of each of the highest 3 claims £

  Average amount of claim £

  1992–93

  Education

  6,665

  625

  493

  625

  625

  Agriculture

  48,560

  5,000

  1,628

  3,863

  2,414

  Economic Development

  nil

  none

  nil

  399

  Department

  Total amount of removal costs £

  Amount of each of the highest 3 claims £

  Average amount of claim £

  Environment

  88,510

  12,4081

  7,5501

  10,7221

  10,0561

  Health and Social Services

  20,261

  n/a

  n/a

  Finance and Personnel

  22,610

  5,471

  2,261

  5,379

  3,296

  Northern Ireland Office

  290,168

  n/a

  n/a

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  Rate Collection Agency

  7,209

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  6,895

  2—

  2—

  Ordnance Survey of NI

  8,894

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  nil

  2—

  2—

  Social Security Agency

  17,903

  n/a

  n/a

  Child Support Agency

  not established

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  not established

  Compensation Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  1993–94

  Education

  27,772

  6,118

  2,076

  4,908

  2,332

  Agriculture

  48,017

  7,134

  2,410

  3,265

  2,894

  Economic Development

  8,412

  8,412

  8,412

  Environment

  36,612

  11,5861

  10,9251

  11,5191

  9,6701

  Health and Social Services

  6,950

  n/a

  n/a

  Finance and Personnel

  2,514

  1,599

  838

  635

  280

  Northern Ireland Office

  438,332

  n/a

  n/a

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  5,188

  5,188

  5,188

  Rate Collection Agency

  492

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  383

  2—

  2—

  Ordnance Survey of NI

  6,839

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  945

  2—

  2—

  Social Security Agency

  3,610

  n/a

  n/a

  Child Support Agency

  5,413

  n/a

  n/a

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  3,150

  3,150

  3,150

  400

  Department

  Total amount of removal costs £

  Amount of each of the highest 3 claims £

  Average amount of claim £

  Compensation Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  1994–95

  Education

  6,643

  3,263

  3,148

  1,752

  421

  Agriculture

  53,653

  5,882

  2,645

  1,417

  635

  Economic Development

  nil

  none

  nil

  Environment

  23,290

  8,0881

  8,0801

  Health and Social Services

  1,707

  n/a

  n/a

  Finance and Personnel

  8,065

  6,595

  2,688

  835

  Northern Ireland Office

  259,974

  n/a

  n/a

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  Rate Collection Agency

  371

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  386

  2—

  2—

  Ordnance Survey of NI

  2,172

  2—

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  nil

  2—

  2—

  Social Security Agency

  4,413

  n/a

  n/a

  Child Support Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  Valuation and Lands

  15,002

  10,220

  7,501

  Agency

  4,782

  Compensation Agency

  nil

  none

  nil

  1 These figures include the 4 Agencies related to the Department of Environment.

  2 Figures included in Department of the Environment totals.

  n/a = not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a)within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19560]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is as follows:

  Department

  Subsistence allowance paid for travel £

  1992–93

  Education

  132,562

  Agriculture

  148,077

  Environment

  355,844

  Northern Ireland Office

  256,307

  Economic Development

  279,830

  Health and Social Services

  233,520

  Finance and Personnel

  161,000

  Agency

  Rate Collection Agency

  12,840

  401

  Department

  Subsistence allowance paid for travel £

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  20,688

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  40,815

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  not established

  Compensation Agency

  432

  Training and Employment Agency

  132,635

  Social Security Agency

  540,594

  Child Support Agency

  not established

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  not established

  1993–94

  Education

  110,223

  Agriculture

  584,543

  Environment

  332,569

  Northern Ireland Office

  261,679

  Economic Development

  301,771

  Health and Social Services

  176,383

  Finance and Personnel

  110,000

  Agency

  Rate Collection Agency

  13,554

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  17,581

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  50,777

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2,451

  Compensation Agency

  7,869

  Training and Employment Agency

  132,085

  Social Security Agency

  438,431

  Child Support Agency

  28,901

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  33,000

  1994–95

  Education

  66,702

  Agriculture

  651,350

  Environment

  340,835

  Northern Ireland Office

  184,677

  Economic Development

  262,197

  Health and Social Services

  122,245

  Finance and Personnel

  97,000

  Agency

  Rate Collection Agency

  11,552

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  26,522

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  42,990

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  3,280

  Compensation Agency

  8,509

  Training and Employment Agency

  119,015

  Social Security Agency

  183,724

  Child Support Agency

  20,087

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  29,000

  1Travel outside the UK only.

  Job Losses
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been lost with the final run-down of the towns' gas industry in Northern Ireland; and how many of these will be replaced by jobs in the natural gas industry in Northern Ireland. [19867]

  Mr. Ancram
  At 31 March 1985, the gas undertakings in Northern Ireland employed some 980 staff and the last undertaking closed in May 1993. It is too early to estimate the number of jobs that could be provided by a natural gas industry.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were lost after disbanding the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's direct labour organisation; and how many of those made redundant secured employment in the private sector in the same field of work. [19872]
  402
  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I understand from the chief executive that its direct labour organisation was not disbanded; it was, however, scaled down from 749 employees, permanent and temporary, in January 1993 to its current complement of 127 employees. Details of how many staff subsequently took up employment in the private sector are not available.

  Natural Gas Industry
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if proposals have been completed by the Department of Economic Development for regulations to govern the natural gas industry in Northern Ireland. [19866]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is planned to publish a proposal for a draft gas order to facilitate the development and regulation of a natural gas industry in Northern Ireland by early summer of this year.

  Footpath Resurfacing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has been able to fulfil its aims to resurface 22 km of urban footpaths every year. [19868]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department aims to resurface 220 km of urban footpath each year and over the past three years this has been achieved.

  Arts Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Arts Council of Northern Ireland has to increase arts contacts with(a) Scotland (b) the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement about the present policy of the Arts Council towards the promotion of co-operation with similar bodies within the United Kingdom. [19757]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 10 January 1995,Official Report,column 11.

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland has no specific plans to increase arts contacts with Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Magpies and Crows
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the threat to sheep and lambs by magpies and grey-backed crows; what proposals he has to reduce the presence of magpies and grey-backed crows; and if he will make a statement. [19755]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available on the threat posed to sheep and lambs by magpies and grey-backed, or hooded crows.

  There are no proposals to reduce the presence of magpies and grey-backed crows; existing controls under the wildlife legislation are considered to be adequate.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what change has occurred(a) in the population of magpies and grey-backed crows and (b) in the number of attacks on young lambs by magpies and grey-backed crows in the last five years; what is the impact of the species on song bird populations; what proposals he

  403
  has to control numbers of magpies and grey-backed crows; and if he will make a statement. [19920]

  Mr. Moss
  Specific information in relation to Northern Ireland for the past five years is not available. Overall UK figures for 1992–93 indicate an increase in the populations of magpies and crows as follows:

  Species

  Population size in Northern Ireland 1993

  Annual rate of change in Northern Ireland 1992–93 (per cent.)

  Annual rate of change in UK 1992–93 (per cent.)

  Crow

  49,500

  n/a

  +4.7

  Magpie

  58,900

  +2.3

  +2.5

  n/a = not available.

  Information is not available on the number of attacks on young lambs by magpies and grey-backed, or hooded, crows in the last five years.

  Recent research in England and Wales has shown that there is no correlation between the number of magpies and the breeding success of song birds. No similar research has been carried out in Northern Ireland, but population densities of magpies and song birds are similar and there is no reason to believe that the situation is different from that in Great Britain.

  There are no proposals to reduce the presence of magpies and grey-backed crows; existing controls under the wildlife legislation are considered to be adequate.

  Green Economy Working Group
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the industrialists and environmentalists which make up the working group set up to advise the Government on environmental issues in business and industry in Northern Ireland under the initiative of the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland, "Growing a Green Economy", launched in March 1993; and what initiatives it has recommended to the Government since the establishment of the group. [19861]

  Mr. Ancram
  The names of the members of the green economy working group and their recommendations to Government and industry are included in the working group's report, which was published on 1 December 1994 and copies of which are available in the Library.

  European Aid Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were invited to the conference in Newcastle on Wednesday 29 March about the Delors package of European aid for Northern Ireland; how many were invited in their capacity as local government 404
  elected members; how many hon. Members were invited; and if he will make a statement. [19758]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A total of 248 invitations were issued for the conference in Newcastle on 29 March on the Delors package of European aid for Northern Ireland, 52 of which were sent to the chief executives of district councils. Councils were free to use these places as they wished for local government elected members or officials with functional responsibility. Members of Parliament were not invited because the purpose of the conference was to give local people on the ground the opportunity to make their views known. The decision to focus the conference in this way took account of the fact that elected representatives have the opportunity to meet Ministers to discuss matters such as the Delors package of European aid.

  Homelessness
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in Northern Ireland. [19871]

  Mr. Moss
  It is not possible to estimate the number of people who are homeless in Northern Ireland. I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, however, that at 31 March 1995 the number of households living in temporary accommodation secured for them under the homeless provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 was 1,747.

  Balmoral Avenue—Malone Road Junction
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost, so far, for the road scheme at Balmoral avenue-Malone road junction. [19744]

  Mr. Moss
  In-house staff costs incurred to date are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Other costs incurred to date relate to the public inquiry into the scheme and amount to approximately £23,000.

  Fisheries
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration the Government have given to allocation in any potential extra funding following the recent ceasefire to the fishing industry. [19922]

  Mr. Ancram
  Such funding could be available under the European Union's proposed "Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland". However, that programme has yet to be fully negotiated with the EU in conjunction with the Republic of Ireland. It is too early to predict who exactly the beneficiaries will be.

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.

Gulf War: Health of Servicemen
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the investigation of the causes of the so-called Gulf War syndrome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, although we retain an open mind on the question of a Gulf-related illness, our examinations of more than 200 British Gulf veterans have so far failed to reveal any evidence of the alleged Gulf War syndrome.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he seen the American report on the first 1,000 of 11,000 cases? I believe that the report on the second 1,000 cases came out last Friday, but my fax machine was not working and I did not receive it. However, from what has emerged, can my noble friend say whether British researches support the American findings that most patients are suffering from relatively common diagnosable and treatable illnesses? Further, are Her Majesty's Government compiling, like the Pentagon, a comparison of morbidity and mortality statistics among servicemen who served in the Gulf and those who did not so serve?
Lord Henley: My Lords, broadly speaking, I think I can agree with my noble friend. We are aware of the US research. We have examined it, and we shall certainly study the further research to which my noble friend referred, published on, I believe, the 21st of this month. Obviously, we want to see more information in relation to that research so that it can be evaluated. We have also seen research from a number of other countries which broadly supports our view that there is no evidence as such at the moment of a Gulf War syndrome. Clearly, we are sympathetic towards all those who believe they are suffering from unexplained illnesses. However, in any group of some 45,000 there will always be a number of such people. I can reassure my noble friend that a recent report from the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights just that—the extent to which chronic multiple unexplained symptoms can occur among the civilian population. It points to something of the order of an average of 1,200 per health district.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, although I appreciate the Minister's desire to keep an open mind on the subject, has not the time perhaps come to draw a line and to suggest that the efforts and resources being
696
put into studying this problem should be directed to the more pressing issues facing the defence medical services?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble and gallant Lord is right. We should not put excessive resources into this issue. I believe that we are devoting sufficient resources to examining something about which I think it is right that we should keep an open mind. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that at present there is no evidence to warrant any further detailed inquiry, but we shall certainly do whatever is necessary to reassure those who still feel some uncertainty and fear that they may have suffered something as a result of the Gulf War.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House whether comparable syndromes arose from World War II, a war in which there were long periods of fighting in the desert and in insalubrious jungles, and grievous and heavy casualties in other theatres from violent and relentless enemy action? Is it possible that some surviving soldiers, in touch with me still, may have been suffering from a syndrome for the past 50 years without knowing it? If so, should they be encouraged to seek redress?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any such syndrome. Obviously, in any war, and particularly in the war to which my noble friend refers, a great many servicemen suffered grievous and horrendous injuries, both physical and mental. It is right that we should compensate them for that, as and when appropriate. I can assure my noble friend that any serviceman from the last war or the Gulf War who still believes that he has suffered as a result of that war can apply to the War Pensions Agency and seek redress in that forum.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while supporting the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that there are other matters to which defence expenditure should properly be addressed, has the Minister seen a report in the New Scientist—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, my fax machine is working—stating:
"The mysterious illness known as Gulf War syndrome may have been caused by the combined effect of a pill given to protect against nerve gas and an insect repellent, according to preliminary results from American research"?
Are the Government aware of that? Do they support that preliminary finding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of the article to which the noble Lord refers, but I shall certainly ask my officials to look at it. As I said, I am aware of the American research, but we are not aware of any implication in that research that there is evidence of a Gulf War syndrome as suggested.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a letter published in the British Medical Journal on Saturday last, 22nd April, by the Surgeon-General stated:
"No evidence has emerged that any organic disorder has occurred more commonly in Gulf veterans than in any similar population over a similar four year period. As might be expected, certain psychiatric conditions … can be attributed to the Gulf conflict, though there is

697
no evidence that their incidence is greater than that in earlier conflicts. These findings remain consistent with the earlier British position and recent American findings"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that letter from the Surgeon-General. I had highlighted that paragraph with a view to reading it to the House.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that ships of the Royal Navy had to change their chemical filters very much more often than usual as a result of the burning oil wells, did the ingestion of such fumes and smuts have an adverse effect on our servicemen, particularly in relation to respiratory problems?
Lord Henley: My Lords, studies have shown that the level of atmospheric pollution caused mild irritation to the respiratory tract but did not impair lung function or produce long-term effects on health. There is no definitive medical evidence of adverse health effects resulting from multiple exposure to individually non-harmful levels of chemicals containing oil fire smoke. I believe that the noble Lord's point is dealt with. We have no evidence that servicemen in the Royal Navy suffered from the effects of smoke.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in the United States restrictions have been placed on Gulf War veterans giving blood. Have any such restrictions been placed on Gulf War veterans here?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any such restrictions, but I shall take up that point and write to my noble friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, why is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards Gulf veterans so very different from the American Government's attitude to their veterans? Also, has the noble Lord seen the research, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which has been carried out at Duke University, North Carolina, which indicates that tests with pyridostigmine bromide and deer (the insecticide) have an adverse effect upon the neurological tissues of rats and chickens which are the test subjects for OP poisoning?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject totally the noble Countess's allegations that our attitude has been different to that of the Americans. We have kept in close contact with the US authorities who are investigating this alleged syndrome. There is no clinical evidence from the US Department of Defense investigations of a single or unique agent causing the so-called Gulf War syndrome. I accept that President Clinton has authorised a programme to award payments to US Gulf veterans suffering from undiagnosed symptoms, but that should not be taken to mean that the US Government acknowledge the existence of a Gulf-related condition or that it is compensation in the legal sense. Payments are in the form of disability awards and reflect the significant differences in welfare and war pensions arrangements between the US and the UK.

Ordnance Survey: Rural Mapping
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Ordnance Survey is no longer able to provide a full service in updating rural mapping; and when such a service will be resumed.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Ordnance Survey agreed a new investment strategy with Ministers in 1992 and is now introducing a much faster rate of up-date of its mapping across the whole country. But I suspect that my noble friend is alluding to the unique reference numbers and areas of fields which, from the mid-1970s, have not been revised as field boundaries changed. Ordnance Survey is aware of growing customer concern and fully intends to reintroduce those features as standard as soon as possible.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I recognise the valuable service that Ordnance Survey has performed over many years, especially in introducing helpful interim measures for individual customers while new technology is being developed. But will my noble friend say how soon is "soon" in the introduction of these computerised maps?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I agree that Ordnance Survey has produced a valuable service for many people for many decades. In answer to my noble friend's question, that will be when the national topographic database has been restructured to allow automatic generation of the information. The restructuring will begin this year and will be completed in five years. An interim solution to be introduced this year will enable Ordnance Survey's Superplan agents to provide specified field numbers and areas to order.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in updating its rights of way mapping is it correct that Ordnance Survey no longer includes rights of way through Forestry Commission holdings? If it is true, why is that? Has it anything to do with the privatisation of the Forestry Commission?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Ordnance Survey shows rights of way on its maps based on information provided to it by the responsible local authorities. So if those rights of way through Forestry Commission grounds are not shown on Ordnance Survey maps it is because that information has not been provided by the local authorities.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is not a further improvement required to rural mapping? I refer to the changes introduced by Ordnance Survey when transferring to the new metric scale. Changing from 1:63,360—the one-inch scale most popularly used—to 1:50,000 has had the effect of causing large areas of blank paper to appear on the maps. As more space is available, is it not desirable to provide more detail? I asked that question, bearing in mind the high standard which Ordnance Survey has maintained internationally

699
in the past. I am anxious to see that the excellent balance between space and detail in the old one-inch series is maintained in the new series.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the Ordnance Survey has used metric measurements, among others, since the 1940s. Therefore, there is a long history of the use of metric values. Some five different scales are used on Ordnance Survey maps as a norm, ranging from large scale to small scale. It tries to strike a balance with those different scales so that considerably more information can be put on the large-scale maps and information on the small-scale maps can be reduced in order to avoid clutter. There is an increasing ability for the Ordnance Survey to customise its maps so that customers can order specific requirements or scales.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are the Ordnance Survey maps provided in machine readable form; and what standards are being adopted for such maps?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord giving the exact standards that are being used. All the maps are being computerised and digitalised so that there are increasing opportunities for machine reading.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the serious problem that exists when one looks at a map of, say, Rannoch Moor? It is impossible to tell the height of the hills because one cannot see whether that is given in metres or feet. Indeed, some maps are produced suggesting that a hill is only 300 feet high when, in fact, it is over 1,000 feet. Will my noble friend give an indication of when this unfortunate situation, which is dangerous for hikers and so forth in the winter, might be put straight?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I imagine that no one looks at a map of Rannoch Moor more than my noble friend. It is the sensible duty of those relying on a map to guide them in safety to ensure that they understand the map and to read the legend, which will show whether the measurements are metric or imperial.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister anticipate that the Ordnance Survey will have any difficulty in East Anglia, where the familiar landmarks have been swept away into a prairie by the common agricultural policy?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, no difficulties are anticipated in East Anglia.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that due to security reasons certain areas are not published on the Pathfinder maps? I refer in particular to an area at Chilmark, Reference SUO/12 No. 1262, which is part of an RAF atomic bomb storage area now being dismantled. When will that area appear on a map in the Pathfinder series?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall write to my noble friend informing him how to obtain that specific map. The Ordnance Survey is required to comply with
700
security notices issued by the Ministry of Defence in respect of certain sites. Therefore, the detail on certain maps will reflect that observation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is more than a simple matter of whether hills are there or not? It is a matter of public money. Contracts awarded to landowners—I acknowledge my interest as a beneficiary of such a contract—in environmentally sensitive areas are based on Ordnance Survey maps. The Ordnance Survey map for Radnor, for instance, is out of date and needs to be brought up to date. Nevertheless, public money is being paid out to landowners such as myself on the basis of out-of-date information. Will the Government ensure that these maps are rectified so that proper amounts of government money are paid out to the beneficiaries?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in recent years, the prime objective of the Ordnance Survey has been to bring up to date unsurveyed changes in urban areas, where the need for resurveying had fallen somewhat behind. The Ordnance Survey recognises that there is a need for more frequent revision of maps of rural areas. That is the major investment strategy that has been put into action to upgrade the reorganisation of the Ordnance Survey's national topographic database. It will enable all new field areas and rural areas to be properly surveyed.
As regards public money, in 1993–94 the Ordnance Survey managed to raise £62.8 million from sales whereas the Parliamentary Vote for that year was just £16.8 million. Therefore, the Ordnance Survey costs the taxpayer one quarter of what it cost 25 years ago.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not talking about public money spent on the Ordnance Survey, which I understand? I am talking about public money that is paid to landowners such as myself—I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, too has declared his financial interest—on the basis of out-of-date Ordnance Survey maps in rural areas.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, usually in such situations any applicant for public money who proffers inaccurate information is liable to have that money removed or to be prosecuted. However, even if the standard Ordnance Survey maps are out of date in some areas, it is possible for every single person in this country to commission a customised map from the Ordnance Survey. Therefore, there is no excuse for inaccurate Ordnance Survey information.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to detain the Minister. Is he aware that I am advised by my noble friend Lord Carter that if the Government have got it wrong I am liable? I do not believe that that is right. Is it not the case that if the Government make a contract they should meet that contract?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I said, if an applicant to such a scheme proffers inaccurate information it may be that when that is discovered the money will not be given to him or will be removed from him.

Nurses: Local Pay Guidance
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have issued any guidelines to National Health Service trusts concerning the present negotiations on the pay of nurses and ancillary staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, guidance on local pay has been issued in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which advises that pay offers should be fair, affordable, simple and understood. The management executive in Scotland will issue guidance on local pay for nurses this week.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she confirm that 75 per cent. of local trusts have not responded to the letter which I understand was written by the director of human resources for the health service, Mr. Jarrold, on 11th April? What will the Government do if that letter is simply left in abeyance by local trusts? Will they guarantee the 3 per cent. rise which the Royal College of Nursing wants across the board?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the letter, as the noble Baroness said, has only just been received by health authorities and trusts. We are encouraging trusts and health authorities to make their offers quickly. The majority which have made offers have made them at around 3 per cent. It is up to local management to decide the level of local pay.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while accepting that nurses' pay is a sensitive issue and one that has great popular support, does my noble friend agree that it is possible that Members of the party opposite, suffering from an understandable lapse of memory because it is a long time since they were in office, have forgotten what happened when they were in office?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is referring to the fact that as regards real term pay settlements, the Labour Party reduced—cut—nurses' pay by 3 per cent. whereas this Government have increased it by 51 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, was it not inevitable, once the changes in the structure of the National Health Service were made, that such confusion would arise? Is this not an issue on which there ought to be a national pay policy for the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. I have been taught that when in charge, ponder; when in trouble, delegate; when in doubt, mumble. There is no confusion. I shall not mumble on this occasion. I am absolutely convinced, as are Her Majesty's Government, that the National Health Service can no longer live in
702
Jurassic Park where 70 per cent. of the costs are not decided by the people who actually employ the staff. We must get away from the national agreements and into local agreements where local managers can manage, working closely with their staff.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that we are now in a situation in which market forces and the efficiency of the administration determine nurses' pay rather than their training, ability and efficiency? If that is so, we really are going down a very difficult and wrong road.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole purpose of local pay is that local managers should consider not only the recruitment possibilities for their area, living costs, travel costs and rent costs, but also the skills and abilities of the staff whom they employ. Only last week an article in the Guardian said that an element of local pay for nurses makes good sense. We believe that. We believe that it should mean that nurses should be paid more in parts of the country where those costs are higher. That was a view confirmed also in the Evening Standard and the Economist. Those people who are enlightened recognise that the future must lie with local pay.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the arrangements which have been the subject of our exchanges this afternoon were the result of the recommendation of the independent review body? They are not the result of a decision by the Government, other than the Government very properly accepting without reservation or amendment the extremely clear recommendations put to them by the independent review body. I believe that that body was generally and broadly accepted as good when it was set up some years ago.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The review body was set up in 1983. It was fought for extremely hard by the nurses, midwives and health visitors who wanted an independent review body. The review body has made those recommendations. Indeed, over the past 11 years since the Government established the body, nurses' pay has risen faster than earnings in the economy as a whole. It is disappointing that on the one occasion on which the review body recommends local pay, it is not received warmly by those nurses whom it is intended to help.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House which of the four criteria—fair, affordable, simple and understandable—are not met by the current offer, which has made the nurses so unhappy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one must recognise that those who are opposing this measure are those who, in the past, have had the power, as trade unions, to negotiate nationally. We believe that that time should come to an end now. It is relevant that the employers of those staff should take into consideration all the local factors. I can understand the RCN and

703
UNISON and the other trade unions all wishing to resist that because, after all, that is where their power base lies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says about local organisation and local agreements. However, problems arise when those local agreements are not accepted or when they break down. As UNISON has pointed out, local agreements are good but there appears to be nowhere to turn to if those agreements are not adhered to or cannot be achieved.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if nurses or other members of staff feel that they are not receiving a fair deal, there is a strict legal system to which they can appeal in terms of employment law and so on. It is interesting to note that nurses who are members of UNISON are opposing this measure and yet for 40 per cent. of its staff who are not nurses, UNISON is going along with local pay. Indeed, the RCN and UNISON are putting a considerable amount of investment into their local stewards to negotiate local pay. Therefore, they recognise that it will come and that it is up to them to consider the offers that are being made and to do the very best for their members.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may return to my original Question about what the Government will do if local pay is not agreed. If the Government are content for there to be substantial agreements at local level which do not meet the 3 per cent. figure, why is it that Mr. Jarrold, in his letter to local executives, wrote—and I believe that I have this correctly:
"Ministers have expressed concern that there have not been more pay offers"?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I explained earlier to the noble Baroness, that letter was sent out as recently as 11th April and still has to be received and considered. Of course, a I per cent. increase in pay across the board will be awarded to all nurses, midwives and health visitors. The other 2 per cent. is a matter for local negotiation. The offers are on the table and local organisations must decide whether or not to take up those offers.

Business of the House: Finance Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday 28th April for the purpose of taking the Finance Bill through its remaining stages that day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why this streamlined procedure is to be applied to the Finance Bill? Is it because the Government regard it as unimportant?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am aware, as the House will be, that my noble friend has a long-standing interest in these matters. Perhaps I should point out that the last occasion on which consideration of a Finance Bill was taken over two days was as long ago as the 1977–78 Session. Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend that taking the Finance Bill on one day in your Lordships' House is a long established practice.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is really too bad that your Lordships should be faced with this situation for the second year running. Once again, the most important Bill of the year—this year running to 377 pages—is to be dealt with on a Friday at a time when your Lordships are not normally sitting.
Your Lordships' membership includes five former Chancellors of the Exchequer, four former Chief Secretaries, a great many past senior officials of the Treasury and three former Governors of the Bank of England. One could go on almost indefinitely. No other deliberative assembly in the world can match your Lordships' House in judgment, experience and knowledge of such matters. Therefore, your Lordships are in a full position to respond to the summons which is issued by our Sovereign to advise and consent and to give counsel, not merely to nod through a measure of this sort on a Friday at a time when the House is not normally sitting.
There are convenient occasions on which all that expertise can be made available; for example, as regards the Consolidated Fund Bills and the Finance Bill, above all. But your Lordships are consistently refused the opportunity to use the Consolidated Fund Bills for their proper purpose on the grounds that at any rate the No. 2 Bill coincides approximately with the Finance Bill. That excuse goes utterly by the board when the Finance Bill is taken on a Friday, as it was last year and will be again this year.
Last year it was debated on the Friday before an English Bank Holiday; this year it will be debated on a Friday before a Scottish Bank Holiday. Obviously, most Members of your Lordships' House will have made arrangements in advance which preclude their intervention next Friday. I believe that your Lordships will want at least two assurances: first, that this will not become an annual event; and, secondly, that the Procedure Committee will, once again, look seriously at the question of debating the Consolidated Fund Bill in the light of the fact that the Finance Bill treated in this way is no sort of alternative.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always regard the moment when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rises to his feet with a mixture of intense pleasure and nervousness. I have to tell your Lordships that today is no exception. It is with the greatest of diffidence that I venture to disagree with the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the debates that we have been holding—I am sure they will continue—on whether this House should sit more frequently on Fridays. It has been suggested, notably by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, in his report to my predecessor on the Sittings of the House, which we

705
debated fairly recently, that we should make greater use of Fridays. I believe that a number of your Lordships have expressed sympathy with that view. In particular—and I hope that I do not misunderstand him—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has done so. The noble Lord underlined, I think, the point just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon; namely, that he would support the greater use of Fridays, especially if adequate notice were given of the intention to use them.
I should point out to the noble and learned Lord that there have been a number of occasions of late when economic matters were able to be discussed; for example, in a recent debate introduced by Conservative Peers on one of their days for debate. In addition, the Finance Bill is, by definition, a money Bill to which Royal Assent may be given, even without the agreement of your Lordships, after one month. Moreover, the statutory deadline for enactment of the Finance Bill is 5th May which, as the legislation was brought from another place on 18th April, gives us little time in which to consider it.
I suggest to your Lordships that it is perfectly sensible for us to take seriously the strictures of my noble friend Lord Rippon and his committee and to use Fridays when the pressure of business makes it expedient for us to do so. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am well aware of the extraordinary concentration of expertise in your Lordships' House on financial matters—an expertise which is not entirely confined to former Chancellors of the Exchequer. I hope that Friday's full-day debate on the Finance Bill will provide the House with an opportunity to demonstrate its full range of expertise on the matter, even though we are following precedent and, indeed, only using one day for the purpose rather than more.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will at least consider that the Government have done their very best to provide adequate time for discussion of a Bill, the importance of which I would certainly not deny in any way, but which, nevertheless, I believe, by precedent, has been discussed by your Lordships at rather less length than has been the case in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill
Report received.

Health Authorities Bill
3.15 p.m
Report received.
Clause 1 [Abolition of RHAs, DHAs and FHSAs and duty to establish HAs]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and to establish for each of the English health regions and for Wales an Advisory Committee on Appointments to advise on the selection and appointment of non-executive members to those authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above amendment is designed to ensure that the appointments to the new, very powerful, health authority boards are made more openly and more objectively than is the case at present. It would bring the appointments system for the new authorities that would be established in England and Wales into line with the practice that already exists in Scotland.
Noble Lords will be aware that there is considerable disquiet about the present methods of appointment in the health service. That has led, at worst, to accusations of political cronyism and patronage and, at best, to a widespread feeling that sometimes inexperienced or inappropriate people have been appointed simply because they are known to senior people in the health service, to Ministers or to others involved.
There are fears that that situation will become worse under the new Bill with the abolition of the regional health authorities because all local appointments will then be directly in the hands of the Secretary of State—involving about 900 appointments a year. The Government seem to have accepted that some reform of the present system is necessary. New guidance on appointments was published in February and the Chief Executive of the health service, Mr. Langlands, in his evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, spoke of change, somewhat coincidentally on the same day that the new guidance was published.
It is now suggested that appointments will be advertised and that candidates will be formally interviewed. But all of that has taken place since the Health Authorities Bill was published and after it had finished its passage through another place. There is nothing on the face of the Bill as it now stands to make the appointments system open and more objective.
We discussed the issue at length in Committee. From these Benches we proposed various amendments to try to ensure that the new health authorities would be

707
democratically rooted in their own local communities and demonstrably appointed on an open basis. However, the Government rejected all those amendments. The present amendment would simply create a statutory, independent authority to advise on health service appointments; a system which, after all, is widely accepted in other fields and is in the best traditions of British public service.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the system which exists in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has created a committee of five chaired by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh—who, I understand, is a Labour councillor—to advise him on the appointment and reappointment of non-executive members of the health boards in Scotland. In order to broaden the selection base of candidates to posts in that field, a wide range of bodies which represent many different aspects of community life in Scotland—for example, the voluntary sector, different Church groups and members of different political parties—have been invited to put forward names and widespread public advertising is going on at the same time.
Initial interviews for people whose names come forward as a result of those processes are conducted by the chairmen of the relevant boards. They then pass on their recommendations to the national advisory committee for consideration and recommendation for appointment. That committee also considers reappointment to health boards on the basis of local reports.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister said that the Scottish system could not be adopted sensibly south of the border because of the different scale of organisation of the health service in England and Wales and the much larger population in those two countries. But that would only be an argument, it seems to me, against having one national, advisory body for England and Wales. Amendment No. 1, which we are now considering, proposes that there should be an appointments body for each of the English regions and for Wales. That would enable local knowledge to be used in making recommendations for appointments in precisely the same way as has been done up until now by the regional health authorities.
During the Committee stage the Minister also said that in future candidates' appointments would be sifted locally and that the sifting panel,
"may include an independent member".—[Official Report, 30/3/95; col. 1725.]
But the fact that the sifting panel may include an independent member is not good enough. It seems to me that that leaves too much to local discretion and to the continuing suspicion that appointments are being arranged on a cosy and friendly basis rather than in an open environment.
The Minister also said that she would re-emphasise the role of the regional chairmen in the new process. When I reread the Official Report I was not sure who precisely this would refer to under the new system. I imagine that the Minister refers to the person who will be appointed to be the regional member of the health service executive. That person will of course be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be just one
708
of a few people who will be members of the executive board of the health service. That again seems to me—if it is to be the case that the emphasis is to be placed on the role played by that person—to continue the suspicion that all appointments are made on the basis of a cosy, internal collaboration rather than in an open and rigorous fashion.
I remind your Lordships that the Minister also said in Committee, in response to our amendments on appointments, that the,
"views of people who are more detached from the NHS can also be valuable".—[Official Report, 30/3/95; col. 1725.]
That is exactly what the amendment seeks to formalise and to make statutory. We know that the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on standards in public life has received more representations on National Health Service appointments than on any other subject. We also know that members of the noble and learned Lord's committee described the present proposals for changing the system of appointments—which were described in the February document and by the chief executive of the health service in his evidence to the Nolan Committee—as "inbred". They also said that they were disappointed that there was no compulsory independent element in the new proposals that were to be introduced.
During the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that the Government would consider carefully any recommendations which came from the Nolan Committee on this subject. I would ask her to consider this amendment carefully. It seems to me that by accepting it she could well pre-empt what could be an important future recommendation from the Nolan Committee, which could be embarrassing for the Government if an independent selection procedure has not been placed on the face of this Health Authorities Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. Of course many of us are aware of the extent of government patronage and of the concern that it should be responsibly used. However, I am not at all sure that I see anything reassuring in this amendment because it does nothing more than require the Secretary of State to set up an advisory committee. At the moment he is allowed to take advice from whomever he will; under the Bill as it would be amended, he would merely be required to get the same people into one room with a chairman, so nothing whatever would change. I suspect that not very long after that the noble Baroness would seek an opportunity to move an amendment which would require there to be a committee of advisers on who should be appointed to that committee and thus to get it out of the Secretary of State's hands. This manifestly does not do that.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support my noble friend in the amendment she has moved. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is trying to damn it with faint praise, or perhaps faint criticism. The principle is openness. We must have an open system which is seen to be above criticism or above charges of favouritism. In many areas of life in this country over the past decade or so more and more matters have been made open. It is time

709
National Health Service appointments for non-executive directors were made open. The kind of questions which are emerging in the business area as regards the responsibilities of non-executive directors and their liabilities will also emerge as regards the National Health Service as it becomes more and more market oriented. When that happens we may find that some of the people who fill non-executive appointments may not he up to scratch because they may not have the expertise required of non-executive directors in the business area. I believe it would be a good idea if we adopted the amendment moved by my noble friend. If the noble Lord opposite wants to makes it a statutory and completely independent body, perhaps we should move an amendment to that effect.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Elton said. The noble Baroness opposite moved this amendment with her usual skill and made a persuasive case for it. However, I am not convinced, even by the cogent way in which she put her arguments, that we are really in need of another advisory committee. This country is not perhaps as rich as it was in the amount of advice and counselling which is made available at almost all levels, regardless of its value.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I also do not see the point of this amendment. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to give good reasons why we should dismiss it. As my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil has just said, it seems to me the amendment would make things just as top heavy, or more top heavy. We want less of that. The amendment has not impressed me. I believe the National Health Service is open; it is not a closed shop.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was not present in the Chamber during the Committee stage and I greatly regret that. I rise to put a question. In moving the amendment my noble friend referred to the Nolan Committee. We are led to believe that its report will be brought forward fairly quickly. If the committee made a recommendation relating to the National Health Service and its structure and its appointments but the Government had decided to reject this amendment, what would they do? Would they take another stage of the Bill to find a way to respond to the Nolan Committee? I should have thought that in view of the importance of the Nolan Committee—I refer to its chairman, its membership and its role—they would want to respond in a positive way. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point when she replies to the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I hope she will be sure to deal with the point raised by my noble friend on why the arrangement we are discussing is in place in Scotland but not in England and Wales. I noticed that she said that point was made by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts (NAHAT) in its evidence to the Nolan Committee, and it obviously supported that point. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in her reply and that she will explain to the House exactly why the provision is required in Scotland but not, apparently, in England and Wales.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should have thought that the Government would welcome the opportunity to have an advisory committee such as is suggested in order that fair play should be seen to be done. There is a certain amount of evidence that health authority and trust non-executive members have been drawn from those rather close to the Government and the Conservative Party. If there were to be such an advisory committee, that accusation would not be made so often. I should have thought that would be very much to the Government's advantage in the eyes of the electorate.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the point that has just been raised is one of which I have studiously fought shy during the course of these debates. However, the noble Lord will be aware that even in your Lordships' House there are Members who sit not on our Benches but on the Benches opposite who are closely involved in the health service. We very much value the contribution that they make. It is wrong to believe that one has to be a paid-up member of the Tory Party to get a position on a trust or health authority.
So far as concerns Scotland, I believe that this procedure is a new one and that the committee has not as yet made many appointments. We will watch with interest to see how that committee operates. There is an issue about size. What we propose is not totally unlike the Scottish system but it is relevant to our regions, each of which is roughly the size of Scotland.
We endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—whom I am delighted to see back on your Lordships' Benches—that the NHS should be an open organisation. As the noble Baroness has said, on 14th February my right honourable friend the Secretary of State published new guidelines for the appointment of chairmen and non-executive directors of NHS authorities and trusts. The guidelines, which draw together examples of existing best practice in appointment procedures, demonstrate our commitment to a fair and open appointments system based on merit, not patronage. The new guidelines make it clear that potential candidates for non-executive appointments will be sifted by a panel of at least three people. These people will be serving chairmen and non-executive directors of local NHS authorities and trusts. We believe that people who are already working as non-executives are well placed to judge whether a candidate is suited to the demands of service as a non-executive director.
We recognise the need to avoid possible accusations of bias in the appointments system. We have said in the guidelines that the members who do the sifting must not be drawn from the same health authority or trust board and that the panel may include an independent member. We have suggested that this may he, for example, a member of a local community health council or a local justice of the peace. The new guidelines are designed to be flexible to meet local demands without compromising standards in the appointments process. This is reinforced when we look at the role of the sifting panel. The guidelines make clear that all new candidates for non-executive appointment will be sifted against agreed criteria to ensure that all those recommended for appointment possess the skills, personal qualities and experience required.

711
It is this use of nationally agreed criteria against which experienced NHS chairmen and non-executives will judge candidates for non-executive appointment that is the most important element of the sifting process, and will ensure that those recommended for appointment are of a uniformly high standard.
Perhaps I may clarify the position of regional chairmen in future. If the Bill is passed and regional health authorities are abolished, it is our intention to retain a non-executive who will be a member of the policy board and will have the role and title of regional chairman. That person will be the chairman of the health authority and the trust chairman within that region. It is important that that person is involved in the appointments process. Indeed, the guidelines emphasise that he should be. Ministers will look to regional chairmen to make their own assessments of candidates before making their recommendations to Ministers. This means that the suitability of any individual candidate will be double-checked to ensure that the process has been conducted objectively and fairly. Those finally appointed—your Lordships will be aware that many are called but few are chosen—will rest in the knowledge that they really are the best people for the job.
I endorse the views expressed by my noble friends. One can go on and on with further tiers of advice as to who eventually appoints these people. We believe there is no need to strengthen the arrangements that are already in hand. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured and will not press this amendment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has dealt with the Scottish position with great care. I was concerned that she might tell us about the Welsh position before this debate ended. When I was at home in Wales over the Recess two or three people who were deeply concerned about the National Health Service asked me why Wales was being treated as if it was a region of England. Of course, it is not; it is a separate nation in these islands and has the right to be treated with the same respect as Scotland, which seems to be treated with respect at all times. Before we complete this Bill I hope that she can satisfy us that there is a good reason for not giving Wales the same independence in this matter as Scotland has enjoyed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much concur with the noble Lord that Wales should have equal respect. However, the position is rather different under this Bill. There have never been regional health authorities in Wales, so that whole tier has been absent in Wales. A good deal of this Bill is concerned with the abolition of regions and therefore is not relevant to Wales. The parts of the Bill that are relevant to Wales are those which merge district health authorities and family health service authorities. Therefore, they come into this Bill. We shall be discussing an amendment later today that is concerned with the particular agency that covers Wales in terms of procurement.
712
With regards to appointments, I understand that that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. No doubt he will take note of what we do in this Bill. I am sure that he will wish to reflect on it and possibly follow the same system.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There is a difficulty in regard to the position of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn said that the Minister had spoken very carefully on that subject. I believe that that is the appropriate expression. Although she described the situation in Scotland very well, she did not explain precisely why there was such a clear difference in the Government's mind between what was happening in Scotland and what could potentially happen in England and Wales.
It is a little difficult to understand why, if one is to create what is de facto roughly the same situation in terms of openness as will exist in Scotland—the Minister has said that there are many similarities in the situation—it is not possible to go the whole way and make the advisory committee a statutory one. There remains the difficulty raised by my noble friend Lord Ennals—to which the Minister did not respond—about what will happen if the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, makes a recommendation to the effect that there should be an independent advisory body similar in nature to that proposed in this amendment. Will the Government then feel the necessity to bring forward additional legislation or will they ignore that provision, which I suspect may prove to be a little politically difficult?
In view of my concerns about the answers that have been given and the fact that the health service should be seen to be entirely open, in particular that appointments should be conducted in an objective and open manner, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Airedale, L.

Ennals, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ezra, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falkender, B.

Avebury, L.

Fitt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Freyberg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Chorley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hooson, L.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

713

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Wigoder, L.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hives, L.

Aldington, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hothfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Howe, E.

Annan, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Astor, V.

Ironside, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Blaker, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [L. Chancellor]

Burnham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V. [L. Privy Seal]

Northesk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Digby, L.

Pym, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Forbes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Selborne, E.

Geddes, L.

Shannon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Slim, V.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

714

Sudeley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Tebbit, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Tollemache, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("() No order shall be made under subsection (1) above until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the establishment of each Health Authority proposed by that order is such as to ensure that every Health Authority includes persons who, by virtue of specialised training in health care disciplines and experience in health care work, can bring to health authorities perspectives derived from their professional training and expertise.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the new health authorities include members whose professional qualifications and training gives them special expertise on those matters which will be at the centre of the health authorities' business. The House will recall that at Committee stage several amendments were proposed from different parts of the Chamber—from the Government Back-Benches and the Cross-Benches as well as from the Opposition—to make it compulsory for, for example, general practitioners, nurses and health visitors to be members of the new boards. All of those amendments were unsuccessful.
The Minister's main argument for opposing the amendments seemed to be that the Government now dislike the idea of representatives of any body being members of the new health authorities, although I remind the House that that has been the practice in the family health service authorities which now exist and will continue in existence until the new health authorities take over in April 1996.
The Minister was also anxious that prescribing any specific professional group for a reserved place was bound to create resentment from other bodies which felt that they had an equal right to a position on a health authority.
It is for those reasons that the present amendment is drawn in such general terms. As I am sure the Minister recognises, the terms are taken directly from the draft guidelines on professional involvement in the work of the health authorities which were issued by the Department of Health on 20th January this year. That detailed document, offering consultation and guidance to the new health authorities which may, if the Bill goes through, become the health authorities responsible next year, states in its opening paragraph:
"These changes make essential closer and more effective involvement by doctors, nurses (including midwives and health visitors) and other professional staff in the work of authorities, uniprofessionally, multi-professionally and on a multi-disciplinary basis. Careful attention therefore needs to be given to the means by

715
which health care professionals make an input to decision making. This guidance makes clear the requirement on health authorities to ensure that the professions are involved in the full range of health authority work".
The guidance defines professionals as,
"people who, by virtue of specialised training in health care disciplines in health care work, can bring to health authority issues perspectives derived from their professional training and experience".
Those are the words of the amendment.
At Annex C of the draft guidelines, the Department of Health gives a list of examples where professional input is, in its view, essential. It is a long and detailed list, but it includes, for example, maintaining a district wide view of healthcare purchasing, clinical effectiveness—needing to ensure that health authorities work closely with hospital clinicians on strategies for improving clinical effectiveness—inspection and registration of nursing homes, planning health care services for people with disabilities, child protection, midwifery supervision, AIDS, mental health and mental health Act doctors.
The guidelines document concludes by describing methods for monitoring professional involvement and ensuring compliance because,
"appropriate professional involvement is fundamental to the effective working of authorities".
It is fundamental, and yet the Government have so far rejected the idea of ensuring that professionals are members of the health authority. The Government prefer to rely on the professionals giving advice and being consulted. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, stated in Committee when her amendment to include a primary care worker was not accepted, consultation is not the same as being on the authority.
During Committee stage, the Minister referred to the fact that health authorities have every right to appoint members who come from a professional background. At col. 1531 of the Official Report of 28th March, the noble Baroness said:
"I am sure that many health authorities will have non-executive members with experience in primary care and, indeed, experience in the acute sector and in community care. Everyone who is suitably qualified will be welcome to apply for appointment, provided there is no conflict of interest".
However, there seems to me to be a great difference between that enabling position (perhaps I may so call it) and ensuring by statute that appropriate professionals are involved in the new health authorities at board level. Like the Minister I, too, am sure that many good authorities will include, for example, GPs, nurses and pharmacists among their members. But if such inclusion is not required, other authorities are just as likely to fill their membership with businessmen or accountants, many of whom in my personal experience have neither professional nor personal experience of the National Health Service.
It is worth reminding the House that the requirement for health authorities to secure advice and consult with professionals was inserted by the Government in Schedule 1 of the Bill only at Report stage in another place. It is interesting to note that in Committee the Minister stated at col. 1599 of the Official Report of
716
28th March that the provision to ensure that advice is given—it is now Schedule 1(3) to the Bill—was introduced so that,
"[professional] involvement in health authority decisions should not simply be left as a matter of good practice".
That is precisely what the amendment seeks to re-emphasise: that we should not rely simply on good practice.
The Minister having heard the persuasive arguments from all parts of the House about the need for professional membership of the new authorities, I hope that the Government will now be able to go one step further than they did when ensuring appropriate consultation and will accept the amendment. The logic of their own position was demonstrated by the new Department of Health guidance on professional involvement in the new health authorities from which I quoted: that professional involvement with the new health authorities is essential. Surely the proper way to achieve such involvement is to make those with specialised training and experience in health—the amendment cites those people and they are cited in the new guidance—full members of the new board. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Robson. Unfortunately my noble friend is not able to be present due to ill health. I offer, too, the apologies of my noble friend Lord Tope who is unable to be present due to important business meetings.
The amendment effectively states that members of the board should have a working knowledge of their subject. In many other fields I have sought to argue that one should have expertise on a subject because one is then able to respond to information given. One may well miss the issues upon which advice is needed because one cannot spot them. The position is that simple. If one knows one's subject well, one is able to call for more advice where it is required.
The amendment does not state that we should not be able to call for advice from others outside the health authority. It merely provides that those members of the authority should know where to start looking for such advice. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have a certain sense of déjà vu. I have lost count over the years of the Bills on which I have assisted which create some body with statutory powers. We go into almost a ritual dance about who shall be members of that body. We start by listing all the people who should be members. We then come to the conclusion that the number of members is finite; and we remember that some desirable people will not be members of the body. We remind ourselves of the old rule, expressio unius, exclusio alterius, which means that if you name six people who ought to be members of the body, the suggestion is that the other 83 people ought not to be on it. Remembering that, we decide not to have names. We then normally go back to the original position: that the body shall be described by its functions and not by its components.

717
The noble Baroness has put forward an ingenious half-way house. I ask the Government to consider the amendment with a little care. Although she has done a great deal to avoid offending sensibilities such as those I have already described, she has made it justiciable. It seems to me that if her amendment were put on the face of the Bill, it would be open to anyone who wished to impede progress, or who was hostile to the general principle of the health authorities, to go to court and argue that the requirements had not been fulfilled. As to whether or not the requirements were fulfilled would take a great deal of argument. There seems merit in ensuring that such a body is composed in a way which enables it to fulfil its function properly. I should have thought that the way to achieve that is to give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box in a speech during which my noble friend courteously dismisses the amendment, and the noble Baroness opposite courteously accepts that assurance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, for my part I shall take that good advice. However, saving my noble friend's sorry sense of déjà vu, we feel that professional membership is an important issue and one on which feelings run high.
As I said during Committee stage, I agree that professionals including GPs, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, art therapists and psychotherapists, psychologists, dieticians, health visitors, midwives, optometrists, radiographers, scientists, biochemists, geneticists, researchers, paramedics, chiropodists and podiatrists, to name but a few, have a vital contribution to make to the decisions of health authorities. I am sure that many health authorities will have members with professional experience, whether in primary care, in the acute sector, or in community care. Everyone who is suitably qualified will be welcome to apply for appointment, provided there is no conflict of interest.
However, professional input and advice are much broader than the relatively narrow professional contribution which one or two members can provide. My list illustrates the point of how difficult it is when so many professionals are involved in a single service. Of course, on a personal basis, such members can bring extremely valuable qualities; but we feel that that is no substitute for broader professional involvement.
The draft guidelines, Professional Involvement in Health Authority Work, referred to by the noble Baroness, were circulated widely to the professions and the NHS. They show other ways in which health authorities will be expected to involve professionals. For example, some authorities have already established multi-disciplinary teams with responsibility for reviewing, planning and purchasing certain services. Others have commissioned reviews of priority services such as mental health from teams involving professionals from both primary and secondary care. Of course, all health authorities will employ professionals—nurses, for example, in senior positions—who will ensure that health authority work is informed by professional views, without necessarily being members of the health authority.
718
There are many other ways for professionals to be involved. The guidelines talk in detail of how professional involvement can be made effective without being prescriptive on the arrangements health authorities should put in place. So health authorities can adapt the suggested models to suit their individual needs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, the Government made clear how seriously they take the issue by tabling an amendment in another place. The amendment adds force to the draft guidelines by requiring health authorities to make arrangements to ensure that nursing and other professional advice is available to them. It leaves in no doubt the importance of professional involvement. My honourable friend the Minister for Health made clear in another place that any authority that did not seek professional advice or did not listen to it when it was volunteered would not be complying with its statutory duty.
In conclusion, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I am fully confident that the close monitoring of professional involvement planned by the regional offices will ensure that health authorities involve professionals across the range of their work. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and particularly for her emphasis once again that the Government and the National Health Service Executive appreciate the importance of professional involvement in health authorities. I am glad that they are prepared to be firm in their monitoring of that involvement, as is seen in the guidelines.
I am not sure that my Latin is quite up to translating it precisely, but I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for giving me the instant phrase for the discussions which we had at such great length in Committee. I wish that he had been here to interject the phrase.
However, I am still anxious about the point. The draft guidelines from the Department of Health describe the professional involvement as seen by the department as essential, with which I agree. If it is intended to encompass the many functions of the health authorities—as I hope the brief list which I gave from the draft guidelines suggests—that cannot necessarily be accomplished simply by relying on advice. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not in her place. She said in Committee that there is a great difference between being consulted and being a member of an executive board.
For those reasons and since I, like the Minister, feel that it is absolutely essential that professional guidance be involved in health authority work in the future, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment.
4.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Freyberg, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Addison, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Ailsa, M.

Davidson, V.

Aldington, L.

De Freyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Elles, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blaker, L.

Elton, L.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Blyth, L.

Forbes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Geddes, L.

Burnham, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Cadman, L.

Goschen, V.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Chesham, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hemphill, L.

Courtown, E.

Henley, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hives, L.

Craigavon, V.

Holderness, L.

Cranborne, V. [L Privy Seal]

HolmPatrick, L.

720

Hothfield, L.

Northesk, E.

Howe, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Huntly, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Pender, L.

Killearn, L.

Pym, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rawlings, B.

Knollys, V.

Rennell, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Renwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lindsay, E.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Selborne, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [L. Chancellor]

Strange, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tebbit, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Tollemache, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Vivian, L.

Norfolk, D.

Whitelaw, V.

Norrie, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert:
("Strategic Health Planning Authority for London.
"8A.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State by order to establish a Strategic Health Planning Authority for London.
(2) The membership of the Authority shall be established in accordance with Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which is very similar to Amendment No. 8, debated in Committee in this House, I make no apology. Some confusion prevailed last time. The amendment defined the region of London as,
"the area of the London Boroughs".—[Official Report, 28/3/95; col. 1552.]
As several noble Lords pointed out, inner and outer London boroughs differ greatly in their socio-economic make-up. The inner London boroughs have much greater social and health needs due to their high levels of social deprivation. It is possible to consider a strategic authority covering entirely or mainly the health authorities which cover the inner London boroughs. That is the spirit in which I want to consider the proposal in this amendment.
The inner London boroughs have, on the whole, quite similar needs. They have quite high levels of unemployment; not very good housing; high levels of immigration; and degrees of poverty that we do not see so much in the outer London boroughs, whose make-up is rather similar to that of the Home Counties, which have a more affluent population in better housing, for example.
There is a need for close co-operation among inner London health authorities. Their populations are concentrated. As the Tomlinson Report, Making London Better and the London Implementation Group task force have pointed out, there is opportunity for the rational siting and sharing of specialist care units.
Primary care is relatively poorly developed in all the inner London boroughs. It will be best helped by co-ordinated action to raise standards. That is shown, for example, by action on the London Implementation Zone. Co-operation between health authorities and local authority social services departments is a crucial element in making care in the community efficient. In fact, the concept of a primary care led health service depends on that.
The noble Baroness Lady Miller, said in Committee that the work of the London Implementation Group was now complete. I suggest that there is still plenty of ongoing work for such a body, as there is for the London Implementation Zone, which relates to primary care. This amendment would allow the work of those two task forces to be built upon in a constructive way.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the population of London—its size, depending on whether you take the population of the inner London boroughs or include Greater London—would be comparable to that of each of the eight existing regions, which are to be succeeded by the regional offices of the NHS Executive.
This amendment is reasonable. This is a very good opportunity, while changes are being made in the structure of the health service, seriously to consider setting up a suitable strategic authority for London as described in this amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. The same issue was raised from these Benches in Committee. London is a very large and diverse area. Strategic planning in virtually all fields would be beneficial for so large an area. Health provision is certainly no exception.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to speak at this stage, even though I did not speak in Committee. I shall refer only to the concrete experience that I have. I declare an interest as chairman of a small drug intervention agency, City Roads, which deals with drug crisis problems.
Since the care in the community legislation was passed, this small group has had to deal with all the various boroughs of London separately. When it comes to issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, it is quite clear that there will need to be some sort of co-ordinating agency for different drug intervention agencies. Although these have to deal legally and contractually with individual boroughs, the problem is London-wide, if not larger. In the absence of an authority such as that proposed in the amendment before us, ad hoc co-ordinating committees are liable to be set up separately for different topics. Then there will be the
722
problem of setting up co-ordination across those different co-ordinating bodies, be it for drugs, mental health, alcohol abuse or whatever.
It would make much more sense at present initially to set up a strategic health authority that can deal with all those problems. They will not go away. While some matters can be dealt with at individual health authority level and individual trust level, there will be cross-authority problems. The amendment deals with that issue; therefore I support it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Rea. As we all know, the position in London moves very rapidly and changes very often. I was extremely interested to hear the remarks on London that the Secretary of State for Health made on television yesterday afternoon. Among other things, she said that London has had entrenched problems over many years. I believe that we would all concur with that point. She also said that the London health service is not good enough now, and that some health authorities have not planned well enough and not done well enough to meet the various problems with which London deals. All of that speaks to the argument for having some kind of strategic authority which can enable the Government, the Department of Health and the Secretary of State, to have some influence of a more direct kind so that future Secretaries of State will not need to say that the London authorities have not done well enough and feel that that is something that they can only remotely influence.
In introducing the amendment, my noble friend Lord Rea spoke about the London Implementation Group. He mentioned that it was a task force which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, told us in Committee had completed its work.
Obviously the task force has completed its work, but the measures, the problems and the issues that it was set up to deal with have certainly not been solved. It would be useful to translate the London Implementation Group, with its various task force functions, into something with a longer life and a more strategic overview.
I was invited by the Minister, when we talked last week in your Lordships' House about the end of term report on the London Implementation Group, to visit with her the various projects in primary care which have been developed under that initiative and which she felt were very suitable examples of its success. But, without wishing to lend coin or credence to what is an unattractive word, I think that is what is described in the jargon as "projectitis". There is very little strategy attached to what the London Implementation Group has achieved and, in terms of the end of its life this month, a lack of evaluation.
If I look at some of the issues which have arisen during its life—and which have risen again, acutely, in the past few weeks—I can mention, among others, the pace of change in London. How quickly are we to implement the moves towards making primary care the most important method of delivering care to Londoners and weaning—if that is the appropriate word—them away from using the acute services for primary care?

723
How quickly should we engage in more bed closures in the London area? How can we effectively improve primary care in a population which has little understanding of the necessity to register with GPs? I described in Committee how many local health authorities in London have had a reduction in numbers of the population registered with GP fund holders. How do we deal with improving primary care in a floating population, with all the great social distress and deprivation, which, as people know—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to it again this afternoon—is particularly acute in the London boroughs? How do we organise the specialties which have been reviewed following Professor Tomlinson's report?
All of these are issues which need to be dealt with strategically. They are not susceptible to the task force "projectitis" approach of the London Implementation Group.
I was interested in the February report of the inner London chief executives on hospital services for London. It was obviously an informal group of people which got together, I believe, in response to the special lecture given by Professor Jarman about inner London health needs. The chief executives' report said:
"the broad strategic direction that has been set for London is correct, but at a number of points clear and strong management action is required by our Authorities if it is to be achieved in a manner which is clearly seen to benefit patients".
It goes on to say:
"We also believe that action needs to he taken at Regional and/or national level in relation to a number of the findings in the studies".
It cited, for example, the questions of management of admissions and discharges, of calculating bed requirements and whether or not trusts were in a position to make the appropriate calculations on the basis of their business cases, It also said that there should be an overall review of the yellow and red alert mechanisms across London, and of the role that the emergency bed service should play in the future.
Those are just some of the issues which the inner London chief executives clearly felt were appropriate for collective working and a strategic view.
Of course we can continue to have ad hoc committees working on these matters—as indeed the chief executives did on this particular subject—but it would be much more sensible if we had in place a strategic health authority with the additional authority and status necessary to achieve solutions to so many of the medium and long-term problems of London. I support my noble friend.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already made it clear that the Government's commitment to improving health services for London is very great. The direction has been well set out. The strategy was clearly laid out in Making London Better, which also set out the framework for action: to develop better, more accessible primary and community health services; to provide a better balanced hospital service to meet the needs of London's resident working and visiting population in the most appropriate way; to develop and enhance specialist services that continue to provide a high quality service; and to take action that will benefit and enhance London's excellence in medical teaching and research.
724
Progress on all these fronts was announced earlier this month with proposals for change in services in north, east and south east London.
The Government established the London Implementation Group to provide a short-term boost and extra support to existing health agencies in London in the considerable task before them.
As my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned in Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned it again this afternoon—the work of the London Implementation Group is now complete. A great deal has been achieved and London's health authorities and trusts are now moving forward this great agenda for change. But, as I emphasised in Committee—and as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said this afternoon—London cannot be treated as a single entity. It is a large and diverse city, often characterised by extremes. Areas that receive huge influxes of people by day—for example, in the city and the West End—have much smaller resident populations. As the noble Lord said, the needs of the Inner city are in contrast to those of its suburbs. Account must be taken of London's size and the character of its local populations. Collaboration must take place between a range of health and social care agencies if the needs of Londoners are to be met. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on that point. The health service in London has made good progress in achieving major change to give Londoners access to a comprehensive range of services. Much of that work has been taken forward at a local level.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, about "projectitis" or with her philosophy in coining that phrase. It is at local level that the real difference will be made and where better services will be experienced by Londoners. There can be the most cerebral strategies, but they are worthless if they are not translated into real services of a higher quality experienced by Londoners; for instance, through better premises for GPs.
Nevertheless, I would not dismiss the fact that some strategic overview of the needs of the whole of London is still needed. A London focus has been retained at the highest level by the North and South Thames Regional Offices working with the NHS Executive, the Primary Health Care Forum and the Primary Care Support Force. That focus will ensure that a wider view is retained.
The London focus will mean that health authorities and trusts in London will be able to maintain a broader strategic vision across the capital. They will share experience and good practice in implementing and managing the pace of change in London's health care. This has already been demonstrated by the London Initiative Zone which focuses on improving primary care in those parts of London where need is greatest. Within the zone, health authorities have identified priorities for their local communities and have moved towards closer working partnerships, including local authorities and the voluntary sector, in tackling the problems of underdeveloped services in the community. These working partnerships have not required the establishment of a strategic, overarching, authority.

725
They have emerged as part of the responsibilities of existing health authorities to work with other agencies. I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I was slightly puzzled when my noble friend mentioned the word "projectitis". The way I heard it it was "project Titus"—which I thought might be a Roman monument built in anticipation of developments in the future Yugoslavia. I now understand that it is a form of disease.
All the words of the noble Baroness could easily have been taken as an argument for establishing a strategic body for London such as we suggest in the amendment. All the things that she said had been established by the London Implementation Group and were being done in the London implementation zone—how there was need for co-operation between the different health authorities and local authorities in London—seem to me to cry out for such an overall strategic body as we propose. However, it is perfectly clear that the Government are not taking our advice. I cannot count on mobilising support for the amendment today. It is possible that we may try yet again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Annual report on activities of regional offices of NHS Executive
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the activities of the regional offices of the National Health Service Management Executive in respect of the discharge of all duties and functions transferred to those offices upon the abolition of Regional Health Authorities.
(2) In this section, "regional office" means any office of the National Health Service for the time being designated by the Secretary of State to have responsibility for the oversight of the finances and activities of the National Health Service purchasing authorities and trusts on a regional basis.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the activities of the new regional offices of the National Health Service Executive and to report in respect of the discharge of all duties and functions transferred to those offices upon the abolition of the RHAs. The second subsection of the new clause defines "regional office".
The purpose of the new clause is clear. It will create a mechanism by which Parliament can be informed of the outcome of this legislation and can monitor its effects in practice as opposed to its claimed intent. The enthusiasm of the Government for open government and accountability has often been asserted. If their real intention is, as they claim, to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, increase efficiency and create savings, the new clause will raise no problems for them and will present an opportunity for the Government to report back and parade their achievements.
We know that in 1991, as part of the Government's so-called reforms, regional health authorities were given greater powers because it was judged that a strategic
726
authority at regional level was required. As we went through the Bill and began to see how this legislation might work, two matters became very clear. First, the Bill will allow much greater secrecy, and indeed concealment, in hospitals and trusts. We have tabled some amendments to deal with that matter. Secondly, in line with everything else the Government have done in a number of fields of activity, this legislation will ensure that all roads lead back to the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I may repeat a point I raised in Committee. At present, regional directors of public health have a duty to produce an annual public report on health care in their region. Historically, the role of practitioners of public health medicine as potential whistle blowers for public safety is one of the glories of British medicine and British public service. But at regional level—this point was underlined in an exchange I had with the Minister in Committee—they will become civil servants, bound by the Official Secrets Act 1911. Their duty will not be to the public but to the Secretary of State.
So what will happen to the annual public health report on health care in their region? Who will make that report? Can it be done by civil servants at the regional level? As the Minister underlined in Committee, they will be bound as civil servants under all the normal rules. In fact, will that reporting just stop?
The only remotely independent voice in the new structure that the Bill creates is that of the community health councils. Their chief executives, full time salaried public servants, are presently employed by the regional health authorities. What will happen to them?
I turn to statistics and information. At present the RHA collects statistics at regional level in the service of the public and, if requested, much of that information is made public. We shall also deal with that point in a later amendment regarding the codes of practice on openness. The only information that anyone can currently obtain about matters such as hospital closures come from the RHAs. The Department of Health, for understandable reasons, does not want to know about that. It tells us that in future the regional offices will collect only the statistics that the department wants for its own purposes in administering the system. Will that include information about hospital closures, for example? Will it include the closure of accident and emergency departments, or other such decisions, which impinge directly on the pattern of available health care across the region and which are certainly of public interest whether or not the department wishes to know them.
It was confirmed again in Committee that if the decisions deal with policy, however defined, the Minister will answer questions in Parliament but operational matters will be referred to the executives. So apart from the information that the regional health authorities will no longer collect, any request for information from Members of Parliament on operational matters will in future be referred to individual authorities or trusts. So there will not be the same responsibility for the flow of information to the public or their representatives for the use of public money.
The mechanism proposed in the new clause will allow Parliament to explore how those and other functions of existing RHAs are being carried out under the new structure; or, if they are not being carried out, to consider the effects of the change. We know that the vital responsibilities of the present RHAs are to stay at regional office level and be lifted into the power of the NHS Executive. On those grounds there remain severe doubts, including among health professionals, whether the new authorities that the Bill creates in place of the regions will have the expertise to plan and co-ordinate the existing activities of those regional health authorities. We have tabled a number of amendments to try to make sure that they do have the expertise that is required. The Government have resisted any attempt to put that on the face of the Bill.
All this shows is that whether at regional office level or away from that level there is a continuing and important role to be played by those who are charged with carrying out the duties which are currently the responsibility of the RHAs. We feel that Parliament must have the chance to scrutinise the effects of the legislation, not only by discussing the regulations when they are proposed but by exploring every year the cumulative practical changes to which the Bill will give affect. The new clause will do that. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the new regional offices will he an integral part of the NHS Executive and therefore part of the reporting arrangements already in place for the Department of Health through the departmental annual report. That report, which is a Command Paper, is laid before Parliament and is available to the public. It describes in detail the department's expenditure and activities across all its responsibilities. All major developments during the year are included. Further information about NHS Executive activities is made public through a wide range of publications, including the NHS annual report and a new series of quarterly reviews as well as a range of statistical bulletins and issues-based newsletters. We already publish extensive information on performance management of the NHS and will continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed particular concern about the move from the regional health authorities to regional offices which will be part of the Civil Service. He felt that the move would mean a loss of openness. I can assure him and your Lordships that information held centrally, which is not of a confidential nature, is and will be available on request under the open government provisions. Regional offices are not the bodies which need to be independent. Their role will be different from that of the old regional health authorities. It is the new health authorities which will be taking decisions that directly affect local people. They will be independent in the same way as regional health authorities are now.
Regional health authorities are artificial entities in public health terms. There is no particular reason why public health should be dealt with in one geographical administrative area rather than another. The new health authorities will be much more appropriate
728
places for public health work. Their areas will be smaller than the regions and they can be more sensitive to local variations in health and health care needs. They will have better links with local government which is an important public health role.
The shift in responsibilities for public health from regional health authorities to the new health authorities means that it will no longer be appropriate to produce regional health reports. But there will continue to be over 100 district directors of public health reporting annually on public health issues, who are wholly independent, as now. Those directors can also work together on issues of common interest, supported as necessary by the regional director of public health. Public health reports will continue to be a key and welcome feature of the work of health authorities. Therefore, I cannot accept that the amendment is necessary. I hope very much that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I decide what to do with the amendment and because the Minister was helpful in referring to the departmental annual report, may I ask her whether she can tell the House what aspects of those "appropriate" activities will be spelled out in that report as opposed to being lost in the raft of general information that will be given on the work of the whole department? I am sure that the Minister understands that there is concern about whether there will be any attempt in the departmental annual report to try to tease out and explain what has happened in terms of the responsibilities to be transferred from the RHAs to the new executives. We need to know that, at least in the early years, so that we can ensure that those responsibilities are discharged effectively.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is in addition the Chief Medical Officer's annual report which deals specifically with the nation's health. That is produced yearly and receives wide publicity with a press conference and an explanation of it. It would also be possible to include in that report on the health of the whole nation the reports of the 100 or so health authorities which I mentioned. If the noble Lord is seeking much more managerial information, I can advise him that that is contained in the annual report of the NHS, which is produced by the chief executive, and in its quarterly reviews. There is also a range of statistical bulletins. Different types of information are available, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention to be secretive.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. The purpose behind the amendment was to get on the record what the Government intend to do. In the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Provision of information
(" . The provision of information by Health Authorities established under this Act shall be in accordance with those Codes of Practice which shall from time to time be issued by the National Health Service Management Executive or the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 17. Amendment No. 5 deals with the new Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS which has been published by the NHS Executive. It includes not only a number of welcome provisions, but also some puzzling ones with which I shall deal. It states correctly at the start that it,
"reflects the Government's intention to ensure greater access by the public to information about public services and complements the Code of Access to Information which applies to the Departments … including the NHS Executive".
We can all welcome that.
The introduction continues:
"Because the NHS is a public service, it should be open about its activities and plans. So, information about how it is run, who is in charge … should be widely available".
Under the heading "Aims", the code spells out the extremely important second aim that people,
"are provided with explanations about proposed service changes and have an opportunity to influence decisions on such changes".
The fourth aim is that people should,
"know what information is available and where they can get it".
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I referred to something that happened in my area of Wiltshire, which seemed to show that the whole of the consultation process had broken down badly. It is important to realise what is happening in a number of areas around the country. Perhaps I may again describe what happened and ask the Minister whether she feels that what happened was correct and whether it fits the code of practice that is before us. The example goes back to 1989 when a number of plans were published for reorganising the health plans in the district. There were public meetings—I attended some—and all were helpful. Everything was open. All sorts of plans were produced. New community hospitals were mentioned and there were discussions about the right sites for them. There was good local consultation and everybody was reasonably happy.
Things then went into cold storage because the plan depended to a large extent on the sale of some property. That sale did not take place because of the slump in the property market. Everything went quiet. However, everybody was still convinced that what had been promised would take place, but perhaps more slowly. Without anybody in the district knowing what was going on, a secret business plan was produced in September 1994 which completely reversed all the previous ideas and proposals. The promise of new community hospitals for several areas was removed. Hospitals were to be closed, without replacement. My area, with a catchment of about 35,000 people, was to have virtually all its services removed. That seemed to be because of the possibility of a housing development on one of the sites.
All of that was in secret, despite all the previous consultations. When the report was leaked earlier this year and people saw what was proposed, as you can imagine, all hell broke lose in the district and throughout the county. The authorities then hastily backtracked and started a consultation process.
As I have said, page 3 of the code states that people should be provided,
"with explanations about proposed service changes and have an opportunity to influence decisions on such changes".
All of us who have been involved in business know about business plans and that you do not spend a lot of time and money making such plans and then put them on the shelf as a theoretical exercise. The health authority involved had decided what it wanted to do—and that was a complete reversal of all the earlier plans. It was only because that secret business plan was leaked that we were able to achieve the fourth aim of the code, which is that people should know what information is available and where they can get it.
That is not the only such example around the country. As I said in Committee, the business of consultation starting after the authority has made up its mind is a farce. I hope that the Minister will be able to spell out exactly how the code of practice is supposed to work.
Before I turn to Amendments Nos. 11 and 17, I should like to deal with another interesting aspect of the code. I refer to the business of charging for information. Paragraph 7(b) on page 5 states:
"for requests from people not listed above"—
that is, press and other media; community health councils; MPs; local authorities and citizens' advice bureaux—
"no charge for the first hour and a charge not exceeding £20 per hour for each hour thereafter",
may be charged for time expended. In the case that I have just described, a local organisation has been formed, called Save Our Local Hospital. It does not have any real money and if it is asked to pay about £20 per hour after the first hour for such information, it will find it extremely hard to do so.
We had a good debate on the provisions of Amendment No. 11 in Committee, so there is no need to repeat the argument at length. When moving his amendment, Amendment No. 23, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, gave a full list of everything that has to happen in local government regarding the declaration of interests. About half a column of the Official Report is taken up with a list of all those things that members of local authorities are required to declare. When the Minister replied, she mentioned the implementation of the codes of conduct and accountability. The Government seemed to have to rest their case on that. However, she also said:
"Having introduced the codes of conduct and accountability, we have begun the process of monitoring their implementation. An initial early check will be completed next month"—
that was said on 30th March, so I presume that the results are due in April—
"and the results will be reported to Ministers shortly afterwards".— [Official Report, 30/3/95; col. 1734.]

731
Can the Minister tell the House when those results will be available? Indeed, will that report to Ministers be in the public domain and published? It is important that we know the way in which the code of conduct has worked in the early stages. A test of the Government's view of openness will be whether they make that information public.
The Minister's other answer which I found extremely unsatisfactory was her explanation of why health authorities are different from local authorities. She said that it is because local authorities raise taxes. She also said that the Government did not have any objection to the principle of the amendment. That is extremely important because, if they have no objection to the principle of the amendment, why not accept it or table a similar amendment themselves? Big sums of money are involved. We all know what happened at Wessex Regional Health Authority. We need not go into that again—it has been mentioned often enough. That is not the only case where a declaration of members' interests was vital.
Amendment No. 17 deals with "gagging clauses", as they are known. Again I am afraid that in Committee we had an unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, which is why we have tabled the amendment again. All sorts of examples were given in Committee about where health authority employees have been gagged, in effect, when they have tried—to use the jargon or slang—to blow the whistle, and I shall not repeat them. However, perhaps I may repeat a point I made on this amendment in Committee. The terms and conditions of service of hospital medical and dental staff used to contain a clause in paragraph 330 which stated:
"A practitioner shall be free, without prior consent of the employing authority, to publish books, articles, etc. and to deliver any lecture or speak, whether on matters arising out of his or her hospital services or not".
That is an absolute freedom. It is a safeguard for public health, the public good, and for the professionalism of medical staff which is the cornerstone of the NHS.
Another matter to which I referred in Committee, and to which I do not believe the Minister replied, was the concern relating to the additional financial incentive for trusts, as employers, to keep quiet matters which might have a negative impact on their marketing (these are customers, not patients, we should not forget) of hospitals to purchasers such as the GP fundholders, health authorities and the rest. For all those reasons, there is now real concern about the lack of openness about information.
There is a difference in ethos and approach between working for an NHS authority and working for the Department of Health. There are practical issues regarding the freedom of speech. We have had it confirmed that civil servants are responsible to the Secretary of State and are bound by the Official Secrets Act. Will concerns about standards and procedures be aired publicly? RHA staff have a strong commitment to the NHS. They consider themselves to be health service staff. While they currently work for an RHA, most expect their employment paths to cover the various parts of the service on both the provider and purchaser side.
There is a qualitative difference in being a civil servant working directly to the Secretary of State, whose career path could lead to other parts of the Civil Service outside the health service. The NHSE wishes to see more fluidity between the department and the service, but will that happen to any significant degree?
What will be the significance of all that for the service and ultimately for patients? RHAs are often rightly criticised as being remote and not attuned to the needs of the service. Will not the regional offices, staffed by people (however efficient personally) answerable directly to the Secretary of State, be worse? Is that not another example of the Government's tendency to centralise and direct under the rhetoric of devolution and the granting of freedom?
Will the Minister comment upon the footnote to page 3 of the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS? At the top under "Scope" it states:
"The Code of Practice covers the following NHS organisations".
The first it quotes is the RHAs. There is then a footnote which states:
"Under the Health Authorities Bill at present before Parliament, Regional Health Authorities would be abolished on 1 April 1996 and District Health Authorities would combine with Family Health Service Authorities to form a single local Health Authority. When necessary, this Code will be revised accordingly".
When is "necessary"? How will the code be revised? It is a NHSE publication, and so presumably the code, or parts of it, will apply to the new regional offices. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how the code will be amended to take account of the changes proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware of the Codes of Conduct and Accountability for NHS boards, issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 28th April 1994. Your Lordships will also be aware of the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS which the Secretary of State issued on 5th April 1995.
The Codes of Conduct and Accountability were warmly welcomed when they were issued last year, not least by your Lordships, and by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, a few moments ago. They were also welcomed by the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and Sir Adrian Cadbury himself.
There is wide acceptance that those codes have done much to ensure that the public service values of openness, probity and accountability remain at the heart of the management and operation of the NHS. They introduced new measures to enhance the accountability to their local communities of authorities and NHS trusts. All trusts and authorities now hold publicly available registers of board members' interests and those demonstrate to the public that the pursuit of private gain plays no part in any member's service to the board and to the organisation. Health authorities now produce annual reports. All boards have audit committees. All boards have remuneration and terms of service committees. Those are real steps forward in ensuring that the board is held accountable for the stewardship of public funds.

733
Your Lordships have previously drawn comparisons between the requirements placed on local authority councillors and what is required of health authority members. That is not comparing like with like. Local councillors are elected. Health authority chairmen and non-executive members are direct appointees of the Secretary of State and are accountable to her. They can be more easily moved if necessary. For example, the current regulations governing membership make it clear that the Secretary of State can terminate an appointment if a member has failed to comply with the requirement to disclose financial interests. The codes arc very specific about the requirement on chairmen and board members to declare any interest that may be relevant to NHS business, and that such information should be made available to the public in a register.
The Codes of Conduct and Accountability do not need to have legislative force to achieve their objectives. Current evidence is that NHS trusts and authorities are complying with the codes and that they are proving effective. To underline the importance of the new codes, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made compliance with them a condition of appointment for all board members. There is therefore no suggestion that the requirements of the codes are not taken seriously by NHS boards. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the results will be published. I shall have to write to him on that, because I am afraid that I do not know the answer.
The Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS was issued on 5th April and will be implemented throughout the NHS on 1st June. That code builds on the success of the Patient's Charter in making information available to the public. It aims to ensure that the public are well informed about the health service they fund; that they know what information is available and where they can obtain it.
The Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS is the first of its kind in the NHS. It is a code for the public: to help them understand what the NHS does for them and to enable them to hold their local NHS organisations to account. It sets out statutory requirements on publishing information and describes good practice in publishing other information. To give legislative force to that code would not enhance its effectiveness. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that she is introducing the code of practice in order to promote a climate of openness, to foster a culture of co-operation and confidence. We believe the code of practice, as a flexible and non-statutory code, will help to achieve that in the health service.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about matters that happened in his area. I should like to refer to part of Section 5 of the code of practice which states:
"details about important proposals on health policies or proposed changes in the way services are delivered, including the reasons for those proposals. This information will normally be made available when proposals are announced and before decisions are made; details about important decisions on health policies and
734
decisions on changes to the delivery of services. This information and the reasons for the decisions, will normally be made available when the decisions are announced".
That is, apart from exemptions later in the code, NHS trusts and authorities must publish or otherwise make available in the following information the matters that I have just discussed.
With regard to the rights of the regional office staff to speak out, the regional offices will have a different role to that of the RHAs. The new health authorities will be the operators in the new system. They will be taking the decisions that will directly affect local people. There will be no reduction in the rights of health authorities to represent publicly the needs of their populations.
The regional offices will contribute to the development of central policies for the National Health Service, monitor the health authorities and trusts in their areas and intervene managerially where this is needed. Those are responsibilities appropriate to the Civil Service and therefore it is right that the regional office staff should he civil servants.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was anxious about the charges for information. The code recommends that charging for information should be absolutely exceptional and that no charge should be made in the majority of cases. It also sets out where information must not be disclosed; for example, where details of other people are requested.
Clearly, the change in the rights of regional office staff to "speak out" is a change of status but it gives them more influence over central policies. As civil servants in the new order, they will have greater opportunities to shape central policies by offering advice to Ministers.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will feel a little more satisfied and will not believe it necessary to press the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was a little unclear about what the Minister said about the way in which the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS applied to the new regional offices. It states in the introduction that this builds on:
"and complements the Code of Access to Information which applies to the Department of Health, including the NHS Executive".
How will that apply to the regional offices?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as I said, the regional offices will have a different role from that of the RHAs. Under those circumstances, the regional offices will contribute to the development of central policies for the NHS and will monitor the trusts. Their responsibilities will therefore be appropriate to those of the Civil Service, so it is right that the regional office staff should be civil servants.

735
Perhaps I may comment on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He asked how the codes of practice will be amended. I do not have that information but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not object if I say that that was not a very satisfactory answer. I am glad that she has spelt out the information which must be provided under Section 5 of the code. In the example that I gave, almost everything was done in complete breach of what has been suggested and we shall want to follow that up.
The arrangements for direct appointees by the Secretary of State to the various bodies raise anxieties about the declaration of interests and we hope that the new code will help to prevent the recent bad examples. I am surprised that the department has not taken a policy decision on the publication of the results of the survey as regards the Code of Conduct and Accountability. I hope that it will not be described as an imputed motive if I suggest that perhaps the department is waiting to see what the survey says before deciding whether to publish it. That is not exactly the openness of government that we should all like to see.
Charging for information was mentioned as exceptional but presumably it will be left to the trusts and authorities to decide what is exceptional and what is not. That will be a considerable disincentive to the small local groups that are set up to try to save a hospital or to protest about a closure. They will be discouraged by the charge for information, which I believe is excessive.
We have heard about civil servants at the regional offices being able to influence central policies and so forth. I wonder what will happen to the civil servant who does not believe in the internal market and how far his or her career will progress under the change of responsibilities that we have discussed.
The answer is not satisfactory but it is the kind of answer that I expect from the Government when we are discussing openness and accountability. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage but we may wish to return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Special Authority for Wales
(" . After section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 there shall be inserted—
"Special Authority for Wales.
The Secretary of State shall, by order, establish a Special Authority for Wales which shall have such clinical and non-clinical duties of a specialized and all-Wales character as the Secretary of State shall in such an order determine and shall include (but not be limited to)—

(a) a blood transfusion service,

(b) an artificial eye and limb appliances service,

(c) a breast cancer screening service,

(d) a service relating to the examination, checking and pricing of prescriptions for drugs, medicines and appliances supplied by the National Health Service,

(e) a health complaints administrative service,

736

(f) a research, intelligence and health service management information system,

(g) such functions relating to capital works, the procurement of supplies, income generation and the provision of computer services on his behalf or on behalf of the Health Authorities as the Secretary of State may direct it to perform in the interests of the Welsh National Health Service,

(h) such other functions as the Secretary of State may direct it to perform on his behalf of a Health Authority."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I mentioned in our exchange on Amendment No. 1, I learnt during the recent Recess that there is considerable anxiety that in many ways Wales is being overlooked and neglected in the Bill. The amendment is intended to correct that neglect and to provide Wales with a number of services which I am sure the House will agree are essential. They were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies when he spoke in Committee on 28th March. My noble friend made a comprehensive case and went in detail into the various services affected by the Bill. He dealt with the work and contribution of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, which provides special services and has an excellent workforce of 1,750 experienced people.
I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, who set up that authority in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Since then, every Secretary of State for Wales has built on that authority and extended it. Its contribution to Welsh health has progressively been considerable.
I regret to have to say that the present Secretary of State, Mr. John Redwood, has taken an attitude quite different from his predecessors. He proposes to detach three of the clinical services because, he said, he wanted to bring them closer to the mainstream of the National Health Service. That is totally unnecessary. The three services were already an essential and integral part of the Welsh National Health Service.
The Secretary of State has also instructed the staff to find work in the private sector. I find that extremely difficult to understand. They appear to be the actions of a ruthless operator who places his dogma before the interests of the Welsh people. The special health authority was deliberately disbanded, without adequate consultation or concern for those whom it served so well.
I would like the Minister to explain why consultation did not take place; that is, consultation with Welsh general practitioners, the Welsh committee authorities and the county councils in Wales. They all work together effectively in the Principality, as those who know Wales are aware. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to tell the House what will happen to the 1,750 people whom I have mentioned because—and I must press this home—they have a very good reputation throughout Wales for the work which they are doing in their various areas. Will the Minister give an assurance that their jobs are safe?
I understand that the Secretary of State has said that they must find work in the private sector. May we he told where in the private sector in Wales those splendid people are to find work? We are entitled to an

737
explanation about that matter. Work is not easy to find in Wales and unemployment is high. In some parts unemployment is higher than others. In Gwynedd, where I live, I know from experience how difficult it is to find work. I must ask the noble Baroness to tell the House how work will be found in the private sector for 1,750 people. I do not wish to see those people having to leave Wales and cross the Severn to find work as they did in the 1920s and 1930s.
I know that both noble Baronesses are ladies of compassion. I am quite sure that they feel as strongly as I do and they certainly would feel strongly, as I do, if they went to Wales to find out the feelings of the people there. This amendment is reasonable. The Welsh people support it. It is necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me, I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to support as sincerely as I can the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. This is a positive amendment; it is not a destructive amendment. It is positive because it seeks to ensure the continued existence of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority—WHCSA, as we know it in Wales. This amendment is identical to that which was moved in Committee except that it does not include a new health promotion function. The simple reason for that is that we have no wish to complicate the debate by mixing up two arguments.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn demonstrated, the case for WHCSA stands on its own merits. It has given excellent service to the NHS in Wales since it was set up some 22 years ago. I should like to stress that the noble Baroness acknowledged in Committee the high quality and achievements of WHCSA and the dedication of its staff. Therefore, its contribution is not an issue. That was a helpful contribution by the Minister but the rest of her speech, which I have no doubt was written by someone else, was disappointing. That is why we are not content to let the matter rest.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, notwithstanding its achievements in April last year the present Secretary of State decided that the authority should be disbanded, dismantled. We heard the Secretary of State's reason; namely, that that organisation should move nearer to the mainstream NHS, as though it were standing in splendid isolation from it. In Committee, the Minister sought to defend that curious position on an additional but ambiguous ground. The Minister said:
"Trusts need freedom now to introduce different mechanisms and services to support them".
Two sentences later she added the extraordinary statement—particularly in view of the enormous growth of the Welsh Office—
"It is no longer tenable to have a large central organisation".— [Official Report, 28/3/95; col. 1595.]
Those statements by the Minister do not absolve the Welsh Office from giving evidence in support of their decision. But I am sure that there in the Minister's own
738
sentences we have the explanation. The reason is essentially ideological. That is the problem and that is the anxiety.
As I said, in Committee the Minister spoke of the need to give freedom to the NHS trusts. If that concept rightly claims a top priority—it has not been argued or demonstrated—why is it proposed to transfer the breast-screening service to a single authority; to transfer the artificial limb service to three authorities; and why is it that the blood transfusion service, thankfully, is to remain where it is? How can those arrangements for the breast-screening service and the artificial limb service give freedom to all the other trusts in Wales?
Have the risks, the damage and the injury which may flow from that decision been weighed properly in the Welsh Office? Has it occurred to the Welsh Office that the dismantling of WHCSA may do great damage to the health service of the future? As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, the Welsh people speak highly of that organisation and they wish the high WHCSA standards to continue. But such standards, expertise and commitment require an abundance of WHCSA skills, dedication, efficiency and experience. If the WHCSA structure is removed, there will be a risk—I put it no higher—that the support will not exist. Therefore, we ask the Minister whether that down-side has been considered properly.
It is our understanding, which I believe was confirmed by the Minister in Committee, that some rapid studies were undertaken by officials to see how the post-WHCSA services could best be organised, subject to the proviso that, in any calculation, WHCSA was to be eliminated from the computation. In Committee I asked that a copy of those studies be placed in the Library before Report stage. I thought that that was a helpful suggestion on my part. That would at least help us to get at the facts. That information had not been provided to the Library by five o'clock today. Why is it being withheld? But, as it is being withheld, how can we have any confidence that the right decision is being made?
If a businessman wishes to change the administration or management of a business, he works out the costs of doing so stage by stage. He identifies the risks and the new problems which may arise and compares the proposed arrangements with the present arrangements and assesses the effects. But, in relation to WHCSA, we have no means of knowing whether that essential exercise has been undertaken properly by the Welsh Office. We have no means of ensuring that the Welsh Civil Service has done its homework properly.
The Minister claimed on two occasions during her short speech in Committee that the promoters of the amendment were seeking to set,
"one particular set of administrative arrangements … in legislative concrete". [Official Report, 28/3/95; col. 1596.]
With respect to the Minister, whom the House holds in high regard, that does a disservice to the arguments that we have deployed.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn and myself are not interested in an academic argument about the merits or demerits of primary and delegated legislation. However, I would add that neither of them is set in concrete; they

739
can be changed. But if it pleases the Minister and her advisers, I am sure—although I have not discussed this with my noble friend—that we would be content to rely on the statutory instrument if she gave an undertaking to the House that there will be no substantial change in the role of WHCSA during the foreseeable future. Does that help the Minister?
I turn now to my final point. Sadly, the present Secretary of State declined—indeed, refused—to meet staff-side representatives to discuss such a curious decision which will affect their daily lives. Surely that is not the way to treat people. The Minister, who has to defend the decision taken by her colleague, tried to persuade us in Committee (at col. 1595 of Hansard) that, "Handling the process"— people are experiencing some difficulty in understanding that phrase—
"is a matter for WHCSA's own management".
The fallacy of the argument is clear. It ignores the fact that WHCSA's management is not empowered to decide whether the organisation does or does not have a future. Its future is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales in the Welsh Office. We say, without underlining it, that in his decision not to meet the staff representatives—indeed, representatives of 1,750 people—the Secretary of State went wrong. We hope that the Secretary of State's mind is not closed, at least on this issue, and that he will listen to argument.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, invited me to agree with him. However, I fear that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will be disappointed with my response. I try my best to agree with the noble Lord on most things, hut we have a difference of opinion in the matter.
One of the main purposes of the Bill is to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS. It would be a pity if, through the amendment, we used the Bill to impose additional bureaucracy on the NHS in Wales. Your Lordships are aware that most of the functions listed in the amendment are currently carried out by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and that the various parts of that authority have been under review. During our considerations in Committee, I explained to your Lordships that the driving force behind the review was the needs of patients and of the NHS organisations which directly serve patients.
Our aim is to ensure that NHS organisations in Wales obtain the many support services that they need as cost effectively as possible. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that they, in turn, can meet patients' needs effectively. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales decided to market test WHCSA's non-clinical services and explore the possibility of privatisation. That process will enable NHS trusts to provide more or better care for the same money. As my right honourable friend said in another place:
"In a world in which NHS trusts are doing more for themselves, we should not second guess them or double bank their activities through a central common services authority".
740
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me why there had been no consultation on the matter. There has been consultation with the service users and the market-testing process involves consultation with staff. I shall return to that aspect later.
The Welsh Office is currently considering options for market testing or privatisation of two of WHCSA's non-clinical services—estates design and maintenance and information technology. Following that consideration, in the next month or so, tenders will be invited. It is envisaged that the exercise will be completed during 1995–96. Market-testing exercises are already underway for two other functions, supplies and prescription pricing. The results should be known by early autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raised a question in Committee about the use of the Welsh language in relation to prescription pricing services. I understand that colleagues at the Welsh Office are writing to the noble Lord on the matter.
As I made clear in Committee—and I am more than happy to reiterate it this afternoon—employees at WHCSA have made a valuable contribution and one which is much appreciated in terms of what they have done for the NHS in Wales. I well understand how unsettling such uncertainty must be for them. The process provides for consultation with staff and we hope that they will see that as an opportunity to improve the services that they provide. But handling the present process is a matter for WHCSA's own management. That is why Welsh Ministers have declined to meet staff-side representatives whose interests are best served by the proper out-working of the process itself.
I turn now to WHCSA's clinical services. I am very pleased to be able to confirm to your Lordships that my right honourable friend has now decided on the new management arrangements. His decisions were taken after full consultation with the NHS in Wales and announced to the NHS on 4th April. In the light of consultation, as the noble Lord pointed out, my right honourable friend decided that the management arrangements for the National Blood Transfusion Services (Wales) should not change for the time being; that the Artificial Limb and Appliance Services should, in general, be managed by the hospitals where they are based, but some specialist services will be centralised at a single point; and that management of the screening programme for Breast Test Wales will transfer to a single trust, while evaluation and research will be taken forward by the director with the University of Wales College of Medicine.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of destabilisation. During a full consultation with the NHS in Wales, many useful responses were received. The new management arrangements for Breast Test Wales and the Artificial Limb and Appliance Services will be phased in during 1995–96. The new arrangements are expected to be in place by 1st April 1996. Funds in support of those services are to be ring-fenced for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98. I believe that many of the amendments were made through the consultation process and because of it. Of course, the National Blood

741
Transfusion Services will remain with WHCSA for the time being. Therefore, there should be no destabilisation.
The option appraisals for each of those services have been placed in the Library as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, requested. I cannot understand why the noble Lord says that they are not in fact there. I was informed that the appraisals had actually been placed in the Library. I shall certainly look into the matter. However, if they are not there now, I shall arrange for summaries of the consultation responses to be made available.
The amendment also suggests that the new authority should be responsible for administering health complaints. We do not see the need for such a centralised system which we believe would not be consistent with the proposals that the Government recently published for a new, streamlined NHS complaints system.
Both noble Lords, I believe, raised the question of redundancies, employment and, indeed, unemployment. It is hoped that any redundancies will be kept to an absolute minimum and that staff may be redeployed elsewhere in other areas of the NHS in Wales. Of course, there would have to be further consultation before any redundancies took place. I also believe that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—commonly known as TUPE—are capable of application in that respect. It would mean that the rights of employees are protected at the point of transfer.
In conclusion, although I understand the issues that have been raised this afternoon, the Government do not believe that the amendment would help to improve the health service in Wales. We think it would introduce a rigidity and an unnecessary central bureaucracy which would only be changed by further primary legislation. Such an authority would frustrate our efforts to get the best for patients. I therefore hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Baroness. I am bound to say that I was impressed with some of the things which she said although, broadly, I was disappointed that she was unable to make the major concession. I think she is wrong in talking about rigidity in Wales. There is no rigidity in Wales. We do things in a rather more elastic way than that. If we do that, then we usually succeed. But having said that, my noble friends and I would wish to look at her speech carefully and to consider whether we might bring the matter back at Third Reading. With that in view, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Amendments]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 24, after ("Authority") insert (", including administering the arrangements made in pursuance of this Act for the provision of general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services and general pharmaceutical services,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 15, which covers the same ground. We looked at some of the issues referred to in this amendment when debating Amendment No. 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in Committee. The professions involved in primary care named in the amendment, while not opposed to the merging of FHSAs and DHAs in principle, are still concerned that nothing on the face of the Bill requires health authorities to protect and to promote the activities of primary care. They would feel more comfortable if words such as those in the amendment were included, as health authorities will have great pressure put upon them to devote increasingly large proportions of their budget to contracts for hospital services. Those pressures are still there, even if less direct, after the purchaser/provider split.
The Government have coined the phrase, "a primary healthcare led National Health Service", which of course many of us welcome. However, general practitioners are rather used to being told that, for example, they are the linchpin of the service, or the key to the success of the National Health Service, with little cash following the rhetoric. In the National Health Service Executive's Guidance on Transitional Issues to the new health authorities, the role of the new health authority, as it will be after the Act, is described in some detail. These are not transitional arrangements as such but describe what the new health authorities will do when constituted, as well as describing the steps to be taken towards achieving that.
Among other functions of the new health authorities which the document mentions are those in paragraph (b) on page 3 which states,
"developing primary care and forging constructive partnerships with all primary care professionals".
Paragraph (c) on page 4 refers to,
"administering and managing arrangements with local GPs, dentists, ophthalmic practitioners and pharmacists".
That is similar to the wording of the amendment, including the terms of service of family health services contractors.
In other parts of that guidance document reference is repeatedly made to primary care. I would not expect the words of a guidance document to be on the face of a Bill. However, the words in the amendment would remind health authorities of their obligation to those who work with and for the current family health services authorities. The guidance document from which I have quoted goes further in describing steps to be taken towards achieving a primary healthcare led NHS than does the amendment. I wonder whether in her reply the

743
Minister can say whether and how the Government will ensure that the guidance is followed by health authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend has explained the purposes of these two amendments extremely well. However, it is important to emphasise from this Front Bench that we feel there must be a clear recognition in the Bill of the role that is played in the health service by primary care. We know all about the GP being the gate-keeper and so on and we feel that wording on these lines—or indeed on the lines of Amendment No. 15 which is grouped with this amendment and concerns a report on the functions of the family health services authorities—would help to underline the crucial importance of primary care in the operation of the health service. It is often thought when one refers to the health service that it is a hospital service but I believe that the hospital budget accounts for only about 15 per cent. of the whole. The words I have referred to may not be perfect but something along those lines would at least underline and, as my noble friend said, would remind those concerned of the crucial importance of primary care in considering the functions of the new arrangements. I hope that if the Minister cannot accept the amendment she will at least be able to confirm the crucial importance of the whole of the primary care service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, while respecting greatly the distinguished medical career of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in family doctor services, I think that he will surely recognise that the Government's aim in establishing the new health authorities is to create a single authority at local level with responsibilities across the full range of health care. This aim has been widely supported by many of your Lordships. We believe that the new authorities will deliver a better service to patients by removing artificial boundaries between primary and secondary care. Unified health authorities will be able to develop a single comprehensive health strategy for the people in their area. We expect them to secure a more sensitive balance than was possible in the past between prevention and treatment, and between primary, community and hospital-based care.
Against that background, I am not at all sure that it makes sense for the Secretary of State to report in isolation on certain functions, simply because in the past they were carried out by family health services authorities. The Secretary of State and the NHS Executive already publish a wide range of reports and, of course, health authorities, like DHAs now, will be expected to publish annual reports on their activities.
I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, that there are people who are concerned that former FHSA functions may be overshadowed in the new authorities and I am very happy to make it absolutely clear that we will not allow that to happen. The close working which already exits between some authorities has demonstrated that there need be no loss of focus on primary care in the new health authorities. Rather, the skills and knowledge of both DHAs and FHSAs are being brought together to provide a better service. I can assure your Lordships that administration of primary
744
care will he a core function of health authorities, with many specific functions placed on them in primary legislation and supported by regulations. So any health authority which neglected these functions would be failing in its statutory duties.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the department issued guidance to the NHS recently on The Creation of the New Health Authorities. Your Lordships may be reassured by some of the statements in the guidance about the role of an effective health authority. For example, the guidance says that essential elements of their role include:
"developing a strategy in collaboration with GPs, providers, local people and other agencies … to meet national and local priorities … developing primary care and forging constructive partnerships with all primary care professionals … administering and managing arrangements with local GPs, dentists, ophthalmic practitioners and pharmacists".
The performance of the new authorities will be measured by how well they carry out functions like these, not just by how effectively they purchase hospital care. I hope that your Lordships accept that the Government are committed to a more primary care-led NHS and that these amendments are not necessary.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister how much force the guidance that she and I have quoted has on the conduct of health authorities and what sanctions the Government have if guidance is not followed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, some of the specific functions, not the actual guidance, are placed upon health authorities through primary legislation and are supported by regulation. If an authority were to fail in those it would be contravening that legislation and failing in its statutory duty. Certainly, the department and management executive would come down very heavily on that authority.
We have found guidance to be very effective. One aspect that impresses me about the National Health Service is that when it is asked to do something it does its utmost to achieve it. One sees that not only in terms of broad strategy but in the detail of the care that is provided. There is every reason to believe that conviction exists in the health service that guidance is there to be carried out.
Lord Rea: My Lords, what the noble Baroness says has pleased me greatly. It was in order to get such a statement that I put down the amendment. I believe that many workers in primary care will be very relieved to read in the pages of Hansard what she said. I thank the Minister very much for her statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall give directions with respect to the exercise of responsibilities exercised prior to the passing of the Health Authorities Act 1995 by Regional Health Authorities in

745
respect of the holding of contracts of registrars and senior registrars so as to require that those responsibilities should continue to be exercised on a regional basis.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment allows us to continue the discussion we had in Committee. I refer to Amendment No. 15 and the proceedings at cols. 1601 to 1604. The National Health Executive document Options for the Future Management of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education was published on the same day and briefly discussed in Committee. At that time the noble Baroness said:
"It is our intention that the training programmes of registrars and senior registrars, and in the future those doctors in the proposed new unified training grade, will be managed at regional level by the postgraduate medical deans."
That was a relief. Later, she said:
"It will not be necessary for the doctors' employment contracts also to be held at regional level to safeguard the doctors' training interests. It would not be right for them to be held by the regional offices as part of the Civil Service."—[Official Report, 28/3/95: col. 1603.]
That is possibly but not necessarily so. Mine is not the only voice to express doubt about that statement. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said:
"The CVCP would prefer to see the management of PGMDE contracted to the universities which are well used to the strict accountability requirements placed on them through the Higher and Further Education Act."
This amendment will accommodate that preference. The current contracts of junior doctors are overseen by the regional postgraduate deans who are jointly appointed by the universities and the regional health authorities. They can insist that the educational standards of junior doctors are protected. The CVCP and Royal colleges are unhappy that employment contracts will be held, as the Government suggest, at trust level, even if a lead or neutral trust continues to hold the main contract when a training programme involves rotation from one trust or health authority to another. I pointed out in Committee that it was difficult to insist on protected educational time in the face of heavy clinical demands. It would be more likely to be protected if a doctor's contract was with a body not directly concerned with service provision.
In Committee the Government put down several amendments to secure continuity of employment if junior doctors moved across trusts or health authorities during their rotation. However, those amendments were not moved. It is reasonable to ask why not. If the Government reject this amendment, the amendments, which the Government did not move, will be necessary to protect the jobs of junior doctors. If those amendments were withdrawn for a technical reason, surely it should be explained. Depending on the reply of the noble Baroness, we will have to consider whether or not those amendments, or something like them, should be introduced by this side. Of course, this will not be necessary if the noble Baroness accepts our amendment
746
to keep the contracts of junior hospital doctors under one jurisdiction—the universities—through the current regional arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I made clear when we discussed this in Committee, there are two important issues in relation to the contracts of registrars and senior registrars whose contracts are currently held by RHAs. First, their employment contracts need to be held elsewhere when RHAs go. Secondly, the continuity and quality of training programmes needs to be properly protected. It may be helpful if I deal first with the question of employment contracts. The Government tabled amendments to employment legislation in Committee which were relevant to these staff, among others. We did not move the amendments because we had not yet completed consultation on related issues set out in the department's discussion document on the future management of postgraduate medical and dental education. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that the new arrangements do not disadvantage doctors by breaking their continuity of employment so as to deprive them of rights under employment legislation. We are considering the means by which such protection can best be secured. Should further amendments prove necessary to achieve that, it would be our intention to table them at Third Reading.
It would not be right for the contracts of junior doctors to be held by the regional offices as part of the Civil Service. The Government have made clear that they would prefer junior doctors' employment contracts to be held by the employer, usually an NHS trust. This is consistent with the treatment of other NHS medical and non-medical staff. It is consistent with the principle that personnel issues are generally best managed at local employer level and with trust freedoms to determine the quality and type of resources they employ. Devolving contracts to employers is still a matter for discussion with the various professional bodies representing these staff.
This brings me to the second issue. I am aware that particular concern has been expressed that to transfer contracts to NHS trusts may cause problems in maintaining the required level and standards of training. A number of proposals arising from discussions with postgraduate deans were set out in the discussion document issued recently by Dr. Winyard, the medical director of the NHS Executive. The closing date for comments is today. In particular, the document suggests that there should be a network of training agreements between trainee doctors, deans and trusts. There would also be a system of service-level contracts between deans and trusts to ensure that the right environment was provided for a high standard of training delivered in a cost-effective way. Training agreements might cover matters such as the agreed balance between service and training; the level and type of specialist training to be provided; educational plans, inlcuding rotational arrangements and study leave; and arrangements for assement.
Service level contracts between deans and trusts have already been introduced in many parts of the NHS. They are a good way of ensuring that trusts continue to

747
provide high quality postgraduate medical education. The safeguard they provide is reinforced by the dean's financial control over a very significant proportion of the resources involved—including 50 per cent. of the basic salary costs of full-time junior doctors. That amounts to between £300 million and £400 million nationally. I should make clear that neither training agreements nor service level contracts would require any provisions in this Bill.
We are committed to high quality medical education and training, which underpins our objective of providing high quality health care to patients. The interests of the profession, universities and postgraduate deans will be taken fully into account in developing the detailed framework for medical education and training. We will ensure that the staff concerned are treated fairly, and that continuity and quality of training is maintained.
In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, once again I thank the noble Baroness for amplifying the Government's plans for postgraduate medical education. The Royal Colleges, the CVCP and postgraduate medical deans will want to consider carefully the statement that the noble Baroness has just made. A definite advance has been made. Without promising not to return to the matter at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert:
("() after that subsection insert—
"() For the purpose of ensuring the effective integration of clinical teaching and research within the National Health Service, the Secretary of State shall, in relation to any relevant committee, office or other body which he establishes to exercise any regional management function within the National Health Service, provide, following consultation with the relevant universities, that at least one member of that committee, office or body is a representative of the university medical or dental schools within that region.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Boding, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who is unable to be present this afternoon, has given me permission to say that he supports fully the principles outlined in the amendment.
In the late 1960s I was a member of a regional health authority. At that time I held a consultant contract in the NHS coupled with a personal chair in the university. It became clear to me that the inter-relationship between the National Health Service on the one hand and the universities with medical and dental schools on the other was crucial and vital to the future of health services and to teaching and research in medicine, dentistry and the other health services.
When I became dean of the medical school in 1971 I was surprised when a senior government Minister expressed astonishment on learning that clinical academic staff employed by universities were heavily involved in providing clinical services to patients. In
748
fact, throughout the history of the National Health Service those holding clinical contracts with universities have provided extensive services to patients. When I held the particular appointment to which I referred the clinical load that I carried was almost as great as, if not at times greater than, that of my colleagues employed wholly by the National Health Service.
Later, when I became chairman of the Education Committee of the General Medical Council, and subsequently its president, it came as a surprise to many of us in academic medicine to learn that there was no formal liaison mechanism between the then Department of Education on the one hand, responsible for the funding of the universities through the University Grants Committee, and the Department of Health on the other, responsible for providing the clinical facilities for medical and dental teaching. One of the actions that we pursued at that time, which I am glad to say was successful, was to persuade those two departments to come together. Hence a liaison committee was created under the chairmanship of the then Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, Sir Christopher France.
That particular body has grown and its role has been extended until it is now the steering group for undergraduate medical and dental education and research. It is chaired by the current Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health.
Through that mechanism the relationships between the universities with medical and dental schools and the National Health Service have become much closer. Ten key principles outlining the basis of that relationship have been promulgated. I understand that those principles will be carried forward in the changes that result from this Health Authorities Bill.
One other factor of great importance which I learnt as the dean of a medical school was that at that time, some 25 years ago, it was regarded as inappropriate, if not illegal, for money to be transferred across the divide between the Department of Education on the one hand and the Department of Health on the other. Happily, that principle was soon breached because, as time went by, it became increasingly clear to those working in the health service that if there was an area within the health service where the standard of patient care and of research and education was not as high as it ought to be one of the best ways of improving those standards and of developing services was to create a chair or a senior academic post with supporting staff to try to raise the quality of the services in those particular medical, dental and other disciplines.
As a consequence, the Department of Health, through its regional health authorities, began a process of funding academic posts in the universities across the country, to such an extent that in some medical schools 40 per cent. of clinical academic posts are now funded by the Department of Health. That underlines the crucial importance of that inter-relationship between the NHS on the one hand and the universities with medical and dental schools on the other.
We have been given assurances that that process will continue, even when the regional structure has been changed as proposed in this Bill. We in the university sector were much reassured on reading the Hansard

749
transcript of the Committee stage debate. I deeply regret that because of a professional commitment elsewhere in the United Kingdom I was unable to be present. I was very happy to read the words of the Minister when she said that:
"The Government are strongly committed to the vital partnership between the universities and the new National Health Service. We will work with them to achieve the highest standards of education and research".—[Official Report, 30/3/95; col. 1718.]
We were also much encouraged to learn, as a result of an amendment tabled at that stage, that the universities' position would be strengthened and that the Government were able to give a clear undertaking that, in regulations, they would require the health authorities whose areas include a medical or dental school to have a university representative as a non-executive member. That was a very reassuring development, and we were delighted to have that assurance.
However, that still left a serious anxiety about the position in the regions. As the Minister said:
"The regional offices are very different bodies from the old RHAs. They will not have boards on which different groups are represented. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to have a university representative within the regional office".
We fully accept that, because the regional offices will be staffed by people who are part of the National Health Service Management Executive. It would be inappropriate to have a university appointee employed in such an office. We know that there will still be a powerful university voice at national level. But surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a mechanism whereby universities can play a major statutory, advisory role at regional level. It is true that many of the regional directors of research and development are at present, and are likely to be in the future, distinguished academics. But they do not necessarily speak on behalf of the universities at which they have previously worked.
I was much encouraged earlier today to learn from the Minister that the regional chairmen will in future be non-executive members of the policy boards at regional level. If we were to be reassured that the university voice would be heard through an agreement that the university would have the right to appoint, in consultation, a non-executive member of the regional policy board, I believe that most of the anxieties that we feel in relation to the future would be allayed.
The postgraduate dean will be a key link between the regional office and the university. I have had the privilege of seeing the consultative document which was recently circulated. I believe that it is absolutely right that the postgraduate dean in future should be jointly appointed by a contract held on the one hand with the regional office and on the other with the university. However, it may not be necessary for the postgraduate dean to be housed in the regional office as many postgraduate deans are already provided with satisfactory accommodation in the universities, funded under the partnership with the universities which is so crucial to the future.
Those are the major concerns we have. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that there is a likelihood that the regional policy boards—they are concerned with the crucial, strategic developments in relation to patient care, teaching and research in which the universities play such a vital role—will be able to have a non-executive university appointee in their membership. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. Integration between universities and the health service is far closer than in virtually any other area regarding universities. The fields of activity are directly connected. The frontier of medical knowledge affects healthcare very quickly. It is appropriate that there should be such representation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is unfortunate that it is necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, to bring forward such an amendment at this stage. As we discussed at Second Reading and in Committee, we are all aware of the consultation, for example, between the chairman of the CVCP, the Department of Health and others professionally involved in this area to seek to resolve the issue before the Bill reached this stage in your Lordships' House. But still it is unclear what will happen. In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord underlined this important area. It is particularly unfortunate that arrangements are still not in place.
Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I referred to the correspondence between Dr. Edwards, chairman of the CVCP, and the Secretary of State. The chairman stated that for the Department of Health to write to regional directors asking them to remember that universities should be consulted in appropriate circumstances underlined the heart of the problem. It gave no assurances about the appropriate circumstances. It left the process of consultation to the individual decision of regional directors.
Noble Lords have made an incontrovertible statement: that a formal, clear and unambiguous mechanism needs to be in place before we start the new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, emphasised the important role of academic medicine in the higher ranks of the medical profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is equally important to patients that that extremely important connection is maintained. If we are to have an effective, knowledge-based health service, as Ministers constantly tell us that we have—it is an ambition to which we all subscribe—we must ensure that the important links between academic medicine and the health service are maintained at every level so that standards of excellence are not simply maintained but continue to be improved.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was unable to attend. I am glad that today he has been able to contribute his considerable expertise. It is recognised nationally and internationally. I am grateful for this opportunity to emphasise again the Government's commitment to the vital partnership

751
between the universities and the NHS. Perhaps I may reiterate my earlier comments. We intend to continue to work closely with the universities to maintain the highest standards of education and research. We agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that it is a crucial link.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the new health authorities will have membership; it will be laid down in regulations. They will be required to include a medical or dental school member on their boards as a representative and as a non-executive member.
The new regional offices will be firmly part of the Department of Health. Their advisory and liaison arrangements will be much more closely linked with the national advisory framework. The regional offices will be different from the old regional health authorities and, as the noble Lord said, it would be inappropriate for their management boards to include representatives of outside bodies. However, there will be many other links between universities and the Department of Health at regional level.
As I made clear in our previous debate, regional chairmen will have a special responsibility in this area. Perhaps I may clarify a point which the noble Lord may have misunderstood in an earlier debate. There will not be eight NHS policy boards reflected in each region. There will be one national policy board, as indeed there is now, upon which the regional chairmen will sit. But there is nothing to stop regional chairmen within their regions building any mechanisms they wish in order to strengthen those links. Indeed, that was my situation when I was regional chairman at South-East Thames. We had a clear structure that incorporated the university representatives who were not members of the health authority but had a contribution to make in that they were involved in the medical schools—the deans, and so on. So there is much opportunity there.
The postgraduate medical deans also form a strong and important link since they will be fully involved in both the regional offices and the universities. We are just completing consultation on the document which my department published last month, Options for the Future of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education. We believe that the proposals contained in that paper can be developed to provide an effective and acceptable basis for managing postgraduate education.
We also discussed in our earlier debate the "10 key principles", referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. These guide effective working relationships between the universities and the NHS, in particular at regional level. The recent report of the Higher Education Funding Councils' Joint Medical Advisory Committee found that the principles were well regarded and were seen to provide an essential point of reference at a time of change. The committee recommended that the principles should be rewritten to reflect the new NHS. That is being given active consideration at present. We shall, of course, involve the universities in any changes that are made.
Your Lordships have raised concerns about research and development. On 11th April the Government published a plan to implement the Culyer Report, Supporting Research and Development in the NHS.
752
Under the new research funding system, National Health Service research and development funds are to be raised through a levy on NHS purchasers and distributed via cost-based contracts. Contracts will be for research, research facilities and service support for research. The new system will aim to target NHS research and development funds to important work of high scientific quality.
Input from people with a university research background will be essential, especially during the development stage when we are agreeing definitions of coverage and eligibility for funding. Regional offices will, of course, work closely with universities in drawing up and managing contracts for NHS funding of research.
I can assure your Lordships that research and development will remain a top priority in the new NHS. Each of the new regional offices will have a senior post of regional director of research and development. Part of their role will be to develop extensive networks so that the views of all interested bodies, particularly universities, can influence their decisions.
We are continuing to have regular and constructive discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals about the changes in the Bill. Indeed, there is to be a meeting in the next few days between the CVCP and NHS Executive directors to discuss the CVCP's concerns about liaison between universities and regional offices. I am sure that those discussions will lead to an effective framework to ensure that regional offices work closely and constructively with universities. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for her comprehensive reply. She has given us a number of important reassurances about the interrelationship between the universities and the NHS. Since there is to be a meeting between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and members of the National Health Service Executive or the Government, I trust that we can await the outcome of that meeting before deciding whether to bring back further amendments at Third Reading. Incidentally, the Minister said that that meeting was to be held in the next few days. My understanding is that it has been cancelled, or at least postponed. However, we trust that it will take place in the near future.
I, like my colleagues in the universities, will read the Minister's comments carefully. The issue of regional representation or the non-representation of the regional university voice is crucial. I had not understood that the policy board would be a purely national body. I trust that the regional chairmen may be persuaded to create mini-policy boards at regional office level because of the crucial nature of the relationship and its importance to the future. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 34, after ("Authority") insert ("but of whom one shall be a Chair of the Social Services Committee of a local authority in the area for which the Health Authority is to act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my amendment is designed to establish a formal working relationship at board level between the new health authorities and the social services of the relevant local authorities, In a sense, it does not cover the same ground as that discussed on the previous amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, but is designed to try to make more precise and more formal the relationships which are vital to the work of the new health service and community care arrangements.
Noble Lords will be aware that it is the Government's aim to transfer more and more health services from hospitals, from the acute sector to the community and primary care, and that the boundaries between medical treatment and social care are becoming ever more blurred. We have seen some of the difficulties that that has caused for both health and local authorities in the past one-and-a-half years. The problems of funding and managing care in the community for the mentally ill, the disabled and the elderly, have been discussed in your Lordships' House on many occasions. Like other services they are now the joint responsibility of health and social services authorities.
In the past few years we have also seen the development of The Health of the Nation programme which crucially depends on co-operation and collaboration between, among others, local environment and education agencies and health authorities. We cannot expect to have successful "healthy alliances" on issues such as air pollution and asthma and sexual health education in schools if those responsible for the programmes are working from different parts of the social and health services and perhaps working in demarcated isolated.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 22(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977 places a statutory duty on health and local authorities to co-operate to secure the health and welfare of their residents. But the formal mechanism for achieving that has been through the joint consultative committees which, in my many years' experience of membership of two such committees, has always been the least satisfactory and least practically effective part of health authority work. My discussions with local authority colleagues, both past and present, suggest that they feel the same.
The amendment is designed to breathe new life into inter-agency co-operation at a formal level by bringing social services into the heart of the new health authorities. I suspect that the Minister will say in response that the Government prefer to rely on good practice and guidance to achieve co-operation. I am sure that in some places that will be enough. I am impressed, for example, by the recently published Community Care Plan for Westminster 1995/96. That local authority document is signed jointly by the director of social services from the local authority and the chief executive of the local health authority. The proposals emphasise
754
the importance of their joint planning teams. Interestingly, they measure their performance against key area targets suggested by the Department of Health. The document also says that there are longer-term issues which the Department of Health has asked them to continue to address. Those include focusing on,
"developing care management; making sure that continuing care responsibilities are made clear; developing the 'enabling' role of the local authority; learning to manage the market for social care and improving collaboration between agencies".
That is obviously an example of good practice which has been largely driven by officers of the local authority and executive directors of the health authority. It depends on effective working relationships between individuals.
However, there is nothing in the new Bill and little in the guidance to ensure either that that kind of good practice continues or, perhaps in other places, gets started. The whole crucial system could collapse if particular individuals moved to other posts or there were bad personal relationships between the executive officers involved.
Surely, it would be more sensible if the relationship were formalised by making the chair of social services a member of the health authority board. Community care plans would then, in the current jargon, be jointly owned. If the Government or the Department of Health would prefer to make the local social services director an executive member of the new board, ex officio—which could be specified in regulations—we would find that satisfactory. But the important issue is to create an unavoidable requirement for health authorities and social services to work together.
There seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill of relying on good practice, for example, in that area and, as we discussed earlier, in professional representation on health authority boards; but not in other areas—particularly in regard to professional advice which we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 2. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill requires health authorities to secure professional advice. The presence of the social services in the health authority is at least as important and, therefore, should be given the statutory force of the other type of advice by making the chair of the social services committee or the director of social services an integral part of the new health authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I speak from a lifetime of work in primary healthcare in which collaboration with the social services has been absolutely crucial. That does not only apply to primary care; socio-economic conditions are absolutely crucial in governing the health status of whole communities. Nevertheless, that said, the co-operation between social services and the health service has not been as good as it should have been. The frustrations of the JCCs that my noble friend mentioned are only one part of this. Even at a lower level things have not always been as good as they should be—although, as I said in a debate last week, I have the highest respect for the integrity, motivation and dedication to work of individual social workers.
Enabling the director of social services, or someone who is nominated in his or her place, to sit in on the meetings of the health authorities and to take part in the

755
discussions that lead to decisions, and to be always there to give advice from a social services point of view, would be enormously helpful in boosting the morale of the social services. It would make them feel much more as if they are true partners in integrated care, which is surely part of the new primary care led National Health Service.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we have made clear on a number of occasions the Government's view that membership of health authorities should primarily be decided on the basis of an individual's personal skills and qualities and not the office that they hold or the group they represent. I should first explain, however, that neither the chairmen of local authority social services committees nor any other member of a local authority is currently excluded from membership of DHAs and FHSAs. They will continue to be eligible for appointment to the new health authorities.
It is true—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said—that the experience of a social services committee chairman might be valuable in many circumstances. This does not mean, however, that social services committee chairmen will necessarily possess the range of skills, qualities and experience that are necessary to serve effectively on a health authority. The duties that will fall to health authorities will be wide-ranging; many will fall outside the scope of the responsibilities of a local authority social services committee.
One of the aims of the new guidelines on the appointments process, published by the Secretary of State for Health in February, is to ensure that appointment to NHS boards is open to as wide a range of people as possible. That will enable us to continue to achieve our objective of ensuring that the NHS continues to benefit from the appointment of the best people both to health authorities and trusts.
The allocation of a non-executive appointment on health authorities to the chairmen of social services committees is in direct contradiction to the key principle of making appointments based on the merit of the individual. This principle is key to the success of the appointments process and must not be undermined.
There are other mechanisms in place to help health authorities and local authorities comply with their statutory duty of necessary co-operation. In particular, joint consultative committees of local authorities and health authorities will continue under the new NHS structure and their work will be made easier by the reduction in the number of NHS authorities at local level.
I was very sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, did not have a particularly good experience of JCCs; nor indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I can say from personal experience as a former chairman of the local FHSA that we had very good experiences on our JCC and much valuable work was done on that committee, notwithstanding that the chairman of the local social services committee was not a member of the FHSA. Although it was very early days, we produced a
756
joint community care plan then as well. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel that she can withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. The whole issue of representative members of health authorities is one that we have discussed at length in relation to different amendments and at different stages of this Bill. My primary concern in introducing the amendment was to emphasise the concerns that have been expressed many times in the House about the most effective ways of developing community care, particularly in relation to the joint responsibilities for continuing care of the NHS and social services.
I suspect that, although we could no doubt dispute for several minutes or even hours about our relative experiences on joint consultative committees, some other form of mechanism will have to be developed if we are to be sure that effective working relationships between social services and health authorities can be dependent on something more formal than simply the good working relationships of individuals. However, the spirit of the amendment was, as I said, to explore my concerns about that particular relationship. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 31, leave out lines 7 to 9.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that we debated this amendment, along with two others concerning the Local Government Finance Act, at Committee stage. As I explained during that debate, Section 28A of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 confers certain functions on the Audit Commission. The section should have been repealed by the 1990 Act. It is no longer needed because similar functions are conferred on the Audit Commission by the 1990 Act.
The set of three amendments clarified the situation by repealing Section 28A and removing a provision in the Bill which amended that section. Owing to my error, and despite the help and co-operation of the Benches opposite, the second of that group of three amendments was not moved at Committee stage. That is the amendment I have moved today. It is needed to make sense of the other two and to complete the clarification. I invite, indeed beg, your Lordships to agree this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this amendment gives me the chance to thank the Minister for the very helpful letter that she sent me after we discussed this amendment and the one that she failed to move. In her letter she states:
"The Government amendments tabled during Committee Stage clarify the situation by repealing section 28A and removing all references to that section from the Bill".
But of course they did not, so she has had to move this amendment.

757
The Minister will remember that I was rather puzzled on reading Chapter 32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, having obtained a copy from the Printed Paper Office, since there was no way of telling that the Act had been amended. I have checked this with authorities. There is a difficulty for us, without the resources that the Government have, in tracking down the way in which Acts have been amended. I am told that in 18 months' time, once the computer programme is right, a system might be available. It would be helpful in instances such as this—that Act was amended twice by the Local Government Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—if there could be a footnote or an indication in some phrase such as "as amended by Clause so-and-so of the amending Act". As I say, when one goes back to the Act itself and the chapter referred to, it is not possible to find the amendments at all because the relevant section has been amended by later Acts of Parliament. It is a lacuna in our procedures, a gap which it is hard to fill.
As the noble Baroness said, this amendment puts right a slight omission at a previous stage of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point that the noble Lord made. Certainly it rests with a higher authority than myself. Perhaps we could discuss that. It is a very valid point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Preparations for reorganisation of authorities]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("prescribed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 14. They are both technical amendments. They relate to Clause 3 of the Bill which contains provisions to enable regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health service authorities to prepare for the reorganisation on 1st April 1996. In particular, Clauses 3(2) and 3(3) enable us to make regulations allowing DHAs and FHSAs to exercise functions jointly or on each other's behalf.
We will make regulations under these provisions to come into force as soon as the boundaries of the new health authorities have been agreed. So, for example, DHAs and FHSAs which are to merge will be able to form joint committees to plan for the first year's work of the new health authorities. The powers in Clause 3, and the regulations, will of course lapse on 1st April 1996 when DHAs and FHSAs are abolished.
All DHA and FHSA functions are to be brought together in a single body from 1st April 1996. We consider that a smooth transition will best be achieved if all DHA functions and all FHSA functions except a specified few, are made exercisable by the other bodies. But we have recently been advised by our lawyers that Clauses 3(2) and 3(3) as they stand would make that difficult. They state that the regulations will apply to "prescribed" functions. We are advised that the word "prescribed" indicates that we are expected to specify particular functions. To list all DHA functions without
758
any exceptions or omissions could be considered outside the powers of the clause. We therefore wish to remove the word "prescribed" from the two subsections. I should make it clear that the regulations under this clause will not affect the legal status of DHAs and FHSAs. They will remain separate entities, each accountable for its own decisions and actions until 1st April 1996. I invite your Lordships to accept this simple amendment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, because we wondered about the purpose of these amendments when they were put down.
Although the word "prescribed" is to be removed from Clause 3(2) and 3(3), it remains in Clause 3(4), which states:
"Regulations made under this section in respect of any function shall not, except in prescribed cases …"
Is there some contradiction here? Perhaps the Minister will look at it to ensure that there is no overlapping.
It is interesting that the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee draws attention, as has the Minister, to the provision in Clause 3(10) limiting the life of the power, which ceases to have effect on 1st April 1996. It is what the Australians call a "sunset clause". It is appropriate to have a sunset clause for a sunset government.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think I shall ignore that last comment. I understand the issue that the noble Lord has raised. Perhaps I can take it up and come back to him on that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("prescribed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 43, leave out line 3.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise to the House if the amendment seems to be somewhat cryptic. It is designed to achieve the rather important result of preventing employees of existing regional health authorities being automatically transferred to the Civil Service and, therefore, into the direct employment of the Secretary of State.
We are particularly concerned about the future employment of the chief officers of community health councils, whose contracts of employment are at the moment held by the regional health authorities. The community health councils have a very important role as independent watchdogs in the NHS. Ministers have acknowledged that role. Many people who work in the NHS—and those who use it—feel that that role may become rather more important after the reorganisation

759
and the establishment of the new health authorities, and following some of the moves towards a more centralised structure of the health service.
My concern about the employment of community health council officers was increased by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in response to the earlier amendments of my noble friend Lord Carter about the gagging clauses and the new codes of openness as they apply to the health service. In reply to my noble friend's amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that it was appropriate that employees in the new regional offices—who will be members of the Civil Service—should be subject to the regulations which limit their ability to speak out. That was in relation to the so-called gagging clauses.
We can argue about that, but it is not relevant to the amendment. It may indeed be relevant to some of the people employed in the regional offices in a Civil Service capacity, but it is completely inappropriate to chief executives and chief officers of community health councils, whose very function is to speak out about matters in the health service.
The noble Baroness also said that employees of the regional offices would be in the Civil Service because that would bring them closer to the strategic planning and policy decisions of the Secretary of State. Although I have no doubt that many of those decisions and discussions would be of great interest to chief officers of community health councils, it really is not appropriate, either to their role or to their function, to see that as an advantage to them if they are to be employed by the new regional offices.
As they are recipients of public complaints, the community health councils are often seen by the public as independent bodies. It is very important that that should be reinforced, particularly at the moment when, as we have discussed on many occasions, there is considerable public disquiet about some of the measures being undertaken by the health service.
The relationship between the chief officers who service the community health councils, their chairmen and members, is perhaps not unlike the relationship between local authority committees and the officers who service them. The officers' advice is obviously crucial. Their particular work is important because those who sit on a CHC do so on a part-time, voluntary basis, whereas chief officers are employed full-time. They are the people who have the expertise, who disseminate information and prepare agendas, and so on, to enable their committees of volunteers to function properly.
What will happen to those officers who are employed by a regional health authority when that authority is abolished? We have sought answers to this question at several earlier stages during the passage of the Bill but we have yet to receive a precise response. If it is intended to transfer them to the new regional offices—where they might be described as "outreach workers" of the regional offices—it would be entirely inappropriate and would seriously compromise them.
It is often to a community health council that members of individual health authorities and the local public users of the health service go as a first point of reference for information or confirmation about an issue,
760
particularly a complaint. If chief officers are to become outreach officers of regional offices, that will necessarily compromise their position. Certainly it will be seen as undermining their role as independent commentators, advisers and general watchdogs of the local services.
If, on the other hand, it is intended that chief executives and chief officers of CHCs will be employed by the health authority in which they are situated, or perhaps by a commissioning agency or a consortium of local trusts, that, too, would be inappropriate. It is bound to lead to allegations of collusion. It would not, for example, be possible for an officer of a community health council to be seen by members of the public as entirely independent if it was known that he was an employee of a local trust or local commissioning agency.
It would be helpful if the Minister would be a little more precise than she has been and explain what exactly has happened in terms of discussions with the community health council national bodies and other organisations representing patients' interests in the health service. Precisely how does she see this absolutely vital function continuing? There is no clear indication in the Bill of what will happen.
The purpose of the amendment is to achieve some clarity and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, to ensure that these very independent officers—these very vital people in the structure of the new NHS—are not automatically transferred to the employment of the regional offices and, therefore, automatically become civil servants. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the objective of this amendment has already been debated at Committee stage under Clause 1 of the Bill. We agreed then that regional health authorities will be abolished to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and reduce waste at the centre of the NHS.
We also agreed that some functions, such as co-ordination of education and training, and supporting consortia of health authorities in purchasing specialised services, should still be performed at regional level. This means that a streamlined regional system of NHS management is still needed.
To abolish RHAs and replace them with a new set of statutorily independent bodies would simply mean the recreation of the bureaucracy we are committed to removing. Only by replacing RHAs with regional offices which are part of the Department of Health can we be sure that bureaucracy will be kept permanently under control and that the new streamlined management will work effectively. The tasks which regional offices will perform, such as monitoring the new health authorities and contributing to the development of central policies for the NHS, mean that it is appropriate that they will form part of the Civil Service. We agreed all that in the debate on Clause 1.
This amendment, which prevents the transfer of staff to the Secretary of State—that is, to the regional offices—on 1st April 1996, contradicts the agreements reached on Clause 1 in that debate. But, as the noble Baroness said—I understand now, having heard her

761
speak—her amendment is confined to the future of the secretaries of community health councils. I am sure we all agree that they do a valuable job. They perform a most important task representing the interests of the public in their dealings with local National Health Service bodies. They have a well-deserved reputation for independence, authority and insight.
CHCs have a statutory responsibility to represent the interests of the community in the National Health Service. Indeed, they have the right to be consulted on any substantial changes in services to local patients. These are important safeguards which ensure that CHCs have a voice in the management of the NHS. In addition, CHCs have observer status on health authorities and the right to meet them annually.
As I made clear during our earlier debate, there will be no change in the requirements of health authorities to consult community health councils.
It is essential that community health councils speak with an independent voice. They act wholly on behalf of the local community. The Government are fully committed to maintaining that independence.
In the new system, the establishing authorities for CHCs will be the regional offices of the Department of Health. They will be responsible for providing important support and training for CHCs. But clearly, as the noble Baroness said, it would not be appropriate for officers of CHCs to be employed by the regional offices. That would mean that they would become civil servants. It could be seen as compromising their independence. So the employment contracts of staff will be held in the NHS.
The details of who will make appointments of CHC members and how those appointments will be made are still under discussion. I can assure your Lordships that the vital independence of CHCs will be protected.
Having listened to those remarks, the noble Baroness will, I hope, not press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. Obviously, I understand that we agreed the principle of RHA abolition at an earlier stage. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feared that the amendment was somewhat cryptic. I am grateful for what she said about the continuing independence of the community health councils and particularly their staff. The words she used—she said that their employment contracts will be held within the NHS —are frankly not as specific as I should have liked. I am encouraged by what she said about it not being appropriate for them to be held by the regional offices of the new health service. I understand—and we agreed—the reasons for that.
However, the Minister did not say that they would not be held by consortia of trusts or indeed of local purchasing authorities. In my view—I hope I made it clear in my remarks when proposing the amendment—that would be equally as compromising as their being employed by regional offices. I shall want to look at precisely what she said and perhaps consult outside with
762
community health councils about the terms that the Minister has now expressed in her reply. At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Vesting of property, &c. of Crown Agents in a successor company]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert ("; and thereafter that company, and any other company to which the successor company is subsequently transferred, shall be a company limited by guarantee, in the form of a foundation committed to social and developmental objectives; and the memorandum and articles of association of that company shall contain those objectives, and shall be included in any order by the Secretary of State regarding transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Crown Agents or of the successor company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister was very keen in Committee to say that there was no need for amendments on the constitution of the future of the Crown Agents. She reiterated that the foundation that she intends to create will own all the shares in the company that will operate the Crown Agents' business. She said that the foundation will not distribute dividends to its members, and that its objectives will encompass the social, ethical and developmental principles on which the Crown Agents' business is based. She said, in fact, that this is not and will not be a trade sale.
But we on this side of the House remain deeply concerned about what the Minister did not say. She said only that that the new owner was "likely" to take the form of a company limited by guarantee. She said that the terms of the transfer of the business were not a matter for Parliament but instead the members of the foundation will need to discuss and agree with the Government the terms of transfer of the business once Parliament has agreed to the arrangements set out in the Bill. She said that members of the foundation would not be appointed by Ministers; but she failed to address the question of by whom they would be appointed and what would be the basis of legitimacy for such appointees.
In the same breath as asserting once again that what is intended will not amount to a trade sale, the Minister insisted that it was essential to ensure that full confidentiality for Crown Agents is maintained throughout the process of transfer and thereafter. She promised, not for the first time, that the proposed memorandum and articles of association would be made available to Parliament. As I see it, we are still awaiting that momentous day. But whatever information is provided by the Minister today or hereafter will no doubt be limited by the requirements of full confidentiality to which she referred.
Therefore, it is hard to know just what Parliament is to be told. So far, we have been told only what the Government intend. We have been told nothing of what they have, in fact, arranged. Frankly, we are alarmed by

763
the continuing failure of the Government to be more forthcoming. When the Minister says that the terms of the transfer will be agreed with the members of the foundation once Parliament has agreed the arrangements set out in the Bill, we have to recognise that what is set out in the Bill is only the removal of accountability to Parliament, giving the power to Ministers to agree whatever terms of transfer should take their fancy. We argue that that is simply not enough.
What is the Minister's argument against including the foundation on the face of the Bill? It is only that it is unnecessary and unprecedented and would add nothing of substance to the Government's proposals. Let us just consider those points. The amendment that we propose would not so much add substance to the Government's proposals but would give them substance for the first time. The Minister's speeches on this issue have been entirely without substance, if by "substance" we are to understand firm proposals enshrined in law rather than general intentions dependent on the political priorities of the Minister, her colleagues or successors.
Our amendment is far from unnecessary. It is essential for the same reason. I fail entirely to understand why the Minister believes that it is right to stand up in this House and tell us what she intends to do, yet resists any move to confirm her intentions in even the most modest way on the face of the Bill. We have today given her yet a further opportunity to reconsider the logic and consistency of her position by withdrawing the amendment which would require Ministers to appoint members of the foundation. We have done that because we understand that she does not favour such a proposal. We only propose an amendment which contains propositions to which she says she is in any case committed. It is therefore not our amendment which is unnecessary. If the Minister intends to proceed as she said, it is her resistance to the amendment that is unnecessary and, frankly, incomprehensible.
Let me say a few words about the Minister's argument that what we propose is unprecedented. We are told that the Bill itself is unprecedented. We understand that this is not any old privatisation. There is to be no sale to the highest bidder. Any idea that this Government are ideologically driven must be the fault of the press releases from other government sources seeking to compensate for the scrapping of real privatisations elsewhere.
The foundation that Ministers say that they intend to establish is to be unique—I repeat "unique"—in the history of privatisations over the past 16 years; yet to write the foundation into the Bill designed to enable it to be set up should be at the same time opposed as unprecedented. So "unique" but "unprecedented"—that makes no sense at all.
I plead with the Minister. Clearly she still intends to avoid a trade sale and to proceed with a non-profit foundation, if she possibly can do so. I do not doubt her commitment in that respect. We support that intention. Why not accept the support of Parliament and of those of us who believe the Crown Agents too valuable a national asset to put in jeopardy? Will not the Minister
764
even now accept our support in protecting the foundation from predators and write the foundation on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment. I know that this is ground that we have covered before and I do not expect the Minister to give any further information. However, on Second Reading the Minister said that,
"as the Bill progresses, I shall explain more".—[Official Report, 28/2/95; col. 1410.]
I am afraid that I do not feel that I gained any knowledge whatever in Committee about what was progressing. Can the Minister give any indication of what progress, if any, has been made since Second Reading? If no further progress has been made, the amendment seems like a worthy safeguard which will give Parliament some indication that the Crown Agents will become a foundation in the form that the Minister described.
In Committee, the Minister used as one of her arguments the fact that it would be unique to include such provisions on the face of the Bill. However, as she said on Second Reading, the route that is taken in the Bill is interesting and unusual. Therefore, could she not go one step further and accept the amendment?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his persistence and ingenuity in drafting another amendment designed to put the foundation on the face of the Bill, just as the new clause that was proposed in Committee sought to do.
I understand your Lordships' wish to be fully informed about the Government's plans for the foundation. I can assure your Lordships that progress is being made although, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, it is slow and not yet complete. I suppose that it is fair to say that I am somewhat embarrassed that I cannot provide your Lordships tonight with complete answers to your questions. Needless to say, nothing has actually happened since we discussed the Bill in Committee which makes any of the comments that I made on that occasion invalid.
The Government still intend to establish a two-tier structure with the foundation the sole owner of the operating company. The foundation will be a company limited by guarantee. I know that noble Lords would like to see that stated in the Bill. I am told that legally that is not required. I can confirm that the foundation will not distribute dividends to its members. I can confirm that it will have its social and developmental objectives clearly defined in the memorandum and articles of association. It is those that we are working on; I shall let your Lordships have details as soon as possible. It is intended that the operating company should be limited by shares and that it will be able to pass its profits to the foundation for use in pursuit of its objectives. That will in no way impair its ability to continue to uphold the high ethical standards for which the Crown Agents are valued by us all.

765
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he thought it was likely that the company would be limited by guarantee. I can reassure him that that will be a certainty. The noble Lord wanted to know more about the terms of transfer. That is not a matter that we can declare at this point simply because the foundation, which will be independent of government, will be the owner of the new body when the Crown Agents are transferred to it, and further work must be done with the Crown Agents before those terms of transfer become clear. I am not seeking to avoid the question which the noble Lord asked me; I am simply saying that more work has to be done before those terms of transfer can become clear.
The noble Lord asked about members of the foundation. I have said many times that the foundation will be independent of the Government, but the permanent members will comprise a core group of enduring institutions, representatives of the corporate sector, and other bodies such as non-governmental organisations concerned with developing countries and overseas aid. It is proposed that in due course a larger number of term members may also be appointed by the permanent members, but the Government will have no hand in that. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that, before transfer, the Government will wish to be satisfied that the founder members possess the requisite competence and integrity. If the Government were not satisfied, the transfer would be held up until they were.
In Committee, I mentioned the names of some institutions interested in becoming members of the foundation and holding shares. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that they include notable bodies such as the British Consultants Bureau, the British and international chambers of commerce, and chartered institutes, including the Chartered Institute of Building. Once established, agreement must be reached by the Government and the foundation on the terms and conditions of the transfer to the operating company. If the foundation should decide to seek registration as a charity, I see no need for the Government to be a member of the foundation. We have not discussed that aspect tonight, but we can return to it on later amendments if your Lordships wish.
I want to make absolutely clear that the foundation's objectives must be satisfactory because the Crown Agents must be able to continue to give their overseas and, indeed, their UK clients assurances about their structure and that they will continue to operate very much as now. I believe that the membership of the Crown Agents Foundation will give that sort of assurance to clients who have been built up over the years. We must ensure that there is no disruption while the new arrangements bed down.
The noble Lord referred to the need for full confidentiality which I explained at an earlier stage. That is still necessary—even though it will not be a trade sale—to ensure that the financial structure is absolutely right for the transfer.
766
The noble Lord asked about the memorandum and articles of association and when they would come to Parliament. I very much hope that they will come to Parliament early next month —or as soon as they are ready. Their preparation has already started, and I shall make them available to the House at the earliest opportunity. They will clarify the proposals dealing with the foundation's name, social and developmental objectives, the application of income to those objectives, membership provisions and the board of directors. As I indicated some moments ago, the foundation will be made up of institutions which have an enduring membership. Obviously, each institution would need to approve individuals to represent it. I believe that it is perfectly feasible and appropriate that we should write into the memorandum and articles of association of the foundation a requirement for the agreement of, say, two-thirds or even 75 per cent. of the members of the foundation before any change can be made to its memorandum and articles of association. By writing that into the original, we can safeguard the foundation in the future against adverse changes that might be attempted.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, understandably asked why, if our plans are so well developed, they are not written into the Bill. I cannot give any explanation other than that I gave in Committee, which is that it would be unprecedented to include such provisions in a Bill of this kind, and it is not necessary to do so. As soon as I have information, I shall continue to provide it to the House. I very much hope that that will happen shortly. The amendment does no more for us than the previous one, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows found no more favour than, I have to tell him, this one finds tonight.
7 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, naturally I thank the Minister for her reply, but I wonder whether she will think over this point again. She has once more advanced the argument that it would be unprecedented to write the information that we request on to the face of a Bill of this kind, as she said again tonight. But as I understand it, she is one of the most emphatic advocates of the principle that there has never before been a Bill of this kind; that this is not a normal privatisation; that this is a Bill to set up a foundation with a unique and special purpose.
It is because we are interested in that idea and not at all hostile to it, and we feel that it is so special and exceptional, that it would be sensible to have what is entailed on the face of the Bill. I think the Minister is well aware that she has good friends in all parts of this side of the House who want to support her and to ensure that this brave, new and exciting adventure upon which she has embarked is there for all to see and not just to hear. I just hope that by the time the Bill comes to be considered in another place the Government will have listened to the arguments put forward tonight and will have taken an opportunity to write on to the face of the Bill some of the information which we have not had available here.

767
Perhaps I may add that it seems to me rather unfortunate that we should be seriously considering an enabling Bill of this kind when the Minister has volunteered that the work on what is to be done is not yet completed. I find that constitutionally worrying. If we are embarking upon an enabling Bill, there should somewhere be something definite which is being enabled, because otherwise what is it in the end that we are enabling? As the reasonable person she is, the Minister will recognise that there is a worrying point here. I hope that it can be addressed again before the Bill goes forward in another place.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that our arguments have been put forward in good faith and constructively, but, in view of all that she has said and the assurances that she has given, we would do better to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("() No order shall be made under this section unless such an order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Scrutiny Committee of this House, for which we all have tremendous respect, recommended that orders issued under the Bill should be subject to a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny than the Government have proposed. In Committee it was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the Minister that those recommendations applied to matters other than the transfer of ownership to a proposed foundation. That is why in our earlier amendment we on this side of the House sought to extend the principle of parliamentary scrutiny to the actual transfer.
We return now to the question of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial transfer from the existing Crown Agents Corporation to the successor company to be nominated by the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been kind enough to keep me informed of his correspondence with the Minister about the scrutiny of delegated legislation, and the Minister has been equally considerate. The outcome, as noble Lords will no doubt gather, is that the Government have been prepared to concede not a whit more scrutiny and accountability than they proposed initially. I therefore feel that it is right to offer the House the option of a level of scrutiny greater than that recommended by the Scrutiny Committee, since the very moderate proposals of the Scrutiny Committee and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, have clearly fallen on deaf ears.
The appointment of a day for winding up of the Crown Agents and the nomination of a successor company remain the most substantial measures included in the Bill. In the absence of any other substantial proposals, it is entirely appropriate that those steps should not be taken without further examination in Parliament. We have taken the precaution of establishing the practical implications of subjecting those steps to the two forms of scrutiny available to us. The Scrutiny Committee felt that the negative resolution procedure would be sufficient for the terms of transfer
768
of ownership to the successor company. In view of the Government's refusal to make any concessions to the calls for more transparency, that no longer seems to us sufficient.
In the parliamentary Session 1993–94, 1,221 statutory instruments, excluding draft statutory instruments subject to annulment, were tabled; 143 were prayed against; but only one was debated on the Floor of the other place. The last time such an order was annulled after debate was on 24th October, 1979. Therefore the negative resolution procedure results in debate on only a tiny fraction of the orders in question which are tabled, and even of the orders which are prayed against. The reality is that the chances of a measure subject to annulment being considered properly are infinitesimally small, whereas, of course, any measure requiring affirmative resolution is guaranteed consideration. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the importance of this matter is great enough even to require ministerial attendance in Parliament on a Friday afternoon.
Noble Lords will therefore understand that we on this side would be happy to support changes to the Bill along the lines recommended by the Scrutiny Committee, but we believe that Parliament should go a step further and insist on real accountability in the transfer of ownership of Crown Agents at each important stage. We therefore recommend the amendment to the House.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 at the same time. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that in Committee the Minister said that if it were felt necessary to have a golden share, that would be in the foundation, and that the foundation is not covered by the Bill. We have therefore brought forward these amendments in order to help the Minister find a formula for a golden share, which can apply to both the successor company and the ultimate new owner in the proposed foundation. Since the only golden share that appears to work is a majority share, that is what we have suggested in the first instance, with provision for a reduced shareholding with the consent of Parliament.
The Minister told the Committee that she would look again at the question of the intended powers to be reserved to the Secretary of State. I hope that she will now be able to tell us more. She has talked of keeping the foundation in line with its declared objectives for a period of perhaps five years. We need to know how that is to be done. We need also to know what would happen if the successor company found itself in commercial difficulty within that time. Would Ministers be prepared to see it go to the wall, or would they intervene? A golden share would allow a fairly straightforward answer to such questions. If the Minister regards such a provision as a deplorable example of the nanny state, I would in all sincerity ask her what she proposes instead.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendments. We covered them exhaustively in Committee. It is sad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here to debate them once again. It is always an interesting exchange. I realise that the affirmative and negative resolution proposals in the Bill go no further than the transfer. However, as the Minister said on Second Reading, the Secretary of State has reserved powers to enable him to ensure that no

769
change can be made to the fundamental purpose. Would it not be appropriate that Parliament too should be given that power, as we have not yet had a clear indication of the detailed form of the foundation, so that we could object to the foundation once it is set up?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I wish to comment on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, in trying to improve this difficult Bill. The third report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee stated that it could be possible to subject to negative rather than affirmative procedure matters that have not been spelt out in the Bill.
The Minister made it clear that there will be a foundation and named a considerable number of the considerations that will be attached to it. However, she also made it clear that not all the considerations that will attach to the foundation and to a successor company have been crystallised. I understand that she is not in a position to make the matter crystal clear on all counts, including charitable status.
I support the Minister and express my gratitude for what she has said about the foundation. I suggest that if when the Bill goes to another place certain issues have still not been covered it might be appropriate to table an amendment proposing a negative procedure because some powers may be allotted to the Secretary of State that will not have been referred to during the course of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will withdraw the amendment and leave the matter to a later stage of the Bill when perhaps more information will be produced by the Government.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is important to understand that the purpose and effect of Amendment No. 2 is to subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the orders appointing a day for the vesting of Crown Agents in the successor company under Clause 1(1) and nominating the successor company under Clause 1(2). I make that point because the matter discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I and the point made in the correspondence which we both copied to the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, dealt with the order-making power in Clause 13(3). They are slightly different. I do not wish to muddle your Lordships, or to get into a muddle myself, by dealing with the matter at this moment because Amendment No. 2 does not apply in the same way. I shall concentrate on the general remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, and by my noble friend Lady Elles. There is a difference, however legally subtle it may be.
I understand the desire to allow Parliament to look at the details of the proposals for transfer. That is what the noble Lord's amendment is all about. In Committee, I explained why an affirmative resolution procedure would be inappropriate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, does not agree with me on this matter but we considered the issue in some detail during that debate. I said—and I repeat it as a matter of consistency—that it would be unprecedented to act in this way. Enabling
770
legislation is the normal way of proceeding, accepted by your Lordships' House and another place on every previous occasion, of which there have now been many, when there is a transfer from the public sector to the private sector.
In this short debate I have heard no convincing explanation of why an exception should be made in the case of Crown Agents. I am more concerned that the practical effect of introducing the affirmative resolution procedure could be damaging to the commercial interests of Crown Agents. During previous stages of the Bill I have made it abundantly clear—and I do so again now—that I will have nothing to do with anything that will damage the commercial interest or the future of Crown Agents.
We are dealing with the privatisation of a public corporation. Such things always involve complex and commercially confidential negotiations. That is why I repeat that details could not be disclosed in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. I also believe that the inevitable delay caused by the need to obtain parliamentary approval could sow seeds of doubt and uncertainty about the Government's plans or the timing of the transfer, which would adversely affect Crown Agents.
When talking about the negative procedure, which is now before us in Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke of the few occasions when in another place an order is debated on the Floor of the House. He gave that as his reasoning for opting for an affirmative order. I too am well aware of the delays that take place in another place, even to debate affirmative orders. That underlines the anxiety I would have were the House to agree to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 2; that is, the delays that would be built in.
The Government's intentions should not be in doubt. On many occasions we have announced that we intend to transfer Crown Agents to an independent foundation and that that is the way forward. We have also said that we will provide as much information as possible, as soon as possible and before the transfer is completed. That is why I am determined to get on with the work that has already started on the memorandum and articles of the foundation and will make them available to Parliament. An information memorandum will be prepared for prospective foundation members and that will be made available to your Lordships and to Members of another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked me what would happen if the Crown Agents' business should fail. Perish the thought—it is not going to fail! He asked me whether the Government would bail it out. Perhaps I may say, first, that the Crown Agents has some 150 international clients, including my department, and provides a wide range of services. I see no reason why we should not have every confidence that the Crown Agents' foundation will have a bright future. But, as we all know, there is no guarantee of success in life in anything. That is why the management of the foundation will be the responsibility of its members and the board, who will be chosen for their experience and expertise.

771
I believe that the noble Lord is wrong to talk about bailing out a privatised Crown Agents. The members of the board of the Crown Agents' foundation have to be fully responsible for ensuring the viability of the business after transfer. It would be quite wrong to expect taxpayers to bail out something which was mismanaged. I do not see that there is any risk but it is worth saying that I do not believe that it should be a responsibility for the Government and thereby for the taxpayers.
When the noble Lord proposed the amendment he talked about obtaining a clearer picture of the details of the proposed transfer. I give him an undertaking that I will prepare a paper for your Lordships and for presentation to the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs so that there will be an opportunity to have a clear view of the proposals before the proposed transfer takes place. But beyond that I cannot go. The arguments that were used in Committee still stand and I can see no reason for proceeding with this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for her courteous reply. It would be remiss of me not to underline the fact that what she has said on this amendment again raises an unsatisfactory constitutional question. One can only commend the Minister's candour but that candour only underlines our anxiety. She confesses that we do not yet know exactly what it is that we are being asked to enable. That is why we suggest that safeguards must exist to ensure that Parliament has the final say before the deed is done. Otherwise, by this Bill, we are enabling something to happen and we do not know what that something will be. We have the Minister's good will. I repeat almost ad nauseam—although it is not ad nauseam because I have so much regard for the Minister—that we do not doubt her intentions. But, in a democracy, it is not responsible to legislate by intention. We must legislate by substantial proposition. The point is that we do not know what is the substantial proposition. That is the first point.
I was even more troubled, as I listened to the Minister, because I would have held her out as a shining example of an exception to the arrogance of government which, in so many other realms of the current Administration, begins to disturb us all. Yet she has told the House that safeguards would lead to delay and we must not envisage that those safeguards should be insisted upon because of that delay.
We are not talking about delay or lack of delay. We wish to get right the legislation which we are enabling and we wish to fulfil our responsibilities as trustees of the nation's assets. If our arrangements in this place or the other place lead to delays, that is unfortunate but is no reason for not taking seriously our responsibilities.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, suggested. She is a person of so much standing and experience that what she says cannot be lightly cast aside. I am not happy about the situation, but the Bill will be considered in another place and I just hope that the Minister, for whom I have such a high regard, will live up to her high reputation for taking seriously not just the letter but the spirit of ministerial responsibility. I hope that she will ensure safeguards for the public
772
interest and that before the matter reaches the other place she will find ways in which to ensure that we no longer continue with this unsavoury business of being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Provisions with respect to capital structure]:
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("be") to end of line 12 and insert ("converted into equity").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the fact that the Bill has progressed to this point warrants the support of us all. My noble friend has nurtured it through her department and the Treasury. It is to be hoped that we are not that far from a situation in which we can pass to the Crown Agents the organisation which they seek: a foundation which will enable them to continue to overcome the vicissitudes which inevitably lie in wait for them. Theirs is a world which cannot but have directed at it the spotlight of national and international attention. As such, they must not face the burden of penury.
This amendment again draws to your Lordships' attention the fact that this new body, created under the Bill, will not be the property of private shareholders. It will not be a British Telecom of a British Airways with the freedom to go out into the market and seek additional equity or funding. For one moment we must put ourselves into the shoes of the directors of a company. We must ask ourselves what corporate management would accept a debt of £2 million on its balance sheet under such terms and report with confidence to the shareholders that all is well. Indeed, what auditor would not seek to raise more than an eyebrow over such a situation?
With the limitations attaching to the structure of its potential foundation, the management would have every right to seek comfort in legislation, particularly in relation to the conversion of debt into equity. There is a commercial wisdom in that action and the will must somehow be found to make it a reality. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I shall speak to all three amendments but shall direct my remarks in particular to Amendment No. 5.
On Second Reading, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and other noble Lords on all sides made clear their anxieties about the initial burden of debt which the successor company would be expected to carry. The amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, suggest one safeguard, and my Amendment No. 5 proposes another. Both have the same aim.
A month ago the Minister said that it was premature to take a decision on what should be the balance between the interests of the Crown Agents and the taxpayer. Perhaps she will now be more forthcoming. It will certainly be interesting to hear whether she agrees that a debt of no greater than 10 per cent. of the value of the Crown Agents group is in the same general area that she is considering.

773
The noble Baroness said that she did not want the debt and capital structure of the new company enshrined in legislation. It is quite difficult to see what the Minister does want enshrined in legislation. I am sure that the Minister will listen to the advice of the current board of Crown Agents as to the appropriate levels to set. The board may advise and the Minister may accept that the level we propose is too high or perhaps too low. But Parliament is entitled to be concerned that we are being asked to approve whatever level of debt Ministers choose to impose.
Amendment No. 5 proposes a level of no more than 10 per cent. of current value in order to probe the Government's intentions. We wish to signal clearly our view that the initial debt imposed on the successor company should be in reasonable proportion to its assets. We must avoid a situation in which the successor company quickly founders, as we discussed on the last amendment, in the private sector because its capital structure is too weak from the beginning. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment in order to offer some protection to the successor company at the vulnerable point of privatisation. I hope that the Minister's reply will offer an assurance in regard to such protection.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the spirit of the amendments. I agree with other noble Lords when they speak of their confidence in the Minister. I have every confidence in the Minster. However, I have absolutely no confidence in the Treasury, and I am sure that it will try to get as much as it possibly can from this proposal.
I have two brief questions to ask the Minister. These amendments deal with the financial status of the Crown Agents after transfer. Is it envisaged that the £2 million debt which must be paid back to the loan fund will be paid by the Crown Agents from their employer pension contributions, because at present that fund is on a pensions holiday? Would that be used to finance the debt as opposed to being used to restructure the company? Secondly, will the Crown Agents in the future be left, after the transfer, with sufficient capital equity to carry on their work without being burdened too heavily with debt?
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we now have a most interesting group of amendments before us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for tabling Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for tabling Amendment No. 5. I understand why the amendments have been put forward. Certainly, decisions can only be taken on the appropriate financial structure of the company when a full corporate plan has been put to us by the Crown Agents. Of course, that must be based on the needs of the business. We want to take full account of the views of the Crown Agents' board as well as the views of the Government's own financial advisers. That is why I believe that it would be premature to take a decision of such a nature at present.
774
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird wants the Crown Agents to start off with a sound balance sheet; so do we. But, if his amendment were to be accepted by your Lordships, we would then find that the new Crown Agents would be launched with 100 per cent. equity capital. I regard—as, probably, does the noble Lord, Lord Judd—the setting up of the Crown Agents back in 1979 with 100 per cent. debt financing as a mistake. However, I do not believe that that means that we should go from one end of the spectrum to the other; in other words, that we should go for 100 per cent. equity. It is not a matter that we should be determining at present. I take full note of my noble friend's concerns, which I share. But I hope that he also shares my concern to ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money when the Crown Agents transfer to the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke to Amendment No. 5. I should stress that I cannot alter the response that I gave in Committee. We are all agreed that the Crown Agents should not begin their life overburdened with debt. We are determined to give them a good start. We want to give them the means to have a strong and stable structure within which to carry forward their business into the 21st century on a viable and sustainable basis.
I have explained—and I shall repeat it again—that the Government have no plans to make some great raid on the pension fund as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seemed to think at an earlier stage. However, as a government, we have a duty to consider value for the taxpayer when we transfer assets to the private sector. That is why I maintain that it would be premature to take decisions now.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about the pension fund surplus. Obviously, the surplus which allows a holiday on contributions at present is of great value to the business of the Crown Agents. However, I should underline the fact that it is certainly not directly relevant to the pensioners. As I believe the noble Lord knows, the surplus in the pension fund is the amount, as declared every three years by the actuary, not currently needed to contribute to paying the pensioners. Therefore, if there is a surplus, it does not in any way affect what it has already been decided is needed for the pensioners themselves.
There are other ways of sorting out the capital structure, but that cannot be decided until closer to the day when the transfer of the Crown Agents takes place. That is why I also believe that it would be wrong to accept Amendment No. 4 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird. It could rule out one or other of a range of options for which the Bill allows. My noble friend's amendment would certainly provide for further borrowing from the NLF, but I must tell him that that power already exists under the current Act. However, it is not considered appropriate for private sector bodies to borrow from the NLF. That is why there is a provision in Clause 2 for the current debt to be repaid. Then there are the provisions in Clause 4 which would allow the Secretary of State to lend to the new Crown Agents.
Therefore, within the structure of the Bill, there is a range of options. It is not the time to rule out any options; nor is it the time to rule them in. That is why I

775
know I am appearing to noble Lords tonight to be less helpful than they would wish me to be. However, it really does not help the Crown Agents to prejudge such issues. That is what we would be doing if we were to accept any of the amendments in this group. I hope, therefore, that they will be withdrawn.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for all that she has said on the subject. I should be most grateful if the comfort of her words could be carried from this Chamber. The first principle of total quality management is prevention and not detection. My amendments seek to prevent the Crown Agents being burdened with something which would stop them fulfilling their role as providers of a service. Let us have nothing but praise for them from Members of your Lordships' House. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert (", such amount not to exceed ten per cent. of the value of the closing capital and reserves of the Crown Agents Group at the end of the last financial year ending before the appointed day.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for her response, in which she said that she did not feel that the size of the debt should be specified, presumably because, as I understand from what she said and from the contents of the Bill, all the current debt is to be repaid. In fact, we do not know quite what that will be; indeed, it may actually be onerous.
My amendment would relate the debt that the new foundation or successor company would have to the size of its assets. Therefore, in a sense, it is more flexible than the Government's proposal. However, I believe and hope that the members of the Crown Agents will read the Minister's reply and that they will, as the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said, draw a little comfort from it.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Initial Government holding in the successor company]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Government investment in securities of the successor company]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Use of "Crown Agents" as part of company name]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert (", but only so long as any such company shall be a company limited by guarantee, in the form of a foundation committed to social and developmental objectives.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords may recollect that at the Committee stage we discussed the question of the title "Crown Agents". This amendment returns to that issue although the words "Crown Agents" do not as such appear in the amendment. In Committee the noble Baroness did not have a lot to say about the use of the name "Crown Agents", and the Government's reasons for including in the Bill permission for this
776
name to be used by the new owners. It is not that we object to that provision being included; it is rather that we fail to see why it is possible to include this provision as to the future new owners, but it is not possible to include anything else.
The noble Baroness said that the name "Crown Agents" embodies the traditional virtues of probity, impartiality and integrity, and is recognised worldwide. However, in fact it means something more to Crown Agents' international clientele. It implies the even-handed and public spirited approach which is associated with the best traditions of British public service, and in this case it certainly implies the good will and approval of the British Crown and Government. Was retention of the name one of the issues which has been discussed with overseas governments or other clients in the negotiations which took place before the bringing forward of the Bill?
According to the noble Baroness, it is right that the name can be used by the ultimate owner of the successor company. We agree, but only if the ultimate owner is as she has outlined. Why is she not prepared to accept this point? If it is right to include the use of the title on the face of the Bill, then it must surely be right to include also the other desirable characteristics of the new owner which the noble Baroness has described. The amendment states,
"a company limited by guarantee, in the form of a foundation committed to social and developmental objectives".
Surely it must be right to be able to include on the face of the Bill those desirable characteristics. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well understand why the amendment was put down but I believe that we rather covered this point at the Committee stage. I agreed then that the Crown Agents' name is a valuable asset. It is of course recognised worldwide as the embodiment of the company's traditional virtues, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, quoted back at me. He asked me whether the maintenance of the name was discussed with any of the overseas clients during the preparatory stages for this Bill. Because the name was never in question and because of the whole concept of having a foundation with a memorandum and articles of association, as we have described in our debates, neither of the overseas clients which we have discussed in this House had any doubt that we would continue to use the name "Crown Agents", and therefore I presume that is the reason that they did not raise it with me at any stage. What they were concerned to do was to maintain the integrity of the business and the manner of running it which we have determined should be embodied in the memorandum and articles of association for the foundation.
The virtues that we talk about with the Crown Agents will survive only if the business flourishes. It is by this Bill that we are giving Crown Agents the chance to flourish in the private sector. It is right that the name should be preserved for use by the ultimate owner of the successor company in the private sector therefore, but any name is only preserved to the extent possible under the current Companies House rules. The ultimate owner

777
will be the independent foundation and it will continue to have that clear commitment to a developmental purpose. I have already made quite clear that I hope to make the detail of this available to Members of this House and another place in a few weeks' time.
Throughout this Bill—although I know that I have not yet been able to satisfy your Lordships on all the questions that have been asked—we have been willing to make as much information available to Parliament as has been decided. However, what I am not prepared to do is to indulge in speculation about what might or might not happen. That is why I do not see any virtue in attaching such an amendment to the Bill. Certainly I believe that the name is important. Certainly we believe that the whole concept of the work that Crown Agents do through a foundation for developmental purposes is fundamental to the future foundation. That is why I feel quite confident that we can manage without Amendment No. 8 and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down and before I respond finally to her reply to the amendment, I hope she can answer a question. Would she anticipate, or even promise, that in the articles of association of the new foundation it will be spelt out that the foundation is committed to social and developmental objectives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can give an affirmative answer to that straight away. The whole purpose of the memorandum and articles of association for the foundation is to spell out those very social and developmental objectives. Therefore I do not think that there is any question of answering other than by saying "yes".
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response because the statement that she has just made has confirmed what I think was not absolutely certain. It has made the putting down of this amendment worthwhile because we can now read what she has said and that will give much relief to some people who might not have been clear that that was what her intention was. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary provisions as to vesting of property, etc.]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this Act affects the right of members of staff of the successor company or a subsidiary of that company to be members of a trade union of their choice, which subject to the provision of primary legislation on employment and industrial relations currently in force shall be recognised by the successor company or (as the case may be) its subsidiary for the purposes of—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by such a company;

(b) the resolution of trade disputes;

(c) the promotion and encouragement of measures to improve efficiency, in any respect, in the carrying on of the activities of such a company; and

778

(d) the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to such a company and a trade union representing its employees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have tabled this amendment in recognition of the excellent provision in the Crown Agents Act which this Bill is intended to repeal. The 1979 Act provides for full participation by Crown Agents' staff and their trade union representatives. I am confident that both management and staff would agree that industrial relations have generally benefited from a positive legislative framework and a willingness to consult on both sides. It is this that we are anxious to maintain.
The Bill contains assurances about pension rights and regarding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which we welcome. It is important that staff should know that both their terms of employment and their future pension benefits will be protected on the appointed day. We are, however, concerned that they should enjoy the same assurances about their future terms and conditions while they are in the employ of the new owners of the successor company. It is those provisions which this amendment is designed to underwrite. Once again the need for such protection of free collective bargaining does not arise from any express, or indeed feared, ill intention on the part of either the present Minister or the present management of the Crown Agents. It arises from the uncertainty, which remains after the exchanges this evening, about the future constitution and direction of the ultimate owners of the successor company, which the Government continue to refuse to include on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, we are anxious to know what discussions the Minister has had with prospective members of the proposed foundation, including current members of the Crown Agents board, about future trade union rights and intentions with regard to recognition. It would be good to have her observations on exactly what consultations had taken place. As a matter of principle, those who have taken up employment as public servants should continue to have the right to be represented by a union of their choice. There should be no question of any change being imposed as part of the privatisation process. We very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in this regard. I beg to move.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have always shared the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the staff of the Crown Agents are one of their most important assets. The staff of the Crown Agents both at home—in Sutton and central London—and across the world share the organisation's commitment to development. The continuity of experience is vital to their future. Only last week I saw the benefits of some of their work in Ghana. They continue to do the most remarkable jobs in all sorts of different circumstances across the world to assist with development.
There is nothing in the Bill that affects the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, often called TUPE. By virtue of Regulation 9 of TUPE, the continued recognition of trade unions already recognised by Crown Agents at the moment of transfer to the successor company will be secured, for the same

779
matters with which they now deal. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, quite understandably, asked me about consultation with the trade unions. This is a matter for the directors of Crown Agents, not Ministers or the Government. The plans for Crown Agents have been explained to the trade unions. There is nothing to concern the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in the way he described just now. Indeed, I am slightly puzzled by his amendment. It goes much further than TUPE. His amendment would entrench recognition in perpetuity because it would require the new company to recognise any union to which any employee chose to belong, whether or not it had any significant membership among staff. The amendment would put the new Crown Agents under a much more onerous obligation than that of any other employer under general employment and industrial relations law. I do not believe that that was the noble Lord's intention. Because Crown Agents already have sensible and practical procedures for staff consultation which have served them very well over the years, I see no reason to change them. Just as senior management meet the recognised trade unions to discuss these plans, so they also discuss the whole spectrum of issues that concern conditions of service. I know from comments made to me by staff that they go to great lengths to involve staff, not simply on the bread and butter issues of recruitment, hours of work, tenure, remuneration and superannuation, but, much more importantly, in using the ideas and experience of staff and to involve them in the responsibility of running an efficient and successful modern business.
That this particular amendment has been tabled comes as some surprise to me. I do not believe that it is sensible, necessary or indeed practical. It may require the successor company to recognise an indefinite number of trade unions. As in the case of other employers, I believe that Crown Agents management must have the discretion to make the arrangements most appropriate to their business, including matters such as staff representation and consultation.
I also see no reason why Crown Agents will not use that discretion in the best interests of both the business and staff. To have staff who work positively is good for business, and the business of Crown Agents has enjoyed very good industrial relations for many years. I
780
understand that there are no proposals to alter the current arrangements for staff representation, and certainly the Government do not even envisage that Crown Agents will want to make such changes.
I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will see fit to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say the the tenor of the reply was anticipated. The Minister has said, with all sincerity, that one of the greatest assets of the Crown Agents is their staff. She has emphasised their outstanding record of commitment and loyalty. The Government have also told us that the arrangements that are to be made are intended to ensure that that national asset continues to serve the interests of the nation to greatest possible effect. Part of the framework within which that asset has developed is a very far-sighted and clearly spelt out provision for industrial relations within the organisation. It has been demonstrated that this is not just a formal legalistic provision but one that has worked in an exemplary fashion in spirit as well as letter.
What we sought to do by this amendment was to ensure that what had been central to the success and spirit of the Crown Agents, as we saw it, should be preserved in future. It would be a great shame if those who had served the Crown Agents so well and built that reputation were in any sense put into a position of anxiety.
I respect the Minister's personal goodwill. I hope that she will look carefully at this matter before the Bill goes to another place. I also hope that she will be able to demonstrate that she understands the significance of the argument I have just put forward, and that provision will be made on the face of the Bill to cover the point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Special Public Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
Monday, 24th April, 1995.
The Committee met at five o'clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I remind Members of the procedure which is followed in special Public Bill Committees. The procedure of this Committee is, so far as possible, that of a Committee of the Whole House. Noble Lords speak standing, and so far as is practicable, observe the same degree of formality as in a Committee of the Whole House.
When there is a Division in the House, it is for the Committee to decide whether to adjourn for a. fixed time, or until the result of the Division is announced in the House. In the past, it has been found that 10 minutes is a convenient time for which to adjourn, and I therefore suggest that this is the course for the Committee to follow. Is that agreeable?
The procedure for a Division in this Committee is as follows: six minutes after the Question has been put, or earlier if all Members of the Committee are present, the Chairman will say, "Lock the doors". No tellers are appointed and as soon as the doors are locked, the Chairman puts the Question for the second time, and, if it is still challenged, the Clerk will read out the names of the Members of the Committee. Each Member, when his name is called, replies "Content", "Not Content" or "Abstain". The Clerk then hands the Chairman a paper showing the numbers who have voted and the result is announced in the usual way. The doors are unlocked and the Committee continues its consideration of the Bill. A Division in this Committee will be broadcast on the annunciators. Strangers are not required to leave the room when a Division is called.
Perhaps I could also remind your Lordships that when you rise to speak you should push the button on the microphone in front of you to switch it on. You should push the button again to switch off the microphone when you have concluded speaking. That is the end of my remarks.
The Question is, that the Title of the Bill be postponed. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content", to the contrary, "Not-Content".
Members of the Committee: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The "Contents" have it.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Associated persons]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert—("( ) they have at any time agreed to marry each other (whether or not the agreement has been terminated)").
The noble Baroness said: What I am aiming to do in this amendment is to put back into the Bill one of the conditions in Clause 2 of the Law Commission Bill. The first four conditions in the Bill before us are the same as for the Law Commission Bill, but I wish to add the fifth paragraph in the Law Commission Bill, which states that associated persons will be those that have at any time agreed to marry each other, whether or not the agreement has been terminated.
Why I am convinced that this paragraph should be put back in the Bill is really because of what Mrs. Justice Hale said to us when she gave evidence, and I do not think I can do better than to cite what she said because that puts my case completely:
"The next point is including the two categories that we proposed but the Government has decided not to adopt, and I certainly hope that you would give very careful consideration [that is, the Committee] to reinserting at least one of those and preferably both. I was glad to see that so many of your respondents have also taken the same view. The point about which I am particularly concerned—and it is the point to which the President of the Family Division refers to in his evidence, when he says he understands I am going to make a point and he agrees with it, it is this point—that is the question of couples who have been engaged to marry one another. It seems to me that the fact that this can sometimes be disputed and/or difficult to prove, is not a sufficient reason to deny relief in the very many cases when it is not in dispute or is easy to prove. Usually an agreement to marry is quite easy to prove and is frequently not at all in dispute. The relationship may have been at least as long and the emotions just as intense as many cohabitations or even marriages, and the need for protection or a remedy just as great. I also find it something of an affront to those quaintly old-fashioned couples who do not live together before they marry, that they should be denied a remedy given to those who do live together, either before or with no thought of marriage. They may also have acquired a property, which is intended to be their matrimonial home when they marry, and there is a strong case for allowing occupation orders between them—at least if they are jointly entitled, or in favour of the one who is entitled—so as to sort out what is to happen to that house in the short term before it can be disposed of, or whatever. I could even see a case for extending all of the occupational remedies to them, on the basis that if they have obtained a house that was intended to be their matrimonial home, it ought to be possible to deal with it, whatever the position is as to its legal ownership or tenancy."
I was also supported in my wish to put this back into the Bill by the evidence that we had from Victim Support. It said:
"We welcome the fact that the Bill widens the list of categories of those who may apply for Orders. However, we very much regret the fact that two categories recommended by the Law Commission—those who at any time had agreed to marry each other and those who have or have had a sexual relationship with each other—were rejected. The reasons for our concerns are as follows"
and this applies to my amendment
"Those who had agreed to marry:
We are concerned that this omission may disproportionately affect members of some ethnic minority groups where formal agreements to marry are customary and where co-habitation may not be involved."
That makes the case that I want to put. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): As your Lordships know, I have taken the view that this amendment is not appropriate. I believe that it would

PBC 3
introduce into the Bill a category of persons who could have considerable difficulties in relation to definition and proof as part of the domestic violence jurisdiction. I believe that the important point as regards that jurisdiction is that it may often be needed in emergency situations. If it is difficult for the court to establish a jurisdiction, it is likely to affect the speed with which a remedy may be granted. That would defeat an important object of the domestic violence legislation—a fast remedy for the protection of an applicant.
I believe that it is not necessary for those who have agreed to marry to be included as a separate category within the Bill. Many people who could fall under this category will already be included within the wide range of other applicants able to apply for remedies, particularly the categories of cohabitants or the parents of a child. Those who do not fall within the categories in the Bill are, of course, able to apply for remedies under the law of tort. In my view, the law of tort is more suitable in this context than the domestic violence jurisdiction. In particular, the parties would never have lived together and thus a potential applicant will have a separate residence so that the regulation of property rights is likely to be less relevant. There is also the consideration that parties may not be in such a vulnerable position as others who are resident in the same household as their attacker, and may have nowhere else to go. However, if they are in such a position, the law of tort will be available to them.
As the noble Baroness has mentioned, some of the witnesses spoke in favour of extending this, including Mrs. Justice Hale, who suggested that this would require careful consideration. Mrs. Justice Hale I think accepted that there would be circumstances in which this category would be quite difficult to prove, and that is the problem that I have in accepting the amendment. The amendment, in its present form anyway, cannot distinguish between cases where the proof is difficult and cases where it is not. I think it is particularly important that the Family Law Bar Association and Judge Fricker, who are extremely familiar with the day-to-day operation of this jurisdiction, were—as I understood their evidence—against this.
During the evidence, one witness—and I have Judge Fricker in mind here—argued very cogently that if family law remedies were stretched to cover wider issues, it was likely to have an adverse effect on family law, and I think that that is true.
I noticed that in moving her amendment the noble Baroness referred to a situation in which there was a formal agreement to marry. It seems to me that there may be seeds of a possible compromise in this if the amendment could make it clear that it applied only to cases in which the proof of the agreement was very easy. Formal agreement to marry would be one way of doing it, but I am not sure whether that would necessarily be the only way.
It would certainly help to solve my problem if the noble Baroness were able to propose an amendment which excluded the category of case which Mrs. Justice Hale freely accepted was involved—the category where it would be quite difficult to prove whether or not there has been an agreement to marry, and your Lordships
PBC 4
will not require me to outline the sort of cases in which that might be very difficult to prove. In the case of quite a long relationship, the real question is: did it amount to an agreement to marry? If you have to try to analyse that over a lengthy relationship, I think that your Lordships will see what the problem is. If that is a preliminary to the jurisdiction, it could be very awkward for the nature of this jurisdiction.
My short answer to this amendment is that it involves introducing into the qualifications categories which may be very difficult to establish in fact in particular cases, and thus would destroy the summary nature of the remedy which is involved here.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could assist me, at least—I cannot speak for other members of the Committee—in one respect.
Judge Fricker and, if I remember correctly, the Family Law Bar Association, said that they would prefer not to distort the law of domestic relations, but to rely instead on the development of a new branch of tort. Is it in the mind of the noble and learned Lord to develop that branch of tort in legislation or does he have it in mind to leave it to the judiciary?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it is important that that area should be developed. I have certain proposals in mind relating to privacy which could have an effect on some of this area if by any chance it were to progress by legislation. Even if it did not progress by that method, it might progress by other methods which would have some effect.
I think that the general area of tort that is in issue here may well be a matter for the Law Commission to look at more systematically, and I would certainly wish to consider that as a possibility because I think the judiciary may well develop this area. It is always difficult because it depends on the cases that they get and how suitable they are for making developments. But I certainly have in mind that this is an area of tort law which should not be neglected either by the judiciary, if that happens, or alternatively by promoting legislation after study by the Law Commission.
Lord Meston: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness in view of the arguments that she advanced, although we came to recognise in the course of the evidence that the development of the law of tort so far has perhaps reduced the need for a specific statutory provision under the Bill. It seems clear that the courts have now arrived at a position where there is an enforceable right not to be molested, irrespective of one's marital status. The noble Baroness has identified the points at which somebody seeking relief based on an agreement to marry, who has not co-habited and therefore does not fall within the other provisions of this Bill, would be discriminated against.
It seems to me that the real disadvantage of someone in the position of the claimant that the noble Baroness seeks to introduce under the existing law is that unless they are brought within the provisions of this Bill they have no right to seek a power of arrest attached to any injunction, and that is certainly a considerable

PBC 5
disadvantage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested a possible compromise which obviously we would need to think about. But if he were suggesting a distinction between those who have entered into a formal agreement to marry and those who rely on some informal agreement, I can see there will be separate and distinct problems of proof and definition thrown up by that categorisation, and it may well be that the very problems which the noble and learned Lord seeks to avoid would, in fact, be aggravated. Family practitioners under other areas of the law are well used to having to decide whether or not there has been an agreement to marry. Very often it turns on a question of whether the man concerned bought a ring, and that usually is decisive, but there are other occasions when a less formal agreement is relied upon.
I would be reluctant to support the idea of a compromise along the lines suggested and, for my part, I support the amendment.
Lord Butterworth: I wish to support this Amendment and I will not take up the time of the Committee but simply say that I was persuaded by the argument of Mrs. Justice Hale. It seems to me somewhat socially maladroit to offer the status of associated person to those who have lived together in the same household but to deny it to those who have done their best and have entered into a contract of marriage, and wrong not to recognise that point.
The Lord Chancellor: I am extremely sympathetic to this point of view if we could overcome the difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says, the Family Law Bar Association, the family law Bar of family practitioners, are accustomed to dealing with cases in which this sort of question is in issue. I do not dispute that. All I say is that my knowledge of these cases suggests that they are not all very short. This is the problem. If you want to have a summary remedy you cannot reasonably construct one in which the requirement is not essential to the real remedy being given. The remedy is against either molestation or in relation to some occupation; that is the real issue.
To have to adopt a long preliminary investigation in order to ascertain whether or not somebody is entitled seems to me to go against that grain, and it is in that spirit that I have suggested the possibility that this class of case could be sub-divided between those that are reasonably easy to prove and could be summarily established, and those that are not. If that can be done, I would be only too happy to go along with it. It is a fundamental difficulty about the way the thing will work, if the amendment opens the field to cases where it is very difficult to prove the agreement, where I am in trouble.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I confess to being a total Hamlet on this matter, but on Second Reading I was very much in agreement with the Law Commission. It was only in the course of that debate, when we heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and subsequently when we heard, in particular, the evidence of Judge Fricker that I found myself hesitating.
PBC 6
Judge Fricker is a judge of great experience who has had much to do with this kind of problem. He seemed to be troubled about two matters which are very much interconnected. One is that we were in danger of distorting this branch of the law when what we should be looking for is a different kind of tort; and possibly a tort where the remedy will have a power of arrest attached to it. That is rather too far ahead for us to discuss in detail at this stage.
The other problem is one adverted to a moment ago by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me to be very important that these proceedings should be despatched expeditiously. There is no difficulty about the courts deciding whether two people have agreed to marry. They have been doing that at least since Bardell v. Pickwick and, indeed, earlier than that.
However, Bardell v. Pickwick, if I remember, was a case which took rather a long time. It is not the kind of time schedule that we have in mind for these proceedings. I am bound to say that I found myself rather marginally persuaded in the end that the Law Commission was misguided in this and that we should be looking rather to the law of tort.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has suggested a possible compromise and I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says about the difficulties that we might encounter; but it will certainly dispose of the problem of a long hearing with a great deal of evidence and the construction to be placed upon certain acts and words of the parties.
At this stage, I find myself very much still on the tightrope and will probably abstain, but before we reach Report Stage I hope that it may have been possible to reconsider this and that my noble friend may have approached this in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested a compromise.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): May I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the tightrope for a moment? I found from the evidence, and when the noble Baroness, Lady David, read out her evidence from Victim Support, that most of the people who spoke in favour of including ex-fiancés also very much included those who have or have had a sexual relationship and thought they were equally important. I agree that these are also open to dispute and so I rather followed the path of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and felt that perhaps we should go for the creation of a tort of harassment.
There is another point. Those giving oral evidence, in particular the police and Mr. McHardy of the Solicitors' Family Law Association, were very much in favour of widening the thing as much as possible to include the stalker as well. I leaned over from the tightrope rather on to the direction of the creation of a new tort of harassment, which would include all these people, but perhaps having said that I will just join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, again.
Baroness David: I refer the noble and learned Lord to one point, to which he did not respond; that is, what Victim Support said about the fact that it may

PBC 7
disproportionately affect some members of ethnic minority groups where formal agreements to marry are customary.
The Lord Chancellor: That is precisely the point that seemed to me to offer a hope of dealing with the matter where formal agreements are emphasised. The real difficulty about this from my point of view is not the theoretical question of whether or not they have agreed to marry, it is the difficulty that may well be involved in proof of that.
If the noble Baroness can construct a reasonable qualifying clause to exclude this remedy from cases in which the evidence on agreement to marry is of such a character as to sabotage or undermine the summary nature of the proceedings, that is really what I have in mind. My approach to the compromise arises precisely out of that point, whereas the noble Baroness says that there is usually some formal agreement to marry in these cases which would be capable of almost instant proof.
Lord Brightman: I have been trying, as the argument developed, to think of some form of wording which could be used. I put this forward as a suggestion before—it may sound rather archaic but it existed in the days when it was necessary to have a writing before you could sue for breach of promise. I wonder whether one could say that they have at any time agreed in writing or in some other formal manner. I put that forward simply for consideration.
Baroness David: I should like to thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken, and also the noble and learned Lord for his careful answer. I would just remind him that Mrs. Justice Hale said:
"It seems to me the fact that this can sometimes be disputed and/or difficult to prove is not a sufficient reason to deny relief in the very many cases when it is not in dispute or is easy to prove."
I totally appreciate the Lord Chancellor's keenness for a speedy remedy and that the whole point about this Bill is to have things dealt with quickly. I do understand that. I should like to consider the possibility of amending my amendment and thinking about it again, and I shall probably come back at the Report stage. At present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to second ("or") in line 4 and insert ("in relation to any child, they are both persons falling within subsection (2) below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No.2, I would like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 23 and 41. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 ensure that an unmarried father who has never had parental responsibility for a child is associated with anyone who has or has had parental responsibility. This may be necessary in cases where, for example, a person having parental responsibility for a child needs to be protected from molestation by the unmarried father of that child.
Amendment No. 4 inserts as a separate category prospective adopters or adopters of a child and the birth parents and birth grandparents. Under the Bill as currently drafted it is not defined clearly whether
PBC 8
adoptive and prospective adoptive parents are associated with the birth parents. Amendment No. 4 therefore clarifies the position and ensures that birth parents and birth grandparents are associated with the prospective adopters or adopters.
Amendment No. 41 is a consequential amendment that adds the definition of an adoption order to Clause 25 of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that this point about the relationship between adopting parents and natural parents was raised in the evidence and it is right to give effect to it. Obviously in most cases the confidentiality arrangements prevent anything in the way of a relationship, but cases have been drawn to our attention where that has failed and it is obviously important that a summary remedy should be available.
Amendment No. 5 ensures that a local authority is not associated with another person under Clause 2 of the Bill. As the Bill is currently drafted, a local authority could come under the terms of Clause 2(e) and (f) as it could have parental responsibility for a child or be a party to family proceedings. However, it is not intended or appropriate that local authorities should be able to apply for remedies under Clause 2 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 23 introduces a provision similar to that in Section 10(8) of the Children Act 1989 to require that children should only be able to apply for a non-molestation or occupation order with the leave of the court, and that leave should only be granted if the child has sufficient understanding to make the application. However, in the context of this Bill it has not been thought appropriate to extend this requirement to young people aged 16 or 17, particularly if they are married. Such young people are likely to have sufficient understanding to make application under the Bill and it would be inappropriate to insist on a leave requirement in these circumstances. I commend Amendment No. 2 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move Amendments No. 3, 4 and 5:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) A person falls within this subsection in relation to a child if

(a) he is a parent of the child, or

(b) he has or has had parental responsibility for the child.").

Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("() In a case where a child has been adopted or has been freed for adoption by virtue of any of the enactments mentioned in section 16(1) of the Adoption Act 1976, two persons are also associated with each other for the purposes of this Act if—

(a) one is a natural parent of the child or a parent of such a natural parent, and

(b) the other is the child or any person—

(i) who has become a parent of the child by virtue of an adoption order or has applied for an adoption order, or

(ii) with whom the child has at any time been placed for adoption.").

Page 2, line 6 at end insert—
("() A body corporate and another person shall not by virtue of paragraph (e) or (f) of subsection (1) above be regarded for the purposes of this Act as associated with each other.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Occupation orders where applicant has estate or interest etc, or has matrimonial home rights]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments No. 6:
Page 5, line 44, after first ("and") insert ("housing").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42 to 46 inclusive and 52.
These are all drafting amendments which were raised on consideration of the evidence, and which were prepared in response to questions raised by the Special Public Bill Committee and explained by Parliamentary Counsel in her letter to the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30 and 31, which remove the word "specified" from Clause 15 in favour of the words "one or more" or "certain" have also been added to this list because they appear to deal with drafting matters. Some people found it difficult to understand what was already in the Bill and we have tried to clarify the situation for them. Whether these are necessary as drafting amendments I am not certain, but it is wise nevertheless to make them. So all of these are properly to be regarded as drafting amendments which do not change any aspect of policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 12, after ("is") insert ("as great as or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 25, leave out from ("order") to end of line 26.
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25 and 36. I first deal with those amendments other than Amendment No. 25.
Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 15, 20 and 36, remove the provisions relating to the variation and revocation of occupation orders from Clauses 7, 9, and 10, and non-molestation orders under Clause 13 of the Bill and replace them with a new Clause 16A. This provides further clarification that an application for the variation or discharge of an occupation order or a non-molestation order may be made by the applicant or respondent; the court can also vary or discharge a non-molestation order made under Clause 13(2)(b) of its own motion.
The proposed new clause also enables the court to vary or discharge a power of arrest independently of the order to which it is attached. This is in order to make it clear to those who might be using only this code just precisely what the position is, although of course it is in accordance with the general law with which ordinary practitioners would be familiar.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 extend the ancillary matters which can be included in occupation orders. They give the court power to require either party to take reasonable care of the dwelling house and any furniture or other contents, and to take reasonable steps to keep the dwelling house secure.
Amendment No. 21 provides for a non-molestation order made in other family proceedings to cease to have effect if those proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed. This will prevent the possibility of the order, particularly when expressed in the terms "until further order" being overlooked by the court and continuing in force despite all other proceedings having been terminated. This is a point that senior district Judge Angel made of a practical kind to which your Lordships would wish to give effect.
Amendment No. 25 was put forward in consequence of a desire on the part of some of our witnesses to have clarified the opportunity of a person, in respect of whom an order had been made without notice to that person, to make representations. Again, practitioners would expect that, but it is right to make it express.
Having considered both comment on this amendment, which we were privileged to get from Judge Fricker to whom I sent the amendments for his comment, and also an amendment proposed by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Brightman, I am proposing not to move Amendment No. 25 in its present form, but to move a manuscript amendment in its place, which I hope your Lordships received, through the kindness of Parliamentary Counsel, shortly before the Committee sat.
I will just read it, to make sure that everyone has the right amendment. Page 11, line 4, at end insert, instead of the amendment that I proposed:
("( ) Where the court exercises its powers under subsection (1) above, it shall afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations relating to the order as soon as just and convenient at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.")
In the meantime, however, I formally move Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Is it in order to speak to the rest of the amendments in the group? I think that it is. I should only like to say that I would have welcomed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman's amendment rather than Amendment No. 25 because it does appear to make explicit what I believe everybody in the Special Public Bill Committee desired; that is, that after an ex parte order there should be an opportunity for the respondent at least to come back and take part in proceedings of which he has had notice.
The other thing that I welcome in it is, I think, the only reference in the Bill to rules of court. There are a number of matters upon which rules of various courts will have to be made, and to have an explicit reference to rules of court here would point the way to quite a number of other applications of rule-making powers at all levels. I therefore would have supported particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman's amendment.
On Question, Amendment No. 8, agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Occupation orders where applicant has no existing right to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 13:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("which") and insert ("by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation, and
( ) that dwelling-house—")
Page 7, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 5
Page 8, line 11, after ("is") insert ("as great as or")
Page 8, line 20, leave out from ("months") to end of line 21
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("so entitled") and insert ("entitled to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of that interest").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with Amendment No. 6.
I spoke to Amendment No. 12 with Amendment No. 8, and to Amendment No. 13, which is also to Clause 9, with Amendment No. 6. So with your Lordships' leave, I shall move Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Occupation orders where neither party entitled to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 8, line 36, after second ("spouse") insert ("cohabitant")
Page 9, line 9, leave out from ("months") to end of line 10.
The noble and learned Lord said: There are two amendments to Clause 10. Amendment No. 14 was spoken to with Amendment No. 6, and Amendment No. 15, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 8. With your Lordships leave, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Additional provisions that may be included in certain occupation orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 9, line 39, leave out ("and").
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("(d) order either party to take reasonable care of any furniture or other contents of the dwelling-house, and
(e) order either party to take reasonable steps to keep the dwelling-house and any furniture or other contents secure.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments, which are amendments to Clause 12, with Amendment No. 8. Again, with your Lordships' leave I move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Non-molestation orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert —
("( ) In subsection (2) above "family proceedings" includes proceedings in which the court has made an emergency protection order under section 44 of the Children Act 1989 which includes an exclusion requirement (as defined in section 44A(3) of that Act).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56 and 57.
PBC 12
Amendment No. 18 enables the court of its own motion to make a non-molestation order when an exclusion requirement is added to an emergency protection order under the new Section 44A of the Children Act 1989 contained in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
As the Bill stands, the court would already have such a power in relation to an interim care order as the new Section 38A of the Children Act contained in Schedule 3 falls within the definition of "family proceedings" in Clause 25(2) of the Bill. This amendment therefore ensures that the protection of the child by way of a non-molestation order can be achieved in both situations.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 53 add further clarification to Schedule 3 to the Bill in relation to the term "removal of the child". As currently drafted, the Bill provides that the exclusion will terminate if the child is removed from the dwelling-house. However, it is not intended that a temporary removal for, say, a medical examination or an interview should have this effect. These amendments therefore provide that an exclusion requirement included in an interim care order or emergency protection order will cease to have effect where the local authority removes the child to other accommodation for a period longer than 24 hours. The definition in the amendment is intended to avoid the uncertainty inherent in any more general definition of "temporary removal", and the impossibility of covering each specific type of removal which may or may not terminate the exclusion requirement.
Amendment No. 53, paragraphs (4), (5), (8), (9) and (10), reproduces the new Section 38A(4) to (7) of the Children Act 1989, contained in Schedule 3, in the new Section 44A of the Children Act 1989, also contained in Schedule 3.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 55 enable the court to vary or discharge a power of arrest attached to an exclusion requirement under Schedule 3 on application by a person entitled to apply for discharge of the requirement. The court can do this independently of any other provision in the order.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 53, paragraphs (6) and (7), give the court the power, when a power of arrest is attached to an exclusion requirement in an interim care order and emergency protection order, to make the power of arrest of a shorter duration than the other provisions of the order and also to extend it on an application to vary the order.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 enable the court to defer payment of any compensation ordered under Schedule 4 where a transfer of tenancy has taken place between a spouse or cohabitant. Where the transferee would suffer greater financial hardship if immediate payment was required than the transferor would suffer if payment were deferred, the court can order payment on a specified date, on the occurrence of a specified event, or by instalments. I beg to move.
Baroness David: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question about Amendment No. 18? It may not be possible for him to answer it now and I apologise if it is difficult. I was sent a few amendments by the NSPCC, too late to put them down for today, and I suspect that one of them may have the same affect as Amendment No. 18. It reads:
"Clause 13, page 10, line 16, after the words 'family proceedings' insert—
'or proceedings under Part V of the Children Act 1989'".
I remember that this was discussed in our committee, but, again, it is awkward to answer this now and I am afraid that I have not had time to check it. However, it did occur to me that it might possibly be similar.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The answer that I can give at the moment is that this does not do all that the NSPCC amendment would do, because the Government's view is that the emergency protection order procedure is special. It is not to be equated with a full family proceedings type of case, and my impression is that the amendment that the noble Baroness has cited to us does go that distance. Without having it to look at in a little more detail, I cannot be absolutely sure, but that is my impression of the previous discussion and of what the noble Baroness has read out. Obviously I shall be glad to have a note of these proposals and write to her after more deliberation.
Baroness David: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much indeed. It is obviously better to leave it for Report Stage. I shall look at it more carefully myself and possibly put down an amendment on Report in order to get a full reply from the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("and may be varied or revoked").
Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) A non-molestation order which is made in other family proceedings shall cease to have effect if those proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Apart from Amendment No. 18, the only amendments that I have to Clause 13 are Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 8. With your Lordships' leave, I move these en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 13 as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
Leave of court required for applications by children under sixteen.
("13A.—(1) A child under the age of sixteen may not apply for an occupation order or a non-molestation order except with the leave of the court.
(2) The court may grant leave for the purposes of subsection (1) above only if it is satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application for the occupation order or non-molestation order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. This amendment covers the subject matter of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which he has not moved; subject, of course, to the point that we have not made it a requirement of leave in respect of 16 and 17 year-old children—a point we discussed—as they can be married. It was thought wise to apply the leave requirement to children under 16, but, subject to that, this amendment covers the subject matter of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Ex parte orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 34, leave our ("as may be prescribed by") and insert ("as would otherwise be required by").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 24 with Amendment No. 6 and to Amendment No. 25 with Amendment No. 8. It might be appropriate, perhaps in connection with clause stand part, that I make some reference to the European Convention, because it is in this connection that Professor Cretney raised a question. I should like to move the amendment and then perhaps say a word in relation to the stand part debate on Clause 14, as amended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the Manuscript Amendment:
Page 11, line 4, at end insert—
(" ( ) "Where the court exercises its powers under subsection (1) above, it shall afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations relating to the order as soon as just and convenient at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with the rules of court.")
Lord Brightman: As I circulated my own manuscript amendment together with a note to all Members of the Committee this morning, it is right that I should say that I entirely agree to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I have withdrawn my own manuscript amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My manuscript amendment adopts the line of my noble and learned friend's amendment, It would not be right for me to take the credit for it without acknowledging that very fully.
On Question, Manuscript Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: Your Lordships will remember that in the evidence, Professor Stephen Cretney raised the question whether the provisions of

PBC 15
the Bill might lead to contraventions of the European Convention on Human Rights. His own conclusion was that, having examined the matter, he thought the answer was no. I should just say that I thought it was right to look at this matter.
It is always difficult to forecast in advance what may happen. The European Convention is applied to the circumstances of a particular case. There may be circumstances in the case that went beyond or were not envisaged in the legislation. The best view I can form is that so long as the rules of court provide for service of orders upon respondents—and that is the point with which we have just been dealing—I think it is highly unlikely that the provisions of the Bill properly carried out would lead to any contravention of the convention.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
Undertakings
("14A.—(1) In any case where the court has power to make an occupation order or non-molestation order, the court may accept an undertaking from the respondent.
(2) No power of arrest may be attached to any undertaking given under subsection (1) above; and the court shall not accept an undertaking under that subsection in any case where apart from this section a power of arrest would be attached to the order.
(3) An undertaking given to a court under subsection (1) above shall be enforceable as if it were an order of the court.
(4) This section has effect without prejudice to the powers of the High Court and the county court apart from this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 32, 34, 37, 38, 48, 50 and 54.
Amendment No. 26 inserts a new clause which allows the courts to accept an undertaking from the respondent instead of making an order. This was a point that your Lordships will remember was raised in the deliberations of the Special Public Bill Committee. This is already common practice in the county courts, although the magistrates' courts do not have this power.
The proposed amendment will mean that all relevant courts have the same power. Amendments Nos. 50 and 54 deal with undertakings in relation to the exclusion requirement of emergency protection or interim care orders.
Amendment No. 29 provides that when a court attaches a power of arrest to any provisions of a relevant order, it may provide that the power of arrest is to have effect for a shorter period than the other provisions of the order. The amendment also allows any power of arrest attached to an order to be extended on an application to vary or discharge the order. The amendment is introduced to give the courts greater flexibility concerning the attachment of a power of arrest and will not apply where the power of arrest is mandatory. It is only discretionary powers to which this will apply.
Amendment No. 32 allows the court to attach conditions before releasing a respondent on bail to secure that he or she does not interfere with witnesses
PBC 16
or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. This provision may be of assistance in cases where the court believes that the respondent may attempt such interference.
Amendment No. 48 is a consequential amendment. Your Lordships will remember that this was suggested arising out of the evidence and looking at the way in which the Bail Act operates, but we have not sought to incorporate the Bail Act provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 34 adds further clarity to Clause 16(1) and provides that the court should only consider a power of remand under Clause 16 (1) where it has reason to consider that a medical report will be required.
Amendment No. 37 gives the magistrates' courts the same power to make hospital orders under Sections 37 and 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983 as they have in the case of a person convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment. The superior courts already have this power in respect of civil contempt proceedings. Your Lordships will remember that this point was raised on a note by Mr. Justice Brooke, the Chairman of the Law Commission, towards the end of our proceedings.
Amendment No. 38 clarifies that all courts within the definition of relevant judicial authority shall have the power to deal with contempt proceedings, and that makes plain the general idea that these jurisdictions, subject to the allocation orders and so on, should be comprehensive and unified jurisdictions. I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I welcome this group of amendments very warmly indeed. There are two underlying themes in it, both of which appear to me to he wholly admirable. First, we are bringing into line all the powers that currently are available, and will be under the Bill, to the High Court and to the County Courts so that the magistrates' courts can have exact parity of powers, which is what was always intended in the first place, but which they did not have in all respects under the drafting of the Bill. Secondly, we are ensuring that the whole of the enforcement of the Bill is done through the common law powers of the court to deal with contempt, and not, incidentally, very largely under the Contempt of Court Act, with the concomitant point that I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord about in one moment.
However, as regards Amendment No. 34, I should like confirmation of a number of points which have caused a good deal of discussion outside the purlieus of Parliament. Does the new phrase which introduces the powers in Clause 16 in fact put the court in total charge of the medical report for the purposes of obtaining, as to how it is to be obtained, and what is to be done with it when it has been obtained, because this has been the subject of some dispute? I would be very grateful if clarification could be given on that.
Secondly, there are on the face of the Bill still two matters which do not appear to be dealt with. They have in fact been dealt with under Amendment No. 38, although it does not say so and it might be just as well to ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that that is so. Currently, contempts which do not really apply to

PBC 17
the magistrates' court very much at the moment, but which will in the future, are dealt with by, among other things, fines and suspended sentences. I have had my own doubts about whether the existing powers of the magistrates' courts under Section 63 of the 1980 Act cover the power to fine, because it talks in fact about default payments. There is no provision anywhere in this legislation at the moment which deals with suspended sentences, although in the County Courts contempts are frequently dealt with by that means. It that is so, then they should be able to be in the magistrates' courts as well.
I therefore would offer to the noble and learned Lord a short passage from a judgment of the noble and learned lord, Lord Denning, in 1970. He said:
"I hold, therefore, that a judge of the High Court still has power at common law to commit instantly to prison for criminal contempt, and this power is not affected in the least by the provisions of the [Criminal Justice] Act of 1967. The powers at common law remain intact. It is a power to fine or imprison, to give an immediate sentence or to postpone it, to commit to prison pending his consideration of the sentence, to bind over to be of good behaviour and keep the peace, and to bind over to come up for judgment if called upon. These powers enable the judge to give what is, in effect, a suspended sentence. I have often heard a judge say at common law, for ordinary offences, before these modern statutes were passed:
'I will bind you over to come up for judgment if called upon to do so. Mark you, if you do get into trouble again, you will then be sentenced for this offence. I will make a note that it deserves six months' imprisonment. So that is what you may get if you do not accept this chance.'
That is the common law way of giving a suspended sentence. It can be done also for contempt of court"
I read that passage because I believe that there are a number of people outside this Committee who will wish to follow our proceedings on what appears to be an important group of amendments. If I am correct in thinking that Amendment No. 38 carries with it implicitly, because it refers to the common law power to deal with contempt of court, a power to fine and a power to suspend any sentence, then that, I believe, clears up all the remaining points that I had and which I was worried about at the beginning of the Special Public Bill Committee proceedings. I hope I am right in this and I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to confirm it.
If I may say so in conclusion, I have not previously been a member of a Special Public Bill Committee, but the complexity of the points that are contained, and indeed resolved, in this group of amendments are fairly substantial, and I am confident that it would have been absolutely impossible to get to the stage that we have now reached in this group of amendments if it had had to be done on the Floor of the Chamber—putting forward tentative amendments to meet one point or another only to have them rejected on drafting grounds or because they were inadequate or improperly thought out. I believe that this is an admirable example of the sort of progress that can be made very swiftly by the proceedings that have been adopted.
6 p.m.
Lord Meston: I also join in thanking the noble and learned Lord for these amendments, which indeed meet many of the practical problems that have been thrown
PBC 18
up in the course of the evidence. In particular, I welcome the introduction of the ability of the magistrates' courts to receive undertakings. Practitioners who are naive enough—and I include myself in that—in days gone by to have tried to resolve a case in the magistrates' court by offering undertakings have traditionally met a bewildered Bench and a very irritated clerk of the court.
Having said that, I ask one question. It may be that I did not hear the noble and learned Lord correctly. Is it the intention that a power of arrest can, in certain circumstances, be attached to an undertaking as distinct from an order? I notice that there is a specific provision in Amendment No. 54 which relates only to undertakings in certain specific circumstances and says that no power of arrest may he attached to any undertaking given under the new Section 44B.
I am not clear whether it is intended that a power of arrest might be attached to an undertaking given under the main body of the Bill, and I would welcome clarification.
The Lord Chancellor: May I take that last point first? My intention would he that the undertaking would not have a power of arrest attached to it; hut, on the other hand, the powers of the court to deal with the matter as if it were a contempt would arise on the breach of the undertaking. So there would he another stage before an arrest would arise. The ordinary way in which that would be developed, if it was wanted to go down that road, would be, of course, to apply for a warrant of arrest. That is my intention and I believe it is what was wanted.
I now turn to my noble friend Lord Colville's questions. The amendment to Clause 16 (1) is intended simply to introduce as a preamble the basis on which the court should have power to ask for a medical report. It is that they consider that the medical report will be required. My view of Clause 16 as it stands is that the court is receiving the medical report for the purpose for which it considers that the medical report is required by the court, and therefore the court has complete power over the report.
It may be that this issue within which a report should be handled is an issue which would require to he elaborated in detail in rules of court. But my intention so far as concerns the primary legislation is that the amendment should make clear the basis on which a report is asked for, and then that Clause 16 itself, with that amendment in place, leaves the court in control of the report, as it is submitted.
I come to a slightly more difficult question as regards Amendment No. 38:
"The powers of the court in relation to contempt of court arising out of a person's failure to comply with an order under this Act may be exercised by the relevant judicial authority."
The idea is that the powers of the court are of course defined, but it means that anyone following under the description of the relevant judicial authority will have the powers of the court. This arises most directly in relation to the district judge and his or her powers.
So far as concerns the magistrates' courts' powers, they are already dealt with; they are statutory powers. The power upon which I rely to give the magistrates

PBC 19
jurisdiction in dealing with this matter is in the section to which the noble Lord referred, but it is wide enough to cover this kind of situation because it is a power to deal with the kind of default that would arise if there was failure to obey one of these orders. That is my answer. It means that the common law powers are essentially powers of the High Court judge and the powers of lower courts are basically statutory powers, and I rely on these in this connection.
Viscount Colville of Culross: In that case it is something to which I would like to return at a later stage, for this reason: if the county court is currently passing suspended sentences for contempts of the legislation which is going to be replaced by this Bill, they must have some statutory jurisdiction to do so. They certainly are not relying upon the Criminal Justice Acts, let alone upon the Criminal Justice Acts limited as they now are since 1991 to very exceptional circumstances. I do not know what powers they are relying on when they impose suspended sentences, but they certainly do impose suspended sentences and it is a useful remedy for them to have. I hope that therefore may be clarified.
So far as concerns the magistrates' courts, if we are to give the magistrates' courts parity of powers and jurisdiction, which is the whole thesis that underlies the Bill, then they too will have to have statutory powers if they cannot do it under the common law power that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was talking about in the passage from which I read. I therefore very earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor to look at this again, because I believe that suspended sentences are something that ought to be clarified so that they can continue to be used in suitable cases. Certainly I will not go back to the question of Section 63 if the noble and learned Lord thinks they can fine under it, which is what they are doing now, although with some misgivings. I am certainly not going to interfere with that situation. As for suspended sentences, I am afraid I am not at the moment content that there are necessary powers.
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously I shall be happy to look into that further. It is perhaps important to say that what I have sought to do is to use the contempt jurisdiction of the levels of court to deal with contempts under the Bill. It is pretty clear, I think, that the precise range of powers that may be had may well increase as one goes up the judicial ladder. It would be wrong, therefore, to say that there is parity of power in the sense that all courts have exactly the same powers, but it is right to say that attached to this jurisdiction will be the contempt power that is appropriate for that level of court. Obviously, the allocation of jurisdiction, and so on, may take account of that in making orders under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, for deciding into which court particular types of proceedings should go.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Arrest for breach of order]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 33:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("specified") and insert ("one or more").
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("specified") and insert ("one or more").
Page 11. line 22, at end insert—
PBC 20
("(3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3) above, the court attaches a power of arrest to any provisions of a relevant order, it may provide that the power of arrest is to have effect for a shorter period than the other provisions of the order.
(3B) Any period specified for the purposes of subsection (3A) above may be extended by the court (on one or more occasions) on an application to vary or discharge the relevant order.").
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("specified") and insert ("certain").
Page 11, line 28, leave out ("specified") and insert ("certain").
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
("(9A) Where a person remanded under this section is granted bail (whether in the High Court or a county court under Schedule 2 to this Act or in a magistrates' court under section 128 or 129 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), he may be required by the relevant judicial authority to comply, before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to that authority to be necessary to secure that he does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.".
Page 12, leave out lines 8 to 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments No. 27 and 28 with Amendment No. 6. I spoke to Amendment No. 29 with Amendment No. 26. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 with Amendment No. 6. I spoke to Amendment No. 32 with Amendment No. 26. I spoke to Amendment No. 33 with Amendment No. 6. Therefore, with your Lordship's leave, I move these amendments to Clause 15 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16, [Remand for medical examination and report]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos, 34 and 35:
Page 12, line 14, at beginning insert ("Where the relevant judicial authority has reason to consider that a medical report will be required".
Page 12, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 34 with Amendment No. 26 and to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 6. With your Lordships' leave, I move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
After clause 16, insert the following new clause—
Variation and discharge of orders.
("16A.—(1) An occupation order or non-molestation order may be varied or discharged by the court on an application by—

(a) the respondent, or

(b) the person on whose application the order was made; but, in the case of a non-molestation order made by virtue of section I3(2)(b) of this Act, the order may be varied or discharged by the court even though no such application has been made.

(2) Where, by virtue of section 15(3) of this Act, a power of arrest has been attached to certain provisions of an occupation order or non-molestation order, the court may vary or discharge the order under subsection (1) above in so far as it confers a power of arrest (whether or not any application has been made to vary or discharge any other provision of the order).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
Power of magistrates' court to order hospital admission or guardianship.
("16B. A magistrates' court shall have the like power to make a hospital order or guardianship order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 or an interim hospital order under section 38 of that Act in the case of a person suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment who could otherwise be committed to custody for breach of a relevant requirement as a magistrates' court has under those sections in the case of a person convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment.
(2) In subsection (1) above "a relevant requirement" means—

(a) any requirement of an occupation order or non-molestation order;

(b) an exclusion requirement included by virtue of section 38A of the Children Act 1989 in an interim care order made under section 38 of that Act; or

(c) an exclusion requirement included by virtue of section 44A of the Children Act 1989 in an emergency protection order under section 44 of that Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
Contempt proceedings
("21 A. The powers of the court in relation to contempt of court arising out of a person's failure to comply with an order under this Act may be exercised by the relevant judicial authority.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Magistrates' courts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 23, after ("interest") insert ("or contract").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Appeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("22(4)") and insert ("22(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 45:
Page 16, line 28, at end insert—
(""adoption order" has the meaning given by section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976;").
Page 16, line 34, at end insert—
PBC 22
(""development" means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development").
Page 16, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—

("(a) in relation to a person who has reached the age of eighteen years, means ill-treatment or the impairment of health, and

b) in relation to a child, means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development;

"health" includes physical or mental health;
"ill-treatment", in relation to a child, includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical").
Page 17, line 25, at end insert—
(""the relevant judicial authority", in relation to any order under this Act, means—

(a) where the order was made by the High Court, a judge of that court,

(b) where the order was made by a county court, a judge or district judge of that or any other county court, or

(c) where the order was made by a magistrates' court, any justice of the peace.").

Page 17, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child's health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child".).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 41 with Amendment No. 2. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 inclusive with Amendment No. 6. With your Lordships' leave, I move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of Children Act 1989]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 55:
Page 21, line 44, leave out ("order being made") and insert ("inclusion of the exclusion requirement").
Page 22, line 11, at end insert—
("(5A) Where the court attaches a power of arrest to an exclusion requirement of an interim care order, it may provide that the power of arrest is to have effect for a shorter period than the exclusion requirement.
(5B) Any period specified for the purposes of subsection (4) or (5A) may be extended by the court (on one or more occasions) on an application to vary or discharge the interim care order.").
Page 22, line 16, after ("15(5)") insert ("(9) and (9A)").
Page 22, line 22, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 23 and insert ("exercise their power to remove the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours, the interim care").
Page 22, line 25, at end insert—
"Undertakings relating to interim care orders.
38B. —(1) In any case where the court has power to include an exclusion requirement in an interim care order, the court may accept an undertaking from the relevant person.
(2) No power of arrest may be attached to any undertaking given under subsection (1).
(3) An undertaking given to a court under subsection (1)—

PBC 23

(a) shall be enforceable as if it were an order of the court, and

(b) shall cease to have effect if, while it is in force, the local authority exercise their power to remove the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours.

(4) This section has effect without prejudice to the powers of the High Court and county court apart from this section.
(5) In this section "exclusion requirement" and "relevant person"
have the same meaning as in section 38A."").
Page 22, line 32, at end insert—
("(3B) Where a power of arrest has been attached to an exclusion requirement of an interim care order, the court may, on the application of any person entitled to apply for the discharge of the order so far as it imposes the exclusion requirement, vary or discharge the order in so far as it confers a power of arrest (whether or not any application has been made to vary or discharge any other provision of the order).").
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("order being made") and insert ("inclusion of the exclusion requirement").
Page 23, leave out lines 18 to 24 and insert—
("(4) The court may provide that the exclusion requirement is to have effect for a shorter period than the other provisions of the order.
(5) Where the court makes an emergency protection order containing an exclusion requirement, the court may attach a power of arrest to the exclusion requirement.
(6) Where the court attaches a power of arrest to an exclusion requirement of an emergency protection order, it may provide that the power of arrest is to have effect for a shorter period than the exclusion requirement.
(7) Any period specified for the purposes of subsection (4) or (6) may be extended by the court (on one or more occasions) on an application to vary or discharge the emergency protection order.
(8) Where a power of arrest is attached to an exclusion requirement of an emergency protection order by virtue of subsection (5), a constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be in breach of the requirement.
(9) Sections 15(5), (9) and (9A) and 16 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act 1995 shall have effect in relation to a person arrested under subsection (8) of this section as they have effect in relation to a person arrested under section 15(4) of that Act.
(10) If, while an emergency protection order containing an exclusion requirement is in force, the applicant exercises the power given by section 44(4)(b)(i) to remove the child to other accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours, the order shall cease to have effect in so far as it imposes the exclusion requirement." ").
Page 23, line 24 at end insert—
"Undertakings relating to emergency protection orders.
44B. —(1) In any case where the court has power to include an exclusion requirement in an emergency protection order, the court may accept an undertaking from the relevant person.
(2) No power of arrest may be attached to any undertaking given under subsection (1).
(3) An undertaken given to a court under subsection (1)—

(a) shall be enforceable as if it were an order of the court, and

(b) shall cease to have effect if, while it is in force, the applicant exercises the power given by section 44(4)(b)(i) to remove the child to other accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours.

(4) The section has effect without prejudice to the powers of the High Court and county court apart from this section.
(5) In this section "exclusion requirement" and "relevant person" have the same meaning as in section 44A."").
Page 23, line 31, at end insert—
PBC 24
("(8B) Where a power of arrest has been attached to an exclusion requirement of an emergency protection order, the court may, on the application of any person entitled to apply for the discharge of the order so far as it imposes the exclusion requirement, vary or discharge the order in so far as it confers a power of arrest (whether or not any application has been made to vary or discharge any other provision of the order).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 46 with Amendment No. 6, to Amendment No. 47 with Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 48 with Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 49 with Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 50 with Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 51 with Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 52 with Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 53 with Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 54 with Amendment No. 18 and Amendment No. 55 with Amendment No. 18. With your Lordships' leave, I move the amendments to Schedule 3 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transfer of certain tenancies on divorce etc. or on separation of cohabitants]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 26, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, the court may, on making an order by virtue of that sub-paragraph for the payment of a sum—

(a) direct that payment of that sum or any part of it shall be deferred until a specified date or until the occurrence of a specified event, or

(b) direct that that sum or any part of it shall be paid by instalments.

(1B) Where an order has been made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the court may, on the application of the transferee or the transferor—

(a) exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1A) above, or

(b) vary any direction previously given under that sub-paragraph,

at any time before the sum whose payment is required by the order is paid in full.").
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) The court shall not give any direction under sub-paragraph (1A) above unless it appears to the court that immediate payment of the sum required by the order would cause the transferee financial hardship which is greater than any financial hardship that would be caused to the transferor if the direction were given.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 18. With your Lordships' leave, I will move these en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That this be the Title of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Members of the Committee: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary "Not-Content". The Contents have it.
The Question is. That I report the Bill to the House with amendments. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".

The Lords following, with the Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne), were present:

L. Archer of Sandwell

B. Darcy (de Knayth)

L. Brightman (Chairman)

B. David

L. Butterworth

L. Kingsland

L. Clark of Kempston

L. Mackay of Clashfern (L. Chancellor)

V. Colville of Culross

L. Meston

L. Elton

L. Harding of Petherton

Members of the Committee: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary "Not-Content". The Contents have it. That concludes the proceedings.
The Committee adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.

  UK Defence Spending
  UK Defence Spending
  Environment Agency
  Environment Agency
  Mrs. M. Curtin: Circumstances of Death
  Mrs. M. Curtin: Circumstances of Death
  Government Departments: Stolen Equipment
  Government Departments: Stolen Equipment