Sitting of 7 February 1995

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

    Unemployment
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for reducing the number of unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government will continue to control inflation and Government spending and borrowing. Those policies have reduced unemployment by 558,000 since December 1992 to a level almost 2 percentage points below the European Community average.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Secretary of State noticed that, despite all the rhetoric, the level of public spending is the same as the level that his Government inherited from the Labour Government in 1979 and that his party is now the party of high taxation? Might not that be because it is extremely expensive to maintain the best part of 3 million people who are permanently out of work? Does he now regret advocating policies which have led to mass unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: I am an advocate of policies that will lead to mass employment. Keeping inflation low and keeping control of public spending and public borrowing are the way to ensure that employment is created in this country. The hon. Gentleman has created a reputation for himself as a seeker after truth and justice, but when he speaks in the House on unemployment he is a propagandist and seeks to distort. His party is in favour of higher taxation and higher spending and, therefore, it is in favour of higher unemployment.
    Sir Ralph Howell: While welcoming the fact that unemployment is falling, is that not partly due to the trend for one regular full-time job to be turned into two part-time jobs? Should we not cease to deceive ourselves that unemployment is falling in the long term when in fact it is 65 per cent. higher than it was four years ago?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend should look at the figures that we published last month, which showed an increase over the past year of 221,000 full-time jobs anti only 83,000 part-time jobs. My hon. Friend is too careful a student of the figures to fall in with the propaganda put out by the Labour party, which despises part-time employment even though such employment is often the ladder to full-time employment and also the way in which many people wish to structure their working lives. Even
    124
    if my hon. Friend had fallen in with that propaganda, the most recent figures show that the number of full-time jobs is rising faster and that they are more numerous than part-time jobs.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister confirm that unemployment among ethnic minority groups is running at more than three times the national average? What action is his Department taking to compile evidence of racial discrimination in employment and what measures is the Secretary of State planning to eradicate the imbalance in the unemployment figures?
    Mr. Portillo: A series of questions answered recently by, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) drew attention to worrying levels of unemployment among ethnic minorities, which is indeed a problem. My Department tries to address its policies and to approach its client group so that opportunities for those facing discrimination of any sort—including, for example, older workers and those who have been long-term unemployed—are maximised. We shall continue to tailor our measures to provide the most effective help for all sorts of people and for those facing any prejudice, to improve the working of the labour market and to help those people to improve their employability.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proper understanding of the employment situation requires examination of not only the very welcome fall in unemployment, but the increase in the number of people in jobs? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that an increase in that latter figure is correct?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. For some time the Opposition used to take heart—I use that phrase because they like to look for bad news—from the fact that although the number of people employed was clearly rising, according to the labour force survey, which was the internationally agreed standard, at the same time there was a reduction for several quarters according to the other survey, the work force and employment survey. Now both measures have come into line and both surveys say that there has been an increase in the number of people in work, and also a substantial increase in the number of self-employed. Unemployment is falling, and employment and self-employment are rising, so there is no bad news left for the Opposition: the only conclusion to be drawn is that the economy is doing well under the policies pursued by the Government.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State admit that there has indeed been bad news today for the 2,900 Rumbelows staff who have learnt that they are to lose their jobs? What has he to say to them? Will he recognise that there will be no feelgood factor so long as everyone at work in this country feels that his or her job is under threat? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's complacency, which he has demonstrated yet again today, simply remind everyone that the Government are out of touch and do not care?
    Mr. Portillo: I have recently read some articles on the national minimum wage written by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) which made me believe that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) had been replaced on the Front Bench. I welcome her back to her place with great relief. However,

    125
    in all the time that she and I have had dealings I have not felt that statistics were her strong point. Today she has demonstrated again that she will grasp at any piece of bad news that she possibly can. Why did she not tell us that B and Q has today announced more than 2,300 more jobs? Why does she talk only about jobs that have been lost and not about jobs that have been created? It is because she is interested only in creating gloom and in scoring political points; she is not interested in the British economy or in the plight of the unemployed. Why does she not take the opportunity to correct the false impression that she gives and acknowledge that when jobs are lost in some companies they are created in others, and that 226,000 extra jobs have been created over the past year? That is the fact of the matter, and that is what she should be talking about.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read this year's Barclays Business News, which states that last year a net figure of more than 24,000 new small businesses were started? Does he agree with me that—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) would listen, he might hear something worth listening to. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with more than 2.6 million small businesses in this country we need to encourage those enterprises and that the last thing that we want to do is heap non-wage costs on them, as the Labour party would do? Would that not destroy jobs?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend speaks good sense, but I am afraid that he is wasting his time speaking good sense to the Labour party, which is not interested in small businesses, in enterprise culture or in creating jobs in the real world. The Labour party is interested only in propaganda and point scoring. The proof of that, as my hon. Friend says, is the fact that Labour policies for the future are to sign up to the social chapter and destroy jobs in this country, to impose costs on employers and to disregard the warning given by Mercedes-Benz this week that it would have to move jobs out of Europe because of the social chapter. The Labour party wants to move us into the social chapter so that jobs will be destroyed in Britain, too.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before we make further progress, I must tell hon. Members that I hope that we shall be able to make more progress. The first question has taken almost 10 minutes.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask Back Benchers and Ministers to be brisk in their questions and their responses. Otherwise it is most unfair to Members whose questions are further down the Order Paper. I want to see better progress made in future.

    Disability Discrimination Bill
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from (a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the
    126
    Employers Forum on Disability about proposals in the Disability Discrimination Bill to exclude firms with fewer than 20 employees from its anti-discrimination provisions.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Both organisations were among the 39 employer associations which responded, 36 of which did not oppose the exemption.
    Mr. Corbett: Have not both the CBI and the Employers Forum on Disability said that it would be wrong to exempt firms with fewer than 20 employees from the measures proposed in the Disability Discrimination Bill? Those organisations include 96 out of every 100 companies and represent 37 out of every 100 people at work. Why is the Minister so far apart from employers, and even further apart from the 6.5 million people with disabilities and their carers?
    Mr. Paice: We always listen to what the CBI says, although not to the exclusion of everybody else. The simple fact is that out of the 39 employer associations and organisations which responded, 36 did not oppose the exemption. That is a massive majority, and we should take note of it. It is interesting that of the employers themselves—as opposed to employer associations or organisations—again, the vast majority did not oppose the exemption, which was clearly spelt out in the consultative document.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that at present employers with 20 or fewer employees are excluded from the legislation and that it is therefore perfectly sensible that that should continue? Does he further agree that we should build the new procedures on a sensible and practical basis rather than trying to sweep everything in together?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. The present quota system excludes firms with fewer than 20 employees, which is why we used the same figure in the Bill now being discussed in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend also rightly emphasises that we must be concerned about the overall effects of the proposals on small businesses, which do not necessarily have the resources to be able to study, follow and implement all the minutiae of the legislation. That is why Governments of all persuasions have always given favourable encouragement to small businesses.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister take some comfort from the fact that the CBI and the Employers Forum on Disability have taken a positive attitude to the proposed legislation which may encourage the Government to go further down the road?
    Mr. Paice: We are encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of organisations which responded to the consultative document did so positively in regard to the general approach of our proposals. Obviously there was a vast range of different opinions on different aspects of a comprehensive piece of legislation, and those are currently being addressed in the Standing Committee.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for

    127
    unemployed men in the Liverpool travel-to-work area who have either (a) been unemployed for more than five years or (b) never been employed at all.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): In October 1994, there were 5,658 men in the Liverpool travel-to-work area who had been claimant unemployed for five years or more. Information is not available on the employment history of unemployed claimants.
    Mrs. Kennedy: That is an example of how figures are used in an attempt to disguise the seriousness of the problem facing Liverpool. The 1991 census return showed that 44 per cent. of men in the Liverpool district had either not worked for five years, or had not worked at all, but all we get from the Government are measures designed to disguise the fact that they massage the figures. When will the Minister bring forward measures to bring jobs to Liverpool? That is what the people whom I represent are interested in.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I am interested that the hon. Lady says that the Government massage the figures. I have a press release from the TUC which calls the labour force survey on unemployment figures "fully reliable". However, the LFS unemployment total is almost exactly the same as the claimant count, which blows a hole in the Opposition's claim that the claimant count is fiddled.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my hon. Friend expect employment in Liverpool to benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage or the adoption of a social chapter? Is it not absurd that those who complain about unemployment would introduce measures which would increase the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Oppenheim: During the 1970s, unemployment in Liverpool rose faster than it has under this Government, and unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) has fallen by 10 per cent in the past year; long-term unemployment is less than half of its 1986 peak, while overall unemployment is more than 34 per cent. down on the 1986 peak. We now have a better record on jobs than the rest of the EC, in contrast to the situation in the 1970s when we were bottom of the EC league table on unemployment.

    Jobseekers
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish guidelines on the requirements for behaviour and presentation of individuals seeking work as described in clause 6(3)(b) of the Jobseekers Bill.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We shall in due course bring forward regulations under this clause. Each case will be decided on its own merits by independent adjudication officers. The Chief Adjudication Officer, in accordance with his statutory duty, will give them advice and guidance on applying the law.
    Ms Jackson: Will ex-Ministers, who the Government insist must be allowed to take jobs in companies with which they had dealings while in office, be subject to those behavioural and appearance tests? Was the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Wallace, subject to a critical
    128
    appraisal of his appearance before the Government handed him £1.2 million in the form of tax-free share options? Is not that squalid requirement of a mean-spirited and mean-minded little Bill yet a further example of a Government committed to preserving the privileges of the few while destroying the rights of the majority?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that the hon. Lady has never sought to be judged on her appearance in any profession that she has undertaken in the past. If people have jobs, at whatever level, they have clearly satisfied their potential employers in terms of appearance, ability and everything else. The hon. Lady's question is therefore wholly inappropriate.

    Training
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about training provision for young people with special needs.
    Mr. Paice: The Government are committed to ensuring that training opportunities are appropriate for all young people, including those with special needs.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that that reply is totally inadequate when one considers training schemes for young people with special needs? The Harington scheme in my constituency, for example, which has been widely praised by many, including Ministers at the Department, has to struggle year in and year out because its budget is not ring fenced by the training and enterprise council. Is it not time that its budget was ring fenced so that it did not have to rely on a surplus from the TEC? Is it not time that the fine words of his Department were matched by action?
    Mr. Paice: Madam Speaker, I listened to your exhortation for short answers. Had I taken longer on the first one, I could have told the hon. Lady about everything that we are doing for young people with special needs. I could have told her about all the additional financial help available through a number of routes. The training and enterprise council may provide separate enhancement payments for those with special needs. My Department may provide extra funds, and we do so in many cases. Most important, there are special arrangements to pay for low achievement outcomes, in terms of word power and number power, for special needs trainees. I could have told the hon. Lady about the funding pilot scheme now run by the north London TEC showing that the starts and outcomes—based youth training programme includes a commitment to pay premiums for special needs trainees. A range of measures is in place. The hon. Lady is right to identify a group of trainees who need special help, and they are getting it from the Government.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend recognise the considerable contribution of charities in that area of training? Will he look carefully at the arrangements being made between TECs and charities? In the longer term, will he consider splitting the training of those who present particular difficulties from the rest of the responsibilities of TECs, which in many cases would be better employed raising the general prosperity of their area?
    Mr. Paice: We recognise the specific and important role that charities play and we have looked recently at how we can assist them in that. We considered the idea

    129
    of some sort of standardised contract and we are talking to the TEC national council about how charities can be helped in that respect. However, I am not keen on the idea of separating those with special needs as it is a cross-party belief that overall integration into mainstream training and education is, wherever possible, the best way to help those with special needs.
    Mr. Barron: Will not special needs trainees, many of whom need longer periods in training to achieve a successful outcome, be seen as too great a risk—some providers already regard them as such—because the Government's payment by results scheme has forced them to cut corners? When will the Minister take the right action and ensure that those with special needs are treated properly, rather than in the charitable way that he described in answer to an earlier question?
    Mr. Paice: We recognise that those with special needs must have particular attention paid to their needs. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) had done his homework, he would have discovered that in the training for work programme, which goes national with a payment by results system on 1 April, we have specifically ring fenced the number of starts for those with special needs. We are paying substantial premiums for their achievements so that if they are unable, understandably, to get the higher levels of national vocational qualifications they will receive massive premiums for achieving lower NVQs than would be the case for mainstream trainees. Our action is right and proper. On the youth training programme for special needs trainees in the younger age group, we shall be looking at similar measures as we move that programme towards a starts and outcomes funding system at some stage in the future.
    Mr. Barron indicated dissent.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he does not know what he is talking about. The simple fact is that we do not have starts and outcomes in the YT scheme, other than in pilot programmes. As I said to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), special arrangements operate in those pilot programmes to protect those with special needs and to provide extra premiums.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that training for young people today, irrespective of whether they have special needs, is better than it has ever been in our history? Does he also agree that it is extremely encouraging to note the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are in full-time education or training?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend properly identifies the tremendous improvement in staying-on rates. That is a tribute to all that the Government have done to improve the range of opportunities for young people. For instance, the development of general national vocational qualifications to provide an alternative vocational route for people to carry on into further education has been a major step forward and a major contributor to the improved staying-on rate. The massive expansion in higher education opportunities is also a great tribute to the Government. We have provided more opportunities for young people than any Government in history, particularly the last Labour Government.

    Workers' Representation
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss representation of workers.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular contact with the TUC to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Miller: When the Minister met representatives of my union—Manufacturing Science Finance, or MSF—just before Christmas, he gave no comfort to the workers at G.S. Scott who were dismissed following attempts to gain union recognition when the vast majority of workers in that small company wanted that recognition. Is that not yet another example of the Government attempting to protect the interests of the privileged? Does the Minister accept that in this day and age if the majority of workers want union recognition it should be given by the employer?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There is a fundamental difference between the right to belong to a trade union and the right not to be discriminated against for belonging to a trade union. There is redress—[Interruption.] The union should have advised its members to go to an industrial tribunal, where they would gained some redress legally. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his question to the union leader who failed to give that advice, because redress is available.
    There is a difference between the right to belong to a trade union and politicians telling employers that they should deal with unions rather than dealing directly with employees, which they prefer to do. That voluntarist approach of allowing employers to make the choice does not seem to be causing any problems with the Opposition spokeswoman, as she has just sent her child to a school which has refused to recognise a trade union.
    [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. That is a total abuse of Question Time. I have asked not only for questions and answers to be brief, but that they should be to the point and deal with the substantive question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: There is no point of order.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The record should be corrected. What the Minister said is not true.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have dealt with the matter and reprimanded the Minister, as well as Back Benchers who take a long time to ask their questions. It is absolutely essential that Ministers should answer the questions that are on the Order Paper or are asked as supplementaries and not to try to sidestep those questions by introducing irrelevant material.
    Mr. Knapman: When my hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he mention the subject of Mercedes-Benz, which may well wish to move its manufacturing plants to this country

    131
    because of the high cost of the social chapter? Given that the TUC seems to believe in the social chapter, is it perhaps left in something of a dilemma?
    Mr. Oppenheim rose—
    Hon. Members: Resign.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Oppenheim: It is not only Mercedes; Sabena also wants to move workers out of Belgium because of the high levels of labour regulation. The sooner that our partners in the European Union realise that the more one adds to employers' costs, the more one will cost employees their jobs, the better the job prospects of people in Europe will be.

    European Social Policy
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the European Commission's Green Paper on European social policy options for the Union; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: The Council of Ministers discussed the Commission's White Paper on European social policy on 6 December. I argued that the Social Affairs Council should concentrate its efforts in future on a positive agenda designed to help member states in their fight against unemployment, rather than on unnecessary and potentially damaging employment legislation.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given that the Government's papers change colour as often as their policy on Europe, does the Minister recognise that the veto that he used at the Council in December has left the UK very isolated in various areas of important legislation? Is it not a fallacy on his part to peddle the myth that the competitiveness of other countries is being damaged because of regulations? The reality is that the competitiveness of those countries is much greater than that of the UK.
    Mr. Portillo: I am surprised that the hon. Lady chooses to make that argument in the week when the head of Mercedes-Benz has made the point that he may have to pull out of Germany precisely as a result of the high social costs that are imposed by the social chapter.
    The hon. Lady is quite wrong to think that the United Kingdom is isolated. The United Kingdom is following policies that are now recognised as being in the main stream around the world. In Korea, in Japan, in the United States, in South America and in Australia, Governments are following policies directed at making their economies more competitive. Specifically, they are putting the emphasis on keeping the burden of costs on employers light. This is a world-investing, world-trading and world-conscious country, and we shall not be browbeaten into imposing costs on our employers that would make us uncompetitive in that world.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not most of European social policy supposed to be built around the protection of people's health and safety at work? Is it not a paradox that we have the best health and safety record in Europe, and one that builds on a tripartite voluntary system which requires no imposition from Brussels?
    Mr. Portillo: We have high levels of health and safety protection, and I am proud of them, but I cannot agree
    132
    with my hon. Friend that the social policies of the European Community are built on health and safety matters. The social chapter is an ambitious attempt to build a social dimension into Europe—that is, to impose very high costs on employers for Governments to develop social policies that they cannot afford and to impose them on employers, and to achieve that by a massive extension of qualified majority voting. Only when they have not been able to achieve that by the social chapter, because of Britain's opt-out, have they resorted to health and safety chapter headings. In at least one case, I thought it to be so wholly inappropriate that I am contesting it in the European Court.
    Ms Harman: Given the concern expressed by the President of the Board of Trade about the threat to employment growth caused by the divisions in the Government over the European single currency, will the Employment Secretary tell the House whether he continues to believe what he said on GMTV last year—that he does not want a single currency and that the 1999 timetable is unrealistic? Is that still his opinion, or does he agree with the Chancellor, who said last Thursday that Britain might have a single currency by 1999?
    Mr. Portillo: I can tell the hon. Lady that that was not discussed at the meeting of European Ministers which was referred to in Question 7. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that, if a single currency is recommended in 1996 or 1997, the United Kingdom will not be part of it and we will not make a recommendation about it to Parliament. I believe that people around the world are concerned about Britain's membership of a single European market, and that is not in doubt.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what occasions discussions have taken place between European Employment Ministers on the effects of a minimum wage (a) on young workers and (b) on the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Oppenheim: There have been no discussions, but the EC White Paper on competitiveness criticises the minimum wage for destroying jobs.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware of a report, commissioned by the French Government, which found that the minimum wage in France contributed significantly to the much higher levels of unemployment among young people and the long-term unemployed? Does he agree that the social chapter, while equally well meaning, could have the same bad effect on job prospects? Should he not encourage our European partners—all 11 of them—to stage a mass opt-out from the social chapter and thereby create more jobs across Europe?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is interesting that two European countries—France and Spain—which have a minimum wage of the type that Labour proposes for Britain have youth unemployment levels which are two and three times that of the United Kingdom.
    I find it amazing that the Opposition are trumpeting the fact that they are launching a campaign on the minimum wage, yet Opposition Members cannot come to the House and tell us at what level they would introduce the

    133
    minimum wage and what they would do about differentials. I urge the relevant Opposition spokesman to tell the House exactly what Labour's policy is.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What is the Minister prepared to do for my constituent: a 50-year-old divorced woman who is trying to find work? She is not able to take up work because the only jobs that she can find are low paid and part time and if she accepts them she is then disqualified from benefit and cannot afford to keep herself. What will the Minister do for people in those circumstances?
    Mr. Oppenheim: One of the schemes that we have to help such people is the back-to-work bonus. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may deride that, but it is designed to help such people. Obviously, Opposition Members are not interested in those practical measures.
    The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) also ignores the fact that the number of full-time jobs has increased significantly in the past year, in contrast to what is happening elsewhere in Europe.
    Sir Michael Neubert: When considering the interests of young people and others, is it not instructive to draw on our experience of the minimum wage in the United Kingdom? Is it not the case that, in those industries which were formerly covered by wages councils, not only have average earnings been sustained and even improved but the number of people employed has increased?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a further point: a single man—
    Mr. Olner: No, he is not.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures clearly show that employees who were covered by wages councils have seen faster wage rises than has the work force as a whole. They are the facts and if the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) cares to deny them, he will have to produce other facts to counter them.
    Mr. McCartney: That was a contemptible and a shabby question from an hon. Gentleman who gets paid £1,000 per minute for a question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to put to the Minister, I will hear it; otherwise I shall call another hon. Member.
    Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister accept that we are the only country in Europe which does not guarantee a minimum wage? This is the only Government in Europe who give pay jackpots to the boardroom while there is low pay in the workplace. Is it not the case that, under the jobseeker's agreement, the Government will force people to take employment for £1 per hour or lose their right to benefit?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts because only half the European Community countries have statutory national minimum wages. If the jobseeker's allowance is such an evil, why does his party not pledge itself to abolish it when it is in government?
    Let us not have any nonsense about the Opposition not wanting to give policy pledges, because they have just given such a pledge for a £75 back-to-work bonus. If the
    134
    JSA is such an evil, I invite the hon. Gentleman to commit himself here and now to abolish it if his party returns to power after the next election.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the companies which are actually paying below the £4 level per hour are often those with marginal businesses such as rural sub-post offices and corner shops? Does he believe that those businesses are more likely to stay in business with a minimum wage of more than £4 a hour, or go out of business and destroy even more jobs?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The figures clearly show that only four in 1,000 adult full-time workers earn less than £2.60 and that 60 per cent. earn more than £5.30 a hour. It is also interesting that a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings would have seen his take-home pay increase by more than 23 per cent. since 1979, whereas the same person would have experienced a fall of 1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. The only time Britain was a low-paid, skivvy economy was not under the Conservative Government, but under the Labour Government.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his assessment of the impact on inward investment of the United Kingdom's recent industrial relations record; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: The turnround in industrial relations records since 1979 has contributed to our remarkable record in attracting inward investment, which has made the United Kingdom the number one location in Europe.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the City of Chester has a remarkable record for attracting inward investment in recent years? Will he confirm that, in the year to last November, some 238,000 days were lost in this country through industrial action, compared with 1979, when 29 million days were lost in that one year? Does he see a direct correlation between those two startling facts?
    Mr. Portillo: I congratulate the City of Chester on attracting inward investment and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in that. He has always been positive and welcoming and has looked for opportunities for his constituents. I see a direct correlation between that and our performance in industrial relations. To put it graphically, in the first month of 1979, we lost five times as many days through strikes as we lost in the whole of 1993. Those who want the bad old days of industrial relations and disorder restored by returning the Labour party to Government need their heads examined.
    Mr. MacShane: The Secretary of State will be aware that inward investment and industrial relations will be discussed at the United Nations social summit next month in Copenhagen. Will he confirm that neither he nor the Prime Minister will be attending that summit, and that a flunky or a flunkette will go instead? While the majority of European, OECD and third-world countries will be sending heads of state and Ministers

    135
    of Labour, is not Britain once again snubbing the summit and sending a message of patronising indifference to the third world?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman gets very agitated about a matter on which no decision has been taken.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the link between falling unemployment and the structure of the United Kingdom labour market.
    Mr. Paice: During the 1980s, the Government legislated to make it easier for businesses to give 'people jobs and to restrict trade union privileges. In the 1990s, unemployment is falling at an early stage of the recovery. I believe that those two facts are inextricably linked.
    Mr. Garnier: Has my hon. Friend noticed that in Harborough, unemployment has fallen consistently over the past few years and is now between 25 and 30 per cent. lower than it was at the general election? Es that not a direct consequence of a deregulated and flexible labour market, the absence of the social chapter and national regulations on the minimum wage?
    Mr. Paice: Unemployment in Harborough has fallen by 739 in the past year—a fall of 28 per cent. It has followed the trend that has occurred throughout the country. That is happening because the Government have deregulated the labour market. We have a higher proportion of the work force in work than any other major economy in the European Community. In the past 15 years, the Government have radically altered the face of the British industrial scene. We have restored the rights of trade union members, returned democracy to those members and ensured a much better environment for job creation.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the British people no longer have any faith in the Government's unemployment statistics or in statistics which compare unemployment in Britain with that in other European countries? Is it not time that we had a common standard across Europe for measuring unemployment so that statistics could be more reliable and the comparisons more valuable?
    Mr. Paice: We have a standard OECD system and its standardised unemployment rates show that unemployment in the United Kingdom is lower than in Spain, Finland, Ireland, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Whatever statistics the hon. Gentleman wants to use, the Government's record on reducing unemployment is better than most in the rest of the world.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that those countries that have been most successful in reducing unemployment are those which do not have a minimum wage? Is he further aware that in the United States of America, where the minimum wage has not been increased since 1990 but has been allowed to wither on the vine and is now below United Kingdom benefit levels, employment has increased by some 6 million?
    Mr. Paice: I am well aware of that. I am also aware that President Clinton was elected on a platform of
    136
    increasing the minimum wage, which he has clearly failed to do. Robert Reich, his finance minister, has admitted that to raise it would dampen the recovery and the fall in unemployment that America has seen.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Ewing: Since the Government's policy has virtually destroyed the manufacturing base of the north of Scotland—including industries such as our pulp mills, oil fabrication yards and a smelter—and, more recently, led to the mothballing of three distilleries, is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the Cabinet to sit back and watch the destruction of our tourist industry as a result of the axing of rail services, both sleeper accommodation and Motorail facilities, to the north of Scotland? Will he, as a courteous man, now instruct the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland to afford the representatives from the north of Scotland a meeting—a request for which was submitted some six weeks ago—tomorrow to discuss those vital issues?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady has to say. We are keen to see a successful tourist industry in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks right across Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, she will see that manufacturing industry is expanding, doing extremely well, making many things that just a few years ago were simply not made in Britain, and exporting at record levels around the world. In the past year there have been eight successive new monthly records in exports alone.
    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's support for British agriculture in order to assert that farmers are as entitled as any other of Her Majesty's subjects to earn their living under the law, and that includes selling their young veal calves at a proper market price if they so choose? Will he confirm that causing mayhem at British ports and airports is no way to stop practices in other countries that we have banned here, and that those who do so should take their cause to other countries in the Community and to the European Parliament, not pursue it here?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the farming industry and entirely right to stress the fact that farmers have a right to carry on their trade within the law, as does everyone else. I think that my hon. Friend and the House know our opposition to veal crates and of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture,

    137
    Fisheries and Food to try to ensure that they are taken out of commission not just in the United Kingdom but right across Europe.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister state clearly whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said that he would wait an eternity before joining a single currency?
    The Prime Minister: I set out in detail the conditions for a single currency, originally as long ago as 1990. I reaffirmed them in some detail last Friday. I made it clear last Friday that not only must the specific Maastricht criteria be met, but that in addition we would require other criteria to be met before we thought it appropriate to consider a single currency. Some years in advance of those being met, it is unwise to say either, "Yes we will proceed," or, "No, we will never proceed."
    Mr. Blair: On Friday, of course, the Prime Minister was generally facing both ways. Indeed, Conservative central office was briefing one message on Friday and Downing street another yesterday. If he will not slap down his Chief Secretary, will he say whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a supporter of monetary union, and who can foresee circumstances in which Britain would join and wants to do so by the end of the century?
    The Prime Minister: I have just set out in great detail precisely the circumstances in which we would find it appropriate to consider whether we should proceed to a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet indicated that for his own party at all. As to unity, we know that 50 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on Maastricht, 40 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 and the Labour party has had seven twists and turns over recent years as to whether or not it is in favour of the European Union. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as a single currency later this year is concerned, we would first require all the specific Maastricht criteria to be met.
    In addition, we would require other criteria to be met—for example, relative flexibility of employment markets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will set those out later this week. When those other matters are set out, we shall then consider whether it would be appropriate economically or constitutionally to proceed. I hope now that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, having learnt what the right answer is to that question, will fashion his own policy.
    Mr. Blair: Let me put it specifically, then. If those circumstances are met, will the Prime Minister join?
    The Prime Minister: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman. When and if those circumstances are met, we shall look to see whether it is appropriate and in the British interests to join. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether he would join, yes or no? Does he know whether it would be in the British
    138
    interest? No, he does not. All that he is concerned to do is to trail along the path behind the Euro-federalists, where he feels most happy.
    Mr. Blair rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had three questions. I really cannot call him again. I am sorry.
    Mr. Blair rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had his third question. If he wants to reply—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked him to reply. In that case, I call the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Blair: I think—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is most unusual for Prime Ministers to ask the Opposition questions at Question Time.
    Mr. Blair: I think that it is excellent that the Prime Minister is getting into the habit of asking us questions rather than answering them himself. Can I tell him this, though? Until he decides where he stands on that issue as the Prime Minister of the day, his leadership will remain weak, his Cabinet divided and Britain effectively disabled in Europe.
    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. It would be more interesting if he ever provided any answers.
    I have set out for the right hon. Gentleman the conditions in which it would be right for us to consider the interests of the United Kingdom. I will not make a judgment that is crucial to the constitutional and economic future of this country until I see the economic circumstances of the day—and, frankly, only a dimwit would ask me to. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his concept of a European Union of nation states co-operating and working together for their common interests is in touch with the majority view in the country? Does it not contrast starkly with the policies of the Opposition parties, which can be described as a total sell-out to Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: I think that this country has a very deep attachment to the nation state. The European Union that it seeks is a European Union based on nation states—a wider European Union, a free market European Union, a decentralised European Union, and not the federal European Union that the Opposition wish for and their Members of the European Parliament clamour for.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister asking us to believe that it is none of his business, and not his Government's responsibility, that school governors across the land are being forced to cut school budgets and sack teachers? Or is he saying that that is a price that our children should be prepared to pay so that he will have room for tax cuts at the next election?
    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he looks, he will see the increased spending on teachers, support staff, books

    139
    and equipment. He will also see that the Audit Commission regularly identifies significant scope for savings by local authorities—not least Liberal Democrat-run local authorities—and their freedom to transfer more resources to education. The right hon. Gentleman may also learn that authorities are maintaining some 1 million surplus school places. Perhaps next time he asks a question, he will have ascertained some of those facts before doing so.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of new guidance relating to appointments to quangos is an extremely positive and welcome advance? Is not the constant criticism directed at members of such bodies bound in time to become a disincentive, and to prevent public-spirited persons from putting their names forward for membership?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that the review will prove extremely useful. It also emphasises that both the number and the real cost of non-departmental bodies have fallen significantly since 1979. As everyone who has examined the matter knows, the Opposition's criticism of such bodies is really based on their dislike of parent choice in schools, their dislike of patient choice for fundholding general practitioners and their dislike of patient choice in hospitals. That is local choice, but they call it quangos. They wish to retain choice centrally now, as they always have.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Education, who believes that a teachers' pay increase could be funded only at the expense
    140
    of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching jobs and a spiralling increase in class sizes? How does that square with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at lunchtime today—that extra cash is not available and is not needed? Who speaks for the Government on this matter? More important, who speaks for the children in our schools?
    The Prime Minister: We speak for the children in the schools. That is why we have given their parents choice, why we have given greater choice in schools, why we have produced performance tables, and why we have produced testing. That is why our crusade is for choice not to close city technology colleges, not to close grant-maintained schools, and not to close every element of choice that parents want and children need.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Scots favour the Union between Scotland and England and the rest of the United Kingdom because the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the UK's population, enjoy far more positions of importance—for instance, in the Cabinet, the proportion is in excess of 20 per cent., whatever the Government—in the military, in trade unions and in industry? That is what the Scots will not give up.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks in a tone that many people will recognise. There is no doubt about the advantages, both to the UK and to Scotland, of Scotland being a full part of the UK. I do not believe that anyone who has studied the problem doubts that for a single second. The talents—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) clearly has not studied it because he does doubt that. That is because he wants an independent Scotland disunited from the UK, in the middle of a European Union where it would have little or no influence, and that would damage the interests of Scots, the interests of Scotland and the wider interests of the UK. That is why his party must never be put in power in any way in Scotland or elsewhere.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you help me on a way of proceeding? The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) uttered a calumny against a school in London, which he must have known to be untrue—that it did not recognise unions, when it does recognise unions. What redress do I have to put that right?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must make use of the Order Paper by means of an early-day motion, or he can place a parliamentary question seeking to correct what he thinks has been a misleading statement.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you advise the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) said no such thing?
Madam Speaker: I call the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry).
Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Until this juncture, I had said nothing in the Chamber today, and it might be helpful if the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) began to recognise who is who before he starts talking about hon. Members.
Madam Speaker: That is a very good point. We should all know the constituencies of hon. Members. I hope that hon. Members know my constituency.
Mr. Enright: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for High Peak. I did, of course, mean the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).
Madam Speaker: There is a world of difference between High Peak and Amber Valley.
Mr. Alex Salmond(Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I compliment you, as ever, on your sensitive chairing, but may I ask a question in terms of order? If the Prime Minister starts bawling at me in the middle of Prime Minister's Question Time, do I not deserve a right of reply as well?
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was making gestures from a seated position and provoking the Prime Minister—
Mr. Salmond: Me?
Madam Speaker: Yes. I do not have to have eyes at the back of my head to watch what the hon. Gentleman is doing. I thought that it was rather unfair on the Prime Minister, and the hon. Gentleman got what he deserved from him.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you support me in recommending the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to stick to the classics because his geography is rather weak?
Madam Speaker: That is a very good point.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At this time yesterday,
142
the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised a lengthy point of order about my activities in the House. He had made no attempt to inform me of what he intended to do. Had he done so, I should certainly have been in my place to hear what he said and I should have used that opportunity, with your agreement, to follow up his comments. The main thrust of his point of order was that I had somehow interfered with the Proceeds of Crime Bill, to which many hon. Members wished to speak. He implied that I had filibustered to prevent them from doing so. In fact, the debate lasted one hour 28 minutes and I was the final hon. Member to speak before the hon. Member promoting the Bill wound up the debate. I spoke for five minutes and there was ample opportunity for any hon. Member who had given his name to the Speaker to participate in the debate.
Madam Speaker: I made my views clear on that matter yesterday. I want to hear no more about it. I have given many rulings, all of them the same, to the effect that hon. Members should be informed. If any hon. Member does not understand that, he should come to my office. We have now run off pages of Hansard and collected them in a loose-leaf file that can be given to hon. Members so that they will know in future how to behave in the House.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is today giving evidence to the Nolan committee about publication of new guidelines for quangos. As quangos now account for £15 billion of public expenditure, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked for time to make a statement to the House on that important issue.
Madam Speaker: No, the Minister has not done so.
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given the Home Secretary brief notice of this point of order.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice, but I hope that this is a proper point of order.
Mr. Miller: It is a matter of urgency and I should be grateful if I could raise this point of order now. I received a fax this morning informing me that a Nigerian-owned vessel that had been moored in Ellesmere Port for more than a year is the subject of court action, the result of which is that 50 Nigerian seamen will be forced to leave the vessel on Thursday. They are very anxious because they have no means of getting home and do not know how they will be treated in this country. In view of the urgency of the matter, I wonder whether the Home Secretary could find time to gather some information and put it before the House.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. Perhaps I can advise the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Member who might seek to raise a similar point of order, that the way to proceed is immediately to ask for an interview with the Home Secretary or one of his Ministers and in that way make representations to the Home Office. Such matters should not be raised across the Floor of the House, where they cannot be responded to by the Minister in question.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY
    Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Tony Banks, Ms Diane Abbott, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Harriet Harman, Ms Clare Short and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to regulate the diet industry; to bring all medicines relating to diets under control; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

Workplace Injury Victims
3.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that those who are in receipt of an award of compensation in respect of any accident, injury or disease as a consequence of their employment or occupation shall be entitled to benefit from such an award in its entirety; that any negligent employer or other compensator shall be obliged to meet the cost of any social security or other statutory benefit paid to any worker, employee or dependant of any worker or employee as a consequence of any accident, injury or disease resulting from the employment or occupation for which an award of compensation is subsequently made; to make legal aid available in all personal injury litigation in such circumstances, and for connected purposes.
As someone who has been a member of a trade union for nearly 30 years and who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, I am proud to introduce this Bill. One of the reasons why I joined a trade union almost 30 years ago was that I realised, along with everyone else, that none of us could be confident that we would not suffer some illness or injury as a consequence of our occupation. Every year, some 150,000 workers suffer injury or illness as a result of their occupation. Thank goodness many workers still receive the support, counsel and advice of trade unions, which will have achieved more than £300 million worth of compensation on behalf of injured workers this year.
Many workers, of course, do not belong to trade unions. As a consequence, they are especially disadvantaged. None the less, all workers, whether members of trade unions or not, find it enormously and increasingly difficult to obtain remedies for illness or injury sustained at work. One reason for that is the lack of access to legal aid to match the resources available to the employers or the insurance companies. My Bill would ensure the availability of legal aid to workers who are injured or ill so that they could challenge the vested interests of insurance companies, which do everything that they can to resist the just claims of sick and injured workers.
My Bill also takes on board the concept of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), which has been signed by more than 205 members of all Opposition parties and which draws attention to the unfairness of the clawback provisions of section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989. The compensatory recovery unit currently claws back large sums of benefit from people's compensatory awards. It is demonstrably unfair, it makes nonsense of the concept of compensation and it is wholly wrong. Increasingly, hon. Members are finding that constituents are making representations to them about that unfairness, which will soon be comparable with the scale of representations that we all received about the absurd activities of the Child Support Agency. My Bill would amend section 22 of the 1989 Act and make it fairer to the taxpayer and the disadvantaged worker.
At present, the system works in favour of the selfish insurance company and the rogue employer, which are already doing everything possible to stall and frustrate fair and reasonable compensatory settlements for workers. They know that, if they stall, the likelihood of a person receiving just compensation after paying the Department of Social Security is minimal. The

145
system further persuades sick, disadvantaged, very ill and often traumatised people to settle for derisory compensation. Some of the people involved are terminally ill. The system is demonstrably unfair and is not in the interest of the country or taxpayers.
For the sake of sick and disadvantaged workers, many of whom are in great pain and suffering disability, and who need compensation to increase mobility, diminish their discomfort and, in some cases, to provide carers if they are very sick, we must shift the burden of the payment of social security benefits to the compensator—the employer or the employer's insurance company. That would be fair and would establish a level playing field in this unhappy state of affairs. It would mean that the employer or the insurance company would reflect that if they dragged out the proceedings and did not reach a fair and early compensatory settlement with the injured or disadvantaged worker, they could face a larger burden when the case was finally prosecuted through the courts and the worker had the support of legal aid. Not only would employers or insurance companies have to pay proper compensation, but they would repay the taxpayer for social security benefits spent in trying to maintain that sick worker and his or her family.
There would also be some very useful spin-offs from the Bill. If people were paid adequate compensation early, it stands to reason that the national health service and, indeed, the Department of Social Security, would incur less expense.
Secondly, there would be a greater incentive for insurance companies to be much more robust in demanding that employers minimise hazards at work. That might ensure that there was a proper health and safety regime in our factories, offices and laboratories, which there is not at present. There has been
146
considerable slippage in that respect, and it is absurd for people to suggest that we have a good record for health and safety in this country.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We have.
Mr. Mackinlay: I do not call the 150,000 illnesses and injuries caused each year in places of work a good record. That figure is a disgrace and the House should be ashamed of it. Hon. Members who support the introduction of my Bill are demonstrating their desire to diminish that unacceptable toll of illnesses and injuries suffered by workers.
It is time that the House addressed itself to the great unfairness with which workers who are sick or injured because of their occupation or their place of work are treated. I hope that my Bill will be given a fair wind and that the Government will find time for it to be discussed in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Tony Worthington.

Workplace Injury Victims
  WORKPLACE INJURY VICTIMS
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to provide that those who are in receipt of an award of compensation in respect of any accident, injury or disease as a consequence of their employment or occupation shall be entitled to benefit from such an award in its entirety; that any negligent employer or other compensator shall be obliged to meet the cost of any social security or other statutory benefit paid to any worker, employee or dependant of any worker or employee as a consequence of any accident, injury or disease resulting from the employment or occupation for which an award of compensation is subsequently made; to make legal aid available in all personal injury litigation in such circumstances, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 1 May, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
  Opposition Day
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Financial Settlement for Schools, 1995–96
    Madam Speaker: Before we begin, I have to tell the House that I must limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes both in this debate and in the next, on passenger services under railway privatisation.
    3.46 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
    That this House believes that the 1995–96 financial settlement for schools will, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education, `cause class sizes to shoot up' and 'lead to the loss of thousands of teaching posts', with a consequential detrimental impact on standards and opportunities for young people.
    In tabling the motion, it is we in the Labour party, not the Government, who speak for the pupils, parents, governors and teachers who are rightly concerned about what the Government's financial settlement for local government in the coming year will do to our schools and to our children. Those people say, as we say, that that is a cut too far—a cut that will damage education prospects, standards, achievements and opportunities for children in every part of the country.
    We are backed not only by those who have traditionally fought for education but by the words of the Secretary of State herself, who clearly admitted the truth in a letter leaked to The Times Educational Supplement, in which she gave her Cabinet colleagues a clear picture of what would happen if the Government's increase in expenditure and their predictions of what local authorities should spend did not even manage to meet the sum necessary to take account of the 110,000 extra pupils who will have to be accommodated in schools in the coming year. That is the equivalent of two primary schools in every area of the country. The 1.2 per cent. increase necessary to match that growth in numbers has not been included in the Government's calculations, never mind the 2.5, 2.6 or 2.7 per cent. increase in teachers' pay that the Government will agree later this week.
    It is a scandal that while the Secretary of State for Education sits on the sidelines—not sulking, I hope—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and even, today, the Prime Minister, treat the issue as if they were in the right and governors, parents and teachers should be abused and bemused.
    Every governor and every teacher in the country knows exactly what the position is.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he makes of a council that makes provision for an increase in pay for council bosses but none for teachers' pay or for schools—a council that, on the contrary, cuts those budgets? I refer to Kent county council, which has had a 2.1 per cent. increase in Government funding and is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Blunkett: The £8 million shortfall on the Government's determination of what Kent county council can spend on education—known as the standard spending assessment—is dealt with in terms of Government grants
    148
    and the capping regime, and that precludes the council from being able to spend the money even if it was able to raise it.
    Mr. Arnold: That is not true.
    Mr. Blunkett: Kent county council—after 20 years—has now, under an alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, opened the first nursery class in two decades and is about to open another eight. It is strange that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should raise only the issue of financing Kent. The Government are not prepared to provide the necessary spending for the pay increase for teachers, and they are not even prepared to begin to suggest where the money will come from to pay for the much-vaunted promise of the Prime Minister at the Tory party conference that four-year-olds would receive nursery education.
    The truth is known by every governing body and parent in the country. The delegation now permitted to governing bodies is used effectively by authorities up and down the country—the average delegation to governing bodies is between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent.—which is why governors and parents are up in arms. It is because it is no longer a battle between the local education authorities and the Government, but a battle between parents and governing bodies and the Government. That is why those involved with schools—often from leafy suburbs—are now suggesting that their task should not be to cut the number of teachers, increase class sizes or reduce the availability of books. Their task should be to fight for standards and opportunities in education.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? Kent county council was Conservative-controlled for 104 years, not 20.
    In Kent, 50 per cent. of secondary pupils and a significant number of primary school pupils are now educated at grant-maintained schools. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be a reduction in education bureaucracy to match the number who are taught outside the LEA?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State pointed out to her Treasury colleagues in the leaked letter just before Christmas that the cuts that we are talking about this afternoon would apply equally to grant-maintained schools as to LEA schools—[Interruption.] That is in the letter, and it is in brackets to emphasise it. The reason the Secretary of State wished to emphasise that point was to ensure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was aware that the favoured schools would not escape the cut, and would be affected by an increase in class sizes and reductions in teacher numbers.
    Kent's SSA—as we are dealing with Kent—is £55 down per pupil for every primary school and £203 down per pupil for every secondary school. That makes a total of £8.7 million, a figure which the hon. Member for Gravesham shouted was not true. It would appear that the hon. Member for Gravesham has something in common with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—they are both, to use politically correct language, mathematically challenged. Both are under misapprehensions about grant, SSA and the capping regime.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment. The Chancellor said at lunchtime that there would be no

    149
    reason for cuts if only local authorities were prepared to delegate more of their budgets. Labour-controlled Dudley council delegates the most of its budget to schools, while Tory-controlled Wandsworth delegates least. Dudley delegates 93 per cent. while Wandsworth delegates 82 per cent.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer a fortnight ago—not this lunchtime—to the suggestion that the money allocated would not match the teachers' pay increase was that local authorities should consider selling off and leasing back their buildings, just as he was doing with the Treasury. If that is intelligent financial management, I am a Dutchman. And if I were a Dutchman, I would experience much better standards of education than under the present regime in this country.
    Moreover, it is time that we challenged the Prime Minister. This afternoon, he said in reply to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party that there was no problem because local authorities could simply remove a million surplus places.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And 13 per cent. in Lancashire.
    Mr. Blunkett: As usual, an intervention by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) sheds no light on the situation and shows that the didactic education that she received with chalk and talk did nothing to expand her learning and understanding.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall have to give way.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is funny to have 13 per cent. surplus places in Lancashire, but school governors in my area do not think so because the money spent on those 13 per cent. surplus places should go into the schools. Does he really think that it is necessary to have one bureaucrat at county hall for every 17 teachers in the classroom in my constituency?
    Mr. Blunkett: Lancashire faces cuts of £24 million in its budget. Every time a local authority attempts to reduce its surplus places, struggles to persuade its community, involves through consultation parents, governors and teachers, and puts the proposals to the Secretary of State, schools that appear to want to opt out to save themselves from rationalisation have permission to do so from the Secretary of State. Remaining schools must then pay for the unfair distribution of capital and revenue resources that flow from that decision, so children in other schools are further disadvantaged. That has happened throughout the country to the point—
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment. I have already given way three times. Unlike some Conservative Members, I can count.
    A little honesty from Tory Members would be welcome this afternoon. We are addressing a genuine crisis in the way in which excellent schools are facing up to their budgets, and all we get is silly heckling from Tory
    150
    Members who, instead of representing their communities, their parents and the future of their children, attempt to score inaccurate party political points.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: Which one shall I give way to? Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), as he may shed some light on the situation.
    Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his own nostrum of honesty to the question by telling the House, when he reaches a logical point in his speech, whether a future Labour Government would spend significantly more across the board or adjust the distribution of SSAs? If so, which authorities would gain and which would lose?
    Mr. Blunkett: We had it at Prime Minister's Question Time and we have it again now—the Government are now treating the Labour party as the Government and themselves as the Opposition. I have made our position unequivocally clear. If one does away with the bargaining between local education authorities and teachers, excludes governing bodies and schools from the ability to determine what happens with pay and conditions, but then accepts the report of an independent pay review body, one has an obligation to meet the proposed expenditure, unless one is prepared to stand up and say that it is the pupils in schools who must pay the price of that expenditure and the teachers who must face redundancy, instead of the Government.
    The Government's dishonesty in suggesting that reductions in standards and opportunities in our schools should now take place, when only a few months ago they were boasting that they intended to improve standards and to match the needs of schools, reveals the duplicity of a Government who have run out of steam and who no longer care about what happens to those who are most vulnerable in our society.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman spoke about schools using their resources properly. As he lives in Sheffield, he will be aware that the neighbouring county of Derbyshire has, in the past 14 years, subsidised school meals to the tune of more than £100 million. This year it plans to subsidise school meals by £4 million. Does he regard that as a good use of education money?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has just cryptically said to me that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire does not look short of a meal or two. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer, because the shortfall faced by Derbyshire is £17 million.

    151
    We are in favour of nutritional standards and of school meals that children can afford, because we believe that a well-fed and happy child is one who will learn and respond in our classrooms.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has just insulted me, will he give way to me again?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a representative of Derbyshire.
    Mr. Skinner: We should recall that, for many years, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and his Tory friends called upon Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council to put up the price of school meals, which were the cheapest in the country. They said that if the county council just put up the cost of those school meals, it would get more money from the Government for teachers and for kids. The truth is that in the past two or three years the cost of school meals has gone up three times, yet Derbyshire pupils get £272 per head less than those in the leafy suburbs of Surrey. That has not done them any good, has it?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the powerful point that my hon. Friend has made.
    According to yesterday's briefing from the Prime Minister, he said that a compromise, a settlement, a gesture, would be made to find a solution. According to the Chancellor's briefing this lunchtime, no such settlement will be reached. I shall be interested to know whether the Secretary of State for Education has a solution to offer either today or on Thursday, or whether she is simply a pawn, an unwilling one, in a game of Government retrenchment. After all, the Government amendment speaks about a "tough" settlement. That game is obviously more important than investment in our children's future.
    I regret that the Secretary of State, who means well and does her best, has become tragically enfeebled. The previous Secretary of State was missed by no one. After five years of utter turmoil, with contradiction following contradiction; after the creation of a national curriculum that caused confusion and chaos in every classroom; and a'ter disa7e.:ment and insults being exchanged over tests, t, Secretary of State came in with a pledge to be different. She said that she would be gentle and sweep the past under the carpet, but the previous Secretary of State at least managed to get a 1.8 per cent. increase in the SSA even though he did not believe in state education. The new Secretary of State, who is committed to state education, obtained a 1.1 per cent. increase in SSA and only a 0.5 per cent. increase in real spending power—
    Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it correct for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in the way that he has, saying that he does not believe in state education, when he sent his daughter to a state primary school?
    Madam Speaker: Hon. Members should be careful in their comments across the Floor of the House. They are
    152
    themselves responsible for the remarks that they make, but I think that they ought to be responsible in what they say.
    Mr. Blunkett: Let me rephrase that, Madam Speaker. The previous Secretary of State showed his commitment to state education by the way in which he tried to destroy it in everything that he did in every classroom, in the conflict that he created with the teachers and in the way in which he undermined morale and confidence. We knew that we were about to have something different, in a Secretary of State who was sent to bury education.
    Fortunately, that will not happen, because we are here this afternoon to praise education, to fight for education and to refuse to allow other people to be blamed for the Government's decisions. It was, after all, the Secretary of State who, in a leaked letter to colleagues, wrote the following to explain how she was trying to dig the Government out of a hole of their own making:
    "All of this"—
    the effort that she is making—
    "will be in immediate jeopardy if we now offer teachers either a provocatively low pay settlement or acceptable pay levels only at the cost of sharp increases in class sizes."
    That is precisely the issue that we are debating this afternoon—whether the Government are prepared to match the review body's proposals on Thursday, which are, we understand, within the predicted inflation levels, not above them. The implementation of those proposals will ensure that teachers' morale is restored, and, for instance, the Marches school in Shropshire, whose results improved dramatically in the past few years, will not have to cut three or four teachers from its classrooms.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not.
    This afternoon, we are talking about a challenge to the Secretary of State, in matching the increase in pupil numbers and in matching the need for improvement in investment, books and equipment.
    The Office of Standards in Education report, published last week, showed that a third of 14-year-olds are not reaching an adequate standard in maths, English and science. More than half the secondary schools in our country do not have sufficient books in the classroom, as the chief inspector succinctly said in only one sentence of a long report.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way one more time.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the fact that so few of our 14-year-olds reach the required educational standard is partly a result of the mad, doctrinaire socialist ideas of comprehensivisation, and the vast waste in Labour-run local education authorities such as Lancashire? That is why schools want to opt out, to ensure that better resources are targeted directly to pupils, not wasted by Labour-run local education authorities.
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman shows staggering effrontery. Instead of defending his community's parents against the £24 million cuts that are threatened, he starts abusing and lashing out at everyone around him. What

    153
    sort of a party have Conservative Members degenerated into when, instead of defending their schools and their pupils, they simply seek someone else to get tough on?
    What about standards and achievement? What about the £20 million cut that the Government are imposing on education support and training, £9 million of which comes out of the appraisal budget, which has done so much to lift the standard of professional work undertaken by teachers? What about the £13 million cut from the inspectorate budget? What about the removal of £14 million from the crucial reading recovery scheme, which is vital to ensure that primary schoolchildren have a real start in life? We face all those funding cuts before the Government have to find the money to move on nursery education.
    Mr. James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not give way any more. I will continue my speech so that other hon. Members have the chance to speak in the debate.
    The Government have illustrated time and again that they believe in rationing excellence and rationing opportunity. That rationing exercise will continue in the way in which funding cuts are implemented and in the way in which they impinge on schools across the country. Excellence for a few and mediocrity for many is not acceptable to Opposition Members.
    From Shropshire to Lancashire, from Sheffield to Somerset and from Cornwall to Oxfordshire, people are struggling to defend their services. There are proposals for voluntary income tax contributions and some schools are talking about a three-day week. The last time there was a three-day week was not in the winter of discontent, as was wrongly suggested in the build-up to the previous election, but under the 1973–74 Tory Government when the lights went out and people were told to clean their teeth in the dark. This time perhaps teachers and pupils will be told to work in the dark, to switch off the heating or to bring their own chalk.
    The Government's disgraceful amendment has the cheek to congratulate governors and teachers
    "for meeting the challenge of education reform".
    It is right to give credit to teachers, governors and parents. The spokesman for the Conservative party in Shropshire, speaking at lunchtime today, said that it was an insult to suggest that local authority representatives, members of governing bodies and teachers should take the blame for what was, in his words,
    "the responsibility of the Government of the day in terms of funding and support for the service".
    We must let our children learn. Our school governors should be concerned about meeting education standards, not struggling with cutting services and undermining their schools. How can children learn if schools are falling into disrepair? Only one fifth of the amount requested for capital investment this year will be granted to schools across the country.
    How can the nation face the economic and social challenges of the 21st century with a penny-pinching, underfunding and sanctimonious bunch of ne'er-do-wells running the country? Government Members know all about practising what they preach because so often they preach greed, selfishness and exclusion and then they
    154
    practise it with their families and friends. It is also evident in what goes on in privatised industry and in quangos up and down the country.
    Everyone in Britain is worse off under the Tories. Everyone in Britain is expected to pay more for less in Tory Britain. We offer something very different: we offer hope for the future, investment in children's education and optimism about our country's future success. That is why we are giving our backing to parents, governors and teachers in their fight to save their schools in Britain today.
    4.13 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; applauds Government policies to raise standards in schools; acknowledges that this year's settlement is necessarily tough but congratulates teachers and governing bodies for meeting the challenge of education reform; and recognises that parents will judge schools above all by the performance of pupils and the quality of teaching and learning.".
    I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues. Conservative Members understand that spending by local authorities—which accounts for a quarter of all Government spending—cannot be immune from tough decisions and economic reality. Public borrowing will have to come down if we are to keep a tight rein on inflation and increase prosperity and jobs. It is a tough local government settlement this year. That is my view and I have made it quite clear. The hon. Gentleman has made quite a lot of a leaked letter. I do not intend to comment on it, save to say that it is of a certain age and that the settlement that we finally reached provides for funding for local authority education to rise by 1.1 per cent. That is, of course, on top of a 2.4 per cent. increase for 1994–95.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the teachers' pay award will be provocatively low, or has she changed her mind since that letter was leaked?
    Mrs. Shephard: On the pay award, I shall not anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make in due course on the reports of the review bodies.
    The 1.1 per cent. increase masks a substantial rise in some authorities, reflecting their different needs. For example, in inner London boroughs there have been increases as high as 7.5 per cent., in Trafford there are increases of 4.4 per cent. and in Bury there are increases of 3.3 per cent.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said during the debate on the revenue support grant, there are always questions about methodology. He said that he would look at areas of particular concern when considering with local authorities whether improvements could be made next year.
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: As the Secretary of State will not anticipate the Prime Minister's statement on the public sector pay award, why

    155
    will she not anticipate in the House of Commons what the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated on "The World at One" today?
    Mrs. Shephard: I did not have the privilege of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend on "The World at One" today. I rather wish that I had, because there have been a number of conflicting reports as to what he might or might not have said.
    The Government share the view that it is a tough settlement, but, of course, it should be set in the context of last year's 2.4 per cent. increase in spending and also the following facts. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should take account of the fact that spending per pupil has gone up in real terms by almost 50 per cent. since 1979.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can the Minister explain to a constituent who wrote to me why £211 less is spent on children in Northumberland than on children in other counties such as Oxfordshire?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall address in general terms the hon. Gentleman's comments as I proceed. The following facts cannot be ignored by the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and everyone else.
    Since 1979, real spending per pupil has gone up by 50 per cent. Spending on equipment and books has gone up by 55 per cent., on repairs and maintenance by 15 per cent. and on support staff by 135 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Brightside mentioned the Ofsted report. It is rather interesting, certainly to Conservative Members, that the Labour party voted against the establishment of Ofsted and, therefore, all means of measuring pupils' achievements, standards and attainment, but they are happy enough to quote from the Ofsted report now.
    The hon. Gentleman was quoted last week as saying that the recent HMCI report was
    "about as unbiased as you can get",
    so what does the chief inspector say about resources?
    "In overall terms the provision of resources is satisfactory".
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) signally failed to answer my question about the need to slim down bureaucracy in the light of more children moving into the grant-maintained sector. That is certainly true of the county of Kent, where spending is out of control. In March last year, the local authority spent £35,000 on a conference at a luxury hotel for head teachers and the only Labour chairman of the Kent county council spent £1,200 of taxpayers' money on takeaway curries from shops in Dartford.
    Mrs. Shephard: That would be amusing were it not so shocking. It reminds one of the equally shameful example in Staffordshire where one understands that hard-earned resources have been spent on sending members of a school's staff on relaxing weekends at a health farm.
    Ms Joan Walley: Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is her policies that are causing stress to so many teachers in the classroom? How can she justify so many schools not having sufficient books, the reduction in teacher numbers when schools have already lost so many teachers and the way in which
    156
    school swimming, which is now part of the national curriculum, will not be properly funded as a result of her cuts?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have no doubt that people in Staffordshire, parents and governors, will note that the hon. Lady is in favour of jacuzzi education.
    The hon. Member for Brightside claims that, as a result of the local government settlement, local education authorities will have to cut their budgets. In fact, under the provisional capping regime, all local authorities will be able to increase their cash spending in order to spend more next year than they are spending this year. What they may not be able to do is to meet all their spending aspirations. Many of the stories circulating about budget cuts are the result of authorities complaining that they will not be able to expand their services in quite the way that they had envisaged.
    Mr. Blunkett: If the ability to spend is increased by 1.1 per cent. and the rate of inflation, coupled with the teachers' pay increase, is more than 2.5 per cent., how on earth can there be a capacity to spend more? In real terms everyone can see that they will have to spend less.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because it coincides exactly with the answer at this point in my speech.
    Local education authorities face tough decisions, but they are in the best position to decide their priorities and what they can afford. They can cut their costs because they are still spending millions on running their central bureaucracies and on maintaining surplus places in schools. Last year, the Audit Commission found scope for saving £500 million on the pay bill for local authorities' administrative and clerical staff.
    Some authorities are also wasting huge sums on retaining surplus school places. The cost is calculated by the Audit Commission to be at least £250 million a year. I know that it is not always practicable to remove such surplus places—for example, in some rural areas and in areas of population growth—but there is scope to remove some of them, as Warwickshire is trying to demonstrate.
    Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong if, as is the case in Lancashire and other counties, the Government have increased cash resources by 1.4 per cent., for the same counties to cut the delegated budgets to schools by 5.5 per cent? Is not that specifically because they are not making the savings in their overheads at county hall that they should be?
    Mrs. Shephard: Lancashire seems to be a good example of that kind of practice. I am amazed that our most recent figures demonstrate that unspent school balances in Lancashire amount to £33 million. Lancashire is an important example of how local authorities can exploit opportunities to have more to spend on teachers in the classroom.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: If the Secretary of State is citing Warwickshire as an authority whose education budget has benefited from the removal of surplus places, she must also explain why the vagaries of the capping limit and the financial settlement have produced a situation in Warwickshire where, despite removing those surplus places, 200 teachers now face the sack and massive cuts will have to be made in the

    157
    education budget. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic councillors have united in condemning that financial settlement.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the detailed plans for reorganisation in Warwickshire are not yet agreed, but it is, of course, worth noting that it has had just above the average increase in its standard spending assessment.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: I will give way, but I am conscious of the time and will soon have to make progress with my speech.
    Ms Morris: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. She will be aware that many local authorities have seen an increase in class size to cope with the cuts. Her colleague, the Minister of State, has said repeatedly in the House that he sees no connection between an increase in class size and pupil performance. Does she share his view, or does she share the fears of many parents whose children are now in classes of more than 30 or 40?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall repeat the words that are likely to have been uttered by my hon. Friend. No research exists in this country to show that marginal increases in class sizes harm standards.
    I shall deal now with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Brightside. He has not made it clear how much more he and his party intend to spend on education spending in general, how and from where he might get the money, and which of the Labour party's well-known routes he would follow—whether he would tax, borrow or print money. One thing is for certain—the money will come from the taxpayer, who will pay for Labour's usual mix of inefficiency and ideology, not for better education.
    The hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about the threat to teachers' jobs posed by the settlement. We hear those predictions from Labour Members and from Labour councillors year after year. But the truth is that the number of teachers has remained stable at about 390,000 for the past four years, and teacher vacancies are lower than they have ever been. As pupil numbers increase—as they have done over the past few years—it is possible to tighten some staffing ratios, without threatening standards, as the recent improved exam results show. One must put that teacher staffing ratio in the context of a marked increase in spending on non-teaching staff in schools, thereby releasing teachers for their real work of teaching.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend condemn absolutely the scare story that is being put out by certain Liberal Democrat councils, particularly in Devon, that the Government have cut the grant to local authorities? In fact, in Devon it has gone up by 2.2 per cent? Those councils then go on to say that they are likely to lose 300 teachers. That is putting fear into parents in Devon, which is quite wrong and must be condemned.
    Mrs. Shephard: Those are indeed extraordinary assertions from a county which, as my right hon. Friend said, has had twice the average increase; and which, we
    158
    understand, has unspent school balances of more than £10 million, has reserves of £51 million and has increased administrative staff numbers over the past year by 718.
    Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make progress.
    Mr. Elletson: Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the scaremongering of Lancashire county council, which is talking about having to make hundreds of teachers redundant? Will she deal with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), but which was so blithely and arrogantly ignored by the hon. Member for Brightside? Is it not a disgrace that the county council should be threatening to do that at a time when there is a ratio of one bureaucrat in county hall to every 17 teachers? A further point that Lancashire county council refused to take account of is that there are hundreds of surplus places in secondary schools throughout the county.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I said earlier, a county with unspent school balances of £33 million seems to be making a lot of fuss.
    The number of non-manual staff employed by councils increased by 90,000 between 1987 and 1993. The Audit Commission found that less than half that increase resulted from central Government initiatives. So there is room for manouevre—and it is worth reminding ourselves that LEAs have yet to set their own budgets.
    Of course, the number of teachers actually employed depends not just on the pay settlement and what LEAs decide, but on how governors deploy the budgets delegated to them. I hope that the hon. Member for Brightside noted carefully what the chief inspector said in his report about the level of balances in schools. He said:
    "A quarter of the primary schools inspected carried forward more than 10 per cent. of their budget. Around one-sixth of secondary schools carried forward over £200 per pupil."
    He went on to note:
    "Such deficiencies underline the need to strengthen financial management…Some schools had clear reasons for their surpluses…others‖exhibited undue caution in retaining substantial sums for no considered purpose."
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: I will, but then I really must move on.
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall be brief. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the six schools with the largest balances in Britain are grant-maintained schools with balances of more than £500,000 each?
    Mrs. Shephard: What the chief inspector says applies to any school, whether LEA or grant-maintained. It is obvious that schools must manage their resources carefully and to the benefit of their pupils. Our latest estimate is that nationally schools held about £700 million in balances at the end of 1993–94. The clear message of that is that there is scope for substantial efficiency savings.
    What we have heard today is the usual tired old story. The Opposition's approach is, and always will be, concerned with input rather than output; with money going in, not results coming out; with excuses for

    159
    deficiencies rather than efforts for achievements. Perhaps I should congratulate the hon. Member for Brightside on the service that he has performed this afternoon: he has revealed the truth. Despite the carefully crafted images of the new Labour party, despite the carefully cultivated middle class-friendly, "trust me" approach of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and despite the phrases so cleverly constructed somewhere in the smartest part of north London, the hon. Member for Brightside has blown the lot. He has confirmed—as, no doubt, his hon. Friends will do again during the debate—that the Labour party is still the same old Labour party: the party that always costs you more and, as the hon. Gentleman has confirmed this afternoon, the party that intends to go on costing you more, but with no idea of where the money will come from, except that it must come from the taxpayer.
    I read with interest what the hon. Gentleman said last week. Here we have the authentic voice: he will have to be reported to high command. He said:
    "I believe we must see three key roads to success within the education system: raising standards, increasing achievement and providing opportunities."
    Those are, of course, admirable aims. It so happens that they are precisely the education policies of the present Government, pursued in the teeth of objection from the Opposition parties.
    Ms Jean Corston: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: No. I have said that I cannot give way any more, in the interests of those who wish to speak later.
    If the hon. Member for Brightside and his party now support the raising of standards, why did they say that tests for children were educationally unsound? How could they vote against testing in the Education Reform Act 1988? If they agree with increasing achievement, why did they say that performance tables were an unacceptable management tool in the assessment of school performance? Why did they vote against the publication of such information in 1980?
    If the hon. Gentleman and his party now support the provision of opportunity, why, when we introduced grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, did they say that they would abolish grant-maintained status and force CTCs back under LEA control? Why did they then vote against choice and diversity in education, as provided for in the Education Reform Act? Of course, we cannot be sure about anything that Labour thinks, because some Labour Members have done a U-turn and other.; ha-:e not. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield reminded us frequently that GM schools are state schools, and that parents have the right to choose schools. Other Opposition Members share his views and demonstrate that by their use of GM schools, but the hon. Member for Brightside opposes GM schools. He said:
    "We are against inequity wherever it exists, and that is why we oppose grant-maintained status."—[Official Report, 21 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 430.]
    In December, he assured his fellow Labour Members that Labour had no intention of continuing GM status, so who speaks for Labour? I accept, of course, that we should be wary of anything that the hon. Gentleman says about new Labour education policies, because the last one that he announced was axed within two hours of him making it by the Labour high command.
    160
    The real issue for quality education is outputs. Our reforms in providing a framework for accountability, and our spending decisions in the past 15 years represent a substantial commitment to raising standards in our schools. The facts speak for themselves. More than 43 per cent. of 15-year-olds achieved five or more GCSEs at grade C or higher in 1994, compared with 33 per cent. in 1989; one in three young people are entering higher education, compared with one in eight in 1979; a record 73 per cent. of 16-year-olds are following full-time education, up from 42 per cent. in 1979–1980.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice rose—
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry, but I must finish my speech now.
    Those achievements are a marvellous tribute to our schools, to their teachers and their governing bodies, and to our further and higher education institutions.
    If we consider the international picture, we have a record to be proud of. We spend a higher percentage of gross domestic product on public education than Germany or Japan, and we have the highest graduation rate in the European Union. It is on those achievements that schools and colleges will be judged.
    The Opposition have a simple policy development system. When the Government announce a new policy, they oppose it. When that policy proves popular, they claim it as their own, and then they promise to double, treble or quadruple the amount that the Government are spending on it. It is quite simple: all one needs is the gall to do it.
    Our record speaks for itself. While the Opposition have been dithering, the Government have been doing. While they have been demanding and denigrating, we have been delivering. The threat to education is real. It comes from the Opposition Benches. We shall continue to deliver and to raise standards for all our children.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind all hon. Members who hope to take part in the debate that speeches are now restricted to 10 minutes, with the exception of that by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party.
    4.36 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: I propose to deal exclusively with the small part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Education which dealt with the question under debate: this year's payment round to local authorities and, specifically, its effect on education.
    The Secretary of State said loftily that she did not propose to deal with the subject of the letter that she sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I understand why that is, but some of us do not feel the same restraint as it does not put us in the position in which it puts the Secretary of State. That leaked letter leaves her with two alternatives: to explain why she has undergone such a massive conversion in the past six weeks, or to admit that she intends to administer a policy that six weeks ago she said would be disastrous for the education service. Perhaps the Minister replying to the debate will tell us which of those alternatives the Government intend to choose.

    161
    The memorandum said that the proposal by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to increase the standard spending assessment by 0.3 per cent. at a time when school rolls were increasing by 1.5 per cent. would produce a real reduction in expenditure of 1.2 per cent. per pupil. Let us operate exactly the same methodology and statistical technique with the present figures. They show that, when school rolls are increasing by 1.5 per cent., a 1.1 per cent. increase in the SSA produces a real reduction in expenditure per pupil of somewhere between 0.3 and 0.4 per cent.—a view confirmed by the Secretary of State's statisticians this morning. That is the basic figure of the present equation as demonstrated by her memorandum. That is also before we take into account the increase that schools are bound to face because of the increase in teachers' pay.
    Let me tell the Secretary of State what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at about 1 pm today. Incidentally, the Government would work a great deal more effectively if members of the Cabinet talked to each other from time to time. At 1.10 pm today, the Chancellor said that there would not be another penny to help pay for teachers' salaries. I will now remind the Secretary of State what she said to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about that situation six weeks ago. She said that the cost of the teachers' pay settlement, assuming that it was something like 2.7 per cent. or 2.9 per cent., would be £90 million.
    The Secretary of State asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) where the money was to come from, but she might tell us where the £90 million that she demanded six weeks ago was to come from. She said that if the £90 million was not available, the equivalent of 70,000 or 100,000 teachers would have to be sacrificed. The money is not forthcoming, and the only possible alternative for local education authorities and individual governors is to do what the Secretary of State warned the Chancellor of the Duchy would have to be done and reduce the number of teachers in our schools. We do not have to argue about that because that was the Secretary of State's opinion six weeks ago. I want her or her junior Minister to get up and tell us whether she still believes that that will be the disaster set out in her memorandum, or whether there has been an extraordinary change of heart.
    I would describe the Secretary of State as the convert of the year, had not the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) appeared on television yesterday evening with a great revelation that he wanted to make to the world—that local democracy meant that local authorities ought to be able to raise local taxes according to the demands of their constituents. I welcome his conversion to the policy that the Labour party has advocated for the past 15 years.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: No, certainly not when I have only 10 minutes.
    I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, but he is not so significant a figure as the Secretary of State—to whom I would, of course, give way immediately even though I have only 10 minutes. Does she stand by what she said in her
    162
    memorandum about the reduction in the number of teachers and the need for a further £90 million, or has she adopted another view? I suspect that she will say that it does not matter now and that the memorandum was merely a mistake, because at the north of England education conference she offered the extraordinary view that class numbers were not relevant to performance and results. The Minister of State nods. I hope that he will try to convince the independent schools, the city technology colleges and the grant-maintained schools of that point, as those that I know best use as their great pitch to get extra pupils and persuade parents to spend money the fact that they can offer smaller class sizes than the state system.
    Is the Minister of State really telling us that a group of 15 pupils preparing for university entrance will do no better than a group of 30 or 35? At the other end of the spectrum, is he saying to schools in my constituency—where many children are learning English as a second language, and where there are many statemented children who need special attention, whether with general learning, numeracy or literacy—that pupils will make the same progress in a class of 35 as they would in a class of 20? If the Minister believes that, he is not fit to hold the office that he currently holds. Every educationist in the country knows that class sizes are crucial to performance. The Secretary of State chooses to say the opposite simply because she is imposing increased class sizes this year.
    The Secretary of State is also doing something else. She said in her memorandum that to pick out teachers for special treatment, when everyone from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry upward—or downward, depending on how one looks at it—says that people's wages should be determined by their efforts, at a time when teachers are beginning to co-operate in many of the reforms and proposals that she and her predecessors have introduced, is a wilful misunderstanding of the situation. She is now "provoking" teachers—her own word in the memorandum—when, above all else, schools need a little quiet, a little sensible progress and a little understanding. According to her own words, by picking out teachers she is anticipating and causing undoubted chaos.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will not even consider taking my word for it; she must take the word of those running our schools—the governors. I was a Member of Parliament when, two or three Secretaries of State for Education ago—they come and go so quickly and with so little distinction that it is impossible to be sure how many ago it was—a new system of local management was introduced. I am strongly in favour of local management and I like the idea of governors being appointed not because of their political persuasion but because they have an objective interest in the welfare of our schools. They are committed to the schools' progress.
    Mr. Dunn: Where has the right hon. Gentleman been for the past 20 years?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have been making sure that my entry in the House of Commons guide was always accurate.
    Governors were appointed to bring their objective views to bear on the schools' future. What do they say? They say that the Government are risking chaos and risking the reduction in class sizes. It is not the biased and prejudiced Liberal and Labour education authorities saying that, but the school governors who were appointed to be objective according to the Government's own proposals.

    163
    What did the Department for Education say this morning when it was asked what it would do if the governors rebelled? It said that the government of schools would have to go back to the politically biased education authorities of which we have heard so much criticism in the past five years.
    The Secretary of State is going to preside over chaos in our schools. She is going to increase class sizes and do away with the good will that has been created with some difficulty with the teachers' unions. She will also do one other thing that I regard as especially unforgivable: she will squeeze education budgets in such a way that the schools that need most get least and the schools that need least get most.
    The Secretary of State spoke of surpluses, but her memorandum to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster contained no such talk; nor was there any talk of bureaucratic waste or how to solve the problem without extra money. She speaks today about surpluses, but she knows—or needs to be reminded—that grant-maintained schools, partly because of the corrupt way in which they have been financed, have surpluses in their accounts which are on average 60 per cent. higher than those of state-maintained schools. Once more, grant-maintained schools will come out of this financially better than the generality of schools. That is the corruption of a divided education system. One of the reasons why we confirm—and I certainly confirm—that we shall continue our fight against that divided education system is that when the squeeze comes, it is always the schools that need most which get the least. That is what the right hon. Lady is prophesying and what she is making certain today.
    4.47 pm
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I share my colleagues' pleasure in participating in this debate, but I must say at the outset how disagreeable it is that we should be witnessing such blatant politicking by the Opposition, which serves no purpose other than to worry and upset teachers and parents to the detriment of the education provided for our children. Politicking at the expense of our children is the worst form of politicking.
    It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mention the £90 million which may or may not have to be produced to subvent an extra payment for teachers. In debates such as this, when we are talking about a specific subject, it is always easy to forget that every bit of expenditure has to be viewed in the context of the Government's entire expenditure. We can say that every sum of money for any particular service is most important, but the debate must take place in the context of the total amount of money available for public expenditure. I shall say a little more about that later.
    Like most people—certainly like most hon. Members—I believe that education is a very high priority. I was proud to be part of the very reforms which I believe have been the basis on which the Conservative party has been able noticeably to improve the education of our children, from the earliest age through to the increasing numbers going into higher and further education, which has been a great achievement. I remind Opposition Members that the national curriculum, testing, and local management of schools did not exist before 1979. They came into being as a result of the hard work and endeavour of the Conservative party in Government. They were forced
    164
    through—I was part of the process that introduced every one of those reforms—despite much resistance from Opposition Members. Despite that, it has been interesting to see and hear Opposition Members change and claim that those reforms were their idea in the first place.
    I am an unashamedly strong supporter of the Government's current economic policies. It is essential that we support and sustain the current efforts to ensure that the economy is on a sound footing. Part of that policy must be restraint, reduction and maintenance—within a straitjacket—of public expenditure, which has to be set against the whole business of encouraging growth and wealth production. If we are to survive in a competitive world, which will become increasingly competitive, we should be concerned about the battle against inflation and the battle against punitive public expenditure for many years to come. Any party in responsible Government will have to consider that.
    No one knows better than I the cost of teachers to local authorities. Having lived through 10 years of local government, I know perfectly well precisely how much the cost of a 1 per cent. increase in teachers' pay means to a local authority budget. I do not speak in ignorance: I realise that teachers' pay is a very high expenditure item. Few people would disagree that teachers are a very high priority and should be a high priority in local government expenditure. I have always thought it more important to protect teacher numbers than to protect some of the other items on which my local authority, from time to time, has placed priority. Indeed, I argued that case against all other expenditure to try to protect what I thought was most important. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in precisely the same position and has done precisely as I have.
    Local authorities have a special duty to address expenditure at every level and to protect sharp end services such as education and community care. It is all too easy for them to say that they will attack the sharp end services so that they can protect all the other services that they think are more important. I will cite the example of the borough in which my constituency lies—the London borough of Merton—and explain why I think that this debate is being orchestrated nationally simply to upset and to scare parents and governors in the hope that they will make unwise decisions from which the Opposition parties may make political capital.
    Merton council has been Labour controlled for the past five years. When Labour came to power, it was in receipt of quite considerable reserves. Like every new administration, however, it had its particular priorities and desires to make changes and to introduce new ideas. Also, of course, central administration was increased quite dramatically. As the central administration expanded, so did the amount of money that the local authority needed to finance it on a revenue basis. Then, of course, came changes, new priorities and battles in different services; some people were made redundant, which is an expensive exercise, as anyone in local government who has ever tried to make people redundant will understand.
    In the London borough of Merton over the past five years we have experienced an inability to look carefully at capital and revenue expenditure and to plan for more than one year at a time which has resulted in stop-go policies and financing that would happen nationally were such a disaster as a Labour Government ever to occur. The recently Labour-controlled council of the London

    165
    borough of Merton, which has turned an authority with substantial balances into one with a current £12 million deficit, is a clear example of precisely what can happen through bad management, lack of planning and a total misunderstanding of the way in which revenue capital must be managed.
    Faced with proposals for a tough standard spending assessment settlement this year, the borough has produced the usual knee-jerk reaction: it says that it will cut each school's budget by 7.5 per cent. and that youth services and music provision will have to be cut by 50 per cent. Youth provision has been carefully managed in my local authority. Being an inner and an outer borough, we experience some of the same problems as inner London boroughs. Youth services are therefore one of the more important provisions. To reduce provision by 50 per cent. and then to rant and rave at the Conservative party about law and order seems to be facing both ways at the same time with remarkable efficiency. I am not surprised that there was a near riot of young people and youth workers outside the town hall last night over the outrageous and disgraceful way in which they believed that the budget had been managed.
    All that is despite the 2.4 per cent. increase in the provisional standard spending assessment for education in the coming year, which represents—proportionately—a larger share of the national funding for education. Even with rising teachers' pay, it must be possible in the context of overall expenditure to reduce the number of so-called indicator projects, security commissions, equality officers and so forth, to name but a few pet projects that my Labour-controlled council has implemented, and thus to address the serious problem of how to retain essential services such as education and, most importantly, to avoid making any of its teachers redundant or cutting youth services.
    I doubt whether the London borough of Merton is all that different from many Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils across the country. It saddens me to say this, but the distressing truth is that councils are conducting a cynical exercise in exploitation of the Government's financial policies at the expense of their own ability to manage cost-effectively and in the interests of their absurd, absolutely ridiculous, love affair with gesture politics.
    4.57 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I declare an interest and remind the House that I am an adviser to two teacher unions. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, SpLkbrcok (Mr. Hattersley) advised members of the Cabinet to talk to each other. He was wasting his breath, because on the few occasions when Cabinet members talk to each other, they do not seem to take any notice of what is said. Indeed, no notice was taken by her Cabinet colleagues of the pleading by the Secretary of State for more cash for education. One would have thought that she would have been bitterly disappointed by that rejection, but if she was, she certainly did not show it today. She painted an amazingly rosy picture of the education service, yet she must know of the deep concerns of all of those who work for, and are involved in, the education service; people who—frankly—deserve far more praise
    166
    for their work than they receive. Many of them are wondering why they have had to go through so much to achieve so little.
    I shall take just one example—class size, which has been referred to several times. As a result of the Government's figures, we now know that the number of primary pupils in classes of more than 30 has risen by 19 per cent. in the past two years—more than a million primary school pupils are now in classes of more than 30 and, in England alone, almost 100,000 children are in classes of more than 36 pupils. A similar picture of increased class sizes is emerging for secondary schools.
    The Government used to believe that class size mattered. It is interesting to reflect that the 1983 Conservative manifesto boasted:
    "The average number of children per teacher is the lowest ever".
    Even later, the Conservatives still thought that class size mattered. The 1987 Conservative manifesto boasted:
    "There are more teachers in proportion to pupils than ever before".
    Only now, when the situation is worsening, have they changed their tune.
    The Minister of State told the House:
    "there is no proven causal connection between class size and educational output."—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 767.]
    The Minister is nodding to confirm that that is what he said.
    The hon. Gentleman should know that Sir John Cassels, a distinguished member of the National Commission on Education, certainly did not agree with him when he spoke on the radio only last night. I am sure that by now he must be aware of the hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers, governors and pupils who fundamentally disagree with him, and who believe that class size matters.
    I wish that the Minister would listen to the views of just one parent, whose opinion was quoted in a survey carried out by Exeter university last year. She said succinctly:
    "Any half-wit should realise that increasing class size is detrimental to a child's education".
    Yet, sadly, class sizes are on the rise, and the quality of education provision is set to fall because of the Government's funding policies.
    Last week, I published an analysis of the Government's figures for the money that they expect local education authorities to spend on each pupil—figures that, unlike the Government's attempts to mask the cuts, take into account both inflation and the rising number of pupils. Those figures are startling. After the difficult years that education has already faced, the Government's local government financial settlement this year means that, on average, LEAs in England are being expected to cope with £50 less in real terms for each primary pupil and a staggering £194 less in real terms for each secondary pupil. Realistically, that means a cut of £10,000 in the budget of a 200-pupil primary school and a staggering cut of £126,000 in the budget of a 650-pupil secondary school.
    During Prime Minister's questions earlier today the Prime Minister accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of having his facts wrong. I should like the Minister of State to tell me now whether

    167
    those facts, as I believe them to be, are correct or incorrect. The Minister is not rising to speak, so clearly he is confirming that the Government are imposing real cuts.
    The hon. Gentleman will also know that in some parts of the country the position is far worse. In Northumberland, for example, some of which is covered by the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the cut is £72 per primary pupil and £223 per secondary pupil.
    The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) mentioned her concern about what is happening in Merton. I hope that she is as worried as I am about what the Government cut will mean for Merton—a cut of £48 per primary pupil. The right hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that figure is based on the Government's own statistics, updated allowing for inflation. It represents the standard spending assessment per pupil, as supplied by the Government. For Merton it means a cut of £48 per primary pupil and £216 per secondary pupil.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Those are fine figures, but may I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is about £2.5 million of reserves in the balances for education spending alone? I hope that he will take on board the fact that when the council comes to make a budget, as I trust that it will, there will still be money there both for it to budget properly to maintain its teachers and for the necessary spending on children.
    Mr. Foster: I am certain that everybody who lives in Merton will have noticed what the right hon. Lady has said. She described cuts of £48 per primary pupil and £216 per secondary pupil as "fine figures". I hope that that will be published far and wide in her constituency.
    Far worse cuts are being made in other parts of the country. Because of the inadequacies of the area cost adjustments, in all the south-western counties we shall start from a base of £130 less per pupil even before the cuts that I have mentioned are imposed.
    Ministers and other Conservative Members have, of course, already started accusing Opposition Members of crying wolf. It is true that in the past it has been possible for some local education authorities to take money from other service areas and deprive those areas so as to prevent major cuts in the education service, but many of those possibilities have dried up, now that we have had year after year of cuts in the other sectors. Even within many LEAs, the opportunities to take away central support money have now disappeared.
    We now see the ludicrous process of Ofsted inspectors travelling round schools identifying problems, and then finding that there is no one left at LEA advisory level to provide the schools with any help in trying to put right what is wrong. Rising pupil numbers are not the only problem. There will be—indeed, there have already been—cuts in the money available for books and equipment in many schools, and there is a shortage of money for repairs and maintenance. There is now a staggering backlog of £4.3 billion worth of repairs and maintenance of school buildings.
    What is the point of the Minister promoting much-improved policies for special educational needs work when the money will not be available to carry that work out? Certainly there will be no money available for any of the much-needed expansion in nursery education.
    168
    Despite all that, the Minister of State still claims, as he did on 19 December, that
    "The plea from LEAs that they do not have much money will not wash".—[Official Report, 19 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1514.]
    He is talking complete hogwash.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: What on earth is the Minister saying to authorities such as Northumberland, which last year was allowed an extra £12 million in its standard spending assessment but was told that it could not spend more than £2 million because of the capping limits?
    Mr. Foster: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point, revealing not only the absurdity of the local government financial settlement but the lack of understanding of local education authorities that Conservative Members display.
    If the Minister and his colleagues take no notice of what I say, or of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) says, I hope that they will at least start to listen to the views expressed by Conservative supporters throughout the country, especially those working as school governors. They know that education has been cut to the bone, and that the Government are now forcing cuts into the bone. Governors are being asked to do more and more, yet are given less and less with which to do it.
    Things will get worse unless the Government fully fund the teachers' pay award. Nothing short of full funding immediately will do. The Liberal Democrats are committed to restoring the cuts and to funding the teachers' pay increase in its entirety. We are also committed to further boosting the funding for education, and we have an honest answer to the question of how we shall pay for it. We have made it clear that if there is no other way, we would increase income tax by 1 p in the pound. I hope that the hon. Member for Brightside. or whoever winds up for the Labour party, will give an equally clear explanation of where Labour would find the money.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which money could be released for the sharp end of education would be to cut back the central bureaucracy of an education authority, especially if more than half the secondary schools in the area were grant maintained? The Liberal Democrats in Kent have signally failed to do that.
    Mr. Foster: I explained the problems which many local education authorities were having because their central services have been pared to the bone. They are not able to deliver the level of support which many schools are now demanding.
    It is crucial that we all understand that, in this increasingly global market, we boost investment in the education service. Despite the weasel words of the Prime Minister and the Government, the Conservative party still prefers to cut education provision in the classroom primarily—as we all know—to save money which is to be stored for possible tax bribes before the next election. The Conservatives are putting their party before the needs of the country.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. Keith Mans: I shall not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster),

    169
    except to say that I had thought that we might hear the odd word about the Liberal Democrats' education policy in relation to grant-maintained schools and the other initiatives which the Government have brought forward. I heard nothing, however, and I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman still believes what he said at the end of 1993, when he pointed out that there was virtually no difference between the Liberal Democrat party's attitude towards education and that of the Labour party.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mans: No, I only have 10 minutes in which to speak. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance to make his points.
    Everyone who has spoken in the debate today realises that this year's education settlement is a tight one. It is not fully appreciated that many LEAs—Lancashire being but one—have made a tight settlement for themselves even tighter for their schools. Lancashire, for instance, has had a 1.1 per cent. SSA increase. That has been translated into a 5.5 per cent. decrease in the delegated budget which the Labour-controlled authority has given to the schools under its control.
    The only possible conclusion to be drawn from that is that Lancashire and other authorities—mainly controlled by the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party—have given less priority to education this year than has been given in previous years. They may well have had a case if they had increased the delegated budget by the same amount in cash terms as the Government had given them, but they have not done that. Instead, they have cut the budget in real terms.
    Instead of demonstrating against Government cuts, the governors and head teachers in Oxfordshire be demonstrating against the cuts imposed by their own county council, and if they wish to set an illegal budget, they consider carefully the consequences of doing so. Where do they think the money for that illegal budget will come from? Are they proposing to increase the public sector borrowing requirement nationally to cope with illegal budgets? Are they proposing a tax increase, or are they proposing that cuts should hit some other part of the community, such as health or community care? Those in Oxfordshire and other parts of the country should pay more attention to the cuts which are being imposed because of overheads at county hall.
    In that context, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made a good point in saying that, for every 17 teachers in the county of Lancashire—I suspect the figures are not too different in other counties—there is one bureaucrat. That is where cuts should be imposed.
    Across the country, a huge number of surplus places need to be taken out. Many county councils have been bad at being proactive. They have failed to anticipate the numbers coming forward for primary education, and failed to anticipate that there would be a decline in the numbers going into secondary education.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is tragic that Lancashire does not take out surplus secondary school places, but very frequently does try to take out primary
    170
    places, where there is a deficit. There is a shortage of primary places, yet the council is always trying to close primary places.
    Mr. Mans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that, when one is looking at the number of places required—
    Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mans: No, I have only 10 minutes.
    It is important to ensure that a council takes up the surplus places as soon as possible, otherwise it will not have the money to fund extra primary places. Later in the cycle, the council might have to take out a few primary school places, if the numbers are going down, to fund the extra secondary places that may come along. A lot of LEAs—particularly Lancashire—are bad at that.
    If schools feel that, as a result of being under local authority control, they are not getting the full amount of money from the budget that the local authority has been given by the Government, they should seriously consider whether they wish to remain under local authority control. That is the only logical conclusion. If the delegated budgets are cut by more than the amount of money given by the Government, it makes sense for many schools to consider carefully whether they would be better off applying for grant-maintained status.
    When grant-maintained schools are created, some of the first people who take up that option for the education of their children are Opposition Members and Labour chairmen of local authorities and of education committees. They all seem to know where the best schools are and they send their children to them, despite the fact that they happen to be grant-maintained schools. That is what is happening in the Labour party. While there are certainly a few Labour Members who do not agree with that view, the fact is that the party's members are voting with their feet and sending their children to the schools that they think will be best for their children. That choice has been provided by this Conservative Government.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain—not necessarily this evening, but perhaps in the form of a letter—how the figures on the area cost adjustment are arrived at. I am certain that there were good reasons why this was necessary in the past, but I submit that there is now much less of an imbalance in terms of wage costs and other matters between the north and the south. I strongly recommend that my hon. Friend looks closely at the way in which the area cost adjustment applies, particularly in places such as Lancashire, and also further south in places such as Northamptonshire.
    I believe sincerely that our education system needs to change, and that it is changing from being essentially a resource and input-led system to a results-led system. It is changing from—in the terms of the Labour party—a grand experiment in social engineering, which is what it was during the 1960s and 1970s, to a system which prepares children properly for life in the world that exists today and that will exist tomorrow. That is why I am sure that the Government's education policy is succeeding, while the policy suggested by the Opposition—although we have yet to hear anything about it—would undoubtedly fail.
    5.18 pm
    Ms Jean Corston: As local education authorities throughout England prepare their budgets, the true size of the cuts in money likely to be available for primary and secondary pupils has been revealed by the Government, via parliamentary questions. West country LEAs have been particularly badly hit, starting as they do from a lower point than other LEAs due to the unfairness of the area cost adjustment. But if one compares the changes in real terms in the budgets for next year with this year through the SSA per pupil, there will be a real cash cut in Avon of £56 for each primary school pupil, and a staggering £184 for each secondary school pupil. Somerset will lose £46 and £176 respectively, and the corresponding figures for Gloucestershire are £41 and £183. On average, in just one year local education authorities are expected to cope with a real-terms cut of 2.5 per cent. or £50 per primary pupil and a draconian 6.9 per cent. or £194 per secondary pupil. Those cuts are in addition to cuts in previous years.
    It is even worse in the west country, where the SSA per pupil is £130 below the English average at primary level and £134 at secondary level. Contrast that with the statement made by the Minister of State on 19 December 1994, when he said:
    "the plea from LEAs that they do not have enough money will not wash".—[Official Report, 19 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1514.]
    How out of touch can one get?
    Last month, the Secretary of State told the North of England conference:
    "You will still need to find ways of making the money go further".
    What does that mean for class sizes, special educational needs, school repairs, and governors' and teachers' morale?
    Since January 1992, the number of primary school pupils in classes of more than 30 has increased by 19 per cent. In January 1994, the figure rose to more than 1 million for the first time in many years. In Avon, there has been a staggering increase in the number of primary school children in large classes: between 1992 and 1994, there was a 32 per cent. increase, representing 6,486 more children in classes of more than 30 pupils. The increase in Somerset was 8 per cent.; in Gloucestershire it was 25 per cent.; and in Wiltshire it was an almost unbelievable 45 per cent. I am not surprised that no Conservative Members representing constituencies in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are in the Chamber today. [Interruption.] May I say to the Minister of State that I am here to speak for the west country on behalf of the Opposition.
    What is the Government's response? In 1983, the Conservative party manifesto said:
    "The average number of children per teacher is the lowest ever",
    and in 1987, its manifesto boasted:
    "There are more teachers in proportion to pupils than ever before".
    It presumably made those statements in the belief that the lower the pupil-teacher ratio, the better. People had a right to expect further improvement. Between 1970–71 and 1980–81, pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools improved from 27:1 to 22:3 and in secondary schools from 17:8 to
    172
    16:4. But following the unprecedented rises to which I referred, the Minister of State said in the House on 13 December 1994:
    "There is no proven causal connection between class size and educational output".—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 767.]
    He must know that he is wrong.
    In 1994, Professor Neville Bennett of Exeter university undertook a survey of the views of head teachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents. He found not only a clear consensus that increasing class size adversely affects teaching and learning, but that 90 per cent. of parents with children in classes of more than 30 showed deep satisfaction.
    A teacher-governor in my constituency summed up the position admirably when he wrote to me this week saying:
    "I am unable to give as much attention to each individual's needs as I should, because there are so many others requiring it as well".
    What does "making the money go further" mean for school buildings and repairs? The chair of governors of Hanham high school in Avon wrote to me saying that the Department for Education had turned down its application for replacement of what he described as "decrepit, depressing and antiquated" buildings. In my constituency, Bannerman Road school—a two-storey primary school built in 1877—is in desperate need of replacement.
    On special educational needs, in two primary schools in my constituency the proportions of children with special educational needs are 50 per cent. and 54 per cent. Teachers try to motivate little children who are identified as having "low self-esteem". The chair of governors of Little Hayes nursery school in Bristol recently wrote to me saying:
    "I would like to state, on behalf of the Governors of the above-named school, how increasingly worried governing bodies are becoming because of the gradual reduction in worth of monies that Governing bodies are receiving.
    As Chair of a school without a delegated budget I am acutely aware of the reduction in services due to the lack of money that Councils are receiving. Services that should have been held centrally for the school to use are no longer there having either been cut completely or having been privatised and are no longer accessible to schools without a delegated budget.
    As a country Britain has claimed that Education was for all for over a century, but it now appears that every parent needs to subsidise their local authority, to some extent, to keep their children's schools working."
    The Secretary of State says that the money must go further. What planet is she on? If she has £184 less to spend on her household shopping next year, how will she make the money go further? She will have to cut something out. In Avon, the main policy criterion has been to protect the schools' budget, to the detriment of services as diverse as discretionary awards, peripatetic music tuition and new nursery class provision, leading to further protest.
    The head teacher of Redcliffe nursery school in my constituency wrote to me saying:
    "It concerns me greatly that once again Nursery Schools, their children and staff are being discriminated against both at a local and national level. The DFE has made no GEST allocation for nursery schools. This also raises the question of equal opportunities for staff working in Nursery Schools."
    She called for an investigation into the DFE's continuing discrimination against nursery schools and asked how that fits with the Government's proposed policy of nursery education for all four-year-olds.

    173
    LEAs are powerless to resist that inexorable onslaught. I regret that counties throughout England are facing a dilemma that has been all too familiar in Avon, where restrictions have been placed on spending by capping criteria every year since 1990–91. It is not good enough for Conservative Members to point the finger at LEAs. They should look to their Front Bench, for that is where the blame lies. If they really want more money for our schools, they should join us in the Lobby tonight to condemn the detrimental impact of the 1995–96 settlement on standards and opportunities for our children and young people.
    5.26 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: May I draw the attention of the House to the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? The six names of Opposition Members who support it include the shadow Chief Whip and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. However, the list does not include the shadow Treasury spokesman, which is a startling omission. Hon. Members may find it deeply significant that no member of the shadow Treasury team is prepared to put his name to the motion. Another extraordinary and startling omission is that the motion does not mention the teachers' pay awards. That shows the true import that Opposition Members attach to today's debate.
    The speeches that we have heard from Opposition Members so far have been predictable: the usual demands for more money and the usual silence about where it would come from.
    Mr. Don Foster: That is not true of speeches by Liberal Democrat Members.
    Mr. Pawsey: On this occasion, I shall excuse the hon. Gentleman from those strictures. He may, however, come in for adverse comments later.
    It would be helpful if Opposition Members would occasionally bend their minds, however distasteful that may be, to the sordid problem of money. If they intend to make more funds available to local authorities, through them to the education service and through it to schools, where will they get it from? Do they intend to raise it from taxation or will they make savings in other services? If they take the former route of imposing higher taxes, has that been agreed by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? That is no academic point, because it is crucial and central to today's debate. Hon. Members will understand that there is a world of difference between some vague, well-intentioned phrase quoted in a television studio and a firm, costed, unconditional pledge on how much cash will be provided and when. That is what counts and that will underline the true importance that Opposition Members attach to education. It is no good complaining that funds are inadequate if, at the same time, Opposition Members are not prepared to say where the money will come from.
    Like everyone else, I would like more money for education and that is why I applaud the Government for embarking on the remarkable increase in education spending that has occurred since we were first elected in 1979. The Government have increased spending per pupil
    174
    by 47 per cent. in real terms, an amount probably without precedent in recent times. Spending on books and equipment is up by 31 per cent. in real terms and teachers have not been forgotten either. Their pay has increased by almost 60 per cent., again in real terms.
    Given those substantial increases, I sometimes wonder whether the taxpayer has always received value for money. I suspect that it is only since the Government's reforms of 1988 that educational attainment has shown a real improvement when compared with the 1960s and 1970s. It was, after all, Jim Callaghan who started the great debate in 1976 with his speech at Ruskin college.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is right.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to note the assent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
    Hon. Members will recall that the education reforms have included the introduction of the national curriculum and testing; the establishment of Ofsted, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already referred; the introduction of GCSEs; the local management of schools; and the introduction of grant-maintained schools. All those reforms and a host of other measures are set to improve the quality and standard of state education.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend must forgive me, but I just have 10 minutes in which to speak.
    Since today's debate is about funding and has been held at the initiative of Her Majesty's Opposition, it is worth considering some of the ideas being actively promoted by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. They need some consideration—not a lot—but it would be useful to know exactly where they stand on grant-maintained schools. Will they allow them to continue or not? Some Opposition Members appreciate the benefits of those schools and send their children to them. Let me make it clear immediately that I do not criticise them in any way for that. As parents, they naturally want the best for their children and are able to exercise the freedom and choice given to them and every other parent by the Government. What I and my hon. Friends find unacceptable, however, is that while some Opposition Members send their children to those schools, at the same time other members of the same party are actively seeking their abolition. That suggests a degree of confusion or worse, which is intolerable. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have woken up Opposition Members, because, frankly, their attitude in today's debate is almost dozy. The debate has been held at their initiative, but the fact that so few of them are present shows how much they care about education.
    The abolition of grant-maintained schools has spending implications. If Opposition Members want those schools to be returned to local education authorities, what will that cost? Currently those schools are run efficiently and effectively. They give parents what they want for their children, vide the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. If those schools are brought back under the control of LEAs to satisfy the ideological views of a small number of small-minded people, it will be at a cost to the education budget.
    Another idea mooted by one Opposition spokesman—sadly he is not present this afternoon—is that a graduate tax should be introduced in place of the interest-free

    175
    student loan. Perhaps Opposition Members can tell the House what that idea would cost to implement. It would mean, presumably, that the current Student Loans Company would be wound up and new arrangements made through the Inland Revenue. That is unlikely to be a cheap exercise.
    Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pawsey: No, I am sorry, but I am almost out of time.
    It is a truism that one can spend a pound only once. That applies to teachers, books, schools or crack-brained measures designed to satisfy the more socialist instincts of the National Union of Teachers.
    On local authority spending, I believe that it is now time to reconsider the capping legislation—I know that a number of hon. Friends share my view. I must add that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had the courtesy to write to me to say that he intended to mention me in his speech. I wonder how that courtesy compares with that shown by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)? I suspect that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who is now not here, remembers the traditions of the House far better than some other Opposition Members.
    I am not ashamed to say that I believe that the capping mechanism should now be removed, because the socialist republics that ran some of our great cities in the 1980s—the Manchesters, the Liverpools, the Sheffields and some of the London boroughs—have greatly modified their position in the wake of four successive general election defeats. The capping legislation should therefore be substantially amended to restore to local authorities the right to decide their own level of local spending in accordance the right with perceived local needs, which certainly includes education.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I shall confine my remarks to the effects of the 1995–96 settlement on Barnsley. It has not only highlighted a crisis in education generally, but, in particular, highlighted the problems faced by Barnsley. It threatens the advances that we have made in nursery education provision, but, most worrying of all, it will certainly halt the steady improvements that have been made in primary and secondary educational attainment.
    It would appear that, nationally, the Government have been too preoccupied with their policy of featherbedding the private school sector while standards in schools in the public sector have fallen. By allowing that to happen, the sad fact is that the Government are not only failing our children but failing to address the important question of Britain's future. Britain can survive in a competitive global market only if we maintain good educational standards. The educational standards achieved under the Government have not come up to what Ministers would have us believe. For example, a recent survey revealed that one third of 14-year-olds are not mastering basic English, mathematics and science. That survey also revealed that one in six adults has severe literacy and numeracy difficulties. Those educated in the 1960s and
    176
    the 1970s fare better than those taught in the 1980s, which contradicts the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). I was a teacher in the 1970s and I can at least claim that I helped young people to achieve.
    Education in Barnsley has been seriously threatened. We had a long battle to persuade the Minister that the standard spending assessment formula treated Barnsley unfairly. The review of the criteria was hailed as a chance to achieve a fairer distribution of SSAs, but it has not brought any appreciation of our problem—at least, in our experience. This year, for example, Barnsley's maximum expenditure limit is only 0.5 per cent. more than our 1994–95 equivalent budget, which is only 0.5 per cent. greater than the SSA level. That compares with the average allowance above SSAs for metropolitan districts of 4.5 per cent. Obviously, Barnsley has been unfairly treated.
    Already music services to schools have been lost as a result of a failure to fund properly in past years. That is an especially hurtful blow in a region that has fought hard to keep some semblance of cultural activities alive in its schools. In addition, the community education programme has been closed, as has the schools swimming programme. All those cuts, caused by a lack of Government funding, add to the demoralisation of a community that has had more than its fair share of knocks.
    Between 1991 and 1994, for example, the number of our secondary school pupils has increased by 5 per cent. One would have expected that, in a rational society, the resources that Government provide would at least he proportionate to the pupil increase, but of course we are talking about irrational government.
    In a typical Barnsley secondary school, the standstill budget will mean a further steep staff reduction of five teachers. A reduction of five teachers in each school will mean that there will be no special educational needs teaching in the school curriculum. Currently there are 36 periods per week in maths and English for children with special educational needs. At present, 13 additional periods are offered per week for children who have learning difficulties in science classes, but the cut will mean that the number of pupils in classes will increase from 22 to 28. There will also be a reduction in arts and technology teaching. Currently there are 16 periods a week in art, music and information technology. That could disappear altogether, and it would seriously affect the delivery of the national curriculum in those lesson areas.
    As recently as a few weeks ago, I attended two school speech days; one at Willowgarth school, on the east side of Barnsley, the other at Penistone grammar school, in my constituency. Willowgarth is situated in the village of Grimethorpe, where the last colliery closure in the Barnsley area took place. The teaching staff are proud of the fact that they have done a first-class job in helping to provide the community with hope and a good school for its children to attend. Now their efforts have been threatened by a lack of funding. The governors at Penistone grammar school told me that they were struggling to ensure that the school could maintain its good record. They were afraid, however, that without a commensurate increase in resourcing to meet the increase in pupil numbers the school and, more importantly, the community, would lose out.

    177
    Barnsley has been confronted by some severe spending pressures in education. For example, the number of children with a statutory entitlement to free meals increased by 58 per cent., from 6,081 in 1990 to 9,591 in 1994, resulting in an increased cost of £1 million. The number of children eligible for a clothes grant has increased in the same period by 54 per cent. and now stands at almost 11,000, resulting in an increased cost of £200,000.
    Special educational needs have increased at an alarming rate: from 1.3 per cent. of pupils in 1990 to 3.1 per cent. to date. That has resulted in an extra cost of £3.2 million.
    Another increased spending pressure that will obviously bear heavily on Barnsley is the funding of the teachers' pay settlements. The School Teachers Review Body will recommend a 2.7 per cent. increase. The increase must be paid, but I urge the Minister to impress on Government that it must be met by Government funding, rather than leaving it to local authorities.
    The sad thing is that the cuts have come at a time when things have been steadily improving in Barnsley schools. Although the Department for Education's league tables show that Barnsley schools are considerably below the national average, the overall school performance index illustrates an improvement between 1989 and 1994. Now the progress and the achievement of individual schools are threatened by financial constraints.
    Barnsley is an authority that works well with its governing bodies. In the past year, the town has held the first educational conference for governors and staff. That was followed by a series of meetings, when a vision statement of the education service was developed and its aims and objectives were established. The tragedy is that the objectives are now placed in jeopardy by the budget.
    Finally, I urge the Minister to ask the Secretary of State for Education to bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State for the Environment to meet Barnsley's council leaders and to consider sympathetically a formula that will allow the Barnsley community to progress towards its educational objectives.
    Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During my remarks I may not have mentioned the fact that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. If I did not do so, may I ask that it now be recorded in the Official Report?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member did not declare that interest earlier. I am grateful that he has now remembered to do so.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke this afternoon and also spoke on local government finance last week, although I believe that the Liberal Democrats' local government finance spokesman is the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). On both occasions, the hon. Member for Bath rather glancingly criticised the area cost adjustment and the way in which it is calculated. Perhaps the reason why the hon. Member for Newbury is not present this afternoon and was silent last week is that the county in which his constituency lies, Berkshire, benefits from the area cost adjustment.
    178
    On local government finance in general, the Liberals in the west country are campaigning heavily about the area cost adjustment, and we also heard from the Labour Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston).
    We need to be realistic. Conservative Members agree with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration about considering the issue and trying to resolve it in the coming year, but the idea that there is a bag of gold at the end of the rainbow that will resolve all these budgetary problems is far-fetched.
    The hon. Member for Bath also referred to the Liberal policy of an increase in income tax of a penny in the pound to finance education, one of the Liberal Democrats' supposedly popular policies. Those who study the Liberal Democrats' pledges and policies believe that the actual cost would amount to 2.5 pennies in the pound. However, for every constituent who wants a penny or 2.5p spent on education, there will be some who want the same amount or more to be spent on law and order, defence, health or pensions and social security. Before we have gone very far, we shall be well in excess of a 30p in the pound basic rate of income tax. I hope that the House will consider that.
    The response of Conservative Members of Parliament with constituencies in Somerset to the local government finance settlement was made in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) last Wednesday. I am glad to see him in the Chamber. I should like to take some of those arguments further, because there has been a hysterical campaign, not only in Somerset but in Devon.
    Schools have been given indicative budgets. Sespiteincreases in Government assistance and despite increases—albeit small—in the amount that Somerset and Devon can spend up to the capping limit, those schools have been told to make substantial cuts in their budgets. Therefore, conclusions are being drawn about the number of teacher redundancies that might result.
    Not surprisingly, people are worried; some are very angry. There have been marches. My hon. Friends and I have had many letters. We have had petition forms, referring, I may say, to a cut in Government support—and, as I said, there has been no cut in Government support. That is a typical lie.
    The Conservative county councillors in Somerset have proposed alternatives to the Liberal budget, but the response, rather curiously, of the ruling majority party is to say, "There is no alternative." The Liberal Democrats plan to go ahead with their indicative budgets, their sacking of teachers and their causing of deep chaos in schools in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends.
    In addition to the alternative budgets of Conservative county councillors, I have a few more points to consider. Last year, Somerset county council increased its staff by 500—so it was not exactly the tight year that some people have suggested. It claimed that 200 teachers would have to be sacked last year, but instead 98 teachers and 166 classroom assistants were recruited.
    A note from the Library, which is based on a written answer from 17 October 1994, shows how much of their education budget the various local education authorities have delegated to schools. Somerset is about a third of the way up the list, with 86.2 per cent. of its total education budget delegated to schools. The hon. Member for Bath—I am glad to see that he is in his place—referred to

    179
    Northumberland. During the same period, it delegated 88.9 per cent. of its education budget to schools. At the top of the list is Hertfordshire, which delegated 91.3 per cent. of its education budget to schools, and Berkshire delegated 90 per cent. Of course, schools would have more money if Somerset and other local authorities delegated more of their education budgets to them.
    Reference was also made to the balances held by schools. I appreciate that some schools have deliberately saved balances year after year in order to fund specific projects. Therefore, I do not wish to encourage schools to dig deep into their funding reserves or spend their balances in one year. A written answer of 19 January 1995, at column 641 of Hansard, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), shows that Somerset has £6.6 million in school balances. It is interesting to compare that with Devon, which has a much larger pupil population, at £10.3 million.
    Those councillors in Somerset who are anxious to save mainstream education services might consider some perhaps more controversial proposals. For example, they could reverse, or at least postpone, the Liberal policy to have children start school at a younger age—the rising fives issue. The previous Conservative administration made a rather controversial decision about that and saved a considerable amount of money. That decision has now been reversed, but I believe that at least a postponement would save money.
    We also have to look at the cost of maintaining very small schools. A school in my constituency that is about to close has only 12 pupils and at the time of the previous financial assessment it had 15 pupils. I do not see how one can make effective education provision for a school of that size. The school received funding of £70,00() and, as the Member of Parliament for that area, I found it very difficult to justify that sort of financial commitment.
    In conclusion, I refer to the important matter of the forthcoming pay award for teachers. Since 1990 there has been an average increase of 36 per cent. in teachers' pay, which contrasts with a 23 per cent. increase for the whole economy. Teachers have not fared badly in recent years and we want to see that trend continue. We want to maintain recruitment levels and maintain and improve morale in the teaching profession.
    I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in that respect. She inherited certain difficulties when she assumed her post, to which other hon. Members have referred. I have said harsh things about her predecessor and I do not wish to return to them. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the difficult position that the Secretary of State inherited when she took over the job and we appreciate the progress that she has made.
    We must leave it to my right hon. Friend to judge how far she will go with the review body's recommendations. She must make the right decisions and she faces a difficult task. She may decide to phase in some of the recommendations, but if she decides to implement all of them at or above the level of inflation, she must expect the support of her Cabinet colleagues in dealing with the problems that will arise from meeting the pay increase.
    For example, I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the capping limit, which will he reviewed next year. Perhaps the Secretary of State will have to look at it this year.
    180
    Conservative Members support capping as a way of dealing with authorities that have no regard for the financial burdens that they place on their constituents. In view of the recent reforms of local government finance, we should look carefully at the concept of capping as a way for the Treasury to decide the meticulous funding arrangements of fairly responsible local authorities. I have my arguments with Somerset, but I would not describe it as a Lambeth or a Camden.
    We must look at the capping limit next year and we must maintain pressure on the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for the Environment in order to secure a better settlement next year. If we can expect a better settlement next year, local authorities may be convinced to hold the line this year in the face of what we all accept is a very tough financial settlement.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—my Conservative colleague from Warwickshire—is not in his seat because he raised some points in his speech to which I wish to refer.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about Labour's views on grant-maintained schools. To my knowledge, no Labour Front-Bench spokesperson has said that parents should not send their children to GM schools. We are concerned about the lack of local democratic accountability in GM schools, the unfair comparative funding arrangements arid the entry criteria in some schools. The Labour party's aim is to ensure that every pupil benefits from fair funding, that each GM school has an element of local democratic accountability, and that the entry criteria provide equal opportunities for all. I also remind the hon. Gentleman--no doubt he will read it in Hansard tomorrow—that Kenilworth secondary school in his constituency, which has a fine reputation for high academic standards, is a comprehensive school that has not opted out.
    Parents in Warwickshire are very angry about the funding cuts in children's education. Parents and teachers are angry because 200 teaching jobs may be lost and class sizes will increase. In some schools, there are as many as 40 pupils in a class. Standards will inevitably fall and the provision of special needs education will be reduced, affecting the most vulnerable pupils. Section 11 funding will also be cut and I have been told that that could result in the loss of three teachers from one school.
    The anger is not confined to Opposition politicians, parents, teachers or governors. In Warwickshire, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors have united in criticising the financial settlement's impact. The Government would have us believe that it is all about overspending local authorities that are unable to make proper budget savings. However, the headmaster of St. Francis primary school in Bedworth, Mr. Seamus Crowe, has said that the argument of parents and teachers
    "is not with the county council but with the Government".
    Conservative politicians in Warwickshire are supporting Labour's case—but it is not Labour's case; it is the case of the children, the parents and the governors who want to see decent education standards in that county. Warwickshire has always been a prudent local authority; it was praised in its recent audit report. It was poll tax capped only when it was under Conservative control—for two years running. Warwickshire has always been a relatively low spender per pupil on education. If it were

    181
    to comply with the Government's standard spending assessment, it would have to cut its education budget by £10 million, despite the fact that it is such a low spender. If it made the cuts in its standard spending assessment that the Government seem to suggest, it would probably fall through the statistical floor on education spending.
    When I made similar points in a debate last week on the financial settlement, the Secretary of State for the Environment suggested that I was making a plea for special treatment for Warwickshire and that other counties disagreed with the claim. One can imagine his surprise when the reply came not from the Opposition but from behind him. I quote with approval the comments of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth):
    "Warwickshire is not asking for special treatment, but for a fair deal. Our frustration is that year after year after year our representations appear to be ignored. It is no surprise that in a zero-sum game other local authorities are not interested in easing Warwickshire's position. If we care about the quality of our democracy, we should be strengthening the independence and scope of elected local government for which a strong mechanism of accountability now exists through the council tax. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our future quality of life, as well as our economic competitiveness, depends to a large extent on whether we invest in our schools? I therefore very much regret the Government's proposals for capping and SSAs—certainly as they bite in Warwickshire—which run counter to all these purposes."—[Official Report, 1 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 1113.]
    Those were the words of a Conservative Member for Warwickshire, so it has nothing to do with party politics. It is not special pleading; it is concern that the impact on schools in Warwickshire is so damaging that even the Conservatives in the county are concerned about it.
    The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who I am pleased to see has now resumed his seat, said that the cap must be removed and I agree with him, certainly for Warwickshire. I welcome the conversion of the hon. Gentleman to Labour party policy for Warwickshire.
    There has been a long campaign by Warwickshire Members and councillors to change the SSA criteria, and it has been supported by all parties. Claims of lax council spending will not wash in Warwickshire; it is plain unfair victimisation of the children of Warwickshire by the Government.
    The education budget has already been cut to the bone. Discretionary awards have been cut in Shakespeare's county, where if young people want to become actors, they cannot get a discretionary award to do it. May I make a special plea as a lawyer? When I was young, I was able to get a grant to pursue my legal career. That is barely possible now; in practice, it is impossible. The opportunities offered to previous generations no longer seem to be available in Warwickshire.
    The youth service budget has been halved. One third of primary classes have more than 30 pupils; 10 per cent. of classes have more than 35 pupils; and, if cuts are imposed this year, many will have more than 40 pupils. Pupil-teacher ratios are in the bottom quartile of LEAs in England and Wales, and the county has already made 20 per cent. savings in administration and elsewhere to put £2 million into primary schools.
    182
    Education spending per head in Warwickshire has fallen to 96 per cent. of the English county average, while our school-age population is 2.5 per cent. above the English county average. So the county is not only efficiently run; it has cut services to the bone.
    The 1995 budget is balanced only by no contribution to the education budget for any pay or price increases, by not providing any of the £1 million needed to fund the extra 874 pupils in Warwickshire schools next year and an overall 2.5 per cent. reduction in all budgets. That totals a cut of £9 million for Warwickshire's education department, because of the cuts and increased spending pressures.
    This year, a primary school pupil will be worth £1,024 until April, but after April the figure will be £993. The contribution for a 15-year-old is £1,864, but after April it will fall to £1,807. In my constituency, the effect on Polesworth comprehensive, which is to take 62 extra pupils, will be £112,000 slashed off the budget. Race Leys middle school at Bedworth will lose £43,000 and two teachers. St. Francis RC primary school in Bedworth will lose a teacher and have classes of more than 40 pupils.
    On Friday, I spoke to the headmaster of Nicholas Chamberlaine comprehensive school, who told me that the school faces budget cuts identified by the county of £70,000, including a deficit carried forward because the school was unable to meet the 2 per cent. underfunded pay rises for 1994–95 of £30,000. If staff pay rises for 1995–96 are not funded, the school will face a further reduction of £36,000a cut of £136,000 in one school budget.
    The school has identified the following proposals to make those savings. Seven teachers will have to go. Class sizes will be increased by two thirds across the board, with significant health and safety implications as some workshops cannot properly accommodate full classes. There will be fewer choices at GCSE, with no minority A-level subjects such as religious education or German and fewer books for pupils. The school fabric, which is already deteriorating, will not be able to have the repairs that it needs. There will be no capital investment in any new equipment. Information technology provision will deteriorate further and the school library has already closed. How in all conscience can any Government say that they care about education, yet seek to force such cuts?
    I could explain the effect of the cuts on other schools in Warwickshire, but Warwickshire needs—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Time is up.
    6.5 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Like a number of hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon, I come from Kent, a county that faces a 1 per cent. cut in the delegated budget for schools. It is the first time that that has ever happened in the county of Kent. No provision has been made for any increase in the pay of teachers. It has been imposed by the Liberal Democrat-Labour pact which is now controlling Kent county council.
    It is particularly disgraceful given that the Government funding for Kent county council is increasing by 2.1 per cent. in the coming year. One might ask why the council has got the county into such a predicament. During the first two years of control by the Lib-Lab pact, the co-chairs of education were breezing around the county

    183
    playing Lady Bountiful and distributing sweeties to an extent that would have shamed Evita Peron. The council spent the £20 million windfall that arose from interest rates on the council debt being very much less than forecast. It blew those funds. It now faces finding some £6.5 million to pay for higher interest rates.
    Needless to say, the council does not have the money. It has blown the £10 million proceeds of land sales negotiated by the previous Conservative Administration. It has held sharp conferences at four-star hotels, such as the Great Danes hotel at Maidstone and the Imperial at Hythe, with left-wing academics and pressure group spokesmen. Those conferences cost thousands of pounds of council tax payers' money.
    The council spent further thousands of pounds on anti-grant-maintained schools campaigns and propaganda and, only recently, it spent £4,100 on propaganda leaflets sent to the parents of school children in Kent.
    Perhaps the most criminal of all is the obesity of the central educational bureaucracy in Kent. In Kent, we are proud that 88 of our schools have decided to become grant-maintained—44 of them decided when the county was under Conservative control and 44 further schools decided to do so under Liberal and Labour control. Under the Conservatives, 174 administrators' jobs went. Under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the central education administration of Kent county council has increased from 965 to 1,162 full-time equivalent staff. That is a 20 per cent. increase in the central administration of education that cost millions of pounds.
    It is quite clear that the Lib-Lab pact has no intention to cut proportionately the central administration of education. Had it done so for the 44 schools that have gone grant maintained under its period of control, £6.5 million could have been saved and spent on the schools budget. It has not cut the central administration to reflect the departure of the further education colleges of Kent into independence or of the Kent careers service. Not only is it keeping up the spending on the central bureaucracy, it is increasing it. It has made no provision for an increase in teachers' pay, but it has made provision for an increase in the pay of the education bureaucrats right up to the overpaid director of education now spending his time on political campaigning.
    Kent county council's bureaucracy is now so bloated that the county auditors have recommended an inquiry into education support and administration services and their structures. So determined has the Lib-Lab pact been to preserve the bureaucracy that in this year of cuts it has decided to make a provision of £480,000 to replace funds expected to be taken by schools when they become grant maintained during the course of the year.
    Where has the Kent Lib-Lab pact decided to make its cuts? It has decided to cut 1 per cent. off school budgets. It has decided that there shall be no more discretionary awards for vocational courses at further education colleges and no more help for school transport for youngsters of 16 and older from poorer families going to their place of education. It has decided to cut 20 per cent. off adult education in the county and £2 million off school buildings maintenance. But it has decided to cut only £800,000 off central services. The cuts fall on the sharp end as usual.
    184
    The cuts proposed by the coalition of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—I notice that the Liberal Democrat education spokesman is so embarrassed that he has abandoned his seat—
    Mr. Don Foster: I am over here.
    Mr. Arnold: The proposed cuts are so nasty that the two Lady Bountifuls—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no longer possible for me to hear the hon. Gentleman because of the noise from the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Arnold: The Opposition parties clearly do not want to hear the facts. The people of Kent should be told what is going on. It is significant that the two Lady Bountifuls, the co-chairs, are nowhere to be seen. They have left it to the director of education to argue a political case for the Lib-Lab cuts programme. The cuts are provocative. They hit the public and the school children. They have been made for clear party-political reasons. They are a smoke screen.
    We have heard speeches this afternoon from several hon. Members from counties and boroughs which may have been squeezed, but Kent has not. The politicians in Kent want to keep up with the Joneses and in order to do so they have hit Kent schools hard. They have cut £1 l million from the education budget rather than from the bureaucracy. The grant-maintained school issue alone is worth £6.5 million. They could have cut the administration for further education and for the career service which is no longer provided. They could have cut the propaganda. I have asked the leader of the council to cost the conferences and the propaganda.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Arnold: They could also utilise the underspent part of the education standard spending assessment which is the equivalent of £14.2 million.
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a decision that must be made by the hon. Member who has the Floor, not by others in sedentary positions.
    Mr. Arnold: The Lib-Lab pact could have cut the £11 million from the £27 million of the central departments which also have provisions for a pay increase. It could have used the windfalls from lower interest rates and land sales amounting to £30 million which the Lib-Lab pact has blown. It could also use Kent county council's reserves.
    Mr. Dunn: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the political leaflet issued by the director of education on the authority of the Lib-Lab co-chairmen was delivered to staff at grant-maintained schools but was not shown to governing bodies who had no knowledge of it, and that some head teachers in north-west Kent refused to deliver the leaflet because they felt it to be political?
    Mr. Arnold: The leaflet was run out so fast that I am told that even the chief executive of the county council did not see it, so desperate was the Lib-Lab pact to pre-empt the results of its own folly.

    185
    My only conclusion from this sorry disgrace of a cut in Kent's school budgets, which has never happened before, is that the Lib-Lab pact that is running Kent county council is either incompetent or playing politics.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I have no wish to proceed down the leafy lanes of Kent, which has been described as the garden of England. My contribution is the first to be made by an hon. Member representing a Welsh consistency.
    The debate is most timely because there is a basic need to highlight the crisis in our schools brought about as a result of the local authority settlement. In the process, our children have been sold short and that in turn means that we will not reap the benefits of their potential tomorrow. Education is vital to Britain's international competitiveness and economic efficiency.
    It has been said many times that charity begins at home. I have received a letter dated 6 January from Mr. J. P. Walsh, the Gwent county treasurer. He pointed out that when Gwent prepared its base budget it aimed to protect vital services such as education, but it was found that an increase of £14 million would be needed just to stand still and without restoring earlier cuts.
    Under the settlement terms, Gwent county council was allowed to increase its budget by only 0.5 per cent., or £1.4 million. There was, therefore, a need to reduce spending by £12.5 million. Of that sum, £7 million will be taken from reserves, but the remaining £5.5 million will need to be found by making cuts. Mr. Walsh went on to say that for education that would mean a cut of £2.4 million and that schools could be affected. I took that matter up with the Welsh Office. On 26 January the Under-Secretary of State for Wales agreed that the settlement was tough, but he called for further efficiency improvements.
    Long ago, it was said that it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches. I have received a letter dated 5 December from Mr. M. J. McCarthy, the headteacher of St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency. He pointed out that the recent inspectors' report on the school was highly favourable and that it was particularly pleasing to receive such a report because the school serves an economically deprived area.
    Yet Mr. McCarthy said:
    "We have recently heard that the schools budget for 1995–96 is to be substantially reduced and this despite careful management of previous budgets which have regularly produced a small surplus at the end of each financial year. The proposed budget reduction will result in the loss of one of the teachers who helps to make this school such a success. Resources will be stretched to the limit, the composition of classes will be affected and it will be more difficult for the remaining staff to provide the levels of care and support that have hitherto been the case."
    Mr. McCarthy proceeded to call on me as the Member of Parliament for the area to intervene with the authorities on behalf of the school. The basic point that I wish to make is that the position in that school is the direct result of the self-described "tough" policy being implemented by the Welsh Office and the Department for Education.
    186
    Since the correspondence to which I have referred, I have received a flood of letters from concerned parents who are anxious about the welfare and future education of their children. Typical of those is Mrs. A.E. Morris of 16, Llanwern road, Newport. She writes:
    "My daughter Sian and my son Rhys both attend the above school,"—
    St. Gabriel's—
    "I am concerned to learn that because of rules which govern funding, St. Gabriel's is to lose a teacher…which I find totally unacceptable."
    She calls for "swift and appropriate" action to remedy the situation. I heartily endorse that.
    The situation in St. Gabriel's has happened and is happening in other schools in Newport. Indeed, the education cuts in Newport are mirrored throughout the country, as we have witnessed in the debate this evening. Yet education is vital to social cohesion and social justice, about which the Prime Minister claims to be so concerned. I am reminded of the words of Dickens in "A Tale of Two Cities":
    "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".
    Let us update those words a little. It is certainly a good time for Sir Iain Valiance, the chairman of British Telecommunications plc. I did a little research in the Library on his remuneration and emoluments and found that, up to 31 March 1994, he received a salary of £465,000 plus bonuses of £185,000. Other benefits total £13,000, making a total of £663,000 per annum. He also had pension payments of £43,000 and what are known as "unfunded" pension contributions of a further £51,000. He had shares amounting to £17,084 and share options totalling £612,659—
    Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me on the relevance of what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is saying to the debate on the financial settlement for schools 1995–96.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am usually fairly tolerant when hon. Members make a passing reference or seek to make some short comparison. I am less happy when it becomes extended and the main point of the debate becomes lost. The hon. Member for Newport, East is fast getting to that point.
    Mr. Hughes: I have come to the end of the point that I wanted to make. I would say, however, that, compared with Sir Iain Valiance of BT, it is not so good for the children in our state schools at the present time, particularly those in socially deprived areas, as I have illustrated in the case of St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic primary school in Newport.
    It is time for the Government to loosen the purse strings and to change their policies root and branch, otherwise the classes will "shoot up"—to use the words of the present Secretary of State for Education. Instead, though, the Government are carrying out a policy of austerity, with a view to creating some sort of economic bonanza, as we approach the general election. The education of our children is too important to be treated in that way. After 15 years in office, the Government are unlikely to change. The leopard does not change its spots. It is time for the Government to give way to a Labour Administration, who will fully recognise the importance of education and fund it accordingly.
    6.24 pm
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I do not want to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), but I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I do not want him to depart from the policies that the Government have maintained since 1979, because to do so would mean reversing the increase of nearly 50 per cent. in spending on schools that we have seen. I very much support increasing funding for schools when the economic climate allows. The very fact that we have managed to do that since 1979 is a tribute to the way in which we have run the economy. We have not had to introduce massive slashing programmes, as happened in 1976 when the Labour party was in Government. That is what we inherited.
    I urge my hon. Friend, therefore, to pursue with vigour the policies that the Conservative party and the Government have followed. They are the policies that are condemned by the Opposition one day but held up the next as though they invented them. We have seen that time and again. Indeed, I read at the weekend of the chief education officer in Liverpool, who last year sent a letter to all parents telling them that schools should not become grant maintained, only to send his own child to just such a school. That is the kind of educational hypocrisy that we hear from the left of the Labour party these days.
    I pay tribute to all the teachers in our schools who work so hard to achieve the improvement that we have seen in examination results. It is a credit to the parents and to the teachers. Some of the nonsensical decisions have been removed from local education authorities as a direct result of the policy which allows schools to become grant maintained and thus freed from the shackles of the local authority.
    In March 1987, when I had just entered the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) answered an Adjournment debate. Some 170 parents came and sat in the Strangers Gallery to exercise their right to make representations through their Member of Parliament and to the Minister about the saving of the sixth form in Ecclesbourne school. It was one of the first schools in Derbyshire to become grant maintained. What the county council tried to do—to take away the sixth forms—was nonsense. That school has gone from strength to strength since becoming grant maintained.
    Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
    Mr. Enright rose—
    Mr. McLoughlin: I understand that Netherthorpe school is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). The head of that school, which is now grant maintained, recently said:
    "We have been grant-maintained for 4½ years. The advantages include: more effective decision making; money nearer to the students (more books; equipment; teachers; non-teaching staff; better maintained buildings). Better staff training. Increased parental support."
    I think that we should be shouting from the top—
    Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I am in the House, is it in order for the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) to comment on a school in my constituency but not to give way so that I can make a counter-argument?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The tradition of the House is well known: it is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The problem, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the shortness of time.
    Over the past 14 years, Derbyshire county council has subsidised school meals to the tune of some £100 million. When I challenged the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on that matter, he said that he was informed that I have not been short of school meals. Indeed, I have not—nor, I suggest, has his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who will shortly be winding up for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Brightside did not comment at all on whether he thought that it was a good thing that Derbyshire had expended some £100 million in the past 14 years on subsidising school meals. If that £100 million had been given directly to schools, Derbyshire's education would be in a far better state today.
    Derbyshire allocates less to schools than any other shire county. There is more money to be allocated to schools. Before talking about cutting the number of teachers, Derbyshire should ask itself whether its administration is as efficient as it might be. We have a right to ask why it is not giving money directly to schools.
    Mr. Barnes rose—
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has already asked me to give way. He must realise that I cannot do so, because the winding-up speeches are about to begin.
    I end by saying that the flexibility is available to allow county councils to put more money into schools.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the way in which he speared the Government. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who—unlike many Conservative Members—did what a Member of Parliament is supposed to do: they defended the interests of their constituents, and they did so very eloquently.
    When the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was replaced by the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) as Secretary of State for Education, many saw the right hon. Lady as a lamb going among the educational wolves. She was to be the great conciliator—the professional whose experience and commitment would correct the imbalance caused by the disastrous tenure of her predecessors. The right hon. Lady came as sweetness and light to the chaos inflicted on pupils, teachers, parents and governors, and her initial input appeared benevolent. She rapidly moved on to ground long occupied by the Opposition Front Bench: she cleared the confusion over the Government's intentions in regard to standard attainment tests and amended the national curriculum following the excessive demands originally made by the Government. The commentators spoke of the refreshingly engaging style of

    189
    the Secretary of State—a person who was at home in the job, far removed from the ideologues in her party who pressed for ever more radical change for its own sake.
    All of that was dispelled by the leaking of the Secretary of State's letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. She was revealed in that letter, which was printed in full in The Times Educational Supplement on 20 January, as—I hope that the right hon. Lady will pardon the pun—not a lamb but, in education terms, a wolf in chic clothing. That missive contained a clinical analysis of the political cost to the Government of the 1995–96 education settlement; nowhere was there a hint of the huge educational loss to our country, the frustration of parents, the undermining of teachers, the disenchantment of governors or the injury to pupils. What the Secretary of State did say, unequivocally, was that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) pointed out—up to 10,000 teaching jobs would go, and class sizes would rocket. Even when she wrote that letter, the right hon. Lady knew full well what the results of the Government's parsimony would be. It
    "would be seen as provocative",
    she wrote; there would be
    "a renewed battle with the teachers".
    Crucially, she concluded that
    "it would be a great pity to lose the ground we have gained and face new disruption in our schools".
    How right she was.
    It appears, however, that the Secretary of State's political plea has fallen on deaf ears. The long years of confrontation in education were prematurely written off. According to The Times and The Daily Telegraph today, the Government are about to take on not only the teachers but the school governors, which will mean increased turmoil for our children—to the outrage of their parents. Those parents know exactly whom to blame. The Secretary of State herself said:
    "Pupil numbers next year will go up by 1.5 per cent., so an increase"—
    in education spending—
    "of 0.3 per cent. implies a cash fall. The increase could make no contribution towards any pay award: staffing ratios will have to be tightened to balance the books before LEAs even start to consider how to fund the pay settlement".
    The Secretary of State said much in her speech today about the bureaucracy which allegedly remained in local education authorities. She had the temerity to quote the Office for Standards in Education, so I will do the same. According to paragraph 224 of Ofsted's report,
    "Almost all LEAs have experienced significant reductions in staff numbers in the last five years."
    Paragraph 226 states:
    "Where budgets were reduced, LEAs generally sought to protect schools by improving economies in their own administration cost".
    Paragraph 227 states that support services are
    "extensively used and generally valued by schools, including grant-maintained schools."
    It does not seem to me that Ofsted was condemning LEAs: quite the reverse—it was giving credit where it was due and praising LEAs which do a tremendous job in difficult circumstances.
    Peculiarly, given the way in which the Government have operated historically, the shire counties are likely to be hit most heavily. Essex has had £1.4 million cut from
    190
    its assessment, but faces an extra bill of £8.5 million, which means a £9.9 million shortfall. Northumberland will face a similar shortfall of £5.4 million.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: That figure is correct. Northumberland has a special problem, because it operates a three-tier system. Four fifths of the population live in one corner, while the remaining one fifth inhabit the rural parts. If schools in Northumberland are closed, they will be closed in the rural parts, which are Tory dominated.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a sad fact that rural areas will be hit as much as metropolitan areas were in the past, although metropolitan authorities will suffer nearly as much: Birmingham faces a shortfall of £8.1 million, and St Helens a shortfall of £4.9 million.
    As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), a noted educationist, is present, I will also cite Warwickshire, whose 300 schools have £57 million in unspent balances. Unspent balances are part of the Government's argument, but Warwickshire's balances are unevenly spread: one third of schools have no balances, one third have modest balances of between 2 and 3 per cent., while the remaining third hold sufficient reserves to cater for the worst effects of the 5.8 per cent. reduction in the real value of their budgets in 1995–96 but nothing for 1996–97. The council estimates that between 140 and 200 teaching jobs will go, probably to be joined by 23 section 11-funded jobs. In addition, class sizes will go over the 40 mark.
    Croft middle school in Nuneaton represents a microcosm of Warwickshire's dilemma, which in turn epitomises what is happening throughout the country. It is a popular school, oversubscribed by 19—if we take the standard number—with a roll of 299. A special educational needs audit under the new code of practice, using nationally recognised criteria, revealed 134 children—some 43 per cent.—with level 1, 2 and 3 needs. The school has reserves of £14,523, but those reserves are already committed to teaching and support services for the final quarter of the school year 1994–95—not the financial year. Its budget allocation in 1994–95 totalled £425,385. Its allocation for next year, including the allowance for extra pupil adjustment, will be only £400,235. In real terms, that means the loss of two teaching posts to a middle school in middle England—12.4 posts rather than 14.4—and huge classes.In 1994, the fifth year in the school contained classes of 27, 26 and 29; in 1995 there will be two classes of 38 and 39. In year six, there were two classes of 35 and 34 in 1994; those will become two classes of 41 each in 1995. How does that relate to the Secretary of State's proclaimed wish for stability in our schools and the raising of standards?
    Reference has been made to the role of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Chancellor will feel able to go along to Abbey Road primary school in his constituency and explain why it will lose £21,000 next year—or perhaps he should visit Cotgrave Highfield primary school, which will lose £20,000. A total of £442,000 will be taken from 41 primary schools in the Chancellor's constituency to fund tax cuts at the next general election. But even that is generous compared with what is happening in secondary schools in the Chancellor's constituency. They are to lose

    191
    £551,000 between them. Does he think that voters' memories will be so short as not to take note of that when the election comes?
    There will be less chance to address the problems of literacy and numeracy, which were highlighted by the adult literacy and basic skills unit. In recent years, the reading age in primary schools has dropped. The fresh round of cuts will do little to remedy that. If we end up with disenchanted, harassed and undermined teachers, and with even less one-to-one contact with children most in need, the graph will continue to plummet.
    It may not be popular with Conservative Members to say so, but the settlement is an unwarranted imposition on teachers and it must be set in the context of other cuts in education, including £20 million from school effectiveness grants and £13 million from the planned inspection budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said earlier, the reading recovery programme has been scrapped. Discretionary grants are all but a thing of the past. The youth and community service has been decimated. For example, a delegation from Shropshire could not get a hearing from Conservative Members, so it came to see me in Liverpool about 15 mainly rural youth and community projects that were being scrapped in the face of cuts imposed by the Government. Nor are Labour authorities left out: Wigan district council has been forced to dismember its youth and community provision, and to subsume it into leisure services to have any hope of providing any service for some of the more alienated sections of our community—the young and the disadvantaged. The sorry tale goes and on, but I must comment on some of the speeches that were made earlier.
    The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) made a disgraceful attack on Kent county council. He was joined by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who in interventions made laudatory remarks about grant-maintained schools. He talked about the waste of money that had been perpetrated by Kent county council. I also had a delegation from his constituency. It came to see me because four schools in his constituency, two of which went grant maintained, were sharing the same playing fields. According to the parents, they could not interest the hon. Gentleman because one of the GM schools had managed to separate off six out of the eight football pitches and to put up a huge fence. While that was going on, the hon. Gentleman sat on the fence—although I hope that he did not literally sit on the fence that the school put around the playing fields as it has been topped by razor wire. That is the sort of education in the community that the Conservative party cares for.
    I appreciate the pressures of time, but I should like to mention the attack by a series of Conservative Members, mainly in interventions, on Lancashire county council. They failed to point out two important facts: first, Lancashire has a £2 million shortfall in the forthcoming year; secondly, the cuts in the standard spending assessment per pupil next year mean expenditure cuts of 2.6 per cent. for primary school pupils and 7 per cent. for secondary school pupils. You can go back and explain that to your constituents: those cuts are not down to Lancashire authority—they lie entirely at the door of your own Government.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must address the Chair.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Mans rose—
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I must finish my speech.
    The hon. Member for West Derbyshire behaved disgracefully in attacking a neutral civil servant, the chief education officer of Liverpool city council who, so far as I am aware, is a member of no political party, does not live in the city of Liverpool and sends his fourth child to the local school, which is not in Liverpool, but in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I believe that that officer's local school is grant maintained. For him to be attacked in the Chamber as an extension of the Labour party is disgraceful.
    The hon. Member for West Derbyshire also made a facetious comment about school dinners and pointed in my direction. I am the first to admit that I enjoyed school dinners so much that I used to go for more in the holidays. The reason was simple: when I was a child, local authorities could provide deprived families with school dinners in the holidays. Now local authorities cannot even provide school dinners for kids in need in the towns and countryside of this once great nation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board.
    I urge hon. Members to support our motion.
    6.44 pm
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): From time to time, the debate has been informative, but the main thing of which the House has been informed is how few Opposition Members have bothered to turn up for their own debate on a subject that they claim is important to them. I have been watching throughout the debate, and I have counted as few as two or three, to often as many as six or seven Opposition Back Benchers in attendance. That illustrates something about their motivation.
    That also demonstrates the confusion of thought among Opposition Members. I shall take one example. I made a careful note of the words of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)—I made a note of the few words of Opposition Members that I thought were worth while. His words, however, were instructive. He opened his remarks by saying, "Standards in the maintained education sector have fallen." He followed that a few minutes later by saying, "Things have been steadily improving in Barnsley schools." The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He should either join us in taking pride in the improvements that have taken place in education consistently in the past several years, or he should maintain the opposite view. He cannot have both views.
    Mr. Clapham rose—
    Mr. Forth: He will now try to square the circle.
    Mr. Clapham: The point that I clearly made, and that the Minister should take on board, is that the siphoning off of resources for the private sector clearly leaves Barnsley having to make up the shortfall because of a lack of funding from the Government.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman neatly makes the other point that I wanted to make about the debate. He

    193
    epitomises the confusion that exists among Opposition Members about the connection between spending and educational quality. However one considers education, whether in relation to the results in our much-welcomed performance tables, to expenditure per pupil in different authorities, to class sizes or to any other measure, no demonstrable connection exists between money in and quality of education out, or between class sizes and quality of education.
    The real determinants of the quality of education in this country, as elsewhere in the world, is the quality of teaching, what happens in the classroom and the degree of parental support. It is not simply about money, which Opposition Members seem unable to grasp.
    Mr. Blunkett: In that case, why is the money spent by parents on private day education twice as much as the money made available for the equivalent education in the average state school?
    Mr. Forth: I have always defended the absolute right of parents to exercise their choice in sending their children to schools. I personally chose to send my children to state schools. I was happy to do so and I believe they received a good education, but I equally welcome those of my hon. Friends, colleagues and others outside who make the personal decision to send their children to private schools, for whatever reason. It is their decision and their choice.
    We have confusion among Opposition Members. The proportion of primary pupils in classes of more than 30 has fallen from 26.5 per cent. in 1979 to 23.2 per cent. now. The proportion of secondary pupils in such classes has fallen from 9.9 per cent. in 1979 to 5.3 per cent. now. Many of my hon. Friends have quoted the figures about real expenditure in education since 1979. We take 1979 as our starting point because that is the last time Opposition Members were in Government. That is the only way in which we can judge their real commitment to education. On any indicator one may choose, things are significantly better now than they were in 1979.
    Mr. Don Foster: If there is no connection between "cash in and performance out", why has the Secretary of State urged her Cabinet colleagues to give more money to the education service?
    Mr. Forth: It is clearly one of the functions of Government Departments to make a perfectly legitimate argument for their expenditure, something that the hon. Gentleman cannot and probably never will understand. It is something normal and natural which occurs every year and throughout Government. For the hon. Gentleman to give it such mystical significance shows that he has missed the point entirely.
    The real point of the debate is this: it must be understood that local education authorities have enormous flexibility and freedom in the way in which they can determine their priorities and expenditure within their overall totals.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might improve the way in which local authorities set their budgets and publish their figures if they declared precisely which items of expenditure related to statutory requirements and which related to non-statutory requirements? At the moment, when
    194
    constituents look at local authority education budgets, it is very difficult for them to determine which items of expenditure are required by law and which are the result of good old-fashioned socialism.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue which leads me to my next point.
    One decision that authorities must make is how to allocate their expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) gave us a graphic example of this. He told us that Kent had chosen to increase its education bureaucracy by nearly 200 members of staff. In other words, it increased not the number of people in the classrooms but the number in the county council buildings. My figures also show that in Devon, for example, the number of local authority staff has gone up by some 700; in Oxfordshire, numbers have increased by more than 200; and in Warwickshire by nearly 500. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) told us that in Somerset the number of non-education staff—not teachers—has also gone up by some 500.
    It is for local authorities to make such decisions, but they cannot at the same time cry wolf and, having increased the number of bureaucrats, say that they are forced to cut the number of teachers. They cannot have it both ways.
    I now cite other recent examples, culled at random from newspapers, about priority spending decisions made by authorities across the country. The Birmingham Evening Mail of 3 February carried an article with the headline "City Row On Hyatt Takeover". It stated:
    "City Labour leaders want to buy a majority stake in Birmingham's luxury Hyatt Hotel".
    That seems to be the sort of priority adopted by one local education authority. It is also reported:
    "Birmingham schools were accused last year by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers of hoarding £17 million in their combined reserves.
    One school in Erdington was said to have had a surplus of more than £400,000 stashed away."
    The Manchester Evening News stated:
    "Schools in Salford are under threat from huge cuts despite the council having a staggering £13.5m in reserves … Some members of the ruling Labour group believe the surplus should now be used instead of making devastating savings in town hall departments."
    However, it is not all bad news. Also in the ever-instructive Manchester Evening News, but on 24 January, I found a good news story entitled "Hard-up heads' £1 million lift". The article states:
    "Hard-up headmasters in Oldham are likely to get a surprise £1 million boost for the coming year.
    The increase will be recommended to a meeting by the education committee next month by chairman Coun David Jones."
    That illustrates a different point. If authorities choose to make such priority decisions, it proves that many could increase the money spent on education if they had made sensible use of their balances and decided to give education sufficient priority.
    However, it is not only authorities that can make such priority decisions. Schools also have the same degree of flexibility. Thanks to delegated budgets and the local management of schools, which were eventually praised by

    195
    many opposition Members, schools have the capacity to order their priorities and make their own spending decisions to a very large extent.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Although the Minister might challenge it, the evidence from the midlands is very different. We have a £70 million deficit; we are going to lose 1,000 teachers; and there is no question but that class sizes will increase. Governors and parents in the west midlands will not accept the Minister's red herrings because they know the reality of the underfunding from which their schools are suffering.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken on a number of points. He has completely forgotten the example of the Hyatt hotel. If one of the Labour-controlled west midlands authorities wants to make that sort of spending decision, it is open to that authority to do so, but it has to account to its electors. The hon. Gentleman should not come to the Chamber and complain about the cuts threatened as a result of that decision.
    I have been in the Department for Education long enough to have reached my fourth year of hearing whingeing and cries of wolf. I have heard the story so often that I can repeat it in my sleep. Every year the story is that there will be devastating cuts in the number of teachers. We have yet to see those cuts; every year, the number remains broadly the same across the country.
    Mr. Hattersley: If this is all whingeing and cries of wolf, and if there is so much money sloshing around in the system—I see that the Minister nods his head in confirmation—why did the Secretary of State write to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that without an extra £90 million there would be chaos in the education service?
    Mr. Forth: Of course, the Secretary of State has to make her case for her Department, as does every other Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman's memory goes back that far, he will probably recall doing the same when he was a Secretary of State, except that at that time, in 1976, cuts were forced on the Labour Government by the International Monetary Fund which led to deep cuts in spending on education, health and the whole spectrum—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The class is getting distinctly unruly. I cannot hear the Minister and I wish to do so.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are well aware of the rules governing the making of controversial comments about other hon. Members. It appears that the Minister is saying that the Secretary of State might not have been telling the whole truth when she wrote that letter.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I heard no such thing.
    Mr. Forth: In order to illustrate my point about schools' flexibility in the use of their budgets, I cannot resist quoting The Guardian, which is something that I rarely do. I never read The Guardian so this had to be brought to my attention. On 1 February, it—
    Mr. Blunkett: What does the Minister read?
    Mr. Forth: For the hon. Gentleman's edification, my principal reading each day is The Sun, which I find universally uplifting. The article in The Guardian read as follows:
    "Eight women teachers from Picknalls First School, Uttoxeter"—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite impossible for me to hear the Minister. I especially deprecate noises from Front Benchers making it impossible for me to hear what is being said.
    Mr. Forth: I shall not be deterred from completing this little quotation. The article states:
    "Eight women teachers from Picknalls First School, Uttoxeier, spent a day among the Jacuzzis, whirlpools and health lectures of Hoar Cross Hall … and the £250 bill for their visit was paid for by public funds after being approved by their chairman of governors … Staffordshire county council said that it was up to an individual school how it spent its budget on education and training."
    The point is that that was a decision made by the school. We may think it bizarre, but, in these allegedly hard-pressed times—we know that there is more than £500 million in school reserves and balances—that was the school's decision. We respect the decisions made by schools in choosing their priorities. We understand that some schools may choose to have higher reserves, while others schools may choose to use their money to adjust and alter classes sizes or pupil-teacher ratios. We understand that and accept and applaud their freedom to make those decisions. We accept that different local education authorities will decide on different priorities, perhaps to invest in hotels or to do other things, but we object when they come along and try to blame the Government for cuts that may or may not have to be made in education. That will not wash.
    We have found out today that Opposition Members have failed consistently to understand the nature of education and its funding. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the few Opposition Members who were present earlier and my hon. Friends will, without hesitation, reject the motion and support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 295.

    Division No. 65]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bell, Stuart

    Ainger, Nick

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'ry NE)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allen, Graham

    Benton, Joe

    Alton, David

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Berry, Roger

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Betts, Clive

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blunkett, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Boateng, Paul

    Austin-Walker, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barnes, Harry

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Banon, Kevin

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Battle, John

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

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Burden, Richard

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Byers, Stephen

    197

    Caborn, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hodge, Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoey, Kate

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Canavan, Dennis

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Cann, Jamie

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Chidgey, David

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Illsley, Eric

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Ingram, Adam

    Clelland, David

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Coffey, Ann

    Jamieson, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Janner, Greville

    Connarty, Michael

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Corston, Jean

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Darling, Alistair

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara S

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Denham, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dewar, Donald

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dixon, Don

    Lewis, Terry

    Dobson, Frank

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Litherland, Robert

    Dowd, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Durnnachie, Jimmy

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Loyden, Eddie

    Eastham, Ken

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Enright, Derek

    McAllion, John

    Etherington, Bil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McCartney, Ian

    Fatchett Derek

    Macdonald, Calum

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McFall,John

    Fisher, Mark

    McKelvey, William

    Flynn, Paul

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Maclennan, Robert

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Fraser.John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fyfe, Maria

    MacShane, Denis

    Galbraith, Sam

    McWilliam, John

    Galloway, George

    Madden, Max

    Gapes, Mike

    Maddock, Diana

    George, Bruce

    Mahon, Alice

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marek, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Marttew, Eric

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Maxton, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Meacher, Michael

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Meale, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Michael, Alun

    Gunnel, John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hall, Mike

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hanson, David

    Milburn, Alan

    Hardy, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Harvey, Nick

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Henderson, Doug

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Heppell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mudie, George

    198

    Mulin, Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    Oakes,Rt Hon Gordon

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

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

    Olner, Bil

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    O'Nill, Martin

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Snape, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Soley.Clive

    Patchett, Terry

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Pearson, Ian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pendry, Tom

    Stevenson, George

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stott, Roger

    Pike, Peter L

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Pope, Greg

    Straw, Jack

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Timms, Stephen

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Tipping, Paddy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Redmond, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Reid, Dr John

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rendel, David

    Wallace, James

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Walley.Joan

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Wardel, Gareth (Gower)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rogers, Allan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooney, Terry

    Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wray, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Short Clare

    Mr John Cummings and Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Simpson, Alan

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Burns, Simon

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Ancram, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkins, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cash, William

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Baldly, Tony

    Chapman, Sydney

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Churchill, Mr

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clappison, James

    Bates, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cotvin, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Congdon, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Booth, Hartley

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Boswel, Tim

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Couchman, James

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Cran, James

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

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

    Bowis, John

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Brazier, Julian

    Day, Stephen

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dicks, Terry

    199

    Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Douglas-Hamitton, Lord James

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Duncan, Alan

    Knapman, Roger

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Ere'wash)

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

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

    Elletson, Harold

    Knox, Sir David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lamont Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valey)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lemox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lidington, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lord, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maclean, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gale, Roger

    Maitland, LadyOlga

    Gallie, Phil

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Malone, Gerald

    Garnier, Edward

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Marland, Paul

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mates, Michael

    Gorst, Sir John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Merchant Piers

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Geding)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hague, William

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamam, Sir John

    Nichols, Patrick

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nichollson, David (Taunton)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Norris, Steve

    Hayes, Jerry

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heald, Oliver

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Page, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Paice, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Patrick, Sir Irvine

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Horam, John

    Pattie.Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Howen, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jack, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Richards, Rod

    Johnson Smilh, Sir Geoffrey

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff, North)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Key, Robert

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    200

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thomason, Roy

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Thurnham, Peter

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Trend, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Trotter, Nevile

    Shepherd, Richard (Adridge)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sims, Roger

    Viggers, Peter

    Skeet Sir Trevor

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Walker, Bit (N Tayside)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waller, Gary

    Soames, Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spicer Sir James (W Dorset)

    Watts, John

    Spicer, Michael (S worcs)

    Whitney, Ray

    Spring, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Squire, Robin (Homcnurch)

    Wilkinson, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Willetts, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilshire, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stern, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Stewart, Allan

    Wolfson, Mark

    Streeter, Gary

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Sweeney, Walter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. David Lightbown.

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; applauds Government policies to raise standards in schools; acknowledges that this year's settlement is necessarily tough but congratulates teachers and governing bodies for meeting the challenge of education reform; and recognises that parents will judge schools above all by the performance of pupils and the quality of teaching and learning.

    Passenger Services under Rail Privatisation
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before we start the debate I remind the House that there will be a continued limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, and that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
    That this House calls on the Government to fulfil its repeated promises that Passenger Train Services would only be franchised on the basis of current time tables.
    I am sure that I have the House with me when I send our condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who would normally have wound up the debate tonight.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government side of the House wishes to be associated with those condolences.
    Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that, and I am sure that he shares our concern and our feeling for my hon. Friend at this time.
    This is the second major debate on the consequences of rail privatisation, and if the Government continue with their trail of broken promises on how services will be improved, I do not think that it will be the last. Until now, the Government's position on the franchising of passenger services has at least had the merit of being clear and unequivocal.
    In the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993, Ministers fell over themselves to state, and then to reiterate, that franchising would be based on the existing level of service. On Second Reading, the then Minister for Public Transport, now the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who was to take the Bill through Committee, said unambiguously:
    "I wish to make it absolutely clear that we intend the franchising director, when he is appointed, to start franchising with the existing timetable and existing services."
    The then Secretary of State had earlier said the same, telling the House:
    "we expect the franchises—indeed, it will be the case—to be on the basis of the present timetable".—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 159–244.]
    Those are not isolated references. So far I have counted at least 17 occasions, either in the House or in another place, on which Ministers gave assurances in terms that the franchises would be based on the current timetables and the existing level of services.
    A week ago, the franchising director produced his first set of service specifications for four of the franchises. As the House well knows, the minimum standards set represent a cut of about 20 per cent. below the level of existing services overall and a cut of about 45 per cent. for the Gatwick Express.
    The most significant aspect of those extensive cuts in minimum standards is the fact that, unlike the Rail Regulator, over whom the Secretary of State has no control, the franchising director is, in the words of the Minister in Committee, a "creature" of the Secretary of
    202
    State. So to that extent it is clear that the Secretary of State knew about, and assented to, those minimum standards. In any case, his fixing of the franchising director's budget means that he has indirect control over how far cuts are enforced and to what extent improvements are allowed for. The Secretary of State is therefore charged with flatly breaking every ministerial promise that the base for franchising would be the current timetable. There is nothing particularly remarkable in that—it is his stock-in-trade. Indeed, given the right hon. Gentleman's record, one might say that he rates as a serial promise-breaker.
    The Secretary of State's predecessor promised that through-ticketing stations would be fully maintained; this Secretary of State is set to cut them by 80 per cent. His predecessor promised that tickets would be fully inter-available between lines run by different train operators; this Secretary of State is presiding over the crumbling of that facility. His predecessor promised that there would be no investment hiatus due to privatisation; last year, under this Secretary of State, no new orders were issued for rolling stock for the first time since the war. His predecessor said after Lockerbie that airport security would be stepped up and that money was not an issue, and this Secretary of State told the House a week ago that he took channel tunnel security very seriously. We now know that, only four days previously, he had authorised a cut of 30 per cent. in the security division of his Department.
    The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor promised repeatedly in 1993–94 that Railtrack would remain in the public sector for the foreseeable future; this Secretary of State has offered it for sale first, simply to provide money for tax cuts at the next election. The Secretary of State gave a clear understanding to Asea and Brown Boveri that it would get a follow-on order for 40 additional Networker trains for the Kent services. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman peremptorily cancelled that order, and put 750 jobs and the very survival of the carriage works at York at risk.
    The Secretary of State will say anything, promise anything and give any commitment, so long as he is not required to deliver. Can anyone believe a word that the right hon. Gentleman says? He has raised used-car salesmanship to a new art form. Reading the small print simply is not enough. It is not so much a case of "read my lips" as take every statement that he makes with a pinch of salt. However, like all persistent delinquents, this old lag has a string of excuses as long as your arm.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you feel that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is using parliamentary language with regard to the Secretary of State? I suggest that he should retract what he has said.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I presumed that the hon. Gentleman's words were said with a certain lightness of touch. If that were so, I think what he said was acceptable. If it were put in a different way or with a different tone, I might take a different view.
    Mr. Meacher: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My remarks were meant in that vein, and I am glad that you saw it that way.

    203
    We have heard a string of excuses, most of which have been trotted out tonight in the Government's amendment. The first excuse in the amendment is that the franchising director's report
    "for the first time, introduces guarantees of service for passengers".
    That simply is not true. British Rail has been contracted for many years to provide services as a condition of its public service obligation grant, in accordance with the 1988 timetable.
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about guarantees of service. Could he be specific about the guarantees that he would provide in terms of service timetabling? Is he providing a guarantee that he would renationalise the railways in due course? He spoke about cuts in investment. What investment would the hon. Gentleman like to see?
    Mr. Meacher: We were content with the contractual arrangements that have existed with British Rail. I have repeatedly made it clear that we believe in increased investment in the rail infrastructure by comparison with that of the present Government. If increased investment in the channel tunnel is stripped out, investment in the rest of the network has steadily deteriorated year after year. We would never have allowed that to happen.
    The next excuse is a real old offender's gambit. The Government amendment
    "supports the Government in its determination not to freeze the existing timetable".
    Of course, no one ever asked for that. We were demanding that there should not be cuts, and that existing services should be the basis on which to build improvements.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the whole purpose of bringing in the private sector is precisely to allow the private sector to offer more services than are offered by the current timetable? Opposition Members do not understand the private sector because almost none of them has any experience of it, and they do not realise that the whole basis of the scheme is to improve customer services by increasing services beyond the current timetable.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps contain himself. If he really believes that, frankly he will believe anything. I would simply say to him that if, as he believes, the private sector will restore the current level of services, why has not the Secretary of State guaranteed it in the first place as a basis for the franchises?
    Another excuse is rolled out in the Government amendment, which makes the same point as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The amendment states that the Government are determined to
    "create space for the private sector to develop new and additional services".
    Frankly, that is pure fantasy. I do not deny that, in some cases, there may be some improvement on the reduced standards, but surely the key point is that private operators cannot be made to produce those improvements in any case at all. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously believes that existing service levels will be restored, what is the point in reducing standards by 20 per cent. in the first place?
    Never at a loss for another wheeze, the Secretary of State advanced another non-sequitur this week. He said that there would be no problem in keeping to the current
    204
    timetables, because the shadow franchise operators had assured him that they would continue to run the existing level of services and improve on it. Surely even the right hon. Gentleman can see that that is a pointless claim. The shadow franchise operators are still subsidiaries of British Rail and they have a sense of public service. The question is not what will happen when the services are run by British Rail, but what will happen when they are run by private operators who are guided purely by commercial self-interest. The Secretary of State ought to address himself to that.
    We now come to the biggest whopper from the Secretary of State in his vain attempt to defend the indefensible. The Government amendment states said proposals will
    "develop new and additional services based on current timetables"—
    that is patently not true
    "which are more attuned to the needs of passengers".
    That claim simply does not stand up to examination, and I shall explain why.
    Great Western Railways is one of the flagship franchises being offered for sale. On the London to Cardiff run in 1979, there were 26 trains per day, with a mean journey time of 1 hour 43 minutes. This year, there are 19 trains per day, with a mean journey time of exactly two hours. Under the passenger service requirement, the franchising director—for which read the Government—is proposing a minimum of 12 trains a day, with a mean journey time of 2 hours 5 minutes. Is that attuned to the needs of passengers?
    That is not an exceptional case, and in fact it is typical of the timetables that are now being proposed. Let us take, for example, the London to Plymouth run. In 1981, there were 16 trains a day, with a first arrival from London at 10.49 am. This year, there are 12 trains a day, with a first arrival from London at 11.21 am. Under the passenger service requirements, the Government now propose a minimum of nine trains a day, the first of which will arrive from London by 12 noon. Is that
    "more attuned to the needs of passengers"?
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I hope that hon. Gentleman will answer my question, because it was addressed to the Secretary of State. Do Conservative Members believe that those substantial cuts are
    "attuned to the needs of passengers",
    Mr. Key: The answer is probably yes, because in the days when I lived down in that part of the world there was no motorway to London, nor an airline operating a daily service to Heathrow. So that probably was the pattern of service on the railway. It may well be
    "attuned to the needs of passengers",
    but we need privatisation to take much more account of present-day needs, instead of British Rail running a railway to suit itself.
    Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that significant cuts on the rail system can simply be justified by saying that there has been an upgrading of the roads and an improvement in air travel, I suggest that he tries to

    205
    convince his constituents, who I believe will be extremely angry when they realise the extensive cuts involved in that passenger service requirement.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
    Exactly the same picture emerges, whatever the major line, such as the London to Penzance line or the important service from Newbury to London. Furthermore, an important point that has not been brought out is the fact that the Great Western passenger service requirements link all major stations to London but not to each other. It would therefore be perfectly possible, apart from in peak hours, to meet the specification laid down with no service between Bristol Parkway and Swindon, and no service between Swindon and Reading. Is that
    "more attuned to the needs of passengers"?
    The Secretary of State does not offer a response because the answer is clear. I shall address my next remarks to the Minister for Railways and Roads. Perhaps the person who drew up the Great Western passenger service requirement believes that Sir John Betjeman's "friendly bombs" have already dropped on Slough. For, according to the specification, despite the fact that it has four InterCity services, it needs none in future. Is that
    "more attuned to the needs of"
    the electorate of Slough? They must wonder what is the point of having a Minister for Railways and Roads to represent the constituency if he cannot even get the trains to stop at his station.
    Mr. Peter Snape: Now that the Minister has his present job, perhaps he does not need a train anyway.
    Mr. Meacher: Perhaps he needs a one-way ticket, and it may not be long before he gets one.
    The passenger service requirement is supposed to protect services, yet it cuts the very services that are least viable. In those, I include the limited Slough stops, as well as extensions to the Carmarthen route once a day, and the Fishguard boat-trains, for example. Those are being omitted, leaving only the "fat" services protected. The changes will be attuned not to the needs of passengers but to the profits of commercial operators. The cavalier disregard of passengers' needs is summed up—there are many examples of it—by the Dawlish specification, which says that it must have
    "at least 1 train a day, departing London at or after 9.45 am and arriving Dawlish at or before 8 pm."
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Perhaps it goes via Peterborough.
    Mr. Meacher: I did not check on that, but it may be compatible to go via Peterborough. As the journey time is well under three hours, that allows departure from London at any time from 9.45 am to 5 pm, so the poor Dawlish residents will have no say on whether their one train suits their day-travel market or simply the needs of those visiting Dawlish from London.
    Curiously, the South West Trains passenger service requirement is exactly the opposite. I wonder how that comes about. It is over-precise rather than vague, but is
    206
    still not to the advantage of passengers. For instance, on the London to Weymouth line, a faster train is specified every hour to Weymouth but with higher frequencies at main stops and protected frequencies at smaller places. I understand from those operating the service that the trouble is that because the passenger service requirement spells out that the fast train to Weymouth must stop at all those stations, thereby preventing the service from being speeded up, and because the passenger service requirement does not allow those smaller stations to be served by restored local train services, the franchising director specification does not allow for—indeed, it prevents—any improvement. Is that
    "attuned to the needs of passengers"?
    This is only the start of the cuts that privatisation will bring. The passenger service requirements that we are debating exclude any Great Western InterCity services west of Swansea, any through services from Swansea via Winchester to Reading, despite the fact that the journey goes through eight Tory constituencies—I wonder what the effect will be there—and any 15-minute service, as at present, on the Gatwick Express. Indeed, they exclude any service whatever from Gatwick after 7 pm. That is only the beginning. Today we have seen the scalpel; in future, we shall certainly see the axe as the Motorail service is chopped, sleeper services to Fort William are ended, and off-peak, late-night, early-morning and weekend services are eroded everywhere.
    Moreover, the wording of the Secretary of State's objectives, instructions and guidance document for the franchising directors is as ominous as it is clear. Paragraph 18 says:
    "For the initial letting of franchises, your specification of minimum service levels for railway passenger services is to be based on that being provided by BR immediately prior to franchising".
    If what we have seen today is supposed to be based on current timetables, what cuts will future lettings of franchises open up?
    Those passenger service requirements are not a step towards improving services for passengers; they are a step towards protecting the commercially most profitable routes in order to make franchises that nobody wants to buy just a bit more saleable. It is a policy driven by dogma, fuelled by endless broken promises and marked by almost universal opposition in the country. If it continues to be pursued, we shall ensure that it plays a major role in bringing about the Government's downfall.
    7.37 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Franchising Director's consultation document on Passenger Service Requirements which, for the first time, introduces guarantees of service for passengers; supports the Government in its determination not to freeze the existing timetable but to create space for the private sector to develop new and additional services based on current timetables which are more attuned to the needs of passengers; supports the Government in its determination to halt the decline in railway use by both passengers and freight customers; and condemns Her Majesty's Opposition for continuing to rely on scare tactics as a substitute for a policy which would enhance passenger services."
    In all my years in the House, I have never before been accused of being a systematic liar. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not allow me to use that word, even about myself. So perhaps I should say a systematic

    207
    purveyor of terminological inexactitudes. Taken from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), it is a privilege and honour that I shall cherish, particularly in the light of the speech that he has just made. His talking about "cuts" demonstrates that he has not the beginning of an understanding of the privatisation process. He talked about new timetables being proposed, when on no occasion did the franchising director mention—much less propose—a timetable. As for Cardiff, in case he wants an argument I have the proof before me to show that he was factually wrong on both counts. Interestingly, the word "consultation", which is what the franchising director is about, including statutory consultations with rail users' committees and local authorities, never passed the hon. Gentleman's lips. If, in those terms, I am a purveyor of terminological inexactitudes, I am delighted to be so labelled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Let us now get on with the debate.
    Since 1948, when it was nationalised, British Rail has invested £54 billion in the network only to see its share of passenger travel slashed from 17 per cent. to just 5 per cent. During that time BR has had almost unlimited freedom to alter services with little or no reference to the passenger and too often to the disadvantage of those who pay.
    Unlike the Labour party, I am determined to reverse that sad decline and to see our railways revitalised; delivering the services that the passenger wants rather than what the network chooses to provide.
    We can do this only by changing BR's bureaucratic, nationalised structure—by providing private finance, investment and management skills; and, especially, the private sector's sensitivity to the customer. I realise that that is an unfortunate fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West does not like, but those private sector skills, investments and sensitivities have transformed other transport undertakings such as British Airways and the long-distance coach industry. I am confident they will do the same for the railways. The hon. Gentleman has not produced a single argument to suggest otherwise.
    Passengers and those who work on the railways should have confidence and pride in the service—secure in the knowledge that private train operators will be tailoring their services to what the traveller wants. Operators have real commercial incentives to do so. I understand why the hon. Member for Oldham, West has difficulty with the concept of the private sector, but let me repeat slowly—perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman—that operators have a real commercial incentive in tailoring their services to what the traveller wants. Just like other private businesses—from supermarkets to car makers—those operators will want to retain existing customers and attract new ones. The key to doing that is to provide passengers with trains at the time they want to travel.
    The stimulus is there. Extra trains may cost operators not much more than the price of the electricity or diesel to power them and the wages of the staff to operate them. That gives a commercially minded railwayman a powerful motive for creating new services and new demand. But if we want a railway which is more responsive to passengers, we need a much clearer way of determining the pattern of passenger services. That is where passenger service requirements come in. For the first time, they will provide a guaranteed level of service for passengers, which operators will be contractually obliged to meet.
    208
    I must repeat to the hon. Member for Oldham, West—that I shall keep on doing so until he grasps that salient fact—that PSRs are not timetables. They specify the service pattern that operators will be required to provide in terms of frequency of services, maximum journey times, first and last trains, weekend services and, where appropriate, levels of crowding—all for the first time.
    There is no need for PSRs to specify services in detail in the way that they appear in a timetable; indeed to do so would simply fossilise services, making them completely unresponsive to changes in passenger demand. The PSRs that have been announced, however, are based on the existing timetable, exactly as we have always promised. I endorse what the hon. Member for Oldham, West quoted from my predecessor who said:
    "I have made that clear … we expect the franchises … to be on the basis of the present timetable."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 159.]
    He did not say that they would be identical to the present timetable, but "on the basis of". I stand by that.
    In cases where services are heavily dependent on subsidy—incidentally hon. Members will have noted that the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not mention anything to do with that—that subsidy will continue and PSRs will require the operator to run services which, to all intents and purposes, match the present level of services very closely.
    For services which are commercially viable, we can afford to allow the operator greater flexibility to respond to market demands. Even in those cases, the PSR—the guaranteed requirement—for such services takes as a yardstick the services specified in the existing timetable. Moreover the combined effect of the PSR and the commercial incentive can be expected to deliver services that are just as comprehensive as those operated by BR at present—possibly more so.
    That is not just wishful thinking. The evidence is there in the track access contracts which the operators have agreed with Railtrack. For each of the four train operating units whose PSRs were announced last week, the access agreements give the operators both sufficient train paths to provide the existing services, and extra paths to provide additional services. The operators could have negotiated those rights only in the expectation that they want to provide services in excess of existing services.
    Do not take my word for it. Listen to those operating the services at present. I realise that it is embarrassing for the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but the managing director of South West Trains said:
    "We firmly believe that the route to success lies in attracting more people to our services and this means more, not less trains. We plan further new services this May."
    The managing director of Great Western Trains said:
    "The current timetable provides more services than the minimum requirement, in line with customer demand and commercial justification. The timetable plan for May 1995 maintains the current level of services and consideration is being given to the introduction of additional ones."
    The managing director of Gatwick Express said:
    "We … have no plans to reduce our service frequency."

    209
    The managing director of London-Tilbury-Southend line said:
    "LTS Rail introduced additional off-peak trains in May 1994. No significant changes are envisaged for May 1995. Completion of the £150 million LTS resignalling project in 1996 will provide further opportunities to encourage car users to switch to LTS Rail. We have negotiated a track access contract which provides scope for this."
    Mr. Paul Channon: Since my right hon. Friend is talking about the railway line that runs to my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), does he agree that, in the past 20 years, that line has become famous as the misery line? What is now suggested offers, for once, the hope of resignalling; eventually new rolling stock and a better service with more off-peak and perhaps even peak services. It will therefore offer a better deal to the people of Southend.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It seems clear to everyone except the Labour party that if British Rail sees opportunities, the private sector will see even more opportunities, because that is its characteristic. The Labour party fails to understand that.
    Mr. Meacher: It appears, unfortunately, that the right hon. Gentleman has read out a section of his speech that was prepared before he listened to mine. He has not taken into account my central point that all the managers from whom he has quoted are employees of British Rail. They, of course, have a commitment to expansion and public service. What he must address is the likely attitude of private operators, who are motivated purely by commercial self-interest.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Not only did I take that point into consideration, I dismissed it, as I just told my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. The problem with the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that he has no understanding of how the private sector works. It is interested in delivering more services and attracting new customers at marginal cost, because that is at the heart of commercial incentive. That incentive is good for the passengers, good for the operators and, incidentally, good for the taxpayer as well.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, I want to make progress. This is a short debate and I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
    Mr. MeacherI gave way.
    Dr. Mawhinney: And so have I. [Interruption.] I can understand why Opposition Members may dismiss their spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but I just gave way to him, too.
    210
    No one can seriously doubt our commitment to ensuring that services in future are broadly based on the services run by BR at present. Indeed, just last week, the franchising director said:
    "I am determined to achieve the best possible service for passengers, and I will take into account commitments by bidders to improve on existing timetables when evaluating bids for these franchises."
    The PSRs offer passengers more than the simple freezing of the existing timetable. I turn again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West because I have even better news for him, and indeed for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
    Take commuters on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, for example. Because the passenger service requirement specifies maximum load factors for peak services, they will receive a guarantee that the operator will have to put on extra trains if demand for services increases, instead of simply cramming more people into existing trains. That is exactly why for years that line has been called the misery line; the misery is at an end.
    Secondly, PSRs allow the private operator space to develop commercially viable services in line with passenger demand, in addition to the guaranteed requirement. Specifying the existing timetable, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have us do, would reduce the scope for such initiative and deprive passengers of the very benefits that privatisation is designed to bring. The difference between us is that Conservative Members understand the way in which the private sector works and he does not—but, given his background, that is probably understandable.
    Matching services to what customers want is precisely what the private sector does best. That is clearly demonstrated by previous privatisations and there is every reason to expect the same logic to apply to the railways. It is a logic that the Opposition have always denied—I acknowledge that they have the virtue of consistency—and they have always been proved wrong.
    Let me correct one misapprehension that obviously afflicts the Labour party. To hear its members talk, one would think that the passenger service requirements had been decided and cast in stone. As I said earlier, that is not so, although the hon. Member for Oldham, West failed to recognise it. The announcement last week was of the start of a consultation process. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West will have to become used to the fact that that is how we do business nowadays. Instead of the centralised bureaucratic decision making so beloved of the Labour party, whereby the hon. Member for Oldham, West would sit on the Front Bench and determine the time, speed and location of every train in the nation, users of the railway are being consulted about what they want to happen. Passenger power is returning to the railways.
    Mr. Mackinlay: On that narrow point, can the Secretary of State tell us how the member of the public who feels aggrieved can complain, and know to whom to complain, bearing in mind the multiplicity of franchises and the interests of Railtrack? Who will run that one-stop shop where he can complain about the diminished rail service and obtain a remedy?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The responsibility to respond to a complaint will lie with the specific company that runs the service.
    Mr. Mackinlay: How will he know?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I think that we shall be able to help the hon. Gentleman in time. He needs to be patient.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Ah. [Laughter]
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that my hon. Friends will safely log that bout of laughter as the privatisation process develops.
    Of course, the hon. Member for Oldham, West does not recognise any of that. He is too busy playing the tired old Opposition game—the tactic that they have used before every privatisation. He is trying to scare people. He will bemoan a job worry here, threaten a service cut there; anything to put at risk the service that he claims to support. With friends like him, the railways will always be in big trouble.
    Still, the Opposition have always been wrong before. Privatisation has brought new services, better standards and more choice. They will be wrong again.
    I drew attention in our previous debate to the endearing admission by the Leader of the Opposition that the British people do not trust Labour. How true; how very true. Tonight the hon. Member for Oldham, West has simply dug his party into an even deeper hole. His leader will be cross—perhaps I should say "crosser"—with him. The British people will compare his rhetoric—for we shall remind them—with the reality of the new railway, and they will trust Labour even less.
    Our plans for the railways offer something new for passengers; they offer guarantees. For the first time there will be an absolute guarantee of service levels. No Labour Government ever offered passengers such an assurance, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West refused to do so this evening. No Liberal appears even to understand it. On 27 January, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) warned that if the
    "minimum service requirements for the rail network are at any less than those we experienced before privatisation, then the Government has betrayed the travelling public".
    There were no passenger service guarantees before privatisation.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West issued an even sillier press release on the same day. As he has demonstrated again tonight, he simply does not understand how the market economy works. He said:
    "The Secretary of State's appeal to the train operators to provide more than they are contracted to do is whistling in the wind".
    He asked:
    "What operator in their right mind would take the risk of providing more than a bare minimum of services for which they will get no subsidy?"
    The operators have replied with a stinging rebuke. They want more services and, unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West, they both know what they are talking about and can deliver. At least they understand the elementary basis on which the private sector works.
    Operators are aware of the commercial opportunities that privatisation will bring. They recognise the incentives in the new system to provide services above passenger service requirement levels. They know that they will make more money if they can attract more passengers on to rail.
    212
    They realise that most of their costs will be covered by the guaranteed level of services. Therefore, additional services will be possible on the basis of marginal costs.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West simply does not understand any of that. He is out of touch and out of tune. This evening, the hon. Gentleman gave us his synthetic rage rendition, but we all noticed what he did not say. There was no mention of nationalisation, not a word about whether a Labour Government would return the railways to state control, no mention of any policy to reverse 50 years of decline, not a word about what a Labour Government would do to encourage more use of the railways. There was no mention of how Labour would fund investment; not a word about guaranteeing services.
    I offer the hon. Member for Oldham, West the sympathy of the whole House, but he and his leader must simply soldier on in silence until the union leaders tell him what is the deal that they must accept for clause IV. Then he can tell us what he really thinks he has been told to think.
    As I sat listening to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I had a feeling that he reminded me of someone. Just before he sat down, it occurred to me who he reminded me of; it was one of those old-fashioned British Rail station announcers. Hon. Members will remember the people who used to make a muffled sound—like this—full of noise, but with nothing intelligible coming out. The Labour party has no policy and no intelligent thought, and says nothing intelligible on behalf of passengers. There is no chance that the House will support the hon. Gentleman tonight. The House will support the amendment.
    7.58 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I always enjoy the Secretary of State's performances. He reminds me of a small boy banging a dustbin lid in the dark to drive away the ghosties. He does it with such panache; there is no factual basis, but a lot of panache, and I do admire that.
    The Secretary of State and the Conservative party do not represent the passengers and are not at all interested in them. It is important that the House should admit that. The Conservatives are interested in the movement of money. That is what interests them—not the provision of services but the movement of money, and the ability of private financiers or private companies to cream off from state assets that which will improve their own finances. On 14 December British Rail announced the service cuts that it would be forced to make because it was required to improve its financial position by 10 per cent. this year. That announcement so frightened the Secretary of State that, as soon as it became public, he rushed out a statement to say that of course he did not want cuts and that he favoured the line that he has pushed tonight.
    British Rail told the truth: it was required to cut its finances by 10 per cent. which would directly affect its current operations. Because the Secretary of State made a great fuss and said that there would be no cuts, that the existing timetable would continue and that all would be well, it became very clear that he had to act.
    Between 14 December and today there has been a considerable amount of straightforward and hard-nosed negotiation and, somehow or other, British Rail's external financing limit has been expanded by £64 million. That

    213
    has made the difference, and British Rail is now able to confirm that it will maintain its existing services and withdraw its threats of 14 December to cut services.
    It is important to describe the money-go-round in considerable detail. Sir Alfred Sherman said recently that he could not see any point in denationalising or selling off any industry that did not make money. He could not see the logic behind the Government's decision to privatise the railways.
    For the past five years the Government have pushed British Rail to change its work patterns and to undertake considerable reorganisation and modernisation. If, at the end of that period, British Rail was unable to demonstrate increased profits—indeed, even climb back to the small increases that it had made on some lines in the early 1980s—it would be clear that it would not be able to make enormous profits in the future.
    The reality is that heavy subsidies will be provided. The regulator has said that track access charges will be reduced and the railways will earn 8 per cent. on the new assets. The Secretary of State has not explained to the House how the system will fragment British Rail. Calculating assets at a different rate will mean that the taxpayer will pay a great deal more in subsidies in the future. The Secretary of State has assured us, "Don't worry, that money will go around the system. It will be recirculated and it will return to the Treasury when there is a profit."
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady will know that, under Treasury rules, a subsidy can be guaranteed for a socially necessary service for only three years. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The passenger service obligation is very important, as is what will happen to the passenger transport executives which have had direct input into the services that they thought were important. They cannot guarantee the future of those passenger services which the Secretary of State talked about tonight because they do not know what the level of funding will be or what extra expenses they will face.
    Fragmentation of the service continues apace and the cost of privatisation—which will be borne almost entirely by the taxpayer—is boosted by totally unnecessary expenditure. The British Rail Business Systems Bureau Services currently leases systems software which is used to control the mainframe computers at Crewe and Nottingham.
    Two products are leased from Computer Associates, an American software supplier, and there is a licence fee for each package—only two fees in all. Due to the fragmentation of the specialist systems, that company is saying that, following privatisation, it will require a licence fee for each package for each company. There will be at least 80 companies, so it does not take long to work out what the cost will be for new software—that is before we add the expense of computers and the reorganisation that we have heard so much about.
    British Rail has invested £1.5 billion in the new Eurostar in the past few years. The Government intend to carve up those assets and to offer them free of charge to the private sector. They have done that before in the privatisation process and undoubtedly they will do it again
    214
    here. They will not use the assets to improve facilities throughout the British Rail system or to provide the extra services that the Secretary of State makes so much play about.
    I do not know who will build all those wonderful new trains, but I do know that they will not be built by British companies or by British workers. However, the money will come from British taxpayers—that will be our only future involvement in the new trains.
    The Secretary of State and his colleagues are proposing a three-card trick of monumental effrontery which will take large sums of money from the railway system and which will generate large sums of money for the private sector—not only the transport element, but the estate agents, lawyers and accountants who are presently working in the system—at great cost to the passengers.
    What is happening to British Rail is outrageous. It has undergone enormous change in the past five years and it needs a period of stability. It needs an opportunity to develop in order to meet the challenges posed by other forms of transport. Rail competes with road and air transport, but the Government have not made clear the challenges that British Rail faces.
    I am afraid that we may be seeing the end of the railway system in this country. However, we will not see an end to asset stripping because, whichever way one looks at it, privatisation is a giant asset-stripping process. It is a very efficient way of taking money out of taxpayers' pockets, and the cost in social need and increased pollution, apart from the finance involved, will be stupendous.
    8.7 pm
    Mr. Graham Riddick: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. This is the first speech that I have made about rail privatisation since I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Railways Bill 18 months ago. What a joy that was—I see one or two friendly, and not so friendly, faces on the Opposition Benches.
    During the Committee's consideration—when I was parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—I wondered whether it would be better to break up British Rail and recreate some of the old regional companies, such as LNER, the Great Western and so on, that existed before nationalisation.
    Privatisation by franchise will provide opportunities for new companies and entrepreneurs to enter the railways market. I am confident that British Rail's managers who have transferred to some of the new companies will contribute to an enhanced rail performance. Rail passengers will benefit from the greater degree of autonomy and commercial freedom within the system. It is important that the Rail Regulator does not shackle the new companies to such an extent that they are unable to innovate, introduce new and different services and try new pricing arrangements.
    When we privatised British Airways, we did not insist that the company should ensure that through-ticketing arrangements for flights were available in every city and town. Of course, in practice, they are so available, because it is in British Airways' commercial interests to ensure that potential air travellers deal with a customer-friendly business and can get tickets easily. So, too, is it in the interests of all the rail operating companies to ensure that

    215
    it is easy for passengers to buy rail tickets, which is why, under the new arrangements, far from there being fewer outlets from which to buy tickets, I would expect there to be more.
    Similarly, far from simply operating the minimum number of services as specified by the franchising director, the train operating companies will be looking to get more people on to the railways and to run more services for passengers. As my right hon. Friend has said before now, the early feedback we are getting from operators is that that is exactly what they want to do; they want to run more services. That is what private enterprise is all about.
    The hostility of Opposition Members to rail privatisation simply illustrates that they do not understand private enterprise and demonstrates once again that, despite the flowery, reassuring words that the Leader of the Opposition might offer the middle classes, the Labour party has not changed its spots. It still dislikes and distrusts private enterprise and free markets. Of course, the reason why the Labour party is able to get away with its scaremongering tactics at the moment is that privatisation has not yet come about and the positive developments which I believe will occur have not yet taken place.
    I have come across an extremely interesting development that I shall relate to the House. For a few years the Green party has been running excursions in Yorkshire—a number of them have travelled on the Settle to Carlisle line. Last year, members of the Green party came to me with some concern about the track access charges which had been quoted by Railtrack and I took it up on their behalf. I was also concerned about the effect that privatisation might have on steam-hauled excursion trips.
    I am a life member of the A4 Locomotive Society. Along with two others, my father bought the Sir Nigel Gresley from British Railways back in 1966. He is now president of the A4 Locomotive Society. I was concerned about whether the new regime might lead to fewer trips being available for steam engines on the new privatised railways—not a bit of it.
    The March edition of The Railway Magazine contains two interesting articles. The first tells how Flying Scotsman Railways is taking over the operation of BR's special trains unit and will be running charter operations including steam trips similar to those run by BR. The second article relates the emergence of a new company called Days Out, which is run by an individual called Mel Chamberlain and has
    "a whole trainload of ideas for railtours during 1995."
    Days Out is planning to run around 60 steam excursions, some hauled by the Sir Nigel Gresley, and The Railway Magazine has described the company's programme for 1995 as "formidable". I shall quote directly from the article:
    "The package and diversity of tours planned is impressive and with improved customer facilities, and lower ticket prices, Days Out may well succeed. If Mel Chamberlain does not manage to persuade the long-lost tourer back, it won't be through lack of trying."
    That is only the tip of the iceberg. New people will come to the railways and new ideas will be introduced. Competition is already being introduced into one sector of the railways. At the end of the day, the key question
    216
    for Days Out is whether it can sell the seats. There will be a significant number of new seats and I hope that Days Out can do just that.
    In the private sector the existing management of the gas, telecommunications and electricity companies, the existing management has always managed to improve the performance of once-sleepy nationalised industries. The privatised industries suddenly started to pay more attention to the needs of their customers rather than to the needs of the providers of their subsidies—the politicians and civil servants. They started to tackle the inefficiencies and restrictive practices which kept costs—and therefore prices—too high. That, along with tough regulation, is why telephone charges have fallen by 30 per cent. since 1984, gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent. since 1986 and the prices charged by local electricity companies such as Yorkshire Electricity have fallen by 15 per cent. since privatisation in 1990.
    In the days when I had a proper job as a sales manager in industry, I spent a great deal of time travelling around the north of England and Scotland and, because I was not grand enough to have a mobile telephone, I had to use public phone boxes. It was an absolute nightmare finding one, and when I did, it usually did not work—in contrast to what happens today.
    At the time of the privatisation of British Telecom, the Labour party said that public telephones would disappear from the streets and roads of Britain. In fact, there are more public phone boxes in existence today than ever before. There were 77,000 in 1984 and there are 127,000 today—and, what is more, they work. In those days it used to take six months to get a telephone installed in one's home; now it takes seven days.
    Privatisation has led to improved services. Despite all the negative gloom and doom-mongering by the Opposition, it is just possible that we are on the verge of a new and exciting era when the railways can reverse the trend of decades of fewer passengers travelling by train. Nationalisation failed to reverse that trend; private enterprise now has the opportunity to achieve it by introducing new ideas, new capital and new services. I very much hope that it succeeds.
    8.17 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and that of the Secretary of State will go down in the annals of history as a categorical triumph of hope over experience. If, in later years, we want to measure the words that have been uttered in the House tonight, I suspect that the balance of prediction will lie more accurately with those of us opposed to the entire process than with those who are advocating it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), at a meeting with the rail franchising director—one of the many hobgoblin figures created by the legislation—reminded Mr. Salmon and the rest of us that when Frankenstein was first created it was a benevolent idea and it was only subsequently that things went wrong and the monster developed a life of its own. That applies to the process of privatisation generally. The fragmentation is debilitating not just the existing rail network but the capacity of Transport Ministers to exercise the degree of ministerial direction that is now required.

    217
    I shall be specific and limited in referring to two decisions taken in December by the franchising director: first, that the sleeper services to Carlisle and Fort William respectively, and Motorail services generally, would not be included in the franchise that will be awarded in due course to ScotRail; and, secondly, what will happen beyond March to May this year in regard to direct links between London and the north of Scotland. I do so in the terms of the motion because I would argue that there has been a grotesque breach of faith and a downright breach of categorical assurances that were given to the House and to representatives of the highlands.
    Let us take the phrase "based on" the passenger rail timetable of May 1994. I accept one of the points that the Minister made. I am not here tonight to argue—I draw a slight distinction with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—for an exact replica of May 1994. It is reasonable to anticipate that "based on" can mean, for example, the existing three passenger services a day between Glasgow and Oban, but that they might run at different times. That can be debated, but it is a reasonable distinction to draw.
    But that is quantifiably different from saying that passenger services to, for example, Fort William will be based on the May 1994 timetable but with the exception that there will be no sleeper or Motorail services. That is of a different degree and is a categorical breach of faith.
    On 17 February 1993, in a letter to Councillor Duncan McPherson, the convenor of Highland regional council, the then Minister for Public Transport said:
    "I assured you that the franchise"—
    the one to which I have referred—
    "will be based on British Rail's 1994 timetable."
    By 15 April 1993, the Minister was even more categorical. He told the Standing Committee that there would not be picking and choosing by the franchising director and that all the services then running would be franchised—"then" being May 1994. That is not the case. There has been picking and choosing by the franchising director and he has decided not to include the sleeper and Motorail services to which I referred.
    On 25 May, the former Minister said that the franchising director would consult the appropriate local authorities. He has not done so. It is not just the franchising director who has not consulted local authorities, but the Ministers themselves who are not even willing to meet and listen to the local authority representatives who are travelling on a block booking from Fort William on the sleeper service to lobby the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow.
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts) rose
    Mr. Kennedy: I shall happily give way to the Minister because so far his silence and unwillingness even to respond to the request has spoken volumes.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will understand that Mr. Salmon has given an early indication of the approach that he is minded to take towards the sleeper services and Motorail, but the hon. Gentleman will know that he has not yet published a passenger service requirement covering those services. He will do so later in the year
    218
    and that will be the opportunity for those towards whom he has an obligation to consult to say what they think about what is and is not included in the proposals. Anything that happens in advance of that will be decisions made by British Rail under the present arrangements of the protected nationalised railway system.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Minister has not been in his present position very long and it shows from that intervention. He clearly does not understand what is involved. I shall quote directly Mr. Salmon's words in a letter of 2 February to the convenor of Highland regional council.
    Incidentally, yesterday, the Minister's Department denied that it had ever received an approach from Highland regional council in a letter dated 21 December. That is strange because the first sentence of the letter from the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising begins:
    "Thank you for your letter of 21 December to the Secretary of State for Transport."
    Someone in the Department must have received it because it was quickly handed on to the director for him to reply. However, yesterday the Department denied any such receipt. The Minister might like to find out what is going on inside his Department before he lectures the rest of us.
    What Mr. Salmon says stands in stark contrast to the blandishments that we have just heard. First, he acknowledges that, exceptionally, the announcement of 14 December was made in advance of the start of the consultation on ScotRail and west coast services. He continues:
    "Clearly, if British Rail proceed with the proposed changes in the May timetable, then these services will be withdrawn before OPRAF starts its consultation process. We would not, in such circumstances, include these particular services in the PSR consultation."
    I repeat:
    "We would not, in such circumstances, include these services in the PSR consultation."
    The Minister has just advised us that the services would be part of the PSR consultation, so who is right—the Minister or the director of franchising? What is said in the letter dated 2 February stands contradicts completely what the Minister has just said at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Salmon's letter in which he explained that if services were withdrawn before he starts his consultation on the passenger service requirements he would not be including those services in his passenger service requirement. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is nothing to stop local authorities or rail users consultative councils, or right hon. and hon. Members, putting forward whatever views they have on inclusions in or exclusions from the PSR. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will avail himself of that opportunity if the hypothetical circumstances that he outlined pertain at the time.
    Mr. Kennedy: Well, well, we have already moved our ground in the course of the past five minutes at the Dispatch Box. Let us be clear about one thing. There is a world of difference between consulting over a proposed level of service in a proposed timetable and consulting over a service that does not even feature in the timetable. There is light years' difference in that. Such retrospective consultation makes little sense.
    Secondly, the body which, under the legislation, is charged with having the biggest say in the consultation is the rail users consultative committee. What does Major

    219
    General Lennox Napier, the chairman of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, say? He has written to Mr. Salmon, our dear friend, in the following terms:
    "By making a separate announcement about sleeper services and Motorail prior to releasing details of any of the PSRs, you appear to have pre-empted the consultation process on a highly controversial aspect of your proposals … Therefore, to allow time for a proper consultation process to take place, I am writing to request you:

    (a) to consult the relevant consultative committees about your decision … and,

    (b), not to permit the operators to discontinue any of the relevant services until your consultation with the consultative committees is complete and you have considered their representations on the subject."

    That is the chairman of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, set up under the legislation by the Government, speaking on behalf of that body. Does the Minister endorse and support those sentiments? If so, that would send a useful signal to our friend Mr. Salmon on what he should do. Will the Minister clarify that? Does he support that expression? The Minister is uncharacteristically reticent. That tells us all we need to know.
    The person to whom we shall be looking with regard to this disgraceful abuse of the guidelines that were laid down by the legislation and the contempt that has been shown for the consultative process has to be the Rail Regulator. I and my hon. Friends had a useful meeting with Mr. Swift last week when he made it clear that where evidence was forthcoming that suggested a breach of faith or irregular procedures he would want to consider that. I express the strong hope that he will do so. Because the great difference between the four franchises announced for consultation last week and the forthcoming one that affects Scotland is that in England and Wales there will be a proper public opportunity to be consulted and to express views through the legislation about everything, but in Scotland there will not. The Minister must face up to that.
    Therefore, on the wider aspect, in conclusion, clearly the Minister does not have an answer, but his civil servants might be able to dredge one up for him at the end of the debate.
    I simply say that when it is environmental policy to try to move more people off the roads on to rail, when it is agreed tourism policy for the Scottish economy that we want to develop our existing links to the south, and when we have just opened a channel tunnel which physically plugs us on to the rail network and infrastructure of the continent of Europe, to be cancelling all UK Motorail services and sleepers to Carlisle and Fort Williarn is a retrograde step of some considerable madness. When that is accompanied by bad faith and bad practice, the House should vote to condemn it at 10 o'clock tonight.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: When I hear the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) speaking with such authority about rail privatisation, my mind goes back to the debate in which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is now the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, spoke about gas privatisation. He said proudly:
    "16 million British Gas consumers can expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 793.]
    220
    How history has proved him wrong. I believe that it will prove the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye wrong on this occasion.
    Listening to the Opposition, one would believe that they were experts. Yet they know that state ownership in this country has failed. Across the world, country after country has followed the example of the Conservative Government and introduced privatisation. In 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week. Today, they earn £60 million a week. Even the Labour party has now lost the will to fight on the issue, and that is typified in its debate about the future of clause IV. The reason why it has changed its mind is that it knows that it has got it wrong in the past. The Government have invested billions in British Rail, and since the war some £54 billion has been invested in the railways. In 1953, some 17 per cent. of journeys were by train, and 24 per cent. of goods. Today, both figures are nearer 5 per cent. and falling.
    The concept of state ownership is bankrupt. Why? In my constituency, I have no fewer than 12 railway stations, and rail privatisation is always a lively issue. The service from Purley, in the heart of my constituency, to Victoria is not bad at all. There are four trains an hour, and a cheap-day return costs something like £3.20—not a lot of money. Those trains are empty. Yet the A23 through Streatham is jammed full with cars. Why? It is because the railways are perceived to be unreliable and inconvenient. In the peak hours, commuters pay £7.20. They need to use the train, but are faced with crowded, unreliable, unpunctual and, often, dirty trains.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry, but unless I am given injury time, I cannot give way.
    Those customers are dissatisfied. They have no way to complain. Is not that typical of all the old nationalised industries—a centralised bureaucracy funded by taxpayers' money, concerned more with supply than with what the market demands? Why do we not have fewer trains in the daytime and more in the rush hour? The reason is that the railways are stuck on the old requirements to supply services. It astonishes me that Opposition Members—indeed, members of the public—want us to continue that.
    This is where the whole ethos of privatisation comes into the matter. Nationalisation was a central feature of post-war Labour Governments, but few people today deny that it imposed intolerable burdens on the national economy. Labour naively believed that control of the railways would be vested in the people. In reality, power was transferred to monopoly providers and monopoly producer unions. The real power was exercised by civil servants, who became the protector and confidant of the industry's self-interest and, indeed, on occasions, the politicians in power.
    Privatisation is now copied throughout the world. I had the good fortune last week to go to Japan, with the President of the Board of Trade, and went on the privatised railway from Tokyo to Nagoya. In a recent report, the transport correspondent of The Times said:
    "Japan is demonstrating that privatised railway companies can be not only efficient and profitable but also popular with investors."

    221
    As I sat on that comfortable high-speed train, knowing that it was run by private money, I knew precisely what he meant.
    I welcome the passenger service requirements, because they will provide a customer safeguard of a minimum level of service. We all know that the expected level of service will be considerably higher, because the incentive to provide more services is there. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—unfortunately, he is not here now—rather played around with the possibility that the service between Dawlish and the west country may go via Peterborough. What he completely ignored—this shows his ignorance of the workings of capitalism—is that if there was a demand for more services, the operators would provide them.
    In future, the customer will be able to rely on two components: a guaranteed minimum service, and a commercially responsive addition to that service. The first operators have already been announced. We have seen the reaction. I do not know how many hon. Members have received the brochure from Great Western Railways, entitled "Business First". It starts with the comforting headline:
    "Cruise in comfort at an altitude of 61 feet".
    It says:
    "now, as a dynamic company with a brand new look and a stronger than ever commitment to customer service, we can offer you the standard of travel that truly meets your demands".
    It has
    "brand new staff … Each is a highly trained professional".
    It will provide
    "high quality refreshments and even, on selected services, video and audio entertainment during your journey".
    One can also choose various price structures.
    We are talking about the old British Rail, but we live in a new world. When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she feared the demise of the old British Rail, she was absolutely right. We have a new railway coming and a new type of service.
    Why do the Opposition continue their opposition to privatisation and make the same old arguments of doom and gloom? They were wrong about every other privatisation. They will be wrong about this one. One has only to look at some of the quotations that they have come up with in recent years to see that. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), when shadow energy spokesman, said about electricity privatisation:
    "It strikes me that a minimum estimate of the cost of privatisation to the consumer in terms of price increases is 20 per cent"—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 723.]
    He was wrong.
    The hon. Member for Gordon, whom I quoted earlier, said that electricity privatisation
    "will result in higher prices for the whole population".—[Official Report, 10 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 585.]
    He was wrong.
    The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), when shadow energy spokesman, said on the privatisation of British Gas:
    "There is no evidence that the Bill will improve efficiency, provide a better service, produce cheaper gas or, least of all, create competition."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 780.]
    222
    How wrong he was.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said of the privatisation of British Steel that it was
    "a shoddy measure which promises destabilising uncertainty. It is totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry"—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 238.]
    The fact is that British Steel, having made losses of £1.7 million, made profits of £733 million.
    The late John Smith, who was then the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North and who was not often wrong, said that privatising British Airways
    " is a bad deal for the airline and for the British taxpayer".
    Let us go back to the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is constantly putting his foot in it. He said that British Airways
    "will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 53, 125.]
    The fact is that British Airways has run up a profit of more than £2.7 billion.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate is on rail passenger services. The fact is that the Tory central office briefs do not stretch to a word on rail services.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Ottaway: It is not a Conservative central office brief, but a pamphlet that I wrote. The hon. Gentleman is free to read it any time he likes.
    The point that I am trying to make is that the Labour party's forecasts about the future of privatisation have been wrong. There is no reason why we should listen to it this time any more than we have in the past.
    Every privatisation has brought increased investment and service to the customer. This privatisation should be no different. Its dependence on public funding has let down British Rail in the past, and the Government now want to put it on a sound financial footing. Not only is Labour incapable of reforming public services, but it remains unsure whether to cling to the past and call for renationalisation or whether to try to push for a pale imitation of Conservative policy—a rose by any other name. While the Labour party ties itself up in arguments about clause IV, the rest of the world has had the debate and reached a conclusion. Privatisation has worked and has been copied throughout the world. Let us allow the benefits to be felt by the railways.
    8.38 pm
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I thought that we were here this evening to speak about passenger services under rail privatisation, not to be given some quotations about other utilities that have been privatised. Let us stick to the subject itself.
    I have three areas of doubt that I want to bring to the attention of the Government: first, from a Scottish perspective, the funding situation; secondly, the infrastructure; and thirdly, the withdrawal of services. I want to give practical reasons for my doubts on whether, under privatisation, passenger services will be improved. First, let me deal with funding.
    Over the past 15 to 20 years, the funding of British Rail in Scotland has relied almost exclusively on the passenger transport executive in Strathclyde region. Since 1975,

    223
    some £400 million has been invested in Strathclyde's railways—about £30 million a year. We are told that, because of changes in the franchising system, the sum will be increased to a staggering £112 million next year—three times the amount expected from the local PTE. We are also told that, although the money will come from the Government in the first year, there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so.
    At the same time, new unitary authorities are being introduced in Scotland. Can hon. Members imagine small unitary authorities being able to go on financing the railways to the tune of £112 million? How will they apportion the cost? They will start to fight among themselves.
    At present, there is only one train from Argyll to Helensburgh; Cunninghame—the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and me, which will become the North Ayrshire unitary authority—has some 10 stations, with trains running the length and breadth of both our constituencies. How can the Government expect funding to continue in the same way when two local authorities have been merged into, as it were, a central bank?
    Unless assurances are given, the whole network will suffer. There must be funding either from the top downwards or from the local authorities upwards, and we clearly cannot expect funding from the bottom up to continue. The Scottish Office and the Department of Transport must become involved. None of the changes will be clear to those who will become responsible for most of the funding, and the figures must be stated in a way that they can understand.
    I am also doubtful about the continuation of high standards in infrastructure. The Forth bridge, which is described internationally as the eighth wonder of the world, was built to standards that we in Scotland know as "Clyde class", but it is now badly corroded. Earlier this year, I visited the bridge with my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). Although we went on the say-so of Railtrack, it was clear to us as we went underneath the bridge in a boat that the cross-members were corroded. The Scottish Office says that the problems are purely cosmetic, but the failure to paint the bridge during the past couple of years has obviously resulted in terminal damage. Railtrack, which owns it, has failed in its duty to maintain the eighth wonder of the world; meanwhile, it is taking some £170 million a year from ScotRail.
    I am told that stocks are now at their lowest-ever level, and that no rail clips have been ordered in the past few months. That will obviously affect passengers in the future. Last month, for the first time, ScotRail failed to meet the standards of the much-hailed passenger charter in either its eastern or its central section. How can it be held reponsible, when most of the failures that have been identified are Railtrack's responsibility? This is the beginning of what will result from full-scale privatisation of the railways.
    Signalling and infrastructure faults have been identified as Railtrack's problem. I understand that the signalling system at Haymarket remains incomplete even now, some nine months after its inception, and that a further £1 million needs to be spent if delays are not to continue. It is nonsensical to split responsibilities. Earlier, someone asked who would be responsible for explaining why a train was late. It is clear that there will be more difficulties
    224
    than ever. Only this week, my train to Glasgow Central was delayed; faulty signals were blamed, and Railtrack was said to be the source of the problem. There is, however, no suggestion that ScotRail will be compensated, and again passengers will suffer.
    Fortunately, much of what I was going to say about the withdrawal of services has already been said by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), but the Government must answer our concerns about the threat to sleeper services in Scotland. I am told that the regulator proposes a cut from five to two. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems caused by the restriction to 16 coaches at Euston. I do not know how the services will be run with split trains; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. We have already heard about the problems involved in the withdrawal of Motorail.
    That is all the tip of the iceberg. Given that every route in Scotland is currently subsidised, how can those routes be maintained in the private sector? It is nonsensical; it is a joke. The Government's snide remarks show how seriously they treat the problem. This week we have seen perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of rail travel as it now is. A picture in the local press today shows a railway carriage being taken down the road for repair. Perhaps the Government want that to happen to all railway carriages.
    The late Robert Adley, who chaired the Transport Select Committee, called rail privatisation the poll tax on wheels. Unfortunately, there will be no wheels to tax.
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Cunningham, South (Mr. Donohoe) put a forceful argument for privatisation. He said that things were pretty bad, and would become worse with privatisation. I believe that they will become better.
    The west country has been mentioned a fair amount this evening. In my experience, rail services there have become progressively worse, especially in the past two years. The new timetable considerably lengthens the journey time to Totnes, one of the two British Rail stations in my constituency. I think that part of British Rail's programme is to make the journeys slower so that when trains arrive late it need not pay so much compensation under the passengers charter. If my experience is anything to go by, the situation has got worse and I hope that privatisation will make it better.
    British Rail uses a raft of excuses—"BR-speak," as I call it. For example, slugs on the line stop heavyweight carriages dead in their tracks; bridges are in a perpetual state of repairs; floods always cover the line between Taunton and Exeter, not to mention the cursed sea at Dawlish, which is always going over the tracks just beyond that town. Freak thunderstorms cause power failures in Cornwall; not only does that county seem to be in permanent darkness, but the trains are always shunted on to sidings and fleets of buses take people from one station to another to connect with other trains. Then there is the ubiquitous phantom of Westbury—the cow that is so regularly seen on the line. Whenever the train is on time, the driver stops dead because he says that there is a cow on the line. One always hears at Paddington that the delay has been caused by a cow—it is more like Bombay or Delhi than Westbury—and if there is no cow on the line, then signals, points and crossings will do the trick.

    225
    For the past three months, no train to Totnes or Ivybridge that I have been on has been on time. That is borne out by a parliamentary answer that I received in July last year, when the then Minister said that in 1991 only 62.6 per cent. of trains arrived in Plymouth on time, in 1992 only 61.2 per cent. arrived on time, and in 1993 only 61.9 per cent. arrived on time. Fewer than two thirds of trains arrived according to the timetable time.
    The one exception is the sleeper. Here I should like to take a little credit; one does not get much credit in this place, and I never get the credit, but I played a part in stopping the Government, with BR, taking off the sleeper service to Penzance. When I was in Liverpool, I had a reputation for preventing BR from taking off sleeper services to the north-west, although it did just that as soon as I was transferred to South Hams. My hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the sleeper service is to be included in the franchise document, so it is safe for the next two or three years, although it will have to be used more if it is to be saved.
    I said that the sleeper always arrives on time, but that is not quite true. A few months ago, I was waiting in Exeter station for the sleeper at 1 o'clock. I waited until 2.30 in the morning, but no sleeper arrived, though I pay tribute to BR for providing free cups of tea and blankets.
    The problem with west country services is not only that the timetable has slipped but that trains arrive progressively later than the timetable time, with a difference of some 15 or 20 minutes, which produces growing anxiety in the minds of travellers that they will arrive late if they go by rail. More people are taking to the road, which is the last thing that we want as our west country roads are already saturated with cars which I suspect are driven by people who would have gone by rail but for the feeling that rail services are unreliable.
    Rail travel is also expensive. It is more expensive to travel first class from London to Plymouth than to travel Apex from London to Gibraltar by plane—1200 miles by air is cheaper than 227 miles by train—and it takes longer to go to Plymouth by train than to go to Paris or Brussels. No wonder we in the west country feel somewhat discriminated against—like some sort of outpost of Europe, with Cornwall feeling that even more than Devon.
    The problem of delays and the slowness of trains to Totnes is even worse on Sundays, when it is virtually impossible to travel from Totnes to London in under four hours. The other day it took me five and a half hours because of cows on the line at Westbury. We tend to get diverted on Sundays via Yeovil and Chippenham. Although both are beautiful parts of the country, many of us do not appreciate that unscheduled guided tour of the region.
    One of the problems with BR is overmanning. I do not know whether this is correct, but I am told that there have to be two men in the cab in trains travelling between London and Reading because the train goes at 125 mph. If it goes at 110 mph, only one is needed. The unions have insisted on doubling the staff by putting an extra man in the cab. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister
    226
    will tell me whether there are two men in the cab when trains go through Slough at 125 mph even though only one is actually doing anything.
    Mr. Watts: I must confess that I have not counted the number of men in the cab when trains go through Slough at 125 mph—or, indeed, when they stop at Slough, as they do and will continue to do.
    Mr. Steen: That is helpful. The Minister will no doubt find that out, but I am told that it is the case.
    On the journey from London to Totnes, every few seconds someone clips one's ticket. Every time the train stops, another man clips the ticket. My ticket looks like one of the sheets in my passport because there are so many ticket collectors. They are good and nice, and they add a certain presence on the train, but we do not need so many of them. The restrictive practices involved in overmanning are well illustrated by the number of ticket collectors. I hope that that will not happen after privatisation.
    Trains have been so late that I have been using the charter. I have collected so many vouchers that every time I go to Totnes I can now dine royally in the BR restaurant car. The only snag is that the restaurant cars are being taken up. I am sure that there will be a great improvement after privatisation.
    I am a great railway enthusiast and I am well known for the support that I have given to BR and InterCity. The managing director of rail services in the west country does an excellent job, but the problem is that the service is in decline. To entice people back on to railways, we need faster and cheaper railways, and more reliable services.
    On summer weekends, a train travels from Paddington to Totnes in just under two and a half hours. It is an exhilarating journey. The train is always full to the gunnels, with people hanging out of the windows, egging the driver on. One would like to see more of that. In winter, the trains are full of depressed passengers, paying through the nose, having their tickets clipped incessantly, and drowning their sorrows in powdered coffee and tea from the buffet, or in French water and wine. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, expect to find English wine or water on SNCF trains in France? Can you imagine the French serving exclusively English wine or water on SNCF? Of course not—only French wine and French water would be served. When the service is privatised, I hope that British goods, and not all that European stuff, will be served on trains because British goods are not served on French trains.
    The final reason why we should give privatisation a throw is that it may give the Government the opportunity to put some of the money that they invest in railways into building new railways. I want more money to be spent on new railway lines. I do not see why we could not have new railway lines if the money given in subsidy to British Rail were released and used for new lines between, for example, Exeter and Plymouth. That is what everyone wants. In Italy and France, new lines and motorways are built in minutes, so why not in this country?
    I am all for the service in my region being privatised. It cannot be worse than it is now. The region is crying out for improved infrastructure and if privatisation will provide that, I am all for it.
    8.58 pm
    Mr. Keith Hill: You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I intend to speak with exemplary brevity and, somewhat unusually in this debate, about rail passenger services.
    As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I sat through about 150 hours of its inquiry into the Government's rail privatisation plans. As a member of the Standing Committee which debated the Railways Act 1993, I sat through about 100 hours of debate on the detail of the privatisation programme. I can also say in all honesty that I have attended every debate in the House on rail privatisation since April 1992. Throughout that dauntingly long process, Ministers have repeated like a mantra the notion that franchises would be based on the existing timetable. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport provided irrefutable proof of that proposition.
    Even when Ministers have referred to minimum service requirements, which I am bound to say has not been very often, not once have they said—again, this is a matter of record—that the minimum service requirements would be less than the existing timetable. If words mean anything—we are entitled to take them at face value—Ministers have led Parliament to understand that they were not envisaging any reduction in services. Now, however, we know that they are. However Ministers may duck and dive, the blunt truth is that the passenger service requirements represent the only level of services to which franchisees are contractually committed. If that is all that a franchisee wants to run, that is all that he will run and no amount of weasel words can disguise that simple fact. It might be said that we have heard enough such words during the long debate on rail privatisation.
    The rabbit out of the hat—the deus ex machina—for the Secretary of State is the fact that the rail passenger has never had guaranteed services before. He said today that for the first time there would be an absolute guarantee of services. If we had a Government committed to a decent public transport system and prepared to invest in the railways at the same level as our European partners, we might not need a guarantee anyway.
    We heard a great deal from Conservative Members about the benefits of privatisation, but they very often drew comparisons with the excellent services—and the speed with which new services could be introduced—in countries such as Italy and France, where railways are run on a nationalised basis. As Lord Marsh, who is no ally of the Labour party, told the Transport Select Committee, the railway industry was the one industry whose problems could be solved only by throwing money at it. That is a fact.
    It is worth noting that the so-called guarantee will in the foreseeable future apply only to that small portion of the railway on which the franchises will operate. There are no guarantees of any description for the rest of the railway system, and certainly not for the branch lines about which we hear so frequently from the Secretary of State when he is trying to justify his policies on the radio.
    Given that a disproportionate amount of subsidy will be dished out to the franchises to make them attractive to the private sector, the rest of the network is likely to remain a Cinderella for the indefinite future. There will be no fairy godmother to whisk the rest of British Rail off
    228
    to the ball or to any golden high-speed future in the sky. While the Conservatives are in power, the prospects are grim indeed for passengers on most parts of the network.
    What is the quality of the so-called guarantee that is on offer? There is a clear implication in everything that has been said that a guaranteed minimum means that a franchisee will not be able to run services below that level. But that is not so, and I will explain why.
    On 15 December 1993, the Select Committee on Transport took evidence from the newly appointed franchising director, Mr. Roger Salmon. In the course of the interview, I asked him what would happen if the Treasury decided to cut the subsidy to the franchised railway. It had happened plenty of times to British Rail, so why not to the franchisees? Interestingly, the franchising director did not dismiss the possibility out of hand. On the contrary, he answered my question with admirable candour and I will quote his reply in extenso. It is reported on page 11 of the Committee's minutes of evidence, entitled "Arrangements for Railway Privatisation", printed on 15 December 1993. About the Government, Mr. Salmon said:
    "It will have ability to change those subsidies under certain circumstances … If there is a shortage of money, one of the ways British Rail tends to react, at the moment, is by cutting investment or putting up fares. The Franchising Director, by and large, will have similar options regarding existing franchises that have been let. He will be able to change minimum specifications. He will be able to change fare levels and thereby ask the franchisee to save money and pass those savings …. back to the Exchequer."
    In the words of the franchising director, speaking of his own powers in relation to minimum service guarantees,
    "He will be able to change minimum specifications."
    There is no guaranteed minimum. It can always he lowered—we have it from the mouth of the man who can do it.
    Members of Parliament and the public have allowed themselves to be led up the garden path for too long in the belief that there would be no reduction in service levels under privatisation. One thing is entirely clear: we should be under no illusions that there are any guarantees about minimum levels of service.
    9.5 pm
    Mr. Robert Key: I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Labour party's motion and voting in favour of my right hon. Friend's amendment, which is entirely sensible and practical.
    I allow myself a little chuckle as we debate a very serious issue when I think of the year that I spent very happily as Minister for Roads and Traffic. I became almost exclusively associated with roads and motor cars, which was to me a great irony, as I shall explain. My loss is the gain of my hon. Friend the Minister, and I wish him well. I suspect that he will find life easier being Minister for Railways and Roads than I ever did as Minister responsible for roads alone.
    I have a confession to make: I love trains. I started early with my Hornby 00 gauge and continued by building up my son's collection of rather splendid electric trains. While some hon. Members may have catalogued their visits to New York and Tokyo according to sights, mine were catalogued by visits to train shops.
    However, my experience of real-world trains, and passenger services on them throughout my life, has been a little different. I grew up with the steam age on my local

    229
    railway line through Salisbury. I also had the excitement of family holidays to the west coast of Scotland, when I travelled, often overnight, from King's Cross to Mallaig or Kyle of Lochalsh on the sleeper trains and, occasionally on the Motorail. Indeed, this debate will have done a great service to such routes. The consultation process seems to be going rather well if tonight's debate is anything to go by. Mr. Salmon will have plenty of heavy reading to do, as well as thinking.
    In the days of my trips to Scotland, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), when I first came across him, was the radical editor of the West Highland Free Press; an excellent document. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman has become such a reactionary and I have become the radical.
    My other memory was of the branch lines for passenger services throughout the south and west, the old push-me pull-you between Salisbury and Downton or Newton Abbot and Teigngrace. In Devon, I explored the old granite tramways from Haytor to the coast and Brunel's hydraulic railway along the coast from Starcross, where the pump house still stands. I have also extensively used trains in Germany, which, incidentally, are not all that they are cracked up to be, and I have worried my American friends by insisting on travelling by train rather than by air, for example when I undertook a 17-hour journey from Portland to San Francisco on the Starlight Express. I also saw the future on the bullet train from Osaka to Tokyo.
    However, railway nostalgia alone simply will not do. I fear that the Opposition parties—I notice that not one Liberal Democrat is gracing the Opposition Benches—have given train spotters a bad name in this debate. The future is now with us in the superb Eurostar trains running through the channel tunnel and the journey has been transformed by facing up to the reality of railway infrastructure finance. I have been taught that railways adapt or die; they serve their passengers or they meet the Rev. Awdry in the happy, shunting yard upstairs.
    The issue is not simply money. Successive Governments have spent on railways more than £1 billion for every year that I have been on this planet. And for what? For a decade and more my constituents have complained week in, week out about the service that they were receiving from British Rail.
    Admittedly, there has been some good management at the top, but it has been impossible for those people to make an impact on the vast spongy bureaucracy and inertia that is British Rail. Sometimes there has been spasmodic investment. For example, we were promised some second-hand trains; they did not come. We were promised a painted station; that did happen. We were promised, and got, a loop line at Tisbury, and there has been talk of reopening stations at Wilton and Porton.
    However, the timetable was always enormously inflexible. At weekends—the time when most people want to travel to London, for functions, for sport or for some other kind of leisure, and to come home again late at night—the timetable was reduced, because otherwise it would not have suited British Rail. The cry was always that that was the time when all the engineering was done.
    When I was a Minister with responsibility for tourism, I visited Cornwall at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who has done more
    230
    than anyone in Cornwall to champion the cause of railways. His constituents told me that BR simply would not listen to what they said about their needs, and about the patterns and cycles of holiday bookings in the south-west.
    Then the Government made a commitment to privatisation. All of a sudden, British Rail started to react. Suddenly, we had our new trains and a more flexible timetable. British Rail was starting to wake up, but it was too late. I became a late convert to the Government's policy of rail privatisation.
    As the Secretary of State said, what the franchising director has produced is not a timetable but a consultation exercise—the first-ever consultation on our railways. I believe that there are issues more important than the timetable. None the less, when I compare my existing timetable with the South West Trains passenger service requirement, I realise why the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) totally failed to mention the main line from Waterloo through Salisbury to Exeter. If he had done the homework on that line that I have done, he would have discovered that the passenger requirement follows the present timetable closely, and that does not suit the Labour party's argument. The two are similar in terms of level of service, but for the first time there is a guaranteed minimum, and now there is every incentive for running additional, marginally costed revenue-raising passenger services.
    The great old regional companies certainly served their purpose—sometimes there were regional monopolies; sometimes there was cut-throat competition—but we must move on from those days. The early privatisations of gas and telecommunications were a success, but of course both have had to be modified. I warmly support the present exciting concept of separating the capital investment in the infrastructure of the railways from the services that provide revenue flows. In the international context, that is the most important thing that has happened to investment in railway systems for half a century.
    Until now, there has been little incentive for British Rail to listen to the passenger, but now the franchisees will have every incentive not only to run a timetable to match existing loading but to generate the new markets in rail travel that are there for the picking.
    My last observation is that British Rail has had a people problem. When I get on a train from my constituency and travel from Salisbury to Waterloo the journey, on good railway rolling stock, is now a real pleasure. More often than not the train is on time, and not only the trains but the people are a pleasure. There is the friendly guard, or the senior conductor, as I should call him; even the people pushing the tea trolleys seem to be enjoying themselves—something that could rarely be said of staff under the old regime. It is a happy transformation that the people now running the railway services seem to be realising that it is in their interests, too, to do a good job of work and to welcome their passengers—or, as I rather regret that they now call us, their customers.
    However, that does not always happen. In the light of other great privatisations and transitions, it is important for the new railway companies and franchisees to understand that the period of transition is a difficult one for their work force. In the case of British Airways, there was real resentment among its staff, and much the same applies in the ambulance services. The success of the Nothumbrian ambulance service when compared with the

    231
    London service shows that, however much capital equipment is put into a service, it will not work unless the people who are running the services are working with the system that is introduced.
    Privatisation is not just about the timetable, nor is it even just about infrastructure investment. Passengers also need to feel that all railway staff from the top downwards arc having a change of heart. British Airways, British Gas, British Steel, the power companies and the water companies are all now world-beating companies, and undoubtedly a better use has been made of the taxpayers' original investment. I am absolutely confident that the same can be true of the railways.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: In denigrating British Rail, the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) asked whether it was conceivable that one would be able to buy English water or wine on a French train. If the hon. Gentleman went to France, he might find that he was riding on a British-built train, as the new tram for Strasbourg was built in my constituency at ABB carriage works in York.
    York is a railway town. Eighteen months ago, 4,700 people in York worked for the railway—one in 12 of the work force. In the past 18 months, that number has fallen to 3,500, a drop of 1,200. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may talk of jolly tea trolley pushers on trains, but there are also thousands of people who have lost their jobs.
    One might ask what effect those job losses will have on the passenger. Let me refer to two problems which we have in York. The first is that the 170 employees of Interlogic Control Engineering have been told that they will lose their jobs. The second is that 750 employees of ABB carriage works in York fear that they will be told soon that they will lose their jobs if, in the next seven or eight weeks, the company does not get a further order of the type of trains that it builds.
    Signalling is the life-blood of the safety system for the railways, and if 170 signalling engineers are sacked, one builds up problems for the railways. The lack of new rolling stock is something that I do not need to explain, as other Members on both sides of the House have called for investment in new rolling stock.
    Since this is a short debate, I must confine myself to two examples. The cause of most—not all—of the fatal railway accidents that have occurred recently is found to be in a signalling fault. One thinks of Clapham, and also—although the reports are not yet out—of the Cowden crash. Last week's crash on the Carlisle to Settle line was another example. In each case, it appears as though a signalling fault or a failure to provide an adequate signalling system was responsible.
    Following the Clapham crash, the British Railways Board commissioned the Hesketh report, which identified a huge backlog of investment in signalling. That led to the creation of the British Rail signalling project group, and to the employment of some 1,500 additional skilled signalling engineers. As part of the preparation for privatisation, the signalling project group split into two separate companies—Interlogic Control Engineering and Signal Control UK. As I have mentioned, Interlogic has decided to close its York office with the loss of all 170 of its employees.
    232
    The decision was taken—I am told—to make the company viable for sale to the private sector. The managing director, Dr. Geoffrey Cowley, who himself is planning to lead a management buy-out took that decision. He is putting the redundancy costs on to British Rail to produce a company that will suit him when he puts in his management buy-out bid. I met Dr. Cowley last week, and he said that the job losses were inevitable because the company's business plan anticipated that the company would be designing schemes worth £180 million in the current year. It has won design work for schemes worth £105 million, because Railtrack has cut investment in signalling.
    Such cuts have a direct effect on the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) said. The collapse of Haymarket interlocking, the signal box, has resulted in months and months of delays for travellers from Glasgow to London, and we heard this evening that those delays continue.
    In a Wednesday morning debate two weeks ago, we had the opportunity to debate the job losses at ABB carriage works in York, so I shall not go over that ground again. I simply say that new carriages are badly needed by passengers on the Kent coast services. They are needed to improve the service's reliability, comfort and safety. Despite the fact that those carriages have been promised for five years, in statement after statement from British Rail managers and Transport Ministers, the carriages will not be ordered in the foreseeable future because British Rail says that it will delay replacement until 1999.
    I learnt at the end of last year that British Rail was keen to provide a service to customers by ordering those new carriages, but it cannot do so for financial reasons. Sir Bob Reid wrote to me on 21 November last year and said:
    "At present, we have no plans to place orders for new trains, nor do the newly formed rolling stock leasing companies.
    The financial position this year is extremely difficult … There is insufficient headroom to take on any additional commitments this year, and next year is also likely to be tight."
    The cause of the problems at both Interlogic and ABB, and for passengers, is lack of investment. I asked the House of Commons Library to dig out the investment figures for me. Those show that in 1992–93, £1,556 million was invested in the railways. The following year, the figure fell to £1,263 million. The Department of Transport's press release on Budget day last November said that the Government intended to put only £750 million of taxpayers' money into the railways next year.
    Unlike many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have set up and run a business, so I know that if one invests, one improves the product and gains a market share whereas if one does not invest, the business goes into a spiral of decline.
    Will the Minister now give me an answer to my written question on signalling? Will he place in the Library a copy of the Hesketh report so that we can see what was recommended? What future does he hold out for the 170 signalling engineers in my constituency who have been told that they will be made redundant? What prospect is there that the British Railways Board will decide to place a follow-on order with ABB carriage works within the next seven weeks, ahead of its threat of closing the York carriage works?
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: Even in the remaining few moments of the debate, I do not believe that it can take place without reference to our late colleague, Robert Adley. He certainly would have been in his place tonight and producing some trenchant thoughts. In all probability they would not have been entirely in support of the Government, as they seldom were. I am sorry that he is not here.
    Like Robert Adley, I have been entirely in favour of the denationalisation of British Rail; my only qualms relate to the Government's method and their approach. All the arguments from the Opposition have been met by the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has said that they are curable through the process of denationalisation. Soon may it come.
    I believe in the infinite capacity of entrepreneurial activity to meet the requirements of any public user of a service. That is the case equally for the services of British Rail. My goodness, gracious me, such improvements to present services are needed in spades on Network SouthCentral, which travels down through my constituency, beginning with the Brighton line, on to Lewes, along to Eastbourne or down to the coast at Newhaven and Seaford. Passengers on that service have suffered from a diminishing service and a lessening of quality rolling stock for too long. They deserve better. For that reason I shall support the Government's amendment.
    My one remaining qualm has to do with timing. The trouble with the plans as presented is that they will take a little time to execute. The trouble with that is that people who will benefit from improved services will not necessarily do so quickly enough to appreciate that the Government's plans are correct. [Interruption.] I hear cackles from the Opposition, but that just shows how little they care about improvements in service. They obviously consider that a worry about bringing those improvements in quickly enough is merely worthy of a cackle. I hope that the Minister will take note of my concern.
    I hope that the Government will be able to introduce the improvements in services as a result of the denationalisation in time so that my constituents and others like them will benefit. The qualms that have been raised have been well identified in the final two lines of the Government's amendment, which
    "condemns Her Majesty's Opposition for continuing to rely on scare tactics as a substitute for policy which would enhance passenger services."
    Those scare tactics have begun to stick not only from the Front Benches but from the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is a hardly a Liberal Democrat local council which has not sent up flak about worsening British Rail services, but the Liberals have no plans to improve them.
    I promise the Government my support in the Lobby. My continuing hope is that the Government's plan for denationalisation will work, but that it is carried out with urgency.
    9.27 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Last week, the publication of the passenger service requirement by the franchising director was hailed by the Secretary of State for Transport as the first great advance for the passenger. He said:
    "Satisfying the aspirations of train passengers should be the heart of any policy for the railways."
    234
    It is the PSR that is supposed to satisfy those aspirations with contractual obligations to provide in certain instances less than a third of the services currently provided; a cut of 70 per cent. in some peak morning services and contracts which will allow operators to miss out services to stations currently served and make other stations optional.
    No sooner had the PSR been published than the Secretary of State attempted to distance himself from it, as he did again tonight. He said that the PSR did not represent a timetable and the actual services to be provided.
    The Government cannot have it both ways; either the PSR is the answer to rail passengers' prayers or it is not. Either the services that are contained within it are those that will actually be offered, or they are not. If they are, they represent the most savage attack on Britain's rail services since Beeching; if they are not, how on earth can they be described as a great advance for the rail passenger?
    As the impact on services becomes apparent, Ministers attempt to reassure with warm, cosy words about every rail passenger's benevolent uncles, the rail regulator and the franchising director. We are reminded that their obligation to protect the interests of rail passengers are enshrined in statute. Yet every time the Rail Regulator or the franchising director makes a pronouncement, such as on minimum service levels or through ticketing, it is suddenly matched by a mad rush from Ministers to tell us that our benevolent uncles are proposing what will never actually happen. Indeed, in the case of the public service requirement, the Secretary of State disowned the proposals in the same speech in which he welcomed them. He added:
    "It is not for me, as Secretary of State, or even Roger Salmon, as the franchising director, to dictate the future timetable. That is for operators and Rai1track".
    That is the bottom line of rail privatisation. Whatever assurances Ministers give, whatever safeguards they pledge to build into the system, the operators—or rather the market—will decide the level of service.
    Despite what we have heard from the Conservative Benches about Labour scaremongering, I give Ministers the opportunity to put a stop to those scares once and for all. Will they guarantee that no rail service will be reduced to the limit outlined in the public service requirement? Will they guarantee that every station described as "optional" in the PSR document will continue to receive the level of service that it does currently? Above all, will they guarantee that the level of service provided nationally following privatisation will not be below that provided by the current timetable?
    If Ministers cannot give those guarantees, rail passengers will continue to be scared by their privatisation proposals, and rightly so.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: First, I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said at the start of his speech about the very sad circumstances that lead to my being in this position tonight, and I know that the thoughts of all of us are with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLcish), who otherwise would have been here.

    235
    The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is really too modest when he gives the Opposition all the credit for alerting people throughout the country to what is going on in the railways, and for the fact that millions of people—85 per cent. of the population, according to the latest opinion polls—do not wish their madcap scheme to be proceeded with. Of course the hon. Member for Lewes, 12 months or so ago, was one of those so-called Tory rebels who contributed greatly to that mood of awareness.
    The tragedy is that the hon. Gentleman gave in. He did not obtain a single concession; the scheme that is going through now is as bad as, or worse than, what he opposed. Even the issue on which he supposedly took the Government to the line, the so-called "Peyton amendment" tabled in the House of Lords, which would give British Rail the right to compete to operate services—the minimum concession that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to vote for at the time—is now being denied by that creature, the franchising director, who has been created by the privatisation process.
    The hon. Gentleman may have given in. He may now be starting to defend the proposals to his constituents, but he is too late, and I am delighted to say that to some extent his own handiwork has contributed to that.
    Various hon. Members have spoken—those who read out Central Office briefs and those who read out their own important works of literature, such as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—of all the wonderful successes of other privatisations. Most of that is nonsense. If we examined those claims in turn, they could be tested and found wanting.
    However, Conservative Members do not understand or will not accept that, in one key respect, railway privatisation is different from every other industry that they have tried to privatise. The key respect is that the railways alone rely for their profitability on political decisions about the level of subsidy. If an industry is profitable, or capable of being made profitable, as all the others were, one might say that entrepreneurial flair can win the day, and we could argue about whether that has been true. However, the railways are different because, as in every other country, they depend on political decisions about subsidy.
    That is why I believe that, ultimately, the whole enterprise is doomed to failure. The Government, in their last days, will be unable to give the assurances that any investor needs. That is why the process of debate is so important; it is to inform public opinion, to inform investor opinion and to make it absolutely clear that anyone who puts their money into the railways is putting it into a loser. That process is proceeding very satisfactorily.
    What do we hear from Conservative Members tonight? They are right back where they started. The debate has passed them by. All they can do, with their little scripts, is stand up and denigrate British Rail. They did it when the White Paper came out; they did it on Second Reading; they did it in Committee; they have done it in every debate on the railways that has taken place when I have been in the House. Where does it leave them? It leaves them with 85 per cent. of public opinion opposed to railway privatisation. It leaves them with a better informed electorate, and a massive electoral millstone around their neck. Our message to the Government is: carry on. The Government will not manage to privatise the railways but, day after day, people learn what is
    236
    happening to the railways and they attribute it not just to privatisation, but to the fragmentation of the rail system and the absurdities that have been created in the name of political dogma. The electorate will punish the Government accordingly.
    I stood at the Dispatch Box once before and said the same thing about another piece of legislation: the poll tax. The late Robert Adley made that very good analogy. Ultimately, the Government will have to abandon their privatisation plans or pay the political price. That is the choice that they faced over the poll tax and they will face it with the railways as well.
    There have been a number of cameos tonight. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is not, I fear, a potential member of Mensa. He seemed to believe that a different ticket collector inspected his ticket each time and that ticket collectors leaped on to overstaffed trains at every station. The hon. Gentleman is not with us at this stage of the evening, but his hon. Friends who are present might suggest gently that it was the same ticket collector.
    The hon. Member for South Hams was very concerned—as all Tories are in these Eurosceptical days—about the fact that French wine and French water are served on the trains which speed their way to South Hams. In contrast, he cares nothing about the fact that thousands of jobs will be sacrificed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) or that another great British industry is being driven to the wall because, as a result of the Government's railway privatisation policy, we will soon lose the capacity to build trains in this country.
    The Secretary of State for Transport has joined us and he shakes his head. Does he deny that 5,000 jobs were lost last year in the railway manufacturing industry as a result of the blight created by the Government's privatisation programme? He can argue with the captains of industry who manufacture trains and with ABB Transportation, which was brought into the country under false pretences. He can argue with the 5,000 workers who lost their jobs and with the 20,000 workers whose jobs are threatened. Despite all the warnings, the Government have not lifted a finger to ensure continuity of orders. That is why the railway manufacturing industry is on its knees.
    The Tories care about French wine on British trains; we care about British jobs, British manufacturing and British potential to build trains. In future when the hon. Member for South Hams rides on trains which have been built in Korea or America instead of Britain I suppose that he will worry about the wine, but I hope that he will not be travelling on a Member of Parliament's rail warrant.
    The real victims of the privatisation process include the 5,000 people who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry. They also include the many workers in York—that great centre of British manufacturing—who fear for their jobs because of the Government's policies and their privatisation programme.
    To a large extent, we have talked about hypotheticals tonight; we have talked about what might or might not happen. Let us now talk about what has happened already. Perhaps the Minister who will reply to the debate will tell us about the abolition of the Motorail service. Although they pay lip service to environmental considerations, in 1995 the Government propose to abolish the motorail service.

    237
    Let us talk about the rail sleeper service—only two trains will be left out of the six which operate currently. Let us talk about the total loss of overnight passenger services. While Members of Parliament may travel south from Scotland in sleepers, tens of thousands of people pay a modest fare to travel in the passenger carriages at the back of the train. That service will be abolished; there is nothing hypothetical about that.
    Let us address the realities and the question of consultation. Throughout the process, the Minister has talked about consultation as a precursor to service cuts. He has confirmed that that is correct, so I will move on to discuss consultation. The consultation takes the form of a press release from Mr. Salmon, stating that the services are to be withdrawn. He states:
    "I do not intend to include sleeper services from London to Carlisle and Fort William. I do not intend to include the Plymouth to Glasgow and Edinburgh sleeper services. It is not intended to include Motorail in the passenger service requirement."
    Where is the consultation? The subsidy is being withdrawn from the services in May 1995.
    In the Secretary of State's absence we found out a little more. As an exercise in duplicity, it rates pretty high, even by the Government's standards. The Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was that the services will be withdrawn in May because the subsidy has been taken away.
    Dr. Mawhinney: No.
    Mr. Wilson: Oh yes, that is what Mr. Salmon says. There is no subsidy. I wish that the Secretary of State would intervene and tell us they are not going to be withdrawn and, if so, why they are not going to be withdrawn in May. There is no point in sitting there smugly saying no if he cannot give us the information.
    The intention is that the subsidies will be withdrawn in May, so the services will be withdrawn in May. However, the consultation process will be based on the minimum service specifications which will not be produced until after May. According to the correspondence quoted by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, because the services have already been withdrawn, they will not form part of the specifications on which consultation will take place.
    The services will not exist, therefore there will be no consultation on them. If that trick is being used to get rid of these rural services, it can be used to get rid of every rural service in Britain.
    The message will go out from tonight's debate that that is the trick and the form of duplicity being entered into, and that if it can be used to destroy those services, it can be used on every other service.
    I now understand why, in answer to questions tabled for reply today in which I asked Secretary of State in a very precise form of words
    "if he will instruct the Director of Rail Franchising to consult with the rail users' consultative committees, prior to withdrawal of subsidy in respect of Motorail services.".
    I asked the same question in respect of those sleeper services that are to be withdrawn. It was a straightforward question—will he or will he not do that? His reply was:
    "I will answer these questions shortly."
    238
    Will he answer them now? Will there or will there not be consultation before the services are withdrawn? If there will not, every word that has been spoken about consultation is worthless and that message will go out to every rural area of Britain where the same tricks can be played.
    I want to turn to the interesting reply given yesterday to hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye by the Secretary of State for Transport in regard to the sleeper service to Fort William. It is a specific question, but the principle is universal. He stated:
    "I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the taxpayers' subsidy per person for a sleeper berth on the trip to Fort William, excluding the infrastructure cost, is £180."
    I do not believe that for a moment. The figure is rigged and if I had time I could tell the House why. Then comes the really interesting bit:
    "If one adds the cost of the infrastructure"—
    that is the access charges to Railtrack—
    "the subsidy becomes £540."—[Official Report, 6 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 12.]
    According to even the Government's figures, everything else costs £180, but the access charges to Railtrack cost £360 per person.
    There is no point in the Secretary of State shaking his head. If he is right tonight he was wrong yesterday. Those are the figures he gave. It is an interesting figure because the marginal cost of operating the services for Railtrack is virtually nil, yet they are imposing such a scale of charges upon those services as to make them ludicrously uneconomic. Again the message goes out and anyone who remembers the Beeching era will understand the message, that if figures can be rigged in this way for sleeper services, they will be rigged in future for every other service that they want rid of.
    I challenge the Minister on another figure. If there are to be two sleeper services a night instead of six in each direction and at present the access charge for rail services is £17.5 million, one might imagine that the figure would be divided into three and that the access charges would be £5 million or £6 million. That is not so.
    Can the Minister confirm that the access charges for two sleeper services as opposed to six will be £16.5 million? In other words, there is no saving to the operators. The access charges are to remain the same. The only difference is that those access charges will be spread over fewer trains and users so, as night follows day, in months or a couple of years from now, equally ludicrous figures will be produced in order to prove the impossibility of keeping such services going. Those are the tricks that are being played and the constituents of Conservative Members will know about it just as we do.
    The ludicrous little booklet which contains a speech by the Secretary of State in which he tried to pre-empt public reaction on the passenger service requirement did not work because every journalist who looked at it saw through it and realised that nothing was being given but a great deal was being taken away.
    How do we summarise the passenger service requirements? There will be 45 per cent. of the existing timetabled Gatwick express service but no early morning or late night services guaranteed. The current service of 46 trains from Swindon to London daily and 45 from London compares with a PSR of 36 trains to London and 30 from London. Who will speak for Swindon? The current

    239
    service of 55 trains from Reading to London and 58 from London compares with a PSR of 17 trains each way. Who will speak for Reading? The current service of six trains daily from Penzance to London compares with a PSR of four trains daily. Who will speak for Cornwall?
    Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
    Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will speak for Cornwall. The Labour party will speak for Cornwall, but there is no Tory Member here tonight to speak for Cornwall or to defend its services against these cuts. The current service of five fast trains an hour in the peak period from Basingstoke to London and three fast trains an hour off peak compares with a PSR of two fast trains an hour to London. Who will speak for Basingstoke?
    Basildon—where is the little man who usually jumps up when Basildon is mentioned? The current service of six trains an hour in the peak period from Basildon to London and four trains an hour off peak compares with a PSR of three trains an hour in the peak period and two trains off peak. Who will speak for Basildon? We will speak for Basildon and for every other community that is affected by these cuts.
    Public opinion is against the policy. The natural majority in the House is against it. The more people understand it, the more they are opposed to it. It is a madcap scheme. According to the Government's own predictions, it allows from 1997–98 onwards a £600 million profit for the private sector. That goes to the question of what Labour would do. While support for the railway system drops consistently, £600 million is to be creamed off by private operators. The question is not whether we renationalise the railways but whether the country can afford a privatised railway service, and the answer is that it cannot.
    9.47 pm
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The House will have noted that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not answer the question whether the Labour party, if it were ever in Government, would wish to renationalise the railway system.
    I am surprised and disappointed that, despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my own, Opposition Members have neither learnt their lessons well nor done their homework properly. Faced with the simple question, "What is a passenger service requirement?" they resort to the schoolboy's answer, "Not taught yet." Let me try again.
    A passenger service requirement is not a timetable. It is based on the existing timetable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the former Minister for Public Transport, explained at the end of the Second Reading debate on the Railways Bill two years and five days ago. A PSR is a guaranteed level of service for rail passengers and a contractual obligation on a train operator to provide at least that level of service.
    A PSR ensures that every route and every destination is covered. The greater the commercial viability of a service, the more likely the obligation will be specified to maximise the scope to respond to passengers' needs. The greater the social need for a service and the more it is dependent on subsidy, the more closely the specification will follow the levels of service in the current timetable.
    240
    The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is simply wrong in his assertion that non-franchise services, those that are still waiting to be franchised at any time, will be starved of funds.
    The principles that I have outlined are, of course, reflected in the first four PSRs announced by the franchising director last week. Opposition Members are transfixed by minima. The hon. Member for Streatham was a good example of that. They cannot believe that anyone in the private sector would choose to do more than the bare minimum that he or she is obliged to do. I understand their dilemma. It stems from their political philosophy. The Labour party is the party of the lowest common denominator. All that it understands is levelling down. The work-to-rule mentality of its trade union mentors permeates of its thinking.
    My difficulty is that we do not yet have private sector operators of passenger train networks, although, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was right to draw attention to the increasing role of charter operators. We do, of course, have evidence of the attitudes of the directors of the British Rail train operating units, who have adapted with great enthusiasm to the greater freedoms that restructuring has already provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) commented on that. As he said, railway nostalgia will not do. Those who are running the railways are looking forward, not backwards, and are developing services to meet the needs of their customers.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Watts: I have very little time, and there are many points that I wish to cover, so I am afraid that I cannot give way.
    Each of the train operating units has negotiated track access rights to operate more services than those that are included even in the current timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was absolutely right: British Airways does not need to be forced to run services or offer inter-available tickets. It does those things because it makes commercial sense. It is a way in which it can make money. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) cited other instances of privatisation bringing improved services. Why should privatisation of the railways have any different outcome?
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to the position of Scottish sleeper services, as did the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). They spoke as though there had been no consultation whatever. Yet if they have seen the letter from Mr. Salmon to the convener of Highland regional council, they will know—[Interruption.] I have a copy of it here. The letter explains:
    "Following meetings in Scotland with local conveners, the rail users consultative committee for Scotland and the convention of Scottish local authorities, I decided that the best course of action was for OPRAF to be as open as possible about our policy intentions at the earliest opportunity. To delay an announcement until the consultation process for ScotRail was under way would have meant many months of further uncertainty."
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Minister for giving way and would like to give him an opportunity, which I gave earlier but which he did not take up, to clarify his thinking and that of the Secretary of State on the adverse

    241
    comments by the chairman of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee. Does the Minister back the plea made to Mr. Salmon by the chairman of the RUCC?
    Mr. Watts: The chairman of the RUCC is making his views known. That is part of the consultation process. The House established those consultative committees to fulfil that role.
    It will be perfectly clear that the allegation that there has been no consultation is false. As I explained earlier, in an intervention—
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Watts: No. I cannot now. I have seven minutes left.
    Mr. Wilson rose—
    Mr. Watts: I am not giving way, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.] As I explained to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, the publication of the PSR for ScotRail will provide an opportunity for consultation in the formal sense between the local authorities and all those other bodies. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, in winding up—
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall deal with this matter. Is the Minister giving way?
    Mr. Watts: No, Madam Speaker.
    The hon. Gentleman, when winding up, referred to services to Reading. I appreciate the difficulty that Opposition Members—and, indeed, some journalists—have in understanding the PSR for services to Reading. It is couched in terms similar to those of an 11-plus verbal reasoning test question—the sort in which John is younger than Margaret but wiser than Tony; hon. Members will know the sort of question that I mean.
    The PSR specifies an hourly service with at least 17 trains daily and 10 arrivals at Paddington between 7.30 am and 9.15 am. Elementary arithmetic leads us to the conclusion that at least 25 trains will be needed to meet that minimum requirement. In fact, Great Western Trains is likely to maintain a much more substantial service, not for reasons of altruism but to make money—yes, to make a profit.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and others posed a question that has been posed many times before: why not make the current timetable the passenger service requirement? If he listened to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will now know the pattern of services and the way in which it is to be specified in the PSR.
    PSRs for commuter services on London-TilburySouthend trains, and on south-west trains, do not allow services to be decimated, as has been alleged, but will oblige operators to run at least 90 per cent. of trains on the current timetable to meet the frequency requirements, as well as additional trains in peak periods to limit overcrowding. Those two elements provide a much better guarantee of a decent service than the fossilisation of the current timetable that "old Labour" wants.
    242
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned rumours of heavy cuts in services this May. They are rumours—just that—with no foundation in fact. Opposition Members should not believe everything they read in newspapers, especially stories that seek to gain credibility by claiming to be leaks of confidential documents. The directors of the four train operating units whose PSRs were announced last week have made it clear that they intend no reduction in services; on the contrary, they are looking for opportunities to expand services further.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an excellent speech, painting a graphic word picture of services in the west country. He does not want to preserve current services; his expectation, which I share, is that the private sector will improve services rather than impairing them. He was also able to claim some credit for scotching the evil rumour that the Penzance sleeper service was under attack.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked whether the benefits would come quickly enough. He will know that Network SouthCentral is likely to be included in the next tranche of franchises to be announced later this year, and I assure him that we shall try to ensure that the benefits of franchising are introduced as rapidly as possible.
    I confessed earlier that I was unable to give an example of private operators running passenger train networks, but I can give another example of the benefits of transport privatisation. The National Express coach is a familiar sight on our motorways. National Express was a subsidiary of the National Bus Company created by a Labour Government in 1968; in March 1988 it was privatised by sale to its management. Since privatisation, it has expanded its network to 180 routes, serving 1,200 destinations and carrying 10.5 million passengers. It did not achieve that success by paring down its services or ignoring the needs of its passengers.
    On 24 November last year I went to Liverpool to open a new purpose-built coach station. National Express had noticed that its business in Liverpool had declined since the closure of the old coach station. Some of its customers, including the Merseyside pensioners' association, had mounted a vigorous campaign for a new coach station. It was in response to customers' demands that the new coach station was planned and built, and I had the pleasure of opening it. I understand that passenger numbers increased, even in expectation that the station would be built.
    Perhaps Opposition Members will now understand why I have confidence in the ability of the private sector to respond to passengers' needs, and why I believe that private rail operators will build their businesses by extending their services, not by cutting them.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 302.

    Division No. 66]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Ainger, Nick

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Allen, Graham

    Ashton, Joe

    Alton, David

    Austin-Walker, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    243

    Barnes, Harry

    Fyfe, Maria

    Barron, Kevin

    Galbraith, Sam

    Battle, John

    Galloway, George

    Bayley, Hugh

    Gapes, Mike

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    George, Bruce

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bell, Stuart

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Berry, Roger

    Gordon, Mildred

    Betts, Clive

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Blunkett, David

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Boyes, Roland

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Gunned, John

    Bray, Dr Jererny

    Hall, Mike

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfemline E)

    Hanson, David

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

    Hardy, Peter

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Burden, Richard

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Byers, Stephen

    Henderson, Doug

    Caborn, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hoey, Kate

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Caravan, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Hood, Jimmy

    Chidgey, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Church, Judith

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hutton, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Illsley, Eric

    Cohen, Harry

    Ingram, Adam

    Connarty, Michael

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jackson, Helen (Sheild, H)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jamieson, David

    Corston, Jean

    Janner, Grevile

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd, SW)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jowel, Tessa

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Denham, John

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dewar, Donald

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dobson, Frank

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lewis, Terry

    Dowd, Jim

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Litherland, Robert

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Livingstone, Ken

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

    Eastham, Ken

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Enright, Derek

    Loyden, Eddie

    Etherington, Bill

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McAllion, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fatchett, Derek

    McCartney, Ian

    field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fisher, Mark

    McFall,John

    Flynn, Paul

    McKelvey, William

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Fraser, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    244

    MacShane, Denis

    Rooker, Jeff

    McWilliam.John

    Rooney, Terry

    Madden, Max

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Maddock, Diana

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mahon, Alice

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mandelson, Peter

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marek, DrJohn

    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, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Snape, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Soley, Clive

    Milburn, Alan

    Spearing, Nigel

    Miller, Andrew

    Spellar, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Stevenson, George

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Stott, Roger

    Mudie, George

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mullin, Chris

    Straw, Jack

    Oakes. Rt Hon Gordon

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    olner Bill

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Timms, Stephen

    Parry, Robert

    Tipping, Paddy

    Turner, Dennis

    Patchett, Terry

    Tyler Paul

    Pearson, Ian

    Vaz, Keith

    Pendry, Tom

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wallace, James

    Pike, Peter L

    Walley, Joan

    Pope, Greg

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wilson, Brian

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wise, Audrey

    Redmond, Martin

    Worthington, Tony

    Reid, Dr John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Rendel, David

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Eric Clarke.

    Rogers, Allan

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Alexander, Richard

    Body, Sir Richard

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Booth, Hartley

    Amess, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Ancram, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bowis, John

    Ashby, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Atkins, Robert

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Bates, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Burns, Simon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burt, Altstair

    245

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash.William

    Hawksley, Warren

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Churchill, Mr

    Heald, Oliver

    clappison, James

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hicks, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Congdon, David

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Conway, Derek

    Horam.John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cran, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dicks, Terry

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Key, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Elletson, Harold

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Faber, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Legg, Barry

    Forman, Nigel

    Leigh, Edward

    Forth, Eric

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lidington, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lightbown, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    French, Douglas

    Lord, Michael

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Luff, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Maclean, David

    Gill, Christopher

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Madel, Sir David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malone, Gerald

    Gorst, Sir John

    Mans, Keith

    Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mates, Michael

    Hague, William

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Merchant, Piers

    246

    Mills, Iain

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedlling)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Spring, Richard

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sproat Iain

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Steen, Anthony

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stern, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Streeter, Gary

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Sumberg, David

    Norris, Steve

    Sweeney, Walter

    Onslow, Rt Hon SirCranley

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Thomason, Roy

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Pawsey, James

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Tredirnnick, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Trend, Michael

    Rathbone,Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Richards, Rod

    Viggers, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Walden, George

    Robathan, Andrew

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Waller, Gary

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Ward, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Watts, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sackville, Tom

    Whitney, Ray

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Willetts, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Wood, Timothy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Yeo, Tim

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mr. Sidney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question,That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuand to Standing Order No.30(Questions on amendments):-
    The House divided:Ayes 295,Noes 263.

    Division No. 67]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alexander, Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Ancram, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ashby, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkins, Robert

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evennett, David

    Bates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bendall, Vivian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Booth, Hartley

    Forth, Eric

    Boswell, Tim

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Bowis, John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    GarelJones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bright Sir Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Burns, Simon

    Gorst, Sir John

    Burt, Alistair

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butterfill, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hague, William

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Cash, William

    Hampson.Dr Keith

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hendry, Charles

    Couchman, James

    Hicks, Robert

    Cran, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'byire)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Horam, John

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    248

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

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Richards, Rod

    Jessel, Toby

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Key, Robert

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Knox, Sir David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kynoch, George (Khcardine)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sims, Roger

    Legg, Barry

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Leigh, Edward

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lidington, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lightbown, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sproat, Iain

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Stewart, Allan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Malone, Gerald

    Sumberg, David

    Mans, Keith

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marland, Paul

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Merchant Piers

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchel, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Baxl'yh'th)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Tracey, Richard

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Trednnick, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Trend, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trotter, Neville

    Nelson, Anthony

    Twim, Dr Ian

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waldegrave. Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walden, George

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Norris, Steve

    Waller, Gary

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Ward, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Page, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Watts, John

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Whittingdale, John

    Pawsey, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    249

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Wood, Timothy

    Willetts, David

    Yeo,Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Dr. Llam Fox.

    Wolfson, Mark

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Denham, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Dewar, Donald

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dixon, Don

    Allen, Graham

    Dobson, Frank

    Alton, David

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Ashton,Joe

    Eastham, Ken

    Austin-Walker, John

    Enright, Derek

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Etherington, Bill

    Barnes, Harry

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Barron, Kevin

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Battle, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bayley.Hugh

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Fisher, Mark

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Flynn, Paul

    Bell, Stuart

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fraser.John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fyfe, Maria

    Berry, Roger

    Galbraith, Sam

    Betts, Clive

    Galloway, George

    Blunkett, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Boateng, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Boyes, Roland

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bradley, Keith

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Godsiff, Roger

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

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Burden, Richard

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Byers, Stephen

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Caborn, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cann, Jamie

    Henderson, Doug

    Chidgey, David

    Heppell, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Church, Judith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

    Clelland, David

    Home Robertson, John

    Ctwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Coffey, Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cox, Tom

    Hutton,John

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Ingram, Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    250

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Keen, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Khabra, Piara S

    Redmond, Martin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Reid, Dr John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rendel, David

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lewis, Terry

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lithertand, Robert

    Rogers, Allan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

    Rooney, Terry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCartney, Ian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Short, Clare

    McFall, John

    Simpson, Alan

    McKelvey, William

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McMaster, Gordon

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    MacShane, Denis

    Snape, Peter

    McWilliam, John

    Soley.Clive

    Madden, Max

    Spearing, Nigel

    Maddock, Diana

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Alice

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marek,DrJohn

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleeston)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Maxton, John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Meacher, Michael

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Meale,Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michael, Alun

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Timms, Stephen

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Turner, Dennis

    Milburn, Alan

    Tyler, Paul

    Miller, Andrew

    Vaz, Keith

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Walley, Joan

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mudie, George

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mulin, Chris

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Olner, Bill

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neil, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Worthington, Tony

    Parry, Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Patchett, Terry

    Young, David (Botton SE)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pendry, Tom

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pickthall, Colin

    Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Eric Clarke.

    Pike, Peter L

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Franchising Director's consultation document on Passenger Service Requirements which, for the first time, introduces guarantees of service for passengers; supports the

    251
    Government in its determination not to freeze the existing timetable but to create space for the private sector to develop new and additional services based on current timetables which are more attuned to the needs of passengers; supports the Government in its determination to halt the decline in railway use by both passengers and freight customers; and condemns Her Majesty's Opposition for continuing to rely on scare tactics as a substitute for a policy which would enhance passenger services.

    Passenger Services under Rail Privatisation

      HOME ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Home Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

      (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act, and

      (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Bates.]

      JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Peter Butler be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Lady Olga Maitland be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bates.]

    PETITIONS

      Croxteth Country Park Estate
      10.26 pm
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 865 residents of the Croxteth country park estate in Liverpool. Once complete, that private residential housing estate will contain 5,000 homes. However, it lacks a primary school and many of the children must travel to one of 61 other
      252
      primary schools for their education, 40 of them travelling four miles to a school outside Liverpool in the borough of Knowsley. The petition reads:
      To the House of Commons.
      The Petition of the Residents of the Croxteth Country Park Estate in Liverpool,
      Declares that the rapid development of the Croxteth Country Park Estate to accommodate 2,660 new homes necessitates the provision of a new primary school.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons prevails upon the Secretary of State for Education to approve the provision of the Joint Christian Primary School proposed by the Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Church of England Diocese for which there is an undoubted need.
      And the Petitioners remain.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Rate Support Grant Settlement for Wales
      10.28 pm
      Mr. David Hanson: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Joan Henley of 2 The Woodlands, Bryn Celin, Holywell, signed by 2,000 friends of Ysgol Bro Carmel primary school in Holywell to express their concern over the rate support grant settlement for Wales, particularly its effect on education and the cuts that will result in my constituency and Clwyd. The petition reads:
      To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
      The humble petition of the friends of Ysgol Bro Carmel Sheweth that the petitioners feel that the 1995–96 rate support grant settlement for Wales is unsatisfactory.
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House reject the 1995–96 settlement and the rate cap.
      And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      I shall show my support for the aspirations of the petition in the Lobby tomorrow night.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Education Funding (Lancashire)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The subject of the Adjournment is of great importance to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), who are also present.
    It may seem strange that I have chosen the subject of education funding for tonight's debate when we have spent half the day discussing the 1995–96 financial settlement for schools. When I applied for the debate, I did not know how the business would be arranged, but the concern felt in Lancashire certainly warranted both that half-day debate and this short debate. The Minister should be aware that I have received angry letters about current education funding not only from my constituents, but from people in other parts of Lancashire—not only members of the public, but teachers, governors and others who did not necessarily vote for the Labour party in previous elections.
    The 1995–96 settlements have grim implications for Lancashire's capital and revenue expenditure. I should correct some of the wrong impressions that have been given by Conservative Members who represent seats in Lancashire, who spoke in today's debate on funding for schools and in Wednesday's debate on the revenue support grant. The House will recall that a principal part of that debate revolved around educational funding.
    On 27 October, a letter was sent to all hon. Members who represent Lancashire from the chief executive of Lancashire county council, Gordon Johnson, about the capital expenditure plans for 1995–96. Enclosed with that letter was a copy of the detailed bid that had been sent to the Department for Education on 13 October. That bid was in the format prescribed by the Department and went into great detail about basic requirements, cost-effective schemes, special needs schemes and all those other requirements that we believe should concern the Minister and warrant his support.
    The bid for 1995–96 consisted of committed expenditure of £14,395,000 and planned expenditure of another £25,942,000, which made a total bid of £40,337,000. One of the schemes included within that bid was an aided one for St. Theodore's Roman Catholic school in my constituency for extensions and adaptions to satisfy curriculum needs. Applications for that type of scheme are repeated throughout the bid and come from throughout Lancashire. Such schemes are necessary to provide urgently needed adaptions to schools to meet national curriculum requirements. That schools should be unable to meet those requirements is wrong.
    I visited St.Theodore's school and I received a letter on 9 January from its head, Mr. Meehan, in which he reiterated:
    "we have made a bid for capital spending in order to improve our Science and Technology facilities and to provide a second sports/drama area with changing facilities."
    I support that bid. Many other similar bids have been made from throughout the county.
    254
    On 6 January, the chief education officer of Lancashire county council, Andrew Collier, sent me a letter saying:
    "We have received the Annual Capital Guideline for 1995/96 and the picture is indeed grim, as you say in your letter."
    That is the letter that I sent to him.
    "The ACG notified is £8.105 million. We understand that against a bid well in excess of £20 million for improvement replacement work, we have been allocated £384,000 for all improvement replacement work in Lancashire."
    Therefore, about 20 per cent. of Lancashire's bid for capital has been allocated by the Department.
    I am not saying that the Government have treated Lancashire any differently from any other education authority. I accept that Lancashire has received the average figure for education authorities throughout the country. However, I do say to the Minister that if it is insufficient in Lancashire, it is insufficient in every other education authority in the country and the Government must consider it.
    I want to refer to the replacement and repair work needed in two primary schools. I shall quote first from the Burnley Express and News of 31 January 1995. It refers to Rosehill County junior school, a school which I have visited twice in the past couple of months. It says of the toilets in that school:
    "Children are currently faced with pitch-black darkness and cold when they go to the toilet, as well as nasty smells from open drains and leaking roofs … Mr. Pilborough"—
    who is the head—
    "condemned them earlier this month during a visit to the school by chairman of governors Mr. Walter Cook"
    and myself.
    "Yesterday"—
    that was the day before the newspaper article—
    "he said: `funding these days is effectively from Central Government. You cannot blame Lancashire County Council because there's not enough money' … Mr. Pilborough described the toilets as 'disgusting' and 'unhygienic'."
    Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a shop steward in a factory, and if those toilets had been in that factory the people would have refused to work. That standard of toilets is unacceptable for 1995.
    At the weekend, I received a letter from the Rev. Christopher Cheeseman, the chairman of governors of Lowerhouse junior school. He sent me a report that was published by the inspector on 30 January 1995. In the covering letter, he says:
    "At present we have raining in two classrooms and many other roof leaks. The importance is being stressed by the Secretary of State of teaching standards, but no concern seems to be given to make sure authorities have the money for major structural repairs".
    I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from the report by registered inspector Mr. P.D. Edwards, whose inspection took place on 5 to 9 December 1994, because that is a scheme that the Government have set up to inspect schools and consider all aspects of schools. The inspector says in the section referring to accommodation:
    "The building is in an unsatisfactory state. Parts of it are damp, apparently due to a leaking roof and other structural defects. Every classroom has flaking plaster and peeling paint, and in many places the ceiling panels are warped and stained. The corridors are draughty and ill lit and, overall it is a depressing atmosphere in which to work … Two of the worst lavatories have recently been refurbished and these are pleasant. However, some others are malodorous despite regular cleaning, presumably because the surfaces have become porous."

    255
    The final part of that section, referring to pupils' welfare and guidance, said:
    "Some parts of the school are unacceptably cold. Temperatures below 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and as low as 52 degrees Fahrenheit, were measured in a number of classrooms during the week of inspection, when the weather was not exceptionally inclement "
    What an appalling position to be in.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend knows that the horrors that he has described in his constituency are commonplace in Pendle. I have the example of the Laneshaw Bridge primary school, and Eleanor Bleasdale, the headmistress, who has been in touch with me about the toilet block there. There is no way that the county council can afford to recondition that toilet block unless and until it is certified as a hazard to health. That is an appalling state of affairs, which is characteristic of schools throughout the north-west and in Lancashire.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend. I fully accept, and he will appreciate, that I could not possibly read the list of all the schools where major or minor works are needed in Lancashire, because we would have needed a three-hour debate simply to discuss the problems of capital deficiencies for schools in Lancashire. However, I underline those problems.
    I shall now deal with the question of standard spending assessments and revenue funding. I have received a letter from Lea county primary school, Preston. I want to refer to a number of letters which I have received from outside my constituency to show that I am not just arguing the case for Burnley. The letter., which is dated 7 February and is signed by the chair of governors, was faxed to me this morning. It says:
    "Specifically, we are incensed that the government will not meet the full costs of the teachers' pay award. It is intolerable that whilst some teachers may receive a pay rise another may well be made redundant".
    The Minister must respond to that point. I have also received a letter from All Saints Church of England school at Clayton-le-Moors—again, it is not in my constituency—which is signed by the Rev. Philip Dearden, who says:
    "On behalf of the Governors at All Saints Church of England Primary School I wish to express our alarm at the savage cuts in funding for Education in the year ahead. In a typical One Form Entry Primary School of 240 children like ours this will mean a budget cut of approximately £15,000".
    I have also received a letter dated 1 February from the Methodist church in the north Lancashire district. It says:
    "In spite of the threatened cuts Lancashire County Council is anticipating spending 108 per cent. of the standard spending assessment".
    I emphasise that point. It means that the council will spend more on a particular service than is required under the SSA. It intends to spend 108 per cent., yet Conservative Members have attacked the council for the way in which it has reduced the local management of schools budget. If Lancashire were not prepared to spend more than the SSA, it would have to cut funding even more in order to conform to the Government guideline. The letter continues:
    "In addition we cannot accept that, because of the area cost adjustment, the children in Lancashire are worth less (£105 per primary and £145 per secondary child) than children in Hampshire, Essex and Kent".
    256
    I shall return to that important point later. The five main teaching unions in Lancashire are reported in the Burnley Express of 31 January as saying:
    "the Government's funding policies for education will badly hit the quality of lessons".
    That is of great concern to me and to Labour Members of Parliament who represent Lancashire.
    I wish to correct some of the mistaken impressions created by Conservative Members in education debates. It has been claimed that Lancashire has one administrator for every 17 teachers. That allegation is absolute nonsense. The figure includes people dealing with university awards, the youth service, adult education and every other group within the education department. It has nothing to do with schools. The ratio of staff who provide direct services for schools to teachers is 1:74.7, and even if we include the administrations category the ratio is only 1:33.5. It is important that people quote the facts in the future.
    Compared with total spending on education, education costs in Lancashire are among the lowest in the country. That is an important point to remember, and people should get their facts straight if they intend to attack Lancashire council's activities.
    Great play has been made of the fact that Lancashire proposes to cut 5.5 per cent. from the school delegated budget. That will affect school expenditure on equipment and staffing. It will mean larger class sizes and the loss of teaching posts—perhaps as many as 600. The youth service, adult education and discretionary awards will be hit. Lancashire county council does not want to do that, but the responsibility for those cuts lies with the Minister and with the Government.
    Some accusations have been made. The Department talks about surplus places, but it never talks about schools which have an excess of pupils. A number of schools in Lancashire have more pupils than they should. The Government should look at the net figures. We also need to consider the growing population and the increasing number of children. Surplus places now may not be so in a year's time and almost certainly will not be surplus in five years' time.
    The Minister must recognise that, for parental choice to work, there have to be surplus places. Without them, it is impossible. The Minister must also recognise that Lancashire has met all previous Department of Education targets in cutting places.
    Another wrongful claim is that balances held by schools under the local management of schools total £33 million. The figure was £33 million at the end of 1993–94; it is certainly not that now and nobody knows what it will be at the end of the financial year.
    The biggest problem in Lancashire is caused by the area cost adjustment. Using all the other factors in the SSA, the figure for Essex is £2,540.42. The figure for Lancashire is £2,610.92. When the area cost adjustment for Essex of £215.43 is added on, the figure for Essex becomes £2,755.85. But for the area cost adjustment, Lancashire would have a SSA per secondary school £70 per pupil higher than Essex, but because of the area cost adjustment, the figure is actually £145 less.
    We do not believe that the area cost adjustment has been correctly accounted and adjusted for education in Lancashire. We believe that the figure is wrong and is one of the crucial factors affecting the education in Lancashire.

    257
    The position is grim—the grimmest since 1983 when I became Member of Parliament for Burnley—for both capital and revenue. I hope that the Minister will think again and in his response to tonight's short debate give us some good news. However, although I have known him for many years and have a high regard for him, I think that he will disappoint us by adhering to the Tory right-wing Government who put cuts and financial constraints before everything else.
    10.46 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): Perhaps I can begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing the debate and on being flanked on either side by the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) who, with the exception of one intervention, remained in noble but silent support of his speech.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the House discussed earlier today a number of the issues that he has quite properly raised. Due to both the absence of fury from the Opposition during that debate—indeed, the absence of Opposition Members for most of the debate—and the substance of the case put, it was not the best of days for an Opposition seeking to show that in some way the Government had behaved outrageously, but I shall return to that later.
    I welcome the opportunity provided by tonight's short debate to examine one authority in detail. It is useful because Lancashire is a excellent example of an authority where the cry of cuts is largely artificial.
    Lancashire has done slightly better than the national average with an increase in its education standard spending assessment of 1.4 per cent. and, despite the complaint that the Government are forcing the authority to cut budgets, its capping limit allows Lancashire to increase its overall spending next year. The hon. Gentlemen's constituents might reasonably ask why, with a rising education SSA and a rising budget limit, Lancashire county council claims that it is forced to slash £25 million from its schools budget. The answer, simply put in an admittedly complex area, is that the cuts are essentially fictitious.
    Let me stress that the local education authority is not cutting what it is actually spending, but what it would ideally have liked to spend. It has taken its education budget for 1994–95 and inflated it by something like 5 per cent. The council proposes to cut that artificial budget, but when schools are told that they face budget reductions, they are given the impression that they will lose a slice of their existing income. Most of those cuts are an illusion. It is all done by mirrors, as someone once said. But, in fairness, it is an illusion that misleads and can alarm thousands of parents and pupils.
    I have no doubt that when the hon. Gentleman spoke about the correspondence that he had received he was being truthful, but I am suggesting to him tonight that part of that, for reasons to which I have already alluded, is based on a false premise.
    I should also say that Lancashire is not alone in creating that misunderstanding. Several other authorities have created publicity that is far more misleading than that
    258
    created by Lancashire. To its credit, Lancashire has written to its schools explaining its calculations. But for all that, in Lancashire as elsewhere the cuts are not as they are being presented.
    The hon. Gentleman next referred to capital issues. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Pendle that, perhaps unsurprisingly, I do not have with me today the detail on the schools to which both referred, but I undertake to write separately to them with a detailed comment on both the schools that they mentioned. I hope that they will take that in good faith, as it is meant that way.
    As the hon. Member for Burnley may be aware, I met a deputation from Lancashire county council just before Christmas to discuss the capital bid. I told its members, as I repeat to the House today, that LEAs have responsibility in law for the condition of their school property and they rightly look to the Government for part, not all, of the means by which they may maintain, improve and ensure the proper state of the structure of those buildings.
    Overall, the capital budget that we announced for 1995–96 shows an increase of about 3.5 per cent. although, interestingly, for the LEA schools the increase is 6.2 per cent. year on year, which is also on a base which, for 1994–95, has been somewhat reduced as a result of some schools becoming self-governing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, within that figure, there is no significant discrimination against LEA schools and that, secondly, a significant sum against the current financial background has been put to one side.
    The hon. Gentleman understandably makes the ease—1 think that I expected it—that he would wish to see still greater sums provided for borrowing, and he will recognise that, if he were an Opposition spokesman, that additional commitment would require the approval of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). We both recognise that and I submit that the capital budget, within the context of the settlement and public expenditure generally, has been a good one.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, but I shall simply and briefly adumbrate the priorities drawn up some decade ago in conjunction with local authorities. Briefly, they consist of existing schemes and basic need. The hon. Gentleman mentioned basic need—that is tightly defined and it is essential that if an area faces the prospect of more pupils than it has likely available places, there is a mechanism by which that can be resolved. That is why it has a high priority within the capital allocations.
    Following that is the removal of surplus places, and then essentially the balance is distributed by formula for improvement and replacement. On a comparable basis, we look at all the schemes appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman said, and there is no difference between us on it, it turned out that Lancashire had a total annual capital guideline—ACG as it is termed—roughly in line with the national average. That is, in a sense, because its bid roughly reflected the national priorities that I have just described.
    Mr. Pike: How highly does the Minister rate the need to make alterations to schools to meet the requirements of the national curriculum?
    Mr. Squire: I was going to say something about the national curriculum. It is a requirement of law that a

    259
    school delivers the national curriculum. The hon. Gentleman did not say as much, but he might have hinted at it, so I was going to say that the recent revision of the national curriculum did not add to the curriculum, but rather reduced it, so it should not of itself have created the need for greater expenditure. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a school cannot currently deliver it, that is a serious matter. Without wanting to be repetitious, I should say that responsibility lies with the LEA to ensure that schools can deliver the national curriculum.
    I have set out briefly, I hope, the priorities within which capital moneys are allocated by the Government. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are other sources open to most councils most years: capital receipts, transfers from revenue and so on. If he wishes separately to pursue that point with me outside the House, I should be happy to go into further detail on it.
    I do not wish to reiterate past debates, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although the comparative figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment showed that Lancashire was one of the authorities in England with a relatively high proportion of staff per head. That is simply a question of looking at tables. We do not need to bandy figures across the Chamber. It is neither my responsibility nor, arguably, the hon. Gentleman's, but it is a matter which—if true—the local authority would wish to address when it looks at what is or what it deems to be essential reductions in front-line services.
    I now deal with the revenue items that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He made the point, understandably, that he would like the SSA for Lancashire to be higher. I suppose that it is true to say that every one of the 109 authorities would say the same about its own area cost adjustment. He highlighted what he considers to be unfair—that is, the operation of the ACA. There is no mystery about it. Every single local authority accepts the need for a means to reimburse councils—broadly speaking, they are in London and the south-east—for their inevitably higher costs, not just in teacher salaries, but in staff salaries across the board and a number of other attendant costs.
    260
    I would concede—again, it is no great secret—that although every LEA accepts that there is a higher cost, I do not suppose that any LEA, whether it is a recipient or not, would agree with the specific method of assessing ACA. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated that they are looking further at that for the forthcoming year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that a central drawback of making comparisons between, if one likes, a non-ACA authority and an ACA authority is that one cannot end up saying that it is wrong that Essex should get more money per pupil than Lancashire simply because it gets ACA. It is a fact that the cost of running a school in Essex will he higher than in Lancashire. I concede also that there are other essential costs in running schools. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the SSA system seeks to reflect that as well within the overall system, and in some other areas, depending on what they are, Essex receives slightly less per pupil than Lancashire.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned surplus places. He said that we should look at areas where there are not only surplus places but deficiencies. As I have already said, basic need is an essential priority within capital. It remains so. I do not think, therefore, that it is a question of netting off. We expect authorities, in their interests and those of the children and parents, to look at where they can bring forward the removal of surplus place schemes, which are cost-effective. Despite what was said in the earlier debate, the overwhelming majority of those schemes do not result in a significant number of schools becoming grant-maintained or self-governing. They are considered on their merits, and a number of LEAs can confirm that those schemes have been put forward, assessed by the Secretary of State and subsequently approved.
    I believe that the hon. Gentleman has done us a service by initiating this short debate tonight—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many new justices of the peace were appointed in Wales during 1994; and what is the political affiliation of the new appointees.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor appointed 116 new justices of the peace in Wales during 1994. The political affiliation of these appointees was as follows:

  Party

  Number

  Conservative

  24

  Labour

  50

  Liberal Democrat

  19

  Plaid Cymru

  8

  Independent/not known

  15

DEFENCE

  Service Children's Education Authority
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment has been made of the list of admissible schools by the Service Children's Education Authority in the light of(a) the Her Majesty's inspectorate and Office for Standards in Education reports and (b) the league table of examination results.

  Mr. Soames
  No reassessment of the admissible schools list has been made in the light of the Her Majesty's inspectorate and Office for Standards in Education reports and the league table of examination results. The Service Children's Education Authority makes Ofsted reports available to service parents, and examination league tables are provided on request.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made by the Service Children's Education Authority of the provision for the education and welfare of service children at(a) Rodney school, Nottinghamshire, and (b) Finborough school, Suffolk.

  Mr. Soames
  The Service Children's Education Authority does not assess the provision of education and welfare at schools. Such assessments are the responsibility of the Department for Education, Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Office for Standards in Education. SCEA offers an advisory service to parents whose children already attend boarding schools and to those who are considering a boarding education for their children.

  Aircraft Orders
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many orders have been placed with aircraft companies to replace Royal Air Force Wessex helicopters; when those orders were made; and when the aircraft will be delivered;

  (2) how many orders have been placed to replace the Wessex helicopters on the Queen's Flight; when those orders were made; and when they will be delivered;

  (3) what plans he has to replace Wessex helicopters in the Queen's Flight;

  (4) what plans he has to replace Wessex helicopters in the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  Current plans assume that all UK-based RAF Wessex helicopters, including those in the Queen's Flight, will be replaced by the turn of the century. The Wessex unit in Cyprus is planned to be replaced early next century. An order was placed in October 1992 for six Sea King helicopters which, with the RAF's existing Sea King fleet, will replace Wessex in the search and rescue role. The Sea Kings are due to be delivered this year. Options for the replacement of Wessex in other roles remain under consideration. No orders have been placed.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the policy on corporal punishment in assessing the suitability of schools for children receiving the service schools boarding allowance.

  Mr. Soames
  Corporal punishment is a matter between individual schools and service parents; it does not affect the eligibility criteria for boarding school allowance. The Service Children's Education Authority is happy to advise service parents on schools' policies relating to corporal punishment.

  Joint Services Command
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 291, what appraisal was made by his Department of the merits of local schools and medical services in (a) Camberley, (b) Greenwich and (c) Bracknell.

  Mr. Soames
  As I explained in my previous answer, the key assessment that we have made in respect of schools and medical services is the extent to which students at the proposed joint services command and staff college, and their families, could benefit from ready access to common facilities.

  The married quarters serving Bracknell and Camberley are close to the college, so students' children form a significant proportion of the local school population. As a result, some schools have been able to make special provision to cater for this group, such as adjusting the teaching year to coincide with that of the college's, and providing special language and cultural training for the children of foreign students. In Greenwich, however, the married quarters supporting the college are dispersed and situated outside the borough, so no appraisal of the merits of Greenwich schools was appropriate.

  Medical care is available on a simillar basis to officers, and their families, at all three sites, but, again, the relative proximity of the associated married quarters to the

  121
  colleges at Bracknell and Camberley makes access to common medical services much easier

  Secondment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which individuals have been seconded from the private sector to the Defence Export Services Organisation; and, since January 1992, what were the dates of such secondments and the company or organisation from which each individual was seconded.

  Mr. Freeman
  Further to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 778, both the head of the organisation and the offset adviser have been seconded from British Aerospace since September 1994 and October 1993 respectively. The international financial adviser joined the DESO on a short-term contract in April 1992.

  Awards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is able to give details of the new award to recognise conspicuous gallantry and heroism by members of the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the institution of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross to recognise conspicuous gallantry and great heroism by members of the armed forces. This award will replace the Distinguished Service Order, when awarded to officers for specific acts of gallantry, the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying). It will apply to all three services, and will be open to service men and women of any rank.

  The Distinguished Service Order is to be retained across all three services as an award in recognition of exceptional service in positions of substantial responsibility for command and leadership during active operations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in the last six months from the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain about the United Kingdom's political asylum laws, procedures and decisions on individuals.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Saudi and Bahrain Governments have raised with us the presence in the United Kingdom of some of their nationals. We have explained United Kingdom asylum procedures to them. Decisions on individual cases are a matter for the Home Office.

  Drugs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that United Kingdom security assistance provided for drug control purposes does not 122
  contribute to human rights violations in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  Requests from overseas Governments for United Kingdom drugs-related assistance are carefully considered against a number of criteria. These include the human rights record of the country concerned.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of resources has been denied to the Government of Gibraltar by the loss of the dockyard and other reductions in the forces over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is generally estimated that, at its peak, the Ministry of Defence contribution to the Gibraltar economy was about 50 per cent. It is currently estimated at about 10 per cent. More detailed figures are not available.

  Dr. Hulak Gerger
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey about the imprisonment without trial of Dr. Haluk Gerger, General Secretary of the United Nations Association of Turkey; and what response he received from the Turkish Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have not raised this specific case, but we take every opportunity to make our concerns on human rights known to the Turkish Government. The Foreign Secretary last did so when he met the Turkish Foreign Minister in London on 2 February. We are following closely the Turkish Government's programme of democratisation measures.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reasons for the current decline in Rockhopper penguin numbers in the Falkland Islands; and which other penguin species are similarly affected.

  Mr. Baldry
  Assessments carried out on the reasons for the current decline in Rockhopper penguins are inconclusive. Two major reasons for the decline, which is not confined to the Falklands, have been put forward: first, changes in ocean temperatures, possibly related to the El Nino phenomenon; and, secondly, a natural cycle of decline similar to those previously recorded, which have been followed by an upturn.

  No major penguin species on the Falkland Islands have suffered significant decline. Detailed surveys of penguin colonies are being conducted by the organisation Falkland Conservation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to avoid over fishing in Falkland Islands waters; and which countries are currently licensed to fish in those waters.

  Mr. Baldry
  Fishing in Falkland Islands waters is closely controlled by the Falkland Islands Government through a strict licensing regime that limits fishing effort to safe levels. Scientific evaluation of the sustainable development of the fishery is carried out, under contract
  123
  to the Falkland Islands Government, by Imperial College and the British Antarctic Survey. The Falkland Islands Government operate two fishery protection aircraft and, depending on the season, either one or two fishery protection vessels.

  Vessels from the following are licensed to fish in Falkland waters during 1995:

  Belize Chile

  Falkland Islands

  France Honduras

  Italy

  Japan

  Korea

  Panama

  Poland

  Portugal

  Spain

  Taiwan

  Fur Seals, South Georgia
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration is being given to a cull of fur seals on South Georgia.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no plans for a cull. The British Antarctic Survey is studying the population dynamics of fur seals and their impact on terrestrial and marine eco-systems.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in the ECOWAS monitoring group initiative in Liberia have indicated that they will withdraw their troops unless there is progress in the peace process or financial assistance is given.

  Mr. Baldry
  Many ECOMOG troop contributing countries have voiced their frustration with the lack of progress in the peace process and have indicated that they are not prepared to enter into an open-ended commitment in Liberia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further financial contribution is being made by(a) the United Nations or (b) other bodies to alleviate the financial hardships being suffered by those countries contributing forces to the ECOWAS monitoring group initiative in Liberia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The UN trust fund for Liberia was set up to help offset ECOMOG's costs. So far, only five countries, including the United Kingdom, have contributed. The UN Secretary-General has appealed for further donations. I am not aware of any other bodies outside the Economic Community of West African States that have given financial help for ECOMOG.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Faraday Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide additional resources to 124
  enable the Faraday station to stockpile sufficient quantities of baked beans to last until the closure of the station.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The provisioning of the United Kingdom's Antarctic stations is the responsibility of the Natural Environment Research Council and its institute, the British Antarctic Survey.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when the House was informed of the proposal to transfer Faraday station to the Ukraine;

  (2) who took the decision to hand over Faraday station to the Ukraine; when it was taken; and what are the terms of the transfer.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The House was informed of the decision to close Faraday from March 1996, as a manned station, by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, on 19 May 1993,Official Report, columns 157–58.

  Subsequently, the possibility of transfer of the station as a working unit to another operator was explored by the Foreign Office. Negotiations with the Ukrainians were opened following authorisation by the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in June 1994. These have yet to be concluded.

  The terms of the transfer are still subject to negotiation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what guarantees he is able to give that the scientific work currently being carried out by the Faraday station will continue after 1995–96;

  (2) what scientific work on the ozone layer is carried out by staff at the Faraday station; and who will carry out this work after the station closes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  If the Faraday station is closed as a manned station, the British Antarctic Survey will complete the development of automated data collection systems, which will enable key long-term meteorological and magnetic observations to be completed at Faraday.

  Should negotiations for the transfer of the station to the Ukrainians prove successful, their scientists will, after training, carry out the existing scientific measurements at Faraday and transfer the resulting data to the United Kingdom.

  Ozone measurements have been carried out for many years at Faraday. The monitoring programme will either continue in that location or be transferred to Rothera island.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each Department and agency the average days of sick leave and the index figure taking the civil service average as 100.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Data on sickness absence is submitted to the civil service Occupational Health and Safety Agency by Departments and agencies on a voluntary basis. The tables show, for 1993, the average days of sick leave and the index figure taking the civil service average as 100 for participating Departments and agencies.
  125

  Ranked working days absence for departments by departmental size

  Figure

  Average Days sick leave

  Staff years

  Index CS average = 100

  Departments of 10,000 + staff

  190

  Inland Revenue

  7.71

  66,392

  76

  058

  MOD

  8.71

  84,726

  86

  180

  Customs and Excise

  8.75

  26,222

  86

  185

  Department of Trade and Industry

  8.90

  12,112

  88

  076

  Home Office

  10.60

  47,141

  105

  093

  Department of Transport

  10.70

  13,588

  106

  048

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  11.80

  13,048

  116

  528

  Employment Service (DE)

  12.27

  48,516

  121

  537

  SS Benefits Agency (DSS)

  12.81

  69,371

  126

  Departments of 5,000-10,000 staff

  165

  Department of Environment

  8.14

  6,307

  80

  422

  Crown Prosecution Service

  8.21

  6,572

  81

  140

  MAFF

  8.45

  7,889

  83

  427

  Department of Health

  9.74

  5,194

  96

  091

  Scottish Office

  10.33

  6,298

  102

  125

  Employment Department

  10.58

  7,620

  104

  538

  SS Contributions Agency (DSS)

  11.03

  9,851

  109

  532

  Land Registry

  12.38

  9,228

  122

  379

  National Savings Department

  14.81

  6,110

  146

  Departments of 1,000-5,000 staff

  551

  ADAS (MAFF)

  7.08

  2,135

  70

  040

  HM Treasury

  7.14

  1,683

  70

  570

  Building Management (PSA)

  8.37

  3,452

  83

  521

  Met Office (MOD)

  8.74

  2,516

  86

  119

  Health and Safety Executive

  8.76

  4,632

  86

  116

  Crown Office and Proc Fiso (SO)

  8.84

  1,044

  87

  430

  Central Statistical Office

  8.91

  1,317

  88

  531

  Ordinance Survey

  9.04

  2,275

  89

  061

  ODA

  9.14

  1,285

  90

  523

  IT Services Agency (DSS)

  9.35

  4,186

  92

  426

  DSS

  9.51

  3,075

  94

  567

  SS Child Support Agency (DSS)

  9.79

  3,628

  97

  102

  Department for Education

  9.82

  2,135

  97

  392

  Welsh Office

  10.13

  2,326

  100

  123

  OPCS

  10.67

  2,128

  105

  139

  Intervention Board

  11.93

  1,023

  118

  432

  Scottish Prison Service

  15.29

  4,533

  151

  516

  Registers of Scotland (SO)

  15.90

  1,268

  157

  Departments of 500-1,000 staff

  512

  Natural Resources Institute (ODA)

  4.82

  548

  48

  447

  OFSTED

  5.50

  543

  54

  443

  OPSS (Cabinet Office)

  5.54

  618

  55

  166

  PSA

  6.28

  854

  62

  515

  Central Office of Information (HMT)

  7.23

  570

  71

  564

  Planning Inspectorate (DOE)

  7.71

  582

  76

  124

  ACAS

  8.98

  681

  89

  526

  Central Vet Lab (MAFF)

  9.48

  619

  94

  002

  Charity Commission

  10.03

  693

  99

  011

  Paymaster General Office

  10.41

  877

  103

  146

  Export Credits Guarantee

  10.94

  598

  108

  050

  Scottish Courts Service

  12.53

  812

  124

  Departments of 200-500 staff

  507

  CS College (OPSS)

  4.85

  257

  48

  530

  Royal Mint

  5.69

  370

  56

  195

  National Heritage

  5.77

  311

  57

  055

  North Ireland Office

  6.22

  204

  61

  001

  Cabinet Office

  7.02

  406

  69

  445

  Government Centre for Information Systems

  8.19

  391

  81

  077

  Treasury Solicitor Department

  8.22

  377

  81

  434

  Office of Electrical Reg.

  8.55

  229

  84

  144

  Crown Estate Office

  8.58

  204

  85

  577

  Chessington CC (OPSS)

  8.63

  441

  85

  054

  Fair Trading Office

  9.40

  420

  93

  508

  Hist Royal Palaces (DNH)

  10.28

  411

  101

  056

  Scottish Courts Administration

  10.54

  216

  104

  131

  Gen. Register Office (SO)

  10.86

  274

  107

  126 127

  Ranked working days absence for departments by departmental size

  Figure

  Average Days sick leave

  Staff years

  Index CS average = 100

  013

  Public Record Office

  11.23

  470

  111

  506

  Resettlement Agency (DSS)

  14.64

  319

  14S

  Departments of 1–200 staff

  075

  Legal Secretariat

  1.95

  29

  19

  509

  QE II Conf. Centre (DOE)

  2.45

  8

  24

  005

  Government Actuary Department

  3.31

  78

  33

  423

  OFGAS

  3.75

  43

  37

  085

  Lord Advocates Department (SO)

  6.35

  19

  63

  503

  HMSO

  6.52

  7

  64

  012

  Privy Council Office

  6.61

  36

  65

  583

  Government Property Lawyers (TSOL)

  6.98

  124

  69

  510

  OHS (OPSS)

  7.17

  104

  71

  429

  OFWAT

  7.46

  145

  74

  424

  Serious Fraud Office

  9.47

  170

  93

  205

  Telecoms Office

  10.04

  140

  99

  205

  Scottish Record Office

  10.14

  129

  100

  120

  Friendly Societies Reg.

  10.98

  165

  108

  028

  Investment and Loans Office

  12.55

  38

  124

  539

  RASA (Cabinet Office)

  12.94

  167

  128

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the bodies with contractor or agency roles for Government that(a) can be put into receivership or (b) can fail to pay sums due under contract for services meeting Government commitments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Large numbers of private companies and other independent organisations provide goods or services for the Government. Listing them would involve disproportionate cost.

  Abandoned Bases (Antarctica)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much has been allocated in the last two years to clean up abandoned former British bases in Antarctica;

  (2) if he will list all British Antarctic stations now abandoned; and if all the necessary clean up work has been completed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No specific funds have been earmarked for this purpose from within annual recurrent expenditure. The list of British abandoned bases is provided in the table. Some clean-up work has been undertaken, although not a full programme.

  Base

  Date established

  Port Lockroy

  1944

  Deception Island

  1944

  Hope Bay

  1945

  Sandefjord Bay

  1945

  Cape Geddes

  1946

  Stonington Island

  1946

  Argentine Island, Winter Island

  1947

  Admiralty Bay

  1947

  View Point

  1953

  Horseshoe Island

  1955

  Danco Island

  1956

  Portal Point

  1956

  Detaille Island

  1956

  Prospect Point

  1957

  128

  Base

  Date established

  Orford Cliff Hut (Refuge)

  1957

  Blaicklock Hut (Refuge)

  1957

  Halley Station IV (inaccessible)

  1984

  British Antarctic Survey
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grant was made to the British Antarctic Survey in 1994–95; and what is the proposed grant for 1995–96.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The science budget allocation for the British Antarctic Survey in 1994–95 was £24.379 million. The planning figure for the science budget allocation for 1995–96 is £25.87 million.

  Duchy of Lancaster "Forward Look"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the next "Forward Look" will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has recently written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to confirm that the next "Forward Look" of Government-funded science, engineering and technology, will be published in May 1995.

  This is to be a permanent change from the arrangements proposed in the White Paper "Realising our Potential" which envisaged a publication date in April each year. This slight adjustment in timing will enable the "Forward Look" to link more effectively with annual public expenditure surveys.

  National Science Week
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 4, what proportion of the £195,000 allocated in support of the national week of science, engineering and technology was given in grants;

  129
  what number of applications were unsuccessful; and what would their total costs have amounted to.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Of the £195,000 the Office of Science and Technology has allocated in support of the 1995 national week of science, engineering and technology—SET 95–£50,000 was made available to the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science as additional funding for grants in direct support of SET 95. Some 102 applications were unsuccessful, whose total costs would have amounted to nearly £167,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Nitrates
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the justification for the setting of limits to nitrate levels in vegetables.

  Mrs. Browning
  I see no justification for setting limits while the EC scientific committee for food is still considering the issue. We have made it very clear to the Commission that we oppose the proposal both because no scientific case has been established for it and because of the serious effects that it would cause to our glasshouse lettuce industry. The Commission is accordingly reconsidering the matter.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement about the objective of the trials currently taking place on bovine somatotropin in the United Kingdom; how my trials are taking place; in which counties they are taking place; what companies are sponsoring the trials; and what measures he is taking to ensure that milk from cows being treated with BST in the trials is not entering the food chain;

  (2) whether the trials for bovine somatotropin in the United Kingdom will continue following the EU Agriculture Council's decision to continue the moratorium until 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  No trials are currently being undertaken on bovine somatotropin in cows in the UK. The decision of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to extend the moratorium on BST until 31 December 1999 also allowed limited practical tests to be carried out under certain conditions. Details of any such tests and how they might be conducted have yet to be worked out.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many flights had taken place from Coventry airport carrying live animals to Europe in the year to 21 December 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is not available. It could be provided only by the air operators concerned.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent information about 130
  research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies he has received from the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As part of its continuing work to maintain an overview of research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, the independent spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee has produced a report which summarises what is now known about TSEs. The report provides an insight into research both completed and under way.

  I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The report has been published by HMSO.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing, West Midlands
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated number of dwellings for rent in the public sector and scheduled to be built in the next year in each of the West Midlands district council areas; and what are the current housing waiting lists for each of those councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest available figures for
  local authority and other public sector housing stock and on the numbers waiting for housing in districts in the west midlands relate to 1 April 1994 and can be found in the "1994 HIP1 All Items Prints", a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates of local authority and other public sector bodies' proposals to build new dwellings are not held centrally.

  In addition, there were a total of 71,000 housing association dwellings in the west midlands region—46,000 in the west midlands county—at 31 March 1994. The forecast for housing association new build starts in the west midlands in 1995–96 is 1,800, and 1,100 in the west midlands county.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current numbers on local authority housing waiting lists, broken down by local authority, as registered on the 1994 housing investment programme returns from local authorities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested on the numbers of households on local authority housing waiting lists at 1 April 1994 can be found in section B of the "1994 HIP1 All Items Prints", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Oxygenated Petrol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has carried out into oxygenated petrol; what plans for research into the environmental suitability of oxygenated petrol he has; and if he will make a statement.
  131
  Mr. Atkins
  The environmental case for oxygenated fuel is not yet clear. The Government will keep it under review. We are participating fully in the setting of standards for fuel formulation at a European level, in particular in the light of the forthcoming report from the European tripartite initiative on future engine and fuel technologies.

  Redundancy Compensation
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the reasons for the differences between the proposed compensation package offered for staff made redundant in the current local government reorganisation and that offered in the 1986 package, with special reference to(a) maximum payments and (b) discretionary payments for those over 50 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Any compensation scheme must be tailored to the specific circumstances to which it applies, and should be viewed as a whole. We have provided a compensation package for the current reorganisation which in all the circumstances is fair to employees and affordable for the local authorities and taxpayers.

  Construction Contracting
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association about the need for legislation on construction contracting in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, more than 60 letters have been received since September 1994 on this subject from members of the constructors liaison group of which the HVCA is a component part. Later today my right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of all sectors of the construction industry to discuss this and other issues arising from the Latham report.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had with the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People regarding the effect of payments by councils in lieu of community care on local authorities' budgets;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People regarding increases in standard spending assessments to offset the costs on local authorities for disabled people not in care.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced in November her intention to allow local authorities to make direct payments to disabled people in lieu of services. My Department has discussed with the Department of Health the effects of this proposal on local authorities' budgets. As any powers to make direct payments will be permissive and will involve the same assessment procedures as now, I am satisfied that there will be no additional need for resources.

  Test Valley
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his inspector will report on the Test valley local plan.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of information on inspectors reports on objections to development plans is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Christopher Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Michael Colvin, dated 3 February 1995

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION No. 1036: 2 FEBRUARY 1995

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Test Valley Borough Local Plan.

  The long inquiry into objections to the Test Valley Borough Local Plan opened on 11 May 1993, and closed on 22 December 1993 after 100 inquiry sitting days and site visit days. Some 1,600 written objections were lodged in addition to those heard at the inquiry, which have to be examined by Inspectors and reported on with recommendations to the Council.

  The report is expected to be issued to the Council in mid-February 1995. By using a second Inspector, this is several months in advance of the date by which the report would normally be expected given the scale of the inquiry and the large number of written objections to be considered.

  In view of your interest I will arrange for you to be advised of the date of despatch of the report to the Council.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the saving to public funds if the Ordnance Survey were privatised.

  Mr. Atkins
  The first review of Ordnance Survey's performance as an executive agency was carried ow: in 1994. It concluded that agency status had been a spur to significant improvements in performance. Consultants employed to look at options for the future status of Ordnance Survey assessed that it would continue to progress well with its current status and recommended that it should remain an executive agency for the time being. The consultants believed that privatisation offered potential benefits as well as disadvantages but found that various obstacles precluded any change of status in the immediate future. They were unable, at that time, to quantify the full costs of privatisation or subsequent savings to public funds. Government accepted these recommendations and OS will remain an agency for the next four years at least. In the meantime, I have tasked the chief executive of Ordnance Survey with investigating the obstacles to privatisation so that these costs and benefits can be established.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 210, if he will list the local authorities which have conducted a ballot on proposed large-scale voluntary transfer of their housing stock and, in each case, the number of tenants eligible to vote, the number of those participating and the number of those voting for and against the proposed transfer.
  133
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since 1988, 64 local authorities have conducted tenant ballots on proposed large-scale voluntary transfers. These authorities are listed, with details of the number of properties involved, the rate of tenant participation in the ballot and the proportion of tenants voting for and against the proposal.

  Large scale voluntary transfers—successful ballot results

  Authority

  Number of dwellings

  Participation rate (per cent.)

  Votes in favour (per cent.)

  Votes against (per cent.)

  Chiltern

  4,650

  71

  85

  15

  Newbury

  7,053

  87

  82

  18

  Sevenoaks

  6,526

  80

  85

  15

  Broadland

  3,721

  84

  53

  47

  East Dorset

  2,245

  85

  84

  16

  Medina

  2,825

  84

  69

  31

  Mid Sussex

  4,426

  80

  77

  22

  North Bedfordshire

  7,472

  73

  72

  28

  Rochester

  8,029

  76

  60

  40

  South Wight

  2,119

  89

  91

  9

  Swale

  7,352

  80

  82

  18

  Christchurch

  1,621

  76

  54

  46

  Ryedale

  3,353

  83

  82

  18

  South Buckinghamshire

  3,319

  82

  75

  25

  Suffolk Coastal

  5,272

  78

  57

  43

  Tonbridge and Malling

  6,382

  76

  71

  29

  Bromley

  12,393

  76

  55

  45

  Tunbridge Wells1

  5,519

  80

  60

  40

  5,519

  81

  52

  48

  Breckland

  6,781

  81

  62

  38

  East Cambridgeshire

  4,266

  82

  70

  30

  Surrey Heath

  2,885

  78

  55

  45

  West Dorset

  5,279

  84

  65

  35

  Epsom and Ewell

  1,740

  75

  53

  47

  Hambleton

  4,268

  84

  66

  34

  Hart

  2,408

  81

  76

  24

  Havant

  3,561

  81

  51

  49

  Hertsmere2

  4,370

  81

  78

  12

  1,700

  89

  76

  24

  Leominster

  1,832

  84

  87

  13

  Penwith

  3,354

  89

  65

  35

  South Ribble

  3,445

  76

  77

  23

  South Shropshire

  1,500

  82

  69

  31

  Mid Bedfordshire2

  3,976

  80

  73

  27

  North Dorset

  2,881

  84

  55

  45

  Thanet2

  1,760

  91

  51

  49

  Wychavon2

  4,020

  76

  81

  19

  2,543

  75

  54

  46

  Basingstoke and Deane2

  4,850

  72

  52

  48

  4,850

  77

  60

  40

  Windsor and Maidenhead2

  3,250

  81

  60

  40

  3,250

  80

  54

  46

  Vale of White Horse

  5,028

  82

  67

  33

  Maldon

  2,050

  80

  83

  17

  Malvern Hills

  4,867

  80

  83

  17

  Kennet

  4,996

  83

  87

  13

  Rushmoor

  5,300

  75

  69

  31

  1 Held two consecutive ballots

  2 Proposed split transfer to two housing associations. Two ballots held.

  Unsuccessful Ballot Results

  Authority

  Number of dwellings

  Participation rate (per cent.)

  Votes in favour (per cent.)

  Votes against (per cent.)

  Rochford

  2,343

  87

  7

  93

  Salisbury

  7,795

  77

  25

  75

  Torbay

  3,425

  59

  27

  73

  Arun

  3,569

  81

  25

  75

  Brentwood

  3,269

  88

  20

  80

  Canterbury

  6,228

  79

  25

  75

  Redbridge

  8,165

  73

  30

  70

  Three Rivers

  5,534

  86

  25

  75

  Bournemouth

  6,300

  84

  32

  68

  134
  The Department does not keep a central record of the number of tenants eligible to vote in each transfer, the actual number of votes cast or the actual numbers of tenants voting for and against each proposal.
  135

  Unsuccessful Ballot Results

  Authority

  Number of dwellings

  Participation rate (per cent.)

  Votes in favour (per cent.)

  Votes against (per cent.)

  North Kestevan

  4,800

  85

  44

  56

  South Holland

  4,819

  80

  37

  63

  Wokingham

  3,431

  75

  30

  70

  Hillingdon

  14,500

  79

  20

  80

  Kingston

  6,432

  44

  39

  61

  Woodspring

  7,922

  75

  29

  71

  Maidstone1

  4,000

  81

  41

  59

  4,000

  84

  41

  59

  Mendip

  5,100

  79

  49

  51

  Rother

  3,733

  79

  45

  55

  Westminster

  674

  68

  31

  69

  Poole1

  1,400

  92

  73

  27

  4,000

  86

  39

  61

  Mid Bedfordshire1

  4,907

  78

  48

  52

  Thanet1

  4,850

  80

  37

  63

  Cherwell1

  3,274

  83

  37

  63

  3,692

  77

  43

  57

  Castle Point

  1,877

  81

  17

  83

  1 Proposed split transfer to two housing associations. Two ballots held.

  River Quality
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to maintain recent improvements in river quality in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have in hand a major programme for water quality improvement. Between 1989 and 2005 the water companies are spending an average of some £3 billion a year, much of it of benefit to water quality. The National Rivers Authority has since 1989 been able to bring a co-ordinated approach to discharge consenting and the other means it has of bringing about improvement. Other dischargers and farmers are taking steps that benefit water quality, much of it voluntary in response to codes of practice rather than regulation. The results are shown in the more than 15 per cent. net improvement in river quality that the NRA estimates took place between 1990 and 1993. These efforts will be continuing and we are going further than required by legislation, as is shown by the more than £500 million that water companies will be spending up to 2000 to bring about additional river quality improvement.

  At the time of privatisation of the water industry in 1989, we provided a further mechanism for co-ordinating and prioritising improvement, in the form of statutory water quality objectives—SWQOs. Last May, the Government put in place the new classification system inter alia as the framework for SWQOs. We now intend to consult formally on proposals for a small set of SWQOs which will allow us to test the operation of the system on a pilot basis. The final details are being agreed with the NRA.

  The proposals will specify the improvements to be achieved in each case and the timetable for achieving them. With the help of the NRA, I shall also identify the specific actions that will be needed, with a preliminary assessment of the likely costs and benefits. There will then be a three-month period within which any interested person or body may comment, including by offering further information on costs and benefits. I shall than decide whether and in what form to make the SWQO. In controversial cases, I may arrange for a local inquiry before reaching my decision.
  136
  The implementation procedures, and practical operation of the statutory objectives in the initial limited pilot group of catchments will be assessed before any decision is made on whether SWQOs should be introduced on a wider basis. The Government are also considering the development of proposals for economic instruments for water pollution and abstraction. Our intention on both national water regulation, including SWQOs, and economic instruments will need to take into account the way in which water legislation is developing in the European Community.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish another state of the construction industry report.

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest state of the construction industry report, produced jointly by my Department and representatives of the construction industry, has just been completed. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Crown Estate Meeting
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 174, what was the purpose of the meeting held on 26 May 1994 at the Crown Estate between English Nature, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Crown Estate; and what conservation groups were invited to this meeting.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]The informal discussions were to identify the key issues regarding the current process for leasing the foreshore for wildfowling. Conservation groups were subsequently consulted.

  Tidal Land (Conservation)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conservation groups have been invited to participate in the Crown Estate's joint group on wildfowling and conservation on tidal land lease application procedures.
  137
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]English Nature is a member of the joint group. Voluntary bodies are being consulted on the new draft procedures, which it is hoped will be extended to all foreshore leases granted by the Crown Estate.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Treasury on Monday 6 February 1995,Official Report, column 69.

  Environmental Claims
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environmental when he initiated a report by the National Consumer Council on the issue of environmental claims and related issues; when the findings will be made public; and what actions the Government will take to address the report findings.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are discussing with the National Consumer Council the detailed specification for a study into the effectiveness of controls over the making of environmental claims. The study should be concluded in the summer. We will decide nearer the time how best to make the findings known and what action might be needed to follow them up.

  Planning Funds
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 763, what plans he has to restrict the use to which local authorities may put planning gain money to the geographical area of the consent in question; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans to introduce such restrictions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

  Constitutional Change
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what constitutional change he proposes should take place in the United Kingdom before the end of the century.
  138
  The Prime Minister
  Any proposals for constitutional change will be put before Parliament when it is appropriate to do so.

  Staff Inquiry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister between what dates Ms Baxendale served on the Scott inquiry team; and if he will list the members and grades and originating departments of the current team.

  The Prime Minister
  Miss Presiley Baxendale QC has worked on Sir Richard Scott's inquiry from 18 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 inclusive, and from 2 May 1994 to 13 May 1994 inclusive and thereafter from time to time as the need arises.

  The current members of the inquiry team are:

  Department

  Christopher Muttukumaru (Grade 5)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  David Price (Grade 5)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Peter Edwards (Legal Officer)

  Inland Revenue Solicitor's Office

  Karen Wiseman (Grade 7 (Legal))

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Catherine Southern (Grade 7 (Legal))

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Christopher Stone (HEO)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Mufassir Mohammed (EO)

  Department of the Environment

  Sonia Octave (AO)

  Home Office

  Joanne Bishop (AA)

  Home Office

  Velma Bernard (Personal Secretary)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Wendy Moore (Personal Secretary)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Downing Street Policy Unit
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister from what sources the head of the Downing street policy unit is paid; and if he will make a statement on the division of his role in relation to official and party matters.

  The Prime Minister
  The head of the Downing street policy unit is paid from the Cabinet Office other services vote as a special adviser. Like other special advisers, and like his predecessors under this and previous Administrations, he assists me with work which is partly governmental and partly political.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister what funds are available other than funds available through the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the current financial year for coastal protection and repair.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Official Report, column 85, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Official Report, column 12.

  Deception Island
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans exist to clean up the site of the former British whaling station on Deception island.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Further work on the clean up of the former British station on Deception island is planned for 1996–97, subject to the allocation of funds and the co-operation of the other Antarctic treaty partners involved.

  Pay Rises (Utilities)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to establish a committee to examine utility directors' and chairmen's pay rises, pension contributions and share options.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]No. As I have previously made clear, private sector salaries and other remuneration are a matter for companies and their shareholders to decide, not the Government. We welcome the establishment of Sir Richard Greenbury's group, which will prepare a code of good practice on directors' pay and conditions, and the recent contribution made by the Institute of Directors.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b)M the date.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury,Official Report, column 69.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radioactive Waste Shipments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the United Kingdom will be liable in the event of an accident resulting in radioactive contamination from the imminent shipment of vitrified high-level radioactive waste from France to Japan on a BNFL/PNTL ship.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If nuclear injury or damage occurs in the course of carriage of cargoes by PNTL in a country which is not a party to the Paris convention on nuclear liability, there is a possibility of claims against BNFL/PNTL, as the carrier.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The figures for the Department, excluding the following executive agencies—Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory, the 140
  National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the Patent Office and the Radiocommunications Agency—but including the Accounts Services Agency and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist are set out in the table. The figures include only those staff who have chosen to declare that they have a disability or long-term health condition.

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Total number of disabled staff

  Total number of staff

  Number

  52

  146

  198

  6,449

  Per cent, of total staff

  0.8

  2.3

  3.1

  —

  I have asked the chief executives of Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Weights and Measures laboratory, the Patent Office and the Radiocommunications Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. John McAllion, dated 7 February 1995

  You recently tabled the following Parliamentary Question:

  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibiliy are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, Focus on Ability."

  I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.

  The figures are set out below, and include only those staff who have chosen to declare that they have a disability or long-term health condition.

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Total number of disabled staff

  Total number of staff

  Number

  14

  13

  27

  1,143

  Per cent, of total staff

  1.23

  1.13

  2.36

  —

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. John McAllion, dated 31 January 1995

  The president of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of proportion of non-industrial civil servants in The Insolvency Service who have a disability.

  The figures for the Insolvency Service are as set out below. These only include those staff who have chosen to declare that they have a disability or long term health condition.

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Total number of disabled staff

  Total number of staff

  Number

  19

  28

  47

  1,615

  Per cent, of total staff

  1.18

  1.73

  2.91

  —

  Notes1 Figures are provided on a head count basis and exclude causal and industrial staff.

  2Firgures show the position on 25 January 1995.
  141
  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. John McAllion, dated 31 January 1995

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS No. 129

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question relating to the proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, Focus on Ability. The following numbers apply to NEL

  Registered disabled—2

  Unregistered disabled—1

  Total manpower at January 1995—252

  Therefore disabled as a proportion–1.2 per cent.

  I trust you will find the above information to be satisfactory for your purposes.

  Letter from Dr. Peter Clapham to Mr. John McAllion, dated 31 January 1995:

  I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility who are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, Focus on Ability.

  Details of staff currently employed by the National Physical Laboratory, who have chosen to declare their disability, are as follows:-

  Registered disabled

  Non-registered disabled

  Total disabled

  Total staff

  Number

  6

  26

  32

  651

  Per cent, of total staff

  0.9

  4

  4.9

  —

  The above figures are provided on a head count basis as at 25 January, and exclude industrial and casual staff.

  I hope this provides the information you require.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. John McAllion, dated 31 January 1995

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about staff with disabilities.

  This Agency has no registered disabled among its 48 staff, although four members of staff (8.3 per cent.) have declared a level of disability.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. John McAllion, dated 7 February 1995

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 129

  The President of the Board has asked me to respond to your Question about non-industrial disabled staff.

  The information requested is set out below. The figures include only those staff who have chosen to declare that they have a disability or long-term health condition.

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Total number of disabled staff

  Total number of staff

  Numbers

  16

  12

  28

  891

  Per cent, of Total Staff

  1.8

  1.35

  3.15

  —

  142
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. John McAllion, dated 7 February 1995

  Employment of Disabled People

  I am replying on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your written question to the President of the Board of Trade about the employment of disabled people.

  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and Agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, Focus on Ability.

  Of the 542 staff employed in the Agency on 1 January, there are two registered disabled staff and 14 other staff who have chosen to declare their disability. In total this represents 3 per cent. of Agency staff (0.4 per cent. registered disabled, 2.6 per cent. unregistered disabled staff who have chosen to declare their disability).

  Non-commercial Disputes
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new provision he is planning for the handling of non-commercial disputes.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The provision of the draft Arbitration Bill would, like those of the existing Arbitration Acts 1950 to 1979, apply to commercial and non-commercial arbitrations alike.

  Bills (Private Utilities)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will takes steps to ensure that partial payment of bills from private utilities may be made at post offices in cash.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Post Office Counters already has such arrangements on a commercial basis with British Gas, British Telecom and the great majority of regional water and electricity companies.

  Uranium Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 January to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith),Official Report, columns 335–36, if he will give the reasons why the British percentage share of EU exports of low enriched, high enriched and natural uranium is confidential for the years 1988 to 1992 but not confidential for 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on exports of these commodities is available in aggregate only, due to commercial confidentiality. With the introduction of Intrastat from January 1993, separate figures for EU and non-EU exports are the available aggregates.

  Konver
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which areas have been selected for assistance under the Konver initiative; what types of projects will be supported; how many jobs are expected to result; what funds are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A list of priority areas eligible for Konver II will be published by European Commission in the Official Journal shortly. I expect the London borough of Ealing to be included in this list. The

  143
  Government are currently considering additional areas to be included in the British programme to be sent to the Commission by 1 March. Once the programme has been agreed, probably in the summer, applications for grant can be considered.

  Konver targets small and medium enterprises needing advice and support for diversification, such as the promotion of innovation, know-how and technology transfer and feasibility studies. The rehabilitation of military sites and environmental improvement is also covered. There is also a provision for training.

  The number of jobs likely to be created through Konver II will not be known until applications are received and considered.

  Konver I grants worth £17.9 million were awarded in 1993 to projects across the country. The UK's allocation from Konver II will be £79 million.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to ensure that agreements existing for the sale and purchase of land by British Coal will be carried out by the appropriate successor privatised companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In general, the acquisition and disposal of land are commercial matters for the mining companies concerned. Where British Coal's interests in land have been transferred to successor companies, any binding agreements relating to the sale and purchase of that land have also been transferred.

  Consultants
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department permits consultants to tender for contracts resulting from work they have carried out in(a) drawing up the specification for the tender documents or (b) recommending the contracting out of a Government service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  (a) No. (b) Consultants are generally excluded from tendering for services where they have been employed to advise on the feasibility of contracting out. Where a general exclusion has not applied, appropriate safeguards have been required to prevent potential conflicts of interest arising between the interests of the project and any other commercial interest the consultant may have.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Shreeveport Consultants submitted its accounts for 1993–94 to Companies House by the legal deadline.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As this is an operational matter for Companies House executive agency, I have asked David Durham, the chief executive, to respond directly.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Nigel Griffiths, dated 7 February 1995

  You have recently tabled a Parliamentary Question which asked for details about the filing of the 1993–94 accounts for Shreeveport Consultants. The Minister has informed you that I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Agency as this is an operational matter for Companies House.
  144
  There is no company with the name Shreeveport Consultants on the UK Register. There is a company called Shreeveport Ltd, but we have no way of knowing whether this is the company that you are interested in.

  Information on document filings by UK companies is a matter of public record, and available to any member of the public either through our search rooms or through our on-line information service Companies House Direct. There is a statutory fee of £1 charged for the screen of information which shows the document filing history of any company. You may find that use of these services provides the quickest and easiest way of checking whether you have correctly identified the company in which you are interested, and of finding out any relevant information on it.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to publish the responses of official receivers to the consultation on the affirmative order to enable the work of the Insolvency Service to be contracted out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I would propose to publish a digest of official receivers' responses to the current consultation by laying copies in the Library of the House before seeking parliamentary approval to any draft enabling order.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount spent annually on mechanical processing work in the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In its report, Stoy Hayward estimated that, based on costs and the average staff in post for 1993–94, the contracting-out of administrative work would open up some £24 million of official receivers' work to competition.

  This figure will vary with changing case loads and changes in the level of the Insolvency Service's staffing.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to recover the working papers of Stoy Hayward Consultants on the Insolvency Service and to ensure that Stoy Hayward Insolvency Co. has not been passed copies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No steps have been taken to recover Stoy Hayward's working papers.

  All information obtained by Stoy Hayward Consulting as part of its work for the Insolvency Service is subject to its undertaking as to its confidentiality.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what fee is being paid to Shreeveport Consultants for drawing up the specification for contracting out the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total contract price for drawing up a specification, bid documentation and evaluation criteria was agreed with Shreeveport Ltd. at £126,900, including VAT.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of the grades of the staff identified as surplus to the Insolvency Service by Stoy Hayward as option 1 of its recommendations.
  145
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward identified £24 million of administrative case work which could be exposed to competition if a decision were made to contract out. It did not identify the staff undertaking such work as surplus as it recognised that there would be a need for contract management and supervision and that contracting out would offer the possibility of increased concentration on the official receivers' investigative role.

  Regional Operations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff his Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Disaggregated information on the basis of standard English regions is not available. However, information on the resources employed by my Department in each of the English regions covered by the Government offices for the regions is set out in the table.

  1 Staff in post as at 1 January 1995

  Running costs for 1993–94

  Running cost budget for 1994–95

  North East

  112.0

  3,618,000

  3,566,000

  North West

  123.0

  4,720,000

  3,739,000

  Merseyside

  44.5

  2n/a

  1,279,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  103.0

  3,394,000

  3,376,000

  East Midlands

  85.0

  2,356,000

  2,848,000

  West Midlands

  148.5

  4,659,000

  4,686,000

  South West

  78.5

  2,320,000

  2,407,000

  South East

  72.5

  1,693,000

  2,769,000

  East

  55.0

  1,799,000

  2,209,000

  London

  60.0

  2n/a

  1,971,000

  Total

  882.0

  24,559,000

  28,850,000

  Notes:

  1 Staff figures are based on full time equivalents (part-time staff count as 0.5)

  2 The Government Office Merseyside and Government Office London did not exist in 1993–94.

  A breakdown of these running costs and budgets as well as details of the activities associated with them were published in MINIS 1994, available in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those organisations which have made written submissions to the official task force consultation on nursery education for all four-year-olds.

  Mr. Forth
  A list of organisations from which the official task force on under-fives have received written submissions is given. The list does not include individual schools or members of the public who have written to the task force:146

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Avon Nursery Head Teachers

  Avon Nursery Link Group

  Barnardo's

  British Association for Early Childhood Education

  Business and Technology Education Council

  Campaign for State Education

  Catholic Education Service

  Children in Wales

  College of Care and Early Education

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Cornwall Campaign for Nursery Education

  Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education

  Council for Disabled Children

  Daycare Trust

  Devon County Council

  Devon Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations

  Early Childhood Education Forum (in addition to many organisations who made separate submissions, this encompasses:

  Association of Advisors for Under Eights and their Families

  Childcare Association

  National Association of Nursery and Family Care

  National Portage Association

  Tutors of Advanced Courses for Teachers of Young Children)

  Early Years Curriculum Group

  Early Years Trainers Anti-Racist Network

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Free Church Federal Council

  Funding Agency for Schools

  The GM Initiative

  Grant-Maintained Schools Advisory Committee

  Gwent Under Eights Network

  Hampshire County Council

  High/Scope UK

  Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools

  Independent Schools Joint Council

  Kids' Club Network

  London Borough of Brent Early Years Conference

  London Boroughs Association

  Mencap

  Metropolitan Council of Kirklees

  Middlesborough Borough Council

  Montessori Education (UK) Ltd.

  National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants

  National Association of Grant-Maintained Primary Schools

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Nursery Centres

  National Campaign for Nursery Education

  National Childminding Association

  National Children's Bureau

  National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations

  National Council of Women

  National Governors' Council

  National Private Day Nurseries Association

  National Union of Teachers

  OMEP (World Organisation for Early Childhood Education)

  Oxfordshire Education Department

  Penistone and Area Nursery Development Group

  Playgroup Network

  Portsmouth City Council

  Pre-school Playgroups Association

  Ripon Diocesan Board of Education

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  147

  Save the Children

  Shropshire County Council

  Smart's Agency and Childcare Training Centre

  Society of Education Officers

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sound Start Network

  Special Educational Needs National Advisory Council

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Council for Under Fives

  Whitehorse Childcare Ltd.

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service

  Working for Childcare

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those organisations or their representatives she has met as part of her consultation on nursery education for all four-year-olds; and when she will make an announcement on the implementation of her policy.

  Mr. Forth
  A list of the organisations and institutions that my right hon. Friend, members of the DFE task force and I have met or visited is given. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course:

  Andersen Consulting

  Asquith Court

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  Bordon County Infant School, Hampshire

  Belgian Ministry of Education (Flemish speaking)

  Belgian Ministry of Education (French speaking)

  Bradshaw Community Nursery Centre, Salford

  British Association for Early Childhood Education

  Busy Bees

  Catholic Education Service

  Centre for Policy Studies

  Chase Children's Centre, Hampshire

  Childcare Association

  Childcare North Shields

  Childcare Vouchers

  Childcare Wallsend

  Church of England General Synod Board of Education

  Clydebank Family Centre, Strathclyde

  Cranstonhill Nursery School, Glasgow

  Danish Ministry of Education

  Danish Ministry of Social Services

  Deighton Nursery, Kirklees

  Dorning Street Nursery School, Salford

  Dorothy Gardner Centre, Westminster

  Early Childhood Education Forum (in addition to those organisations who appear separately on the list, this encompasses: Association of Advisors for Under Eights and their Families

  148

  Campaign for State Education

  Children in Wales

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Council for Disabled Children

  Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education

  Daycare Trust

  Early Years Curriculum Group

  Early Years Trainers Anti-Racist Network

  High/Scope UK

  Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools

  National Association of Education Inspectors, Advisors and Consultants

  National Association of Nursery Centres

  National Association of Nursery and Family Care

  National Childminding Association

  National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations

  National Private Day Nurseries Association

  National Portage Association

  OMEP (World Organisation for Early Childhood Education)

  Tutors of Advanced Courses for Teachers of Young Children)

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Council for Under Fives

  Working for Childcare

  Early Years Co-ordinators Network

  Faifley Community Nursery, Stathclyde

  French Ministry of Education

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Goldsmiths college

  Gloucestershire LEA

  Hampshire LEA

  Highgate Newton Playgroup

  Hillend Children's Centre, Strathclyde

  Intercity Kitty Nursery

  Irlam Endowed Primary School, Salford

  Jigsaw Day Nursery, Welwyn Garden City

  Kindercare Learning Centres

  Kirklees LEA

  Lepton (CE) Junior and Infants School, Kirklees

  London Montessori Centre

  Margaret McMillan Nursery Centre, Islington

  Milton Keynes Preparatory School

  Montessori UK Ltd.

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers

  National Campaign for Nursery Education

  National Children's Bureau

  National Union of Teachers

  North Tyneside LEA

  Park Infant Family Centre, Gloucestershire

  Peat Marwick/KPMG Consultants

  Pen Green Family Centre, Corby

  Perrin's Community School Day Nursery, Hampshire

  Pre-school Playgroups Association

  Professional Association of Teachers

  149

  Ready Steady Go Nursery, Camden

  Royal Society of Arts

  Salford LEA

  Sheffield LEA

  SIMS Education Services Ltd.

  Sound Start

  Spanish Ministry of Education

  Startright Educare

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Susan Hay Associates, Broadgate Nursery

  Sythwood School Playgroup

  Tower Hamlets LEA

  Thomas Coram Research Unit, University of London

  Full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sectors, including self-governing (GM) schools, in England as at January of each year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11993

  11994

  Nursery, primary and secondary

  410,547

  405,252

  402,932

  402,280

  401,506

  397,410

  398,542

  394,945

  394,874

  396,332

  389,091

  390,430

  Special

  17,448

  17,470

  17,302

  17,167

  17,644

  16,929

  17,328

  17,014

  16,801

  16,647

  16,647

  16,292

  Education other than at school

  2,180

  2,285

  2,214

  2,083

  2,578

  2,737

  3,058

  2,664

  2,636

  2,578

  2,578

  2,578

  Total

  430,175

  425,007

  422,448

  421,530

  421,728

  417,076

  418,928

  414,623

  414,311

  415,557

  408,316

  409,300

  Source Annual 618G return.

  Note

  1As from 1/4/93 sixth form colleges became part of the Further Education sector, and the 1994 figures therefore exclude teachers in these colleges. The second 1993 figure also excludes these teachers to allow comparison with 1994.

  Schools (Wheelchairs)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have provided her with information on access to schools for pupils in wheelchairs under the Education (Information as to Provision of Education) Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Forth
  The regulations require local education authorities to provide information on the accessibility of schools to pupils in wheelchairs to the Secretary of State after 1 May and by 1 June 1995, and every second year thereafter. Information on school's access required under these regulations has, accordingly, not yet been received.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each institution of further education funded by the Further Education Funding Council the salary range of the principal in the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally. FEFC guidelines on accounting policies recommend that colleges should disclose the emoluments of the principal and other senior postholders in their accounts, which are publicly available.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to respond to the recommendations of the Further Education Funding Council regarding the governing bodies of(a) Wilmorton college, Derby and (b) St. Phillip's college, Birmingham.
  150

  Thornton Lodge Nursery, Kirklees

  Wandsworth LEA

  Widden Family Centre, Gloucestershire

  Worcester College of HE

  Teachers
  Mr. Steinbery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time equivalent teachers there were in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sectors, including self-governing—GM—schools, in England as at January of each year.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the need to bring these matters to an early conclusion. She will announce her decisions shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Cloakroom
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects the new machines in the Members' Cloakroom to be repaired.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.

WALES

  Agri-Environmental Regulations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to meet the EEC agri-environmental regulations; and what funds have been made available for their implementation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the past year, we have launched in Wales two new environmentally sensitive areas, a countryside access scheme, a habitat scheme and an organic aid scheme. We plan to launch new payments to promote public access in ESAs and a moorland scheme shortly. These are additional to the existing five ESAs and Tir Cymen. Expenditure on these schemes is planned to rise to £15,000,000 by 1996–97.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department's approval was(a) sought

  151
  and (b) given for the construction of the Crickhowell house headquarters of the Welsh Common Health Services Authority at Roath basin, Cardiff docks, Cardiff; what independent evaluation of the alternative sites available was made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Crickhowell house was constructed by Grosvenor Waterside, the property arm of Associated British Ports and therefore not subject to approval by the Welsh Office.

  In addition to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority's appraisal of alternative sites and options, the authority's occupation of the building was independently assessed by Gooch and Wagstaff, property consultants, which confirmed that it offered the best value for money in terms of the options considered. The National. Audit Office also examined the papers.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 538, on what date the agreement by Associated British Ports to make a contribution to Cardiff Bay development corporation infrastructure costs announced on 11 May 1989 lapsed; if the chairman of the corporation sought his Department's consent to the lapsing; and if his Department's consent was sought for the development agreement between the company and the corporation signed in March 1991.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department's consent was not required to the development agreement with Associated British Ports. The hon. Gentleman's questions about the development agreement are operational matters for the corporation, and the chief executive will write to the hon. Gentleman in response.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he secured the approval of the Cardiff Bay development corporation for the National Audit Office to have secondary access to its accounts for regularity and propriety purposes; and if he will place a copy of the memorandum of agreement in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial memorandum of Cardiff Bay development corporation was amended on 2 December 1992 to provide the Comptroller and Auditor General access to the records and books of the corporation. A copy of the letter of the same date which made that amendment has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions the local advisory committees in each health authority area in Wales have made representations to that health authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally, but could be obtained from health authorities.
  152

  Medical Committees
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions(a) the Welsh medical committee, (b) the Welsh dental committee, (c) the Welsh nursing committee, (d) the Welsh midwifery committee, (e) the Welsh pharmaceutical committee and (f) the Welsh optical committee, have made representations to him in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  I receive advice from the following five statutory committees.

  (a) the Welsh Medical Committee;

  (b) the Welsh Dental Committee;

  (c) the Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee;

  (d)the Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee; and

  (e) the Welsh Optical Committee;

  Representation is made both directly to me and indirectly through my representative who attends the committee.

  Of those representations made directly to the Department over the last three years, (a) the Welsh medical committee has presented one report, with a further three currently subject to external consultation; (b) the Welsh dental committee has submitted three reports and offered advice on a further three consultation documents; (c) the Welsh nursing and midwifery committee has submitted five reports and; (d) and one each has been submitted by the Welsh pharmaceutical and Welsh optical committees.

  Each statutory committee also produces an annual report.

  Waste-to-energy Schemes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what waste-to-energy schemes there are in Wales in accordance with the non-fossil fuel organisation; and what plans there are to establish such schemes in the near future.

  Mr. Redwood
  No waste-to-energy projects were supported in Wales under the first two orders of the non-fossil fuel obligation. Four projects have been awarded contracts under the recently announced third order.

  Recycling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been paid, and to which organisations, in respect of recycling in Wales, under the(a) recycling credits, (b) environmental technology innovation scheme, (c) the Department of Trade and Industry's environmental management options scheme and (d) Euroenviron.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Details are not held centrally.

  (b), (c) and (d): No payments have been made to organisations based in Wales.

  Hazardous Substance Consents
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hazardous substance consents were made by local councils in Wales in the last year; and if he will make a statement.
  153
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the period between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994, 12 hazardous substance consents were issued in Wales. The consents were issued under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, which came into force on 1 June 1992. The Act requires that the storage or use of certain substances on particular sites are consented to by the local council. Substances can be used or stored in significant amounts only after the local council has assessed the risk to people in the neighbourhood.

  Only five councils received applications, compared to 26 in the previous year. Of the 12 consents issued, 10 were new applications and two were carried forward from the previous year. These were both consents for sites where substances were already being stored or used before the Act came into force.

TREASURY

  Standard of Living Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he measures an increase in the standard of living; and how many years it would take to double the standard of living at the rate of increase since (i) 1979 and (ii) October 1989.

  Mr. Nelson
  The standard of living can be measured in a number of ways. Taking real personal disposable income per head, a per capita growth rate of 2.8 per cent. per annum would be required to achieve a doubling of living standards over the next 25 years. This compares with average annual per capita growth rates of 2.1 per cent. since 1979 and 0.8 per cent. since October 1989. However, as these are both dates from the peak of an economic cycle, such selective periods cannot be reliable indicators of future growth.

  Growth Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual rate of growth in GDP is implied in his objective of doubling the standard of living in 25 years; how that compares with the increase in the years since the first year of membership of the EEC; and what role interest rates play in achieving that objective.

  Mr. Nelson
  The standard of living can be measured in many ways. In order that real personal disposal income per head should double in 25 years, each year it would need to grow by 2.8 per cent. The growth rate of real personal disposable income per head between 1973, the year we joined the EEC, and 1994 was around 2 per cent. per annum.

  Monetary policy is set to keep underlying inflation within the 1 to 4 per cent. target. A low inflation environment provides the best chance of delivering higher living standards through a period of sustained growth.

  Rathlin
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if vehicles on Rathlin maintain exemption from vehicle excise duty.
  154
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of any vehicle currently registered on Rathlin which will pay more vehicle excise duty, or pay duty for the first time, as a result of the changes in schedule 4 to the Finance Bill.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the proceeds under inheritance tax from estates valued at(a) under £1 million, (b) £1 million to £10 million, (c) £10 million to £50 million and (d) over £50 million in the latest available year.

  Sir George Young
  Estimated liabilities for inheritance tax for estates passing on death in 1991–92, the latest year available, are given in the table:

  Value of net estate, including lifetime transfers within seven years of death

  Liability1 £ million

  Under £1 million

  790

  £1 million to £2 million

  150

  Over £2 million

  140

  All estates

  1,080

  1 Provisional

  A further breakdown of estates over £2 million cannot be reliably estimated and, in any case, the numbers involved may be too small to give adequate protection to the confidentiality of individual estates.

  Heavy Fuel Oil Duty
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of revenue raised from heavy fuel oil duty in each of the last three years from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total revenue raised from heavy fuel oil duty in Northern Ireland and Great Britain over the last available three years is as follows:

  Year

  Northern Ireland £ million

  Great Britain £ million

  1990–91

  71.13

  2,740.27

  1991–92

  86.84

  3,070.96

  1992–93

  95.32

  3,296.78

HEALTH

  Mental Nurses
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered mental nurses were employed in the Northumberland health authority in each year since 1989; and what was the percentage change in each year.
  155
  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is shown in the table:

  Qualified mental health nursing staff within Nortumberland DHA as at 30 September 1989–1993

  Year

  Wte

  Per cent. change

  1989

  280

  1989–90 - 6.2

  1990

  270

  1990–91 + 1.7

  1991–92 -

  1991

  270

  18.8

  1992

  220

  —

  Source: PD(STATS)B Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Notes:

  1All figures rounded to nearest 10.

  2All percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop alternative systems of management of the national health service.

  Mr. Malone
  The system of management that we continue to develop for the national health service, which began with the NHS reforms introduced in 1991, is one of decentralisation of responsibilities to purchasers and providers, while maintaining clear lines of accountability. This improves services to patients and ensures better value for money by devolving decision making about the delivery of services to local level.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are at present legally detained under Mental Health Act powers.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Finance Partnership Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the projects which at any time have been under consideration as part of the private finance partnership initiative, giving in each case the date of the submission of the project to the Department, and the present status of the application.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the launch of the private finance initiative in November 1992, the national health service has been encouraged to exploit the benefits of partnership with the private sector. The NHS Executive issued the capital investment manual under the health service guidelines—HSG(94)31—on 28 June 1994, copies of which are available in the Library, which required consideration of options of partnership with the private sector for all capital projects. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, column 1269, for the latest available information on the status of schemes approved. Other information on date of first submission to the NHS Executive and current status is not collected centrally.

  Speech Therapists
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to provide bursaries for post-graduates pursuing two-year courses to qualify as speech therapists.
  156
  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has conducted into the length of London ambulance service emergency response times in the one-hour period before shift changes.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a management issue being addressed by the London ambulance service.

  Social Service Authorities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the annual payments to each social service authority in lieu of community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities were given indicative figures for the 1995–96 special transitional grant in letter LASSL (94) 11, copies of which are available in the Library. Final figures will be issued in due course. It is up to local authorities how much of their general funding they make available for community care services in addition to this.

  Malpractice
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have been disciplined for(a) negligence and (b) incompetence for each year since 1984; and how many were struck off.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Complaints
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received by each family health services authority categories of complaint and the outcome of the complaints in each category.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is published annually in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Fluoridated Water Supplies
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the availability of fluoridated water supplies throughout the country.

  Mr. Malone
  The Government remain convinced that fluoridation of drinking water is a safe and effective public health measure and will continue to support the introduction of such schemes, particularly where the dental health of the population is known to be poor. In 1994, the Government agreed to help with the capital funding of seven schemes in the north of England which would bring fluoridation to 1.7 million more people.

  Decisions about fluoridation should, however, continue to be taken at a local level.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given the health commissions in respect of returning to general practitioner fundholders savings they have made.

  Mr. Malone
  Paragraph 24 of the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993 sets
  157
  out how general practitioner fundholders may use audited savings for the benefit of patients.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health districts in England have permission to employ salaried dentists; and how many have now(a) recruited and (b) failed to recruit the approved number.

  Mr. Malone
  The number of salaried dentists employed by English family health services authorities is shown in the table. In addition to those family health services authorities listed, Berkshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Hereford and Worcester, Kingston and Richmond, Northamptonshire and Solihull have been granted permission to employ salaried dentists. Information about vacancies is not available centrally.

  Table 1: General Dented Service: Number of salaried dentists1 by family health services authority as at 30 September 1994

  FHSA

  30 September 1994

  All FHSAs

  115

  Cumbria

  1

  Derbyshire

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Norfolk

  3

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  9

  Essex

  2

  City and East London

  9

  Kent

  5

  Greenwich and Bexley

  7

  Bromley

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  31

  Surrey

  5

  West Sussex

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2

  Wiltshire

  2

  Isle of Wight

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  Gloucestershire

  3

  Somerset

  4

  Staffordshire

  1

  Cheshire

  8

  Liverpool

  2

  Lancashire

  2

  Manchester

  I

  Salford

  1

  Source

  Dental Practice Board.

  1 This is the number of salaried dentists with contracts registered at the DPB. It is not the number of salaried dentists in employment at the actual specified date.

  Restricted Growth
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she or her Department have had in regard to the incidence of restricted growth; what reply she has sent; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mr Paul Zetter, CBE, honorary president of the Restricted Growth Association, has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently expressing concern that the association has no communication with the majority of people of restricted growth in this country, and mentioning its wish to create a database of those affected.
  158
  I have today written to Mr. Zetter to say that I fully support the excellent work that the association is doing to help people of restricted growth. However, personal health information is subject to the general principle of the law of confidence. As such, health records can be disclosed only within the national health service on a strictly need-to-know basis and, generally speaking, it cannot be disclosed to an outsider or third party without the patient's prior consent. I have invited Mr. Zetter to meet officials of my Department to discuss this issue further.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury gave him on 6 February,Official Report, column 69.

  Anabolic Agents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to restrict the promotion and sale of anabolic agents designed to improve sporting prowess.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Anabolic steroids are prescription-only medicines, and their promotion and sale is regulated by the Medicines Act 1968. A failure to comply with the regulations can be a criminal offence. Products which purport to be anabolic steroids but which in fact are not may also be subject to the requirements of the regulations if medicinal claims are made on behalf of such products.

  Enforcement of the Medicines Act is the responsibility of the Medicines Control Agency. Enforcement action against persons who illegally manufacture, sell or promote anabolic steroids is a high priority for the agency.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced on 2 November that he intended to bring anabolic steroids within tha controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The necessary amending regulations will be brought before Parliament in due course.

  Child Care
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total social services budget was spent on child care provision in England in the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1994, c. 987–88]I regret that there were clerical errors in the 1992–93 data given in my previous reply.

  A corrected table of figures is as follows.

  Gross expenditure on personal social services in England

  Total

  Children's services

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  1988–89

  3776.1

  1164.3

  30.8

  1989–90

  4204.4

  1277.3

  30.4

  1990–91

  4697.7

  1449.4

  30.9

  1991–92

  5127.4

  1551.4

  30.3

  1992–93

  5469.9

  1653.8

  30.2

  159

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Pools Companies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to lift the ban to allow the pools companies to advertise on radio and television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 25 January that the Government had decided that it was not necessary in the public interest for the ban on broadcast advertising by the football pools to be maintained. I have invited the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to consider amending their advertising codes accordingly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the initial findings of the McKinsey Inc. management consultants' report into the future of tourism in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall be making a statement about tourism policy in the near future. The final report on the work McKinsey and Co. has done for the Department and the tourist boards will be placed in the House of Commons Library when it is available.

  Pornography (Internet)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what powers he and his hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have to regulate the use of pornography on the Internet.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science to a question by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 18 January 1995,Official Report, column 488.

  Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current Independent Television Commission codes in regulating the licensing of channels, with particular reference to Babylon Blue;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Independent Television Commission to strengthen the regulatory powers over adult channels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am aware of public concern about the portrayal of sexual conduct in television programmes and keep this matter under careful review, in consultation with the chairman of the regulatory bodies. Babylon Blue, which has been licensed by the Independent Television Commission, has yet to begin broadcasting. If and when it does, it will be expected fully to comply with ITC's programme code and the conditions of its licence. The ITC has powers to ensure that it does. I have received no request from the ITC for any strengthening of its regulatory powers over adult channels.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the maximum penalties available(a) to the Independent Television Commission and (b) to his
  160
  Department where (i) satellite and (ii) terrestrial television have broken the terms of their licence or ITC codes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Independent Television Commission has sole responsibility for regulating the licence conditions of terrestrial and satellite commercial television services, which include a requirement to observe the ITC's codes. The commission has a range of sanctions it can impose for non-compliance with the terms of its licences. The maximum penalty that the ITC can impose on Channels 3 and 5 licensees and on satellite services is revocation of the licence. On Channel 4, the maximum penalty the commission can impose is a fine not exceeding 3 per cent. of the channel's annual qualifying revenue for the first occasion and 5 per cent. thereafter.

  Jazz
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department will take to increase funding for jazz.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Central Government support for the arts is channelled through the arts councils and, in England, the 10 regional arts boards. It is for these bodies to determine the balance of funding as between the various art forms and individual arts organisations. I understand, however, that the Arts Council is close to completing a major review of support for jazz in this country.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the first grants to the arts will be available from the national lottery funds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The arts councils in the United Kingdom are considering applications for lottery funds and the first grants are expected to be announced in spring 1995.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how Her Majesty's Treasury is investing the funds raised for good causes by the national lottery in the period prior to the first allocation of grants by the lottery distribution bodies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]Under the terms of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 responsibility for investing the proceeds of the national lottery falls to the national debt office, which is a non-ministerial department separate from the Treasury. The investment powers issued by the Treasury allow the national lottery distribution fund to be invested in a range of secure financial instruments described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 5A, 5B, 9 and 9A of part II of schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury on 6 February 1995,Official Report, column 69.

  Unusual Industries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be(a) the fee and (b) the expected expenses paid to the firm Unusual Industries in respect of its organisation of events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not our practice to divulge the level of payments made to contractors.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the expected level of costs borne by his Department's administration vote, class XI, vote 7, in respect of officials' support of the firm, Unusual Industries, in its organisation of events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]No costs will be borne on the Department's administration vote, class XI, vote 7, in respect of officials' support of Messrs. Unusual Industries in the provision of the programme of commemorative events. The costs to vote of officials' engaged on monitoring the performance of the contract and approving payments to Messrs. Unusual Industries is likely to be some £60,000. There are also likely to be additional small costs relating to the work of other personnel involved on an occasional basis.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage by what process the firm Unusual Industries was chosen to organise the programme of events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]Messrs. Unusual Industries was selected to provide the services in question by a process of competitive tendering.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual actual administrative expenditure for his Department for each year of its operation, in 1994 prices; and if he will provide a breakdown for each year to show the annual expenditure

  Organisation

  Award £

  Date received by ABSA

  Date approved

  Theatre Bara

  4,000

  9 November 1990

  4 December 1990

  Caws

  7,200

  20 January 1992

  31 January 1992

  Y Faner

  5,000

  23 November 1990

  4 December 1990

  10,000

  21 October 1991

  18 December 1991

  Dalier Sylw

  4,000

  21 December 1990

  10 January 1991

  5,000

  16 August 1991

  3 September 1991

  Ewrosgol

  2,500

  7 February 1991

  21 February 1991

  Creu Cof

  2,500

  16 February 1991

  7 March 1991

  Cwmni Dawns Camre Cain

  4,000

  7 July 1991

  24 July 1991

  162
  on the Royal Commission on historic monuments of England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The Department of National Heritage was created in April 1992 when certain areas of responsibility from six other Departments were transferred. The central administration costs for each year of its operation are as follows with figures in 1994 prices shown in brackets:

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total DNH administrative

  9,898

  22,710

  20,161

  expenditure

  (10,404)

  (23,164)

  —

  Annul expenditure by Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England, which is accounted for on a separate vote, is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  RCHME gross expenditure

  12,251

  14,967

  13,877

  (12,878)

  (15,266)

  —

  Notes:

  1 Figures for DNH administrative expenditure exclude the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Millennium Commission.

  The figures for 1992–93 do not reflect full DNH expenditure cost since some part-year central service costs from former Departments were met by those Departments.

  Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 include some one-off cost that relate to the setting up of the Department.

  Figures for 1994–95 represent the current level of provision before adjustments for the spring supplementary. Figures for actual outturn will not be available until the end of the financial year.

  Arts Grants, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 619, if he will give the level of the grants from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts in Wales given to each of the organsations listed and the dates on which the applications were (a) made and (b) approved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]The information requested is in the table:
  163

  Organisation

  Award £

  Date received by ABSA

  Date approved

  Welsh International Film Festival

  3,000

  16 August 1991

  3 September 1991

  3,000

  16 September 1991

  9 October 1991

  4,000

  18 September 1992

  7 October 1992

  5,000

  24 September 1993

  30 September 1993

  Wales Actors Company

  4,750

  8 May 1992

  4 June 1992

  Arad Goch

  4,000

  29 November 1990

  19 December 1990

  2,000

  16 July 1993

  28 September 1993

  Hwyla

  7,500

  23 November 1990

  4 December 1990

  Fflag

  8,000

  27 September 1991

  9 October 1991

  National Film and Video Archive of Wales

  6,500

  7 December 1990

  19 December 1990

  Clwyd Arts and Exhibition Service

  3,000

  22 January 1991

  31 January 1991

  Taliesin Trust

  2,500

  7 February 1991

  7 March 1991

  Theatr Gorllewin Morgannwg

  7,500

  8 July 1991

  24 July 1991

  Barddas: Y Gymdeithas Gerdd Dafod

  2,000

  22 July 1991

  9 October 1991

  Theatr Had

  2,000

  6 July 1992

  22 July 1992

  Model House Llantrisant

  1,500

  17 August 1992

  3 September 1992

  Rhiniog

  1,500

  27 September 1993

  19 October 1993

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]My Department has not withdrawn any rules and regulations in the last 12 months.

  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  The manpower implications are taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans, which will be published in the Department's annual report.

  Second World War (Anniversary)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the level of consultancy payments expected to be made to the programme project manager for the organisation of events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not our practice to divulge the level of payments made to consultants.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The administration of the next steps agencies is a matter for the chief executive of each agency. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Pat Devlin to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995

  SETRNG UP OF NEXT STEPS AGENCIES

  I have been asked to reply, in respect of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, to your Parliamentary Question.

  The Agency has leased its Headquarters building at an annual rent of £196,000.

  We do not publish periodical journals and we do not have executive cars or corporate clothing.

  The Agency has a specially designed logo which cost £4,750 and specially designed printed stationery which cost £2,280.03.
  165
  This is a new Agency and posts did not exist prior to it being set up. At 3 January 1995 there were 1,025 Whole Time Equivalent Staff-in-Post for the entire Northern Ireland Agency, of whom 785 are engaged in delivering child support services to the GB Child Support Agency under a Provision of Service Agreement

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question about Next Steps agencies.

  The Compensation Agency remains in the accommodation occupied by the predecessor division. No additional support staff have been required. The Agency does not publish periodical journals nor does it have any executive cars. Approximately £5,000 was spent on developing a logo and on average an additional £4,000 per year is spent on specially designed corporate stationery. The Agency does not have corporate clothing.

  Letter from Brendan Magee to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs associated with the setting up of this Agency, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland.

  We have not acquired our own Headquarters building, have not required any additional support staff, have no executive cars and have no corporate clothing.

  We publish an Annual Report and a Business/Corporate plan at an annual cost of approximately £2,500. An Agency logo was designed through an in-house competition at a cost of £150 and we use our own headed stationery which costs no more than the Branch stationery which it replaced.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.

  Letter from L. H. Ferguson to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995

  In the absence of Mr. Watson, who is on leave, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs associated with the set up of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency.

  The Agency has not acquired its own Headquarters building, has required two additional support staff and has no executive cars.

  We publish an Annual Report and Business Plan at a total annual cost of £39,000. We have a specially designed logo at a cost of £1,000 with annual corporate clothing at £1,900 more, and specially designed stationery at £2,000 more, than the pre-Agency costs.

  I hope you will find this information helpful

  Letter from M. J. D. Brand to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs associated with the set up of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland as a Next Steps Agency.

  Ordnance Survey has not acquired its own Headquarters building, does not have any executive cars and has no corporate clothing for its staff.

  Three additional support staff have been required for accounts work since we became an Agency and an Annual Report and Business Plan are published each year at a cost of £7,600.

  We continue to use a logo which was introduced long before we became an Agency and which appears on our stationery.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.
  166
  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 6 January 1995

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs associated with the set up of the Rate Collection Agency.

  The Rate Collection Agency has not acquired its own Headquarters building, has not required additional support staff and has no executive cars.

  An Annual Report and internal magazine are published each year at a cost of £4,700. Corporate clothing (ties and scarves) were ordered for the Agency launch in April 1991 at a cost of £2,705.

  Finally an Agency logo was designed through an in-house competition at a cost of £100. However corporate stationery costs remain broadly similar to pre-Agency levels.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.

  Letter from Alex Wylie to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 23 January 1995

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs associated with the set up of the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency.

  The Social Security Agency did not acquire a eadquarters building when it was established, but made use of existing accommodation at Castle Buildings, Stormont. We do not publish periodical journals, we do not have any executive cars, nor do Agency staff have corporate clothing.

  We do have an Agency logo and were advised by consultants on the design of Agency stationery. I regret that we are unable to give the separate costs of these. However, the total cost of the development of the logo, letterheads for Agency stationery, signage for the Agency's offices and a corporate identity manual cost a total of £13,397.17 including VAT.

  Finally, 30 additional staff were needed in the Agency for work arising mainly in the areas of Finance, Planning, Personnel and Parliamentary Business which had been transferred from the Department.

  I hope you will find this information helpful.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995

  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a number of questions about Next Steps Agencies. The Secretary of State has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply on behalf of that Agency.

  The Agency has established its headquarters in Clarendon House, Belfast. This building was already a wholly owned part of the Government estate.

  The Agency brought together in a single organisation the training and employment functions of the Department of Economic Development and a number of responsibilities previously held by the Northern Ireland Training Authority along with some of those of a number of Industrial Training Boards. Overall staffing in the Agency has reduced from 1,660 at the time of its launch in April 1990 (which was the number of staff fulfilling those functions of the Department for which the Agency was given responsibility) to 1,300 at present.

  Two Periodical Journals are published by the Agency at an annual cost of £28,000.

  A single executive car was purchased in 1992 at a cost of £13,500. Repairs and running costs, including petrol for the current financial year are around £1,800.

  The Agency does not provide corporate clothing for its staff.

  When the Agency was established the design of a corporate identity including a logo was commissioned. The overall costs of this work was £11,000. Costs of Corporate Stationery incorporating the Agency's logo are no more than was the cost of producing the Department's stationery which incorporated its own house style. The annual cost of printing stationery is just over £11,000.

  I trust that you will find this information helpful.
  167
  Letter from D. J. Bell to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 13 January 1995

  VALUATION AND LANDS AGENCY

  Sir John Wheeler has asked that I write to you in my capacity as Commissioner and Chief Executive of the Valuation and Lands Agency to give the information requested by you from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 19 January 1995.

  The period since Agentisation has been a most challenging one as the organisation sought to accommodate the necessary cultural change brought about by Agency status and strove to achieve the demanding targets set for it in a climate of considerable financial constraint across the public sector as a whole.

  I am confident that the Agency will continue to demonstrate improved performance flowing from the tighter targeting and resource control put in place under Next Steps.

  The following is the specific information which you requested:-

  (i) The Agency does not own its headquarters building-this was occupied by the Valuation and Lands Office before its agentisation—but shows an assessed notional annual rental value in its Accounts (£275,000 1993–94);

  (ii) no additional support staff have been acquired since agentisation;

  (iii) the approximate annual cost of publishing periodic journals is £13,700;

  (iv) the Agency does not have any executive cars;

  (v) the one-off cost of the Agency logo was £6,243;

  (vi) the Agency does not have corporate clothing; and

  (vii) the cost of specifically designed and printed corporate stationery since agentisation is £5,870.

  I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the occasions on which Northern Ireland constituency boundaries were discussed(a) in the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference and (b) in the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental secretariat.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The provisional recommendations on electoral boundaries published by the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Boundary Commission in January 1994 were raised by the Irish side at the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference held on 28 January 1994. As the joint communiqué issued after that conference recorded, the British side said that the commission is a body responsible to Parliament, not to Government, and described the statutory procedures for interested parties to make representations with respect to the commission's proposed recommendations.

  Northern Ireland Boundary Commission
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the dates on which officials met or telephone members or officials of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission;

  (2) when the officials of the political affairs division first became aware of what became the revised recommendations of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission.

  Mr. Ancram
  Having regard to the independence of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Boundary Commission, contact has been confined to Northern Ireland Office officials with specific responsibility for the commission's financial accountability and resources. and has been minimal.
  168
  The deputy chairman of the boundary commission wrote to the Secretary of State on 16 January to advise him of the revised recommendations. That letter was copied to appropriate officials within the Department and included senior members of the political affairs division.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the persons and firms engaged as consultants by the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Ancram
  The firms and persons engaged as consultants by the Fair Employment Commission from 1 January 1990 to date were:

  BIS Beecom (now Parity Solutions Ltd.)

  F. Cassidy

  R. J. Cormac

  A. M. Gallagher

  Gilpin Black

  J. M. D. Kremer

  Market Research N I

  A. Murphy

  Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre

  R. D. Osborne

  Psychometric Research and Development

  Research and Evaluation Services

  M. Rubenstein

  Septembers McConnell

  Ulster Marketing Services

  In addition, the commission administered, on behalf of the Department of Economic Development, the small firms fair employment scheme, under which companies obtained free consultancy advice on fair employment procedures. This scheme ceased to operate on 31 March 1993. During the life of the scheme, 58 consultants undertook assignments for small companies.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is the practice of the Fair Employment Commission to notify any consultants of forthcoming investigations.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Fair Employment Commission does not notify consultants of forthcoming investigations.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means notice is given by the Fair Employment Commission(a) to the firms concerned, (b) to other bodies and (c) to the public of forthcoming investigations.

  Mr. Ancram
  The conduct of investigations under section 11 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 is governed by paragraph 2 of schedule 9 of the legislation.

  Before holding an investigation, the commission serves notice of its intention to hold the investigation and furnishes particulars of the scope and purpose of the investigation in a formal letter to the party concerned.

  It is not the policy of the commission to provide notice of forthcoming investigations to any other body.

  The public is provided with general information on the commission's investigation activities in its annual report. The names of concerns under investigation are not released until the investigation is complete and the report published.
  169

  Abortion
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on abortion law in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The Government are giving careful consideration to the recommendations on abortion law which have been made by the commission. Decisions on those recommendations have yet to be taken.

  Roads Service
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many personnel are retiring or being offered redundancy in the current phase of roads service staff reductions; what are the grades of those leaving the roads service; and how reductions are distributed within each division.

  Mr. Moss
  In response to the 1994–95 early retirement programmes available to Northern Ireland civil service industrial and non-industrial staff, a total of 133 personnel in the Department of the Environment roads service have applied successfully for voluntary redundancy and will be leaving during the period 1 January to 20 March 1995.

  Some of the vacancies created within the administrative and professional and technical grades will not necessarily be carried within the division in which the retiring officer served.

  This overall figure is divided among the roads service's divisions as follows

  Non-Industrial

  Division

  Administrative

  Professional and Technical

  Industrial

  Total

  HQ (Belfast)

  1

  6

  3

  10

  Ballymena

  1

  3

  14

  18

  Belfast

  —

  2

  11

  13

  Coleraine

  1

  3

  14

  18

  Craigavon

  1

  11

  15

  27

  Downpatrick

  2

  4

  15

  21

  Omagh

  —

  8

  18

  26

  All the industrial staff leaving are non-craft road workers, with the grades and distribution of the non-industrial staff concerned being as follows:

  Grades

  HQ

  1 x Principal, 2 x SPTO, 2 x HPTO, 1 x PTO, 1 x TG I

  Ballymena

  1 x Staff Officer, 1 x SPTO, 1 x HPTO, 1 x PTO Supervisor

  Belfast

  1 x HPTO, 1 x TG I

  Coleraine

  1 x Staff Officer, 1 x SPTO, 1 x HPTO, 1 x PTO Supervisor

  Craigavon

  1 x EO I, 2 x PPTO, 2 x SPTO, 2 x HPTO, 1 x PTO, 2 x PTO Supervisor, 2xTGI

  Downpatrick

  1 x Deputy Principal, 1 x Staff Officer, 1 x SPTO, 1 x PTO, 1 x PTO Supervisor, 1 x TG I

  Omagh

  5 x SPTO, 1 x PTO Supervisor, 2xPTO

  Notes:

  1. PPTO—Principal Professional and Technology Officer.

  2. SPTO—Senior Professional and Technology Officer.

  3. HPTO—Higher Professional and Technology Officer.

  4. PTO—Professional and Technology Officer.

  5. TG I—Technical Grade I.

  6. EO I—Executive Officer Grade I.

  Rates Collection Agency
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation took place with elected Northern Ireland Members before(a) the setting up of the Rates Collection Agency and (b) the decision to reduce from 13 to five the number of rates collection offices.

  Mr. Moss
  The decision to establish the Rates Collection Agency as an executive agency of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland with effect from 1 April 1991 was announced in answer to a question from the then Member for North Devon on 27 March 1991,Official Report, columns 426–27. The chief executive's recommendations last year for streamlining the work of the agency became public knowledge before any external consultations could be arranged.

  Local Government Finance

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proposed reduction in the amount of rate support grant payable in each of the 26 local government councils for the year 1995–96 in(a) overall cash terms, (b) p/£ rate and (c) as a percentage of each council's district rate 1994–95.

  Mr. Moss
  There is no proposed reduction in the amount of general grant payable for the year 1995–96. Overall, there will be a 7.1 per cent. increase as set out below. However, since district councils are still in the process of finalising accounts, it is not possible to provide the information requested at (b) and (c).

  District councils

  Cash provision 1994–95 £k

  Cash provision 1995–96 £k

  Antrim

  189

  394

  Ards

  1,773

  2,007

  Armagh

  1,966

  1,953

  Ballymena

  643

  781

  Bally money

  834

  877

  Banbndge

  872

  1,180

  Belfast

  5,314

  6,061

  Carrickfergus

  743

  835

  Castlereagh

  1,015

  882

  Coleraine

  392

  412

  Cookstown

  904

  964

  Craigavon

  1,899

  2,140

  Deity

  3,065

  3,206

  Down

  2,023

  2,457

  Dungannon

  1,748

  1,704

  Fermanagh

  1,782

  1,774

  Lame

  703

  806

  Limavady

  921

  1,035

  Lisburn

  1,860

  1,531

  Magherafelt

  1,116

  1,452

  Moyle

  540

  554

  Newry and Mourne

  3,375

  3,503

  Newtownabbey

  1,335

  1,447

  North Down

  1,038

  558

  Omagh

  1,666

  1,951

  Strabane

  1,700

  1,741

  Totals

  39.4 million

  42.2 million

  Notes

  1 Staff figures are based on full time equivalents (part-time staff count as 0.5)

  2 The Government office Merseyside and Government office London did not exist in 1993–94.
  171
  The figures for 1994–95 cannot be finalised until accounts are certified towards the end of the 1995–96 financial year. The figures for 1995–96 are based on provisional estimates provided by district councils in September 1994.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to reduce the regional rate required by an amount comparable to the increase which will be required in the district rate in order to compensate for the proposed reduction in the 1995–96 rate support grant.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No decision has yet been taken on the level of the 1995–96 regional rate. An order fixing the regional rate poundage will be laid before the House. However, the legislation governing the striking of the regional rate provides for the amounts to be raised by the district rate to be taken into account before the order is made.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the discretionary power being given to councils in Northern Ireland to increase from 2p to 5p in the pound the amount to be spent on local economic development will be met by extra taxation or by way of transfer of moneys from the Department of Economic Development budget to individual councils.

  Mr. Moss
  There is a discretionary power. It is a matter for district councils to decide how much they wish to raise within the 5p limit to provide economic development activities within their districts. There is no specific funding from central Government. Any additional expenditure by councils as a result of the increase from 2p to 5p will have to be met from within their overall resources.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed reductions in the 1995–96 rate support grant on the work of local government councils in fulfilling their obligations to community relations and other cross-community projects; and what areas of councils' responsibilities are likely to be affected.

  Mr. Moss
  No such assessment has been made because the general grant for 1995–96 has not been reduced. The allocation of £42.2 million represents an increase of £2.8 million—7.1 per cent.—on the 1994–95 provision.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Mine Clearance
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research is being conducted by the British Government into improved methods of humanitarian mine clearance.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently evaluating proposals from the Defence Research Agency, whose technological expertise may be able to improve the means of mine detection. If successful, these proposals could be a major step forward in dealing with the various land mine problems around the world.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) mechanised or (b) other methods of humanitarian mine clearance are available.
  172
  Mr. Baldry
  There a number of methods of mechanical mine clearance, including flails, ploughs, rollers and hard-wheeled vehicles. Other methods of mine clearance include detection by trained mine clearance teams using hand-held locators, or dog teams.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the condition of the Neretva hydro-electricity generation complex and its associated transmission system in central Bosnia; how many people could be served by this electricity supply; if he will estimates the cost of reinstating the system; and if he is involved in any plans to reinstate it.

  Mr. Baldry
  Of the Neretva hydro-power stations, only the Rama power station is currently operating, at a much reduced capacity. If the Neretva system were connected to the national grid it would help provide 709 MW of power to the whole of Bosina Herzegovina compared with 1,160 MW for the thermal system. Following an ODA review in January 1994, it was decided to continue to support thermal, rather than hydro, power stations due to the prohibitive cost of the large-scale civil engineering repairs that would be required. For the past one and a half. years, the ODA has undertaken a £9.8 million programme to restore basic electricity supplies to central Bosnia by assisting in vital repairs to thermal power stations and transmission lines and helping to maintain coal output.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects funded by his Department during the last three years, and planned for the future, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, giving the cost of each project and the contributions made by other agencies or Governments.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the three years of the conflict, the ODA has provided over £173.5 million in emergency aid to the former Yugoslavia—£94 million bilaterally and over £79.5 million through the European Union.

  Copies of an information sheet which gives financial and factual information, details of contributions to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the 1994 summary of overall donor assistance to the former Yugoslavia and a list of all the projects undertaken by the EEU, will be placed in the Library of the House at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the condition of the principal supply routes to and within Bosnia-Herzegovina; and what plans he has to support the repair and maintenance of those routes to facilitate the supply of humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Although local authorities are still responsible for the original roads, the maintenance and repair of principal supply routes in the former Yugoslavia are dealt with primarily by the engineering units of UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and UNPROFOR, the United Nations protection force. The ODA has seconded two road engineers to the UNHCR for the last two years to assist with the upkeep of the supply routes. All aid routes are accessible, subject to weather conditions.

  EU Development and Co-operation Activities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the new division of responsibility for development and co-operation activities within the European Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  Five Commissioners will share responsibility for development and co-operation activities in the new European Commission. Mr. Pinheiro will be responsible for DG VIII—African, Caribbean and Pacific countries; Mr. Mann will be responsible for DG I North/South—the Mediterranean, Asia and Latin America; Mr. van den Broek will be responsible for DG I—the PHARE and TACIS programmes for eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union; Ms Bonino will be responsible for emergency aid—the European Community Humanitarian Office; Mme Cresson will be responsible for research and development including that for developing countries—DG XII.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British aid organisations are currently involved in providing humanitarian assistance in Liberia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Save the Children Fund is currently providing health care to displaced persons in Greater Monrovia and Bomi county. We are unaware of any other British aid organisations currently operating in Liberia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if humanitarian assistance in Liberia outside Monrovia has now been resumed.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been some resumption of humanitarian aid outside Monrovia, but this is essentially exploratory and small scale. The British Government have provided over £3 million of emergency aid bilaterally to Liberia since April 1993.

  Child Health
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of overseas aid is used for low-cost strategies with particular reference to(a) oral rehydration therapy and (b) immunisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Improving child health is an important objective for Britain's health and population aid. The promotion of oral rehydration for diarrhoea and immunisation against preventable infectious diseases are essential, cost-effective interventions in all primary health care programmes which now form the major part of ODA's strategy for reaching this objective. Data are not available for our aid to health classified by the specific nature of the intervention; such data could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of overseas aid is devoted to the health, nutrition, education and well-being of children.

  Mr. Baldry
  One of the main aims of the aid programme is to enhance access to education, basic health services and improved livelihoods. Where appropriate, projects are funded to address the needs of children, including their health, nutritional and educational requirements. Information about the amounts spent in each area could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list dates on which aid offers in principle were made to the Government of Indonesia in each year since 1980;

  (2) if he will list the dates on which aid and trade provision offers in principle were made to the Government of Indonesia in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 3 February 1995]Aid offers in principle are not made in respect of projects financed from the bilateral aid programme.

  For projects financed under the aid and trade provision, we have entered into the following framework agreements with the Government of Indonesia since 1980:

  Date

  Agreement

  Amount £ million

  16 July 1986

  Concessional loan arrangement 1986

  140

  1 December 1988

  Concessional loan arrangement 1988

  100

  5 April 1993

  Concessional loan arrangement 1993

  65

  7 April 1994

  Concessional loan arrangement 1994

  80

  The amounts indicated relate to support available in principle for projects to be mutually agreed between the United Kingdom and Indonesian Governments. They comprise a mix of grants from the aid and trade provision and export credits through the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates since 1980 bilateral aid to Indonesia, including aid and trade provision support, has been withheld or suspended for good government reasons with particular reference to persistent or severe abuse of human rights.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 118–20, concerning projects in Indonesia financed from the aid and trade provision, if he will give an assurance that none of the equipment provided is being used by Indonesian military or security personnel; and what is the purpose of the provision of radio communications and shortwave radio transmitters for the Ministry of Forestry.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]None of the equipment provided for the projects referred to in my answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, columns 118—20, is being used by Indonesian military or security personnel.

  The radio communication systems project was for the installation of an integrated radio network at the Ministry of Forestry's headquarters and selected provincial offices to improve the sustainable management and control of the country's forestry resources.

  The shortwave radio transmitters project involves the installation of high-frequency transmitters to enable shortwave broadcasting to be heard throughout Indonesia. The principle objective of the project is to give the population access to information, and to educate and unite disparate communities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Creation
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs will be created if the Jobseekers Bill becomes law.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The national insurance contribution holiday, the back-to-work bonus and other measures in the Jobseekers Bill will assist unemployed people into the jobs which business, not Government, create.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss fair employment practices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairwoman and chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission on 7 November 1994, when a range of issues was discussed, including fair employment practices.

  Training Places
  Mr. Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what calculation he has made of the number of extra training places which will be required as a result of the provisions in the Jobseekers Bill; and what is the total cost of the places to be provided.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government already provide 1.5 million opportunities, including substantial training provision for unemployed people. The jobseeker's allowance will help unemployed people take best advantage of those opportunities.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the CBI on the policy of its members employing disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the CBI regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest. The CBI responded to the Government's recent consultation document on discrimination against disabled people.

  Industrial Relations
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

  Mr. Portillo
  Industrial relations in Britain are so much improved and so good by international comparisons that, like most good news, they are nowadays scarcely discussed.

  Employment Service
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people the Employment Service has helped into employment in the last year.
  176
  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1994 the Employment Service placed 1,924,400 people in jobs. This is 16 per cent. more than in 1993.

  European Work Directive
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom unemployment of the EU's 48-hour working week directive.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government negotiated the working time directive so that people could continue to be free to work more or less than 48 hours a week. Ii. is not possible to make numerical estimates of the effect on unemployment, but any statutory limit on working hours would be damaging to competitiveness, jobs and the economy.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussion he has had with his EU counterparts about health and safety measures within Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets his European counterparts on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues, including health. and safety.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what, at the latest date, were the figures for unemployment; and what were the comparable figures in June 1979.

  Mr. Paice
  There were 2,415,500 claimant unemployed in December 1994 compared with 1,067,400 in June 1979.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to change the method of calculating the numbers of unemployed.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There no plans at present to change the method of calculating unemployment figures derived from either the claimant count or the labour force survey. Each method complements the other and each has its own distinct advantages.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of a minimum wage in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Statutory minimum wages destroy jobs. This is as true of the tourism industry as it is of any other sector of the economy.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library the notes of his meeting in Davos with Mr. Alphandery with particular reference to the subject of a minimum wage.

  Mr. Portillo
  I took part in a round-table discussion on unemployment and under-employment at the world economic forum in Davos at which Mr. Alphandery and others were present. A full note of the meeting has not been produced to the best of my knowledge. A one-page summary of the meeting has been published by the world economic forum and I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.
  177
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of a statutory minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A statutory minimum wage would destroy jobs and job prospects. Its effects on the employment prospects of unemployed people would undoubtedly be disastrous.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs that have arisen from inward investment over the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  According to figures notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau, as a result of inward investment more than 126,000 new jobs were created, and nearly 200,000 more were safeguarded, in the United Kingdom in the five financial years to 1993–94.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in respect of full employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high employment and low inflation.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other EU countries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The United Kingdom youth unemployment rate is below the European average and is lower than in every EU country except Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal. The information is contained in the table.

  Seasonally adjusted youth unemployment rates in Eu countries

  Latest month

  Belguim

  19.4 (November)

  Denmark

  10.0 (October)

  Germany2

  —

  Greece1

  —

  Spain

  36.3 (November)

  France

  23.0 (November)

  Ireland

  27.1 (November)

  Italy

  31.2 (November)

  Luxembourg

  7.1 (November)

  Netherland

  15.4 (October)

  Portugal

  11.4 (November)

  United Kingdom

  13.5 (November)

  EC Average

  19.5 (November)

  Source

  Statistical Office of the European Community Unemployment Bulletin. Latest available data—subject to revision.

  1 Only 1991 annual average figures available for Greece

  2No ILO rate available for unified Germany

  Youth Training
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of 178
  16 to 17-year-olds who are not in receipt of a youth training scheme place.

  Mr. Paice
  On 30 December 1994, in England, 179 young people covered by the youth training guarantee had been waiting for the offer of a YT place for eight weeks or longer.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage change in the number of hard-to-fill vacancies over the last year; and in which sectors these skill shortages are most concentrated.

  Mr. Paice
  The number of hard-to-fill vacancies reported by medium and large employers increased by 76 per cent. between spring 1993 and spring 1994. These hard-to-fill vacancies are most concentrated in manufacturing, wholesale and retail, hotel and restaurants and the health and social work sectors.

  Job Creation (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessments he has made of the prospects for job creation in East Sussex.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We believe that the Government have created the right framework for employers to create jobs and reduce unemployment in East Sussex, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  The latest figures show that in the year to December 1994 claimant unemployment in East Sussex fell by 12 per cent., while the labour force survey indicates that in the year to summer 1994 employment in the area increased by 14,000 to 316,000.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in jobcentres; what are the main tasks they undertake; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Currently, around 30,000 staff are employed on front-line duties in jobcentres. They provide a range of services designed to help unemployed people back to work, and to pay benefit to those who are entitled to it. The main tasks staff undertake are job-broking—obtaining vacancies from employers and sending jobseekers to them, advising jobseekers on the range of help available and paying unemployment benefit to those entitled to it. Actual duties are interchangeable, as staff are encouraged to be able to perform a variety of work.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances, for what reason and when South Thames TEC ran out of money.

  Mr. Paice
  The extent of the problems at South Thames training and enterprise council was revealed by a team of accountants led by staff from this Department with the support of the accountancy firm, Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton reported to this Department on 16 December 1994. Its report was conveyed to the TEC on the same day. The report showed that the TEC was trading at a loss and forecasted that this would continue, that its balance at best was negative or would shortly become so,
  179
  that it faced major cash flow problems and that weaknesses in its management accounting and financial control systems persisted. In the light of the report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that it would be unsafe to commit further public money to the TEC. In view of the report and that conclusion the board of South Thames TEC concluded on 21 December 1994 that the company was insolvent and invited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint a receiver.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update each quarter a list of training providers to South Thames TEC that became business failures because of money unpaid by South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  To date, I have not been told of any training providers who have failed for this reason.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what purpose South Thames TEC put the money received from central Government for the purpose of paying training providers.

  Mr. Paice
  The training and enterprise council's financial affairs are currently a matter for the receiver appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall reply to the hon. Member's question when the receiver has done the necessary work in connection with the TEC's affairs.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that training guarantees for young people and unemployed adults in the area formerly covered by South Thames TEC are fulfilled.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government guarantee that any young person aged 16 to 17 who is not in employment, training or education and seeks youth training will be offered a suitable opportunity. There is no equivalent guarantee for unemployed adults. The Department's main aim is to ensure the continued provision of training in the South Thames training and enterprise council area. A number of steps have been taken to assure training providers that they will be paid for training undertaken since 7 November 1994. The Department has issued letters of comfort to providers contracted to South Thames TEC for training for work and youth training credits, child care, work-related further education, careers and guidance year and 10 and careers libraries. The Department of the Environment has extended comfort to the business start-up programme. The Government office for London is making payments direct to providers of these programmes under the terms of its contract with South Thames TEC from 7 November 1994 until 1 January 1995. For the period of three months from the appointment of the receiver on 21 December 1994, the Departments will make available to the receiver sufficient funds to ensure providers receive payments for training and outputs delivered by them under the terms of their contract with South Thames TEC for the same programmes.

  I made an announcement on 31 January, Official Report, columns 598–600, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), about the future arrangements for the South Thames TEc area. Two neighbouring TECs, Central London TEC and South London TEC have been invited to submit proposals to me on how they would provide the full range of TEC responsibilities for the area fro the beginning of the new financial year.
  180
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names and addresses of training providers who did not have a formal contract with South Thames TEC but who had provided training by agreement with South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  I understand that the South Thames training and enterprise council did not have formal contracts but paid under letters of intent to providers of the following programmes: compacts, teacher placement service, work-related further education and years 9 and 10 careers-guidance. In addition, some providers of traineeships to Routeways—a wholly owned subsidiary of South Thames TEC—were also paid through letters of intent. The providers covered by letters of intent are shown in the following table:

  Archbishop Michael Ramsey

  Aylwin

  Charles Edward Brooke

  Dick Sheppard

  Dunraven

  Geoffrey Chaucer

  Lilian Bayliss

  Norwood

  Sacred Heart

  St. Martin's in the Field

  St. Saviours and St. Olaves

  Stockwell Park

  Walworth

  Warwick Park

  Waverly

  William Penn

  Aspen House

  Elm Court

  Highshore

  Landsdowne Mortimer

  Orchard Centre

  Spa

  Thurlow Park

  Turney

  Willowfiled

  Clapham Park

  George Rainey

  Kingsdale

  Abbey Wood School

  Addey and Stanhope School

  Anerley School

  Blackheath Bluecoat C of E

  Brent Knoll School

  Catford County Girls School

  Churchfields School

  Crofton School Crown Woods School

  Deptford Green School

  Eaglesfield Boys School

  Eltham Green School

  Forest Hill School

  Hatcham Wood School

  John Evelyn ESC

  John Roan School

  Kidbrooke School

  Malory School

  Moatbridge School

  Northbrook C of E School

  Pendragon School

  Plumstead Manor School

  Prendergas Girls School

  Sedgehill School

  181

  St. Joseph's Academy Boys

  St. Pauls RC School

  Sydenham School

  The Schoolhouse Alternative Education Project

  Waterfied School

  Woolwich Polytechnic Boys

  Others

  Southwark College

  Lambeth College

  Lewisham College

  Greenwich College

  Southwark Careers Service

  Lambeth Careers Service

  Lewisham Careers Service

  Greenwich Careers Service

  British School of Motoring

  Direct Team

  Goodnews Training Ltd.

  Greenwich Clipper

  Jobreach (Greenwich)

  New Directions

  Pepys Radio Project

  Rendberry Ltd.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when South Thames TEC was entered on to the high-risk register.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not maintain formal risk registers. The training and enterprise council's internal financial management is a matter for the TEC board. The high-risk assessment made by the Department related to the effectiveness of financial control systems in the TEC and was made in December 1993.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibilities his Department has to those firms which are put into bankruptcy as a result of the financial failure of TECs which renege on their debts.

  Mr. Paice
  Because training and enterprise councils are private companies, the Department has no legal responsibilities towards firms contracted with them.

  Contracts between TECs and other parties are commercial, subject to company law and the law of contract, including that relating to insolvency.

  The Department is concerned, where problems arise between TECs and suppliers of services under Government programmes, that steps are taken to minimise disruption to individuals.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of works on adult rates divided between manual and non-manual, male and female, and full and part-time have earnings less than £2.60, £3, £3.20, £3.40, £3.60, £3.80, £4, £4.40, £4.80, £5.20, £5.60, £6 and £8 per hour, including and excluding overtime, in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Humberside, Yorkshire/Humberside and the north region;

  (2) what were the average gross weekly earnings, weekly hours and hourly earnings for part-time workers, manual and non-manual, in (a) West Yorkshire, (b) South Yorkshire, (c) North Yorkshire, (d) Humberside, (e)
  182
  Yorkshire/Humberside and (f) the north region; and what were the lowest and highest decile and median hourly earnings of these workers;

  (3) what percentage of full-time workers on adult rates, male/female, manual/non-manual, are earning less than £160, £180, £200, £220, £300 and £340 per week, including and excluding overtime, in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Humberside, Yorkshire/Humberside and the north region.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  European Social Conference
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who will represent Britain at the European social conference held in Paris on 30 March.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A decision on Government representation at this conference will be taken nearer the date.

  Women
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which Ministers have what responsibility in respect of matters of specific relevance to women; how they are co-ordinated; what have been the results of their work to date; what they are currently working on to improve women's lives; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Every Minister takes account of sex equality issues within his or her area of policy responsibility. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues reviews and develops overall Government policy on issues of special concern to women; the Employment Department has lead responsibility within Whitehall for co-ordinating this policy. The United Kingdom's report for the United Nations fourth world conference on women, produced in October 1994, gives a recent overview of key achievements and priorities for action, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the Forth rail bridge; and what is the conclusion of Mr. John Rimington's inquiry into the Forth rail bridge.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is responsible for the oversight of safety on all parts of the railway, including the safety of workers, the protection of passengers and the integrity of structures such as the Forth rail bridge.

  I understand that Mr. Rimington wrote to the hon. Member about this matter on 25 January 1995. There is no present threat to the structural integrity of the bridge.

  Structural Funding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is in a position to announce that the Auchmountain Glen restoration and training project, Greenock, will receive in 1995 financial support by way of the European Union's objective 3 structural funds; and if he will make a statement.
  183
  Miss Widdecombe
  No application for European social fund support under objective 3 has yet been approved. All applications are currently being considered by sector managers who represent the main organisations which receive ESF money. In accordance with European Commission requirements, all the selected projects will be presented to regional co-ordinating groups for their approval during March. The Department will then be able to issue formal approval letters to successful projects.

  Training Providers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his written answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 539, if he will list the names and addresses of those training providers who have yet to receive a letter of comfort but whose case is still under investigation by the receiver.

  Mr. Paice
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the confusion caused by my answer of 30 January. This resulted from an administrative error made by the Department. A list of training providers who have yet to receive a letter of comfort but whose case is still under investigation by the receiver is now shown in the table:

  List of South Thames TEC Employer Investment in People Contractors which did not receive comfort letters

  QTAB

  Business Development Consultancy

  ETC Ltd.

  Terry Smith

  Training For Change

  Trevor Holt Associates

  Hambledon Group

  My Fathers Business

  Strand International

  John Horwood Consultants Ltd.

  Nick Zienau Consultancy and Training

  ECO International Ltd.

  Sandra Burrows Associates

  Peter Austin

  John Beecher

  John Lawrence

  FOTEC

  Performance 2000

  Genesis Development

  Mountwood Consultants

  Roger Ayscough

  Roy Price Healthcare Consultant

  PPC Ltd.

  Central Management Services Ltd.

  Latimer Chandler

  Bridge Penines Ltd.

  Statius Management Services

  Scher Associates

  LCD Associates

  Partners in Innovation

  L M Quality

  Havenguard Financial Management Ltd.

  Martyn Dawes Association

  Chalk n Cheese Chromacolour

  Colebrook Bosson Saunders

  Executive Cleaning Group

  Executive Cleaning (Security)

  Heymount Ltd.

  London Research Centre

  184

  Scotts of Stockwell

  Skill National

  South London Press

  St. John's Angell Town CE

  Surrey Cricket Club

  TEC National Council

  Telferscot Primary School

  World Society for Protection of Animals

  Cromwell Cleaning

  EPS

  Executive Cleaning Ltd.

  Freemans

  Leiths Good Food

  Office Cleaning Services

  Railtrack South West

  SAS Services

  Swirl Service

  Alma Primary School

  Anthony Gold Solicitors

  (Ayscough Travel)

  Battley Brothers

  Book Aid International

  Bredinghurst School

  Chapter Group plc

  Design Research Unit

  DSL Software Ltd.

  Fisher Meredith

  Further Education Unit

  (Hatcham Wood School)

  Highshore School

  Institute of Optometry

  London Limousines

  Martyn Dawes

  Raymond Bushell

  Robin Johnson

  Sacred Heart School

  Sitra

  Southwark Counsell Corporate Policy

  (St. Michaels Press)

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

  Training for Change

  Understanding Industry

  Walter Coles

  Walworth School

  W. J. Boyle

  ASRA Housing

  Clapham Park School

  Graham and Rose Colley

  Major Hire

  Melrose Film Productions Ltd.

  Peries Solicitors

  SM Distribution

  St. Martin-in-the-Field School

  St. Saviour's Primary School

  St. Stephens Primary School

  Vassel House

  Medicines Control Agency

  Railtrack South

  Beormund Primary School

  Bishop Thomas Grant

  Charles Dickens Primary School

  Cherry Garden School

  Cleaning and Support Services

  Eltham Green

  Joseph Lancaster

  Middle Park Junior

  Nell Gwyn Nursery

  Peckham Park Infants School

  Plumstead Manor School

  185

  Southwark CEOs

  outhwark EMs

  St. Stephens School

  Steer Davies Gleave

  Unilever (CMEG)

  Waterfield School

  Waverley School

  Central Office of Information

  Davy Wine Bar

  Hunter Plastics

  (Lambeth College)

  (Lewisham College)

  London Borough of Southwark

  Southbank University

  (Southwark College)

  (Southwark Development Directorate)

  (Southwark Direct)

  (Woolwich College)

  AEEU

  Financial Times

  Goldsmiths College

  Greenwich: Direct

  Greenwich: Director of Environmental and Consumer Services

  Greenwich: Education Directorte

  Hyde Housing

  Lewisham: Assessment and Care Management

  Lewisham: Care First

  Lewisham: LEED

  Lewisham: Direct

  Lewisham: Education

  Lewisham: Revenue and Benefits

  Bryen and Langley

  Clarkes

  Computer Literacy

  Deptford Enterprise Agency

  Forest Hill Cars

  Greenwich: Borough Secretary and Solicitors

  Greenwich: Planning

  Lewisham: Care and Corporate Services

  Lewisham: Chief Executives Office

  Lewisham: Computing

  Lewisham: Legal

  Lewisham: Member Services

  Lewisham: Personnel and Administration

  Lewisham: Womens Training Centre

  Lings Ltd.

  Mastercoun Ltd.

  Regent Graphics Ltd.

  Action for Blind People

  Age Concern Southwark

  Convoys Ltd.

  Lewisham: Central Service

  Peabody Trust

  Southwark Direct

  Southwark Education

  Southwark Housing

  Southwark Law and Administration

  Southwark Leisure

  Greenwich: Borough Treasures

  Optimum Health

  Bromcom Computers

  Convoys

  Elfrida Primary School

  Furnitures

  Greenwich Careers

  Harveys

  Lewisham Nexus

  Mercury Newspapers

  Music City

  186

  Perrymount Primary School

  Speedicars

  URBED

  Watergate School

  Archduke Partnership

  Centrereed

  Emergency Exit Arts

  George E. Neville and Co.

  Guarantee Security Cover

  Hays Corporate Service Ltd (P)

  House of Questa

  Superprint

  Tower Bridge

  (Citi Data Ltd—Hays Group)

  (Colourama)

  Columbia International

  Greenwich Leisure

  Hays Record Management

  HM Prison Belmarsh

  Imperial War Museum

  (IPC Magazines)

  London Quadrant and Housing Ltd.

  Abbey Wood School

  Blackheath Leisure

  Charlton Garage Services Ltd.

  Cyril Henry Nursery

  Eglinton Infant School

  George English Electronics

  Hawksmoor Grant Maintained School

  Henwick School

  Jackson Lifts

  Kennedy and Partners

  Kidbrooke Primary School

  Kidbrooke School

  Linton Mead Primary School

  Maze Hill Special Needs School

  Meagher Credit Management Service

  M. Epps

  Middle Park Infants School

  Morden Mount Primary School

  Protegumus Security Services

  Sherryton School

  Thomas Tallis School

  Project Coin

  Shelley School

  Walton Lodge Linen Service

  Windmill School

  North West Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 716, if he will name the members on the board of the north west training and enterprise council together with the interests they represent.

  Mr. Paice
  The names of all training and enterprise council board members are available from the Library. TEC board members join and remain on the board of directors as individuals and not as representatives of another company or organisation. There is no such single organisation as the north west TEC.

  Redundancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the firms in the Dundee travel-to-work area which have notified his Department
  187
  of redundancies involving more than 10 people since 1 August 1993, giving in each case the actual number.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information given to the Department under the statutory redundancy handling provisions is provided in confidence.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury on 6 February 1995, Official Report, column 69.

TRANSPORT

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of the subsidence of old mine workings under the east coast main line between Prestonpans and Wallyford; what assessment he has made of the completeness of the record of such workings under railway lines; and what will be the liability of Railtrack for the consequences and costs of similar incidents following privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  A temporary speed restriction was imposed in November 1994 between Prestonpans and Wallyford station following discovery of subsidence of old mine workings during routine maintenance. To prevent further subsidence, Railtrack is injecting concrete slurry into the former mine workings. It is anticipated that the work will be completed in the next few weeks and the line speed will be back to 60 mph by March 1995 and restored to 125 mph later in the year.

  Railtrack is carrying out a search of mining records compiled by the British Railways Board, the Coal Authority and other sources for a report identifying the locations of mine shafts, drifts and shallow mine workings in the vicinity of Railtrack property.

  Liability for costs and consequences of remedial work to a collapsed mineshaft or shallow mine working will depend on the circumstances of each case. Privatisation will make no difference to Railtrack's liabilities.

  Driving Test Centre, Rhyl
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from individuals and organisations with regard to the proposed relocation of the driving test centre at 96 Cefndy road, Rhyl; if he will review the objections for himself; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Driving Standards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  188
  Letter from L. M. Manley to Mr. David Hanson, dated 7 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the Rhyl driving test centre. I wrote to you on 20 January about the need to relocate the Rhyl and Llandudno driving test centres and the public consultation exercise we are carrying out.

  The public consultation exercise concluded on 30 November 1994. Some 25 individuals and organisations responded, mostly expressing concern at our proposals. In the meantime the Rhuddlan Borough Council and the Vale of Clwyd Traders Council have offered to assist us in finding alternative accommodation in Rhyl. We will delay consideration of the representations made during the public consultation exercise until our discussions with Rhuddlan Borough Council and Vale of Clwyd Traders Council have been completed.

  Sickness Absence
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, if he will list the areas of work in his Department which have been reorganised following the Vehicle Inspectorate's total quality initiative; and what assessment he has made of the relationship between these reorganisations and the stress' level and sick absences among employees of his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 6 February 1995:

  TOTAL QUALITY INITIATIVE IN THE VEHICLE INSPECTORATE

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding reorganisation within the Vehicle Inspectorate following its Total Quality Initiative.

  To meet its commitments, the Inspectorate has to keep pace with developments and be able to respond to change. We are currently in the second stage of the Total Quality Initiative (TQI) and we expect it to deliver improvements in efficiency, as well as effectiveness and service. During the course of this financial year, Corrective Action Teams and Continuous Improvement Teams have been working across the Inspectorate. We believe that staff participation and understanding can help in minimising the stress of change and their recommendations as part of the "Teams" have contributed to the reorganisations under way in the Inspectorate's 3 divisions.

  The Inspectorate surveyed staff attitude at the start of the TQ process in Autumn 1993. We plan to survey staff attitude again during the 1995/96 financial year and continue to look at staff absence rates to provide us with as full a picture as possible.

  If you have any further questions about the Inspectorate's initiatives, please contact me at the above address.

  Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether each of the transport policies and programmes of highway authorities for the past two years are in his Department's library; whether the library is open to researchers; where the library is; when it was last moved; and what the cost consequences have been.
  189
  Mr. Norris
  Current transport policies and programmes are held by local transport policy division. They are available to the DOT library in 2 Marsham street, if required. Old TPPs are stored off site. Researchers may use the library by prior arrangement. The library moved in April 1994, saving £1 million a year.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last three financial years, the amount spent by his Department on publicity for the work of the traffic area offices, excluding that spent on the traffic area network, the traffic commissioners and the licensing authorities' annual reports.

  Mr. Norris
  Excluding the annual reports, the amount spent directly on publicity for the work of the traffic area offices is as follows:

  1992–93: £4,756.74

  1993–94: £2,520.28

  1994–95: £5,801.00

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, if he will (1) list the occasions in 1994 on which risk assessments by the Driving Standards Agency have led to reorganisations in his Department;

  (2) list the dates of risk assessments by the Driving Standards Agency in 1994; and if he will make a statement on the nature of these assessments.

  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 L. M. Manley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 7 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about risk assessments in the Agency which have led to reorganisation.

  To date it has not been found necessary to make any reorganisation as a result of risk assessments. Where risks have been identified, they have been controlled or eliminated without the need for reorganisation.

  Letter from L. M. Manley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 7 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about risk assessments in the Driving Standards Agency.

  The attached table provides the dates and numbers of risk assessments carried out in 1994. The assessments covered display screen equipment, manual handling procedures and general risks.

  Year

  Month/Date

  Number

  1994

  January

  6

  1

  19

  1

  25

  1

  29

  1

  4

  February

  8

  7

  9

  3

  190

  Year

  Month/Date

  Number

  10

  1

  11

  7

  14

  6

  15

  3

  18

  1

  22

  2

  28

  2

  32

  March

  1

  1

  4

  1

  8

  1

  17

  6

  28

  1

  29

  3

  30

  1

  31

  4

  32

  April

  5

  1

  6

  2

  8

  6

  11

  8

  12

  12

  13

  1

  14

  6

  22

  5

  25

  1

  42

  1994 (cont.)

  May

  4

  1

  9

  2

  10

  2

  11

  2

  13

  31

  16

  1

  17

  6

  18

  2

  20

  2

  21

  18

  67

  June

  2

  1

  3

  4

  6

  7

  10

  2

  20

  1

  22

  6

  24

  12

  28

  2

  29

  5

  30

  1

  41

  July

  1

  1

  4

  1

  8

  1

  17

  1

  18

  1

  19

  4

  22

  1

  10

  August

  9

  1

  10

  1

  191

  Year

  Month/Date

  Number

  12

  2

  16

  3

  17

  6

  22

  2

  23

  9

  24

  4

  25

  3

  26

  5

  30

  7

  31

  7

  50

  September

  1

  4

  2

  8

  5

  3

  6

  12

  7

  10

  8

  2

  9

  3

  10

  1

  12

  4

  13

  6

  14

  8

  15

  2

  16

  1

  17

  1

  19

  4

  20

  4

  21

  3

  22

  2

  23

  4

  24

  1

  25

  2

  26

  3

  27

  6

  28

  4

  29

  2

  30

  6

  106

  October

  1

  2

  3

  9

  4

  5

  5

  7

  6

  13

  7

  7

  10

  15

  11

  15

  12

  9

  13

  9

  14

  7

  17

  5

  18

  10

  19

  13

  20

  5

  21

  2

  24

  7

  25

  5

  26

  1

  27

  10

  28

  5

  29

  2

  30

  1

  31

  3

  167

  192

  Year

  Month/Date

  Number

  November

  1

  3

  2

  1

  3

  1

  4

  3

  7

  2

  8

  2

  9

  4

  10

  2

  11

  26

  12

  1

  14

  2

  15

  2

  16

  4

  17

  4

  18

  7

  20

  1

  21

  30

  22

  12

  23

  9

  24

  2

  25

  6

  26

  9

  29

  8

  30

  7

  148.

  December

  1

  19

  2

  7

  4

  3

  5

  10

  6

  12

  7

  4

  8

  3

  12

  10

  13

  1

  15

  3

  16

  3

  21

  3

  22

  3

  28

  1

  30

  1

  83

  Total 1994 768

  1995

  January

  3

  2

  5

  2

  6

  1

  9

  4

  12

  4

  16

  1

  17

  4

  18

  3

  19

  1

  20

  1

  23

  7

  24

  5

  25

  13

  26

  3

  27

  1

  Total 1995 52

  Grand Total 820

  193

  Casual Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the status of employees of his Department which make up the panels which recruit casual staff at AA or AO level.

  Mr. Norris
  Casual staff within the Department of Transport at AA or AO level are recruited by the division where the vacancy arises. Usually two members of staff, at EO level or above, would conduct the recruitment interview.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his employment of the former head of personnel for the Vehicle Inspectorate to undertake a report on the Register of Shipping and Seamen office in Cardiff; and if he will list(a) the status of this employee, (b) the status of any severance pay granted following redundancy from the Vehicle Inspectorate and (c) the process by which he was chosen to fill this post.

  Mr. Norris
  The former head of personnel for the Vehicle Inspectorate is employed as a consultant by the Marine Safety Agency and was selected from a shortlist of retired departmental employees with the appropriate skills and experience.

  There is no direct employer-employee relationship between MSA and Mr. Walton, and the status of his severance pay is not affected.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the improvement of the west coast main line; if it is up to schedule; when the works will commence; what is the total likely cost; and what is the expected completion date.

  Mr. Watts
  The feasibility study was completed on schedule at the end of December. Railtrack will be publishing a summary of its findings shortly.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since the channel tunnel rail link has been established, his inspectors have inspected the operation of the security services on the route; and what were their findings.

  Mr. Watts
  The channel tunnel security inspectors have inspected the security measures in place on a number of occasions. It would not be appropriate on security grounds to detail their findings.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 859, about the channel tunnel link route on what date the delegation was led by the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), at which Miss Maureen Tomison made a presentation to his predecessor on behalf of the Ebbsfleet Promoter Group.
  194
  Mr. Watts
  The presentation referred to in my reply of 2 February took place on 11 May 1994. Miss Tomison made no presentation at this or any other departmental delegation.

  Highland Railways
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the adequacy of safety measures in place at accommodation crossings on rail lines in the highlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  Accommodation level crossings are private crossings, and it is the responsibility of the authorised user to ensure that the railway is clear before attempting to cross. Instructions on the safe use of crossings are displayed at each crossing.

  Rail Stations (Wheelchairs)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the railway stations in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland which are inaccessible to wheelchair users; and what proposals he has to make such stations barrier free.

  Mr. Watts
  The facilities available for disabled passengers vary from place to place. The leaflet "British Rail and Disabled Travellers" is designed to help disabled passengers plan their rail journeys and gives contact details for British Rail managers who will provide passengers with information about their nearest suitably designed and equipped station. A copy of this leaflet is available in the House Library.

  Government proposals to improve accessibility at stations for disabled passengers are included in the Disability Discrimination Bill, published last month.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes),Official Report, column 586, what steps he proposes to take to discourage vehicle manufacturers from fitting bull bars.

  Mr. Norris
  My predecessor wrote to vehicle manufacturers in 1993 expressing concern about the fitting of aggressive bull bars. We have since put in hand the accident analysis referred to in my answer of 31 January. We shall consider whether further steps should be taken to discourage vehicle manufacturers from fitting bull bars, and owners of existing vehicles from using them on the road with bull bars attached, in the light of that analysis.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Most of the rules and regulations which
  195
  were identified for withdrawal in last year's reviews have yet to be implemented. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when the consultations are completed.

  The manpower implications are taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans, which will be published in the Department's annual report in March.

  Train Timetables
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains between London and Plymouth in the last 28 days have arrived at the time advertised in the timetable, on weekdays and at the weekend; and if he will make a statement on the level of delays.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Statistics are compiled according to service groups, not individual routes, and on a four-weekly basis. The most recent figures covering the 28 days up to 7 January 1995 show that 88 per cent. of all trains in the Great Western service group arrived within 10 minutes of their advertised time. The figure for the 12 months up to this date is 91.2 per cent.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the existing integrity of the safety regime operating in the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]Under the terms of the treaty of Canterbury the channel tunnel intergovernmental commission takes decisions in the name of the two Governments for the implementation of the concession.

  The channel tunnel safety authority is established under the treaty to advise and assist the commission on all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the tunnel. It ensures that safety measures and practices applicable to the tunnel comply with national and international laws.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects that agreement will be reached clarifying the respective responsibilities for the enforcement of channel tunnel safety measures between the French authorities, the channel tunnel safety authority and Britain's Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the proposals of the Health and Safety Executive for the future division of responsibility for safety in the channel tunnel between the French authorities, the channel tunnel safety authority and Britain's Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answers 2 February 1995]The channel tunnel safety authority is preparing advice for the intergovernmental commission. Formal agreement between the United Kingdom and French authorities will be reached in due course. The Health and Safety Executive works in close co-operation with the United Kingdom delegation to the safety authority.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what considerations have so far led the channel tunnel safety authority not to exercise its power to make regulations and appoint inspectors; and if he will make a statement;
  196
  (2) when inspectors will be appointed by the channel tunnel safety authority.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answers 2 February and 3 February 1995]The channel tunnel safety authority does not have power to make regulations. It has powers to authorise experts to observe and inspect Eurotunnel's activities and exercises those powers as it considers appropriate.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken with the French authorities and Eurotunnel to meet the concerns about the responsibility and jurisdiction for safety in the channel tunnel as expressed by the Health and Safety Executive to the Employment Committee in November 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]These matters are under continuing discussion within the channel tunnel intergovernmental commission.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown on the number of(a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples and (c) all pensioners (i) aged under 75 years, (ii) aged 75 years and over and (iii) in total given in the analysis of pensioner incomes by quintile published on 15 April 1994, Official Report, column 304.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The latest information relating to 1992 pensioners' incomes details is in the tables.

  The numbers of pensioner units in each quintile of the next equivalised income distribution of pensioners—Table 1: Single pensioners

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Under 75

  300,000

  3500,000

  350,000

  400,000

  400,0000

  75 and Over

  ∗250,000

  ∗150,000

  ∗150,000

  ∗150,000

  ∗100,000

  Total

  550,000

  500,000

  500,000

  550,000

  550,000

  Table 2: Pensioner couples

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Under 75

  350,000

  450,000

  400,000

  450,000

  550,000

  75 and over

  550,000

  450,000

  450,000

  450,000

  350,000

  Total

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  Table 3: All pensioner units

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Under 75

  650,000

  750,000

  750,000

  850,000

  1,000,000

  75 and Over

  750,000

  650,000

  650,000

  550,000

  450,000

  Total

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are taken from the 1992 family expenditure survey and are for private households in the UK.

  2. The estimates denoted by an asterisk are based on unreliably small sample sizes and therefore should be treated with caution.

  3. The estimates have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Total population figures may therefore be misleading.
  197

  1992 Version of Table 1 of the answer made on 15 April 1994—Table 1 the Average Incomes of Pensioners 1979–1992 (by quintile—quintile 1 = lowest—(£per week July 1992 prices).

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  Income Source

  1979

  1992

  1979

  1992

  1979

  1992

  1979

  1992

  1979

  1992

  1979

  1992

  (a) Single Pensioners

  Earnings∗

  0.40

  0.00

  0.10

  0.20

  0.40

  0.50

  3.80

  1.60

  25.00

  23.20

  5.90

  5.10

  Benefit Income

  51.00

  57.20

  59.20

  68.10

  62.10

  78.50

  61.60

  78.40

  55.90

  72.00

  58.00

  70.80

  Investment Income

  2.00

  10.50

  2.20

  5.00

  2.40

  4.60

  6.90

  12.80

  33.00

  93.20

  9.30

  25.20

  Occupational Pension

  0.60

  2.10

  1.90

  5.40

  3.30

  8.00

  7.90

  24.30

  37.10

  82.90

  10.10

  24.50

  Other∗

  0.50

  0.10

  0.20

  0.40

  0.30

  0.20

  1.00

  0.30

  1.00

  2.80

  0.60

  0.70

  Gross Income

  54.50

  69.80

  63.50

  79.00

  68.50

  91.90

  81.20

  117.40

  152.00

  274.10

  83.90

  126.40

  Deductions

  5.60

  12.90

  4.70

  5.60

  4.40

  6.20

  7.30

  10.70

  29.50

  49.50

  10.30

  17.00

  Net Income BHC (mean)

  48.90

  56.90

  58.90

  73.40

  64.10

  85.70

  74.00

  106.70

  122.50

  224.60

  73.60

  109.40

  Net Income AHC (mean)

  38.10

  42.30

  47.40

  55.80

  51.30

  64.30

  59.60

  90.40

  107.10

  212.80

  60.70

  93.00

  Net Income (BHC (median)

  50.50

  58.90

  60.20

  75.50

  66.80

  86.30

  74.40

  105.60

  106.10

  184.30

  66.80

  86.30

  Net Income AHC (median)

  40.20

  46.60

  47.40

  55.70

  52.10

  62.80

  60.00

  88.60

  92.80

  175.50

  52.10

  62.80

  (b) Pensioner Couples

  Earnings∗

  0.30

  0.10

  1.30

  2.70

  5.90

  6.60

  28.00

  15.60

  95.50

  65.20

  26.10

  18.00

  Benefit Income

  85.50

  100.80

  93.10

  110.00

  93.00

  111.80

  88.10

  110.60

  78.80

  102.10

  87.70

  107.10

  Investment Income

  2.70

  4.60

  3.70

  8.40

  5.80

  26.20

  10.70

  42.80

  64.70

  145.60

  17.50

  45.40

  Occupational Pension

  2.60

  7.00

  7.30

  19.10

  19.20

  35.30

  38.30

  79.10

  96.30

  189.70

  32.60

  65.90

  Other∗

  0.30

  0.40

  0.40

  0.30

  1.60

  1.30

  0.90

  1.40

  1.10

  3.70

  0.90

  1.40

  Gross Income

  91.40

  112.90

  105.80

  140.40

  125.50

  181.20

  166.00

  249.50

  336.40

  506.30

  164.80

  237.80

  Deductions

  6.10

  10.60

  5.70

  11.10

  8.40

  17.00

  18.40

  26.90

  80.80

  92.70

  23.80

  31.60

  Net Income BHC (mean)

  85.20

  102.30

  100.20

  129.30

  117.10

  164.20

  147.60

  222.70

  255.60

  413.60

  141.00

  206.20

  Net Income AHC (mean)

  70.60

  83.80

  83.20

  112.00

  100.10

  148.10

  128.90

  209.80

  228.70

  400.80

  122.20

  190.70

  Net Income BHC (median)

  85.80

  105.10

  99.20

  128.10

  115.10

  162.90

  145.50

  220.80

  221.00

  364.60

  115.10

  162.90

  Net Income AHC (median)

  70.90

  84.90

  82.30

  112.50

  97.90

  145.80

  128.00

  208.50

  197.90

  352.70

  97.90

  145.80

  (c) Pensioner Units

  Earnings∗

  0.30

  0.00

  0.50

  0.80

  0.90

  1.90

  10.50

  7.40

  52.20

  39.50

  12.90

  9.90

  Benefit Income

  62.70

  70.80

  71.30

  83.10

  69.40

  89.00

  70.30

  92.30

  67.40

  86.70

  68.20

  84.40

  Investment Income

  2.20

  8.40

  2.80

  5.20

  3.00

  9.90

  8.50

  24.50

  44.10

  116.00

  12.10

  32.80

  Occupational Pension

  1.30

  3.60

  3.90

  8.70

  6.40

  15.40

  17.20

  41.20

  60.80

  131.10

  17.90

  40.00

  Other∗

  0.40

  0.20

  0.20

  0.30

  0.50

  0.60

  1.40

  0.50

  0.80

  3.40

  0.70

  1.00

  Gross Income

  67.00

  83.00

  78.70

  98.20

  80.20

  116.70

  107.90

  165.80

  225.40

  376.70

  111.80

  168.10

  Deductions

  5.80

  11.80

  5.00

  7.30

  5.20

  8.90

  10.20

  16.90

  48.50

  67.40

  14.90

  22.40

  Net Income BHC (mean)

  61.20

  71.20

  73.710

  90.90

  75.00

  107.90

  97.70

  148.90

  176.90

  309.30

  96.90

  145.60

  Net Income AHC (mean)

  52.80

  57.70

  57.90

  65.80

  61.90

  93.00

  83.10

  137.50

  154.00

  293.90

  81.90

  129.50

  Net Income BHC (median)

  53.70

  63.60

  62.50

  80.40

  68.40

  93.50

  85.10

  134.20

  163.00

  266.60

  68.40

  93.50

  Net Income AHC (median)

  43.40

  50.50

  48.00

  57.70

  53.00

  76.40

  67.40

  120.80

  141.20

  254.70

  53.00

  76.40

  Average income change (per cent.)—Single Pensioners (S), Pensioner Couples (C) and Pensioner Units (U)

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Income Source

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  (d) Growth in Pensioner Income 1979–92

  Earnings∗

  -96

  -59

  -89

  50

  107

  59

  50

  12

  121

  Benefit Income

  12

  18

  13

  15

  18

  17

  26

  20

  28

  Investment Income

  413

  70

  274

  132

  128

  87

  94

  350

  226

  Occupational Pension

  227

  165

  178

  187

  162

  126

  139

  84

  140

  Other∗

  -87

  56

  -45

  125

  -22

  34

  -30

  -22

  16

  Gross Income

  28

  24

  24

  24

  33

  25

  34

  44

  45

  Deductions

  129

  73

  104

  21

  96

  45

  41

  103

  71

  Net Income BHC (median)

  17

  23

  18

  25

  29

  29

  29

  42

  37

  Net Income AHC (median)

  16

  20

  16

  17

  37

  20

  20

  49

  44

  Average income change (per cent)—Single Pensioners(S), Pensioner Couples(C) and Pensioner Units(U)

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  Income Source

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  (d) Growth in Pensioner Income 1979–1992

  Earnings∗

  -57

  -44

  -30

  -7

  -32

  -24

  -14

  -31

  -23

  Benefit Income

  27

  26

  31

  29

  30

  29

  22

  22

  24

  Investment Income

  85

  300

  189

  182

  125

  163

  172

  160

  171

  Occupational Pension

  207

  106

  139

  124

  97

  116

  142

  102

  123

  Other∗

  -72

  61

  -68

  190

  235

  307

  29

  65

  48

  198 199

  Average income change (per cent)—Single Pensioners(S), Pensioner Couples(C) and Pensioner Units(U)

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  Income Source

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  Gross Income

  45

  50

  54

  80

  50

  67

  51

  44

  50

  Deductions

  47

  46

  66

  68

  15

  39

  65

  33

  50

  Net Income BHC (median)

  42

  52

  58

  74

  65

  63

  49 (mean)

  46 (mean)

  50 (mean)

  Net Income AHC (median)

  48

  63

  79

  89

  78

  80

  53 (mean)

  56 (mean)

  58 (mean)

  Notes: N.B. means given for total income growth.

  ∗ Indicates that sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates. Figures are shown only to demonstrate how totals are arrived at.

  1.All figures before housing costs (BHC) unless otherwise stated. After housing costs= AHC.

  2.All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated.

  3.Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  4.Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  5.Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts shown in the table.

  6.Estimates of growth in total net incomes by quintile are based on medians. Estimates of growth of components of income and total incomes of all pensioners are based on means.
  200

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the past 30 years(a) the number and percentage of people claiming the state retirement pension, (b) the number and percentage

  Claimants over slate retirement age with and without Retirement Pension (RP), Supplementary Benefit (SB), Income Support (IS) and Housing Benefit (HB). Table 1A: Number of claimants—(Thousands)

  People with RP

  People without RP

  Year

  All (a)

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  All

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  1964

  6,158(d)

  —

  —

  —

  1,747

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  6,357(d)

  —

  —

  —

  1,710

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  6,540(d)

  —

  —

  —

  1,622

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  6,769(d)

  —

  —

  —

  1,560

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  6,973(d)

  —

  —

  —

  1,497

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  7,170(d)(e)

  1,662

  —

  —

  1,457

  208

  —

  —

  1970

  7,363(d)(e)

  1,700

  —

  —

  1,396

  200

  —

  —

  1971

  7,515(d)

  1,735

  —

  —

  1,404

  185

  —

  —

  1972

  7,668(d)

  1,733

  —

  —

  1,367

  177

  —

  —

  1973

  7,688

  —

  —

  —

  1,467

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  7,822

  1,654

  —

  —

  1,454

  156

  —

  —

  1975

  7,985

  1,538

  —

  —

  1,399

  142

  —

  —

  1976

  8,155

  1,547

  —

  —

  1,295

  143

  —

  —

  1977

  8,266

  1,590

  —

  —

  1,242

  150

  —

  —

  1978

  8,397

  1,593

  —

  —

  1,138

  147

  —

  —

  1979

  8,528

  1,599

  —

  —

  1,032

  121

  —

  —

  1980

  8,681

  1,576

  —

  —

  1,032

  114

  —

  —

  1981

  8,780

  1,624

  —

  —

  1,030

  116

  —

  —

  1982

  8,877

  1,683

  —

  —

  990

  97

  —

  —

  1983

  8,936

  1,549

  —

  —

  946

  101

  —

  —

  1984

  9,003

  1,565

  —

  —

  907

  115

  —

  —

  1985

  9,085

  —

  —

  —

  936

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  9,210

  1,592

  —

  —

  892

  128

  —

  —

  1987

  9,310

  1,613

  —

  —

  863

  117

  —

  —

  1988

  9,298

  1,431

  —

  —

  923

  109

  —

  —

  1989

  9,305

  1,314

  —

  1,057

  974

  116

  —

  108

  1990

  9,391

  595

  789

  1,033

  919

  59

  60

  109

  1991

  9,380

  595

  677

  1,026

  976

  68

  65

  124

  1992

  9,425

  692

  626

  1,031

  955

  76

  64

  123

  1993

  9,448

  674

  712

  952

  943

  80

  75

  120

  1994

  9,442

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Table 1B: As a percentage of all people over state retirement age.

  People with RP

  People without RP

  All (a)

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  All

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  1964

  77.9

  —

  —

  —

  22.1

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  78.8

  —

  —

  —

  21.2

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  80.1

  —

  —

  —

  19.9

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  81.3

  —

  —

  —

  18.7

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  82.3

  —

  —

  —

  17.7

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  83.1

  19.3

  —

  —

  16.9

  2.4

  —

  1970

  84.1

  19.4

  —

  —

  15.9

  2.3

  —

  —

  1971

  84.3

  19.5

  —

  —

  15.7

  2.1

  —

  —

  1972

  84.9

  19.2

  —

  —

  15.1

  2

  —

  —

  1973

  84

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  84.3

  17.8

  —

  —

  15.7

  1.7

  —

  —

  1975

  85.1

  16.4

  —

  —

  14.9

  1.5

  —

  —

  1976

  86.3

  16.4

  —

  —

  13.7

  1.5

  —

  —

  1977

  86.9

  16.7

  —

  —

  13.1

  1.6

  —

  —

  1978

  88.1

  16.7

  —

  —

  11.9

  1.5

  —

  —

  1979

  89.2

  16.7

  —

  —

  10.8

  1.3

  —

  —

  1980

  89.4

  16.2

  —

  —

  10.6

  1.2

  —

  —

  1981

  89.5

  16.6

  —

  10.5

  1.2

  —

  202
  receiving income support, (c) the number of people over retirement age who draw only income support and (d) the number receiving the relevant pension plus housing benefit.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The available information is in the tables.
  203

  Table 1B: As a percentage of all people over state retirement age.

  People with RP

  People without RP

  All (a)

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  All

  With IS/SB only (b)

  With IS/SB and HB

  With HB only (c)

  1982

  90.0

  17.1

  —

  —

  10

  1.0

  —

  —

  1983

  90.4

  15.7

  —

  —

  9.6

  1.0

  —

  —

  1984

  90.8

  15.8

  —

  —

  9.2

  1.2

  —

  —

  1985

  90.7

  —

  —

  —

  9.3

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  91.2

  15.8

  —

  —

  8.8

  1.3

  —

  —

  1987

  91.5

  15.9

  —

  —

  8.5

  1.2

  —

  —

  1988

  91.0

  14.0

  —

  —

  9.0

  1.1

  —

  —

  1989

  90.5

  12.8

  —

  10.3

  9.5

  1.1

  —

  1.0

  1990

  91.1

  5.8

  7.7

  10.0

  8.9

  0.6

  0.6

  1.1

  1991

  90.6

  5.8

  6.6

  10.0

  9.5

  0.7

  0.6

  1.2

  1992

  90.8

  6.7

  6.1

  10.0

  9.3

  0.7

  0.6

  1.2

  1993

  90.9

  6.5

  6.9

  9.2

  9.1

  0.8

  0.7

  1.2

  1994

  90.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes

  —not available.

  (a) Including AP only from 1979.

  (b) All SB/IS claimants prior to 1990.

  (c) All claimants aged 60 or over.

  (d) Figures include a small number of pensions paid to persons overseas.

  (e) Estimated figures.

  1. Males aged 65 or over and females aged 60 or over.

  2. Supplementary benefit, income support and housing benefit figures are for claimants only, ie partners are not counted.

  3. Housing benefit data are not available prior to 1989.

  4. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  5. "People without RP" includes those who have elected to receive invalidity benefit or widows benefit, rather than any retirement pension to which they may be entitled.

  6. To arrive at the total number and proportion of people over pension age receiving IS/SB, it is necessary to add the figures in columns 3, 4, 7 and 8.

  Sources

  Supplementary benefit/income support statistics annual inquiries.

  Retirement pension annual inquiries.

  Housing benefit management information statistics.

  Invalidity Benefit and Sick Pay
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for each of the last 30 years for which figures are available(a) the number and percentage of claimants drawing invalidity benefit, (b) the number and percentage drawing invalidity benefit and income support, (c) the number and percentage drawing invalidity benefit and housing benefit and (d) the number and percentage of long-term sick drawing income support and or housing benefit;

  (2) if he will list for each of the past 30 years (a) the number and percentage of people claiming sick pay or statutory pay only, (b) the number and percentage of this group drawing sick pay and income support, (c) the number and percentage claiming sick pay and housing benefit and (d) the number and percentage without sick pay cover who draw only income support and/or housing benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table 1 Statutory sick pay beneficiaries in Great Britain

  Year ended

  Number

  Percentage of population

  1985

  4,963,000

  14.7

  1986

  5,059,000

  14.9

  1987

  5,203,000

  15.3

  204

  Table 1 Statutory sick pay beneficiaries in Great Britain

  Year ended

  Number

  Percentage of population

  1988

  5,386,000

  15.7

  1989

  5,497,000

  16.0

  1990

  5,871,000

  17.0

  1991

  5,664,000

  16.40

  1992

  5,283,000

  15.3

  1993

  4,822,000

  13.9

  Notes

  1.Statutory sick pay was introduced on 6 April 1983, and was payable for a maximum of eight weeks in any one tax year. This increased to 28 weeks from 6 April 1986 and the tax year limit removed. Data are not available for the year ending April 1984.

  2.An employee may have more than one spell of statutory sick pay in the year.

  3.The figures are in respect of the number of employees who received statutory sick pay in the year ended April.

  4.Statutory sick pay is not payable to men aged 65 and over. Prior to 6 April 1994 it was not payable to women aged 60 and over.

  5.There are a limited number of cases where the region within the United Kingdom is not known, which are not included within the Great Britain figure.

  6.Population in Great Britain aged 16 to 59 for a woman, 16 to 64 for a man, each mid-year, supplied by OPCS.

  Sources

  1. per cent. sample of employer tax returns in respect of their employees, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Estimated mid-year resident population figures supplied by OPCS.
  205

  Table 2A Recipients of invalidity benefit (IVB) and sickness benefit (SB) with and without supplementary benefit (SuppB)/income support (IS) and housing benefit (HB)

  Number of recipients—Thousands

  Invalidity benefit recipients

  Sickness benefit recipients

  Year

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS and HB

  With HB only

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS and HB

  With HB only

  1964

  —

  —

  —

  —

  876

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  —

  —

  —

  —

  923

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  —

  900

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  903

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  —

  934

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  —

  —

  —

  —

  923

  16

  —

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  932

  16

  —

  —

  1971

  —

  —

  —

  —

  857

  21

  —

  —

  1972

  414

  110

  —

  —

  455

  20

  —

  —

  1973

  435

  —

  —

  —

  449

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  442

  72

  —

  —

  455

  18

  —

  —

  1975

  450

  54

  —

  —

  403

  15

  —

  —

  1976

  —

  48

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  1977

  505

  45

  —

  —

  452

  17

  —

  —

  1978

  557

  42

  —

  —

  472

  16

  —

  —

  1979

  610

  33

  —

  —

  430

  11

  —

  —

  1980

  615

  34

  —

  —

  384

  13

  —

  —

  1981

  633

  43

  —

  —

  353

  19

  —

  —

  1982

  683

  55

  —

  —

  393

  24

  —

  —

  1983

  737

  63

  —

  —

  338

  21

  —

  —

  1984

  797

  83

  —

  —

  190

  24

  —

  —

  1985

  849

  —

  —

  —

  180

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  899

  92

  —

  —

  179

  25

  —

  —

  1987

  968

  112

  —

  —

  110

  20

  —

  —

  1988

  1,047

  97

  —

  —

  117

  23

  —

  —

  1989

  1,126

  102

  —

  189

  109

  27

  —

  9

  1990

  1,209

  110

  4

  205

  103

  12

  11

  9

  1991

  1306

  51

  53

  237

  110

  13

  17

  13

  1992

  1,439

  65

  65

  260

  138

  16

  16

  11

  1993

  1,580

  80

  77

  267

  147

  16

  17

  11

  Notes:

  1. See notes to table 2B

  Table 2B—As a percentage of all people of eligible age for invalidity benefit/sickness benefit

  Invalidity benefit recipients

  Sickness benefit recipients

  Year

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS and HB

  With HB only

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS and HB

  With HB only

  1964

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.5

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  *

  —

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  *

  —

  —

  1971

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.5

  0.1

  —

  —

  1972

  1.2

  0.3

  —

  —

  1.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  1973

  1.3

  —

  —

  —

  1.3

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  1.3

  0.2

  —

  —

  1.3

  0.1

  —

  1975

  1.3

  0.2

  —

  —

  1.2

  *

  —

  —

  1976

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  —

  1977

  1.5

  0.1

  —

  —

  1.3

  *

  —

  —

  1978

  1.6

  0.1

  —

  —

  1.4

  ∗

  —

  —

  1979

  1.8

  0.1

  —

  —

  1.2

  *

  —

  —

  1980

  1.8

  0.1

  —

  —

  1.1

  *

  —

  —

  1981

  1.8

  0.1

  —

  —

  1.0

  0.1

  —

  —

  1982

  2.0

  0.2

  —

  —

  1.1

  0.1

  —

  —

  1983

  2.1

  0.2

  —

  —

  1.0

  0.1

  —

  —

  1984

  2.3

  0.2

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  —

  —

  1985

  2.5

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  2.6

  0.3

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  —

  —

  1987

  2.8

  0.3

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  1988

  3.0

  0.3

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  206 207

  Table 2B—As a percentage of all people of eligible age for invalidity benefit/sickness benefit

  Invalidity benefit recipients

  Sickness benefit recipients

  Year

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS and HB

  With HB only

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (a)

  With SuppB/IS andHB

  With HB only

  1989

  3.3

  0.3

  —

  0.5

  0.3

  0.1

  —

  ∗

  1990

  3.5

  0.3

  ∗

  0.6

  0.3

  ∗

  ∗

  1991

  3.8

  0.1

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  ∗

  ∗

  ∗

  1992

  4.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.8

  0.4

  ∗

  ∗

  ∗

  1993

  4.6

  0.2

  0.2

  0.8

  0.4

  ∗

  ∗

  ∗

  Notes—not available

  ∗ less than 0.1 per cent.

  (a) All supplementary benefit income support claimants prior to 1990.

  1. Males aged 16 to 69 and females aged 16 to 64. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income support and housing benefit figures are for claimants only, i.e. partners are not counted and include claimants with statutory sick pay.

  3. Housing benefit data not available prior to 1989.

  4. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  5. Invalidity benefit was introduced on 23 September 1971, and is payable from the 169th day of incapacity.

  6. From 1972 to 1982 invalidity benefit figures are at May/June, and thereafter at March/April.

  7. The sickness benefit information for 1964, 1965 and 1966 in respect of claimants, may include a number of cases where benefit was not in payment.

  8. Statutory sick pay was introduced on 6 April 1983, and was payable for a maximum of 8 weeks in any one tax year. This was increased to 28 weeks from 6 April 1986 and the tax year limit removed.

  9. From 1964 to 1982 sickness benefit figures are at May/June, and thereafter at March/April.

  Sources

  Supplementary benefit/income support statistics annual inquiries 1969–1993.

  Housing benefit management information statistics.

  Sickness benefit based on a 5 per cent. sample of claimants up to 1969, 2.5 per cent. between 1970 and 1975, 2 per cent. for 1977 and 1978 and 1 per cent. thereafter.

  Invalidity benefit based on a 2.5 per cent. sample of claimants up to 1975, 2 per cent. for 1977 and 1978 and 1 per cent. thereafter.

  Table 3A—Sick and disabled claimants of supplementary benefit (SuppB)/income support (IS) and housing benefit (HB) but without invalidity benefit (IVB), sickness benefit and statutory sick pay (SSP)

  Number of claimants—thousands

  Long term sick and disabled

  Short term sick

  Year

  All sick and disabled(a)

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (b)

  With SuppB/IS andHB

  With HB only

  With SuppB/IS

  1964

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  310

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  307

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  284

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1972

  168

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  170

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  173

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1976

  178

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  167

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  165

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  158

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  159

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  157

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  168

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  185

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  220

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  349

  270

  258

  —

  12

  79

  1990

  386

  307

  297

  —

  10

  79

  1991

  421

  353

  348

  —

  5

  68

  1992

  470

  390

  206

  176

  8

  80

  1993

  562

  481

  235

  237

  9

  81

  Note:

  1. See notes to table 3B
  208 209

  Table 3B As a percentage of people of eligible age for invalidity benefit/sickness benefit

  Long term sick and disabled

  Short term sick

  Year

  All sick and disabled (a)

  All

  With SuppB/IS only (b)

  With SuppB/IS andHB

  With HB only

  With SuppB/IS

  1964

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1965

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  0.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  0.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  0.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1972

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1976

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  0.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  0.9

  0.7

  7

  —

  ∗

  0.2

  1990

  1

  0.8

  0.8

  —

  ∗

  0.2

  1991

  1.1

  0.9

  0.9

  —

  ∗

  0.2

  1992

  1.3

  1

  0.6

  0.5

  o

  0.2

  1993

  1.5

  1.3

  0.6

  0.6

  ∗

  0.2

  Notes:

  "—" not available

  "∗" less than 0.1 percent

  (a) Sick and disabled supplementary benefit claimants only prior to 1988.

  (b) All income support claimants from 1989 to 1991

  1. Males aged 16 to 69 and females aged 16 to 64. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income support and housing benefit figures are for claimants only, ie partners are not counted.

  3. Supplementary benefit figures include all claimants (males under 65, females under 60) who are sick and disabled without invalidity benefit, sickness benefit or statutory sick pay. Long-term sick or disabled income support claimants without invalidity benefit, sickness benefit and statutory sick pay are those who qualify for a disability premium or a higher pensioner premium (males aged 60 to 64 only) in their own right, ie not because of their partners' condition, and those in residential care or nursing homes (males aged under 65, females aged under 60). Short-term sick income support claimants without invalidity benefit, sickness benefit or statutory sick pay are those aged under 60 who are incapable of work but who have not yet qualified for a disability premium.

  4. Long-term sick or disabled housing benefit claimants without invalidity benefit, sickness benefit or statutory sick pay are those who qualify in their own right for a disability premium, ie not because of their partners' condition. It is not possible to identify short-term housing benefit claimants without invalidity benefit, sickness benefit or statutory sick pay.

  5. Housing benefit data not available prior to 1989.

  6. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  Sources:

  Supplementary benefit/income support statistics annual inquiries 1969–1993.

  Housing benefit management information statistics.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receive family credit; and how many of these also pay income tax and/or national insurance.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Some 572,000 families receive family credit, of whom 456,000 pay income tax and/or national insurance.

  Source:Five per cent. sample of family credit recipients as at July 1994.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the 210
  Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on the composition of the national disability council.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend and I were both fully involved in the discussions on the provisions within the Disability Discrimination Bill, including those relating to the composition of the national disability council.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases of mothers with care successfully claiming as a good cause not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency's request about an absent father in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole, were based upon (i) emotional distress, (ii) mental

  211
  illness or (iii) welfare of the child in the period April 1993 to March 1994;

  (2) What is his estimate of the number of mothers with care in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole who had their claim of a risk of violence if they revealed the father's name accepted by the Child Support Agency;

  (3) how many of the cases in which the Child Support Agency accepted that parent had good cause not to co-operate to the latest available date involved parents with care in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (4) how many of the requirements to co-operate cases between April 1993 and March 1994 involved parents with care in (a)Scotland and (b)the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (5) how many parents with care in (a)Scotland and (b)the United Kingdom as a whole gave authorisation or information concerning absent parents when issued with a formal requirement to co-operate order between April 1993 and March 1994;

  (6) how many reduced benefit directives were referred by the Child Support Agency to the Benefits agency in (a)Scotland and (b)the United Kingdom as a whole between April 1993 and March 1994.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 6 February 1995

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of state for Social Security about the requirements to co-operate.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Figures are only available for Great Britain as the Agency does not collect separate statistics for Scotland, and has no responsibility for the UK as a whole. Northern Ireland has a separate Child Support Agency, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Between April 1993 and March 1994, the requirement to co-operate was considered in 64,800 cases. After investigation, good cause not to co-operate was accepted in 31,700 cases. Of these 8,400 were cases where the parent with care was unable to name the parent of the child; 15,800 were cases where there was a risk of violence and 7,500 were cases where other reasons such as emotional distress, emntal illness or concern for the welfare of the child were accepted. After interview, 14,200 parents with care subsequently provided their authorisation or the necessary information. Good cause not to co-operate was not accepted in 18,900 cases.

  Six hundred and twenty-seven benefit directions were issued in this period.

  Between April 1993 and November 1994, the Agency had investigated 124,300 cases, of which good cause not to co-operate was accepted in 60,000.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases of absent parents in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole the Benefits Agency made deductions from income support at the behest of the Child Support Agency in the period April 1993 to March 1994;

  (2) how many absent parents assessed by the Child Support Agency between April 1993 and March 1994 in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom were in receipt of income support;

  (3) how many assessments made by the Child Support Agency in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole in the period April 1993 to March 1994 resulted in
  212
  the absent parents being assessed as being unable to pay more than the minimum contribution of £2.30.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 February 1995

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of absent parents assessed by the Child Support Agency during 1993/94 who were in receipt of Income Support (IS) and the number of absent parents who were assessed as only being able to pay the minimum contribution of £2.30.

  Information is only available for Great Britain as the Agency does not collect separate statistics for Scotland and has no responsibility for the UK as a whole.

  From launch to March 1994, a total of 40,450 absent parents (AP) receiving IS were assessed for child maintenance.

  Information is not available for the total number of APs who were assessed, during 1993/94, as being unable to pay more than the minimum contribution of £2.30, or on the total number of APs who had deductions made from IS.

  I hope that this is of help.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many parents with care in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom have relinquished income support and are now dependent on maintenance payments;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of parents with care in (a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom who relinquished income support in the period April 1993 to March 1994 and who are now in receipt of family credit and maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 February 1995

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of parents with care who no longer qualify for Income Support and now receive Family Credit as a result of receiving maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency.

  Since launch, 12,000 parents with care (PWC) ceased to receive Income Support (IS) because child maintenance payments, assessed by the CSA, led to their income exceeding their entitlement to IS. It should be noted that child maintenance may not have been the only income received by the PWC in these cases. Other income such as part time earnings, Child Benefit and One Parent Benefit, which the PWC would continue to receive in addition to any child maintenance payments, may have contributed to the gross amount of weekly income exceeding entitlement IS.

  No information is presently available on how many PWCs are presently receiving Family Credit and child maintenance following an assessment by the Agency.

  I hope that this is of help.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases in which the mother with care was unable to name the father involved women living in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  213
  Letter from Ann Chant to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 February 1995

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about parents with care who were unable to name the absent parent.

  My letter to you in reply to PQ 789 sets out the position for the period April 1993 to March 1994.

  Since April 1994, these cases are no longer considered under the requirement to cooperate provisions. This is because it is clear that a parent with care who cannot name the absent parent is not refusing to co-operate, but in fact is unable to co-operate. The information you request is therefore no longer collected.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many maintenance application forms issued in the period April 1993 to March 1994 were sent to parents with care in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole; and of these how many were given to parents with care who (i) were not in receipt of any social security benefits, (ii) parents with care in receipt of family credit, (iii) in receipt of disability working allowance and (iv) in receipt of income support;

  (2) how many maintenance application forms issued in the period April 1993 to March 1994 in Scotland were sent to parents with care who were (a) new applicants for income support or (b) repeat applicants for income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 February 1995

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of state for Social Security about the number of maintenance application forms issued by the Child Support Agency during 1993/94.

  Information is only available for Great Britain as the Agency does not collect separate statistics for Scotland and has no responsibility for the UK as a whole.

  The agency issued 858,000 maintenance assessment forms (MAF) between April 1993 and March 1994. 29,650 of the forms issued were sent to parents with care (PWC) who were not receiving benefit; 223,800 MAFS were sent to PWCs receiving Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA). It is not possible to separately identify recipients of FC and DWA from within this group.

  A further 534,000 MAFs were sent to recipients of Income Support (IS). Information on how many of those forms were sent following new or repeat applications for IS is not available.

  I hope that this is of help.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by social security district office(a) the number of people who have been refused benefits for failing the habitual residence test since its introduction and (b) how many have successfully appealed.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 6 February 1995

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for statistical information in connection with the habitual residence test for each Benefits Agency district office.

  Information about the number of people refused Income Support after failing the habitual residence test has been collated for the
  214
  period 1 August 1994 to 31 December 1994 and is provided at Annex A. The table shows the twenty one Benefits Agency Area Directorates that make up Great Britain and lists the districts that make up each area. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits information is not yet available and is collected by the Department of Social Security from Local Authorities annually.

  Data regarding the number of successful appeals, in cases where Income Support has been disallowed as a result of the test's application, is not collected in the format requested; this could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of unemployment benefit claimed in the Merseyside area during the past 12 months.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime (Policy)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the British crime survey results for Government policy on crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  The British crime survey is one measure of the extent of crime, the results of which are disseminated widely throughout the criminal justice system. Its findings have informed thinking about crime prevention in several ways, most broadly in identifying the highest risk areas and groups, and the offences which pose the greatest numerical problem. It also yields information which is helpful in monitoring some of the services of the criminal justice system, including public satisfaction with the police, police complaints procedures and victim support schemes.

  The Government's policy on crime remains that no amount of crime is acceptable. The protection of the public, the punishment of offenders, the support of victims and the prevention of crime will remain our priorities.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of alleged miscarriages of justices are currently being dealt with by officials in C3 division; when each case was received by
  215
  his Department; and what is the number of personnel assigned to this work.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At the beginning of 1995, 188 representations of wrongful conviction were under consideration in C3 division. Information about the date of receipt of each of these cases is not readily available in this form, but 106 of those cases had been outstanding for more than six months. Nineteen staff are engaged in work relating to allegations of wrongful conviction.

  Prison System and Police Forces (Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the annual expenditure on(a) the English prison system and (b) the English police forces for each year since 1979 in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Howard
  Table A shows expenditure on the English prison system since 1979–80. Details of expenditure attributable to English police forces, shown at table B, are readily available only for the years 1984–85. For the years 1979–80 to 1983–84 inclusive, the table shows figures for English and Welsh police forces combined. All figures are at 1994 prices.

  Annual expenditure on the English Prison System since 1979 at 1994 prices

  Financial year

  Expenditure at 1994 prices £ million

  1979–1980

  944.3

  1980–1981

  876.7

  1981–1982

  867.4

  1982–1983

  898.1

  1983–1984

  959.1

  1984–1985

  985.3

  1985–1986

  979.1

  1986–1987

  977.4

  1987–1988

  1,054.6

  1988–1989

  1,303.9

  1989–1990

  1,451.2

  1990–1991

  1,598.8

  1991–1992

  1,627.6

  1992–1993

  1,564.8

  1993–1994

  1,558.5

  Note:

  1. The figures are taken from the published appropriation accounts adjusted for the costs of the three prisons in Wales. Historic cash expenditure figures for individual prisons are not easily available and we have used the total costs of the Welsh prisons as shown in the Prison Service's annual report (copies are available in the House of Commons Library). The expenditure on the English prisons may therefore be very slightly understated.

  Expenditure on the English police system

  Financial Year

  Police expenditure at 1994 prices (£ million)

  1979–80

  13,542.8

  1980–81

  13,552.4

  1981–82

  13,931.5

  1982–83

  14,067.5

  1983–84

  14,216.4

  1984–85

  4,391.4

  1985–86

  4,096.9

  1986–87

  4,274.5

  1987–88

  4,475.8

  1988–89

  4,672.9

  1989–90

  4,976.7

  216

  Expenditure on the English police system

  Financial Year

  Police expenditure at 1994 prices (£ million)

  1990–91

  5,109.1

  1991–92

  5,365.1

  1992–93

  5,599.6

  1993–94

  5,741.7

  1 Combined expenditure figures for England and Wales forces.

  Passports
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom passports have been(a) issued and (b) revoked since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Figures for passport services are kept for financial years April to March. The numbers of each of the years since 1978–79 are:

  Year

  Numbers

  1978–79

  1,614,382

  1979–80

  1,995,401

  1980–81

  2,168,344

  1981–82

  1,748,241

  1982–83

  2,014,687

  1983–84

  1,966,019

  1984–85

  1,800,440

  1985–86

  2,193,489

  1986–87

  2,588,426

  1987–88

  2,485,312

  1988–89

  2,841,888

  1989–90

  3,194,418

  1990–91

  3,116,939

  1991–92

  3,227,522

  1992–93

  3,368,060

  1993–94

  3,699,526

  Withdrawal of a passport would be considered:

  a. if it came to the Passport Agency's attention on replacement that it had been issued incorrectly; and

  b. on the same basis as the refusal of an application. That is in the case of

  (i) a minor whose journey was known to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority to whom a court had awarded custody, care and control or to the provisions of section 25(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by the Children Act, 1989, or section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976;

  (ii) a person for whose arrest a warrant had been issued in the United Kingdom or who was wanted by the police on suspicion of a serious crime;

  (iii) in very rare cases, a person whose past or proposed activities were so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest;

  (iv) a person repatriated at public expense until the debt has been repaid.

  No records are kept of the numbers, but it is very rare for a passport to be withdrawn.

  Pardons
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) absolute and (b) conditional pardons have been granted to persons convicted of criminal offences since 1979.
  217
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Since 1979, 1,253 free and three conditional pardons have been granted under the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.

  Sponsor Interviews
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish a central record of requests made by overseas entry clearance officers and others for sponsors in the United Kingdom to be interviewed by immigration officers; and if he will arrange for all requests for interviews to be acknowledged and sponsors or their representative to be notified and for action to be taken if such interviews are not held within a reasonable period;

  (2) what representations he has received about delays in interviewing sponsors in the United Kingdom in relation to entry clearance applications; if he will arrange for a procedure to record and monitor progress in sponsor interviews at all overseas posts on the Indian sub-continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested on representations about sponsor interviews is not available. Such interviews are received, recorded and despatched by immigration service headquarters. Monitoring the progress and action is a matter for local managers who are aware of the objective to complete them within three months where practicable.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that overseas posts already record and monitor requests for interview and generate reminders as necessary and that applicants are informed at the time of their interview that their application is deferred pending an interview with their sponsor. A further acknowledgement is not necessary.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average delay at(a) Leeds-Bradford airport and (b) other ports once a sponsor has been interviewed in reports being sent to his Department; and what is the average delay between the receipt of such reports and their dispatch to British overseas posts with particular reference to Islamabad.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Reports are normally sent from the interviewing office direct to the overseas post. A record is not kept of the average time taken to prepare and dispatch such reports. Local managers are responsible for ensuring that they are completed and despatched promptly. In the case of Leeds-Bradford airport, a sample study of such cases indicates that it took between four and seven days and that the time taken in cases originating from Islamabad took about four days.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he is having with(a) ministerial colleagues and (b) officials to expedite sponsor interviews and reports of such interviews being received by overseas ports.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have asked officials to continue with measures which will help to achieve the objective of three months for the completion of such interviews.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 681, who determines if capacity for conducting interviews exists at another port; who informs Leeds-Bradford of such capacity; in the last year,
  218
  to date, how many sponsors waiting to be interviewed at Leeds-Bradford have been invited for interview at another port; and if he will list the ports where those interviews have been conducted.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The capacity for conducting interviews at any port is identified by local managers in consultation with immigration service headquarters.

  Invitations have been sent to 20 sponsors to attend interview at other ports and offices in the north-east. Hull, North Shields, Stockton and south Humberside will be used for this purpose.

  Prevention of Terrorism Powers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-United Kingdom nationals in each year to date, have been(a) detained, (b) charged, (c) prosecuted and (d) released without charge under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available. The statistics, which are collected centrally, and which are published in statistical bulletins issued by my Department and by the Northern Ireland Office, do not categorise by nationality those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  Police Vehicle Maintenance
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for introducing competition into the provision of police motor vehicle maintenance and repair and the cleaning of police buildings.

  Mr. Howard
  The initial proposals for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to police motor vehicle maintenance and repair, and the cleaning of police buildings, sought to recognise the operational and security requirements of the police service. In the case of the former, the proposed 40 per cent. competition requirement was intended to allow a core of sensitive vehicles to be serviced within secure in-house facilities. The 90 per cent. level initially proposed for cleaning provided an option to retain in-house staff to clean sensitive areas, or remote and small stations for which CCT might not be cost-effective.

  Detailed consultation proposals for both services were issued by the Home Office on 11 April 1994. The Government have now considered the responses received from the police service, local authority associations and other interested parties.

  For the cleaning of police buildings, the consultation exercise sought specific comment on the need for a competition-free element. Many responded that a larger competition-free element was necessary to safeguard the cleaning of sensitive areas, and small and remote stations. The Government are satisfied that a sound case has been made, and intend, therefore, that the competition level should now be set at 80 per cent. We are confident this will achieve a rigorous competitive regime, bring improvements in service and value for money, while providing the police service with the flexibility it requires.

  For police motor vehicle maintenance and repair, the initial proposals were specifically designed to cater for concerns about security and operational effectiveness. The

  219
  results of the consultation exercise have been looked at against the other initiatives being developed within police fleet management, such as centrally negotiated purchasing arrangements. The Government are now satisfied that the introduction of CCT to police motor vehicle maintenance and repair would not, in this case, add greatly to the gains being made in other areas. We have, therefore, decided that the existing exemption should be retained.

  The introduction of CCT to the police service is, of course, more than just achieving better value for money. It is also about providing a strong impetus for organisational change and service review. The Government remain committed to the value of these processes within public services, and hope to announce in the near future our initial plans for introducing CCT to police while collar support services.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to reduce the number of non-urgent and hoax 999 telephone calls.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office sponsors a 999 liaison committee, which brings together the public telephony operators, the emergency services and Oftel and provides a forum in which problems can be addressed. A number of initiatives are being carried out to reduce the incidence of non-urgent and hoax 999 calls; these include sending warning letters to customers and school visits by emergency service personnel. A report will be submitted to the 999 liaison committee in March 1995, documenting progress and making recommendations for the development of a national strategy.

  Crime Prevention
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's crime prevention policy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's crime prevention policy is based on partnership and is being developed on a broad front. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 respectively strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with offenders and lay the foundations for a new more effective partnership between the Government, the police and the public to fight crime. The recently launched "Partners Against Crime" initiative puts a new emphasis on the individual citizen as a partner with the police, whether as a member of neighbourhood watch or street watch or as a neighbourhood or special constable.

  At national level, the ministerial group for crime prevention co-ordinates activity across Government Departments and the National Board for Crime Prevention continues to disseminate best practice. At local level, the Government continue to support crime prevention projects and partnerships through, for example, the expansion of our successful safer cities programme, the single regeneration budget, and the work of Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation.

  The Government also attach particular importance to the use of new technology in the fight against crime. We are pushing forward with a number of major new initiatives on crime reduction through technology, including the promotion and funding of closed circuit
  220
  television in public places, and co-operation with vehicle manufacturers on car security.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian staff of the Metropolitan police have been made subject to early retirement against their wishes in the last two years; and what pension entitlement is available in such cases where retirement occurs at age 60 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner that the normal contractual age of retirement for Metropolitan police civil staff is 60 years, at which age the pension paid is the full entitlement based on reckonable service and pensionable pay. Those leaving the service under the provisions of early retirement schemes do so by agreement.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the population of the Metropolitan police area, (b) the number of police officers and (c) the number of officers per head of the population in Greater London in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Information on population figures for police areas, the number of police officers per force and the number of police officers per head of population can be found in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library.

  Colombian Nationals
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's estimate of the number of Colombian nationals resident in this country; and how many of those are thought to be here illegally.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1991 census of population indicated that there were 5,682 persons resident in Great Britain on census night who were born in Colombia. There is no estimate available of the number of those who are Colombian nationals nor those who might be here illegally.

  Wiltshire Police Authority
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much initial financing grant is to be made available to the new Wiltshire police authority to help its parallel running with the existing police authority; and what guidelines are issued by his Department for its use.

  Mr. Maclean
  New police authorities have each received an initial financing grant of £97,560 under section 32 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. This grant enables the new authorities to function during 1994–95 in preparing to assume their full statutory function of securing the maintenance of an efficient arid effective police force for their areas on 1 April 1995, when the current police authorities will cease to exist. Guidance on the use of this grant was provided in a Home Office letter of 8 July 1994 to chief constables and clerks of police authorities. New police authorities will be expected to submit to the Home Office an account of the expenditure in respect of which initial financing grant was
  221
  made. District auditors will provide a further check on how the money has been spent.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay his assessment of the needs of the Wiltshire police force in allocating grant to facilitate the change over to the new Wiltshire police authority; and what representations he has received concerning the level of grant.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 32 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 initial financing grants totalling £17 million are available for police force use in preparing to assume their new role from 1 April 1995 of being answerable to new free-standing police authorities.

  Claims from police forces for initial financing grant for police force use were measured against the relative need of each police force as assessed with the assistance of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  A provisional claim for initial financing grant for police force use was submitted by the chief constable of Wiltshire in a letter of 26 August 1994. A detailed claim was submitted by the clerk of the Wiltshire police authority in a letter of 15 December 1994.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much initial financing grant is to be made available to the Wiltshire police force to facilitate the change over to the new Wiltshire police authority; and what guidelines are issued by his Department for its use.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 32 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, an allocation of £400,000 of initial financing grant for use by Wiltshire constabulary has been provisionally approved.

  Guidance on the use of this grant was provided in a Home Office letter of 8 July 1994 to chief constables and clerks of police authorities.

  Police forces will be required to submit formal claims for their initial financing grants with accompanying evidence of incurred or committed expenditure before the end of the current financial year. Subsequently, district auditors will provide a further check on how the money has been spent.

  Appeal Applications
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made in the last year by the immigration department for leave to appeal against a decision of an immigration adjudicator; in how many cases leave has been given; and in what percentage of cases where leave has been given the subsequent appeal by the Home Office was successful.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  According to the records of the immigration appellate authorities, in 1994 the Home Office made 691 applications for leave to appeal against adjudicators' determinations; leave was granted in 195 cases. It is not possible to give the percentage of cases where the subsequent appeal was successful because the appeal has yet to be heard in some of the cases in which leave was granted in 1994. Of the Home Office appeals which came before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in 1994, 113 were successful.

  Unique Identification Numbers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons he is continuing 222
  to require police officers to wear visible unique identification numbers;

  (2) what plans he has to discontinue the requirement for police officers to wear unique identification numbers visible on their uniforms.

  Mr. Maclean
  Issues relating to police uniforms are primarily operational matters which are for decision by chief officers of police, but I continue to agree with the advice given by the then Home Secretary—now Lord Callaghan in Home Office circular 13/1968—that"it is in the interests both of the public, and of the police themselves, that the police should continue to wear numbers on their uniforms".

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to process work permits for appointments of junior doctors to health authorities and as a percentage of the overall average for all work permits; how many junior doctor applicants were appointed to jobs in(a) the Yorkshire and Humberside health region and (b) nationally in the last year for which figures are available; how many are currently before his Department; and when the initial application was made for each one.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information relates to post-graduate doctors and dentists undergoing further medical training, for which a work permit is not required, and to qualified doctors and dentists who are in employment, for which a work permit is required. The average time taken in 1994 to grant extensions of leave to remain in these categories and to all trainees or persons in work permit employment is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.

  Average time between application and the grant of leave to remain, 1994

  Category of leave to remain

  1Number of days

  Post-graduate medical trainees

  29

  All trainees

  33

  Doctors and dentists in employment

  49

  All employment cases

  50

  1 Excludes the time which some cases spent, during the first half of 1994, in Lunar house before being passed to the casework section and may thus understate slightly.

  Mud Deposits (Roads)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been in each of the last three years for the depositing of dangerous amounts of mud on public roads by agricultural vehicles.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations invited to comment on the draft inter-agency circular on domestic violence; which organisations responded; and what was the length of time allowed for consultation on the draft circular.
  223
  Mr. Maclean
  Following initial consultations with a number of organisations in June and July 1994, the Home Office wrote to the organisations listed on 15 September to invite comments on the draft circular by 7 October. I understand that, in addition to this, the Department of Health wrote to a number of statutory and voluntary agencies on 21 September and 4 October inviting responses by 7 and 12 October respectively.

  (∗denotes those organisations from which responses were received).

  Organisations contacted by the Home Office

  Allied Dunbar Charitable Trust Ltd.

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils∗

  Association of London Authorities

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities∗

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council∗

  Central Probation Council

  Charnwood Borough Council Domestic Violence Panel∗

  Crime Concern∗

  Domestic Violence Intervention Project, London

  Dorset Police Headquarters Child Protection Unit∗

  Essex Probation Service∗

  Family Welfare Association

  Federation of Army Wives∗

  Hammersmith and Fulham Domestic Violence Forum∗

  Health Visitors' Association∗

  Hereford Women's Aid

  Islington Council, Women's Equality Unit∗

  Jewish Marriage Council∗

  Jewish Women's Aid∗

  Keighley Domestic Violence Forum

  Leeds Inter-Agency Project∗

  London Boroughs Association∗

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Community Safety Unit∗

  Manchester, Crown Prosecution Service∗

  Merseyside Probation Service∗

  Metropolitan Police Community Affairs Branch∗

  MIND

  Mid Glamorgan County Crime Prevention Co-ordinating Committee∗

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux∗

  National Association of Probation Officers

  National Board of Catholic Women∗

  Network∗

  Northern Ireland Women's Aid

  Nottinghamshire County Council∗

  Nottinghamshire Domestic Violence Forum∗

  ONE plus ONE∗

  Pro-Act∗

  Probation Managers Association∗

  Refuge∗

  Relate∗

  224

  Roehampton Institute, Department of Sociology and Social Administration∗

  Royal College of General Practitioners∗

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing∗

  Royal College of Psychiatrists∗

  Royal College of Surgeons

  Scottish Women's Aid

  Somerset County Council Social Services Department∗

  Southall Black Sisters∗

  South Glamorgan Probation Service∗

  South Somerset Domestic Violence Project∗

  South Yorkshire Probation Service∗

  Swindon Women's Aid∗

  Tavistock Marital Studies Institute∗

  Thames Valley Police, Family Protection Unit∗

  The Body Shop Foundation The Housing Corporation∗

  The Samaritans∗

  The Sanctuary

  Trades Union Congress Equal Opportunities Department Unison

  University of Bradford, violence, abuse, and gender relations unit∗

  University of Bristol, Domestic Violence Research Group∗

  University of Wales Department of Social and Administrative Studies∗

  Victim Support∗

  Wales Assembly of Women∗

  Wearside Women in Need∗

  West Midlands Probation Service∗

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Social Services Department∗

  Williscroft and Co.

  Wolverhampton Domestic Violence Forum

  Women's Aid Federation (England) ∗

  Women's National Commission∗

  Welsh Women's Aid∗

  Organisations contacted by the Department of Health

  Bradford Community NHS Trust

  Bradford Health Authority

  British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse

  Catholic Child Welfare∗

  Childline∗

  Children's Legal Centre∗

  Family Rights Group

  Hammersmith and Fulham Social Services Department∗

  Home-Start UK∗

  Kensington and Chelsea Social Services Department∗

  Kidscape∗

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services∗

  Leeds Health Authority∗

  Leeds Family Health Services Authority∗

  Liverpool Social Services Department∗

  National Children's Bureau∗

  National Children's Homes for Action∗

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children∗

  NEWPIN

  Parents against Injustice Parentline Opus

  Standing Committee on Sexual Abuse of Children

  The Michael Seiff Foundation∗

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust∗

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Council for Under Fives∗

  225
  Mr Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend his review of the charge of murder to include the case of female victims of domestic violence who kill their partners.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. I have made it clear that the review will look at the law of murder specifically in the light of the concerns expressed by the House of Lords in the case involving Private Clegg. That case related to the use of lethal force in the maintenance of law and order.

  Market Testing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid thus far to KPMG management consultants as a result of their work on the market testing of the internal research function of his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  KPMG Peat Marwick management consultants have been paid for 10 days' work as part of the scoping study for the market test of the internal research function of the Home Office research and planning unit. Information on the costs of individual contracts with consultants is commercial in confidence and it is not the practice to disclose these details.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the scoping study into the proposed market test of internal research function of the research and planning unit.

  Mr. Howard
  I expect the scoping study report to be completed towards the end of February. It is not the general practice to publish market-testing scoping study reports, which are internal working documents and can contain commercially sensitive information about potential service suppliers.

  Drivers (Visual Acuity)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of drivers failing to satisfy the required standards of visual acuity there have been in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The information requested is not available centrally.

SCOTLAND

  Ancillary Workers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ancillary workers were directly employed by health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland; and how many were employed by private contractors in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of ancillary staff directly employed by health boards and NHS trusts is shown in the table. Information about ancillary staff employed by private contractors is not collected centrally.
  226

  Ancillary staff employed in the NHSIS: at 30 September

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  1990

  24,113

  16,181.3

  1991

  22,686

  15,021.6

  1992

  21,493

  13,974.2

  1993

  20,583

  13,286.4

  19941

  19,133

  12,285.1

  1 Provisional at 30 September 1994.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) guidance and (b) direction he has issued to Scottish Homes to abandon its role as landlord; and if he will place copies of these documents in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 3A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, Scottish Homes' power to dispose of its housing stock may be exercised only with the consent of my right hon. Friend. He issued guidance to Scottish Homes in February 1989 and February 1991, following which Scottish Homes published its own procedures for the large-scale voluntary disposal of its stock. Copies of these guidance documents, entitled "Scottish Homes: Arrangements for Evaluating the Suitability of Proposals for Acquisition of Stock by Other Landlords: Note by SDD" and "Guidance on Scottish Homes Stock Disposals: February 1991", are available in the Library. No directions have been issued to Scottish Homes on this matter.

  NHS Trust Chief Executives
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the chief executives in each NHS trust in Scotland earned in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to monitor the level of such earnings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. NHS trusts are now required to publish in their annual reports information about the remuneration of chief executives.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenant-led housing associations have been successfully established from previous Scottish Homes tenants; and how many tenants and how many non-tenants are on the management committees of each.

  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.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ballots have been held for Scottish Homes tenants under its large-scale stock transfer procedure; who conducted these ballots for Scottish Homes; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the full ballot result in each case.

  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 and he has agreed to arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library.
  227

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many three and four-year-olds were receiving nursery education in(a) Scotland and (b) each

  Education authority nursery schools and departments; independent schools with nursery departments Number of children 1 as at September 1993 aged:

  Private nursery schools Number of children 2 as at March 1994 aged:

  3years

  4years

  3years

  4years

  Borders

  38

  454

  138

  76

  Central

  732

  2,267

  76

  18

  Dumfries and Galloway

  165

  1,051

  19

  7

  Fife

  752

  3,648

  67

  28

  Grampian

  918

  3,964

  409

  231

  Highland

  114

  720

  203

  188

  Lothian

  3,146

  6,612

  268

  198

  Strathclyde

  6,645

  12,659

  1,283

  1,188

  Tayside

  1,064

  2,711

  518

  311

  Orkney

  37

  172

  —

  —

  Shetland

  84

  180

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  13,693

  34,438

  2,981

  2,245

  1 Age as at December 1993.2 Age as at March 1994. Private nursery schools registered with local authority social work departments.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much expenditure was incurred by each local education authority in Scotland on the provision of nursery education in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and ( c) 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  Net current expenditure by education authorities on nursery education in 1991–92 and 1992–93 is given in the table. These figures exclude the costs of school meals, home-to-school transport and central administration. Comparable figures for expenditure in 1993–94 are not yet available.

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Border

  449

  456

  Central

  2,585

  2,838

  Dumfries and Galloway

  476

  833

  Fife

  3,156

  3,484

  Grampian

  4,027

  4,935

  Highland

  909

  902

  Lothian

  9,611

  10,433

  Strathclyde

  25,698

  27,698

  Tayside

  3,915

  4,338

  Orkney

  33

  96

  Shetland

  307

  337

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Total

  51,166

  56,350

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will express in both cash and constant price terms the amount of capital allocated, in terms of consent to borrow, to local authorities for schools buildings in every year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities in Scotland receive an allocation of consent to incur liability to meet capital expenditure on educational buildings. Within this overall level of consent they are free to 228
  local education authority area in Scotland in September 1994.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested for September 1994 is not yet available. The latest available information is given in the following table.

  determine which educational building projects will proceed. They are also free to transfer consent between certain other capital programmes and to augment their consent levels in other ways, for example by utilising resources raised from the disposal of assets or by funding capital projects from current revenue. Information on the level of the total capital allocations for education, and the assumed schools element included in them, is given in the table.

  Total allocation for educational building

  Assumed schools element

  At cash

  At 1994–95

  At cash

  At 1994–95

  Year

  prices

  prices

  prices

  prices

  1979–80

  53,605

  134,240

  49,810

  124,736

  1980–81

  56,678

  119,959

  53,813

  113,895

  1981–82

  62,213

  120,059

  59,988

  115,765

  1982–83

  53,669

  96,686

  49,579

  89,317

  1983–84

  45,755

  78,775

  40,940

  70,485

  1984–85

  40,310

  66,080

  36,623

  60,036

  1985–86

  50,275

  78,132

  42,950

  66,748

  1986–87

  47,480

  71,628

  39,785

  60,019

  1987–88

  53,175

  76,164

  44,279

  63,422

  1988–89

  61,315

  82,315

  52,069

  69,902

  1989–90

  65,555

  82,261

  54,390

  68,251

  1990–91

  62,619

  72,748

  52,055

  60,475

  1991–92

  73,291

  80,112

  61,049

  66,731

  1992–93

  85,647

  90.033

  75,355

  79,214

  1993–94

  78,489

  80,059

  75,510

  77,020

  1994–95

  71,489

  71,489

  68,510

  68,510

  Note:

  1. The total allocations for educational building include elements for further education from 1979–80 to 1992–93 and for community education from 1985–86

  Students
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage increase or decrease in real terms for spending per capita on students(a) at universities and

  229
  (b) in further and adult education from 1982–83 to 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: Per capita spending—Universities Grants Committee and Universities Funding Council grants for teaching and research, and from tuition fees—for students on full-time courses who were charged fees at the home rate decreased by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1982–83 and 1992–93 in the then eight universities in Scotland. Over this period, the number of students in these universities increased by 42 per cent. The estimate of spending does not include spending by the research councils, funding provided for maintenance and loans, or fees paid by part-time and overseas students and does not take account of changes in funding arrangements, such as the transfer of research funds

  Percentage generic prescriptions

  Health boards

  1992–93 Fundholders

  1992–93 Non-fundholders

  1993–94 Fundholders

  1993–94 Non-fundholders

  Argyll and Clyde

  40.91

  35.55

  45.16

  39.51

  Ayrshire and Arran

  39.37

  33.96

  43.08

  37.17

  Borders

  —

  44.83

  54.93

  49.44

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  37.01

  40.42

  39.79

  Fife

  43.19

  38.70

  45.02

  41.06

  Forth Valley

  37.44

  39.28

  41.15

  43.27

  Grampian

  40.45

  38.73

  44.34

  42.78

  Greater Glasgow

  42.83

  39.50

  46.67

  43.13

  Highland

  38.95

  37.93

  41.81

  40.87

  Lanarkshire

  38.67

  33.25

  43.51

  37.73

  Lothian

  44.07

  43.24

  47.90

  47.51

  Orkney

  —

  39.29

  —

  42.38

  Shetland

  —

  35.75

  —

  36.68

  Tayside

  47.97

  41.25

  51.92

  45.04

  Western Isles

  —

  46.35

  —

  49.27

  Scotland

  41.38

  38.97

  45.49

  42.37

  Pre-school Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pre-school education places were available in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland at the latest available date; and in each case what percentage these figures represent of the total number of the children in the relevant age group.

  Education authority nursery schools and departments; nursery departments of independent schools1

  Private nursery schools2

  Number attending at September 1993

  Percentage of population3

  Number attending at March 1994

  Percentage of population3

  Strathclyde

  19,661

  33.9

  2,864

  4.9

  Scotland

  49,194

  38.6

  6,982

  5.5

  1 Includes all those under five years old attending independent schools with nursery departments.

  2 Registered with local authority social work departments. Includes all children aged under five.

  3 Based on the mid-1993 estimates of the three and four-year-old population prepared by the General Register Office for Scotland.

  Long-stay Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which long-stay mental hospitals in(a)hospitals in (a)
  230
  within the dual support system from UFC to the research councils.

  Similar information on expenditure per student in further and adult education is not available.

  Generic Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the proportion of generic prescribing for each family health services authority, divided by(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]This information is not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost. The table offers a partial response. It gives an estimate of generic prescribing by general practitioner fundholders and non-fundholders based on a full analysis of one month in each of the years compared with a full analysis for all prescribers for each complete year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The available information given is for children attending education authority nursery schools, nursery departments of primary schools, nursery departments of independent schools and private nursery schools.

  Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole do not yet have an agreed closure plan; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the closure dates of the long—stay mental hospitals in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole;
  231
  (3) what plans he has to close remaining long-stay mental hospitals in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The Secretary of State has announced approval to the closure of Gartloch hospital and Woodilee hospital, in 1996; Ravenspark hospital, this year and Gogarburn hospital in 1999. No other long-stay mental hospital in Scotland has an agreed closure plan.

  The pace of change in long-stay sector is directed by patient needs. The organisation of long-stay care and care services in the community are determined by continuous joint assessment of local needs involving health boards and local authorities. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services, both in hospital and the community, that meet the specific needs of patients and carers.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many long-stay mental hospitals remain open.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: Numbers of mental hospitals currently open which have patients resident for more than one year are shown in the table:

  Mental illness

  Type of Hospital Psychiatric unit

  Mental handicap

  Scotland

  Total

  33

  37

  23

  Source:

  Information and statistics division,NHS in Scotland

  Residents in hospital as at 31 December whose stay is one year or more

  Hospital type

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Strathclyde

  5,362

  5,092

  4,779

  4,512

  Mental Illness

  3,445

  3,315

  2,934

  2,671

  Psychiatric Unit

  280

  283

  348

  508

  Mental Handicap

  1,637

  1,494

  1,497

  1,333

  Scotland

  12,154

  11,560

  11,115

  10,733

  Mental Illness

  7,569

  7,275

  6,798

  6,463

  Psychiatric Unit

  627

  723

  871

  1,056

  Mental Handicap

  3,958

  3,562

  3,446

  3,214

  Source:

  The information and statistics division, NHS IN Scotland.

  Health Care (Strathclyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost of all health care provided outwith the NHS in each year since 1979 at 1979 constant prices, in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland.

  Year

  Argyll and Clyde health board £000s

  Ayr and Arran health board £000s

  Greater Glasgow health board £000s

  Lanarkshire health board £000s

  Total £000s

  All Scotland £000s

  1979–80

  722

  0

  3,421

  514

  4,657

  7,241

  1980–81

  772

  0

  3,008

  124

  3,904

  7,437

  1981–82

  707

  0

  2,396

  554

  3,657

  7,019

  232
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many long-stay mental hospitals have closed in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past four years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Closure dates in the past four years of mental hospitals which had patients resident for more than one year are listed in the table:

  Closure date

  Type of hospital

  Strathclyde

  Dunlop House Hospital

  3 December 1991

  (mental handicap)

  Stoneyetts Hospital

  19 February 1992

  (mental illness)

  Bellefield Hospital, Lanark

  1 December 1993

  (mental illness)

  Rest of Scotland

  County Hospital, Stornoway

  1 October 1992

  (mental illness)

  House of Daviot Hospital, Inverurie

  31 March 1994

  (mental illness)

  Source

  Information and statistics division, NHS Scotland

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients in long-stay mental hospitals in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Information on the number of patients who have been resident in mental hospitals for one year or more is shown in the table:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The table has been derived from health board annual accounts and contains costs of health care purchased from the private sector by(a) health boards within the Strathclyde region area and (b) all health boards in Scotland. No figures are held centrally by the national health service for other health care provided by the private sector.
  233

  Year

  Argyll and Clyde health board £000s

  Ayr and Arran health board £000s

  Greater Glasgow health board £000s

  Lanarkshire health board £000s

  Total £00Os

  All Scotland £0O0s

  1982–83

  860

  5

  1,885

  524

  3,274

  6,358

  1983–84

  681

  0

  1,444

  476

  2,601

  5,855

  1984–85

  794

  0

  969

  435

  2,198

  5,485

  1985–86

  731

  11

  899

  408

  2,049

  5,141

  1986–87

  755

  48

  930

  460

  2,193

  5,299

  1987–88

  749

  84

  1,129

  479

  2,441

  5,675

  1988–89

  717

  69

  1,171

  550

  2,507

  5,753

  1989–90

  803

  179

  1,396

  573

  2,951

  6,403

  1990–91

  851

  243

  1,450

  590

  3,134

  6,979

  1991–92

  688

  157

  2,683

  662

  4,190

  8,406

  1992–93

  731

  5

  3,212

  1,046

  4,994

  9,015

  1993–94

  434

  613

  3,148

  1,069

  5,264

  6,621

  Note

  1. Figures have been calculated at 1979 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Winter Death Rate
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the excess winter death rate in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland in each of the past 10 years.

  Deaths in Scotland and Strathclyde by month, 1984–1993

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (a) Strathclyde

  January

  2,829

  2,970

  3,485

  2,630

  2,569

  2,711

  3,243

  2,662

  2,616

  2,641

  February

  2,532

  2,497

  2,784

  2,397

  2,496

  2,279

  2,299

  2,340

  2,342

  2,314

  March

  2,690

  2,704

  2,384

  2,772

  2,508

  2,487

  2,380

  2,252

  2,482

  2,938

  April

  2,716

  2,655

  2,674

  2,408

  2,351

  2,254

  2,451

  2,573

  2,327

  2,449

  May

  2,537

  2,376

  2,277

  2,186

  2,458

  2,485

  2,363

  2,328

  2,205

  2,287

  June

  2,063

  2,052

  2,297

  2,389

  2,210

  2,297

  2,130

  2,078

  2,361

  2,292

  July

  2,235

  2,357

  2,153

  2,206

  2,004

  2,146

  2,192

  2,276

  2,105

  2,136

  August

  2,169

  2,097

  2,133

  2,091

  2,367

  2,246

  2,178

  2,073

  2,169

  2,286

  September

  2,062

  2,043

  2,371

  2,152

  2,174

  2,103

  1,900

  1,982

  2,119

  2,220

  October

  2,458

  2,480

  2,223

  2,396

  2,185

  2,358

  2,381

  2,567

  2,324

  2,305

  November

  2,375

  2,434

  2,136

  2,430

  2,397

  2,728

  2,282

  2,328

  2,401

  2,967

  December

  2,626

  2,927

  2,647

  2,804

  2,524

  3,986

  2,527

  2,601

  2,597

  2,881

  Total

  29,292

  29,592

  29,564

  28,861

  28,243

  30,080

  28.326

  28,060

  28,048

  29,716

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (b) Scotland

  January

  6,126

  6,324

  7,456

  5,741

  5,609

  5,976

  6,884

  6,014

  5,894

  5,762

  February

  5,376

  5,383

  5,774

  5,197

  5,385

  4,944

  4,958

  5,218

  5,274

  4,913

  March

  5,723

  5,759

  5,226

  5,943

  5,539

  5,507

  5,091

  5,046

  5,343

  6,084

  April

  5,827

  5,685

  5,743

  5,112

  5,088

  4,837

  5,276

  5,451

  5,040

  5,361

  May

  5,249

  5,191

  4,943

  4,704

  5,387

  5,328

  5,144

  4,974

  4,666

  5,049

  June

  4,476

  4,462

  4,900

  5,109

  4,825

  5,010

  4,685

  4,466

  4,962

  4,948

  July

  4,783

  5,072

  4,730

  4,758

  4,488

  4,689

  4,805

  4,861

  4,684

  4,571

  August

  4,642

  4,613

  4,471

  4,585

  5,075

  4,823

  4,734

  4,500

  4,630

  4,921

  September

  4,406

  4,669

  5,072

  4,753

  4,689

  4,622

  4,198

  4,453

  4,710

  4,722

  October

  5,280

  5,201

  4,797

  5,137

  4,891

  5,158

  5,211

  5,328

  4,960

  4,930

  November

  4,947

  5,302

  4,659

  5,191

  5,329

  5,569

  4,960

  5,024

  5,117

  6,531

  December

  5,510

  6,306

  5,696

  5,784

  5,652

  8,564

  5,581

  5,706

  5,657

  6,257

  Total

  62,345

  63,967

  63,467

  62,014

  61,957

  65,017

  61,527

  61,041

  60,937

  64,049

  Hypothermia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people died of hypothermia other than when engaged in outdoor pursuits in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]It is not possible to identify those
  234
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]There is no universally accepted definition of excess winter deaths and it would not be possible to calculate a rate for these. The total numbers of deaths by month are given in the table.

  hypothermia deaths where the deceased had been engaged in outdoor pursuits.

  Numbers are already published regularly—in the Registrar-General's four-weekly "Vital Statistics Return", available in the Library—of total deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate. Figures for Scotland and Strahtclyde are given.
  235

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, 1984 to 1993. Strathclyde and Scotland:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (a) Strathclyde

  73

  90

  101

  80

  72

  68

  67

  43

  47

  64

  (b) Scotland

  175

  231

  208

  153

  138

  150

  136

  99

  115

  141

  public Bodies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to how many agencies and non-departmental public bodies his Department makes appointments; how many appointments have been made to these bodies; and what was their total budget in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department to which I make appointments are listed in the Cabinet Office annual publication "Public Bodies 1994" which was published today and copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The information includes the number of appointments I make to each body, the gross expenditure of the body and the amount funded by central Government. Further information on the financial affairs

  £ millions.

  1989–
  90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  (a) Historic Scotland

  8.6

  9.8

  11.4

  12.7

  12.6

  (b) Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  3.6

  4

  4

  4.5

  4.7

  (c) Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  9.5

  10

  10.8

  11.2

  12.1

  (d) Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  3.8

  3.9

  4

  4.2

  4.5

  (e) Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  1.7

  1.9

  2.1

  2.3

  2.6

  (f) Scottish Prison Service

  97.9

  105

  119.4

  114.8

  135.3

  (g) Registers of Scotland

  14.6

  20.8

  26.3

  28.6

  27.5

  (h) Scottish Record Office

  2.9

  3.3

  3.8

  4.1

  4.0

  Council Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council house tenants have brought their homes under the right-to-buy scheme; and how many subsequently sold their homes in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The most recent information on right-to-buy sales is published in the statistical bulletin HSG/1994/9 a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on the resale of dwellings bought under the right-to-buy scheme is not held centrally.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give by regional and island authority the amount of special transitional grant for 1993–94 spent on(a) nursing home placements, (b) residential home placements and (c) non-residential services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]Local authorities in Scotland have received funding of £85.8 million in 1993–94 to support their new community care responsibilities. The comparable figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are £176 million and £241 million respectively. These include 236
  of each executive non-departmental public body may be obtained from the annual report of the body.

  I appoint two non-executive directors to the board of the Scottish Prison Service and one non-executive director to the management board of registers of Scotland.

  Details of my responsibilities with respect to the appointments of individual chief executives for each of my eight executive agencies can be found in the agency framework documents, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Information about the running costs of each of my executive agencies is set out in the table. Agencies came into being on various dates during this period. To give a consistent time series a full five-year run of figures has been prepared irrespective of when the agencies were created. The table shows outturn expenditure since information is not readily available over the full five-year period on a budget basis.

  resources equivalent to the special transitional grant which applies in England only. Outturn expenditure data for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  "Progress in Partnership"
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 January, to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson),Official Report, columns 353–54, if it is his intention to create a priority partnership area in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow or (b) Inverclyde as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]In announcing the outcome of the review of urban regeneration policy in Scotland my right hon. Friend noted that further consultation on the implementation of the new arrangements would be conducted. Once this process is completed, we plan to issue detailed guidance to local authorities and other local partners on the operation of the new arrangements and then enter into discussions with these bodies on a range of matters, including the selection of priority areas. An announcement will then be made, probably later this year, on the designation of the first priority partnership areas. The needs of Greenock, Port Glasgow and Inverclyde as a whole will be considered, alongside those of other areas, during this process.
  237

  Population Estimates
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total number of people in Scotland over the age of 65 years in 2001.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The population of Scotland aged 65 years and over is projected to be 805,000 in 2001.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of operations for breast cancer in 1993–94 were performed in hospitals where(a) more than 100 such operations took place, (b) between 50 and 100 took place and (c) fewer than 50 took place.
  238
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The estimated number of discharges from Scottish NHS hospitals in 1993–94 following an operation for breast cancer is given in the following table.

  Estimated discharges from Scottish hospitals following an operation for breast cancer for the financial year ending March 19941

  Frequency

  percentage of total cases

  Female Breast Cancer

  Hospitals with frequency over 100 cases

  3,996

  75

  Hospitals with frequency between 50 and 100

  929

  18

  Hospitals with frequency between 0 and 49

  370

  7

  Total cases

  5,295

  100

  Male Breast Cancer

  Hospitals with frequency between 0 and 49

  31

  100

  1 1994 Dates are provisional.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

NHS: Medical Negligence Provision
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision is being made for damages awarded for medical negligence in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, employers in the National Health Service are responsible for the negligent acts and omissions of their employees.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. It does seem that such provision is now prudent. Is it correct that claims are increasing in number, not because there is more negligence but because more of the public are now inclined to enter into litigation following a trend in the United States? Does my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate that in the United States instead of negligence the word "malpractice" is used which has a different meaning in British English implying deliberate misdeeds rather than accidental errors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. We are seeing an increase in the number of cases brought to court and the amounts of money that are now awarded through court action. We do not believe that there is an increase in clinical accidents. It is simply that the public are more litigious than they used to be. Certainly we believe that the American term "malpractice" is unfortunate and we prefer the term "clinical accident".
Lord Molloy: My Lords, there are reports that each year millions of pounds are being paid to people who claim for negligence in the NHS. Would it not perhaps be wise for the department to consider examining this situation in detail to prevent negligence and thereby save the money that is paid to litigants? The savings can then be used to help the NHS and people generally?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we scrutinise carefully the cases that are brought, but I should perhaps tell your Lordships that 96 per cent. are settled out of court. Nevertheless, the sums are increasing alarmingly. In the last three years they have risen from £60 million to £125 million.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend remarked on the litigiousness—if that is a word—of the
98
public. Does she believe that this is encouraged by newspaper advertisements by solicitors and, if so, what is she going to do about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I personally have not seen those advertisements; if they are around I would deplore it. From my experience, when I have dealt with complaints people want three things: they want a speedy response; they want a sincere apology from the person most responsible, and they want an assurance that the same mistake will not happen to somebody else.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I reinforce what the noble Lord said about the advertisements from solicitors. Will the Minister consider approaching the Law Society to see whether it can assist in ameliorating this matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think I would want to see the evidence first and then make a judgment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the position will be exacerbated when the Government allow the practice which has hitherto been prohibited—the contingency fee system—which will exacerbate the enthusiasm of lawyers to take up cases and bring them forward, particularly in the field of personal injuries?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, again, that is something that the Government need to consider.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there a case for the Government to reconsider their attitude to the no-fault compensation scheme referred to in great detail in the Pearson Report?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have considered very carefully the no-fault compensation scheme. We have rejected it at this time because it means that those who wish to go to court but will settle for a compensation scheme still have to prove causation. It is that which causes the problem.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the health service ombudsman has intervened in any of these cases and what effect he has had?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is part of his remit.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that none of us wants to see a growth in malpractice litigation in the American manner? However, is it the case that it is now the responsibility of individual trusts to insure their own employees, and is that not creating great difficulties for them on a purely financial basis?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have considered that problem. We are setting up a mutual fund to which trusts can contribute and from which they can also benefit.
Lord Annan: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any evidence that the courts are interpreting the law of

99
negligence in a rather different fashion from what was the case some years ago; namely, that there is a great distinction between human error and negligence?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have evidence that that is the case. However, claims and settlements are now much larger. One of the areas that we are examining is structured settlements, which we think would benefit not only the National Health Service but also those who deserve and have won compensation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not complain at the inevitable fact that the Minister does not know the answer to many of these questions, but is it not the case that the issue is so important that there should be a study, which should be published and available for consideration by the public?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sorry that I seem to have lost the confidence of the noble Lord opposite. I shall try and win it back. We are studying this matter very carefully. It is true in all walks of life that litigation is much more common than it used to be. But we are looking to a number of other schemes. As I said, we have ruled out no-fault compensation but are looking at mediation schemes. Indeed, we have six pilot schemes starting in two regions from 1st April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, did my noble friend see a cartoon in a newspaper yesterday in which a nurse is telling a patient in a hospital bed that the lawyers will be doing their rounds shortly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sorry I missed it.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be reassuring if the medical profession were able to feel that the so-called Bolam test relating to medical negligence was still the principle that was followed in claims for negligence in our courts? Does the Minister feel that at some stage it would be appropriate to reconsider the whole issue of no-fault compensation, which is so much better in many respects than the present confrontational tort system in these cases?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have just considered it and we do not believe that it is the way forward, for the reasons that I have given. You have to prove causation, and that is a great problem. We also think that doctors who are called to account in the courts are possibly more careful as to their practice. Of course, the amount of money that is given out through no-fault compensation is denied the National Health Service.

New Zealand Flatworm
2.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to combat the depredations of the New Zealand flatworm.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My
100
Lords, the Government are funding research into the biology and ecology of the New Zealand flatworm and its implications for agriculture and the environment. The Central Science Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provides advice on how to control and dispose of this pest. Legislation was introduced in 1992 under which it is an offence to release flatworms or allow them to escape into the wild.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he give some details as to how big an area of the United Kingdom is infested so far and how fast the infestations are spreading? Can he assure the House that there is a real sense of urgency in the way the Government are dealing with what many see as a major problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are indeed taking the problem seriously. We have established that the flatworm is widespread throughout most of Scotland and Northern Ireland. There have also been 25 recorded occurrences in England, mainly in the north of the country, all but one of those since 1992. Research in 1992 showed that in Scotland the flatworm was found mainly in private gardens and allotments. The evidence at that time suggested that it was not widely established on agricultural land. Similarly, identifications in Northern Ireland have mainly been in domestic gardens, although the flatworm appears to be spreading to agricultural land there as well.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if one finds a flatworm in one's garden how does one stop it escaping into the wild?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the official advice is to tread on it or pour something hot or salty on top of it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the New Zealand flatworm, or Artiposthia triangulate as we call it in Wiltshire, is a garden pest or a farm pest? Is it correct that funding for research into flatworm control in Scotland provided from the agricultural budget of the Scottish Office has ended because the flatworm is not regarded as an agricultural pest although, according to a recent report, they go round in gangs and jump on earthworms?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the difficulty is that the scope for assessing the implications of New Zealand flatworm infestation for agriculture has been limited by a lack of established populations on agricultural land, especially in England and Scotland. When the distribution of the flatworm in Scotland was surveyed by the Scottish Crop Research Institute between July 1991 and February 1993 its impact on earthworm populations on agricultural land was found to be minimal. There was a suggestion that in drier, more intensively farmed areas of eastern Scotland flatworm and earthworm populations may co-exist. As I said, research is continuing; we await the results with interest.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, my noble friend's advice is to stamp on the flatworm. Is it effective to stamp on a worm that is already flat?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. However, I remind him that the official name of

101
the animal is Artiposthia triangulata, which signifies that in cross-section it has a distinct triangular form. It can also be distinguished by its purplish brown colour with bands of dirty yellow running along it. It is also typically covered in a layer of mucus. I am sure that my noble friend would not mistake it if he found it.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is there a hint of anti-colonial bias in the Question; or do these nasty pests come from countries other than New Zealand?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no wish to impugn either our friends in New Zealand or those anywhere else in the Commonwealth. I understand that the incidence of the flatworm in New Zealand is not much of a problem, at least for agriculture. The open fields there tend to be too hot and dry for the worm's survival. It is when the worm is in a wetter, cooler climate that the problems begin.

Mortgage Interest and Income Support
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they share the concerns expressed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders over the effects of the recently announced changes to the provision of income support to mortgage holders who become unemployed.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are discussing the proposed changes in income support mortgage interest with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. We believe that those measures will result in better protection for all home owners, not just those who are currently able to claim income support mortgage interest. Currently 150,000 unemployed home owners receive no help from income support mortgage interest. They would be helped by comprehensive good quality insurance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, he must be aware that, despite the improvements and the falling numbers of families whose homes are being repossessed, almost 1,000 families a week are having their homes repossessed by building societies. As the Minister will be aware, that figure was reducing slowly. That is welcome, but is he also aware that in its report the Council of Mortgage Lenders issued a warning? It believes that the figure will bottom out and start to swing upwards again, with the adverse effect that that will have on housing and the building industry too.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in a different way the noble Lord has made a similar point to one that I made in my original Answer. Two-thirds of all home owners would not qualify for income
102
support if they became unemployed because they have capital, income or a working spouse. Therefore the expansion of insurance products so that an increasing number of people with mortgages had insurance would reduce the need for building societies to repossess people's homes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Council of Mortgage Lenders has prophesied that government measures will produce between 12,000 and 24,000 further repossessions, with the cost and misery that will result. Do the Government accept responsibility for that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government do not accept responsibility. Indeed, we do not agree with the Council of Mortgage Lenders on that. We believe that, as those insurance policies come into play with new borrowers, those who are unemployed, or who in any other way find that they are unable to repay the mortgage covered by insurance, will have the insurance company to help them.
It is worth making the point to your Lordships that we expect people to insure themselves for the first nine months. Thereafter income support mortgage interest will come into play.
Lord Desai: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that user friendly insurance products exist, or do they simply hope that the market will take care of the matter? Is it not time that the Government encouraged the creation of suitable insurance products with appropriate subsidies?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, by the policy of removing mortgage interest help for the first nine months on income support, we are concentrating the minds of both borrowers and lenders on the need to take out insurance. Indeed the Abbey National tells us now that 40 per cent. of new borrowers already take out insurance. There is little doubt that, since we made the announcement, more and more insurance companies, including most recently General Accident, have come to the market with policies.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister sought to answer a difficult Question fully. However, at the end of the argument the people in the greatest danger of immediate repossession are those who do not have the funding to insure. Those are the people at peril of being made homeless. Could not something be done about that as a matter of urgency?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the policy regarding the first nine months without income support triggering in refers to new borrowers. The provision in relation to the first nine months will not affect people who are currently borrowers. All persons who take out a mortgage after that policy comes into force will have to ask themselves whether or not they should take out a policy of the kind which is increasingly available in the market place in order to cover themselves not just for unemployment but for sickness and the like.

Spanish Fishing Vessels and the Irish Box
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many fishery protection ships of the Royal Navy will be available to enforce the recent agreement allowing 40 Spanish fishing vessels to operate within the Irish Box.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron currently comprises nine vessels. It mainly operates within British fishery limits, patrolling the waters adjacent to England and Wales and the east of Scotland. Waters off the west coast of Scotland and around Northern Ireland are patrolled by vessels belonging to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
From 1st January 1996, the United Kingdom will be responsible for monitoring the activities of Spanish vessels in those parts of the Irish Box which fall within British fishery limits and where they will be permitted to fish. We already monitor the activities of other vessels currently permitted to fish in those areas.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. First, does it mean that there will always be at least two vessels within the Irish Box area? Secondly, will the Royal Navy be able to carry out whatever activities it deems necessary unconstrained by any directives from the European Commission?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government already spend £26 million a year on fisheries enforcement, of which £14 million is spent on surface surveillance and enforcement at sea. The need for further resources to maintain effective enforcement at sea is currently being assessed. Enforcement is a key issue in making the new arrangements work. We have undertaken to do our part and to ensure even closer co-operation with the Irish. That is what we are setting about doing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in addition to the spectacle of a British Government paying £28 million a year to destroy British fishermen's jobs in order that Spanish fishermen can have jobs, shall we now have the spectacle of the British Navy protecting the Spanish invading armada to the detriment of British fishermen? Would not Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake turn in their graves?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake. But his memory is rather short. As he well knows, the industry itself has been pressing us to increase the funds available for decommissioning. Noble Lords from all sides of the House pressed me on that point during the passage of the Sea Fish (Conservation Act) 1992. The key point is that, with more decommissioning money and therefore fewer vessels, the remaining fleet will be more competitive. That will help to ensure the long-term
104
efficiency and viability of our industry. It is important that those measures are enforced. We believe that adequate arrangements will be in place to do just that.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Spaniards wrecked their own fishing grounds by cheating on their quotas and propose to do exactly the same in this country? A few Royal Naval vessels will be unable to prevent them. Therefore will he advise the Government to turn a Nelsonian blind eye to the Devon and Cornish fishermen as they seek to sink the larger Spanish ships—which they will succeed in so doing if they are not interfered with?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern to see the arrangements fairly implemented. There are two important safeguards for effective enforcement. At the December Fisheries Council it was agreed that additional control measures should be adopted for western waters. Those include provisions which will require vessels entering and leaving defined areas, including the Irish Box, to hail in and out to the coastal state as well as to their own flag state. That procedure will enable us to keep track of Spanish fishing activity in our waters. In addition to that, the location of fishing vessels in western waters will be monitored through aerial surveillance. That is a very effective means of identifying what vessels are in a given area at any one time.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend at all worried at the thought of one possible scenario: if the Cornish fishermen took action to repel the forthcoming Spanish armada, members of the Royal Navy might be asked to turn on their own countrymen?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we very much hope that that situation will not arise. I do not believe that it will because we have undertaken to ensure that enforcement is adequate. The rules must be implemented fairly for all member states in western waters.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Spanish fleet now has access to parts of the Irish Box and, thanks to swops with France and Belgium, it has access to several new fishing areas. How does that all square with the statement by the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Jack, and his department in October 1993 that Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels should be confined as closely as possible to their historic fishing patterns and should have no access to the Irish Box?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are several key points which I welcome the chance to put on the record. Nothing in the agreed deal causes British fishermen to lose quotas. Our fishermen continue to have far more quotas in western waters than the Spanish do. The aggregate catch available to member states in western waters will be no greater from next year than it is at the moment. All that will change is that the Spanish will fish with a part of their fleet over a somewhat wider area than they do at present.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl spoke of quotas. Is he aware that as regards the United Kingdom there are 52 inspectors available at all the

105
local British ports—they do their job thoroughly—whereas in the case of Spain there are only 12 inspectors who are quartered not at the ports but in Madrid?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is a little out of date. There are 49 inspectors in Madrid and we under-stand that the number will rise to 65. Enforcement in Spain amounts to more than people just sitting in Madrid. It consists of officials from the various regional governments and maritime authorities and coastguards as well.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his original Answer to my noble friend Lord Caldecote the Minister referred to there being nine vessels available. But am I right in thinking that in his supplementary answer he then alluded to a possible increase in those nine? Can he expand on that?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot expand on that at the moment. We are trying to assess how many more vessels, if any, will be required. We have just under a year in which to do that and I am sure that if we decide that more vessels are required they will be brought in.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how far south British vessels are allowed to go on the present understanding? Are they allowed to fish in the whole of the Bay of Biscay?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in relation to the Irish Box, UK vessels already have unlimited access, subject to the quotas in each individual area. I should need advice on the Bay of Biscay.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts to try sexual offences against children committed overseas. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Motions, 9th February
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 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 9th February to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Swinfen to be taken before the Motions standing in the name of the Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Central European Time Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Mountgarret.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Patient Accommodation Bill [H.L.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The new authority]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) The Authority shall exercise general supervision over occupational pension schemes and shall in particular—

(a) register schemes, such registration to be a prerequisite of Inland Revenue approval;

(b) monitor schemes, and enforce compliance with legal requirements, including rules relating to trustees, minimum solvency and disclosure;

(c) intervene in scheme administration where the scheme assets appear to the Authority to be in jeopardy;

(d) receive and investigate complaints of impropriety in the management of pension schemes or the composition or conduct of the trustees;

(e) disqualify from acting in the management of an occupational pension scheme those Who have shown themselves unfit to act and who are not automatically disqualified under section 24, and maintain a public register of those so disqualified;

(f) in defined circumstances, monitor schemes that are being wound up or require them to be wound up;

(g) give information and advice to the Secretary of State when so requested;

107

(h) disseminate information and advice to the public about pension schemes and their administration, pensions legislation and other matters within the scope of the Authority's statutory functions;

(i) issue or approve standards and codes of practice.

( ) In the carrying out of its functions, the Authority must ensure that it—

(a) has made adequate arrangements for the effective monitoring and enforcement of occupational pension schemes' compliance with their statutory obligations;

(b) has made effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints concerning occupational pension schemes; and

(c) is able and willing to promote high standards of integrity and practice in occupational pension schemes.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the Bill is to secure occupational pensions, the funding of pensions and to stop fraud. In other words, it is to deliver, as Goode proposed, the pension promised. To deliver that pension promised, three conditions must be fulfilled: first, that schemes are properly funded; secondly, that schemes are overseen by trustees who are trained, independent and fully representative of all interests, aided by professional advisers; and, thirdly, that they, in turn, are overseen by a regulator.
As we argued at Second Reading, our belief is that the Government have weakened all three planks. They have greatly weakened the solvency of schemes—an issue to which we shall return on the third day of Committee. The Government have, to a degree, weakened the necessary balance of trustees—a theme to which we shall seek to return on the second Committee day. Today's issue is our belief that the Government have substantially weakened the role of the regulator.
Today's amendments cluster around the role, function, membership, funding, powers and liabilities of the regulator. We on these Benches admit without embarrassment that our amendment seeks in almost every case to align the regulator in the Government's Bill with the regulator of the Goode Report—the regulator from which, in our view, the Government have retreated. Virtually all our amendments, therefore, seek to reinstate Goode.
We on these Benches have been criticised for not trying to go even further than Goode for, as The Times newspaper argued, if anything, Goode erred on the side of employers. However, in a phrase which I am sure will echo and re-echo throughout our debates, as regards the regulator we believe that Goode got the balance about right.
What did Goode say? I quote from paragraph 4.19.22 of the Goode Report:
"A major weakness of the present law governing occupational pension schemes is that there is no statutory authority with overall responsibility for their supervision and for enforcement of the legal responsibilities [governing them] … The new legal framework we have recommended depends for its effectiveness on proper supervisory and enforcement machinery. We therefore recommend that the Pensions Regulator should have wide-ranging functions and powers".
Quite so, my Lords. Surely, no one can doubt that a strong and effective regulator is crucial, if we are to police abuse, restore confidence in occupational pensions and deliver that pension promise.
The Maxwell scandal and many others have shown that the traditional combination of trust law, Inland Revenue rules and scraps of social security law all jumbled together have so far not always delivered that promise. So this Bill is about how we regulate, not whether we do. It is not about regulation as against deregulation, but about devising effective regulatory structures that secure the interests of scheme members without overburdening everybody with unnecessary bureaucracy. The regulator is the linchpin. Yet—and this is the purpose of this amendment—we do not yet know what it does. We know that it is a long-stop, able to intervene when things have clearly already gone wrong. But it does not yet have a general responsibility to ensure that things do not go wrong in the first place. The Government's regulator is a fire fighter. The regulator as defined by the Goode Report sought to prevent fires blowing up. That is what we seek to do with this amendment.
The amendment is not out of line with what the Government have done on similar Bills in the past. Other Bills establishing regulatory authorities—for example, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the regulators of the utilities such as gas and electricity—have spelt out in the Bill the power, duties and functions of the regulator. To give an example (and the nearest analogy I can find) Clause 48 of the Financial Services Act 1986 sets out very clearly in 12 subsections the rules and regulations regarding the regulator and the conduct of investment business by authorised persons other than financial bodies. Clause 48 lists 12 prospective rules or duties, precisely as this amendment asks. In other words, this amendment follows the Government's own precedent. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should not have done so in the Bill. The regulator will have to keep thumbing through the Act to see whether he has the power to do something which, as all of us would agree, is self-evidently sensible.
The powers that the Government have specified in the Act are inadequate. There are powers to report to the Secretary of State; to remove and replace trustees; to wind up the schemes; to ensure that employers pay over to trustees the benefits that they have collected from members. In other words, there are powers to deal with the transgressions of statutory duties. But what about other powers—such as a power for the regulator to investigate as he sees fit; to secure research—the substance of a later amendment; to spot check; to issue codes of guidance; or to give advice to the public? It really is extraordinary—is it not?—to set up a new regulatory body, the linchpin of this Bill, without setting out in the Bill the duties and the terms of reference of the regulator for all clearly to see.
We know that regulation in the field of finance is not easy. The evidence of personal pensions is there to the knowledge of all of us. We know about the difficulties that the Personal Investment Authority now faces when companies refuse to comply with it. But regulation is easier and far more effective when all parties know where they stand. They are entitled to know what the regulator must do and can do. This amendment

109
simultaneously empowers the regulator and makes his duties, powers and responsibilities clear to those bodies that he regulates.
So far as I am aware, the CBI and the National Association of Pension Funds have no objection to this amendment. Consumer bodies, from the Consumers' Association and Age Concern to bodies representing scheme members such as the TUC, very much want that clarification. As the National Association of Pension Funds has said, it would like to see far more clarification of the thinking behind the role that the regulatory authority will play. I hope that the Government agree and that they will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in her introduction, the new regulatory authority is the key element in the reforms to the pension industry that are set out in this Bill. Taken together with the other measures in the Bill to improve the administration and security of occupational pension schemes, it presents a formidable barrier against dishonesty and negligence. It will be an independent statutory body, fully accountable to Parliament. It will have all the powers necessary to enforce compliance with the law. It will act swiftly and incisively to protect scheme members and to sanction or remove wrongdoers. And it will have a wide range of investigatory powers to act wherever it has reason to suspect that something is amiss, even where no formal report has been made.
I share the desire of the noble Baroness to give the new authority a comprehensive range of properly targeted duties and responsibilities. The Bill does exactly that, and we shall come to them clause by clause as we examine the Bill. It places clear obligations on pension schemes and gives the authority a range of well-defined powers to enforce them.
But it is neither practical nor desirable for the authority to supervise and regularly monitor over 150,000 pension schemes, most of which are perfectly well run. That would certainly be a recipe for a very bureaucratic and possibly interfering body. It would also add greatly to the cost—cost which has to be passed on to employers via the levy—and it would require, for example, the authority to enforce obligations which are already enforceable under other enactments, including trust law. I do not believe that that would be sensible.
Some of the responsibilities that are outlined in the noble Baroness's amendment would make the authority into an advice and information bureau, which would be a wasteful duplication of the excellent services provided by the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service, and it would describe the authority's responsibilities in such general terms as to open them up to ambiguity and doubt.
In short, the Committee must not be misled into believing that, because it is called OPRA, this authority should, can be or will be some sort of all-singing, all-dancing act. It will be, to employ words that were used at Second Reading, very much there to take on the role of the person who comes in when the whistle has
110
been blown, or, as I said earlier in my remarks, even when there has been no formal complaint, where it feels that there is something upon which it ought to act.
The authority, OPRA, will be robust and effective, and it will have the powers and duties that it needs to protect the security of occupational pension schemes. While I very much appreciate the noble Baroness's desire to help us in our task of making sure that another Robert Maxwell incident does not occur, I do not believe that we need the additions to this clause that are in the noble Baroness's amendment.
Baroness Seear: Surely the weakness in what the Minister has said is that the regulator, as rather loosely defined in the Bill, relies on somebody else to blow the whistle. It will be recognised that there are 150,000 pension schemes. But on these Benches as well as on the Labour Benches we feel very strongly indeed that the regulator must be proactive, and that he must not rely on whistle blowers. We shall discuss this point in relation to a later clause in the Bill. He must be in a position to be completely independent and to take the initiative himself. Otherwise, the regulator will not be able to carry out the functions which, as all sides of the Committee are agreed, he must control to De able to take action in time against any offences which could lead to a recurrence of what we have seen in the past.
Lord Marsh: I tremble to think that I begin my remarks by disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on this issue, and I am sorry because I share her views on many matters. However, the amendment states that,
"The Authority shall exercise general supervision over occupational pension schemes and shall in particular".
It makes one wonder what more could have been added if it was to provide detailed supervision of the scheme.
There are two major elements in pension fraud and in fraud generally in the financial services sector. The first is the financial ignorance of most people and their flat refusal to take a serious interest in their own financial affairs. In this area the level of people's naivety cannot be exaggerated.
A second feature is that many of those who transgress in this area over and over again have drawn the attention of those whom they seek to defraud to the regulatory authorities as a sign of their good housekeeping—"I am a member of so and so", so to speak. The regulatory authorities frequently give the impression that they can exercise a degree of supervision which in fact they cannot. That was true in the Barlow Clowes case and in a number of other cases.
A third feature can be exemplified by the Maxwell case, although we all agree that the Maxwell affair was not typical. There were a number of people—not just the trustees—who were in a much better position to exert supervision over what was going on than any outside regulatory authority could have been. There will be court action elsewhere which will decide exactly where the blame lay. But it is not just the trustees in general; board members also have a role to play, as do the auditors and the managers of pension funds who are employees.

111
With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I differ greatly from her. The provisions of the Bill which deal with whistle blowing and place those direct responsibilities on individuals are a much more likely way of preventing some of the abuses than trying to give a central authority detailed responsibilities in relation to tens of thousands of different schemes.
We do not have an enormous problem with dozens of schemes collapsing every week. But when a scheme collapses it is traumatic in the extreme for those who lose out on it. It is a major issue. The great problem is not the failure of a regulatory authority but the failure of a number of individuals who knew what was going on but for one reason or another did not blow the whistle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, gave a moving example of one particular case. Such things do not happen with no one knowing about them. They happen without the knowledge of the regulatory authority. But certainly they do not normally happen without somebody within the organisation knowing, whatever particular responsibility that person may have.
I share the desire of the mover of the amendment but I agree with the Minister's view. It would provide a false sense of security and it is the wrong area upon which to concentrate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before we decide what to do about the amendment, will the Minister tell us in what way the Government have retreated from Goode on this issue, and why?
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, put forward some powerful arguments, effectively saying that the regulator can keep control of the situation. That argument strikes a chord with me.
I was concerned that, in his opening remarks, the Minister stated that 150,000 schemes are operating very satisfactorily. How do we know that? That is one of the difficulties. To a large extent the whole business of regulating the pension fund industry is a matter of confidence.
We are trying to ensure that there is a satisfactory regime in which everyone can have confidence. I am not sure that it helps to say that there are 150,000 schemes and they are all operating satisfactorily. We need to put in place some mechanisms that can demonstrate to the public and the scheme members that there is some overview and that some confidence can be placed in it.
Baroness Seear: I should reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, since he did not seem to agree with me. What we ask for in ordinary parlance is a belt and braces operation. We do not say that people cannot blow the whistle; we say that, in addition, the regulator should be able to intervene proactively. It is a double safeguard that we want. We do not rule out the other people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Let me respond to some of the points that have been made. I was a little mystified by the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the complete independence of the authority
112
and the regulator. In so far as I understand her question, I can assure her that he or she will be independent, reporting directly to the Government and to Parliament.
We have to look at the Bill as a whole. Listening to some of the noble Lords opposite, one would believe that that was the only defence. But we must look at all the other defences that have been put in place in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly pointed out, primary responsibility rests with the trustees, the auditors and the actuaries. We shall come to that issue later in the Bill. Their primary responsibility will be spelt out in some detail. Because they are in the right position, they will be obliged to blow the whistle if they see or come across something which they feel is suspicious.
Let me repeat that the authority will have a wide range of investigatory powers in order to act when it suspects that something is amiss. It will not need to wait for a whistle blower, so to speak, nor to respond only to a whistle blower. For example, if it has come across a problem in a pension scheme and believes that there may be a similar situation in a similar pension scheme, there is nothing to prevent it moving across.
But there is a great difference between that and the position being urged on me, which is to make the regulator look over and supervise routinely something in the order of 150,000 pension schemes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out a few moments ago, the Bill departs from the PLRC recommendations on the issue of routine monitoring. It was recommended that the new regulatory body should require schemes to submit copies of annual reports and other documents on an annual basis. We rejected that on the grounds that it would not be a good use of resources and would add hugely to the expense of the authority. Frankly, we are very doubtful whether the collection of those reports simply sent in to the authority would give the authority any real basis on which to make the kind of judgments which, if we go down the road that noble Lords ask me to go down, they would expect the authority to make.
Therefore, I must ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment. If she does not do so, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. He has not addressed the central issue that we are seeking to pursue; namely, the nature of the role of the regulator.
I entirely agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We are not pursuing the role of the regulator in terms of detailed scrutiny. We are trying to establish on the face of the Bill the compact or contract between the regulator and the bodies that he regulates. This amendment will spell out his duties. That would mean a more active and interventionist role. It would be a general supervisory role, and so on. On the one hand—precisely as the Government themselves wanted under the Financial Services Act 1986, so that there is no precedent here but well established practice—we are trying to establish his duties and responsibilities as one side of the compact; and, on the other hand, that then allows scheme members and new trustees to understand what the function and duties of

113
the regulator may be. They have no way of knowing from the Bill. They do not know what he is entitled to do.
I remind the Committee that at this point in time over two-thirds of existing schemes, covering nearly one-third of all employees, have no elected or nominated trustees. That means that the new trustees are coming in cold. We shall come on later to other points relating to codes of practice. But at the least those trustees are coming on to trustee boards for the first time and are entitled to know what the function, duty and responsibility of the regulator is if they are to seek to bring the scheme up to the best practice that we all want to ensure.
What can be more reasonable than that we spell out in the Bill what the regulator does so that those he regulates know what he intends to do? What can be more reasonable? Why this reticence? Why this hesitation? Why this cloaking in obscurity? Why these shadows? How do we expect new trustees, in schemes for the first time, to operate as we would wish as "whistle blowers" when they do not know the job and Function of the regulator? The Government established that principle in previous legislation and are refusing to put it in place here, even though it has been urged on them by one of the most high-powered and significant committees on pension law reform since the war.
I am disappointed in the Minister's response. It may not be wise to press the amendment today but I can assure him that we shall come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, after ("be") insert ("so").
The noble Lord said: It has always been our intention hat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State shall choose and appoint the chairman of the new authority. This technical amendment puts that beyond doubt by adding the word "so". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) The chairman shall be a person who appears to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the audit and regulation of pension schemes or other aspects of financial services.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 with which it is grouped. The office of regulator is obviously a key one and that view was confirmed this afternoon by the Minister. The Goode Report recommended that the office of regulator and chair should be held on a full-time basis by an individual with a detailed understanding of the working of pension schemes and the personal authority riot only to enforce statutory requirements but also to develop voluntary standards which should receive wide support.
The new regulatory regime will replace the Occupational Pensions Board, of which I was a member for a long time. The members of that board were, in general, people with a knowledge of the industry and the staff were extremely expert. We had a series of competent and distinguished chairmen including the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who I am pleased to see in his place this afternoon, and my noble friend Lord Brimelow. The board had plenty of expertise and produced excellent reports. But it did not possess the powers that many people thought it did. Its role was a limited one. People believed that it had more powers than in fact it had and we occasionally came in for unjustified criticism, as I remember we did particularly at the time of the Maxwell scandal.
The new body will have standing and power. It must command the respect and support of the pensions industry as well as the general public. The chair is therefore a key role and it is important that the right sort of person is appointed and acknowledged by all interested parties to have the right status, standing and expertise to carry through that function.
As I said earlier, the amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Amendment No. 10 seeks to remove from the Bill the words,
"The chairman of the Authority may at any time be removed from office by notice in writing given to him by the Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 11 relates to the powers under which the Secretary of State may remove ordinary members of the authority from such membership. The amendments seek to accelerate the authority and independence of the chair or the regulator. We do not believe that it is a good idea that, with apparently little notice except a notice in writing, the chair can be removed by the Secretary of State. It would be much more advisable to have the same provisions applying to him in regard to his removal as apply to other members of the council.
I hope that the Minister will realise that we are trying to strengthen the Bill, to heighten the independence and authority of the individual who will be chosen as chair and to make clear that he or she is an individual who has the right weight and authority to carry forward this important and key role. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly said, the role of chairman will be particularly important in the authority. It is no doubt agreed between us all that the right individual should be appointed to the job. The chairman must be someone of sufficient stature to command the confidence of both scheme members and the business community that stands behind the occupational pension schemes.
Our intention is that the Secretary State shall choose and appoint the chairman. It is in the interests of pension scheme members that the Secretary of State should also be able to remove the chairman should he or she not prove worthy of the post. We do not expect such a situation to arise and indeed we hope that it will not. But it is only wise in a Bill of this nature—which we trust will last for some considerable time—that we write onto the face of it the powers that the Secretary of

115
State could use in the extreme circumstances in which it may be necessary to step in to remove and replace a chairman.
That is my response to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. In regard to Amendment No. 3, which attempts to define who the Secretary of State should look at as chairman, I believe that a chairman will be appointed more on the basis of his intellectual and personal qualities, his leadership skills and impartiality rather than necessarily on the basis of his specific qualifications, whether in the field of audit and regulation or any other area of expertise. After all, other members of the authority will be selected for exactly those reasons. Clause 1(3) (c) states that one of the members will be,
"knowledgable about life assurance business".
Another member must appear to the Secretary of State to,
"have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the management or administration of occupational pension schemes".
And two members must,
"appear to the Secretary of State to be knowledgeable about occupational pension schemes".
There will therefore be members on the authority who are specifically selected for those purposes. That need not necessarily be the chairman.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the Occupational Pensions Board and she may agree with me that the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board has almost always been a lay person. It has not previously been felt necessary to select a chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board with the kind of narrow qualifications—if I may so describe them—as drawn in the amendment.
The appointment will be advertised and the recruitment process will be an open and fair one. We will therefore obtain the best possible person to chair that body. I hope that with those assurances of what we are looking for in the person of the chairman, the fact that the post will be advertised and how recruitment will be made, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am glad to hear that the intention is that there shall be an open recruitment process and the post will be advertised with a view to appointing an appropriate and properly qualified person.
It was not always the case that the chair of the Occupational Pensions Board was held by a lay person. I remember serving at one time under a distinguished actuary who was a senior partner of a notable firm of actuaries and the deputy chair was always a professional person, in the sense that he was either an actuary or someone who had professional knowledge of the pension scene. It is important that whoever holds this post has the respect of what I may call the pensions industry and sufficient clout with people who operate in the financial services sector for the decisions reached to carry weight.
However, it is not my intention to press the amendment today. I am glad that we have on record the assurances of the Minister in regard to the recruitment process. He is right to say that Amendments Nos. 10
116
and 11 are subsequent and, so to speak, subsidiary amendments. The amendment I moved was the main one. We shall study the assurances carefully when Hansard is available. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) a member who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of consumer and public interests;").
The noble Baroness said: The Goode Committee recommended that there should be an advisory committee to support and advise the regulator on issues of general concern to act as a body through which the regulator could consult the pensions industry where appropriate. It would take over the present role of the OPB in giving advice to the Secretary of State both on general occupational pensions issues and proposed legislation. No doubt that is the body referred to in Clause 2 as the authority with a chair appointed by the Secretary of State.
The Goode Committee recommended that the body should represent a wide range of interests, including those of scheme members as well as pension providers. I believe that Clause 3 attempts to meet some of those recommendations. It does not, however, give any status to, or provide for any representation of, consumer interests. The Consumers' Association takes a good deal of interest in pensions issues and gives information and advice to members about pension provision. I recall, too, that on the Occupational Pensions Board there was always present a member who was clearly identified with, and linked to, consumer interests. I hope that the Minister will consider it appropriate to have such a provision in regard to the new advisory body.
I agree with the amendment relating to the representation of pensioners' interests in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with which this amendment is grouped. There are a number of organisations representative of occupational pensioners; some have been lobbying Members of your Lordships' House about the Bill. Clearly, pensioners have an interest, perhaps even greater than that of scheme members still in employment. In theory, an employed member can at least look forward to some years of earning capacity, or perhaps even improvements and promotion. A pensioner has reached the end of the road. All that he or she has is the pension and whatever the scheme provides by way of uprating to meet inflation and other contingencies. Security is therefore of paramount concern to the pensioner. As proposed in the second amendment, it seems appropriate that provision should be made for the appointment to the body of a representative of occupational pensioners. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already referred to my Amendment No. 5. I strongly support the idea of having a representative of pensioners on the authority. The Bill lists very worthy people who will be members of the authority for the various contributions they can make. To have a pensions authority without a pensioner on it is rather like playing

117
"Hamlet" without the Prince. I hope that the Minister will consider making provision for an additional member of the authority who is a pensioner. He or she is likely to know things about pensions and the administration of them which may have escaped the attention of some of the other people appointed to the body.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two amendments refer to the constitution of the authority as set out in Clause 1(3). The subsection outlines the kinds of qualifications and the background of those from whom the Secretary of State will appoint the six members of the authority. I should explain how we have come to the conclusion that what we propose is the right number and mix for the authority.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the interests of occupational pension scheme members. None of us disagrees with that objective. To achieve it the authority's membership will be varied enough to ensure that it embraces a broad range of expertise and knowledge but is not so large as to be unable to make robust and effective decisions that can be implemented quickly. Under subsection (3) the membership is drawn from a number of groups. Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify members who are representative of employers and employees; paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) mention those with expertise in the management of pension schemes. There is a degree of confusion as to what one is seeking among the membership of a trustee body of an individual pension scheme and what one looks for in an authority that is regulating all pension schemes. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that pensioners may have an interest in pensions. I am not sure that, unless they come from one of the backgrounds laid out in the Bill, they will have the necessary expertise to act as the regulatory authority.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments to enlarge the authority or to alter its balance. The six members will be appointed primarily on the basis of their expertise. As I hope I have illustrated by pointing out the background of those people whom the Secretary of State will be considering for appointment, they will bring to the authority a wide range of knowledge and experience. They will not be there to serve in a representative capacity. They will be required to set aside any vested interest they may have.
I have explained the composition. I believe that the employers' representative is the person who will look after, and be particularly mindful of, the interests of both current and future pensioners. We believe that the balance is the right one. It follows the model adopted by the Occupational Pensions Board which has enjoyed a reputation for impartiality and integrity under successive governments. To appoint representatives of particular interest groups or classes of scheme members will cause other groups or classes to feel that they have been unfairly excluded. We will then begin to see an increase in the number of people on the authority. I do riot believe that that is either sensible or wise. It will undermine the authority's independence and objectivity.
118
For those reasons I feel that we must look to experts with the backgrounds set out in Clause 1 for membership of the authority, not to people who represent specific interest groups in specific pension funds mentioned in the two amendments.
Baroness Seear: Surely the Minister does not wish to give the impression that his mind is closed to all the suggestions which will come from this side of the Committee. I should like to give him the opportunity to think again, if he will, about Amendment No. 5. Perhaps he will examine Clause 1(3) (e) which refers to the appointment of two members who appear to the Secretary of State to be knowledgeable about schemes, one of whom can be a pensioner. At the moment, there is no proposed amendment but if the Minister will at least agree to think again it will not increase the numbers and it will show that he is flexible. I was about to say that flexibility is not always a characteristic of those from north of the Border, but I believe that that would not enhance my case.
I agree that such a person should not be representative of an interest but a pensioner may be able to ask some very awkward questions about what is going on—questions that may not occur to people who are not themselves pensioners.
Lord Eatwell: The Minister's argument is extraordinarily weak. Let us consider the words that he used. He argued that a pensioner would not have the skills and experience to be able to be an effective member of the regulatory authority. He then said that a pensioner would not have the knowledge and expertise. Finally, he argued that the employer's representative would be able adequately to represent the interests of pensioners. We have seen in the past that employers have not necessarily adequately taken pensioners' interests into account. Surely the noble Lard's argument is extraordinarily weak. He cannot stand on such a weak case. It is clear that a pensioners' representative may be very highly skilled and would be chosen by representative organisations because he or she had those skills and that expertise. If we are to have someone who is representative of employers and someone who is representative of employees, surely it is logical, consistent and entirely in tune with the character of the organisation that there should be a representative of pensioners.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord has made my point for me. Subsection (3) (b) states:
"a member appointed after the Secretary of State has consulted organisations appearing to him to be representative of employees".
That person is likely to be drawn from the people who are involved, directly or indirectly—they could well be officials of a union or something like that—in the pensioners' (either future or present pensioners) interests. If I said in my speech "employers", that was a slip. It should have been "employees". If that is the argument on which I am accused of being on weak ground, I think that I have got on to much firmer ground by underlining the point that am making about the employees' representative being the most likely person. I would hope that we are not looking for someone to represent particular groups. We are

119
looking for people who will look after the whole of the scheme and make sure that the regulations are properly enacted and that if a pension fund is going wrong action is taken to put it right. The pensioners and potential pensioners will see the person who is the representative of the employees as the person who, if one likes, directly represents them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, quite cleverly asked me whether I would consider the point she made about amending subsection (3) (e). I would not like the Committee to think that my mind is always going to be closed. It is never closed to a good argument. As the Bill progresses I may well find some things which I think ought to be taken away and considered. After each day we shall study what has happened and look at what has been said. But I would not be telling the noble Baroness the truth if I said that I would take this point away and think about it in a serious manner so as to change my view. All I would say is that there is nothing in paragraphs (a) to (e) which would prevent someone who was a pensioner coming in.
Of course there may well be pensioners who have a great deal of background in the matter and in fact obey one of these statements. The point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and about which he became so irritated is that the great bulk of pensioners and potential pensioners—I certainly include myself, although perhaps that will change when I have finished the Bill—are not in a position to feel that they could sit on a regulatory authority and make sure that the rules and regulations required in a pension fund would be carried out.
Baroness Seear: The former chairman of ICI is a pensioner.
Lord Stallard: The noble Lord referred to employees. Is it not a fact that sometimes employees' interests are not exactly the same as pensioners' interests? They certainly do not have the same understanding of the problems as active pensioners have. There is a difference between pensioners' interests and the interests of current employees. The noble Lord should take that into account.
Lord Marsh: The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has put his finger on exactly the danger of this kind of amendment. Pensioners do not act on behalf of all of the people who may in the future depend on the fund. They represent the pensioners. The views of pensioners of one time are not necessarily representative of the interests of people who have yet to become pensioners. The key point in these roles is that people should be responsible to the fund.
Of course the former chairman of ICI is a pensioner. One of the points that makes this amendment probably less crucial is that we are all pensioners. I am pleased to say that I am a member of six pension funds and am in receipt of a pension from each of them. They are all different and the interests are different. The concept
120
which is central to this kind of problem has to be that those concerned are responsible to the fund and that no one represents an interest.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen the merit of my arguments and those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Lord does not seem to have replied to the amendment on consumer interests. As I said at the beginning, it was customary for the Occupational Pensions Board to include among its number someone who was identifiable as being representative of consumer interests. I do not see why that should not be possible here. It is important that consumer interests are seen to be adequately represented on the regulatory authority.
As to pensioners, I agree with everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. In my role as a union official I can remember discussing pension provision with members and finding that there were sharp differences of opinion between people who were in work and had not yet had their pensions and people who were on pensions. Indeed, later in the Bill, when we reach Clause 66, we may be discussing a clause which perhaps worsens the position of existing pensioners compared with what is their position in many trust deeds at the present time.
I think that there is a case for having a representative of pensioner interests. It is noticeable that, in their lobbying of some of your Lordships, including myself, the unions have been telling us that they would like to see pensioner interests represented separately because they acknowledge that they are often not the same interests as those of people who have yet to receive a pension.
I hope that the Minister will think carefully about what has been said in debate today. There is a great deal of interest in the amendment concerning pensioners. I have been lobbied, as I am sure have other noble Lords, by organisations representative of pensioner interests. They have been taking a great deal of interest in the passage of the Bill. There are organisations outside which would be capable of nominating people who are well versed in pensions law generally and who would be well equipped to play a vital part.
Of course, people are not representative in the sense of their individual interests and the group from which they happen to come. What is important is the experience they bring with them to play a part in the authority. It is not that they are specifically representative in the sense of someone who represents and then reports back. We are not seeking that at all. We are looking for people who will bring a broad base of experience to the workings of the authority. Therefore, it is sensible to have the people who are referred to in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
I shall not press the amendments at this stage because I do not think it would be appropriate. I nevertheless hope that the Minister will give careful thought to what has been said this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert ("provided that at all times, at least one-third of those members, to a minimum number of 3, shall be women.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment proposes that at least one-third of the members, to a minimum number of three on the authority, shall be women. Generally speaking, women have not had a very good deal when it comes to pensions. It is only relatively recently that they have had the right of access to pension schemes on the same basis as men. Older women will no doubt remember that it was quite customary for large, private employers not to accept women into pension schemes until a later age than men. At about the age of 30 when it was assumed that they were well and truly unmarried and likely to remain so, women were then allowed to join the firm's pension scheme. Even so, because of the checkered work pattern of many women—time out for looking after children and perhaps caring for older relatives—it has been difficult for them to build up a reasonable pension entitlement.
In addition we have the problems of divorce to which we shall come later in the Bill. So while the earlier retirement age has often been held up as an advantage for women—perhaps in the eyes of some men that is an unfair dvantage—when looking at pension provision as a. whole it is clear that, just as in the work place, equality in provision has been very late in coming and there are still injustices and anomalies which specifically affect women. Therefore, there seems to be a case for arguing for a minimum number of women on the new regulatory authority. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I find myself a little confused by the noble Baroness's argument. I fully understand and appreciate—probably we shall discuss it later in the Bill—the problems which women have had over the years in getting equal rights and, in particular, in building up pensions. I do not believe that these arguments are at all relevant as regards who should make up the regulatory body. Therefore, I believe that we are having this debate at entirely the wrong place.
I always remember what one lady friend of mine in a senior position said when confronted by this question. She posed this question to her inquisitor: "Was I appointed on my merits or was I appointed just because you needed a woman?" 'That is the answer I give on this amendment.
We need six people who have the right qualifications. Frankly, if the best people are all women then so be it: if they are all men, so be it. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will attempt, as we do in general government policy, to find women with the necessary qualifications in order to meet the main stipulation; namely, to be able to take a full part in the regulatory authority and do the job which needs to be done. I do riot believe that it would be a service to pensioners, to
122
men or women or women in general, to appoint people to a body just because they happen to be female. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I was not surprised at the Minister's reply to this amendment in view of his response to previous amendments when we were discussing who would be the chairman and other members. All the time he referred to "he". The assumption was that the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members, would be "he". That is exactly the problem which my noble friend is trying to overcome. As the Minister has indicated, women can be very highly qualified. They can be appointed on merit. But this amendment would cause the Secretary of State to look carefully at qualified women nominees and not overlook them by assuming that all the members should be male.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I very much hope that my noble friend will not be persuaded to accept this amendment. It is very harmful, in principle, to try to decide in advance on the sex of the persons when appointing to a body of this kind. I am sure that that would be a very bad precedent. If the amendment is to have any effect at all, it must involve sometimes not appointing the best person available and that would he a great mistake. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be quite firm on this matter and ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept the amendment. Women find it very derogatory to know that they comprise over 50 per cent. of the population and yet continue to hear remarks that there may not be enough of sufficient ability. It is a very easy argument to put forward. The inference to be drawn is that if three women are asked for they will not be on the list because of ability. It is not mutually exclusive. Of course the decision has to be made on ability, but also on the basis of open and equal access. I suggest that that has not been applied.
For instance, I gather that that has been the policy of government departments for some years now. As the then co-chairman of the Womens' National Commission nearly a decade ago we were pleading with government departments to ensure that women were on lists which were being considered for public appointments. Yet when one looks at public appointments throughout the whole range of government departments one still sees few women being appointed. Of course there are more than there used to be, but they are still insufficient in number.
Rather than saying that this amendment would be a retrograde move, I suggest that it would be an extremely progressive one which would be seen by women in the community as making a real and constructive step as regards pensions. At the moment they are in an inferior position to their male counterparts in society and pension funds. This amendment will he seen as making a genuine, real and constructive step forward in giving to women the right that they should have. Unfortunately, in the structure of too many organisations they do not have that right. This is a new body. It has been quite

123
rightly said at an earlier stage in Committee that the regulatory body is at the heart of the pension changes which we are to see. For that reason I believe it is an extremely sensible amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I too support my noble friend on this amendment. I do not believe that there is any division in the Committee. We want a regulatory body which is made up of the most skilled and competent people, representing the greatest breadth of experience, to do this work.
What the Minister has failed to take on board is that we are not saying women are inferior and therefore need a special track onto the board. On the contrary, there are very many highly skilled and able women who have experience of occupational pensions. What we are saying—and what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have not taken on board—is that women in the labour market and in the pensions world, by virtue of their gender, for the most part have a different experience of how the pension system works than most men. If the regulatory body is to be effective it should ensure that its membership contains the greatest possible breadth of experience. A regulatory body which does not contain women—and it could not and may not under these procedures—will be denied the advantage of the distinctive experience of what is meant by being in the labour market, paying into an occupational pension scheme and enjoying it.
I have all the volumes of the Cabinet Appointments Committee. In almost every other field of public employment that I am aware of the Government are not only anxious to appoint women, but actually list in that document the appointments by gender. The Government believe that significant. Yet why in this measure which affects women, perhaps as much as anything in any other walk of life, are the Government not willing to concede that women have something distinctive to offer which should be reflected in the composition, of the regulatory authority?
Lord Marsh: Obviously this is the wrong time to get involved in this argument because I suspect there is a certain gap which exists—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Between men and women!
Lord Marsh: —between the different views. One of the effects of the Government's determination to use active measures to seek to employ or appoint women, as happens with public boards as well, is the embarrassing telephone calls one gets from time to time to this effect: "Do you know of any women who might fill this job because we have been told by the Minister that he is insisting (particularly in the National Health Service) that we have to have women?" That is an insulting way to start off. It would not be liked if it were said of black people and I do not like it when it is said about women.
I have to declare an interest. I chair a company where the company secretary is a woman, the chief legal adviser is a woman and the chief broker is a woman. The new regulatory authority of the PIA has a chief executive who is a woman. There is plenty of evidence
124
now that that barrier has been broken. It is positively damaging to continue with the idea that one has to ensure that women have a little special help before they can get a serious job. If I may say so, some of the noble Baronesses who are taking part in this debate are classic examples of how redundant that approach is.
Baroness White: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. In any normal circumstances I insist that I am not a woman, that I am a person, and I have usually found it a great advantage to be in a conspicuous minority.
In this matter of pensions, where distinctions are made between men and women in the system, I make an exception to my usual position of refusing to join my noble Lady colleagues in some of their objectives. We should be sensible about this. Pensions are different, and I hope very much that the Minister will realise that fact.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must come back to the main point that I have made once or twice in the course of discussing some of the amendments. We are appointing a regulatory body—a body which has huge responsibilities to police a pension scheme. We are not trying to appoint some kind of general representative body; we are looking for people with knowledge and background, and the kind of expertise that we want to bring to this.
I have said "people". We cannot tie down the Secretary of State to how many women he ought to appoint. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, if I used the words "he" and "chairman". As far as I am concerned, "he" and "chairman" take in both men and women. I do not think about it in any other way. The Occupational Pensions Board has a good record; currently three out of the 12 members are women, including the deputy chairman. In a previous existence of mine, when I had to make a number of public appointments, I did not go rushing around the countryside looking for women to appoint. I am happy to say that many women were proposed to me who were perfectly able to fill the job. I never counted whether the ratio was 50:50 or 60:40, that did not bother me one way or the other. My only interest was to get somebody who could do the job and handle the responsibility—that is the point—for all the pension schemes and the members of the pension schemes.
That does not mean that we are not going to appoint women, but we should not tie the hands of the Secretary of State and insist that three of the appointments should be women, which is what the amendment proposes. As I said initially, if the Secretary of State were to find more than three women, should he not appoint more than three?
Perhaps I should say in conclusion—at the risk of being accused of making a political point—that I have read occasionally in the newspapers of the trouble that the party opposite has got itself into with its policy on the selection of candidates, where it is trying to enforce just this kind of rigidity. I do not believe that it helps women at all.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friends who have contributed to this interesting debate.

125
I am not at all surprised that the Minister responded as he did. On the other hand, I carefully noted that he said it was the intention to see whether suitably qualified women could be found to serve on the authority. I am grateful for that assurance.
We are not asking for special consideration to be given to women just because they are women. There are plenty of women with the appropriate skills. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, indicated that there were such women by quoting his experiences in his own company. So there are such women.
There should be open and equal access to this very important new body in order to make sure that the special considerations which apply to women in the pensions area are represented. As has already been stated by my noble friends, pensions are different. It is a separate area, and women have had special problems with pensions. For all those reasons it would be a good idea to have stated on the face of the Bill that there should be representation from women as women—although we accept that they have to be women with the appropriate skills and experience.
Having said that, and having noted the assurance of the Minister that there will be an attempt to fill some of these positions with suitably qualified women, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Authority to monitor the operation of the occupational pension schemes coming within the scope of this Act, with a view to ensuring that schemes are efficiently and satisfactorily administered in the interests of beneficiaries and to that end it shall appoint suitably qualified persons to act as an inspectorate, to be deployed as the Authority may determine.").
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment because we made no progress on our first amendment this afternoon. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis took from the Goode Report the precise functions that that committee felt to be appropriate. It is essential that there should be some reference to the functions of the new authority set out in primary legislation.
However, since that detailed list of functions was not acceptable to the Minister, we must have another clause written in—perhaps less detailed—which sets out a far more proactive role than is apparently envisaged in the Bill as it now stands.
Reference to the Goode Report indicates clearly that the committee was thinking in terms of a system involving spot checks. Paragraph 4.19.29 states, for example, that the regulator will need the support of a professional staff, and it spells out the sort of staff that will be required. It continues:
"they will also have a central role in investigating schemes where there have been allegations of impropriety or as part of a programme of spot checks".
126
The report also points out that the new regulator will be taking over some of the functions hitherto performed by the Occupational Pensions Board. As we all know, that board had a much more restricted role.
If, as the Secretary of State has said, the recommendations of the Goode Report in relation to the regulator have been accepted, then an apparatus for the conduct of spot checks must be in place. This will require the appointment of suitably qualified people.
No one can say with any certainty that the kind of scandal we had in the Maxwell affair will never happen again. I agree with those who have said that, in general, most pension schemes are well and effectively monitored, perform a very good service and provide a very good degree of security for the people who belong to them. Nevertheless, because of the scandal and the ripples that flowed from that and other, less serious, cases which have arisen, it has been necessary to introduce the system set out in the Bill.
The mere existence of a system of spot checks, plus the staff to carry them out, might deter people who are tempted to take risks in the manner of Maxwell. A spot check could well reveal the existence of malpractice before anyone—even the trustees—could be aware that things were going wrong.
Although the Minister was unwilling to accept the detailed list of functions set out in the first amendment moved by my noble friend, I hope he is prepared to look more favourably on the present amendment which seeks to spell out a more proactive role for the regulator than appears to be the case in the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I very much support this amendment, which is also in my name, simply as a matter of logical presentation which should appeal to the Minister. If we look at the Bill we go straight into:
"There shall be a body corporate called the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority".
The Minister has been living with this Bill, sleeping with it, and thinking of nothing else for weeks and weeks. No doubt to him it is perfectly clear when he reads it what it is talking about, but anybody picking up the Bill and just reading that will very reasonably say, "What on earth is this regulatory body? What is it supposed to do?" It is surely logical at the beginning of a Bill which is introducing an organisation such as this authority to say, briefly, in a matter of half a dozen lines or a little more, exactly what it is, what it has to do, and what its authority is. That is all we are asking.
I underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. We are also trying to emphasise that the authority has a proactive role to monitor. While that may be what the Minister takes exception to—and I hope that he does not—he must agree that on the face of the Bill should be a clear, short statement of what the authority is there to do and why it is there. That is what this amendment contains, and I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is tempting to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we could put quickly into the Bill what it will do and so no

127
one would need to read beyond Clause 1. If I have had to read beyond Clause 1 night by night, as the noble Baroness suggests, I do not see why everyone else should not have to read beyond Clause 1.
Baroness Seear: That is what you are paid as a Minister to do. Other people reading the Bill are not in the same position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The point, as with so many Acts of Parliament, is that what the Bill is about cannot be quickly ascertained from one or two clauses. One has to look at what the whole Bill does. I have made the point before that our defences against a Maxwell Mark 2 are not just contained in the OPRA; they are contained in various provisions throughout the Bill. I shall therefore resist the temptation to think about introducing a general, all-encompassing paragraph which would explain to the ordinary reader—I wonder how many ordinary readers of government Bills and Acts there are—what the Bill sets out to do. The explanatory note exists to do that in terms more understandable to the layman.
The point about the amendment is not that it sets out what it is envisaged the authority should do in the rest of the Bill; it gives it an additional responsibility. I dealt with that issue on Amendment No. 1 when the same point arose. Should this regulatory body have an obligation to monitor, on an ongoing basis, month by month, or week by week—I am not sure which—150,000 pension schemes? I have already accepted, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we depart from the PLRC recommendations on the question of routine monitoring. I have explained why. It is that I do not believe that the bureaucracy and costs would justify it. It is much more important that the regulatory authority should concentrate its attention on those schemes where—as the phrase is—the whistle has been blown or on those schemes which, acknowledging the wider interest it will build up over time, give it cause for concern, and that it should investigate those in particular rather than spend lots of time, energy and money monitoring schemes which are being run adequately.
I understand fully the noble Baroness's desire to have a belt and braces operation here; I do not believe that it would be sensible. I am not sure how I mix this metaphor, but the authority would become so obsessed with just monitoring that it would cease to act in the purposeful and direct way that we all want to see when a scheme which may be going wrong is brought to its attention.
Lord Ezra: As a matter of presentation, it is wrong that a Bill of this importance should start by saying that an authority is to be appointed, leaving the reader or user of the legislation to plough through the whole document to find out what it does. I can mention many Acts of Parliament in which authorities and bodies are set up and where, in a normal, logical, course of events, a summary of their functions and duties is set out.
I lived most of my active life with the 1946 Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, now, perhaps, a bit of a museum piece. Section 1 of that Act—I can repeat it
128
almost word for word—set out clearly what the newly formed National Coal Board was to do. Can the Minister get his staff to look at similar legislation and point out those occasions when an important body is set up as the objective of the legislation and its functions are in no way described until one has been right through the Bill? That is a wrong approach. It is a form of legislation which is reprehensible. It is going back on what should be the objective of government in official documents, especially Acts of Parliament—clarity and convenience.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. On this issue the Government's voice, and presumably their vote, is on the side of obscurity versus clarity; on the side of leaving it unknown rather than having it made public; and on the side of inviting all 11 million or 15 million members of pension schemes to plough through a Bill rather than have it up front.
What are the Government frightened of? Why are they so reluctant to follow their own precedent in similar legislation in spelling out what are the duties, functions and purposes of a regulatory authority? Why do they expect that in this case—it is a Bill which probably affects more citizens of this country than most that come before the House—people should not know where they stand? Our only assumption can be that the Government want to keep power to themselves, not just in the form of knowledge but in the form of power to make regulations so that they may seek to shift policy after the event. The Government's position on the issue of clarity, information, and guidance to trustees is already clearly on the side of concealing what they are entitled to know.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The generality of the suggestion by the Opposition that there should be more clarity on the face of the Bill is one with which I have some sympathy. Nevertheless, on this issue it would be folly to ask the body to look after 150,000 pension plans. The cost of the body will be imposed upon the industry. It would add enormously to the costs to the industry, which are already prohibitive.
Baroness Seear: I do not agree with what the Minister said about monitoring. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he look at what he considers to be an appropriate statement of what the authority should be doing, the point made by my noble friend Lord Ezra? He does not like the idea of putting in monitoring. There are two points to the amendment. We want monitoring included, but we also want a clear statement at the beginning of the Bill so that people reading it do not have to go through the whole thing to extract from it what the authority, which is a key part of the whole exercise, is there to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall probably ask for the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, although it is not a good precedent because I hope that this regulatory authority will be a good deal more successful in the long term than that Act, and the company it set up, has been. This is a complicated matter. Pensions are complicated. I should have thought that we could all agree about that.

129
The idea that we can deal with such a complicated matter in simple terms and hope that those terms will stand up to interpretation in courts of law and the like is, I am afraid—much as I should like to go down that road—a rather simplistic view of how legislation can be framed. Whether we like it or not, legislation has to be framed in a complex way to ensure that our intentions stand the test of time and being tested in courts.
If the Committee is saying to me that there should be some kind of document that an ordinary person can look at to see what the regulator will do, the Committee might just think about pressing me to ensure that the authority will publish such a layman's guide to its role and responsibilities. I should be happy to take that suggestion away, but so far as thinking that I can have the Bill redrafted in such a way that the layman would be able to understand it at a glance is not living in the real world and protecting ourselves against real problems. For how many minutes does the Committee believe that a Bill drafted so that a layman can understand it would resist attacks from someone such as Maxwell and the team of people that he could get behind him? I believe that what Members of the Committee are asking me to do—
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The Minister is misunderstanding what we are saying. We are not suggesting that he should encapsulate at the beginning of the Bill every thing that is in it. We are saying that, since the Minister does not like the monitoring provision, he should look at our amendment to see whether in six or seven lines he can set out the duty of the authority. He must know what its duty is and be able to set that out in his own words. At least people will see on the face of the Bill what the authority is there to do. We are suggesting that he should redraft the proposal in terms of what he wants, but that the duty should be set out on the face of the Bill so that it is plain.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We appear to be having two parallel arguments; an argument about enlarging the powers of the body to monitor all 150,000 pension schemes—which I have clearly said I do not believe is sensible—and a parallel argument that somewhere at the beginning of the Bill we should try to sum up in half-a-dozen lines the remaining clauses in order that someone can quickly understand what the authority is about. I have indicated that I hope that the Committee will reject the former proposal.
As regards the latter proposal, I understand the point being made. However, I am not sure whether the Bill is the correct place for art easy guide to the regulatory authority's duties. I am not sure whether many people will be able to pick up or to purchase what will be an Act of Parliament in order to find the guide. The proper solution may be for me to consider the points that have been raised and to assess the possibility of the authority setting out an easy guide to its responsibilities.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am glad that at least in some degree the Minister has responded by saying that he will look at the possibility of a guide being issued. However, as he rightly said, that is not the point
130
of this amendment. We are trying to spell out one of the duties which we believe the authority should have. The Minister does not believe that it is possible to monitor 150,000 schemes—and, of course, detailed monitoring is not possible without a great many staff and a lot of money.
We have in mind what Goode probably had in mind—that there should be in operation a programme of spot checks so that those running the 150,000 schemes would not know when an inspector would call. It is clear that Goode was thinking in terms of a system of spot checks rather than the detailed monitoring of all the occupational pension schemes.
From our point of view, it would be a good idea to take away what the Minister has said to see whether we can redraft the amendment in order to fulfil some of the functions. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will take on board what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: it is unsatisfactory to have an authority set up under legislation without a clear statement of its new duties. It is unsatisfactory to have to plough through a Bill to discover the full package of its functions. I do not believe that that applies to most legislation, and I see no reason why a simple paragraph setting out the authority's precise functions cannot be inserted at the beginning of the Bill. They may be the limited functions which the Minister now says he perceives for the authority rather than the functions envisaged by the Goode Committee.
There is little point in pursuing the matter further at this time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Codes of practice to be issued
(".— (1) The Authority may issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as the Authority thinks fit for the purpose of promoting good practice with regard to occupational pensions.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Authority shall in one or more codes of practice provide practical guidance on the following matters;

(a) arrangements for the appointment of member trustees;

(b) the time off to be permitted by an employer for the purposes of sections 36 or 37 below.

(3) When the Authority proposes to issue a code of practice, it shall prepare and publish a draft of that code, shall consider any representations made to it about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(4) If the Authority determines to proceed with the draft, it shall transmit the draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

(5) In the case of a draft code of practice containing practical guidance on the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above, if the draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament that Authority shall issue the code in the form of the draft and the code shall come into effect on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(6) In the case of a draft code of practice not containing such practical guidance, if, within the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft is laid before each House of Parliament, or if such copies are laid on different days, beginning with the later of the two days, either House so resolves, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.
(7) In reckoning the period of 40 days referred to in subsection (6) above, no account shall be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to codes of practice. In the light of the Minister's replies to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7, I have some hope that this amendment represents the next best thing.
The Minister made much of the fact that the regulator cannot reasonably inspect each and every scheme from scratch. In fact, we were not arguing for that. We were arguing for spot checks in addition to annual reports being sent to him so that he could spot check.
We all accept that, according to the 1994 report of the Government Actuary—that is, the latest report—there are some 128,000 private sector schemes. Of those, 96,000 have fewer than 11 members and 26,000 have fewer than 100 members. We all accept that, in other words, the vast majority of schemes are small.
It is also the case that most of those schemes do not have elected or nominated members. Of the schemes with more than 11 members, 1,500 have no trustees and 21,000 have no elected or nominated trustees. In other words, two-thirds of all schemes—which represents almost one-third of all members—have never had scheme member trustees.
Most of those schemes, if not all, will have elected trustees starting from scratch. One must consider the responsibilities that they will be asked to undertake and the learning curve and liabilities that will follow. We will explore some of those issues on the next Committee day when we are debating the position of trustees.
We are arguing that the many thousands of small schemes, which will have member trustees for the first time, will need a code of guidance within which to operate in order that each scheme's trustees will not have to re-invent the wheel. Such a code from the regulator would give them a clear steer, clear guidance and, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, a surer sense of when they should whistle-blow. The less interventionist the regulator, the more important it is that the trustees have confidence about what is in his mind.
For that reason, Goode believed that the codes of practice had a useful role to play, and perhaps I may give some examples. There are the procedures for electing trustees, for key information to be disclosed to scheme members, for the prior notification of any proposed changes in scheme benefits; the procedures on transfers or for the frequency and conduct of meetings of trustees. Ideally, KPMG has suggested, there should be a local scheme compliance officer to buttress them. We believe that the provisions in the amendment will be a highly desirable, useful and welcome addition to the regulator's activity. We are sure that the trustees of smaller schemes will find them helpful.
Precisely because the Government are unwilling to have a regulator who is pro-active and intervening in the schemes by spot checking, it is important that, through a code of practice, the regulator should give trustees guidance about his expectations against which they can measure their schemes and on the basis of which they can have some steer as to when they should whistle-blow. In the light of the Minister's previous comments, I hope that he will accept the amendment or come back at Report with a version of his own to that effect. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the noble Baroness in promoting the amendment. One of the prime objectives of the Bill must be that best practice should be pursued in the management of pension schemes. The Goode Report referred to codes of practice as providing a useful supplement to legislation. I think that the function of the regulator—particularly if he is not to be as pro-active as we on these Benches would like—could be enormously helped by the establishment of codes of practice which could be modified from time to time. Those who have to operate pension schemes would also be helped by these codes. The question arises whether the regulator himself should prepare codes or whether they should be prepared by one or other of the professional bodies concerned with pensions.
In that connection the noble Lord—perhaps he has this among his various briefing papers—is no doubt aware that his colleague at the Department of Social Security, Mr. James Arbuthnot, exchanged correspondence with the president of the Pensions Management Institute last October about the codes of practice prepared by that institute. They number about a dozen and the president of the institute suggested that they might be seen by the regulator and, if he agreed with them, approved by him so that they could be regarded as codes which could help both the regulator and those concerned with running the schemes to run them effectively.
I feel that if there is no guidance given on a practical basis to those running the schemes, one of the great opportunities presented by this legislation will have been missed. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that this is an issue which—as his colleague said in his reply to the president of the Pensions Management Institute—the Government will consider and on which they will come forward with some proposals, or that he will leave it to us, if he likes (if he cannot accept this amendment), to come forward with further amendments at a later stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that there are really two parts to this amendment. I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that. One part seeks to put on the face of the Bill the words,
"The Authority may issue codes of practice".
The other part requires the authority to prepare codes of practice in certain circumstances. I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned in particular the appointment of trustees. Those codes of practice would have to be approved by the Secretary of State and by Parliament.

133
I hate to keep saying no, but my reason this time ought to find favour with the Members of the Committee who have spoken. I am asking the Committee to reject this amendment not because I have any objection to the codes of practice, indeed quite the reverse. There is an important role for such codes in setting standards of excellence in the day-to-day administration of pension schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly referred to correspondence by my honourable friend Mr. Arbuthnot on this matter. Of course codes of practice are valuable supplements to legislation but I do not think they can stand in place of it.
The Bill, and the regulations which will follow it, will provide a comprehensive and effective legislative framework for regulating pension schemes. I very much hope that pension professionals and administrators will see fit to complement that framework with codes of practice which they are best placed to devise and promulgate. Indeed I know—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has mentioned this—that the major pensions organisations are already committed to the task, and I welcome their initiative.
When the new regulatory authority is established, I am sure it will wish to consider publishing guidelines and practice notes on the way it will operate. But that is a matter for the authority itself to decide. Codes of practice undoubtedly have their place alongside the law but I do not believe they should be enshrined in the law. If they were enshrined in the law, they could not be amended and updated quickly in the light of practice and experience and I believe they would lose much of their value.
The regulatory authority will have the powers to produce codes of practice. While that is not specifically on the face of the Bill, it can be found in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which states:
"The Authority may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge".
It has to be said that the authority may not borrow money. I am happy to put it on record—if that helps the Committee and satisfies it that we are serious about codes of practice—that we would expect the authority, in pursuance of the powers in this part of Schedule 1, to issue codes of practice on many and varied issues surrounding the operation of funds and trustees and so on. Perhaps I have not gone as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would like. She would like certain of these codes of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. However, I hope with these assurances about codes of practice and the important role they will have to play, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again I am somewhat baffled by the Minister's reply. I took down his words. He said that he thinks codes of practice are a valuable supplement to legislation but should not replace it. I believe those were among his opening remarks. But his previous objections to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 comprised a rejection of precisely that—that is, that the functions of the regulator, within which the trustees
134
would be expected to act, should be on he face of the Bill—even though there is plenty of experience from the Irish law and from the Australian law that that is an entirely practicable operation. On the one hand, the Minister is refusing to have the functions and duties of the regulator specified so that the trustees know within which framework to act and when in that case they should whistle-blow. But, on the other hand, he is apparently rejecting, except in the vaguest terms possible, the alternative, which is that the regulator should be required to issue precise codes of guidance to make up that shortfall in the legislation.
Which is it that the Minister is going to have? He really must either give us a description arid a definition of the powers, functions and duties of the regulator or, alternatively, require on the face of the Bill that the regulator should offer that to the trustees. He has to do one or the other; otherwise what we have is a hoard, penalties and some miscellaneous clauses, and we must hope that some 150,000 schemes, with all their elected trustees, will make sense of it, monitor it, act as whistle-blowers and safeguard the pension promise. They cannot do it. Therefore I ask the Minister to think again. If he is determined to resist what we think would be the preferable first step, which is to specify what it is the regulator is expected do, so that everybody knows that—for some reason the Government do not want them to know—then he should at the very least require the regulator to make his position clear by issuing codes of guidance as required by this amendment. I invite the Minister to comment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I have already made all the comment I wish to make. Anyone who reads the Bill, and the part of the Bill that concerns the regulator, will very quickly understand the powers and responsibilities that have been conferred on the regulator. I do not think that that is a mystery. Despite the best efforts of the noble Baroness, I do not think that there is anything mysterious about that. I do not think that there is some deep plot that she can work out. Any sensible person who understands his way round legislation will he able to see very clearly what the powers, duties and responsibilities of the regulator will be.
As I said, as regards codes of practice, the pensions professionals and the administrators are working on such codes of practice. We believe that they have an important part to play. As I explained, the authority has the power in Schedule 1 to act along the lines the Committee would like as regards code, of practice. However, as I say, I do not believe it is necessary to have statutory codes of practice and go through the parliamentary hoops which would be required to have them approved and, of course, then to have them changed. I believe the nature of codes of practice is quite different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I am disappointed. The Minister said that any sensible person can see very clearly—those were his words—what the regulator will do. Every Member of the Committee has the Bill and every Member here present will have been

135
looking at the amendments and listening to the debate. I wonder how many could confidently assert, having read the Bill and listened to the debate, that they know what the regulator will do. I am talking about Members of the Committee who have had the benefit of studying the Bill and listening to the Minister's response. If the Committee cannot assert that it knows what the regulator will do—I think, speaking for our Benches, that many of us would say that we could not do that—how do the Government expect the members and trustees of 150,000 schemes to have that clarity that the Minister thinks any sensible person would have?
I have still not received from the Minister an explanation as to why he refuses to make clear what is opaque. If the information is redundant, what does it matter? If it is necessary, it is vital. We can only assume not that there is a plot but that the Government prefer to keep the regulation of the pensions industry in the shadows. If that is so, we are surely inviting a continuing array of frauds and problems—not necessarily a Maxwell case, because we would all accept that nothing can stop a Maxwell—based on a misunderstanding because the Government have refused to do what we asked them to do. We asked them to clarify the position so that sensible people, including Members of this Chamber, know what the regulator is expected to do and therefore know their obligations under the scheme and when to blow the whistle.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I should like to know what it is she is asking the Committee to do. The first subsection of the amendment states that the authority "may" issue codes of guidance, while the second subsection refers to a duty to issue codes of guidance. Is it voluntary or compulsory?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked that question. The second subsection refers to the duties under which the regulator will be required to issue a code of guidance, while the first subsection allows the regulator to add additional codes of guidance. Therefore, the second subsection is the subset within the first. The regulator has a general power and is required to exercise it on specific items. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
We shall obviously return to the issue. It is distressing that on an issue as technical, complicated and detailed as this Pensions Bill, as the Minister himself will be the first to admit, when the Minister has constantly been invited from these Benches to clarify the Bill—whether through the first amendment, Amendment No. 7, or Amendment No. 8—he has refused to do so and rejected the amendments. I very much hope that if his noble friends behind him share our concern, and if they too remain mystified as to exactly what the regulator will do and what newly appointed trustees will be expected to do, they will make representations to their noble friend the Minister. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 94, line 10, at end insert:
(" . The assistance of the Authority may be invoked by the trustees of an occupational pension scheme coming within the scope of this Act, a trade union representing members of such a scheme, the employer, an individual member or members of the scheme or their dependants, the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS), the Pensions Ombudsman established under this Act, or the Secretary of State, and the Authority is required to investigate such requests for assistance unless it can show good reason why it should not.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 9 deals with the issue of persons who may invoke the assistance of the regulator. The intention of the amendment is to spell out exactly who may invoke the assistance of the regulator since that is nowhere stated precisely in the Bill. Clearly, the trustees of a scheme should be able to do so if they feel that matters are not as they should be. On the other hand, an individual member may come by some knowledge which he may acquire as an employee or in some other way. If he feels that the interests of scheme members are at risk he should be entitled to go to the regulator. Should he die in the meantime it should be open to his dependants to continue with the quest.
There are already organisations which are active within the pensions field, some of whose functions have been to provide advice and assistance to individual members. There is the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS), which provides a service without charge to individuals concerned about pensions issues affecting them personally. I am currently a member of the OPAS board. That body has now been recognised by the Government and receives funding from public funds via the Occupational Pensions Board. It does a very useful job, and it is likely that from time to time OPAS advisers may come across something that causes them to question the administration of a particular scheme. The same is true of the pensions ombudsman. Incidentally, OPAS and the ombudsman occupy different floors in the same building, so there is a connection between them. All those bodies, together with trade unions representative of members within a scheme, should be able to trigger an investigation by the regulator.
Again, the public knowledge that all those people could invoke an investigation could deter wrongdoing. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a sensible amendment and will agree to its inclusion—or, if not this wording, then something like it—on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I rise in the hope that this time the Minister will agree with us. It is a faint hope, but hope springs eternal.
The Minister is anxious that the regulator should not be burdened with always taking the initiative but that whistles should blow to alert him that something needs to be done. In the amendment we spell out who may blow the whistle.

137
In an earlier debate I said that I did not wish the regulator to have to rely on whistle-blowing. We shall have a more detailed discussion about that on a later amendment. However, the fact that I do not want the regulator to have to rely on whistle-blowing is not the same as saying that I do not want people to blow the whistle. That is a quite different matter. It is clear that anybody who is worried that something is going wrong should be able to alert the regulator to it so that he can then exercise the monitoring function that the Minister is so afraid will be too much for the regulator. He will certainly be helped if all the people mentioned in the amendment have the authority to go to the regulator if they are worried.
I stress that those people would act if they were worried. It is not a matter of where something has obviously gone wrong. It has been said repeatedly in discussions about the Bill that the regulator needs to come in not when things have gone drastically wrong but when there is a suspicion that things may be going wrong. It is at that point that the people listed in the amendment—who are in a very good position to do so—should alert the regulator to the fact that there may be something that needs to be investigated. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may deal with the amendment in two parts. The first part is all of the amendment bar the last line. That outlines the people who may complain to OPRA: a trade union representing members of a scheme, an employer, an individual member or members of a scheme, the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service, the pensions ombudsman or the Secretary of State. All of them may blow the whistle, as the expression has it.
We do not need such a provision on the face of the Bill. It is not required because the authority will have to look at all matters brought to its attention wherever they come from. The authority cannot just tear up a letter and say that because it has not come from A, B or C it will ignore it. The difference is that trustees, actuaries and auditors will be under a legal obligation to blow the whistle if they see anything wrong. Other people cannot be placed under such an obligation. That will not mean that they cannot blow the whistle and the authority must take what they say seriously. I believe that that part of the amendment is quite unnecessary. The Committee has my assurance that any complaint made to the authority, from whatever source, will be treated seriously.
The last line of the amendment states that the authority:
"is required to investigate … unless it can show good reason why it should not".
I believe that the authority must have discretion to decide whether an investigation is justified. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to put tile authority under a duty to demonstrate that an investigation was not needed. It has to be left to the authority's judgment and expertise to decide whether information which it receives and examines justifies an investigation.
138
I hope that with the assurance that the number of people who can blow the whistle is not limited and that anyone can complain to the regulator, who will look seriously at the complaint, Members of the Committee will be satisfied on that count. I hope that they will accept the point that I made about the last line in the amendment and the duty that it would impose on the authority being a step too far. It would give the authority little or no judgment on whether further investigation was justified. I hope that with those remarks, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord stated that the amendment was unnecessary because it was quite clear that anyone, in particular those groups referred to in the amendment, could draw the attention of the regulator to anything that they believed he or she should consider. Will the noble Lord indicate where that is made clear in the Bill or is it simply implied? Is the provision unnecessary because one ought to be able to deduce it; or is it referred to somewhere in the Bill? That clarification would assist us to decide whether to press the amendment at this stage or at a later stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: One of the problems regarding the complexities of such a Bill is that I cannot put my finger on the exact point which the noble Lord seeks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does that not suggest that ordinary trustees and scheme members, too, will not be able to do that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspect that it suggests that the Minister is not superhuman and is not able to command to his memory every particular detail of the many lines and pages of the Bill. I shall certainly look into the exact detail that the noble Lord seeks.
However, the general point I made is that anyone will be able to blow the whistle. During Second Reading I believe that there was a little confusion. I had thought that I had put it right at that stage. There was confusion because on the face of the Bill there is a duty on the trustees, actuaries and auditors to blow the whistle. That duty cannot be imposed on some of the other people referred to in the amendment. But they are still able to blow the whistle and to report something that they do not like to the regulator for consideration. That is certainly the full intention of the Government and will be within the remit of the authority. When I have the opportunity of a break in the proceedings, I shall check exactly where that is provided on the face of the Bill.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: Before my noble friend sits down, will he clarify a matter that puzzles me? If the amendment spells out that the trustees and others of an occupational pension scheme may invoke the assistance of the authority, is there any danger that were we to accept that provision it would limit the number of people who were able to invoke the assistance of the authority?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend makes the point which I sought to make in perhaps a

139
more confused way. As I stated, the trustees, the actuaries and the auditors are under a duty. So far as concerns everyone else, my noble friend puts his finger on the point. If we define who "anyone else" will be, undoubtedly we shall tighten the ring around who is able to blow the whistle. I should have thought that it is much better to leave the matter as I expressed to be the case: that anyone can actually blow the whistle. Obviously they will be people who have some involvement with the pension scheme. But, rather than seek to define those people, it is better left that anyone can blow the whistle. However, those in the three categories to which I referred are under a duty to do so.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord was rescued by his noble friend on that point. Of course, he could add a clause stating that it is open to anyone else to do so, or words to that effect. It should be made clear that anyone is able to do so. The words ought to appear in the Bill.
The noble Lord referred to the words,
"show good reason why it should not".
Surely when the authority receives a complaint, it will answer the letter. In answering the letter it could show good reason. It requires only one letter. That letter has to be written anyway.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I made clear to my noble friend, when I have the opportunity I shall have a closer look at the point that is made. I believe that I am right in what I said; but I shall ensure that that is so.
There is a difference between the good manners of the authority in replying to a letter and requiring the authority to show the reason why it has not investigated. That is the point I seek to make when I say that the last line of the amendment ties the authority's hands unnecessarily.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I listened with interest to the discussion on the amendment and to the response of the Minister. I am glad that he intends again to have a look at his briefing and the Bill, and will tell the House (no doubt at Report) exactly where it is stated in the Bill that anyone may invoke the assistance of the authority.
There is a great deal of difference between receiving a letter from anyone, perhaps a member of the public with no specific interest in the scheme, and the individuals, members and organisations referred to in the amendment. The amendment quite clearly refers to people with a specific interest—trustees, a trade union representing members of a scheme, OPAS, and the pensions ombudsman. The last line of the amendment requires the regulator to investigate such requests from such people for assistance unless the authority can show good reason why it should not.
If one considers the people listed in the amendment, that seems quite reasonable. On the other hand, if one is talking about anybody, as the Minister indicated, I agree that such a provision places too much of a duty on the regulator. However, I do not believe that the amendment does so.
140
There is a need for the Bill to state who may or who may not blow the whistle. Of course, we accept what the Minister says about such action being a duty on trustees and other people referred to in the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have had what I might describe as a quick legal consultation on the matter. It might be helpful if I shared that with the Committee—at, of course, no expense.
I am advised that it is not specified anywhere in the Bill that anyone is excluded from reporting, or that OPRA is excluded from investigation. The position that I stated—that anyone can blow the whistle, and that OPRA would be able to investigate a complaint from anyone—is clearly in the Bill so far as concerns the law, because it is not excluded.
Lord Monkswell: I am curious that the Government—
Lord Lucas: It might be best if the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, were able to conclude her remarks, if the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will allow that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We shall consider Hansard closely when we have the opportunity. I still believe that there is some merit in having written on the face of the Bill that the people and organisations which are set out in the amendment have a right to have their queries properly investigated and to receive good reason if there is no such investigation.
We accept that any member of the public, perhaps people with no interest in the scheme, may write to the regulator and that no doubt the regulator would send a letter back stating whether or not he intends to proceed. That is not the same as having a positive duty to investigate, and to show good reason why that investigation should not proceed, if that is the decision.
I believe I heard the Minister aright when he stated that the Bill also includes a duty on trustees to blow the whistle. However, I gather that Clause 41 covers only actuaries and auditors and does not cover trustees. Perhaps the noble Lord will check that.
It is an issue to which I shall wish to return at Report stage when I have had the chance tomorrow to consider the report of the debate in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 95, line 11, at end insert:
In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in Schedule 2 (departments and authorities subject to investigation), there is inserted at the appropriate place—
"The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I am confident that the Committee will agree that that is desirable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We agree with the noble Lord that the amendment is a good one and we

141
support it. We hope that on a knock-for-knock basis we can expect the Minister's support on the next amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 95, line 13, leave out from ("and") to ("other") in line 14.
The noble Baroness said In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 194 standing in the names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The amendments concern the funding of the regulatory authority. Amendment No. 17, the substantive amendment., asks that the regulator be financed by the state, by us the public, and not by industry.
On this side we do not argue that the industry cannot afford to fund the regulator but instead that it should not be asked to fund the regulator. Why do we argue that? It is for four main reasons. First, it is basically reasonable that the state should fund the regulator. After all, OPRA will take over some of the responsibilities of the Occupational Pensions Board, which is currently funded by the DSS. The cost is not high. According to the cost compliance document we are talking of about £10 million a year to fund the regulatory authority, together with the £3 million start-up costs. Occupational pensions, are, after all, contracted out of SERPS which the Government expect to regulate. So it is entirely reasonable that the Government's regulatory activity should cover the full field of pensions, whether SERPS or occupational pensions.
Unless the Government accept Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, they propose to determine the budget and staff of the regulatory authority. It therefore seems only reasonable that they should fund the budget and staff that they determine. So our first argument is that it is reasonable that the state should fund it.
Secondly, we believe that it is desirable from the point of view of the industry itself. The activity of the regulator, the funding and the issues of compensation are all linked. The more energetic the regulator is in preventing calamities, the less likely the industry is to face a compensation levy. It is the usual idea about fire prevention rather than fire fighting.
I believe, and have been led to believe, that the industry would be far more willing to co-operate with such an active regulatory authority if it were financed by the state. We want and need that co-operation if marginal schemes are to be brought up to best practice. We do not wish to repeat the experience of the PIA, where some companies are apparently refusing to co-operate. We want full partnership with industry in ensuring the security and solvency of pension schemes.
Thirdly, it is also desirable that the regulator should be independently funded from the point of view of scheme members and pensioners. It is important not only that the regulator be' independent—and we have heard nothing today to suggest that it will not be—but also that it is seen to be independent. That cannot be possible if it is funded by the industry itself, with the smack of self-regulation that that seems to imply.
To take a totally unrelated sphere, I was a member of the former Press Council, chaired at that time by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, which was funded by the industry. If we as a press council were energetic, the industry complained. If we were not energetic, the public distrusted us. Because we were funded by the industry, we were never seen as truly independent, So we believe it is reasonable that the state should fund the regulator. We think it is desirable in order 1:0 ensure full co-operation with the industry. That will ensure that the regulator is perceived to be independent.
Fourthly and finally, there is a point about rights. We believe that the protection of individual rights—including pension rights, which will for many people in the end be more valuable than the rights in their property and home—is a proper function of government. The fact that the rights may be enjoyed by only a proportion of the population—the 11 million to 15 million holding occupational pensions, according to how it is assessed—is neither here nor there. Most of our country's regulatory and policing apparatus, funded by the state or the local authority, is sectional in that sense.
It is not very different from the Health and Safety Executive at work, which benefits only employees at work, but we expect it to be funded by the state. It is not very different from environmental health officers inspecting houses in multiple occupation. However, we do not expect to levy the landlord or the tenant. We have fire officers inspecting theatres and cinemas, but we do not expect to recharge the theatre or the cinema. In other words, we accept that regulation or policing is paid for by the public where there is a public policy interest in such policing. The state wants to regulate occupational pensions. The state, the Government, we, want to protect our own investment in them, reflected by rebates and, above all, by the special privileges that pensions attract from the Inland Revenue. It is nonsense, therefore, to say that it is merely a private matter and. something for the industry to finance.
The amendment is, therefore, drawn from Goode. It has the support of the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Security; it has the full support of the CBI, as well as the TUC. It has the full support of the National Association of Pension Funds and of Age Concern, consumer associations and every pensions body that I am aware of. I cannot find a single organisation that disagrees. Virtually every organisation has lobbied us actively to support this. It is not because of the cost but for the reasons that I have tried to suggest. It is right and proper in order to protect the perceived independence of the regulator that the state should fund it. If the Government were today to undertake to come forward at Report stage with an amendment to that effect, it would be welcomed across the whole swathe of the industry. But if they do not, they are making a serious statement today about their lack of commitment to the principles that informed Goode. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I support what the noble Baroness has said on the amendment. It was a great surprise to me that the Government did not accept the firm

143
recommendation of the Goode Report. If the regulatory authority is to be a statutory, independent body, the Bill only goes half-way to establishing it in that respect. It makes it a statutory body, but for some unknown reason which did not come out in the Second Reading debate, the Government decided not to accept the financial consequence and have the scheme funded out of public funds.
I find that difficult to understand, unless the Treasury got at it and decided: "Here is a way of saving £10 million. These people can easily afford it. Why should the state cough up?" However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that is not the issue at all. We want it to be a statutory body which is absolutely independent in every respect. The noble Baroness pointed out the anomaly of the situation in which the appointment is made by the state, the budget is fixed by the state but the industry is saddled with the cost. I know of no organisation in business where that could conceivably happen and I cannot see why it should be allowed to happen in government.
We have had much difficulty with self-regulation in this country. It has now been decided, rightly, in connection with the Bill that there should not be self-regulation but statutory regulation. What the Government have now introduced, however, is some kind of half-way house; namely, that it is a statutory body but is paid for by the people who are to be regulated. I do not think that that is right. I very much support what the noble Baroness said in asking the Minister to think about this matter again, bearing in mind the long list which she read out—which I had intended to read out but will not repeat—of all those who have written in from all sides of the spectrum criticising this decision of government.
Lord Marsh: When the Minister replies to this debate, he may want to answer the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in full. The noble Lord said that he cannot think of any reason other than the fact that the Treasury wants to save £10 million, and surely all that the Minister need do is to say yes. This is not a large amount of money. The matter cannot be argued on that basis. All clichés are absolute truths which are too frequently repeated. "He who pays the piper" is a very powerful fact.
The noble Baroness referred to the Press Council. I was chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association for 13 years. Throughout that period the threat of non-payment to the Press Council was made over and over again. Sometimes it was made overtly; sometimes it was just implicit. Whichever way it was made, it was a fact that officers of the Press Council had to bear in mind. The provision is unhealthy and unnecessary. Even if, as is argued, it is a question of cost—and the Treasury can be quite silly about these matters from time to time—very real benefits accrue to the Government as a result of the whole of this Bill from private pension provision of this type, the cost of which is borne to a large extent by the employers. I ask the Minister to look carefully at this matter. What he is perpetrating is totally unnecessary. It is almost unique in my experience. On
144
the occasions where the bodies being governed by authorities are financed by those authorities, it matters not how the rules are written: the pressures will be there.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry that, having come to this amendment, we cannot give the knock for knock that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, requested on the last one. This is a serious matter of principle. I listened to the points that were made by the three noble Lords who have spoken, and I think there will be quite a gulf between us on this issue.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 194 and 17 would be to prevent the costs of the new regulatory authority being met by the levy on pension schemes and instead require the Secretary of State to make appropriate funds available from taxation. That is usually expressed as being from the Treasury. But of course it is not actually from the Treasury; it is from taxpayers. We do not accept that it is right to burden all taxpayers, many of whom are not members of occupational pension schemes, with the cost of regulating such schemes.
We consider that it is right that the cost of the authority should fall to those who establish and run pension schemes, because they are responsible for ensuring that their schemes are properly run and it is in their interests to promote members' confidence in schemes. We have therefore decided that the authority will be funded by a levy on occupational pension schemes.
Reference was made to the Occupational Pensions Board and the money that currently goes to fund it. The bulk of its work is involved with granting and withdrawing contracted-out status. That work will go to the contributions agency of the DSS, which will continue to pay the costs of administering the contracted-out arrangements. The registry, which is funded by the existing levy, will pass to OPRA and will continue to be funded by levy. A small number of residual OPB functions, mostly concerned with very limited powers to modify schemes, will also pass to OPRA. Therefore I do not think that there is a proper comparison to be made between the Occupational Pensions Board and OPRA.
We are committed to ensuring that the costs of the authority are kept to the minimum that is compatible with effective regulation. It is important that we should be able to apply checks and balances on the authority's expenditure. We therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 14. I also have to resist Amendment No. 13, which would remove the power from my right honourable friend to approve the number of staff which the authority employs.
As to the reference to the Treasury, I am sure that the Committee will be aware of the recent fundamental review which resulted in much greater delegation of authority to other departments of state in matters such as pay and conditions of service. In the light of that review, we shall consider whether references to Treasury approval are appropriate and bring forward any necessary amendments during the Bill's passage. That is the first small concession that I have made, and I appreciate that against the background of the main issue

145
in this group of amendments it is a minor point. But we do not believe that it is right to impose additional costs on taxpayers or employers.
The argument which has been pressed on us, and which is understandable, is the one that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh; namely, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Both the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, looked to their experience with the press for examples in which the Press Council, in the case of the noble Baroness, found itself dictated to by the press itself threatening to refuse to pay up if it did not like the way in which the council behaved.
There is a major difference here. For a start, the OPRA board, with its full-time chairman and six part-time members, wholly independent and appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State, will ensure that the authority itself cannot be dominated by one interest group. Fears about its independence in that regard are unjustified.
But, equally, this is not self-regulation; it is statutory regulation, and the levy is a statutory levy, paid not to the body itself but imposed and payable to the Secretary of State. It is to the Secretary of State that the money would be owed. He, in his turn, passes the money over to the authority to run its budget and fulfil its obligations. We believe that these two parts—the composition of the board and the way in which the levy will be imposed via the statutes which one hopes we shall pass in the next few months—will prevent the "He who pays the piper calls the tune" syndrome applying in this respect. We believe that it is fundamentally correct that the cost of regulating occupational pensions should fall on those who set them up and who run them. We do not believe that it is right that the generality of taxpayers—many of whom will not be fortunate enough to benefit from an occupational pension scheme—should be asked to pay a share of the cost of the regulatory authority. We do not believe that in any way—either the way in which it is funded or the way in which we propose that it is funded—will detract from its efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Monkswell: We need to be a little more concerned about this issue than the Minister seems to indicate. Effectively the Minister suggests that we have a predicated tax; that we are to pay for something out of the public purse but we are to levy a special tax on a special group of people to pay for that disbursement. If one thinks of just about every other sphere of activity in our lives, that principle can be taken right across the board. That is not done, and for very good historical reasons. The Committee needs to be very, very concerned about what I would describe as the thin end of the very dangerous fiscal wedge that the Government effectively describe. Can the Minister advise the Committee as to whether there is any precedent for the sort of action with which we are faced?
Lord Tugendhat: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to take up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and also perhaps the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I should say, as we have
146
to be so careful about these matters now, that I am chairman of Abbey National but I am speaking in an entirely personal capacity.
In a previous incarnation I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. That body has been in existence for a very long time. I believe that it was set up by the Heath government. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the first chairman. It operated throughout the period of Labour government, as well as more recently under Conservative government. Although the Civil Aviation Authority's capital expenditure is derived from public funds and it has all the difficulties of dealing with the Treasury that that causes, its regulatory function was financed by those whom it was or is—I should use the present tense—regulating. The Civil Aviation Authority is a statutory regulator; but at the same time it levies charges on those whom it regulates.
I listened with great interest to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the Newspaper Publishers Association and the Press Council, but I must say that I did not have a similar experience at the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not remember any airlines threatening not to pay. It would have been very ill advised of them to do so. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will bear me out on that point.
I make that point because I feel that the presumption that he who pays the piper is a major influence on the regulator need not be the case. No doubt it was the case in some areas of national life. It was not the case in the one of which I speak with personal experience. I agree that that is a very different field from pensions; but the point made by the Minister about personal pension schemes being for their members rather than for the generality of taxpayers should be borne in mind.
I have no idea how the industry or the company with which I am connected will view this matter when it comes up for discussion. But the point about statutory regulation and charging those who are regulated is one that is more complicated than the earlier intervention suggested. There is a successful precedent for it in a quite different field.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Marsh: I do not want to press this point. The argument is not based wholly on "He who pays the piper". This is a very different situation from that which exists with the airlines industry.
First of all, employers do not have to provide occupational pension schemes at all. They do so voluntarily and on a non-profit basis. They are expensive to administer. The Government are increasingly aware that occupational pension schemes will have to be supplemented. Roughly 50 per cent. of the population are covered by occupational pension schemes and therefore the Government are interested not only in maintaining them but also in encouraging them to expand further.
In addition, with regard to solvency and solvency margins, the Bill can impose considerably increased burdens on the providers of pensions. That is against a background in which those providing the pensions administer them voluntarily. They make no profit out of

147
them but find a continuing cost. The Government find reasons more and more sensibly to encourage the provision of pensions outside the state system.
It seems to me that from every point of view this amendment is pushing what the Minister declares to be a principle—I understand that—to a ludicrous point, where it can cause harm to the policies which lie behind the Bill; namely, to make the pension schemes outside the government area wider and more acceptable. It might be understandable if there were a vast amount of money involved, but in this kind of situation it does not begin to make any kind of logic.
Baroness Seear: As we have heard this evening, many organisations from both sides of the political scene are in favour of the regulator being state financed. The noble Lord said that only a proportion of people would benefit. The idea is that more and more people shall do so. If families are taken into account, a very high and increasing proportion of the population will benefit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, we pay out of public funds for health and safety and a variety of things which protect only a relatively small proportion of the population—in fact, a smaller proportion than will increasingly benefit from pensions.
I thought that the Government wanted to take burdens off business. We have heard that phrase often enough. Yet here they are putting on burdens. They are not consistent in their line of argument. Surely the Government should think again.
The example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is exceptional and quite different from the pension scheme. One can see reasons why the airlines should contribute. They are not like other employers.
Finally, we want the employers to provide these schemes. We do not want to discourage employers from providing them. The Government also want that. Why can they not use the logic of their own arguments and take this burden from them?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am quite sure that the Government are right in the decision that they made in respect of the financing of this regulator. It would be quite wrong to put on the ordinary taxpayer the costs of regulating a very important economic activity which is of direct benefit to those taking part in it and not necessarily of direct benefit to the rest of the community. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will stand quite firm on this issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to thank all those who took part in this brief debate. Before responding to some of the points raised by the Minister, I should like just to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who mentioned the airline regulatory body. Would I be right to believe that airlines which refused to pay would lose their licence? Therefore, there is no comparison between the Bill that we have today and the regulatory authority funded by airlines, because they have to do so in order to continue to operate.
Lord Tugendhat: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness and say that, first of all, the situation did not arise. I was addressing in part the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Secondly, the Civil Aviation Authority's regulatory activities cover a very wide area. They do not simply give airlines a licence to operate. They do that but they also give pilots licences to operate and regulate the safety of aeroplanes on a continuing basis. They regulate the air traffic control. It is a form of regulation at a grand level but also entering into the interstices of aviation.
I do not want to carry the comparison too far. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is possible to have statutory regulation funded by the people who are regulated without the baleful effects to which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord drew attention earlier.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. However, it remains the case that if airlines fail to do that, they will go out of business. There is a strong commercial incentive for them to do it. That is not the case with the measure that we are discussing today.
The Minister's reply basically made the point that, because funding of the regulator by public funds would not benefit the generality of taxpayers, it was appropriate that funding should be carried out by the industry itself. That was the core of the argument.
Following up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I do not believe that any of us disagree that in relation to a £500 billion industry, the sum of £10 million is a particularly large sum to ensure proper regulation and delivery of the pension promise. The question is whether something which benefits not all taxpayers but a substantial proportion of them—about half—should be properly funded out of public funds.
There are two answers. First, in all walks of life where we deem it appropriate, we already fund, through general taxation, the regulation of the behaviour of a minority—often a smaller minority than half the population—whether we are talking about car drivers, restaurant users, noise pollution or even lost dogs. All those activities associated with regulation and policing are funded by all of us, even though the benefit of that activity is only privately enjoyed by a minority. That is the basis of policing. All policing is made up of a bundle of sectional minority interests. However, as a community we decided that it is in the public interest that that activity be regulated. That is the basis of our law and order contract.
Secondly, the Minister seemed to assume that the rest of us who were not members of occupational pension schemes had no interest in the well-being of occupational pensions and therefore should not contribute through our taxes to its regulation. That is also not true. The point about occupational pensions is that, according to their security, so people opt out of SERPS, which is a direct financial benefit to all of us as taxpayers. Above all, the status of occupational pensions is made attractive by Inland Revenue tax privileges and the forgoing of that income is made up by increased taxes from the rest of us. Not only is it the

149
case therefore that all of us contribute to the financing of the policing and regulation of minority groups because it is in public policy interests to do so, but here, more than in many areas of policing, the rest of us who are not members of occupational pension schemes continue to have a direct financial interest in the taxes we pay to ensure the security of those schemes. That is a fact.
Does the Minister want the scheme to work? Does he want to protect the Inland Revenue's investment in occupational pensions? Does he want the co-operation of the industry? Does he want the public to have confidence in the independence of the regulator? Does the Minister seriously wish to encourage employers to remain committed to the occupational pensions industry? Or is he seeking to tip everybody over into personal pension schemes because the employers have withdrawn, faced with the threat of another burden on them? Is £10 million too much to pay for those advantages? I hope that I can invite the Minister to reconsider his position.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate on this issue. As usual some Members think that the state—that is, the taxpayer; it is nice to call it "the state" or "the Treasury"—should fund it. Quite rightly there are things that the generality of taxpayers are happy to fund. But there are other instances—and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat made a point about the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a major and important regulator—which are extremely valid.
Coming closer to the occupational pensions industry, the costs of looking after the insurance companies by the DTI are paid for by the insurance companies themselves. The regulatory authority of the DTI and any compensation is paid for by a levy on the insurance companies. There is therefore that precedent, as there is the precedent of the Civil Aviation Authority. There are other precedents, perhaps not exactly the same. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, if the noble Lord applies for planning permission, he will be expected to pay for it in order to cover some of the costs of the planning authority in coming to conclusions and running its planning system. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of situations in which people are asked to pay for what are more general services of a public nature but which are specifically to their benefit, and this is one of them.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for giving way. In the case of an application for planning approval, there is a direct benefit to me—if I am the applicant—as an individual. Therefore it may be perfectly right that I should pay a fee. But in this situation we are asking individual pension funds to pay a levy from which they may not receive any direct benefit whatever. I just throw into the pot yet another argument for not employing this mechanism for funding the new regulatory body.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is of course a direct benefit for everybody involved in a pension scheme in the introduction of this regulatory authority.
150
If there were no direct benefit and no protection given by it, it would not be worth our while spending this afternoon and a few more afternoons discussing it.
It is a direct benefit, every bit as much as, if not more than, a simple planning permission. It involves the security of people's pensions, which we are all agreed are in many cases of even greater value than planning permissions for extensions to people's homes or whatever else it may be. If we are discussing the benefit the regulatory authority may bring and who should pay for it, the case is firmly with me that the costs of the authority should be borne by the people who will ultimately be the beneficiaries of good regulation ensuring that pension schemes are all kept up to the mark.
We have been round this point. We are committed to keeping down the cost of the authority to the minimum compatible with effective regulation. That must be in the interests of the schemes themselves. The schemes know that if they all run their schemes well and the regulator does not need to spend much money doing his work, then the levy will not be as high as it would otherwise be. All the schemes have a direct incentive not only to look after their own scheme well, but also to apply peer pressure to other schemes to ensure that they do likewise.
I believe that if we are setting up this regulatory body, which is statutory, the people who are most directly involved and most likely to benefit should be asked to pay a modest amount—it is a modest amount against the background of the amount of money the pension schemes have. It is right that they should do that. Members of the Committee may ask why, if it is a modest amount, cannot the taxpayer pay it? The trouble is that every day, day after day, pleas are made that the taxpayers' money should be spent in modest sums. The problem for the Government and the taxpayer is that the modest sums quickly accumulate to become large sums. In this case we should relieve the tax payer of that burden and ask the occupational pension schemes, the employers who benefit from having well regulated schemes, to shoulder this small burden.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously we shall come back to this matter. But on the point of planning consents, I was delighted that the Minister went into that example; it makes our point beautifully. In that situation people who stand to gain by enlarging their homes pay for the planning permission. They pay the fees that would lead to that planning permission being granted, in exactly the same way as we pay into our pension funds. But when it comes—as I am sure the Minister knows, which is why I am surprised he mentioned it —to the enforcement of planning controls, that is the policing and regulating activity, that is precisely what is paid for by all the taxpayers of a local authority. It makes our point precisely. Where it is a matter of private enrichment, the individual pays; where it is a matter of public policy interest that planning controls be observed, all of us pay. That is precisely what happens in local government and precisely what we should like to see happen here.

151
On the Minister's substantive point, that those who benefit should pay, our argument is simple. All of us benefit—directly as members of schemes or indirectly to ensure that the tax privileged status of occupational pension schemes and the confidence that they enjoy is protected. We all benefit either directly or indirectly and therefore, on the Minister's own argument, we should all pay.
We shall return to this amendment. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 97, line 10, leave out ("or a personal pension scheme").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 16. These are technical amendments. As we are proposing to repeal Section 136 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 by means of Amendment No. 193 to this Bill and Clause 62 of the Bill relates only to occupational pension schemes, these amendments remove an unnecessary reference to personal pension schemes in paragraph 17 of the schedule. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 97, line 11, leave out ("under section 136 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Assistance for research and education
(".—(1) The Authority may undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research, and any educational activities, which appear to the Authority necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Part.
(2) The Authority may make charges for educational or other facilities made available by it.").
The noble Baroness said: These two amendments are grouped together and are designed to grant the regulatory authority powers additional to those which we believe are granted in the Bill, if only we could know what those powers are. The first amendment seeks to permit the authority to assist research and education. The second amendment is designed to permit the authority to support legal activity.
I deal with the first amendment. The powers and obligations of the authority in the Bill as drafted are supervisory only. This amendment, together with others, is intended to widen the functions of the authority to give it greater powers to -determine and enforce best practice. Clearly, the authority needs to know what that best practice should be, and to do so it will need these powers. The amendment has modest financial implications, but we believe that that can be covered by
152
charging. A very similar power is possessed by the EOC under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Part of the job of any regulatory authority is to be able to pursue research and education in appropriate activities. Therefore, we should like to see that power in this Bill.
The second amendment is very similar. It is designed to permit assistance with legal proceedings. There are well-established precedents under the EOC. Without such a clause it could be financially prohibitive for members to seek redress in the courts. The reference to industrial tribunal proceedings relates to the enforcement provisions contained in the Bill so far as equal treatment is concerned: Clauses 55 to 59. The enforcement mechanism for an equal treatment rule is identical to that in the Equal Pay Act 1970. The wording comes from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Both amendments seek to widen the powers of activity of the authority. Given the obscurity of those powers, the position needs to be clarified. There are well-established precedents to which the Government have already acceded. We hope that they will be able to support these amendments.
Baroness Seear: I rise briefly to support the amendment which the noble Baroness has just explained. The one thing on which we can all be completely agreed is that the issue of pensions is complex. Nobody knows quite how they will work out in future. Therefore, it is highly desirable that research and investigation should be undertaken to clarify issues as they arise and to enable the information obtained to be widely spread. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is also quite plain that legal issues will arise. As we know, legal costs can be prohibitive for many people in modest circumstances. It is a cliché to say that nowadays you have to be either very rich or very poor in order to get legal assistance.
The second amendment is to enable people to take cases which will undoubtedly arise, and which ought to arise, and clarify points of law. This has been extremely useful in connection with the Sex Discrimination Act. The Equal Opportunities Commission has been able to back cases where an issue of principle has required clarification. This has been very useful in advancing the purposes of that legislation and it can be equally useful in advancing the purposes of this legislation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment, coming so soon after our discussion on whether or not pension funds themselves or the taxpayer should pay, perhaps provides an interesting message to us. If it was the taxpayer who was paying, within five minutes of making that decision, had the noble Baroness won the Division, the price would now he slightly higher. I have no doubt that that would continue. We have to examine rigorously any amendment that will create any unnecessary additional cost to be met from the levy. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 both create additional functions for the authority and will impose new costs. All affect the financial arrangements for the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Only a short time ago I heard

153
the Minister say to the Committee with great pleasure that the authority had powers to do anything it liked except borrow money. Is there not rather a contrast between that and what he is now saying?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's intervention. I should point out that during the course of the past two hours I have said that the authority's budget and its staffing will be a matter for discussion and agreement with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, it does not have absolutely unlimited powers to spend money. It has to agree the expenditure. That has to be recouped in the levy by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that I was referring to something quite different when I spoke about the powers of the authority.
The purpose of Amendment No. 18 is to create a new educational research role for the authority. I believe that such a role would not sit well with the authority's primary function as an enforcement agency and would create unnecessary additional costs. It would be wasteful to duplicate the already excellent advice and information service provided by the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service. Although the amendment allows the authority to charge for the facilities that it makes available, such charges will not cover the full costs incurred in granting Financial assistance to others. Therefore, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 19 would create a subsidised legal service for scheme members to bring matters before the courts. The main function of the authority is to enforce compliance with statutory obligations placed on those who run pension schemes. It will have power to take necessary court action.
I believe that the powers and responsibilities of the authority are perfectly clear and well laid out in the Bill, but I repeat them in order to deal with some suggestions that they are not clear. I believe that it is not appropriate for the authority to become involved in providing legal assistance to individual scheme members whose complaints may go beyond the specific statutory provisions within the authority's remit under this and previous pensions legislation. The pensions ombudsman already provides an effective avenue of redress for many individual members' pension complaints.
The costs created by this amendment are not laid out either in the amendment or in the speech by the noble Baroness, but I believe that they could be unacceptably high. For those reasons, I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment. I do not believe that we can accept amendments which are peripheral to the main purpose of this regulatory authority and which will impose additional costs on employers or even, if noble Lords opposite have their way, the taxpayer. It is fundamentally correct that the cost of regulation should fall on those who set up and run pension schemes. Equally, we must ensure that the Costs which fall upon them are those specifically designed to carry out the regulation which we all believe to he so important. We cannot accept amendments which will give the authority new responsibilities that we do not believe are in
154
keeping with its regulatory role. I believe that they can only detract from its effectiveness and create unnecessary costs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was slightly taken aback by the Minister's reply. I deal with the first amendment. I hoped I had made it clear that there was no reason why most, if not all, of the costs of that activity could not be recovered by charging for educational facilities. That is part of the wording of the proposed amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord overlooked that in his wish to denounce the new clause. In other words, there need be no additional cost whatever. Therefore, if this should prove to be self-financing, will he withdraw his objection? Or is his objection wider than that merely of cost? Is it the extension of the activity of the authority itself?
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The first part of the amendment states:
"The Authority may undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research, and any educational activities".
That suggests to me that it will pay out some money. Admittedly, subsection (2) says that the authority may make charges. I am not sure whether it would charge the same person it had previously assisted. It would be a little cyclical if that is what it was going to do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is sophistry. The Minister says that we on this side should be aware of how the burdens on the taxpayer will be mounting, as the clock ticks away like a parking meter, if we add this extra function. I then said to the Minister that the requirement could be self-financing and asked whether he would therefore withdraw his objections. He then said that he did not know whether the charges would meet the cost. Oh, really, that is a pretty sorry reply! That is one issue. We could cover and address the financial point if the Minister were minded to take that on board. He is not. He is scratching around for any points he can make.
The second issue is much more worrying. I think I heard the noble Lord's words correctly. He said that he regards education and research as peripheral. In other words, he wants the regulatory authority to act without the benefit of that education and research. He wants it to act without the knowledge that could be gained by research rather than with it. No one is suggesting that the experienced body which the Minister is setting up under the Bill will be spendthrift or unwise in the activities it finances. Presumably, if it chooses or seeks to finance education and research it will be because to do so will allow the regulatory authority to perform its duties more effectively. What are the Government doing? They are denying the regulatory authority the power to make itself more effective by being better informed.
That is a disgraceful attitude. Every piece of legislation is meant to be informed by research. One thinks of the cost of the Goode Report. One thinks of the cost of the education and research behind the Government's own papers. One thinks of the cost of the

155
very valuable research document put out by the Government Actuary a month or so ago which the Minister was kind enough to recommend to me. I refer to the document on the occupational pension schemes. I doubt whether that research was done without the expenditure of several thousands of pounds. In other words, the Government recognised the need to have their judgments based as far as possible on education and research. However, when it comes to the regulatory authority, we are told that we should not have such a benefit. Instead, presumably, decisions should be based either on the experience of the members or on hunch and instinct. If the Minister wants to ensure that the regulatory authority gets the backs up of the members of the industry which is funding it by appearing to be ill informed, the Government's rejection of the amendment is a sure way to do so.
Baroness Seear: I find it odd that the Minister did not in any way answer the point about the backing of cases where an issue of principle is involved. The Minister surely knows that with the Equal Opportunities Commission—it may not be his favourite organisation—and the developments that have spread as a result of the Sex Discrimination Act, the taking to the courts of cases which are complex and difficult and to which the answer is not apparent to get the issues clarified has been of the greatest assistance. The Minister must at least agree that this is not the most straightforward and simple Bill that has ever come before your Lordships' House and that not everyone will realise at once what this subject means. The authority may well need to take cases in order to have the position clarified. That is all we are asking for in the amendment. Surely the Minister can concede that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the second of the amendments. That is precisely the point. Because the Minister refuses, by rejecting the first amendment to clarify on the face of the Bill what the duties, functions, purposes and powers of the regulator are, individuals may seek or need to have that clarification through the courts. But the regulator cannot help finance what may need to be tested in the courts—the very definition and function of its powers. That is an absurd and perverse position for the Minister to be in: to deny the right of the authority to be conjoined in legal action where the authority judges that it is in its own interests to be so conjoined. It is not a duty on the authority; it is a permission, where it thinks it appropriate and in the public interest, that that point of law should be tested. We know that the private individual cannot afford to do it.
Why is the Minister failing to specify what the regulatory authority may do and then failing to allow us some very specific powers—education and research on the one hand and the power to clarify its functions, duties and responsibilities 1n court on the other? Why are the Government seeking to tie the hands of the regulatory authority, which the Government are resting on to deliver the pension promise? We are trying not to be suspicious of some deep laid plot. However, every
156
amendment for clarity, strengthening or for independence of the regulator, even when it has virtually nil cost, the Government are resisting. The only message that emerges is that the Government are not seeking to strengthen the regulator. On the contrary, the Government would not be unhappy if many of its powers and functions in practice were subverted. We shall come back to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Removal or suspension of trustees]
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("this Part or") and insert:
("(a) this Part, other than the following provisions: sections 44 to 47, 55 to 58 and 100 to 102, or
(b)") .
The noble Lord said: This amendment excludes from OPRA' s jurisdiction obligations introduced under Clauses 44 to 48, 55 to 59 and 100 to 102 covering, respectively, indexation, equal treatment and the provision of information to the Pensions Compensation Board. As currently drafted, Clause 3 brings them within the authority's jurisdiction. That was never the intention. Problems over indexation and equal treatment are best left to the ombudsman, industrial tribunals and the courts. The compensation board will he best placed to enforce the requirements to provide it with information. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened with care to what the noble Lord said in support of the amendment but I remain very puzzled by it. If it had been argued that the powers which would exist to control pensions by the removal of trustees of pension schemes existed somewhere else, then one would be more sympathetic to it. But these are very wide areas of possible infringement of the pension provisions. They cover price indexation, which many people in pension schemes agree with. I, as the beneficiary of a price indexed pension scheme, believe it is enormously important. They cover the rules about equal treatment, which are widely believed to be of great importance. They also cover the issue of the supply of information to the PCB.
All of these matters are central to the effective supervision by the authority of individual pension schemes. Yet the noble Lord says that they should be taken out of the powers of supervision and dealt with by the ombudsman or by industrial tribunals. Surely that is a misuse of the ombudsman and industrial tribunals. The ombudsman is the person to go to as a matter of last resort. The ombudsman should not be deluged by day-to-day matters of the supervision of individual pensions schemes. We welcome the earlier amendment which brought the ombudsman into it, but if there are 150,000 schemes there could be thousands of references to the ombudsman; in other words, the whole of the duties of the parliamentary commissioners could he subverted by this new responsibility.

157
Is it really the most efficient way of dealing with a regulation of this kind for it to be dealt with within an industrial tribunal? We all know what the delays are in those bodies and what the costs are to the public purse. I suggest that the Government consider that an ombudsman or industrial tribunal is not the right locus for the day-to-day supervision of individual pensions schemes. The authority is the right place for supervision because it is more direct and immediate. It is also a good deal cheaper than the alternative which the noble Lord has suggested. The Bill as it stands is better without this amendment.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may clarify a little the intention behind this amendment and, I hope, lay to rest some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As regards indexation of pensions, that concerns their indexation in payment. Scheme members are only likely to be aware that there is a problem in relation to the indexation of their pensions once it is in payment. The pensions ombudsman and not the parliamentary ombudsman, has all the necessary power to deal with complaints from scheme members that their pension has not been indexed in accordance with the requirements under this Bill. So it is unnecessary to involve OPRA in this matter.
This sort of minor problem—because those running the schemes will be perfectly well aware what their obligations are under this Bill—is just the kind of individual matter which is best dealt with by the ombudsman. If widespread misbehaviour by one particular scheme occurs, undoubtedly there will be maladministration of that fund which might come to OPRA's attention in other spheres. As regards the non-observance of a technical regulation like this, surely the ombudsman is the usual and best way for dealing with these kinds of complaints. It is also a well established one.
As regards equal treatment, this Bill will make clear that occupational pensions schemes should provide equal benefits to men and women, but it does not specify how the schemes should achieve that. There is therefore no specific obligation which the authority can enforce. Equal treatment currently falls within the remit of the pensions ombudsman. Again, if there is an Individual problem surely he is the best person to deal with it. It can also be dealt with by industrial tribunals.
As regards the compensation board, this Bill provides powers for it to require information from those involved with running schemes. The enforcement of these requirements is surely best left to the board itself. It is directly involved with the problems and is surely in the best position to look after matters which fall within its own competence. From what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, realises that to involve OPRA in these areas would be to duplicate functions which are already well carried out by other organisations.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the contrary, it seems to me that the Minister has made no case whatsoever for this amendment. It is true that in the last
158
resort cases will have to go to the pensions ombudsman and then to industrial tribunals. That must be the case. The point about this amendment is that it is taking away the power of the authority to remove trustees if they are in breach of these provisions. Whatever the noble Lord may say they are not minor provisions, but ones which are critical to the just administration of pensions schemes. Price indexation, equal treatment and the supply of information to the Pensions Compensation Board are not minor matters but are inherent in the adequacy of an individual pension scheme.
The point I ask the Government to answer is this: if these derelictions are "serious or persistent", as called for in Clause 3(1), does the ombudsman or the industrial tribunal have the power to remove those trustees who are in "serious or persistent breach" of those duties? If not, I insist that the amendment is damaging.
Lord Lucas: I listened to what the noble Lord said, but we still believe that the pension ombudsman has all the powers necessary to deal with these problems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does he have the power to remove trustees who are An "serious or persistent breach" of their duties?
Lord Lucas: No, but we believe that he has the powers necessary to deal with the kinds of problems which are dealt with in the sections of the Bill which are excluded by this amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I find this debate absolutely amazing. What are we talking about? The paying of people's pensions correctly and preventing discrimination are not minor technical matters, but run to the heart of what we are talking about. Are we in the business of setting up an Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to ensure that people who are members of occupational pensions schemes get them paid fully when they are supposed to be paid? If the Government believe that infringement of those responsibilities by the trustees are minor technical matters, I wonder what this business is about.
It is not a minor technical matter if a member of an occupational pensions scheme is not paid the pension he is entitled to. It is the responsibility of the trustees to ensure that that is done. If they do not do that, then we all thought that it was the duty of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to do something about the trustees. Are we seriously to accept the Government's view, or not?
Lord Lucas: On this side of the Committee we are clearly of the opinion that any widespread breach of indexation or misadministration as regards equal treatment would involve a scheme being in breach of obligations which would bring OPRA into play. This is a somewhat complicated area and I understand the principles which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised. I shall write to him and set out in detail why we believe that this amendment is right or whether, on further consideration, we believe that it needs improvement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot resist that offer. It is valuable to know that the second thoughts

159
which the Government have had about this Bill are subject to the possibility of third thoughts. I welcome the offer which has been made. I shall withdraw any opposition to the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: For the time being.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert ("or of trust law as it applies to occupational pension schemes, and, in particular, of the duty of trustees to exercise each and all of their powers in the sole long term interests of the beneficiaries to whom they owe a duty of care and prudence.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 62, 69 and 103. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, when winding up the debate last Wednesday on the Civil Service, that we live,
"in an age which puts a premium on openness and accountability".—[Official Report, 1/2/95; cols. 1565–66.]
I agree with him entirely. This amendment will bring openness and accountability to the Pensions Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, spoke about the need for people to take more interest in their pension affairs. This clause will enable them to do that. There is a special need for openness and accountability in this Bill because not only are we dealing with the pensions of our citizens, but with the management of one-third of all the shares on the London Stock Exchange. That affects the well being of all of us and that is why it is doubly important that there should be openness and accountability. Not only has the regulator a responsibility to supervise occupational pension schemes and enforce the legal responsibility of governing them: surely, as my noble friend Lady Hollis has pointed out, he also has a fiduciary duty under trust law to promote proper management of pension funds. The Goode Committee clearly stated that such duties must be put on a statutory basis.
The Secretary of State for Social Security said that the regulator:
"will have all the powers in full which were in essence recommended by the Goode Committee."—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/94; col. 365.]
The way the Bill is drafted at present has the hollow sound of stable doors being closed after horses have bolted. The Bill as drafted ignores one of the most important lessons we should have learned from the Maxwell experience. Those involved in the running of the pension management company knew what was going on but, because of our libel laws, they could not speak out and blow the whistle. A statutory right for beneficiaries to know would have overcome this. This amendment provides that statutory right.
However, yet more security is needed because the inventiveness of the criminal mind is limitless and we cannot legislate for everything. Information can protect against future negligence or criminality and will help to sound early warning bells. Most importantly, the regulator must have powers to enforce and encourage the openness about which the Leader of the House spoke.
The Goode Report spoke of such codes of practice and at paragraph 4.19.20 said that they should:
"have a useful role to play in encouraging good business practice in matters not conducive to legislation or as a voluntary improvement on legal requirements."
This is so that members can understand how their scheme works, how their benefits accrue, how their scheme performs relative to other schemes, and what their stake is in the pension scheme.
Mr. Jim Stratton, the deputy managing director of Standard Life, said last week:
"Regulation should be directed at creating a fair market in which the customers could protect themselves. This focuses on providing information to consumers, rather than keeping records for regulators".
With this greater understanding and openness, members have a statutory right to know and are in a much stronger position to take an active interest in their scheme, and thereby exercise the best kind of regulation—informed regulation. Nowadays we call this "empowering people", so that they can eliminate incompetence, negligence or criminality in the management of their own pension schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Bill introduces a number of new obligations and schemes so as to clarify and underpin the most important duties placed on trustees. It would not make any sense to recreate in this Bill the whole vast and complex body of trust law. That would take a little more time than we hope to spend on this important Bill.
As to trust law, some matters are best left for the courts to decide. The new authority will be highly effective in enforcing the various powers given to it, and it will have expertise and clout, but it cannot replicate or replace the courts. Consequently, I cannot accept amendments which place a general duty on the authority to enforce trust law, and Amendments Nos. 22, 52 and 103 would require it to do just that. As I say, that is something best left to the courts.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 69 would inappropriately further widen the scope of the authority. For example, it would become responsible for procedural matters with regard to contracting out. That has no place in an enforcement agency, and will in future be dealt with by my department's Contributions Agency. I can assure the Committee that the security of rights in contracted-out schemes will be regulated by OPRA in the same way as schemes which have not been contracted out.
The amendments also encompass matters relating to the state pension scheme, which clearly do not fit with the authority's role as regulator of occupational pension schemes. They would give the authority jurisdiction over the requirements relating to equal treatment and indexation, which, by virtue of the previous amendments and the discussions we have had, we intend to leave to the ombudsman, tribunals and courts. As my noble friend indicated, we will certainly check that the provision does what we intend it to do. With the amendments that my noble friend moved, we think it will do so.

161
While I am open to considering refinements in relation to OPRA's regulatory powers where there is a good case for doing so, we should not widen its powers in such a way that it becomes involved in trust law and other matters which are best left to the courts, my department, the pensions ombudsman or other bodies.
I appreciate that the Opposition always want to widen the power, scope and responsibility of every body that is set up, but we ought to keep our eye on the ball—and our ball is to set up a very tight regulatory authority which will make sure that pension schemes are properly run and that incidents similar to the ones we have had will not occur—not just the Maxwell incident, although that was the most highly publicised—because there will be a body that can act on a blowing of the whistle. I imagine that even Robert Maxwell would not have been able to slap a writ on a whistle being blown.
Lord Haskel: Obviously I do not wish to open up all the complications of trust law, neither do I wish to widen the role of the regulator. What I wish to do is to bring into focus that we are dealing here with a new generation. This generation will regulate their pension schemes themselves far more effectively than by leaving it to a regulator. This clause sets out to make sure that people have the information so that they can be informed regulators of their own schemes.
I do not know if the Minister listened to Radio 4 on Sunday, when there was a long programme about pensions. The conclusion of the programme, in which many people involved in the pension business were interviewed, was that openness and more information would, in the end, be the most effective form of regulation.
We shall return to this matter because there has been a lot of support for this clause, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) In satisfying itself of a serious or persistent breach of duties, the Authority is entitled to make use of information provided by the Securities and Investments Board and the regulatory bodies under the Financial Services Act, and by the Pensions Ombudsman under this Act, without a need to make further investigations of its own.").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 85, 87 to 101 and 104. These amendments deal with the exchange of information between the pensions regulator and other regulators.
The Goode Report in paragraph 4.19.39 recommended this exchange:
"so far as such information is or appears to be relevant to the exercise of the recipient regulator's powers and functions."
The Government stated in the White Paper that they had accepted this recommendation. These amendments seek to put it into effect.
The amendment to Clause 95 is that information freely available in other countries should also be disclosed here. We live in a global economy and it seems incorrect that information available in other countries should not be made available here. These amendments allow one regulatory authority to tip off another. They should all he working in unison, The
162
Department of Trade and Industry is included as the regulator of the insurance companies. Amendment No. 104 ensures that the Inland Revenue and VAT authorities can disclose information to OPRA.
The Goode Report spoke of a lack of regulator gateways as being a problem under the Financial Services Act. These amendments are designed to overcome this difficulty. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I support this series of amendments, and I should have thought that they would be close to the Minister's heart because, particularly with Amendment No. 23, there would be a considerable cost saving. We are saying here that if the relevant information is available to other regulatory bodies, the regulator in this case should not need to conduct his own investigation. This is a straightforward proposition, recommended by Goode, and very much in the spirit of what I understood the Minister to be saying about minimising cost.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have a number of amendments to consider here and as some of them are in my name I shall need to be careful that I do not suggest that the Committee reject them all. I must be a little cautious when it comes to this group of amendments. I may even be a little more helpful than just suggesting that my amendments are excellent and should be accepted.
The amendments are all concerned with the authority's powers to exchange information. Clauses 94 to 98 place strict limits on the disclosure of information by the authority, and on any other person who may receive information from the authority, where the information is restricted information. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill provide for other bodies to provide information to the authority.
I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that the authority and its staff observe the restrictions placed on information passed to it by other bodies. The provisions in Clauses 94 to 98 are similar to those found in other enactments that provide for the protection of information gathered by regulatory bodies; for example, the Financial Services Act and the Banking Act.
Most of the amendments add nothing to the provisions in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded and be prepared to withdraw them. However, Amendments Nos. 85, 87 and 104 raise issues which I am happy to consider further. It might be of benefit if I take each amendment in turn, even if that means that I shall talk for a few minutes.
The Bill, at paragraph 9 in Schedule 3, inserts a provision in the Financial Services Act so that the Securities and Investments Board and other bodies under the Financial Services Act can provide information to the authority. The Bill also makes similar provisions in respect of the pension ombudsman. The authority uses information provided by those bodies to enable it to carry out its functions. So I hope that the Committee will agree that the intentions of Amendment No. 23 are met.

163
Clause 93 provides the authority with the power to publish, in such form or manner as it thinks fit, a report of any investigation and of the results of such an investigation. We shall consider further the amendment which details that and whether a specific provision enabling the authority to make a simple statement to the effect that an investigation is being made is necessary.
We consider that the provisions in Clauses 94 and 95 provide sufficient flexibility for the authority to use the information supplied to it by corresponding overseas authorities. It is right that such information is afforded high protection, otherwise such sources of information could quickly dry up. Indeed, Amendment No. 88 seeks to make that clear. If an overseas regulator has information to pass on which is relevant to another UK regulator (other than OPRA) that information should be passed direct—not using the authority as post box. However, we shall consider Amendment No. 87 further to see whether it is necessary to impose the tight restrictions on disclosure of information where that information is not provided with such protection in its originating country.
The needs of Amendment No. 100 are met by the first entry in the table in Clause 97. That provides for the authority to provide my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with information that would enable or assist him to carry out his functions under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. The Bill provides, where necessary, for other relevant bodies to provide information to the authority. It achieves that by making appropriate amendments to other enactments. Examples are in Schedule 3, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. This achieves what is intended by Amendment No. 101, making it unnecessary.
Amendment No. 104 seeks to extend the scope for the Inland Revenue and Customs and excise to provide information to the authority. We believe that Clause 99 already provides for an adequate flow of information to the authority from the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. It is unlikely that they will hold anything of relevance other than material gathered in the course of exercising their tax functions. That is because they only investigate direct and indirect tax matters. However, we shall take this amendment away and consider it further.
Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 98 and 99 make minor technical amendments to the functions column of the table in Clause 97 so that powers of the authority are not inappropriately restricted and cover all the relevant functions of the persons listed in column one. Amendment No. 91 adds a new entry to the table so that the authority may provide information to the Treasury to enable or assist it to carry out its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986. That is necessary because not all the functions under the Financial Services Act are picked up by the other regulatory bodies already included in the table.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 add new entries to the table. Amendment No. 93 allows the authority to provide information to the Deposit Protection Board and the Investor Protection Board. Amendment No. 96 enables the authority to provide information to a person authorised to exercise powers under specific provisions
164
in the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Companies Act 1985, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Companies Act 1989. Amendment No. 97 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. Without the provisions in Clause 97 the overall regulatory structure would be incomplete. The authority will not have sole responsibility for overseeing all aspects of occupational pension schemes. The amendments here ensure that the authority is able to provide information to other bodies that have responsibilities for other aspects of pension schemes, enabling it to liaise and co-ordinate with them effectively.
I commend my amendments to the Committee. I have promised that I will look at points made in three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord. I hope that he can be persuaded, either now or after he reads Hansard—I appreciate the matter is complex—that the amendments he tabled are not necessary because they are covered by other provisions in the Bill.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. However, I could not absorb all the data that he gave. There is one point I should like to clarify. Schedule 3 is much narrower than the table. Can we have an assurance that there will be a two-way flow of information with all these bodies? In order to have more effective regulation we need to have a two-way flow of information between the bodies. Perhaps the Minister will give some thought to that. Meanwhile, we shall have to read what is in Hansard. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am certain that the two-way flow is allowed for and that the problem with which the noble Lord is concerned does not arise. Of course I shall check that as well as the other points. But I think that he can be assured that the two-way flow is allowed for.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Before making such provision as is mentioned in subsection (5) above the Authority shall consult the other trustees of the trust scheme and the employer and shall consider any representations made by them.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that we can have a two-way flow in respect of Amendment No. 24. It relates to Clause 3(5), which confers on the authority the powers to suspend a trustee of a trust scheme. The amendment seeks to ensure that before suspending a trustee the authority shall consult the other trustees and the employer.
The operation of pension funds through boards of trustees is a collective activity. It is in the trustees' interests to know what is going on so that they can take decisions affecting the members of the scheme. Furthermore, if the authority informs the trustees that one of their number is likely to be suspended, an explanation might be given for the collective action of the trustees that is in question.
Another factor is the effect of any attendant publicity on the operation of this scheme. We must bear in mind that some of the pension funds are major players on the stockmarket. The calling into question of the performance of a particular scheme, which would be implicit in the suspension of one of the trustees, could have ramifications that need to be considered.
There may also be an effect on the employer. If something hits the employer out of the blue—for example, in terms of publicity—the confidence of the market in the operations of that company may be tested. It is right that the employer should have some forewarning and he may be able to give an explanation of the circumstances which suggest that the trustee should be suspended. The employer should have some warning of the storm that is likely to hit him and he should be able to take precautions in defending the continuing operations of the company. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment moved so clearly by my noble friend. I do so on the simple ground that it relates to natural justice. OPRA makes a mistake about the reputation of a trustee—and we hope that it will not happen often—it is right that OPRA should use its best endeavours to restore that reputation. Basically, that is what the amendment would do and I hope that the Government will accept it.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The balance of power on the board of trustees is most important, as is the relationship between the trustees and the employer. It is sensible that where OPRA makes a change of trustee consultation should take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made most of the points that I wished to make. OPRA does not need to take into account the views of the other interested parties but a dialogue must take place, and that is an extremely important point. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is a difficult issue but a balance must be struck—that is the first time today that I have used the phrase. As the noble Baroness said in her intervention, one must expect some natural justice for the trustee who is being removed. However, all Members of the Committee will agree that the authority, if it believes that something has gone wrong, must be able to act quickly in order to protect the interests of scheme members.
The Bill provides a number of safeguards for trustees and for schemes under investigation. For example, OPRA will need to give at least one month's notice of its intention to remove a trustee. A trustee can make representations and ask OPRA to review its decision. The remaining trustees and other persons may also make representations to OPRA, and OPRA will be free to consider all the circumstances. That is right and proper but we must not strain OPRA's ability to act quickly. If it does not do so a great deal of damage may be done. It is important to balance the interests of the scheme
166
members, whom the regulatory authority is there to protect, with the natural justice and the rights of a trustee.
I like to think that the Bill strikes that balance. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who rightly drew the matter to my attention, will accept that it does strike the right balance between the ability of the regulator to act quickly and the need for natural justice as regards the trustee.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for his response and I totally accept the argument for precipitate action to be taken in appropriate circumstances. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is the effect of precipitate action on the rest of the trustees and the operation of the scheme, and a possible knock-on effect on the employer. I suspect that we do not yet have the balance right but I accept that we must recognise the need for precipitate action. However, I am not sure how we can deal with that because a problem exists. On the basis of the Minister's reply, and the possible need to return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Where—

(a) an order suspending any person under this section is revoked or his suspension is not extended after it has expired, and

(b) no order has been made under this section removing him as trustee,

then he may require the Authority to issue, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed Form, a statement regarding their decision or revoke or, as the case may be, not to extend his suspension.").
The noble Lord said: We must recognise the effect of suspension on the individual trustee. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is the implication that OPRA's only activity is to take action when there has been some wrongdoing.
It is unfortunate that the Minister was not more sympathetic to Amendment No. 7, which gave OPRA the responsibility to monitor. That would have made it easier for suspended trustees to believe that they were unlikely to be pilloried. In the process of monitoring a scheme, OPRA may believe that a certain aspect needs further clarification and decide to suspend a trustee. Having made those further investigations the suspension may be lifted. Unfortunately, in view of the way in which the Government propose that OPRA will work, we are faced with the situation in which it will intervene only when there has been some wrongdoing.
Implicit in that is that any action that it takes is dealing with wrongdoing, not just with monitoring or inspecting or seeking to investigate. That is the problem we are faced with. The amendment seeks to ensure that in the case of a trustee who has been suspended and who has effectively been exonerated in that no further action is being taken against him—the suspension having finished—some public statement should be made by OPRA to that effect so that the individual trustee has

167
a clean bill of health and there is no stain on his or her character. It is in the interests of that natural justice that I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again I wish to support my noble friend on this amendment. I think it is fairly straightforward. We would expect the regulatory authority to consult but we want to make what at the moment could remain merely a matter of courtesy into an obligation. We believe that that is sensible and support it.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I hope I am supporting the correct amendment this time. The whole objective of the amendment is to seek some mechanism to ensure that those people who are wrongly accused are properly vindicated to an extent over and above what is laid down in the Bill. OPRA is given wide powers to suspend trustees. I am afraid that in the normal course of events it may well make mistakes. I hope that that will not be the case, but it is a possibility. We should remember the cause and effect of all these matters. The cause is serious but the impact on the professional trustee, or the individual trustee, who is suspended can be very damaging to his professional life and also on a personal level. It is extremely important that a person is damaged as little as possible by an unfounded suspension. There are significant penalties in the Bill for trustees. It would be wrong for them not to have some recourse when they are incorrectly or improperly—whatever the correct word is—suspended. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment, as has been explained, relates to the authority's powers to suspend trustees. The security of pension rights depends crucially upon the integrity and diligence of the trustees. If they put that security at risk by failing to comply with their statutory duties there must be a power to suspend them from office. I listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, of my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire and of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. However, I do not believe that Amendment No. 25 is needed. I believe that as soon as the authority has concluded its investigations it will seek to ensure that any problems discovered are put right so that the scheme can run without further attention from the authority. We do not want to involve the authority in unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I recognise the argument that trustees who have been suspended should be kept informed of any developments on their case. Rather than ask the Committee to reject the amendment I would say to the noble Lord that if he wishes to withdraw it I shall certainly take away the proposal and consider further the points that have been made.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for the fairly encouraging response that he will take the amendment away and have another look at it. I re-emphasise that we are not seeking to interfere with the powers of OPRA to suspend anyone. We recognise that that may be necessary in certain cases. But if, following the
168
investigation and the suspension, no wrongdoing is found, we think it only reasonable that a trustee who may have been suspended pending the results of the investigation should have his good name cleared. It seems of little import to us that OPRA, having concluded the suspension of a trustee, should issue a statement saying effectively that the matter has been investigated, that no wrongdoing has been found and that the individual is completely exonerated of any stain on his character. Our amendment would seem to be perfectly reasonable. The risk is that if the amendment, or something like it, is not written on the face of the Bill, there will be great concern as to the effect of the way that OPRA will operate on the character and future well-being of individuals in the occupational pensions industry, particularly trustees. It is unfortunate and a possible bar on some able people coming forward and being prepared to be good trustees if they feel that something could happen which would ruin their professional future. However, I note what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Removal of trustees: notices]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 3, after first ("the") insert ("other").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which clarifies who should be given notice under Clause 4(3) of the authority's intention to remove a trustee. The authority is already obliged by subsection (1) to give notice to the trustee it proposes to remove. The amendment ensures that OPRA has to give notice under Clause 4(3) to each of the other trustees of the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Removal or suspension of trustees: consequences]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 9, after ("3") insert ("or by an order made (whether before or after the coming into force of this subsection) by the High Court or the Court of Session on the grounds of misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the scheme for which he was responsible or to which he was privy, or which he by his conduct contributed to or facilitated").
The noble Baroness said: The Minister in another place said in introducing the White Paper on 23rd June last year that the role of trustees in pension funds was crucial. I agree with that statement. The Goode Report also stated:
"Trustees play a pivotal role in the administration of pension schemes".
However, surprisingly, it then took the view that it would not suggest an amendment to trust law. I assure the Committee that I do not intend to start to debate trust law this evening. But it is central to certain aspects of the Bill relating to trustees. It is important, if trust law is to stand as it is, that we have the correct checks and balances in the Bill and that the trustees are clearly

169
aware not only of their duties and rights but also of the consequences of breaches of trust law and their responsibilities to the pension fund.
This is not a new idea. Indeed the Wilson Committee in 1980—under Sir Harold Wilson as he then was—reviewing the functioning of financial institutions, said:
"The framework within which occupational pension schemes in the United Kingdom operate has grown piecemeal and now needs to be systemised and strengthened. It is unsatisfactory in our view that so much of it should depend on a body of trust law developed for quite other purposes".
"The Occupational Pensions Board has also drawn attention to that factor in several reports. It said in its 1982 report:
"We are agreed that the present Trust Law does not provide satisfactory safeguards for members' rights,"
and expectations in occupational pension schemes. That underlines the necessity within the Bill to be absolutely clear on the responsibilities of trustees and the consequences if they are i n breach of pension fund rules and trust law. What does the amendment suggest? Clause 3 provides for disqualification of a trustee by the authority. Clause 5, which is now before the Committee, provides that legal action can be taken where a trustee continues to act after having been suspended. The amendment would have the effect of including in Clause 5 instances where a trustee is subject to a court order—and one has to bear in mind that suspension of trustees will not only derive from the authority but there will still be the right for individual members of schemes to go to law—on the grounds of misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of a scheme.
I suggest that the amendment helps to make it plain to trustees what can happen. it also supports the authority in carrying out its responsibility. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, I should like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, to the Front Bench. Although we have heard her speak on the Bill from the Back Benches, this is the first time she has moved an amendment. I am happy to tell her that I think it is unnecessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Accept it!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is no point in unnecessary legislation. That is not a good thing.
While the noble Baroness was speaking I read Clause 5. Even bearing in mind the lectures I received at the beginning of the Sitting about making matters clear on the face of the Bill, it would be a very stupid person who read Clause 5 without seeing that he (or she) was in for some very real trouble if he continued to act as a trustee. The offence and the penalties are clear.
If someone is removed from a trust board by a court order but continues to act in contravention of that order, the law already provides suitable measures by which the court can enforce compliance. I do not believe that there is any need to provide an alternative or duplicate provision for the authority to take similar court action. The power already exists.
170
I hope that, with that assurance that her amendment is unnecessary and the power is already available, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am obliged to the Minister for trying to be so helpful. We also were trying to be helpful with our amendment in making the proposals quite clear. Clause 5 as it stands provides that if a trustee continues to act and the matter has been to court the individuals concerned would need to return to the court. We propose that the authority should be able to bypass that procedure and step in.
Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says. I shall read the record with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Proceedings under this section may only be commenced if, having been given every opportunity to correct the matter, the person concerned has failed to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 28, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38 to 41 and 43, which have been grouped together.
The amendments are all concerned with penalties. I say at the outset that we have no objection to penalties being imposed where there has been wrongdoing or malpractice. However, there has been criticism from some quarters concerned with pension provision that the penalties envisaged in the Bill are so draconian that there may well be difficulty in getting individuals to put themselves forward to stand as trustees at all. Furthermore, unless the Bill is amended in ways which we suggest, a potential trustee might see himself (or herself) as moving into the employer's sights—as he obviously would if he became a trustee—without any protection against victimisation on the one hand (although I say in passing that we shall move amendments later to try to deal with that problem) and on the other hand exposed to severe penalties in the event of failure to undertake or perform the prescribed duties and to take care of members' interests as expressed in the Bill.
I said earlier that we have no objection to penalties being imposed for wrongdoing, but we believe that it has to be conscious wrongdoing and that the individual should be given the opportunity to put things right before the penalties are enacted. The amendment therefore directs itself to the requirement that the person concerned must be given every opportunity to put matters right before proceedings are commenced. Amendment No. 43 to Clause 9 stipulates that the individual concerned must have been involved in deliberate wrongdoing or given a reasonable opportunity to correct a matter in which he or she has been negligent.
Surely these proposals are entirely reasonable. It is very necessary that suitable people come forward to act as member trustees in particular, although these strictures would also apply to other trustees. However, we are particularly concerned about member trustees.
I am sure that every effort will be made to ensure that trustees are properly trained. Again, we shall deal with those requirements at a later stage in the Bill. But at this stage let us at least demonstrate to those interested that the requirements in the Bill will not be such that trustees can stumble into trouble without knowing and then find themselves facing penalties or fines which they may well not be able to afford.
The other amendments in the group are concerned with trying to spell out with some degree of clarity what happens if a person does not pay the penalty which has been levied upon him or her. We believe that there is a need to set that out with some degree of clarity and we hope that the amendments do so.
I hope that the Minister will find the amendments entirely reasonable. They are meant to be helpful. They are intended to produce legislation which will result in people coming forward to do the jobs which are necessary under the Bill as trustees without being put off by worries about whether they will be able to meet the conditions involved. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has just said. While it is perfectly right that the penalties which can be incurred by trustees in breach of their duties should be clearly spelt out, at the same time it is important that people should not be frightened off. We would be expecting a great deal of trustees of these funds if they were to feel that such dire penalties could be imposed upon them for breaches which they might not be aware they were committing. In particular, in relation to Amendment No. 28, there should be a possibility for the person concerned to be warned and given the time and opportunity to put matters right before the penalties were imposed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The authority can only be effective if it can apply sanctions to ensure that the obligations that we will impose on it under Part I of the Bill will be met. This group of amendments seeks to make changes to the provisions in Clause 9 which give the authority the power to impose civil penalties for breaches of the requirements placed on those running the schemes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, thought that the penalties were too draconian. Perhaps if they were less severe we might be discussing increasing them. I believe that we all agree that the punishment has to fit the crime. OPRA will have a range of fines at its disposal. It will not always fine at the highest rate any more than the courts do. It will not necessarily impose fines at all. A warning or a reprimand may be all that is needed. That would be at the authority's discretion.
I shall now turn to the amendments in detail. Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 remove the power to set the maximum civil penalty in regulations and substitute requirements for it to be a reasonable amount. While we agree that the civil penalties imposed should be reasonable, I do not believe that the amendments are the best way to achieve that.
I note that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested in its report that either the maximum civil penalty should be set out in the Bill, as Amendment
172
No. 40 seeks to do, or that regulations under this clause should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am a little surprised that no one pointed out that part of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Having read what the committee said, and mindful of the fact that I was a founding member of the committee, I am prepared to consider those options further with a view to bringing forward a suitable amendment, if appropriate, at a later stage. That is on the maximum civil penalty point.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 39 would require the maximum civil penalty to be determined by a formula related to the losses caused by the breach for which the penalty is imposed. It is an ingenious proposal. If we had time I am sure that I could make comparisons across the whole field of law enforcement where a similar provision could be used. However, I believe that it is not a provision that we should accept. There are important obligations on which it may be difficult to make a direct attribution of the loss—for example, those concerning the provision of information to scheme members. So I do not believe that an ingenious formula, even as ingenious as this, would be workable in practice.
Amendment No. 41 removes the authority's power to recover an unpaid civil penalty and instead makes it a criminal offence to fail to pay a civil penalty. Under the clause as drafted, the authority would pursue an unpaid civil penalty as a debt through the civil courts. We do not believe that there is anything to be gained from criminalising failure to pay the civil penalties imposed by the authority and would not wish to add further to the burdens on the courts.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 43 prevent the authority from prosecuting a trustee who acts when removed or imposing a civil penalty for breach of duty unless the individual has failed to take steps to correct the wrongdoing despite being given reasonable opportunity or, in the case of civil penalties, the infringement was the result of deliberate wrongdoing. We have sympathy with the thrust of the amendments, but believe that it would unnecessarily hamper the ability of the authority to remove trustees or impose civil penalties on those who have breached obligations.
The authority will have the discretion to decide in every case whether a civil penalty would be the most effective way of securing the proper running of the scheme. There are cases for which the authority may decide that a civil penalty is not needed. There may, however, be circumstances where a civil penalty should be imposed even though the individual has subsequently taken action to put matters right—for example, where the breach committed was particularly severe or has taken place after a warning from the authority.
With the provisos that I have made, I shall certainly look at the point made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I hope that with that explanation of the powers in Clause 9, the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I am inclined to agree with some of it. I am grateful for his assurance that he will consider what the scrutiny committee said.

173
On this side of the Chamber it is a question of getting the balance right. We accept that there have to be penalties for wrongdoing or malpractice, as I said at the outset, but we do not wish to have penalties which appear to be so heavy that individuals are reluctant to come forward to take on what they see as rather onerous and frightening duties. Because of that, we put down this series of probing amendments to see whether or not they were likely to attract any support or sympathy from the Minister. From what he says, I believe that he sympathises to some extent with what we seek to do. Perhaps our wording is not apposite. On the other hand, I believe it is important that we have people who are scheme members, and members who are likely to be member trustees, who are not put off from taking on such work. It may not be enough simply to say, "You will be trained and given lots of instruction, and so on". If people believe that they may have heavy fines imposed on them which they may not be able to meet, and they do not have the opportunity to put right what has gone wrong, they may be reluctant to put themselves forward for those jobs.
I believe that those are important considerations. We shall have to consider the situation again. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appointment of trustees]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Where the existing trustees have not met their obligations under sections 14 and 15 below, the Authority shall by order appoint an additional trustee who shall ensure that these obligations are properly met.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Amendment No. 29 refers to the obligations under Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill. Clause 14 deals with the requirement of trustees of the scheme to include persons nominated and selected under the scheme rules, removal of trustees, action in the event of an unfilled vacancy, and a period of office of between three and six years. Clause 15 provides for the exceptions.
The amendment provides that the authority shall have the right to appoint an additional trustee. That additional trustee is already provided for under Clause 7(4) (b) of the Bill which makes provision,
"for powers or duties to be exercisable by a trustee so appointed to the exclusion of other trustees".
That additional trustee appointed by the authority would ensure that the trustees in post who had not carried out the provisions under Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill can have another trustee imposed on their work who will have the power of the regulatory authority behind him. We believe that that makes sense.
Amendment No. 33 is a probing amendment. It calls for appointments not to be restricted to those with particular qualifications or experience. Clause 6(6) states that,
"Regulations may make provision about the descriptions of persons who may or may not be appointed trustees".
One has to bear in mind that at present only 35 per cent. of the 150,000 schemes have member trustees. I am sure we all hope that that will change significantly with the introduction of the Act. Those trustees will be aware of their responsibilities. One hopes that they will have had training, which will be compulsory if we are able to change other parts of the Bill. One also hopes that there will be only an insignificant need for the appointment of an additional trustee, and, under Clause 6(6), trustees.
What we do not wish to see is the professionalisation of the pensions field, if I may so call it. The member trustees have an important role to play. I suggest that it would not be helpful if we suddenly found that the regulator was appointing only accountants, actuaries or people with professional qualifications.
In his response, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the regulations will be issued. At present the Bill states "may". Will regulations be issued? If so, what restrictions does the Minister anticipate will be in those regulations as regards the qualifications of individuals? As drafted, the Bill refers to "experience" with regard to descriptions of individuals. What is that "experience"? I seek clarification from the Minister as to whether the regulations will provide for charges that such trustees can make.
Amendment No. 34 is straightforward. It introduces into the Bill a set period of time for trustees who are appointed to serve. That makes sense as an addition to the Bill because the present wording leaves it open-ended. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Will my noble friend clarify a point for me? I do not wish in any way to criticise the amendment moved by the noble Baroness but she mentioned that there were 150,000 occupational pension schemes, of which 90 per cent. have only 11 members. Has my noble friend any information as to how many of those schemes in the 90 per cent. are director occupational pension schemes which do not include any worker element at all?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure whether the information for which my noble friend asks is available and I certainly do not have it at the moment. However, I shall look into the matter as I saw the direction in which he was heading. With this amendment we are talking about schemes of a reasonable size; I shall not quantify the number of people covered. It may not be many; and it involves people who are not directors but employees of a firm.
The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness all relate to the authority's power to appoint trustees. The security of pension rights depends crucially upon the integrity and diligence of the trustee. If trustees put that security at risk by failing to comply with their statutory duties, there must be a power to appoint a trustee where it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is properly run. I do not believe that there will be any dispute between us about that.
First, Amendment No. 29 is unnecessary. If the authority is satisfied that trustees have seriously or persistently breached any of their responsibilities under Part I of the Bill, including those to implement the requirements relating to member nominated trustees, it

175
is able to remove those trustees. Clause 6 allows the authority to appoint a trustee to a scheme where it has taken action to remove a trustee. So I hope that when the noble Baroness reads what I have said on her amendment, she will realise that Amendment No. 29 is, in our view, unnecessary.
Where the authority takes the serious step of appointing a trustee to a scheme, there may be significant problems with the scheme's administration. That will often be the case. It is important that we are able to set down minimum standards of experience, competence and integrity for those whom the authority is able to appoint. While Amendment No. 33 seeks to ensure that the field of candidates is not unduly limited, it may inadvertently prevent adequate minimum standards being set. I do not wish to accept that amendment to the Bill as it may weaken the powers of the regulatory authority when it comes to appoint a trustee for a pension scheme which may be in difficulty.
Amendment No. 34 proposes to set the period within which the appointment of a trustee has to be reviewed. I believe that it is an unnecessarily bureaucratic addition to the responsibilities of the authority and is not necessary.
On the general question of issuing regulations, we intend to issue them and will wish to consult on what will be in them before they are issued. I hope that with those explanations of what the Bill does and of the amendments, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that reply. On Amendment No. 29, I took a little comfort—I hope I was right in doing so—from the Minister's assurances that the Bill more or less provides what we were seeking. I shall read the Minister's words with care when I receive Hansard.
As regards Amendment No. 33, I was pleased, to hear that the Minister has given an undertaking that there will be consultation. Can he give me an assurance that the consultation will be wide-ranging and include people who are at present member trustees of the funds of their organisations and that the consultation will not be restricted?
However, I was not as happy with the response on Amendment No. 34. The Bill provides specific periods of office for trustees and I see no difference between a member who is elected or appointed as a trustee and someone appointed by the authority. It needs to be made clear how long the appointment is for, and the amendment which we put forward provided for a review. I am not happy with the answer which I received from the Minister on that amendment and before reaching a decision to withdraw it I invite his response on whether he can give me an assurance about consultation on the regulations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: One thing I have learnt about my department is that we consult pretty widely. I suppose the words I should use are "where appropriate", which prevents me from feeling obliged to consult many people who may not have much to
176
contribute. However, we shall consult all the people we consider to have an appropriate and proper interest in the matter. We shall listen to what they have to say.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister, although not 100 per cent. That is as far as we can go this evening, but we shall watch this space closely. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I freely confess that this amendment is a hook on which to hang a matter trailed by the Minister in a previous amendment. The role of regulation in the Bill is of major concern to many people in the field. I approach the topic with trepidation because many Members of the Committee present are infinitely more senior and experienced in such matters. I hope that they will feel able to contribute.
Clause 6 allows the regulatory authority to appoint a trustee in prescribed circumstances. That is harmless enough, except that it is the first of 200 regulatory powers in the Bill. I wish to use the first power in order to raise a more general issue. Clearly it is silly to litter the Bill with items more appropriately confined to regulations. We all accept that. But virtually every reputable body in the pension field—and doubtless less reputable ones—has expressed anxiety about the scale and significance of many of the regulatory powers which the Secretary of State has taken to himself. As the National Association of Pension Funds has said, the breadth of the regulatory powers leaves too much room to the Executive to make major shifts of policy. For example, it cites minimum solvency and speed of paying back. In other words, not only do we not know what the implications of certain clauses will turn out to be in practice, but the Bill gives further draconian powers to the Secretary of State, without even the assurance in some cases that they will be handled by the affirmative procedure. The House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has given serious warning of some of its concerns in the field. It behoves us to take those concerns extremely seriously.
Perhaps I may give examples of matters which might worry the Committee on territories which the Secretary of State has taken to himself under regulation. The first—admittedly it is a slender example, but it is the first to occur in that form—is the provision in Clause 6 that regulations will determine under what circumstances a person may be appointed by the authority to a trust board. Clearly, one would expect minimum standards of competence. But given the major issues which we hope to raise on the next Committee day on the balance and composition of trustee boards, there is clearly a concern that the power could be used to undermine the agreed proportion of scheme members to others.
Let me take another instance. Clause 9 allows the authority to impose a penalty of a sum whose limit will be determined by regulation—in other words, a penalty whose limit is not specified in primary legislation. That

177
applies not only to this Act but is inserted retrospectively into the consolidating Pension Schemes Act 1993. We shall put forward amendments later to limit that either to a fixed ceiling, such as £5,000, or to a more general concept of what is reasonable.
I move on to Clause 65. I am just picking out the examples that are of particular concern. Many others also concern us. Clause 65 allows a government Minister to modify a public service pension scheme. What is worse, if it is done by the Secretary of State for the Department of Social Security, it can be done by the negative procedure; but if it is done by any other department, it is done by the affirmative procedure. As the Scrutiny Committee reminds us, it is surely not right that whether an important regulation is handled by negative or affirmative procedure should depend on which particular departmental Minister brings it forward.
Most worrying of all—and let me flag it now because we shall resist it quite strongly—Clauses 106 and 134 allow regulations to create a criminal offence. A criminal offence will be created by regulation—and not only in this Bill but retrospectively in the 1993 pensions Act—and, I assume, by negative procedure. I have singled out only some of the instances; this particular amendment deals with the first. It is very clear that, not only in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 and codes of practice is the Minister refusing to clarify the functions, duties and powers of the regulator, but in addition there is a hidden Bill, namely, one of regulation. It is the one that we are not debating today—especially if it is handled by the negative procedure. We may not even subsequently debate it if it is not brought forward. And if it is subsequently debated in this Chamber under either the negative or affirmative procedure, we will be able neither to amend it nor, by convention, to reject it.
Let us suppose that the Government's will prevails and under Clauses 106 and 134 a criminal penalty can subsequently be introduced by regulation. Let us assume that it is done by negative procedure and that, nonetheless, the industry of your Lordships ensures that it is debated. What then happens? We cannot amend it; we cannot reject it. Only one House will have reviewed something that is vital; namely, a criminal penalty. It will be reviewed properly only by the House of Commons.
Given that the very distinction between primary and subordinate legislation is our inability to amend and our unwillingness to reject, is it wise to allow quite so much of this Bill to be cast in the form of regulation, which this Chamber cannot effectively review? That is what it means. It is within that context that I beg to move the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I very much support this amendment for the reasons that were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. At this point we are putting down a marker concerning our resistance —which will be very strong—to the use of regulations to the extent that it is laid down in the Bill that regulations will be used. Of course we recognise that in a Bill of
178
this kind a number of matters have to be dealt with by regulation. That is not in dispute. But what is very much in dispute is the occasions in the 13:111 on which regulations are being used when in our view it is quite clear that primary legislation is required—we shall debate this matter at greater length when the clause arises—particularly where by regulation a criminal penalty can be created. The fact that the: Government can think it appropriate to use regulations to produce a criminal penalty is, I must say, a cause for very considerable alarm. It indicates how little they understand the resistance that this Chamber has put up.
I am very glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is in his place. I fully expect that he will make a far more powerful contribution to this part of the debate than any of the rest of us could. The Government have chosen to ignore the consistent resistance of this Chamber to the use of regulations for matters for which primary legislation is plainly needed, including the use of regulations to this extent in this Bill.
Lord Elton: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is tempted to take up that challenge, I hope that the Committee will take note that we are speaking to Amendment No. 30, which is not grouped with any other. We seem to be trembling, on the brink of a debate on major issues of criminality. There is no criminality involved in relation to this subsection. I am sure it is useful to have this smoke signal telling us what is coming over the horizon on the Bill. But I hope that the Committee will not start to get too excited about this amendment because the issue seems to be quite different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry that the noble Lord felt obliged to make those remarks. I made it very clear that this amendment was being used as, in the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, a marker, and in my own phrase, a hook, concerning the degree to which this Bill will be developed by the regulatory procedure. All the organisations, without any exception, said that they are extremely concerned at the degree to which this Bill will be understood in terms of its regulatory procedure. This is the first of many such instances. It seemed appropriate under the circumstances to make the general points before going on in subsequent amendments to deal with the specific.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My name is attached to this amendment. I am quite sure that my noble friend the Minister will deal with regulatory powers as a separate issue. Perhaps I may concentrate on Amendment No. 30. In what prescribed circumstances do the Government intend using the powers under this amendment? I have heard that possibly the regulation-making power may be used to limit the circumstances under which trustees can be appointed by OPRA to ensure that this power is used only in the last resort. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I, too, wondered whether we were about to stumble into a general debate on this matter just before the dinner hour. It is not the first time that it has been raised. I raised it a short time

179
ago in replying to Amendments Nos. 28, 35 etc. and in particular Amendment No. 40, when I drew the attention of the Committee to what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee had suggested. I indicated that I was prepared to look at what the Committee had said and see what other options were available with a view to bringing forward a suitable amendment, if appropriate, in order to accommodate the points that were made by the Scrutiny Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly said that there are a considerable number of instances in this Bill where regulations are referred to. As we said in our memorandum to the Scrutiny Committee and freely admitted, the Bill imposes a number of substantial new requirements on pension schemes and makes a number of changes to existing requirements. Given the complexity and variety of schemes, the requirements will necessarily require detailed provisions. It would be inappropriate to attempt to deal with every aspect of such requirements for every circumstance by means of primary legislation. To do so, with all the variants that would be needed, would produce primary legislation of great complexity, length and detail; and it would still be impossible to be sure that all possible variants, now and for the future, had been covered. In addition, the Government have no wish to restrict unnecessarily the flexibility which the schemes have built into them or to impose unreasonable restraints on how they are run or developed to meet individual needs.
I accept that there are a fair number of regulations forecast or prophesied. The complexity of the issues and the complexity of the Bill are such that to try to deal with everything under primary legislation would make for a very large and pretty unwieldy piece of legislation. It would also build in to the pensions industry an inflexibility for which people might not thank us in future years. We shall no doubt discuss those and other points. When we come to points to which the Scrutiny Committee has drawn our attention, I shall be looking at them very seriously indeed.
This amendment relates to the authority's power to appoint trustees. Given the expense that an additional trustee may impose on a scheme, rather than give the authority an unfettered power to appoint trustees in any circumstances, we have sought to specify on the face of the Bill the situations in which we believe that the power to appoint could be exercised. The flexibility to add to that list of circumstances through regulation is needed, we believe, in case in the light of experience there are other situations in which it would be desirable for the authority to be able to appoint a trustee to a scheme.
For that reason I certainly would not be able to accept Amendment No. 30. I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will not see anything sinister in that but will appreciate the important need—not just today but in the future—for us to be able to act quickly if we find that steps need to be taken to help protect pension schemes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not believe that anybody denies that a fair proportion of detailed regulation needs to be carried through by those powers.
180
This may or may not be an appropriate one. I do not feel strongly about this amendment. However, many of us, and certainly people outside this Chamber, are extremely worried, on the one hand, about the degree to which the Government are hugging to themselves powers through the regulatory procedure—there are 200 such powers in this Bill—and, on the other hand, about their refusal to share, by putting on the face of the Bill the responsibilities of the regulator and empowering it to perform activities, give out codes of guidance and so on, to steer those trustees who have to bring up their schemes to best practice. The discrepancy is noteworthy between what the Government are hugging to themselves and their reluctance to clarify the main principles of the Bill and the powers and functions going to the major regulatory bodies. Certainly, it is a source of major concern to organisations outside.
As I said, this is not a major measure but it is the first of the substantial ones to which the Minister drew attention and which I mentioned when I moved the amendment. We shall come back to it and seek agreement, in the circumstances that I have outlined, that such powers should be on the face of the Bill and not handled by regulation. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned and begin again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.30 p.m.]
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 44, after ("paid") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Earl said: Clause 6(5) ensures that where the authority appoints a trustee to a scheme, the scheme must pay his fees and expenses. The purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to insert the word "reasonable" into the clause to ensure that there is recourse to law if the fees charged by the new trustee are too high, or the expense is considered to be excessive.
The reason for the amendment is quite clear. It is fair and reasonable that a trustee should be properly reimbursed for any work that is carried out by him. But the way the clause is presently worded would leave the scheme vulnerable to excessive fees being charged by that new trustee. By inserting the word "reasonable" into the Bill, we give the scheme recourse to law if it were to find itself in a situation where it was expected to pay excessive amounts to a trustee appointed by the regulatory authority.
I believe Amendment No. 31 to be a "reasonable" amendment. It is not sensible to include in the Bill a clause which allows any trustee or professional person to levy fees, charges or expenses without any controls being in place. I suppose the Government will say that the controls exist because if a trustee or professional person levied excessive charges he would never be re-employed. That is scant comfort. As the Committee is aware, I am in the

181
profession and feel that it is important that some control should be inserted into the wording of the Bill in order to control fees. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I rise to support the amendment. This is a situation which may easily be exploited by an unscrupulous person. It is only right that the word "reasonable" should be inserted to prevent it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose this amendment could be looked on as "reasonable". But what is "reasonable"? We may find ourselves debating that issue for quite a long time.
I fully understand and appreciate the point being made by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire and the support he received from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. My noble friend said that he supposed—giving half my answer before I stood up—that I would say that the trustee would never again be put into a trust by the authority. Indeed, that was my second line of defence.
My first line of defence is that the authority will be free to remove a trustee it appointed if it believes that the fees the trustee charges are not reasonable. It is therefore a little more than belt; it is belt and braces. Not only would the trustee not be employed again if he tried to charge unreasonable fees, but also he could he removed by the authority in those circumstances.
While I appreciate the argument of my noble friend, I hope that with those words on the record he will feel reassured that no one will be able to be appointed as a trustee by the authority and then charge exorbitant fees to the pension fund for his trusteeship. In those circumstances, the authority would certainly act to protect that pension fund and not reappoint the trustee again. I hope that with those words of reassurance my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I listened with interest to the Minister's response and I wonder whether it is entirely adequate. He suggested that if a trustee appointed by the authority was to levy or charge unreasonable fees, then the authority would remove that person as a trustee and not employ him on any other occasion. However, that would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. That seems to be a thread running through the whole pensions debate.
The problem would already have occurred in that the trustee would have levied the unreasonable fees. Perhaps the Minister would consider that point and offer a hope that the unreasonable fees levied would not have to be paid.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I imagine that the fees would be paid on some kind of time basis—either per day or even per hour. Quite clearly, if somebody charged unreasonable fees I fully accept that that person may obtain a few pounds or guineas, or whatever they charge, when they submitted their Bill for the first few hours worked; but the pension fund and the authority would then be alerted and could stop that happening again. I believe, therefore, that there is a protection in the Bill.
I take the point that somebody may get away with a few hours of unreasonable fees. But we are trying to
182
prevent a trustee getting away with many hours, days, or weeks of unreasonable fees. As I explained, I believe that the powers in the Bill already do that.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry, but I must come hack to that point. I can envisage a situation where a lawyer or someone with legal expertise may be used as a trustee and after several years of work submit a bill that may be astronomical. One needs only to look at the problems faced by the Legal Aid Board to consider the horrors that may beset a pension fund. Perhaps the Minister will think again.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The problem with issues like this is that one can create amazing scenarios. I shall not comment on whether lawyers may or may not charge excessive fees. I see the point being made by the noble Lord that a trustee may work for two or three years before putting in a fee note for the work already done and that fee being enormous. All I cm say is that I doubt that that will be the way pension funds will remunerate their trustees. I believe it is more likely to be the way I suggested at the beginning of my response. However, I shall check that the situation envisaged by the noble Lord cannot arise because that would slightly undermine my argument.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I thank my noble friend for his words and for agreeing to check the position. Contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I believe that cashflow is also extremely important to lawyers. However, on the basis of what my noble friend said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("provided that the trustee appointed by the Authority under this section has been approved by a unanimous vote of the remaining trustees").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 32 is closely aligned with Amendment No. 31. The independent trustee can be both an individual and a company. Although I am sure that what the Minister has already said will apply, companies may have a conflict of interest. It is important that if a company is to be appointed an independent trustee it should win the support of all the trustees. I was told by my advisers that a case arose involving a company called Belling where a small group of people appointed a company as a trustee and the situation was exploited in the manner we discussed. I believe that to be a loophole in the making, to which I would like the Minister to give consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment is based on the same ground as the previous one. The authority will be able to set the terms of appointment of any trustee it puts into a pension fund, if so desires. I suspect that that will be another protection against the problem that has just been mentioned. The amendment we are now considering is slightly different. I hate to say to the noble Lord that I believe it is unacceptable. It will prevent the authority ordering an appointed trustee's fees to be paid from the scheme unless it is unanimously accepted by the rest of the trust board. That

183
will give the remaining trustees on the board an unacceptable means of obstructing the appointment of an additional trustee by the authority. While, obviously, in the circumstances we are looking at, the authority will consider that the other trustees are fit to stay on, they may feel a little bruised and unhappy about another trustee being parachuted in on them. I believe that that will give them an unacceptable grip over the trustee that the regulatory authority may wish to put into the pension fund in order to sort it out.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will see that his amendment is too restrictive. We certainly do not wish to see that in respect of the regulatory authority's powers.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for pointing that out. It is important to remember that a number of independent trustees are now companies which go around touting for business. It is incumbent on them to win the support of all the trustees. However, in view of the other point the Minister raised, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Civil penalties]
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("or failed to comply with").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 170. Both amendments are minor and technical. Their purpose is to remove from Clause 9(2) and Clause 106(1) wording which duplicates the definition of "contravention" given in the list of definitions in Part I of the Bill, namely Clause 112(1). That definition specifically includes the words "failure to comply with".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 42 is a probing amendment to find out what the Government intend by writing this clause into the Bill. Clause 9 is said to deal with civil penalties. The subsection that we seek to remove by our amendment reads:
"The Authority must pay to the Secretary of state any penalty recovered under this section."
We wish to know why the authority cannot keep the money. Presumably, it will have been put to some expenditure in pursuing the case. Why is there a provision in the Bill that if a penalty is recovered it does not accrue to the funds of the authority, which has done all the work and spent money on the case, but to the
184
Secretary of State? That does not seem very sensible. I should like to know from the Minister why that provision is in the Bill.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I support the amendment, to which I have lent my name. It is quite quixotic to find a provision which says that the money is to be returned to the Secretary of State and the Treasury and then presumably back to the regulatory authority, perhaps minus one penny. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I too find the proposition somewhat difficult to understand. If, in spite of what we have proposed, the state is not to pay the costs of the authority, 1 fail to see why any money that accrues to it for whatever reason should flow to the Secretary of State. At the very least, the money should be used to reduce the levy. I believe this to be a quite unreasonable proposition.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We believe that although the authority should have power to impose civil penalties it should not have an interest in the number of penalties or the size of the penalties it imposes. Amendment No. 42 would remove the requirement for the authority to pay moneys collected from civil penalties to the Secretary of State.
It would be unacceptable for the authority to have direct, unfettered access to these funds. It would provide a perverse incentive to the authority to increase the number and size of the civil penalties that it imposed. I assure the Committee—this will perhaps comfort the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—that the moneys will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. However, they will go to defray the costs of the authority, including the costs of the case from which the fine has arisen, and therefore reduce the rate of the levy. Given the trouble I had in persuading your Lordships that the levy should be levied on the companies and pension funds themselves, I am sure that the Committee will be happy to know that any moneys which came into the Consolidated Fund by way of fines would be used to defray the costs of the authority and reduce the levy.
Lord Ezra: I am delighted to learn that, but I do not see how anyone studying the provision can read that meaning into it. Surely, we must have more than what the Minister has just said, unless we expect everyone to read Hansard along with the Bill. If what he has said is correct—I am sure it is —I hope that perhaps at the next stage he will bring forward a suitable amendment. There is no way at all that what he said to us can be read into Clause 9(4).
Baroness Turner of Camden: I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If one simply reads the Bill as it stands one has no idea that anything received by way of penalty will be used to defray the costs of the authority or reduce the levy. As the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it is not as though the authority is being funded by government. Generally speaking, the industry has to pay for the authority. If the intention is, as the Minister

185
says—and I have no doubt that it is so—I believe that we must have an amendment to that effect, produced either by the Minister or perhaps by our side at Report stage. As matters stand, this is not what the Bill says. It gives the impression that the Secretary of State will collar any penalty money received. That seems very inequitable.
In the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment to a Division at this hour of the night. However, we flag up that we shall return to the matter at Report. I hope that the Minister will also feel inclined to do so. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Powers to wind up schemes]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 38, after first ("on insert ("the generality of").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 50. These amendments concern the authority's powers to wind up schemes contained in Clause 10. Amendment No. 44 concerns the authority's powers to wind up a scheme to protect the accrued rights of the scheme members. The amendment ensures that it is clear that the authority is able to wind up a scheme only when that is in the best interests of the generality of members. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are amendments which I expect will appeal greatly to Members of the Committee opposite. They remove one of the regulation-making powers in the Bill. These were drafted along the lines of powers contained in the Social Security Act 1973 but on inspection it appears that those powers have never been used and therefore that this Bill can do without them.
Amendment No. 50 clarifies the effect of an order to wind up to ensure that no other rule of law or any provision or procedural device in scheme rules is able to prevent the authority from winding up the scheme when that is in the best interests of scheme members. This mirrors the provision in the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which Clause 10 replaces. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these four amendments. I shall deal with the easy ones first. As he suggested, we have no difficulty with Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which remove regulation-making powers. There is no difficulty about that. We positively welcome Amendment No. 50. It means that there cannot he rules in one's pension scheme which enable the provisions of Clause 10 concerning the winding up of a scheme to be frustrated.
I have much more difficulty about Amendment No. 44. Perhaps I may explain from personal experience why that is the case. I have no financial interest in the matter because I am a pensioner member of a small pension fund which I established myself 30 years ago. However, I am a pensioner member. After I retired and started to take my pension, the trustees, who did not include a pensioner member but included directors of the company, of which I had been a director for 30
186
years, decided for their own reasons to wind up the scheme. They decided that it was sensible for them—I am not saying that they were wrong—to have personal pensions assisted by the company rather than a final salary scheme. What they did not take into account was the fact that at the time they did so there was a surplus in the scheme. They did not take into account the possibility even that I and the other pensioner members ought to have some rights in terms of improved pension arrangements from the surplus of the scheme.
They were able to do so because the rules of the scheme provided that the trustees had the complete freedom to wind up the scheme when they wanted to—that, I hope, will be dealt with by Amendment No. 50—but also they would be able to do it—in my view wrongly—if the words "the generality of" were inserted in Clause 10(1) (c) but not if the Bill remained as originally drafted with the words "the best interests of the members". I am a member but I am not a part of a generality of members. In other words, I am a minority of members. I do not think it is right that a minority of members should be overridden in that way.
Even though the remaining amendments in the group will be accepted by the Committee, I hope the Government will feel that they ought to look again at Amendment No. 44. If the noble Lord will give me the slightest indication that he thinks that here is a case here and is prepared to write to me about it, I may be persuaded not to divide the Committee on the subject.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support my noble friend. He raises a problem with regard to the Government's thinking on the matter. They really must have another look at this point. As my noble friend so ably described, there is a clear division between employee members of the scheme and the pensioner members of the scheme. Nowhere in the Bill have the Government recognised that division. We tried earlier on to get them to accept that point in terms of the make-up of OPRA but they would not. When it comes to protecting the interests of everyone in a pension scheme, we must recognise that there is this divide. I hope that the Government will take the point very seriously. If they do not, there will be great concern among many pensioners who are currently receiving pensions from occupational pension schemes. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention.
Lord Lucas: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. Later on in the proceedings on the Bill we shall come to clauses which deal with the priorities on wind up. At that stage I hope that we shall be able to look again at the points which the noble Lord raised. With regard to this amendment, I shall certainly look at what is in Hansard and what is in the Bill and see whether there is anything which I can usefully write to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. While he is doing that perhaps he will be good enough to consider the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. Is it possible to interpret "the generality of members as being confined to the active members of the scheme—those still employed—while excluding the pensioner members? Clearly, in many pension schemes there could be a conflict of interests

187
on winding up between pensioner members and existing members, whether or not there is a surplus in the scheme, as was the position in the case I described. However, the noble Lord has been most generous in offering to write to me. I do not propose to oppose the amendment at this stage.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may confirm that we shall certainly take those points and the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, into account.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert:
("(d) the trustees are unable to act properly in a fiduciary manner, owing to serious or persistent interference by the employer.").
The noble Baroness said: Before the Minister says that the amendment is not necessary and that the point is covered in the Bill, perhaps I may pre-empt what he may say by pointing out that there are those who carry out the rules and those who frustrate them. I have represented people who have been at the receiving end of such treatment. Not only are there employers who disregard rules but some may remove themselves as trustees and appoint someone else as an employer trustee who is just a puppet on the end of that first employer's string. We set great store in the Bill by the authority but some employers are adept at delaying tactics. It is said in regard to Mr. Maxwell that much of what he did was quite legal. However, the Maxwell case is only one among many. I have a file half an inch thick of a whole list of companies in respect of which there has been employer interference, frustration and procrastination while all the time the pension fund has been deteriorating.
I do not accept that subsection (1) (c) of this clause is the answer to the problem that I am pointing out here. It is necessary to provide the means whereby the authority can step in to wind up a fund if the trustees have not carried out their duties. It may not always be in the best interests of the members of the fund for different trustees to be introduced and for changes to he made. Sometimes one has to pull up the drawbridge and say "Stop, we cannot carry on with this fund". That is why this amendment is tabled. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly we have been here too long today because the noble Baroness has pre-empted what I am going to say to the Committee about the amendment. The point which she has made about the circumstances which can arise is perfectly valid. A scheme can be so poorly administered that its funding position can only be expected to deteriorate. The case which the noble Baroness is putting is that it is the employer's interference which can bring that about. There can be other reasons. Whether it is the employer's interference or not, we believe that the clause as drafted gives the authority the power to wind up the scheme. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone, including scheme members, bringing anxieties about the
188
administration of the scheme to the authority's attention. In most cases it may be better for the scheme members if the authority uses its powers to remove and appoint trustees to restore the scheme to a proper footing rather than to wind it up. Obviously, the noble Baroness had one or two circumstances in mind where, as she put it, the only way to deal with the matter was to pull the plug and wind up the scheme.
Clause 10 certainly gives the authority the power to wind up a scheme as a regulatory action to protect the interests of scheme members. The authority would be obliged to consider all the relevant issues before deciding whether to make an order to wind up. I do not believe that we can envisage here the circumstances which may occur to bring that about. Obviously, decisions of that kind would have to be arrived at very much on a case by case basis and only as a last resort.
As the noble Baroness thought I would, I should like to reassure her that the powers are certainly there to wind up and do not require to be added specifically against an employer's interference. There are other provisions in the Bill to protect the scheme from undue interference by employers; for example, the duty of the trustees to employ the auditors and the actuaries. I have no doubt that we shall come to these issues later.
I believe I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we review all that happens during the day to see what points have been raised and whether our answers were proper, and properly addressed the issue. My answers are always proper, but whether they properly address the issue is another matter. I appreciate the considerable experience which the noble Baroness has had. We shall think about this matter and make sure that what I have said is the case.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I appreciate very much the fact that he is prepared to look at this matter again. We await the outcome. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("or").
Page 5, line 3, leave out from ("employer") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert:
(" ; and an order may only be made under this section after consultation with each of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) (other than any on whose application the order is made).").
The noble Earl said: Clause 10 is quite interesting in dealing with wind up powers, particularly for someone who is in the business, as one might say. An order to wind up a scheme because it has been replaced by a different scheme or if it is no longer required, can only be made on application of the trustees or the managers or by a person who has power to alter the scheme rules or the employer. That is the purpose of Clause 10.
The amendment which I am moving ensures that, in an application for wind up by any of those people whom I have mentioned previously, other parties with an interest in the scheme are also consulted. The reasons are that there are circumstances where the employer, for instance, could apply for a wind up to take place where the trustees do not agree, and vice versa. The new wording will ensure that the regulatory authority talks to the interested parties before authorising the wind up.
There are two other reasons which I would like to mention quickly to the Committee. Many of the schemes have their own wind up powers included in the trust deed and rules. An application may be made where a person who can wind up under the scheme rules is unwilling to exercise that power. That is an important point and I should like my noble friend the Minister to reply to it.
As the clause is worded at present, the wind up can take place on the simple ground that there is a surplus in the fund. Curiously enough, in the 1970s I came across a scheme where there was a surplus and the scheme was wound up and the proceeds distributed directly to the active members of the scheme without reference to some of the other beneficiaries of that arrangement. There has to be some protection in such situations in the wind up, because the interests of all the members must be considered. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the active members, and in my view they were not properly dealt with on wind up. That could occur without the protection of this amendment to the Bill. I look forward to hearing what other Members of the Committee have to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure that I shall be able to add very much to what the noble Earl has said except to say that we strongly support the amendment. It seems entirely reasonable that under those circumstances those affected should be consulted. That is a basic principle of justice which came earlier in today's debates. We warmly support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The decision to issue a wind up order will only be taken by the authority after it has carried out an investigation. I suggest to the Committee that, for the reasons I gave in the previous debate, that should take place only after other possible solutions have been considered, because winding up may not be in the best interests of the scheme. Putting in new trustees and trying to get the scheme back on an even keel may be the best thing to do. If it comes to wind up, clearly that will be done only after the authority has satisfied itself that that is the only possible outcome, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary in that regard.
During the investigations the authority will have possibly talked to all the people mentioned in the subsection, but placing a statutory obligation on it to consult them is perhaps going a step too far. It could lead to delays in decisions being made—I have little doubt that somebody who is totally unscrupulous could find ways to stall and delay—and during this period the position of the scheme could further deteriorate, putting members' interests at even greater risk. While I understand the point and think it is perfectly
190
reasonable—and this will be done, I am sure, in the position where the scheme will not deteriorate during the discussions—to make it mandatory for the authority to have these discussions could perhaps put at risk schemes where speed is of the essence.
The other point made by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire is that it may sometimes not he in the best interests of the scheme members to wind up a scheme with large surpluses, where members might benefit from a large cash windfall. That is not the intention we have in mind when we give the power of wind up; it is to prevent losses.
We are aware of the concerns but we do not think it is a problem. The power to wind up is designed to protect members in the rare cases where schemes are seriously under-funded. It would not be in the long-term interests of members to have their schemes wound up for what might be a relatively small, short-term gain. The level of the surplus would have to be significant for members to benefit in the way suggested. However, on that point, I shall look at the concerns my noble friend has expressed and consider them before the next stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, decides what he wants to do with this amendment, may I ask the Minister, so that we have it on the record, whether this clause as it stands give the authority power to act where there have been breaches of trust rather than simply breaches of the statute? If so, what powers does the authority have to investigate or initiate a wind-up?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness has asked me a question that I cannot answer immediately. If she will forgive me, I shall either answer it later or write to her.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on the amendment. I think it is a curious clause in the way it is being applied. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said and I am very pleased that he will come back to us on one of the issues I raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert:
("(e) scheme members").
The noble Baroness said: The subsection states that an order made by the authority under this clause:
"may be made only on the application of—

(a) the trustees or managers of the scheme"—

we know who they are—
(b) "any person other than the trustees or managers who has the power to alter any of the rules of the scheme"—
and the individual members of a scheme do not normally have that power—
(c) "the employer, or
(d) such other persons as the regulations may specify".
This subsection does not contain within it the right of individual members of the scheme to seek a wind-up of the scheme. It gives that authority to a wide group of other people, some of whom have no individual vested interest or money in the scheme. We feel that it is wrong to have a provision in the Bill that provides for those various groups to seek a wind-up but excludes quite specifically the individual members of the scheme. That is what this amendment would effect. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before I speak to Amendment No. 49, perhaps I may answer the question asked by the noble Baroness at the end of the debate on the previous amendment. Having studied the matter in the past few minutes, I can state that the answer is yes.
I turn now to Amendment No. 49, which enables scheme members to ask the authority to wind up the scheme if it is not needed or is to be replaced. The right to make an application currently rests, and we believe must continue to rest, with the employer or trustees. It is not a matter for scheme members. Indeed, since a similar regulation-making power introduced by the Social Security Act 1973 has never been used we have brought forward an amendment to remove that unnecessary power.
However, if scheme members are concerned about the administration of their scheme they can, of course, inform the authority, and in extreme circumstances—I mentioned this in a previous debate—the authority has the power to wind up the scheme if that is in the best interests of the generality of the members.
It would be wrong to put scheme members into one of the classes in this part of the Bill, but that does not mean to say that scheme members do not have a route, via the regulatory authority, if they feel that there is something so wrong with the scheme that it should be wound up. I hope that that assurance will allay any fears that scheme members will have no way of suggesting to the authority that the scheme be wound up.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I am a little concerned that the Minister should have taken that line in his response. We must recognise the practical world of work. In negotiations over the remuneration package between employers and employees pension arrangements will form part of the scenario. Effectively, what the Minister is saying is that the advantage in those negotiations should be conferred on the employer, and the employee should not have a balancing facility. A reasonable employer probably would not use the argument in negotiation with his employees, "If you do not play ball, I will get the scheme wound up", but we must recognise that we may be dealing with unscrupulous people, particularly employers. Will the Minister reconsider the fact that scheme members should not make an application to wind up the scheme?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord is not coming to this from the opposite direction. He was talking about an employer wanting to wind up the scheme under the feet of the scheme members, with them having no say in the
192
matter. I think that is what he was saying. We are actually discussing who can make an application to the authority to wind up the scheme. The noble Baroness is asking me to consider adding scheme members to the list. That is a different argument from the one suggested by the noble Lord.
My response to the noble Baroness stands. If the noble Lord was suggesting that an application from, say, an employer would be automatic, and that the scheme members would have no say in the matter, I can assure him that an application is not automatic. The authority can accept the request and proceed with wind-up, or it can refuse any application for wind-up. I hope that answers the noble Lord and helps him with the problem that he raised.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: The Minister is correct in his interpretation of what we intend with the amendment: it is to include the scheme members. My concern with the Bill is that we talk about trustees, professional advisers and employers, but we sometimes tend to forget the persons whom it is really all about; that is, individual members of the scheme who invest in it a considerable amount of their hard-earned income.
In going through the Bill, we must ensure that individual scheme members have control and authority, and are rightly able to seek accountability from the people who run and organise the scheme. Therefore any measures in regard to pension funds should de facto include the rights of individuals within the scheme—the scheme members. I hear what the Minister said and I shall read in Hansard and consider whether we should come back at a later stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) The winding up of a scheme in pursuance of an order of the Authority under this section is as effective in law as if it had been made under powers conferred by or under the scheme.
( ) An order under this section may be made and complied with in relation to a scheme—

(a) in spite of any enactment or rule of law, or any rule of the scheme, which would otherwise operate to prevent the winding up, or

(b) without regard to any such enactment, rule of law or rule of the scheme as would otherwise require, or might otherwise be taken to require, the implementation of any procedure or the obtaining of any consent, with a view to the winding up.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Injunctions and interdicts]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("and the costs of such court action, and any costs incurred in preparing cases under this section, shall fall on the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. Amendment No. 51 addresses the problem that it would be for the regulatory authority to

193
prove reasonable likelihood of misappropriation to a court. That could be an expensive exercise. The authority needs resources to investigate possible cases. The budget allocated to the regulator may be insufficient to sustain many cases. The idea of the amendment is to ensure that the DSS or the Government will provide sufficient resources.
It is worth mentioning that Clause 87 provides very wide-ranging powers both for the authority to make application to the courts and for aggrieved individuals to make application for judicial review. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to ensure that the authority has the resources available to it. If the authority wishes to make application to the court under Clause 11, which deals with the important question of a possible misappropriation, the Government should stand behind it to ensure that the necessary costs are met. That would be in the public interest.
Amendment No. 57 also deals with references to a court and Clause 87 relates to references to a court by the authority. Where it is deemed appropriate to refer any question of law to the court the authority must tell the applicant where this arises from an application being made to the authority and, in any case, to such persons as appear to it to be concerned with the question. Again, it says little about scheme members and the beneficiaries.
The intention of the amendment is to make it obligatory for the authority also to notify any independent trade union, recognised to any extent for the representation of members of the scheme, and any organisation appearing to be representative of pensioners or beneficiaries of the pension scheme concerned. It is surely appropriate for the scheme members, through whatever organisation they choose to represent them, to be involved if there are references to a court about their scheme. After all, they are the people who are most concerned—a point made most strongly by my noble friend Lady. Dean. I hope that the Minister will regard these two relatively minor amendments as entirely reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these two amendments concern the arrangements for taking court action. I am not happy about them because they would impose additional costs on the taxpayer. We believe that it is fundamentally correct that the costs of regulation should fall on those who set up and run pension schemes. We had a major debate about that earlier today. For this reason, I cannot accept Amendment No. 51, which provides for the costs of court injunctions granted on application by the authority to be met by the Secretary of State.
I believe that Amendment No. 57 is unnecessary. The effect of this amendment is to require the authority to give written notice to specified parties of its intention to refer a case to the court on a point of law. However, Clause 87(2)(b) already gives the authority a wide permissive power which would enable it to do this. The authority will be well equipped to decide which groups may have an interest in a given case. Clause 87(2) states:
"If the Authority determine in accordance with subsection (1) to refer any question of law to the court, they must give notice in writing of their intention to do so—
194

(a) in a case where the question arises on an application made to the Authority, to the applicant, and

(b) in any case to such persons as appear to them to be concerned with the question".

I believe that the authority will be well able to judge who is concerned with the question. It seems to me unnecessarily prescriptive and bureaucratic to require the authority to notify such organisations in all cases, even where not all of the groups might have a specific interest.
This amendment would also insert a power to allow the authority to meet the court costs of scheme members or those organisations representing them, with or without a court order requiring them to do so. Clause 87(7) already provides for the court to order the authority to pay the costs of any other person if it considers it appropriate. Whether or not the decision is in that other person's favour and whether or not the authority appears on the reference or the appeal the court may order the authority to pay the costs, or in Scotland the expenses, of any other person. It is surely the court which will be best placed to decide in what circumstances it would be right for the authority to meet such costs.
Extending the circumstances under which the authority would pay costs would increase the costs of the authority and would be asking all pension schemes to meet the legal costs of persons involved in a case which might concern only one specific scheme and where the groups specified in the amendment might have only a marginal interest in the question referred. I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and the costs and the way they are imposed are wrong and contradict the points that I made earlier. I hope, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments. I am not entirely surprised at his response to Amendment No. 51, but I think it would be unsatisfactory if the regulatory authority found that it did not have sufficient funds available to take appropriate cases to the courts where a case of misappropriation was involved. It surely would not be in the public interest for that to happen. That was why we felt that the Government ought to be prepared to stand behind the regulator if that were the case. However, I am not surprised, in view of the Minister's general attitude to funding as regards the authority, that he has not felt it appropriate to accept Amendment No. 51. We shall look carefully at what he said in Hansard and see whether there is any way in which we can return to the matter on Report.
With regard to Amendment No. 57, I note what the Minister had to say about it being unnecessary and about the provisions of Clause 87. However, I still feel that independent trade unions recognised to any extent for the representation of members in a scheme, or an organisation representative of pensioners or beneficiaries, ought to have some status and ought to have some rights in regard to consultation. It may well be that our wording here is not appropriate—I am quite willing to accept that—but I think that organisations of that kind have a role and have a right of consultation. It

195
would be a good idea for that right to be written into the Bill. I shall not press either of these amendments at this point in time, but certainly I shall look very closely at the response, particularly to Amendment No. 57, to see whether we can return with a different sort of wording on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restitution]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Directions]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert:
("(c) in the case of any trust scheme, direct that an advertisement prepared by the Authority shall be inserted in national or local newspapers or magazines.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. The Minister should be quite pleased with this amendment because it may save the taxpayer some money. It concerns publicising the regulator's decisions. Public knowledge about someone breaking the rules is often a far greater deterrent than the penalties or the fines imposed on a company. This is because that information could reflect on a company's image, its share price and its credit rating and even signal a financial crisis in the business. The Committee may have noticed that the publicity given to fines imposed by FIMBRA has had more deterrent value on firms in the financial services industry than the fines themselves. The purpose of this amendment is to add the threat of publicity to the penalties which can be imposed on an employer. That would be quite normal in the commercial world. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the amendments would save me, or more importantly the levy payers, money.
Turning to Amendment No. 53, Clause 93 of the Bill already provides the authority with the power to publish reports of its investigations in any manner it thinks fit. That would include the placing of advertisements in local or national newspapers or magazines if it believes that that is appropriate. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 53 is not necessary.
As regards requiring the authority to publish reports of all investigations as Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 suggest, many investigations may conclude that there are no substantial problems with the scheme. It would be pretty bureaucratic and costly to require the authority to publish reports in those circumstances. Other investigations will reveal problems which are of concern only to the members of that scheme and which can be put right relatively easily. The authority has power under Clause 13 to direct the trustees of that scheme to advise scheme members of the conclusions of the authority's investigations.
196
Therefore, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. In cases where the authority feels that publicity for its reports and decisions is necessary, powers already exist for the authority to do just that.
Lord Haskel: I feel that the matter should be pressed harder rather than merely being left to the discretion of the regulatory authority. However, at this time of the evening I do not intend to press it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Review of decisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 49, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) to make any other action or to make any other determination under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 54 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 58. The amendments seek to establish a right of appeal against the decisions of the authority.
Amendment No. 54 widens the scope of reviews by the authority of its own decisions in order to make any decision reviewable on the application of any person. Amendment No. 55 would require that the authority must, on the application of any person appearing to the authority to be interested in the decision, review a determination if it appears that there has been a material change of circumstances, material facts were missing or it was wrong on a question of law. At present that review is merely optional. Amendment No. 58 allows any person aggrieved by a determination given on a review by the authority, or its refusal to review a determination, to appeal to the court rather than merely on questions of law. Together the three amendments provide that the authority will make a decision on a matter, and it must review that decision if requested to do so or if it did not get the facts or the law right. If a person is still not satisfied, that person can appeal to the courts on questions of fact or law.
We do not suggest necessarily that the drafting of the amendments is perfect, but we ask the Government to look again at whether the authority should be the final arbiter in cases of fact. We ask either that questions of fact should also be appealable to the court, as proposed in the amendments, or, alternatively, that the Government consider establishing an appeal tribunal rather like the Financial Services Tribunal which can hear appeals for the Securities and Investments Board on issues such as withdrawal or suspension of authorisations to conduct investment business.
While the suspension of a trustee is not a question of a loss of livelihood, it can still have serious consequences. We do not believe that it is sufficient to say that a mistake of fact can be rectified by the authority under Clause 86(3) (a) when a review is optional and it is up to the authority itself to decide whether there has been a mistake as to material fact. We hope that the situation will not arise often. However, we believe that natural justice requires that there should be

197
an appeal from the authority on matters of fact as well as of law analogous to that established in the Financial Services Act. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are moving to another part of the Bill relating to the functions of OPRA. I believe that we are all agreed on one matter: that we want OPRA to be an effective regulator. I rather fear that, taken together, the amendments could easily have the reverse effect. They require the authority to review any of its actions. That involves every request for information, every attempt to carry out an investigation, and every application for an injunction. Indeed, those provisions would frustrate and delay the very regulatory process that we seek to put in place. Adding a right of appeal to the courts on questions of fact as well as of law could only add significantly to the delays.
There may be times when OPRA has to take very difficult decisions—for example, when the only way to prevent further deterioration in the funding and running of a scheme is to wind it up. That would at least prevent a bad situation from getting worse, and ensure that members received at least some of their accrued rights. I can assure the Committee that those are not the type of decisions that OPRA will take hastily or lightly. They will come only at the end of a period of considerable involvement with the scheme. But, once having been taken, such decisions will need to be implemented as quickly as possible. To require OPRA to suspend such enforcement action pending the carrying out of a formal review would not be in the interests of scheme members.
That would also be the case if every decision taken by OPRA could be taken to the courts, not just on a point of law, but on a point of fact. Perhaps I may suggest to the Committee that this is not a recipe for effective regulation of scheme security.
I understand the desire to have a mechanism for looking again at OPRA's decisions, in particular where penalties are involved. That is why we have put in place a rigorous internal review procedure. Decisions on penalties and on other significant enforcement decisions will not be taken by faceless officials blindly following procedures. They will be taken by the OPRA board. That board will be selected to bring to the authority as wide a range of expertise and knowledge of pensions matters as possible. Decisions will have to be explained, in writing, to those who are the subject of those decisions. The Bill already contains a requirement for OPRA to review its decisions: a mandatory requirement, on application by any person, where penalties are to be imposed and a permissive one where other decisions have been taken.
We accept that there will be a need to ensure that OPRA's decisions have been taken in accordance with the law. That is why we have provided for a right of appeal to the courts—but only on a point of law, where it is obviously the case that the courts are best placed to make judgments.
198
I believe that the amendments would seriously compromise the authority's ability to do its job speedily and effectively. Having listened to what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Obviously on this side of the Committee we are anxious to do nothing which adds to frustrations and delays regarding the regulatory authority. We accept the Minister's worries about that; we certainly do not wish to contribute to them. However, the Minister might perhaps have accepted more freely than he did that, as drafted, the authority's powers are extremely draconian. The authority is the final arbiter on matters of fact, and almost the final arbiter on matters of law. There is an area here of legitimate public concern. Unless we do something about that, only the right of judicial review will be open to aggrieved applicants, and for that they will not be able to obtain legal aid.
Obviously at this stage it is a probing amendment. Will the Minister review the situation? In the case of most other agencies, such as under the Financial Services Act 1986 and with the child support appeals tribunal and the Industrial Injuries Compensation Board, I understand that there is a route of appeal. It seems to me that between us we ought to be able to find a last safety net for aggrieved individuals who have been harshly treated with draconian measures by the authority. Perhaps the Minister will consider that. It is rare not to have the right of appeal with such a significant authority. I accept that we do not want delays, but we need something on grounds of natural justice. I invite the Minister to make a final comment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I fully appreciate that the matter is serious. The noble Baroness started to make a point, but she did not really advance the argument. Perhaps she did not wish to stray into other fields with which we shall deal later. The question of an appeal has been one of the difficult issues with the Child Support Agency.
Here we are dealing with a regulatory authority with a statutory duty to carry out all the work we have laid down. I was accused earlier in the day of proposing a regulator who was weak and might be ineffectual. I am now saying: "Let's keep it firm by not allowing people to appeal against decisions which would prevent the regulator from acting quickly and efficiently", and I am now being—I shall not say attacked, but asked rather gently whether I will do something to put in an appeals procedure. There is already provision in the Bill to go to the courts on a point of law.
I shall carefully consider what the noble Baroness said because I appreciate that sometimes it is important to have the safety valve of an appeals system. I hope that she will agree with me that the provision would have to be extremely narrowly drawn and not in any way prevent the regulatory authority from being able to act quickly and efficiently to prevent any further damage to an already damaged scheme. I shall go so far as to say that I shall consider what has been said, but I should have to be more convinced than I am before I could go

199
down the road of introducing an appeals procedure. It might weaken the immediate impact which the regulator might need in certain cases.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. The reason I did not pursue the example of the Child Support Agency is that I did not wish to embarrass him. Members on this side of the Committee called for an appeals system there and the Minister refused it. Two years later, the Minister has had to accept a system, acquiesce in it and introduce it in the light of public protest. I thought that perhaps the Minister would have learnt from that and was ascertaining whether we could establish common ground between us.
Perhaps the Minister could take on board the anxiety here. We are not sure that the proposal is the right way to handle it, but there ought to be a final reviewing agency above and beyond the regulatory authority. However, in the light of the Minister's assurances that he will consider the matter —I shall not say reconsider it—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [References and appeals from the Authority]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 50, line 19, leave out ("if the Authority think fit").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is very much a continuation of the discussions we have just had. In the light of what he has just said, the Minister will probably tell me that the question has been answered. However, the point of the amendment is to ensure that the legal advantages are not all in favour of the authority as against the members requiring legal protection. The phrase:
"if the Authority think fit",
seems to imply that the authority has a right to go to law or not to do so as it sees fit. The Minister will probably say that the members are equally protected under subsection (3) (b) because they can appeal to the law. However, I should like that to be confirmed. It is the same point as the one made by the noble Baroness. We wish to be certain that the authority does not have arbitrary power and that at the end of the day appeal to the law is available for all interested parties, not only the authority. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, explained, this amendment removes the specific reference to the authority from Clause 87(1), which sets out the powers to refer questions to the court on a point of law. The effect of the amendment would be to make it unclear who is to refer questions that arise under Clause 87(1).
The power to refer cases is intended to allow the authority, in its regulatory and enforcement role, to seek clarification from the courts where it believes that the
200
law is not sufficiently clear for it to reach a decision on a matter arising under Part I of this Bill or on a matter arising on review.
Adequate provision is made elsewhere in this clause for others to take questions to the court. Where any person is aggrieved by a decision of the authority on review, including any refusal of the authority to review a decision, provision is made under Clause 87(3) for that person to appeal to the court on a point of law. I will not read out the subsection, but it states quite clearly that any person who is aggrieved, where the determination involves a question of law, may on that question appeal from the determination to the court.
On a general point, it is of course open to any group or organisation wishing to seek clarification on a specific area of the law to take up a suitable test case. Sitting in the Department of Social Security, I can say that that path seems to be pretty well-worn by many bodies. I therefore do not believe that it would be wise, as this amendment seeks, to make Clause 87(1) less clear. The fear that the noble Baroness has about other people's rights to go to court on a point of law is dealt with by Clause 87(3).
Baroness Seear: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I am very anxious to have confirmation from the Minister on the record so that we can be absolutely clear that there is the same right of appeal to the law for all the interested parties and that there is no preferential position, as it were, for the authority. In the light of what the Minister said, I am very glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Provision of information]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 51, line 9, after ("writing") insert ("and, in the case of information under subsection (4) below, in any event without being so required").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 60, 71, 80 and 84.
The purpose of this amendment is to implement the sound business practices recommended in the Goode Report; namely, that there should be the discipline of an annual return to the regulator. These amendments draw on my experience of business in the United States, where annual returns are obligatory. The Department of Labor there has developed standard computer programs which highlight key ratios and other data, and that is how the majority of tip-offs occur. In addition, in the United States, under the Freedom of Information Act, scheme members are able to inspect the returns of their own employers, and that is an important contribution to informed regulation.
In the US, where the annual returns are disclosed to all scheme members, the Department of Labor receives more useful information in feedback from scheme members and learns a lot more about which schemes need investigating than it does from its own

201
investigations. Once again, this proves the value of openness. This amendment is designed to ensure a full disclosure of information.
Mr. Andrew Large, the director of the Securities and Investments Board, recently sent me a copy of a speech that he had made in which he made clear that the regulatory burden could be lifted,
"only if the personal financial services sector was more open with its customers".
This amendment will encourage that. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord has clearly explained the purpose of his amendments. I am sorry to tell him that I believe they would make some unacceptable changes to the way in which the authority would operate, and in particular to its powers to investigate schemes. In fact, we partly discussed the issue earlier when a noble Lord opposite—it is so long ago I cannot remember who it was—proposed an amendment to Clause 1 on similar lines with regard to the 150,000 pension schemes. I do not share the noble Lord's experiences of the United States of America, but it may help the case that I am about to make to tell the Committee that the Department of Labor's returns run to some 50 pages of detailed questions. There are 150,000 pension schemes and it is late at night. It is an awful lot of pages.
In addition, in the United States interestingly enough, there is a substantial level of failure to return information. The Department of Labor has a substantial backlog of work. I do not believe that it is the best model for an effective regulator. As I said earlier, the last thing we want is for the regulatory authority to become bogged down in administering the returns, making sure that it receives them in the form that it wants and storing them. That would take its eye off the main task we are giving it in the Bill; namely, to investigate schemes about which there is some suspicion—schemes which have been drawn to its attention. We do not want it to spend a great deal of time, energy and money looking at schemes which are running perfectly well. We believe that the authority should focus on schemes that have problems rather than schemes which are running smoothly. That is why it will act in response to reports of suspected breaches of statutory obligation under both this Bill and the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would impose a requirement for schemes to submit annual returns to the authority, as the noble Lord said. I have explained that that would be an unnecessary burden on schemes. There would be the inconvenience of having to file the returns and an additional cost to the authority, which would fall vita the levy, on the schemes themselves.
Amendment No. 84, which appears to be consequential to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, would enable the authority to disclose to members or representatives of members any information contained in annual returns submitted to the authority. There is no specific need for that as OPRA is able to disclose information already in the public domain through Clause 94(2) (a).
202
Amendments Nos. 71 and 80 introduce a requirement for the authority to draw up a programme of inspection visits and allow a JP to issue a warrant for an inspector to enter and search premises if the scheme fails to operate such a visit. The authority will be able to carry out on-site checks independently of any complaint or report being received. To require it to make such visits would be an unacceptable constraint on the authority's freedom to decide how it should undertake its responsibilities.
I suspect that the noble Lord will not be very satisfied with my reply. However, I hope that with that reply and the replies I gave earlier today I have underlined the fact that OPRA's role is not to monitor all 150,000 pension schemes, most of which are running perfectly effectively, but to intervene in those schemes where question marks have been thrown up by the trustees, the auditors or, as I explained earlier, any other persons who may have knowledge which they think should be drawn to the attention of the regulator for his consideration along with the decision as to whether or not it is a sufficiently serious matter for him to start investigating a particular scheme.
Lord Haskel: I do not wish at this time to enter into a discussion about the United States. At a later stage I shall return to the experience there because I believe that there are some very valuable lessons to be drawn from it. Meanwhile, with regard to the Minister's point about the 150,000 schemes, the Goode Report foresaw that and suggested an accelerated means of checking up on schemes, particularly those administered by insurance companies or perhaps firms of consultants, which number well over 100,000.
I do not wish to enter into a discussion at this stage. I shall return later to the experience of the United States, particularly on matters of voting. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 88 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before I call Amendment No. 61 I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 61 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 62.
Clause 89 [Inspection of premises]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 51, line 18, leave out from ("of") to ("at") in line 19 and insert ("investigating whether, in the case of any occupational pension scheme, the regulatory provisions are being, or have been, complied with,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 68, 70, 72, 75 and 77. These amendments are broadly technical in nature, some more and some less. Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 64 are related. They clarify the power of OPRA to investigate whether or not a scheme is complying with the regulatory provisions. That includes the power to make spot checks and respond to whistle blowing.
Amendment No. 61 clarifies the purposes for which an inspector may enter premises and carry out investigation. It introduces the term "regulatory

203
provisions". Amendment No. 63 is consequential upon Amendment No. 61. Amendment No. 64 provides a definition of the term "regulatory provisions".
We have seen some of the exemptions listed in Amendment No. 64. They are the ones that featured in my earlier discussions with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I can confirm that the amendment will be covered in the letter that I sent him relating to our earlier discussions.
Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 are technical and clarifying amendments. They make it clear that the investigatory powers given to an inspector appointed by the authority under the clause will only allow the inspector to enter premises connected with the scheme under investigation. The premises the inspector is permitted to enter are where members of the scheme under investigation are employed; where documents relevant to that scheme are stored, or where the administration of that scheme is carried out.
Amendment No. 70 is a technical amendment. It replaces a reference to this "Part" to make it clear that the only purpose for which an inspector appointed by the authority can apply to enter premises are those set out in Clause 89. That is because all the purposes for which an inspector should be permitted to enter premises are set out in that clause.
Amendment No. 72 is again a technical amendment. It removes a confusing reference to information given to a justice of the peace by an inspector. As drafted, the clause appears to imply that the inspector may not be giving information on behalf of the authority, which is not our intention. The position is made clear by the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 extend the circumstances in which the authority may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter and search premises and remove documents. They are intended to ensure that the authority is able to apply for such a warrant in all appropriate circumstances. Amendment No. 75 allows the authority to apply for a warrant where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will do any act which constitutes a misuse or misappropriation of the assets of an occupational pension scheme. Amendment No. 77 is a consequential amendment. It allows the authority to apply for a warrant where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will do any act which constitutes a misuse or misappropriation of the assets of an occupational pension scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are obviously happy with the bulk of the amendments, especially those, as the Minister put it, which are "more technical". Amendment No. 61 may be less technical and I am not sure that I understand its import. Perhaps I may press him a little on that.
In reply to an earlier question of mine in relation to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, the Minister's noble friend said, with his usual fluency, panache and expansiveness, "Yes". I should like to find out precisely what the "yes" covered in the context of Amendment No. 61. What is in this
204
sense the regulatory provision? For example, does it include considering whether or not there is a likelihood of misappropriation, as in Clause 11, or whether it is in the best interests of scheme members to wind it up, as in Clause 9? In other words, will the regulator send in inspectors where there is general wrongdoing rather than an infringement of a specific statutory provision? Can the Minister tell us more, or alternatively write a note?
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas: The Minister may have the usual limitations in giving an exact answer to the question. As far as the wording of Clause 61 is concerned, I believe that what it is intended to cover is quite clear: that is, whether the regulatory provisions as defined in Amendment No. 64 are being contravened. Apparently, that means "yes". If the breach of trust leads to a deterioration in the scheme funds, OPRA can wind it up in the interests of members, including pensioners. I believe that that will cover the matter which is of concern to the noble Baroness. However, I will look again at what she, and indeed I, have said and see whether there is anything that I need add by way of letter.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister listed a series of premises that could be inspected by the authority, but I do not believe that he mentioned premises where the assets of the scheme were held. Perhaps he can clarify whether or not the authority will have power to enter those premises.
Lord Lucas: It is clear that premises where documents relative to the scheme are stored are included, but I cannot answer the noble Lord as to whether a place where gold bars are stored is also included. I will write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 68:
Page 51, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert ("such purposes,").
Page 51, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1), "the regulatory provisions" means—

(a) the provisions of this Part, other than the following provisions: sections 44 to 47, 55 to 58 and 100 to 102,

(b) the following provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993: section 6 (registration), Chapter IV of Part IV (transfer values), section 113 (information) or section 175 (levy), or

(c) any corresponding provisions in force in Northern Ireland.").

Page 51, line 34, leave out ("an occupational pension") and insert ("the").
Page 51, line 35, leave out ("such a") and insert ("the").
Page 51, line 37, leave out ("such a") and insert ("the").
Page 51, line 38, leave out ("such a") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 63 together with Amendment No. 61. In moving the amendment, I also wish to move Amendments Nos. 64 to 68 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 51, line 42, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 [Warrants]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 52, line 2, leave out ("or by an inspector").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 52, line 6, leave out ("or enactment").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 102. These amendments are technical. Amendments Nos. 73 and 78 correct references in respect of legislation in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 102 gives the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland its correct title.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 52, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to ("or") in line 15 and insert ("or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, or any enactment in force in Northern Ireland corresponding to either of them").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 76 and 79. The amendments are all technical in nature. In setting out the circumstances under which a warrant can be applied for, Clause 90 makes reference to a number of provisions contained elsewhere in the Pensions Bill and in the Pension Schemes Act 1993. So that legislation in Northern Ireland is also covered it is necessary for the clause to refer to the corresponding enactments which are in force in Northern Ireland. The amendments seek to remove unnecessary references to provisions already implied by the definition of enactments in force in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 79:
Page 52, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) a person will do any act which constitutes a misuse or misappropriation of the assets of an occupational pension scheme,").
Page 52, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 18 and insert ("or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, or any enactment in force in Northern Ireland corresponding to either of them").
Page 52, line 20, leave out ("or (as the case may be)") and insert ("whether the act will be done, or").
Page 52, line 23, leave out ("provision or enactment") and insert ("provisions").
Page 52, line 42, leave out from first ("Act") to ("until") in line 43 and insert ("or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, or any enactment in force in Northern Ireland corresponding to either of them").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Publishing reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Restricted information]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 54, line 13, leave out ("under or for the purposes of") and insert ("for the purposes of their functions under").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86. These amendments are technical and are intended to add clarity by using words which appear elsewhere in the Bill. The clause places strict limits on the disclosure of information by the authority, and on any other person who may receive information from the authority, where the information is restricted information.
Subsection (2) defines "restricted information" for the purposes of these provisions as information that relates to the business or other affairs of any person. It does not include information already being made public from other sources, or information that is presented in summary form so that information relating to an individual cannot be ascertained from it.
Amendment No. 83 changes the wording of the definition of "restricted information" in subsection (2). The amendment will add clarity by using a form of wording that is found elsewhere in the Bill. It refers to,
"information … for the purposes of their functions under this Act",
rather than,
"information obtained by the Authority under or for the purposes of this Act".
Subsection (3) provides that it is an offence for any person to disclose information in breach of the clause and that the offence attracts a maximum penalty, on summary conviction, of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. On indictment the maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. The effect of Amendment No. 86 is to present the penalty for a breach of duty imposed by Clause 94 in the standard way. I beg 10 move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 54, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert:
("(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment or both.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 95 [Information supplied to the Authority by corresponding overseas authorities]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 54, line 33, leave out ("and 97") and insert ("to 98").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Disclosure for facilitating discharge of functions by other supervisory authorities]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 89 to 99:
Page 55, column 2, line 19, leave out ("Part XIII of").
Page 55, column 2, line 21, after ("1986") insert ("Part III of the Companies Act 1989").
Page 55, line 23, at end insert:
(" The Treasury. Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.")
Page 55, column 2, line 25, at end insert ("or any other functions").
Page 55, line 35, at end insert:
("The Deposit Protection Board. Functions under the Banking Act 1987.
The Investor Protection Board. Functions under the Building Societies Act 1986.").
Page 55, column 2, line 39, leave out from ("1986") to end of line 41.
Page 55, column 2, line 52, after ("1985") insert ("or section 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986").
Page 55, leave out lines 53 to 55 and insert:

("A person authorised to exercise powers under section 43A or 44 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986, Article 440 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, or section 84 of the Companies Act 1989.

Functions under those sections or that Article.")

Page 56, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 56, column 2, line 16, leave out ("or Part XII of").
Page 56, column 2, line 18, at end insert ("or Part II of the Companies (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [Other permitted disclosures]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 56, line 43, after ("of") insert ("Health and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 [Disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  Forced Labour, Northern Bosnia: Report
  Forced Labour, Northern Bosnia: Report
  Bahrain/UK Relations
  Bahrain/UK Relations
  Conspicuous Gallantry Cross
  Conspicuous Gallantry Cross
  European Commission: Member's Emoluments
  European Commission: Member's Emoluments
  Prisoner Numbers: Effect of Reduction Measures
  Prisoner Numbers: Effect of Reduction Measures
  Prison Service: Director General's Responsibilities
  Prison Service: Director General's Responsibilities
  Police Vehicle Maintenance and Building Cleaning
  Police Vehicle Maintenance and Building Cleaning