Sitting of 20 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Sir Nicholas Hardwick Fairbairn, QC, Member for Perth and Kinross. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. and learned Member's family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Benefit Payments
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he will take to ensure regular weekly giro payments of benefits during the winter in Yorkshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The Benefits Agency aims to ensure that all customers receive their benefit entitlement on time. If, for whatever reasons, delays are experienced, procedures are in place to ensure that claimants receive their benefit entitlement.
    Mr. MacShane: I tabled the question on behalf of my constituent, Philip John Place of Rotherham, an energetic, out-of-work young man who is taking part in a jobseeker's club—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is much better to deal with constituency matters in written representations to the relevant Minister. If the hon. Gentleman has a question, perhaps he will ask it immediately so that the Minister may answer.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister give my constituents an assurance that when there is bad weather giro payments will be made on the day, and that if there is a delay for any reason a crisis loan will be available at once to save claimants trouble, fear and anxiety? There is such a thing as cold weather in the north of England.
    Mr. Evans: I cannot comment on Mr. Place, about whom I have no details, but I am aware that there was exceptionally bad weather in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on 27 January. I am advised that, as a result, the Royal Mail had difficulty making deliveries, which is a matter for regret and we apologise. The limited information available to me is that Rotherham office may have made one crisis loan on 27 January. Perhaps that emphasises more than anything the need for the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce modern benefit payment methods.

    Pensions
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to increase choice in pensions.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is planning to increase choice in pensions.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): Government policies aim to provide a range of pensions provision from which

    3
    individuals can choose with confidence. We propose to strengthen occupational pensions law, introduce age-related rebates for contracted-out personal and occupational money purchase schemes and give personal pension holders more flexibility in the use of their savings on retirement.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that public confidence in choosing an occupational pension will be considerably increased by the news that the Maxwell scheme trustees have accepted a settlement in principle? Does he agree that much of the credit for that lies with Sir John Cuckney, and will he convey to Sir John the congratulations of the House?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the good news of the agreement in principle for Maxwell pensioners, which is welcome. Details remain to be finalised, but Sir John and others involved have done a tremendous job. I hope that they will now be able to bring their work to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. David Evans: What plans does my hon. Friend have for pensioners and people on fixed incomes if the lot opposite ever come to power? Is he aware that under the last Labour Government, pensioners and people on fixed incomes had their incomes savaged by 27 per cent. inflation, and that the lot opposite did not even pay a Christmas bonus two years out of the last four when they were in power?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pensioners on fixed incomes suffered greatly under the previous Labour Government when electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, the proportion of pensioners in the lower income groups of the population has fallen dramatically and that is testimony to the success of our policies.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that when the previous Labour Government left office, the state pension was about 24 per cent. of average earnings? What is it now? Will he tell us by how much each year he is subsidising the national insurance fund to promote private personal pension schemes at the expense of the state earnings-related pension scheme?
    Mr. Hague: That is the sort of hostility to the private provision of pensions that could be deeply damaging to the future of this country. People who have taken out personal pensions are paying, from their own incomes, more than £2.5 billion a year. They are putting that money aside for pension provision in the future under the arrangements that the hon. Gentleman spends his time attacking. It is vital that there is additional provision on top of entitlement to the state pension, with the state pension being indexed in line with prices.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Minister agree that many miners who, legally but criminally, were persuaded to change their pensions from the miners' pension scheme to private pension schemes have been done out of huge sums, which they cannot now get back under any of the new mechanisms put in place by the Government? Is not it about time that the Government did something urgently about this because it is at least as scandalous as the Maxwell case?
    Mr. Hague: Where there has been mis-selling of personal pensions, the Government are anxious to see that
    4
    there is a remedy. The Government very much welcome the action that the Securities and Investments Board has now set in train to provide a remedy in precisely the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

    Fraud Prevention
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the latest figures for social security fraud prevention.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): In 1993–94, a record £654 million of social security fraud was stopped by the Benefits Agency. In November, I announced an investment of £300 million over the next three years in measures designed to shift dramatically the emphasis of fraud work from detection and investigation towards prevention and deterrence. These measures will include more home visiting, improved information technology and automated payment of benefits at post offices. They are expected to save an additional £2.5 billion over the same period.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that fraud prevention has increased by 17 per cent. this year? Can he give the House an assurance that officers in the Department of Social Security will make a special effort to check on people who have fraudulently claimed that they are asylum seekers and who have claimed many times? Clearly, although people in this country are only too happy to help genuine asylum seekers and their own citizens who have fallen on hard times, they will not stand for people flooding in to defraud our system.
    Mr. Lilley: I can confirm, as my hon. Friend asks, the substantial rise in success in stopping fraud and thereby saving money for the taxpayer. We have made abuse of asylum applications much more difficult by introducing arrangements with the Home Office and by ensuring that the benefit is obtainable only from a single post office. Those measures have sharply reduced multiple applications and fraudulent abuse.
    Mr. Frank Field: How do the Government answer the charge that they are soft on fraud and soft on causes? Is the Secretary of State aware that it is not just a matter of claimant fraud, with which all of us disagree, but a matter of the Department being open to fraud from gang warfare? Is he aware that there is massive landlord fraud in housing benefit and that the Department is now under attack from some of its own officers who open up bogus claims? Once a claim is opened up in the Department, how often is it audited?
    Mr. Lilley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not soft on fraud. I welcome the consistent support that he has given us on measures to crack down on fraud. Housing benefit is, of course, handled on behalf of the Government by local authorities. We have given them an increased incentive, both carrot and stick, to ensure that they eliminate wherever possible abuse of the housing benefit bill by landlords and tenants. It is absolutely right that they should do so and I urge every local authority to respond positively to the incentives that we have put in place.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend persist in the examination of housing benefit fraud? He will know that

    5
    some time ago I advised his Department of strong evidence showing that housing benefit was being claimed from more than 6,000 empty properties in Birmingham—the so-called giro drop scandal. My fear is that his officials may see the fraud as an affront to their professional competence rather than as something to be vigorously pursued. May I urge him to redouble his efforts with local authorities to investigate that matter?
    Mr. Lilley: I will again follow up my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that there is no question of officials taking such fraud as an affront to their personal efficacy, since they are not, as I explained to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), directly responsible for it. They have ensured that incentives are given to local authorities to pursue housing benefit fraud. It is a scandal when local authorities do not pursue it, because they are letting down the taxpayer and the council tax payer.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the Child Support Agency of implementing an income disregard for parents with care to the value of (a) £5, (b) £8 and (c) £10.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The estimated long-run costs of a £5, £8 or £10 maintenance disregard for parents with care in receipt of income support are approximately £110 million, £165 million and £205 million.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I agree with the Minister that, obviously, parents without care should pay for their children, but one of the problems that has arisen in the past year or so is that parents who remarry and have another family are penalised. The father is penalised in the sense that he has to pay for the children from his first family and his second family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] No, Conservative Members are wrong. I repeat that the father is being penalised twice. He is being penalised for the children from his first marriage and again for children from his second family, if he has a second family.
    Mr. Burt: I am not quite sure how the disregard may affect that situation. Among Conservative Members and, by general agreement, around the country, the idea that a man should remain responsible for his first family, no matter what his subsequent circumstances are, is very important. The point of the disregard is to give some recognition to the parent with care in the maintenance being received. We believe that that point is much better dealt with by the Government's proposed maintenance credit, which will give an incentive to return to work and will certainly ensure that a father in those circumstances fully realises the impact of the money that he is paying in maintenance.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the maintenance disregard proposed by the Labour party would create unfairness and make it less worth while for the lone mother to return to work? Does he also agree that if the Labour party supports a disregard, it should say how it would pay for it?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is quite right. The figures that I gave showed just how expensive a maintenance
    6
    disregard would be. We do not believe that it would achieve the object wished for by the Opposition. It would certainly create a higher barrier for those parents with care who wanted to return to work. As we know from all our surveys that most lone parents want to go back to work, we believe that a maintenance disregard with an incentive to return to work would be rather better than providing an incentive for not returning to work at all.
    Mr. Dewar: On the costs of disregard, the Minister will remember that, throughout 1994, I was abused by him and the Secretary of State for profligacy on the ground that a £10 disregard would cost £340 million. Does he remember the way in which that figure dropped by May 1994 to £290 million? It is now £205 million. Will he please explain those discrepancies and apologise for some of the abuse that I received?
    Mr. Burt: I cannot imagine either myself or my right hon. Friend abusing the hon. Gentleman on that point; it is not in our nature to do so. The changes in costs result from two matters in particular: first, we have been able to conduct greater sampling and, secondly, I am pleased to report that fewer lone parents are claiming income support, which most hon. Members should find quite encouraging.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to reduce discrimination against disabled people.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the measures the Government are taking to help disabled people.
    Mr. Hague: The Government's plans for ending discrimination against disabled people were set out in the White Paper on 12 January. They involve new initiatives in education and transport, in addition to the proposals in the Disability Discrimination Bill for new rights in employment and access to goods and services. These plans have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from moral considerations, there are powerful commercial reasons to encourage businesses to provide access for disabled people? Does my hon. Friend agree that legislative proposals for businesses should be sensible and well judged and not based on wishful and woolly thinking?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proposals must be clear, flexible and fair—as they are in the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill—and they must lead to genuine practical improvements, such as the recently agreed improvements to access at Bury St. Edmunds post office in my hon. Friend's constituency, in which he and many other people were involved and scored quite a success.
    Mr. Congdon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having the determination to get a Bill to eliminate discrimination on to the statute book. In proceeding with that Bill, will he give serious consideration to whether it might need strengthening to ensure that health and safety

    7
    considerations do not cut across the legitimate aim of ensuring that disabled people have access to, for example, places of entertainment such as cinemas?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He was right to draw attention to that issue. We are determined to ensure that the requirements to provide physical and other forms of access actually mean something and work in practice. As the Bill progresses through the House and the other place, those matters will have to be discussed.
    Mr. Barnes: Two Bills are before the House on discrimination against disabled people—the Government Bill, which was supported by 27 votes on a three-line Whip, and my private Member's Bill, which, on a free vote, was carried by 175 votes. My Bill has the support of hon. Members from 10 political parties in the House, including the two Conservative parties, unlike the Government's Bill, which is supported mainly on a three-line Whip by Conservatives. In those circumstances, should not the House have an opportunity to determine between the two Bills or to discover whether there is, alternatively, a move towards the principles contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
    Mr. Hague: Let us put the hon. Gentleman right. His Bill was supported in the House by 175 hon. Members, the Government's Bill was supported by 307 hon. Members. If it comes to a choice between them, I do not fancy his chances much. The Government's Bill is clear, flexible, fair and in the interests of disabled people. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is confusing, unfair, inflexible and not in the interests of disabled people.
    Mr. Corbett: Does not every single organisation of and for disabled people much prefer the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) to the Government's puny measure? Will the Minister therefore accept the need for a disability rights commission to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same rights as the rest of us?
    Mr. Hague: Disabled people throughout the country want workable legislation that brings about a change in the law and, at the same time, a change in attitudes. That is what the Government's Bill will achieve and that is one reason why we wish to tackle the issue of enforcement by having not a commission but a locally available advice and support network to which disabled people can turn. That will be the sound, practical way to deal with those problems.

    Social Security Reforms
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings will result from the social security reforms announced so far.
    Mr. Lilley: Our reforms will reduce projected expenditure by £4 billion a year, in today's prices, by the end of the century. Once the pensions reforms have worked through, in the next century, the total savings will be £14 billion a year as a result of the changes that we have made.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that, with the reduction of unemployment and with the attack on waste and fraud, by
    8
    the turn of the century the burden on the taxpayer will be down by £8 billion or 3p in the pound on the basic rate of income tax?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The forecasts of social security spending by the end of the century are now £8 billion less than when we first made them in response to the Social Security Select Committee and before the long-term review of social security spending began. Four billion pounds is due to the direct savings of the changes in the structure of the social security system, which we have announced, and the other £4 billion is due to the improved economic and social outlook in this country as a result of the Government's policies.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that savings to the Government mean cuts in benefit to the most disadvantaged? Does he accept that Government policies such as the jobseeker's allowance will do more to allow tax cuts before the next election, rather than do anything to get the unemployed back into work?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady, as is typical of her party and indeed of all Opposition parties, thinks that money comes from the Government. It comes from taxpayers. At present, it costs every working person, on average, £15 every working day to finance the social security system in this country. The Liberal Democrats' aim is to increase that amount; ours is to prevent it from increasing.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome among my right hon. Friend's objectives his desire to eliminate fraud, but will he confirm that the Benefits Agency has found that only 5 per cent. of benefit fraud involves deception about identity? Will he at all times be vigilant to safeguard civil liberties in the development and application of smartcard technology, under the auspices of his Department? Will he set his face absolutely against the introduction of a national identity card scheme, whether voluntary or compulsory?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Of the identified frauds and abuse in my Department only 5 per cent. involve abuse through misrepresentation of identity. The bulk of fraud and abuse is the misrepresentation of circumstances of people whose identity is not in doubt. We believe that we can reduce that incidence of fraud and abuse very substantially by the introduction of a payments card, which I agree with my hon. Friend is a very different kettle of fish from an identity card. People who wish to receive benefit through the post office will need such a card. People who choose to receive benefit through banks will have whatever form of identification the banks require. We are also introducing other measures that will substantially reduce misrepresentation of identity fraud, so the extra gains which might come from a compulsory identity card would probably be very small.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the Secretary of State accept that savings should not in any way undermine public confidence and trust in the social security system? Will he therefore investigate claims made on BBC South-West that the Benefits Agency in Bristol has contracted out the opening of mail to a private firm? Such mail might include sensitive and confidential information on benefit claims, and staff might not be accountable to the Benefits Agency or, more important, to Parliament.
    Mr. Lilley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that anybody who has any involvement with facts and information

    9
    about claimants will be bound by a duty of confidentiality, whether they are employed by the civil service or by a contractor for the civil service. Sub-post offices, all of which involve private entrepreneurs and not employees of the state, have an obligation to claimants equal to that of any civil servant.

    Personal Pensions
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to make personal pensions more attractive to older people.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): In the Pensions Bill, we are introducing age-related rebates for personal pensions to ensure that appropriate personal pensions are attractive over a broader age range.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Pensions Bill, which is now in another place, is firmly on course to enact the manifesto commitment of the Conservative party to make personal pensions more attractive across the full range of ages? Does he agree that, with the proposal in law, personal pensions will be attractive to people of all ages and that it will be in their interests to sustain their pensions throughout their lives?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The age-related rebates which we are phasing in will mean that most people will be attracted to maintaining their personal pensions throughout their working lives. They will also be able to choose when to buy an annuity up to the age of 75.
    Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister accept that one of the most unattractive features of pensions for many older women is the diminution of their pension rights following divorce? Given that seven studies have been conducted into the matter already, why are the Government insisting on a further study? Why will they not accept the amendment that has been tabled in another place to ensure the equal division of pension rights following divorce?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Pensions Law Review Committee said that this was an exceptionally complicated matter. The Government recognise that and, as a result, we have accepted the recommendation of the committee that further work should be done. The research will be available towards the end of the year. A debate is taking place in another place this afternoon on the matter, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will go along to listen to it.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average total net income of pensioners grew by 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1992? Does that not show how much the Government care for pensioners? What targets does my hon. Friend have for that figure in the coming years?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right, but I do not have a limit on targets. Pensioners will do very much better in the next few decades. We have more funded pension provision than any other country in the European Union. The proposals of the Opposition would threaten that very good position.

    Poverty
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to conduct a
    10
    major survey of the incidence and extent of poverty currently prevailing in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Burt: Information on the patterns of household disposable income are already provided in the "Households Below Average Income" publication of the Government Statistical Service, and more will be available from the first full year of the family resource survey. It is expected to be of considerable benefit to the Department in aiding the formulation and evaluation of social security policy.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What is the Government's definitive response to the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Panorama programme "Dead Poor", which showed that the gap between those with health and wealth and those experiencing poverty is getting wider? Do the Government accept those findings? If not, why does the Minister think that they are flawed? If the Government do not accept the findings, will the Minister set up an inquiry using further survey methods to ascertain the full extent of poverty?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman knows well that poverty statistics are notoriously difficult to analyse. He will also know that whatever statistics he cares to choose will show that the access of the lowest 10 per cent., as regards income, to what used to be called luxury goods—cars, telephones, videos and so on—has risen inexorably over time.
    Widening income inequality has tended to come from changes in the labour market, particularly the increase in two-earner couples, and changes in the rates given for different occupations over a period. The solution to the one is physically to restrain two-earner couples—I suspect that that is not the intent of the hon. Gentleman, nor of his part—and to the other is to deal with different wages by a prices and incomes policy. If that is the policy of the hon. Gentleman, he should tell people.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that other measures of standards of living show that the poorest 10 per cent. have vastly improved access to things which improve the quality of their lives, such as telephones, freezers and washing machines? Does he also agree that a party which advocates a national minimum wage cannot be serious about reducing poverty, because a national minimum wage would enormously increase unemployment and poverty?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a point about the minimum wage that was made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) before the last general election. It had its impact on jobs. My hon. Friend also points out that this is a genuinely complex matter. The best way in which poverty can be attacked is by bringing about improvements through creating jobs. That is why the Conservative Government have introduced policies that have helped unemployment to fall by some 500,000 in the past two years. If those policies were followed by some socialist economies on the continent, those economies might prove a little more successful than they currently are.

    Pension Entitlement (Divorcees)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for allowing divorcees who paid the reduced rate of contribution to share their husband's pension entitlement.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Provision already exists which allows a divorced woman who does not remarry before pension age to obtain a pension based on her former husband's national insurance contribution record instead of her own in respect of the period up to their divorce.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is not that provision inadequate, given that the pension entitlement is one of the biggest assets that married couples have? Should we not have a simple rule that the entitlement from all pensions up to the date of divorce is divided between the couple? Why do we need the inquiry that the Minister mentioned earlier when the principle is clear and we are the only country in the European Union that does not give the wife some entitlement to her pension? Would there not be a considerable saving in benefit if that were done?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, confusing the state retirement pension with rights to occupational or personal pensions, so I shall simply rely on what I have already said, which is that a great deal of further work is needed, as the Pensions Law Review Committee has said. We are doing that work.

    Benefits
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if benefits will continue to be delivered through post offices.
    Mr. Lilley: We are committed to continuing to give pensioners and others the right to receive their benefits at the post office. We are moving speedily to an automated system for paying benefit at post offices, including the introduction of benefit payment cards to replace order books and girocheques.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while there are obvious advantages in making payments through banks and building societies, some people—particularly the elderly—prefer to go to post offices to collect their pensions? Will he confirm that the automated system to which he referred has been welcomed by sub-postmasters and will bring them additional business?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. Many pensioners and others prefer to receive their benefits at post offices. Many do not have bank accounts so they could not easily have their benefits paid elsewhere. My hon. Friend is also right that the measures that we have proposed have been warmly welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. By eliminating fraud, our proposals will be good for the taxpayer. By making payments more convenient, they will be good for the pensioners. By increasing the range of facilities of sub-post offices, they will strengthen the national network of sub-post offices.

    Fraud
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he is planning to reduce fraud involving order books and giros.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his intention to replace order books and girocheques with a more secure system based on benefit payment cards. This should eliminate fraud related to payments, and will also provide substantial administrative savings.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that fraud is widely resented by the vast majority of benefit recipients and by taxpayers? Does he welcome the £100 million of savings that were made in the last financial year in giro and order book frauds? Does he agree that his proposals will be welcomed in the fight against fraud in the future?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. There has also been a consistent increase in the overall savings from fraud that the Department has made. Last year, the savings were £654 million, which was an increase of 17 per cent. on the year before. That is good news for everyone.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the biggest frauds in social security is the fact that about £500 million a year is lost by employers who take their national insurance and tax from employees and do not hand it over to the responsible authorities? Hardly any action is taken against those employers. Why do not the Government do something about it? The Secretary of State can keep his trap shut.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter before. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Income Related Benefit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 (No. 1807) on the habitual residence test to come into force.
    Mr. Roger Evans: The regulations came into force on 1 August 1994.
    Ms Church: How can the Minister defend a system that means that thousands of British nationals find, on their return to this country, that they do not have rights to the benefits that they expected? They are people who cannot be described as crooks, drug addicts or undesirables.
    Mr. Evans: I am a little puzzled by the supplementary question because the hon. Lady's main question asked when the regulations would come into force. As I pointed out, they came into force on 1 August 1994; 14,789 British citizens have passed the test and 2,086 have failed. The Government take the view that benefit tourism is strongly resented by the British taxpayer and that those who have not paid taxes in this country recently must expect to wait a while.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Accountants (National Audit Office)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the number of accountants employed by the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern (representing the Public Account Commission): I understand that the National Audit Office employs about 370 qualified accountants and 62 qualified accounting technicians. One hundred and twenty-three staff are training for those qualifications. In addition, the National Audit Office contracts out about 10 per cent. of accounts audit work to the private sector. As a result, all accounts are audited by trained staff. The NAO also employs a wide range of professional staff in other disciplines, both to undertake value-for-money work and in administration.
    Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the level of fraud within the European Union is one of the biggest scandals in public expenditure. Has the Comptroller and Auditor General had any discussions with the European Court of Auditors with a view to dealing with that scandal?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General is deeply interested in that matter. I can confirm that he has had discussions with members of the European Court of Auditors with a view to finding out what proposals might be put forward to remedy some of the frauds that have taken place and to present those proposals at the next intergovernmental conference. However, the difficulty remains and it is not so much the establishment of that form of corruption, but the lack of will on the part of member countries to deal with it.
    Mr. Flynn: Would it not be a good idea to get the accountants and auditors to look at frivolous candidates in elections so that candidates who do not have a hope of proper victory do not get involved in the election process? Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Conservatives are to be congratulated on getting more votes in Islwyn last week than the Yogic Flyers and the official raving loony party, and are now the official loony party? Can he reply?
    Sir Peter Hordern rose—
    Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman seems anxious to respond. Is that right?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I was only going to say that if the Comptroller and Auditor General had to deal with that matter he might equally be asked to investigate what happened in the rugby match between England and Wales.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Maxwell Pensioners
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest position concerning the payment of pensions to members of the various Maxwell pension schemes; and what are the prospects for further recoveries.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I warmly welcome the Maxwell scheme trustees' acceptance in principle of settlement
    14
    offers in respect of various claims. I understand that the Maxwell Pensioners Trust has sufficient funds to continue to support pension payments while discussion of terms and conditions takes place. If a final settlement is agreed, the Maxwell pensioners should enjoy a secure future.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister is aware that even the sum agreed is many millions short of what went missing. Will he reassure the House that efforts to get the remaining money will continue? Does he share my concern about the millions of pounds that should be going to the Maxwell pensioners' fund which are being spent on legal fees, and will he do anything about it?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to welcome what is very good news for Maxwell pensioners. If the settlement takes place, as we very much hope, it will save large amounts of legal fees because it will avoid the need for litigation.
    Sir David Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that Maxwell pensioners with deferred pensions will welcome that settlement? Will he assure me that the Government will continue to monitor the position closely until a final and happy solution to the dreadful problem is reached and all Maxwell pensioners can breathe freely in the knowledge that all is well?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes; and I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for the considerable work that he has done on behalf of his constituents, many of whom are Maxwell pensioners. He has approached me on several occasions to make precisely those points.

    Retirement
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he will take to give people more choice in how to plan for their retirement.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I refer to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
    Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that some 65 per cent. of recently retired pensioners also have occupational pensions? Does that not underline the great success of this country compared with practically all our European partners in developing a successful and deep-seated private pension industry, which will be further strengthened by my hon. Friend's Pensions Bill?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can. Not only do an increasing number of people retiring now have occupational pensions, but they have them in increasing amounts. Our pensioners can look forward to a good future.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Day Nursery Facilities
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of

    15
    Commons Commission, what is the latest position concerning the setting up of day nursery facilities in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what further progress has been made towards the establishment of a day nursery in the House.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the House of Commons Commission): The Commission will consider its policy on child care facilities at its next meeting and will take into account the views expressed in the debate in the House on 12 January.
    Mr. Barnes: Of all organisations, should not the House of Commons be a top employer in terms of that and many other matters? So that it can recruit and retain experienced staff, is it not important to have creche facilities or, alternatively, child care allowances, for which the unions in this place are pushing strongly? If those are seen as a subsidy, is it not a much more justified subsidy than those which hon. Members receive for car parking facilities, booze and refreshments?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission recognises the force of the argument that, as a good employer, it is in the House's interest to ensure that such facilities are made available to staff. The debate was one way in which the Commission sought to bring the matter before hon. Members and to establish whether a creche or voucher scheme, or a combination of the two, was preferred. We shall consider the House's reactions to that at our next meeting.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in far too many ways, we are not good employers? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are scandalised at how we treat our staff, not least because 4,000 people are employed in the Palace of Westminster with no creche, day nursery, vouchers or special facilities. When the Commission meets next week, will the right hon. Gentleman tell it that an uprising will take place on both sides of the House if it does not move?
    Mr. Beith: I would not have described the debate that took place as an uprising, although it was informative. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Commission, which has not been slow to press this matter on the House, is responsible for the employment of the staff of the House, and not of hon. Members' staff. We are anxious to ensure that any progress made will also benefit hon. Members' staff, but the hon. Gentleman must direct his fire at the appropriate place.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will sit ill upon us if we spend taxpayers' money wantonly on improving conditions for our staff when we do not think that those conditions are appropriate for people employed in other walks of life?
    Mr. Beith: I understand that the Government think it appropriate that, in some situations, work place nurseries should be provided and they allow tax relief for that purpose. In many parts of the public service, voucher
    16
    schemes have been established for child care. The Commission seeks to ensure that its employment policies are in line with the best practice in the public service.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the House of Lords, women employees have an allowance for creche or child minding facilities outside the House, but that is not the case for House of Commons staff? If so, why?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, although I should explain that the allowance is not limited to female members of the staff of the House of Lords, but to those who exercise parental responsibilities, whether female or male. The debates in January explored how that had developed, and one of the issues that we considered was whether it would be appropriate to do it in the House of Commons. The Commission will be considering precisely that.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission will authorise expenditure to make the Grand Committee Room fully and independently accessible by disabled people; and when the work will be carried out.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what further plans there are to improve facilities for disabled people visiting the House.
    Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), on 8 February, Official Report, columns 343–46, which describes in detail the conclusions of the review by the Accommodation and Works Committee into access for disabled people. The Committee's recommendation for access to the Grand Committee Room is the replacement of the chairlift with a platform lift, which would allow disabled people to remain in their wheelchairs. In addition, it is proposed that the design work for the conversion of the Westminster Hall cafeteria into a visitors' centre should consider how a lift can be incorporated into that area.
    Ms Lynne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Can he tell me what time scale we are talking about, because, as he is no doubt aware, two weeks ago, disabled people lobbied Parliament and were discriminated against yet again in this House? They could not even hear their Members of Parliament speaking, because of a ban on microphones being used in Westminster Hall. In the meantime, before the Grand Committee Room gets a lift, would it be possible for Members of Parliament to be able to use microphones in Westminster Hall when there is a disabled people's lobby of Parliament?
    Mr. Beith: Subject to the feasibility study, which is already in progress, it is hoped that work to convert the lift into a platform lift will be carried out this year. I do not anticipate that finance will be an obstacle to that.
    The use of microphones in Westminster Hall is not a matter for the Commission, and Madam Speaker explained to the House on 9 February the reasons why the use of the microphones is restricted to the staff in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. As I understand it, the Hall was fulfilling the function of the Central Lobby

    17
    rather than that of a meeting room. I have no doubt that the appropriate authorities will have noted my hon. Friend's point and will give it further consideration if that need arises before the work has been done.
    Mr. Skinner: Why should disabled people, when they come to lobby their Members of Parliament, be shunted into draughty, cold Westminster Hall? Why is it not possible for disabled people to come into Central Lobby in the same numbers as ordinary, able-bodied people? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much it would cost to ensure that 200 disabled people can get into Central Lobby as easily as able-bodied people rather than having to wait for about two hours to get through all the various securities, lack of lifts, and so on? Why do not he and his Committee tell the Government exactly how much it would cost to provide equality, and tell this tin-pot Government to provide the necessary money and the wherewithal in the Government's supposed Disability Discrimination Bill, which is before the House?
    Mr. Beith: The Accommodation and Works Committee decides the priorities and made the proposal for the changes that I have described. So far as I am aware, the Commission has placed no obstacles in the way of any improvements that the Committee has recommended.

    Photographic Unit
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether the Commission will make it its policy to ensure that a House photographic unit is set up.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission's normal practice is to consider expenditure on new services for Members only when a recommendation has been received from the relevant domestic Committee. I understand that the hon. Gentleman recently put such a proposal to the Administration Committee, which rejected it.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Administration Committee was looking not at that but at allowing photography by members of the public. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that photography is an essential part of both popular education and communication? It is a means of showing people what this place does and its activities, and encouraging interest in that. Would it not be better if we set up a proper photographic unit to do those jobs—as most grown-up Parliaments do—rather than pretend that photography has not yet been invented? Or do he and the Committee believe that photography steals a part of people's immortal souls, that Members are so irredeemably ugly that they should not be photographed or that we cannot compete with a medium that never lies?
    Mr. Beith: I have had my photograph taken by the hon. Gentleman several times—usually when I was not expecting it. I hope that it has done no harm to my soul. The Commission is not responsible for the rules that determine where photographs may be taken, and the hon. Gentleman should direct his inquiries appropriately on that point, but no proposal has been put to us for a central unit. I am not sure that it would meet the wider educational purposes that he described for there merely to he a central unit. I think that he has a wider use of photography in mind.

    Health Awareness
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provisions are being made to improve health awareness throughout the House.
    Mr. Beith: No direct financial provisions are being made, but since 1991 an expanded occupational health service has been funded as part of the Serjeant's Department. In addition, a number of training courses in health and safety are provided for staff of the House, and the Gymnasium is available for the improvement of personal fitness.
    Mr. Banks: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although the House may not be a dangerous place in which to work, it is certainly an unhealthy place in which to work? Many hon. Members are killing themselves through their own lifestyles. I am not making a special plea for Members of Parliament, but surely it is wrong for anyone in this country to die of ignorance—and ignorance, or lack of health awareness, is clearly a major factor in mortality rates. Is it not about time that we had a proper programme that set an example? Is it not time that we in the House had healthy minds and bodies?
    Mr. Beith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I hope that many of us do have healthy minds and bodies; but the Commission's responsibility has mainly been to its staff. A number of initiatives have been taken for staff health and safety, including measures to deal with back injuries and to promote awareness of the dangers of smoking.

Business Of the House
Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Lord President of the Council how often he has (a) been able to advise the business of the House two weeks in advance and (b) been able to keep to it.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Each week since the Christmas recess, I have been able to give the House more information about the second week than under previous practice, particularly in relation to business on the second Thursday. I am glad to say that it has not yet proved necessary to change any business of which an advance indication has been given, although it has sometimes been necessary to add to it.
Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and for the valiant efforts that he is making to give the House more notice of, in particular, occasions on which we may he able to accept speaking engagements outside the House.
Will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the way in which Bills are announced? Last Thursday, he was able to announce that we would be dealing with one Bill and eight orders, but that effectively gave us only two working days' notice. If our constituents want to lobby us in order to tell us that any of the many worthy measures with which we are to deal offends them in some way, they

19
have only two or three working days in which to do so. May we be given some idea of future business at least a fortnight in advance?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the efforts that I have undoubtedly made to give more notice than before. However, his reference to a day on which a number of orders will be dealt with leads me to observe that days like that may involve quite a lot of juggling until a late stage: that is one of the difficulties to which I have constantly adverted.
As for the Bill that my hon. Friend mentioned, I shall be frank about the difficulty. Two weeks ago, there was some doubt about whether it would have completed its Committee stage at the relevant time. Although I should be more than willing to be told that hon. Members would not mind me making a pre-judgment in such circumstances, tradition suggests that the announcement of a Bill's Report stage before it had emerged from Standing Committee would receive an adverse reaction.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) looks sceptical. If she can assure me that the Opposition would not object, in certain circumstances, to the announcement of a debate on the remaining stages of a Bill before its Committee stage had been completed, no one would be more pleased than I.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication of a Government statement on the allegations in the Independent on Sunday about suppression of a report by the Equal Opportunities Commission into Government policies and their damaging effect on women's jobs of compulsory competitive tendering?
Madam Speaker: I have not had any indication from the Government that they are seeking to make a statement on any issue today. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench have heard what the hon. Lady had to say.

Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Health Care (London and South East)
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have not restricted speeches for either of today's debates. I leave it to the good sense of Back Benchers and Front Benchers to exercise some voluntary restraint so that everyone who wishes to be called is likely to be called.
  3.31 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its concern at the evidence of continuing crisis of health care in London and the South East; believes that the scale and nature of the crisis stems directly from the Government's failure either to assess the health care needs of the area properly or to plan a programme by which those needs can be met; believes that the process of the internal market and Government-driven so-called 'reforms' are making matters worse; and calls for a moratorium on further closures until a fresh and thorough review has been carried out of the mounting evidence of serious misdirection of health care across the whole of the area.
  Yet again, it is the Opposition who provide the opportunity for a debate on health care in London and the south-east, both because it is important in itself and because of the light that it casts on the implications for Britain as a whole of Government health policy.
  It is important to flush out the Secretary of State for Health to give us her views on these matters. She is fond of talking about stewardship and responsibility, but less fond of exercising them. It is also valuable to have the debate at this time, because we are at a turning point, a crucial point of change.
  On Saturday, a large conference discussed the crisis in London health care as the effects of Government policy begin to be felt. In two days' time, the consultation period on proposals to close Bart's hospital will come to an end, and we shall see whether the health authority meant what it said when it suggested that public reaction to those proposals would influence its decisions.
  We are on the brink of other, greater change. Decisions will be made against the background of still greater cuts in funding for the authority which controls Bart's, and cuts for other authorities which rank high on the Department of the Environment's list of authorities dealing with high levels of poverty and deprivation. Of course, the debate is also held against the background of the final, full implementation of the Government's dogma-driven policies.
  In April, the special health authorities—hospitals such as Moorfields, the Bethlem/Royal Maudesly and the Royal Marsden, which have been cushioned until now from the full effects of Government policy—will face the impact of the Government's so-called reforms, as the full internal market finally comes to London. Londoners await that process with the same anticipation as they once awaited the arrival of Boadicea.
  Five years ago, London was the undisputed health care capital of. Europe. The French newspaper Liberation carried out a survey of medical research and teaching in 1989, which put London's medical schools at the top of

  23
  the European league, above even Oxford and Cambridge. It ranked them as the best in the continent, not just in Britain, and said:
  "the density of its network is such that this premier position is in no way a surprise; the different colleges each on their own cover the full range of specialties."
  The report went on to refer, rather optimistically, to
  "the one constant which does not change: the supremacy of British medicine."
  London has always been the key to the top ranking of British medical science. It trains 30 per cent. of new doctors and a quarter of new dentists. Half of all the highest grades awarded in clinical medicine are gained by people who went to university of London medical schools. That is not accidental. London's large catchment population and the concentration of medical resources have enabled the maximum interaction between science and clinical medicine. That has provided the strong base needed to sustain the caseload required for training and development.
  In fact, like that other great national institution, football, until recently the hospital service in London was one of our greatest assets—an institution in which London's citizens could take great pride. It is now threatened with disintegration and collapse. Several of the most famous teaching hospitals on which the medical schools depend face closure, including Bart's and Guy's, while others are to be amalgamated. The post-Tomlinson rationalisation could lead to a flight of research revenue and income. Dozens of professors and top consultants face redundancy, and many are leaving London, with the consequent exodus of medical talent.
  As with football, so with health care—London is now in danger of being relegated to the international second division. Like hooligans at a Chelsea-Millwall match, the Government set out wilfully to vandalise a service that was once orderly, well managed and widely supported. The question that we want to ask is the same question as that behind the inquiries into the recent England-Ireland game—is the Government's sabotage of London's health service the action of mindless vandals, or are they motivated by extreme right-wing ideology?
  Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony party does not seem to be in any doubt. On Friday, he said how disappointed he was that the Conservatives had just pipped his party into fifth place in the Islwyn by-election. He said:
  "We thought we would beat the Tories, but by mistake people voted for the wrong loony party."
  I must differ from Lord Sutch— the Government are not just loonies, and they are not just hooligans, although the Secretary of State gets called before judges to account for her vandalism of the health service. She and her colleagues are guilty of willful destruction, but it is not mindless hooliganism.
  Just like many of the troublemakers at our football matches, the Government are driven by right-wing ideology, which they coldly and deliberately calculate will wreak havoc in our public health service, just as it will create opportunities for those who can profit if what is lost from the public sector is replaced in the private sector— and unlike many of football's troublemakers, the Government are carrying out their strategy with stealth, and in furtive secrecy.
  24
  Unfortunately, the strategy's effect on London is especially acute. While London is a centre of medical excellence, it is also a city of harrowing deprivation and savage contrasts between rich and poor. Four out of five of the areas of greatest deprivation in Britain are, according to Department of the Environment indices, in London. Unemployment, a major cause of ill-health, in London is double the national average. Perinatal mortality in London is 74 per cent. above the national average. A third—
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: In a moment—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear the figures.
  One third of all those who died from hypothermia in 1992—the latest year for which we have figures—lived in London. Some 75 per cent. of all HIV and AIDS cases are in London; 42 per cent. of United Kingdom reported cases of tuberculosis in 1992 were in London—in itself increased by 13 per cent. since 1988; and 60 per cent. of all Britain's homeless and people living in temporary accommodation are in London.
  Being a great metropolitan city also means that London attracts huge numbers of visitors and commuters, all of whom increase the strain on its health service.
  Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Lady mentioned perinatal mortality. Does she agree that it is one of the most objective indices of good health that can be applied to any nation and any region of any nation? Does she further agree that, since 1979, there has been a substantial fall in perinatal mortality across the whole of the United Kingdom, and that nowhere is that fall more substantial than in London, where the figure is down from 12.7 per 1,000 to 7.1—a drop of 44 per cent?
  Mrs. Beckett: Improvements have been made in perinatal mortality rates. I am afraid that I do not have the figures or the report with me—mind you, Madam Speaker, nor does the hon. Gentleman. He borrowed them from his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who presumably had the briefing.
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way in a minute—one intervention at a time, thank you.
  If one considers, in particular, inner-city wards where deprivation is highest, that puts those figures very much into the shade. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) knows that my point is about the deprivation level across London. The overall average figures have improved, as they have elsewhere. That is what we expect. They improve year on year, century on century; there is nothing new about that.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the figures had improved, but he knows that they have not done so where greatest deprivation exists. Although I do not have the figures with me, my recollection is that, under this Government, the position has worsened in some areas of greatest deprivation.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. Has he now found some other figures?
  Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Lady take it from me that the standardised mortality ratio shows that

  25
  London has an above-average performance in mortality rates? Contrary to what she has said about deprivation areas, the most recent statistics show that the biggest reduction in infant mortality has been among the lowest social classes 4 and 5. The best improvement has been made in those social classes.
  Mrs. Beckett: I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I will read carefully what he has said, but it contradicts much of the other published evidence. I hope that neither of the two hon. Gentlemen who have intervened are contesting my basic point about the deprivation level and about the serious problems that occur in London and are concentrated in London, disproportionately even to other inner-city areas in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Suffolk, South is sitting there smirking. Does he disagree with that basic case?
  Mr. Yeo: When the right hon. Lady responded to my previous intervention, she tried to imply that I did not know what I was talking about. She may not know this, but other hon. Members will know that, before I came here, my full-time job involved running the Spastics Society, whose major research and publicity campaigns dealt precisely with this point. That is why I have the figures in my head and why she does not.
  Does she agree, as I asked her to agree before—she dodged the question—that the perinatal mortality rate is one of the most objective statistics on the measure of health in any country, and in the regions of those countries? Does she further agree that, under this Conservative Government. in the past 17 years, there has been a substantial fall in the rate throughout the UK, and particularly in London? I quoted the figures, which were kindly supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). They demonstrated that there has been an even improvement across the country.
  Mrs. Beckett: I did not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said about perinatal mortality rates, because they are an important indicator. I am never in danger of forgetting that the hon. Gentleman was a director of the Spastics Society before he came to this place, because, as he will recall, I sat with him on a Committee where the Government made savage cuts in the benefits paid to people with disabilities, and I waited for him to protest on their behalf, which he failed to do.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend, but, before she concedes anything on that front, may I tell her that, some years ago, I challenged those statistics in the northern region? The statistical base was rubbish, so let us be careful before we concede anything on those statistics.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I note that, despite all that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South has said, he does not appear to be disputing either that deprivation is concentrated in London, or some of the indicators of that deprivation.
  There is, of course, much more to London's health service than its hospitals. The glory of the health service in Britain, what is unique, what possibly has made it—or did make it—the most cost-effective health service in the world, has been the emphasis on primary care, in particular in relation to general practice. Unfortunately, in London that has long been an area of weakness.
  26
  In the early 1980s, reports identified some 15 per cent. of general practitioner premises as being sub-standard, but, under this Government, that problem has got worse. By the time of the Tomlinson report in 1992, 46 per cent. of general practice premises were said to be below the expected standard, yet such a development must have been foreseen. As early as 1982, the Acheson report drew attention to deficiencies in primary care in London, and to the need for those deficiencies to be addressed. Nothing happened. Not one of the report's recommendations was implemented. Thirteen years on, matters are substantially worse.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will neither try our patience nor further undermine her reputation by pretending that the Government's determination to strengthen general practice has led to the attack on London's hospitals. Throughout the Government's period in office, general practice in London has deteriorated, and there is little to suggest that the current Secretary of State will do better than her predecessors.
  I cite the precedent of the London Ambulance Service. Two years ago, the right hon. Lady told the House that she would be taking a close personal interest in the service's work and improvement. It is one of the few policy areas for which she has taken any responsibility, and I do not think that even she would claim that an outstanding success.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: After the LAS area collapse two years ago, I sent the Secretary of State a copy of my memorandum to the Page committee. Last week, I sent the right hon. Lady the 50-page memorandum published by the Select Committee on Health, to which I gave evidence 10 days ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should reply to my letter asking her to point out any errors of fact in my conclusions or where she differs from them? Is not the Secretary of State responsible to the House, and should she not give an undertaking to reply when she speaks today?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the Secretary of State heard my hon. Friend, and that she will reply to his point. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is part of Government responsibility to deal with such matters and to respond to queries from hon. Members. After all, the Government are accountable to this place.
  The Government's continuing implication that improvements in general practice, if and when they come, will lead to reduced demand for hospital beds is indefensible, as is their justification for a further massive reduction in the provision of hospitals and beds throughout London and the south-east. Beds are already being closed at breakneck speed, before investment in general practice can provide an alternative.
  The pace of closures is accelerating. Between 1982 and 1990, 7,000 acute beds closed in London, but since 1990, another 3,200 beds—one in six of the 1990 figure—have closed. Since 1982, 39 per cent. of acute beds have closed in London, compared with a national average reduction of 23 per cent.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I will, but this may be the last time that I do so, because I am mindful of Madam Speaker's observations.
  Lady Olga Maitland: In suggesting that those bed closures are a scandal, the right hon. Lady is totally misrepresenting developments in modern medicine. Does not she accept that they mean that patients can spend fewer days in hospital, creating less demand for beds?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course I accept that, but the hon. Lady will be aware of severe doubts about the pace at which beds are removed.
  Lady Olga Maitland indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Beckett: It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. She must know the problems in London if she even looks at the Evening Standard—never mind reads it. The Government anticipated reduced demand, rather than waiting to see whether it occurred. The hon. Lady must be aware of all kinds of problems, such as patients being re-admitted after being discharged too early, and of questions about day case surgery and the anaesthetics used. It is not a simple equation of changes in medical technology enabling beds to be taken out of use. Most people in London accept that readily.
  There is not a shred of evidence that improvements in general practice are forthcoming to allow a reduction in beds. There is growing belief that primary care improvement in London may reveal substantial unmet need for hospital treatment. The assumption that London has too many beds is increasingly open to question, because of long waiting lists and continuing reports of overwhelming pressure for beds. The latest report shows that psychiatric beds are at 140 per cent. occupancy, with patients sent to centres as far away as York to be treated in the private sector because there are no psychiatric, acute or secure beds available in London.
  Not long ago, we were told that not one intensive care bed was available anywhere in London for an adult or a child. The London health consortium has described the pressure on the provision of beds in London. It says that if there are further bed cuts—or a bad winter which, fortunately, so far, we have not had in London—they could prompt a full-scale crisis in London's health service.
  The case is open to question—never mind comparisons with capital cities elsewhere in Europe, although those cast doubt on the Government's case—because of comparisons with other cities in the United Kingdom which cast doubt even on the theoretical case for further cuts. Ministers used to argue that London and the south-east had a disproportionate share of hospitals and of beds, and used a disproportionately high amount of health service funds. Earlier studies by the King's Fund, like the Tomlinson report, seemed at first to confirm those assertions although they caused bewilderment among many who found them hard to square with the reality of London health care.
  However, further work, most notably by Professor Jarman at St. Mary's hospital, which has been backed up by an even more recent study by the London health consortium, has demonstrated that if we compare like with like and city with city, it is not true that London is
  28
  over-provided either with beds or with funds. In fact, the most recent figures on bed usage have Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham all above London in their use of health service beds. London has only a little above the average figure for the whole of Britain. The evidence on which the Government have relied for their changes is simply not there—quite apart from the huge and fundamental flaw at the heart of both reports to which I referred. The flaw is that they relied on the assumption that Government policies would of themselves, by the application of the internal market, remove beds from London. It was not a question of whether the beds were needed, but a question of the impact of Government policy.
  The figure I quoted for the comparison between London and other cities, which shows that there is not over-provision in London, squares with the day-to-day experience of Londoners. It squares with the 168,000 people on waiting lists for the main trusts and the 6,000 people waiting for treatment in the special health authorities. The figure squares with the 140 beds that were never opened at the new Chelsea and Westminster hospital where, in the seven months from April to November last year, there was an increase of 128 per cent. in numbers on the waiting list. It squares with the threat to the existence of University College hospital when the funds of Camden and Islington health authority were slashed. The figure squares with the revelation that in Redbridge, there is no elective surgery for those waiting less than 18 months and with the fact that Redbridge waiting lists have gone up by 46 per cent. It squares too with the fact that Whittington hospital is closed for non-emergency elective surgery, with little indication about where the people whom the hospital previously served are expected to go.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restriction on non-elective surgery does not apply to the patients of fundholding GPs and private patients? They can get treatment at Whittington hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the disgraceful two-tier health service which so many people in my constituency are expected to put up with?
  Mrs. Beckett: No one could disagree with my hon. Friend's point. The position is very worrying for those who are unable to be in practices that are eligible for the Government's scheme.
  The examples of deficiencies in health care that I have given all come from the time before the most recent proposal for still further changes in funding for London's health authorities. Inner and outer London together were expected to lose about £100 million in the coming year. Outer London has had some reprieve, gaining about £46 million more than expected, but £41 million of that gain has been slashed from inner London.
  Health authorities in areas which rank among the most deprived in the country now stand to lose still larger sums. East London and the City, the authority in which St. Bartholomew's is situated, now stands to lose a further—almost—£14 million from its funding. Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster stands to lose almost £15 million, and Camden and Islington, which was already set to lose £27 million, will now lose more than £30 million—getting on for £31 million. Every one of those areas was already the subject of concern expressed in this

  29
  House, primarily by Conservative Members on behalf of their constituents, in the debate on London health care in October.
  Those new figures also show that London will receive just under 15 per cent.—14.9 or 14.8 per cent.—of the funding, despite having to cater for 15 per cent. of the population. So London is receiving an under-provision in revenue, especially when we recall the under-recording of London's population left as a legacy of the poll tax.
  That brings me to perhaps the most blatant example of the chaos over which the Secretary of State reigns, which directly results from the neglect, vandalism and incompetence of Ministers. When she launched the new patients charter, the Secretary of State was pleased to boast of a new trolley standard. [Laughter.] Under previous Governments, Labour or Tory, the notion that waiting hours on a trolley in a casualty department was a standard daily expectation was inconceivable.
  In January, Bart's accident and emergency department closed. The week before its closure, patients were having to wait up to 36 hours to be admitted to the alternative facilities, and some 15 patients could not be found beds because of the pressure placed on those facilities. Guy's accident and emergency department is under threat. Many patients are expected to go to St. Thomas's. But, last week, even before the closure of Guy's accident and emergency unit, patients from St. Thomas's had to be sent back to Guy's, because. there were too many to be treated at St. Thomas's.
  All London has read of the child with an arrow in his eye, who spent eight hours being shuttled between hospitals before he was allowed into Bart's for emergency treatment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Was the boy with an arrow in his eye one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents?
  Mr. Bottomley indicated assent.
  Mrs. Beckett: Then I shall give way.
  Mr. Bottomley: The newspaper report said that a child in my constituency had been taken by air ambulance to Moorfields hospital, and that the doctors at Moorfields had been told by the paramedics that the child could not be taken to Bart's. When I checked with the local evening newspaper news desk, it said that, in fact, the child had been taken to the Royal London hospital, and that the doctors at Moorfields had not asked the London Ambulance Service whether the child should be transferred for neurological or ophthalmic treatment at Bart's. If the right hon. Lady is to read newspaper cuttings, she should check them, in the way that the constituency Member of Parliament does.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in any way casting doubt on the point I made, which is that, right across London, there is huge pressure on casualty departments, and right across London there is strain. It is not surprising that, in such circumstances, people do not always make the correct decision—the decision that they should have made at the outset.
  It does not alter the fact, whoever was at fault, that that child waited all those hours for treatment. Nor does it alter the fact that, as we heard in the previous debate, we can
  30
  Produce a string of lists outlining incidents of people waiting hours on end in casualty departments right across London, of which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware.
  In consequence, right across London and the south-east, there is fear and anger. There is anger at the loss of valuable facilities that people believe are needed, and there is real fear, especially among parents, as private surveys of opinion show, that, should their children be injured or fall seriously ill, the treatment they would need would simply not be there.
  In our previous debate, the Secretary of State talked about her stewardship of our health service. Let us examine that stewardship for a moment, and look at her strategy for London and the south-east, especially for accident and emergency services.
  Has there been an overall review of accident and emergency services as there has for other specialty services? No. How many hospitals in London provide such services? According to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State does not know and, what is more, she does not think that it is any of her business.
  How many accident and emergency departments are there in London and the south-east? The Secretary of State does not know, and she does not think that it is any of her business. How many accident and emergency departments are due to close in London and the south-east? The Secretary of State does not know that, either, and she does not concern herself with it. Stewardship? The Secretary of State does not know the meaning of the word.
  The Government have abandoned the management, planning and co-ordination of change in London. They have abandoned their duty to those who live and work in and around the capital. The Government are always urging on us the virtues of private sector management, but no big business would act as the Secretary of State acts.
  The manager of every branch of Woolworth arid McDonald's has a degree of freedom to manage the unit, but that freedom can be practised only within a well-defined and clear framework, and within guidelines laid down by the parent company. As I understand it, nothing is more precisely defined than a McDonald's hamburger.
  There are varying degrees of autonomy for local business units in London's national health service, but with no strategic framework. Just imagine if the chairman of Kingfisher, the parent company of Woolworth, was asked how many Woolworth branches there were in London, and he had to reply that that information was not centrally held, which is the Secretary of State's stock reply.
  Imagine that McDonald's was restructuring its business and downsizing its operation, and, when the shareholders asked how many branches were going to close, the chairman said, "This information is not held centrally."
  A whole new vocabulary is developing. "Rationalisation" means—
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No: I have almost finished.
  "Rationalisation" means closure. "Information not centrally held" means "I haven't got a clue", and instead of decisions we have strategic directions. We have a

  31
  strategic direction for the Secretary of State: the exit is that way, and she can rationalise the door behind her as she goes.
  Mr. Forman: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have almost finished, and I am mindful of Madam Speaker's observations.
  Imagine if ICI had just invested in a new state-of-the-art building, the most modern in the industry, which had cost £150 million and had taken eight years to build. However, before it was even occupied, the chairman decided that the facilities would never be used by that part of the business for which it was intended. Just imagine what the shareholders of the company would say to such a cavalier and irresponsible treatment of their funds.
  However, that is exactly what will happen to Philip Harris house at Guy's hospital, which the Secretary of State has decided will never be used for the service that it was intended to provide. That is typical of the Government's cavalier attitude to the use of public and private funds.
  In London and the south-east today, there is no strategic planning, no overall investment strategy and little consideration of whether a wider national or public interest should materially affect decisions locally made. There must be a moratorium on further bed closures, in case they have already gone too far.
  In the breathing space that such a moratorium creates, there must be a fresh and thorough assessment of the needs of health care in London, of needs driven by medical technology, which was the case made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and of the needs of elderly and frail people, particularly where, as in London, there is such a lack of alternative places. There must be an assessment of those needs, and further consideration of how those needs are to be met.
  By no definition, and by no standard, can the Secretary of State's attitude to health care in London and the south-east be called stewardship. The Government are not stewards, because that word implies duty, responsibility and care. The Government are just incumbents, and the sooner they cease to be so, the better for London, the better for the south-east, and the better for Britain.
  4.3 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises that, because of medical advance, shifts in the population and the changing needs of patients, reform of the health service in London is both necessary and long overdue; congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its resolve in addressing the modern needs of people in the capital and the South East, in sharp contrast to the vacillation and evasion of the Opposition; and believes that policies now being pursued have already delivered a better health service for the area, enhancing the excellence of research, teaching and treatment as well as improving local health services in the parts of greatest need.'.
  I welcome this opportunity to describe the progress being made to modernise London's health service. We are improving the quality and responsiveness of hospital services. We are investing in primary care and we are enhancing the capital's status as an international centre of
  32
  clinical teaching and research. I shall be announcing more money for primary care. I shall tell the House of important new developments around some of the hospitals and medical colleges in London and important changes taking us nearer to the heart of our vision of four world-class hospital complexes clustered around multi-faculty universities and colleges.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on being here to open the debate. The last time Labour Front-Bench Members chose to debate health in London, their health spokesman did not even turn up. Instead, their transport spokesman came along, mouthed a few sound bites in advance of impending local elections and sat down. He said nothing about Labour policy. That showed the real face of the Labour party: it is interested not in serious health issues but only in party politics and partisan advantage.
  I give credit to the right hon. Member for Derby, South. She suffered widespread criticism of her Trappist approach to Labour health policy. With some justice, The Lancet recently asked:
  "What would a Labour government do with the NHS?"
  With some justice, it gave the answer:
  "It's no use asking the Party's spokeswoman on health; she refuses to say".
  However, the right hon. Lady has now produced a plank of policy. Unfortunately, it is the wrong policy, but we cannot have everything. She wants a moratorium on bed closures in London. She wants, as her motion states,
  "a fresh and thorough review".
  There have been about 20 fresh and thorough reviews in the past 80 years, and they have all said the same thing: we need movement and improvement, not a moratorium. London needs action and change, not yet another review.
  Labour Members have cut themselves off from what has to be done. They have ignored even the advice of The Guardian, which stated:
  "A party preparing for Government should resist the easy option—opposing all hospital closures—and concentrate on filling out its own plans."
  Rarely can a party have so wallowed in the irresponsibility of opposition. Labour Members' dithering in opposition shows why Labour would be such a disaster in government.
  I should say at the outset that I cannot comment in detail on the proposals around St. Bart's, the Royal London, or Guy's-St. Thomas's. They are or have been the subject of statutory public consultation and as Secretary of State I am in a quasi-judicial position in relation to the proposals which are likely to come to Ministers for final decision.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The consultation period on whether Bart's is to close ends tomorrow. Yet in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph there was a quotation from a letter from the Secretary of State for Employment saying that the decision to close Bart's had not been taken lightly by the Prime Minister and by the Government. What is the point of consultation when decisions have been taken before 6 February and consultation is continuing until 21 February?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that the matter is subject to open consultation. I am sorry that

  33
  there should have been any misunderstanding at all. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), will be extremely pleased to hear that.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on the previous matter there was a great effort to take the issue to judicial review. That challenge was totally and utterly rebutted. In all matters, Ministers have behaved with absolute propriety and will take forward the consultation in the proper way. I am delighted to make that absolutely clear.
  These are serious matters affecting not only London and Londoners but people throughout the country. I should like to set out again the underlying issues facing those and all the great hospitals in London. They are the same issues which face the south-east and the rest of the country. The issues are linked: what we do in London affects what can be done outside London. The London health service is part of a national health service.
  The service in London faces many difficult challenges. One of the reasons why we began the process with Tomlinson was precisely to address those problems head-on. To duck out now would blight the capital's health service for at least a generation. The Labour party's shoddy analysis of London's needs and problems will not do. The fundamental issues, none of which the right hon. Member for Derby, South addressed, result from changes in where people live, changes in how they choose to be cared for, and the need to adapt to the evolving potential of modern medicine.
  Within a six-mile radius of this place there are about 22 major acute hospitals. That cannot be said of any other part of the country. That concentration of hospitals grew up mainly in the previous century to meet national rather than specifically London needs, let alone the day-to-day needs of local communities. The population has moved away. London's population has fallen dramatically by about 1.3 million in the past three decades. People who used to come to inner London hospitals from all over the south-east and beyond are now turning to their own hospitals for care.
  Lady Olga Maitland: My right hon. Friend refers to the reluctance of patients to come to London. Is she aware that patients in my constituency in Sutton can now go to the St. Helier's national health trust hospital, which provides all the services they need?
  Mrs. Bottomley: A generation ago, people travelled from the home counties to the London hospitals, but there has been a massive development of services throughout the home counties. Patients and GPs rightly say that they would rather have treatment close to home than travel to London. That is precisely what is causing great difficulties for the London hospitals, which have fixed overheads.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: Does that square with the Secretary of State's decision to transfer further into London the regional neurosciences units and the cardiothoracic units based at the Brook hospital in Greenwich, which serve the Kent area?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall be emphasising at some length later in my speech the crucial importance of academic excellence and research. London has been a capital city for medical research and teaching, and there is duplication
  34
  and fragmentation of centres. If we wish to be a world capital for medicine in the next century, we must concentrate on centres of excellence.
  We undertook an unprecedented review of the specialty services, in which about 200 clinicians were involved. The prime position given to the Institute of Psychiatry and the campus at Denmark Hill, and the contribution which could be made to international research and teaching by the integration of the neurosciences centre from the Brook hospital were decisive factors in our supporting the recommendation. It is precisely that commitment to excellence that has driven the framework within which the changes have been seen.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sorry that I was late for my right hon. Friend's opening remarks. She rightly referred to the growing importance of a comprehensive range of services in outer London and in the home counties. Does she agree that it is vital to keep open— in all and in part— the services of Edgware general hospital in the future?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend—like almost every constituency Member of Parliament—has a great affection for his local hospital, the way in which it has evolved over the years and the service that it provides for the local community. The dilemma that we face— which any responsible Government would face— is that report after report has argued that if we want clinical excellence we must look towards the consolidation of services. For example, at the Royal London we can have a 24-hour consultant-led accident and emergency department.
  A couple of weeks ago, a major report from the clinical standards advisory group argued again about the quality that we should be looking for in an accident and emergency department. We can deliver that quality, commitment and back-up in terms of staff only if units come together. A balanced judgment must be taken on the pace at which we move towards those centres.
  Another example is cancer services. The Chief Medical Officer's report on cancer services argues for a concentration of centres with a relevant critical mass, which always leads to difficult decisions for individual Members of Parliament.
  I say openly to the House that if we want to have the quality of services advanced by the royal colleges and by virtually every expert report, we must see how we can address the issue of hon. Members' great affection for their local hospitals which cannot provide the critical mass, the sub-specialties and the costly equipment that we need for state of the art services.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that, with your permission, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Madam Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but as the motion is not a substantive one he should not have interrupted at this stage. He must seek an Adjournment debate and take his chance.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I used my hon. Friend's particular example to make a more general point which any responsible holder of my office has to take into account

  35
  when looking at the interface between a series of expert reports and the understandable and strong views of constituency Members of Parliament.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I should make headway. The point is well made. The constituency points made by my hon. Friend are subject to consideration. Decisions have not been made. I was using the example to make a more general point.
  Not only do we have hospitals around London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said when she gave an example from her constituency, some patients who are treated in London would prefer to be treated closer to home. An example is the new cardiac unit being built in Plymouth to treat, among others, patients who currently come 250 miles to the Royal Hospitals trust. A new £5 million cardiothoracic centre is being established in Brighton. There are two major new oncology centres, in Maidstone and, as my own constituents know well—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Ah.
  Mrs. Bottomley:—in Guildford, where £12 million is being spent upgrading and relocating cancer services.
  That is the modern health service taking root. History has left a proliferation of small specialist units within a few miles of each other in central London. Before the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gets too carried away, he will want to know that in my constituency I have faced precisely the changes that I have described in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. My own hospitals are becoming community hospitals because we have a concentration of speciality services outside my constituency, in Guildford. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Those small units, often within a few miles of each other, are run by skilled clinicians. In these days of modern medicine and high technology, it cannot make sense for the speciality reviews to find 10 radiotherapy units, 13 cardiac surgery departments and 11 renal dialysis centres all in such close proximity. The simple fact is that it is impossible to sustain the highest quality care in so many fragmented centres. The talent and expertise of the clinicians, and the money available to purchase equipment, is too thinly spread.
  As I have made clear, the number of patients referred to London for specialist treatment will fall. As it does, it will become ever more difficult to maintain the quality of services in each centre. The royal college training accreditation is in jeopardy in neurosciences and other specialities at Bart's because the number of patients that it treats is now below the clinically recommended levels.
  For example—this, again, is an issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—Professor Sir Norman Browse, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, has said:
  "To maintain and improve professional standards, we have to amalgamate the remaining in-patient beds so that they achieve the critical mass necessary to provide the experience needed to train and educate junior doctors and maintain the consultants' expertise."
  36
  Time and again, expert o and independent speciality reviews have argued that for better patient care we must have specialist services concentrated in fewer, larger centres, so as to make better use of finite resources and dedicated staff.
  Modern clinical equipment is expensive. A computerised tomography scanner can cost £500,000. A magnetic resonance imager can cost £1.5 million. By clustering hospitals, we can ensure the best use of these medical miracles, which were not even conceived when the NHS began in 1948, let alone when most of London's hospitals were constructed in the last century.
  We can make better use of our doctors, with their highly specialised and scarce skills. We are committed to reducing junior doctors' hours. My hon. Friend the Minister is meeting them this week to discuss the issue further. Smaller units needing 24-hour cover require junior doctors to be on site all the time. With fewer larger centres, the load can be spread. We can achieve the ambition both of the Government and doctors to improve the quality of life for medical professionals.
  There is another reason why we need fewer, better centres. Fragmenting services across so many sites makes it much more difficult to manage beds. We frequently hear about the pressure on beds for emergency admissions and I do not discount the problem. A recent comprehensive study in London, carried out by the inner London health authorities, dealt with that important issue and I commend it to the House. Copies are easily available in the Library and, I believe, in the Vote Office.
  The report states:
  "Larger hospitals and those with larger pools of beds were found to be better able to manage variations in demand for admission. Those with a lower proportion of emergency admissions could operate at higher occupancy levels."
  The report concludes:
  "Better clinical and management systems than in the past need to be in place if such problems are to be handled without detriment to quality of care or the planned admission of non-urgent patients."
  In a significant passage, it states:
  "It was thought that extra acute beds would not solve those problems in a cost-effective way. They are better addressed by the management of admissions and discharges in collaboration with all the parties involved."
  The Government have set out the strategic direction for the health service in London, which that important report endorses.
  Mr. Peter Shore: On the important question of concentration of facilities in one spot, obviously there is an argument for larger and fewer units and we are familiar with it—it applies to many things other than the health service or hospital services—but there are disbenefits and additional costs from highly concentrated organisations.
  The London hospital is to be concentrated on the Whitechapel site, with the closure of the London Chest hospital, part of Bart's and the Queen Elizabeth hospital. A huge and costly investment programme will be necessary on the Whitechapel site to provide facilities which one hopes will be similar and equal to those to be closed. Is there any guarantee that the money will be made available within the time scale involved?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Obviously, those matters are all subject to the consultation, on which I cannot comment at the moment. If the right hon. Gentleman has read the

  37
  document, he will know that, out of something like a £95 million cost for the status quo, much of the capital cost will be used to refurbish the existing facilities. The document suggests that there will be revenue savings of £22 million a year as a result of concentration on one site.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that academics and researchers feel strongly about the great opportunity to bring together research teams; with a larger group, they can have sub-specialties and all the opportunities of mixing disciplines. Academics, with whom I spend an enormous amount of time, are concerned that if we allow the fragmentation of the small centres to continue it will be almost impossible to build up the substantial clinical and research teams with which they hope to pioneer innovations.
  Mr. Forman: I am mindful of my right hon. Friend's argument about the benefits for academics of an inter-disciplinary approach in large clusters of hospitals, and it obviously makes sense. But is she aware of another argument, which tends to point the other way—the possibility of diseconomies of scale on the managerial side if the management of those vast enterprises are expected to manage something many times larger than the units that they were managing?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my hon. Friend's argument, but the hospitals that we are discussing are relatively modest in size compared, for example, with some of the most internationally famous hospitals in the United States.
  I regard Boston as a competitor with London in terms of the prime position in medical research and teaching. It was interesting for me to meet the professor in charge of Massachusetts university hospital recently as he was amalgamating a 1,000-bed hospital and an 800-bed hospital. The changes that we are making in London are being made in Boston, Sydney, Paris and virtually every capital city in the world. Those changes matter so much partly because Londoners deserve a better health service. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) may know, my first job was in Bethnal Green, so I know only too well how inadequate and paltry the community and family doctor services were for people in that area. However, I am also strongly committed to our international position and centres of excellence. It is no coincidence that our university hospitals of Oxford and Cambridge, in areas where there is no fragmentation or duplication, find things much easier than some London centres precisely because those are so numerous.
  It would be wrong to delay matters, have a moratorium, and abandon the process of change because that would put everyone in limbo and a state of uncertainty. People in London want to know what the future holds and to build for the next century.
  Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend help me by reconciling her logic and information with the illogical feelings of my constituents, who are unanimously against her proposals? Have I any alternative but to represent their views in the Lobby, contrary to how my right hon. Friend would wish?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I repeat what I said to another hon. Friend: a balance must be struck between the move towards clinical excellence, the concentration of services, better services, the issue of junior doctors' hours, and the pace at which change can be achieved. Issues concerning
  38
  my hon. Friend's hospital are being carefully addressed. I totally accept that every hon. Member must balance local wishes, which are nearly always to avoid change—the populism that we have seen from the Opposition today—and a more principled approach which believes that if we want clinical excellence for the future we must face and take difficult decisions.
  Sir John Gorst: Without my vote, then.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss those matters further.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  We need to invest in the acute sector and more must be done to improve infrastructure in London. We are backing our commitment with a substantial amount of cash: £28 million for redevelopment of the Lewisham hospital; nearly £20 million to develop the Homerton as a full district general hospital serving the people of Hackney; nearly £15 million for the London ambulance service—
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South and I shall consider it carefully. I greatly appreciated our lengthy and informative discussion on the subject earlier in the year.
  We are spending more than £8 million to upgrade and expand the accident and emergency department at King's—
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: No, but I look forward to reading the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard later.
  We are spending £3.2 million on the St. Thomas's accident and emergency department; £2 million for the Whittington; and nearly £2 million at the Royal London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear that list of investments and would rather drown it out, so substantial and significant is our record of investment in the London health service.
  The list goes on and on, but the key issue is that it is investment in the future, not in the past, and it is close to where people live. We should not continue to sustain the current revenue cost of £70 million a year in duplication and fragmentation of an outdated pattern of hospital care. To do so would be unfair to the taxpayer, to other parts of the south-east and the rest of the country and to London when money should be targeted on basic health services in the community, which are so badly needed.
  We have come to terms with the paradox that clinical developments point to a need for fewer acute beds. It is a paradox, and I understand hon. Members' concerns, but we see the development of day surgery, minimally invasive surgery, new drugs and other medical advances. All of those mean that we can treat more patients in fewer acute beds.
  Because of those developments, the number of beds has been falling in the UK and elsewhere for the past 30 years. But fewer beds do not mean fewer services. There has been a massive expansion in the number of patients treated, reductions in waiting times and a transformation

  39
  in the range and sophistication of treatment available. In the past year, the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment in the Thames regions has fallen by 7 per cent. In a five-year period from 1988, the number of hip replacement operations increased by 2,500. During the same time, there was a fourfold increase in the number of liver transplants. The Labour party should know that it is simplistic just to look at the number of acute beds. We must consider how they are used and what that tells us about the balance between acute and non-acute beds and services generally.
  The inner London health authorities' report concluded that the use of acute hospital beds is significantly above the national average. But there is no evidence to suggest that, on average, Londoners need to go into hospital more than people living elsewhere in the country. What the figures reveal is that the wrong beds are being used in the wrong way. Patients—particularly elderly patients—are being kept in hospital longer than they need be when they could better be discharged to proper care outside hospital, which is better for patients and for the NHS. For some, that will mean a nursing home. Evidence shows that, since our community care reforms, the number of nursing home places in London has begun to rise—200 more this year, but 1,800 more in the pipeline. That is a substantial increase in the number of nursing places for older people.
  Local authorities have been well funded to meet their new community care responsibilities. This year, the London boroughs have received a total of £850 million for community care—more than one fifth more than in 1993–94. The funds available will rise by a further £95 million for 1995–96. The London boroughs are well placed to support a continued growth in nursing and residential facilities outside hospital. We look to them to discharge that stewardship in a responsible manner. As Professor Jarman has pointed out, we need more "low-tech" beds, as he calls them. It is because of the Government's reforms and the money that we have put back into them that the expansion in services is at last becoming a reality.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred to primary care. Sadly, primary care in London has lagged behind other parts of the country, but it would be quite wrong not to draw her attention to the very substantial improvements that have been made since the Acheson report. Of the 31 main recommendations of the report in 1981, 26 were implemented within 10 years. Between 1978–91, the number of general practitioners in London increased by a further 310 from 3,523 to 3,833. Many other recommendations were implemented: the retirement age for GPs; higher payments in underprivileged areas; standards for the reimbursement of rent of surgeries; screening for people over 75; and the co-ordination, by community health experts, of district health authority services for children. The right hon. Lady would be quite wrong to fail to recognise the dramatic changes that have been under way, but there is clearly a need to do even more.
  Over the past two years, we have already invested an additional £125 million in primary care, which is creating and supporting more than 1,000 projects in London's areas of greatest need. A transformation is under way. There are more than three times the number of practice nurses as five years ago. The GP contract, introduced in
  40
  the face of bitter opposition from the Labour party, has brought an increase in child immunisation and cancer screening, of which my hon. Friends are so proud. Above all, the GP contract brought in extra payments for family doctors working in deprived areas. What hypocrisy it is for the Labour party to lecture us about poverty and ill health when it opposed that measure in the House.
  Despite those achievements, however, there is more to be done. I am pleased to be able to announce that we shall be investing a further £85 million in primary care initiatives in London's most needy areas in 1995–96. That is a substantial sum. I know that my hon. Friends who represent areas outside London want it to be wisely and well spent, but it will enable us to implement our key objectives—to improve GP practices and other primary care premises; to increase the range of services that GPs can offer their patients; and to assist the development of health teams working in the community. It will include an investment of £20 million over two years in a new education programme for London GPs.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not intend to give way again. I have already given way many times, and I know that my hon. Friends are keen to speak. I am normally rebuked for giving way too much, so I hope that the House will bear with me.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We rarely engage in debates on London's health. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to give way, how on earth can we use our one opportunity to question her directly about matters of deep concern to all hon. Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I said from the Chair the other day that I had long waited to hear a genuine point of order. I also said that it was very unlikely that I would do so in the near future, but that I lived in hope. I am not very satisfied with what I have heard today.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am between the devil and the deep blue sea, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should make it clear that I regard the Chair as the deep blue sea and the Opposition—otherwise. Madam Speaker often severely rebukes Front Benchers for speaking at great length. I realise that I have already spoken for longer than the right hon. Member for Derby, South, although I think that I have given way more times than she did, but we shall consult the record tomorrow.
  The issues involved are enormously important. We want to introduce improved training programmes to attract and retain high quality family doctors, and to improve opportunities for GPs to maintain high standards where they are needed most. We are also considering further steps to help, in particular, smaller practices to recruit and retain practitioners and assistants. We want more and better GPs, providing better services; we want in London family doctor facilities and community teams of the range and quality that are already common elsewhere. We want more of the fundholders who have been the pioneers of change in primary care. I am pleased to say that we expect London and the south-east to match the rest of the country by April, with some 40 per cent. of its population covered by fundholders.

  41
  I also welcome the prospect of GPs forming groups to purchase services for their patients, and the news that Professor Jarman and others are to join the central London multi-fund.
  We are targeting people with specific needs—the elderly, the homeless and people with mental health problems. In the current year, £10 million of additional money is being invested in better services for the mentally ill in London. I can also announce that at least the same amount will be available again in the coming year for the special needs of people with mental illnesses. A vast range of programmes is now in place around the capital to improve care in the community for mentally ill people.
  There are schemes such as that run by the Hackney Sanctuary, which provides crisis support to help avoid the admission of patients to acute hospital beds, and there is a new residential scheme in Camden and Islington. There are other schemes in Hounslow, Lambeth, Hammersmith, Greenwich, Haringey and Croydon; throughout London there has been rapid investment in practical schemes to help those with mental illness cope in the community. Time and again, Opposition Members re-emphasise their commitment to the principles of care in the community; I ask them to recognise all that is being achieved, and to acknowledge that more will be done because of the extra money that the Government are committing.
  I feel that, as we are discussing important and serious issues, I should set out. what is happening, what has been achieved and the issues that remain to be tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred to the importance of education and research. Those are fundamental to the reputation of London as a world leader in medical teaching and research. Bringing the different specialist centres together in the way that I have already described is difficult, but it is a vital part of securing the long-term objective.
  The synergies which consolidation brings will help research thrive. Formal academic integration of pre-clinical medical education with the basic science faculties of the university of London will enhance the range of options for students, researchers and clinicians. [Interruption.] It is noteworthy that the Opposition greet with mirth and merriment issues that for many years have concerned Lord Flowers, Lord Annan and the vice-chancellor of London university. People feel deeply about these issues and they should be given proper priority as the changes take place.
  We are working towards our vision which is based on four world-class hospital complexes clustered around four world-class colleges. The multi-faculty colleges will provide the engine room of basic science. This will be carried through in their associated medical schools and hospitals into clinical science and clinical research. It will allow the benefits, for example, of new advances in molecular biology and genetics—advances pioneered in this country—to have practical results in the care of patients.
  We are making strong progress. All undergraduate medical schools proposed for merger are now committed to merge and are making plans to bring this about. The Institute of Psychiatry, associated with the Maudsley hospital, has entered into a formal association with King's college. A private Bill to enable the merger of King's college with the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St. Thomas's is currently passing through another place.
  42
  The Maudsley is the world's pre-eminent research institution of its type. People are already coming from all over the world to work there because of the great opportunities that it offers. Imperial college recently announced agreement by the Charing Cross and Westminster medical schools, the National Heart and Lung Institute and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School to merge with Imperial and the St. Mary's medical school to form a new Imperial medical school. The new school will make a significant contribution to both undergraduate and postgraduate education and to research. It will contain several teams of the highest international standing. These proposals will forge a brilliant alliance between some of our top clinical researchers and Imperial's scientific and engineering excellence.
  The merged college will be focused on a new basic and life sciences building to be built at Imperial's Kensington site. The financial case is still being examined by the Higher Education Funding Council. However, I can announce to the House that I am prepared in principle to commit a substantial capital contribution to the scheme. As a result of this work, and the money with which the Government are prepared to back it, the new school should be admitting its first students in the autumn of 1998.
  Our policies are also working to underpin the international reputation and excellence of University college hospital. It is making good progress in its association with the institutions based in Queen's square and has recently completed a financial case for the development of the Gower street site. This proposal has strong support from the academic and clinical community. I hope that formal consultation on the resulting service changes will begin before Easter.
  I also commend to the House the private Bill which would enable the merger of Queen Mary Westfield college with Bart's and the London hospital medical colleges. These multi-faculty colleges with their clusters of hospitals in London will be ideally placed to take forward the highest calibre medical education and research. The critical mass of expertise within each centre will allow the widespread dissemination of best clinical practice.
  Mr. Jim Dowd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has been speaking for 40 minutes. I accept that she has taken a number of interventions, but in the spirit of Jopling—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order and the hon. Gentleman knows it. This is a limited debate and many hon. Members wish to take part. Interventions of that nature do not help.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am coming to the end of my speech, but it would be wrong for the House not to be aware of how much is happening in terms of the investment in primary care and mental health services and how vital is the consolidation of medical research and teaching if we are to take pride in our national health service for the century ahead.
  The Government will not shy away from what must be done. We utterly reject the Opposition's vacillation and evasion. We will have no truck with their moratoriums, their counsels of delay. We reject their plans for a health service run by councillors, which would inflict on our hospitals the same unholy alliance of bureaucrats and

  43
  councillors as we saw in the Greater London council, which left thousands of Londoners isolated in inner London despair. As The Economist said:
  "The choice, after all, lies between preserving Victorian glories and providing better health care for Londoners."
  London deserves a health service that is fit for the 21st century. Much hard-fought ground has been won, momentum has been generated and much has been achieved. We wish to carry the services forward, accept the change and bring an end to uncertainty in the interests of medical research, staff and patients in London and throughout the country.
  4.45 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I tried about half a dozen times during the Secretary of State's speech to ask questions, but I regret that she did not give me or a number of my hon. Friends the opportunity to intervene.
  On Saturday night, I visited five accident and emergency departments; it is in those departments that pressures are most felt, because of lack of beds. I visited King's College hospital, which is used by most of my constituents, Homerton hospital in Hackney, North Middlesex hospital, Chase Farm and the Whittington, which is my local hospital. Each one except the Whittington was having what was described as its quietest night for weeks. As one sister put it, "Usually by now patients and trolleys are everywhere, coming out of the woodwork. It is chaos."
  Each hospital had free beds. For example, the Homerton had 10 beds when I arrived but during the 45 minutes of my visit, five were filled. I was told by one of the sisters, "On a night like this, we do a little better than just cope." That is what is happening on an easy night in London's accident and emergency departments. In every hospital, the staff thought that they were having an easy time if they had any free beds at all. In each hospital, the circumstances of the past 12 weeks were described as barely tolerable for staff or patients.
  On 24 January, at King's College hospital, there were 19 trolleys, each with a patient waiting for a bed to become free. On 6 February, also at King's, there were 15 patients waiting on trolleys. At the Homerton two weeks ago, 26 people could not be found beds and at the Whittington the weekend before last, an extra 37 beds had to be put up. During my visit, the staff thought that they were having a quiet night because the pressure was off, but only one of the hospitals had an occupancy of less than 98 per cent. The inner London chief executives' report, to which the Secretary of State referred, accepts that that is too high and that hospitals should aim for a bed occupancy of 85 per cent. if they are to deal with the fluctuations of demand. Ministers believe that better bed management will be the solution to the bed crisis.
  One of the reports that accompanied the inner London chief executives' report made plain what passes at the moment for a bed management strategy. The report states:
  "In most cases action is taken as occupancy approaches the hospital's 'danger' level".
  It refers to
  "the early discharge of patients by consultant led ward rounds…Clearance ward rounds were a common feature of hospital life … The cancellation of elective admissions or the restriction of elected work to urgent cases only … Use of the EBS system"
  44
  that is, the emergency bed system
  "to restrict the hospital to its catchment area or to medically refereed cases".
  I have the latest figures for the emergency bed system, which show a 100 per cent. increase in the number of patients admitted as a result of being medically refereed for the month of January— the intolerably pressurised month referred to by so many of those to whom I spoke on Saturday.
  The report continues:
  "Treat and transfer arrangements were not a common response. Experience suggested that in times of bed shortages other hospitals were generally unable to provide cover."
  The report says that mixed-sex wards, and even mixed-sex bays, are now common. It points out that the transfer of patients between wards and, in some cases, between sites make compliance with the patients charter named nurse standard difficult. It also says:
  "Putting up extra beds and the opening of closed wards and bays at very short notice were reported by most inner London Trusts"
  There was also the
  "Use of day or 5 day surgery wards for medical emergencies".
  That is how hospitals are getting by; they are just coping day by day.
  At the same time, the Secretary of State has introduced a new patients charter standard—70 per cent. of trolley waits to be admitted within 90 minutes of the decision to admit. Another patients charter standard about to be implemented is that of choice—for elective patients to choose to come into hospital to a mixed-sex ward, or to choose not to come into hospital if the only bed available is in a mixed-sex ward or mixed-sex bay.
  What the Secretary of State will not do is accept responsibility. She sets those standards but then walks away from them. She says that it is all the responsibility of the purchaser, while taking even more money away from the purchasers, whose hospitals have to resort to trolleys and mixed-sex wards only because the right hon. Lady will not fund them to open the beds that her cuts have forced them to close.
  The pressure is not just on acute beds hut, as was recently reported, on intensive care beds—and with tragic consequences. Out of the hospitals that I visited on Saturday, on a quiet night, only two intensive care beds were available.
  All this has resulted in another sort of folly. I shall cite a specific instance of the problem being encountered by one of my constituents, who is a consultant at Bart's. For the past two weeks he has been trying to operate on a 75-year-old woman who has a desperately serious form of cancer. She has been in hospital for three weeks being prepared for major surgery. The first time her operation was cancelled was just an hour before it was due to take place, because the intensive care bed that had been booked for her had been taken by another patient. Exactly the same happened again last week and there are now real fears that her condition will begin to deteriorate.
  The problem is that there are four high-dependency beds at Bart's that have never been opened, thus requiring intensive-care beds to be used when patients could be better and more appropriately nursed in high-dependency beds. That sort of folly is putting patients' well-being at risk and sabotaging the best efforts of dedicated staff.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike other hon. Members on occasions.

  45
  Does she agree that the nub of the matter is the responsibility of the Secretary of State? Can my hon. Friend suggest any reason why evidence given to a Select Committee on the serious matter of the London ambulance service should not, after examination by the Secretary of State, be the subject of a reply from her to any hon. Member pointing out points of logic and matters of fact? The Secretary of State has a responsibility to do that and she should have said so during her speech.
  Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend has made an important point. What causes us so much frustration, and what causes so much frustration and anger throughout London, is the extent to which the Secretary of State appears to have abdicated all responsibility for the chaos that she has created.
  Every night, the folly of Ministers in refusing to accept the evidence is played out in the suffering of patients and the shattered morale of exhausted staff. All are victims of a Secretary of State who prefers to believe her own fairy-tale view of the world rather than confront the reality that she has created.
  Florence Nightingale gave her name to the organisation of wards with beds in long straight lines—something that persists in some of our hospitals today. The Secretary of State has given her name to another sort of ward—the Bottomley ward, where patients on trolleys are lined up in corridors waiting for beds to become free.
  What is also clear, and what was made patently clear to me during my visits on Saturday night, is that the confidence of both patients and staff has collapsed. So much for the primary-care-led national health service. Patients are voting with their feet. The loss of confidence among them means that instead of going to their general practitioners and facing what they know will he a long wait before a hospital appointment is offered, they short circuit that delay and go to the accident and emergency departments because they believe that that is the only way that they can be guaranteed seeing a doctor.
  There is also evidence that 999 ambulance calls are not always appropriate, but again it is for the very reason that people have no confidence that if they go to their doctor they will be referred to hospital before their condition becomes worse. They believe that the only sure way of getting into hospital is to phone for an ambulance to take them there.
  There also seems to be evidence of a loss of confidence among general practitioners, which is shown by the increasing tendency to make an immediate decision to refer a patient to hospital. A few years ago, doctors might have kept patients under review for hours or days. However, they now know that their patients will have to wait, so they feel that it is better to get them on the list early.
  What is so dreadful about all this is that it is a direct result of ministerial action. The Government have gambled on the possibility that improved primary care will reduce the need for hospital beds. There is no evidence that that is the case; indeed, the contrary appears to be true. They have gambled on the belief that more work will be done on a day-care basis, thus reducing the need for in-patient beds. In fact, all the evidence shows that premature discharge after a day's surgery results in a rise in the rate of readmissions. The cynics would say that that might not be very good for the patients, but it increases the number of finished consultant episodes. That number goes up every time a patient walks through the door.
  46
  Hospital beds are being closed before the alternatives have been properly developed and their effectiveness tested in practice. It is a chaos of the Government's making, even on a quiet night in accident and emergency departments in London. As one sister put it:
  "You want to do your best for patients but you can't, the pressure is too great, sometimes you cannot even get a patient a drink. We did not train as nurses only to be able to put sick people on trolleys."
  If the Secretary of State continues to refuse to listen to the voice of the Opposition, or to the evidence that confronts her every day, perhaps she will consider the evidence in a report she commissioned from inner London chief executives. It said:
  "On the basis of the evidence presented to us there are reasons for anxiety about the ability of the system to cope with a further round of bed closures without action to improve throughput and particularly arrangements for the care of the elderly."
  I offer the Secretary of State another piece of advice. It comes from Robert Maxwell, in a press release about a report to be published by the King's Fund on Wednesday. He says:
  "The pacing and sequence of change must take top priority. Because there is so little margin for error, there should be no reduction in services—whether for those with acute conditions, for continuing care of elderly people, or for those with mental health problems—until alternatives are in place. Accident and Emergency departments should not be closed until other ways of dealing with their work load are secure."
  That simply is what we are asking for. We are asking the Secretary of State to accept the advice provided by her own inner London purchasers, and to open the beds that she has closed to relieve the intolerable pressure on the patients of London.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: The motion invites us to recognise
  "the Government's failure either to assess the health care needs of the area properly or to plan a programme by which those needs can be met".
  I suggest that, in her speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health effectively refuted both those contentions. The facts and figures that she produced showed that needs have been assessed and that plans have been put in hand to meet them. The assertions in the motion are not true in the part of south-east London with which I am especially familiar—my constituency Bromley. What is happening in Bromley is not unique.
  The health authority and family health services authority in Bromley have been working as one for several years, chaired by a very able lady and a most effective board of directors—which include a prominent local member of the Labour party—and run by a professional and energetic chief executive. Bromley health authority has assessed the needs of the local community and it has planned and begun to execute a programme to meet those needs.
  Bromley health authority has carried out extensive surveys of the population, their health and their mobility. It has assessed the population's diverse health needs. It has undertaken public consultation and it has organised public meetings and private groups—a process that is continuing with small groups of local people being invited to show their expectations of local health services. As a result of that process, it has developed, among other things, a local rest care service. It has brought plastic

  47
  surgery consultants into local clinics. It has established a local alcohol detoxification service, run by a voluntary body, on whose management committee I sit. The authority has established local mental health teams and devoted extra resources to help promotion. All those policies have stemmed from local consultation.
  The health authority has been pursuing the targets in the patients charter, especially in relation to reducing waiting times for both in-patients and out-patients. It has encouraged the use of day surgery. It has had to handle reduced funding, resulting from the operation of the weighted capitation formula, but it has remained within its cash limit and within its budgets. A part of the reason for that success is the operation of the internal market, criticised frequently, and in their motion, by the Opposition.
  Bromley health authority has been able to improve the terms of the contracts that it has negotiated, both in the health authority area and outside it. For example, it has been able to save some £500,000 on placements in nursing and residential homes, without reducing the number of placements. The bulk of treatment is undertaken in the health authority area in four hospitals, some of whose facilities are in old and out-of-date buildings. Our great need is to have one modern, fully-equipped acute general hospital.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that plans are well advanced to redevelop Farnborough hospital to produce a new hospital with the latest facilities for acute services, and with a modern accident and emergency department. I hope that, when those proposals come to her desk, she will give them a favourable response, so that my constituents can have the service to which they are entitled.
  Even when we have our acute general hospital, and notwithstanding changes in the pattern of medical provision, which my right hon. Friend outlined in her speech, some patients from outer London and further afield will still come to inner-London hospitals, including Guy's hospital, for specialist treatment, as they have been doing for some years. I remind hon. Members that, some years before the Tomlinson proposals, discussions had been taking place between both administrative and clinical staff at Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals to affect a rationalisation of services and a better use of the resources available. Those discussions, however, did not come to any consensus and, 12 months ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stepped in and issued what I think was described as a strategic direction.
  I give my right hon. Friend all credit for at least doing something to try to break the logjam, but the more I consider her decision, the more I fear that it may have been based on inadequate and inaccurate information. The effect of her direction would be to close the accident and emergency department at Guy's, to move most in-patient services from Guy's to St. Thomas's, and to make Guy's mainly a teaching and research hospital. Not surprisingly, there was widespread reaction to those proposals, and it led to the setting up of the "Save Guy's Hospital" campaign, chaired by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the local Member of Parliament, and co-chaired by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and myself. Hon. Members will be
  48
  aware that, among other things, the campaign promoted a petition that attracted well over 1 million signatures, and that was presented in the House just over a year ago.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It was presented just over a week ago.
  Mr. Sims: I apologise—it was presented just over a week ago. It is a year that we have been working on this matter. The proposals and alternative suggestions have been the subject of detailed discussion and debate.
  In the interests of other hon. Members who wish to make speeches, I shall not detain the House by going through all the considerations, but I shall make three points. First, hundreds of my constituents, and many of the constituents of my hon. Friends, travel daily to, and work in, the City of London. Surely the City needs an A and E department not only for the everyday accidents and illnesses that occur whenever a large number of people are gathered together, but for major incidents such as a terrorist outrage or a train crash, which might happen at any time in the City. With the closure of the A and E department at Bart's hospital, the continuation of an A and E facility at Guy's hospital is essential.
  Secondly, thousands of patients throughout south-east London and, indeed, south-east England, are referred for specialist consultation and treatment to Guy's. They, their relatives and their friends have maximum ease of access to that hospital, which is sited literally next door to London Bridge station, with rail services throughout the south-east, and to a large bus station. Apart from all the other considerations, closing the facilities at Guy's and moving them to St. Thomas's would be very much to the disadvantage of a substantial section of the south-east England community. One feature of the Guy's site is Philip Harris house, to which reference has been made. It was designed and equipped specifically to provide the latest treatment and specialist services at a cost approaching £150 million. Surely it cannot be right not to use that building for the purpose for which it was constructed and equipped.
  The "Save Guy's Hospital" campaign commissioned KPMG to report on the implications of the proposals and to suggest alternatives, and the campaign made its own proposals. They are being considered and will reach my right hon. Friend's desk in due course. I realise that she cannot comment now, but when it is time to reach a decision, I hope that my right hon. Friend will meet me and hon. Members from all parts of the House, together with those particularly concerned, to hear our views. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State want, like me, to ensure the best health care for the people of London and the south-east.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to be called, and grateful to the Labour party for choosing this subject for debate. We have been around this circuit before, but clearly it is necessary to go around again.
  It will not surprise the Secretary of State and the Minister to hear that health care is chief among all the issues that currently preoccupy my constituents. That issue probably preoccupies Londoners most, too. Saturday's conference at the Queen Elizabeth II centre,

  49
  organised by the Evening Standard, was attended by more than 1,000 people. That shows the interest and concern of the people living in our capital.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) pointed out that that concern about London health care does not stop at the Greater London boundary. Traditionally, concern about London's health services is felt throughout the country and all over the world, because patients, students and practitioners are all part of the global network on whom the London health service has always depended and will continue to depend.
  At present, there is a dialogue of the deaf. The motion say that there is a
  "continuing crisis of health care in London".
  The Government answer, "Oh, no, there isn't." The Government say that the health service is getting better. That gets the response, "Oh, no, it isn't." Somehow, the messages are not getting through.
  However well the Government think they are doing, they have not persuaded the public—certainly not in the capital—that they are doing well.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, a man of 78, had a prostate operation at the Whittington hospital cancelled because of lack of funds, and has been given no future date? While such incidents continue, the Government will find it impossible to persuade the people of London that they should have confidence in the capital's health service.
  Mr. Hughes: Such incidents certainly lower confidence in the system. To be fair, the Government understand that. Recently, waiting lists in London have grown—there is no argument about that. Both the number of people on the lists and the time that they must wait have increased.
  The public think that more money should be in the kitty for the national health service. I appreciate that this is not principally a decision for health service Ministers, and we heard an announcement today about more money, which is welcome. The Government must not be troubled by any belief among the public that money should not be spent on health care delivery, because the opposite is true. Opinion polls show that 80 per cent. hold that view. However, the public are suspicious about the £1 billion spent on the management sector of the NHS.
  I am not arguing that London should get more than its fair share of the cake. A fair share is, of course, difficult to determine. It should be based not just on residence but on the number of outsiders who use the London health service—the hon. Member for Chislehurst and others spoke of such referrals. People are still not persuaded that the recently revised weighted capitation formula is just. It is not understood, and many suppliers and purchasers do not think it is fair. My local health commission believes that it should be given another £100 million a year. The money that is available is not shared equitably. The capital has a huge mix of deprived and not-deprived areas, and funds do not seem to reach deprived areas to anything like the extent they should.
  The problem is not a lack of facts or accurate facts, but, because of their complexity, the facts are subject to all sorts of interpretations and misinterpretations. It is crucial that decisions are based on up-to-date, accurate facts.
  50
  Of course the Government's amendment is true to some extent, because Greater London's population has been declining. Of course it is right that people who do not need to come London are treated elsewhere. Of course there have been desperately needed developments in primary care. When the Minister visited my constituency, he saw a much better GPs' surgery than before, when it was in an old building down the road. However, we cannot spend more money on primary care—which I welcome—to the detriment of necessary acute care for Londoners whose acute care centre is the district general hospital.
  If the figure for beds per capita in London is lower than the national average, and if waiting lists are larger and longer than the national average, I hope that the Minister agrees that the question is not the number of beds that exist but the number needed. At present, London does not have the beds it needs. I accept that fewer are needed than five, 10 or 20 years ago, but the current number is insufficient.
  Beds are often 100 per cent. full. The inner-London chief executives have just said that 85 per cent. was a safe bed occupancy rate. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) said that that is rarely, if ever, the case. I argue not for an ever-increasing number of beds but for enough, and not to make it look as though more patients are being treated by throwing others out so quickly that they must be readmitted the next day or week—particularly the elderly—because they are prematurely discharged and returned home for inadequate care.
  I do not oppose the idea of a review and of the Government saying, "We must grab the problems of London's health service by the neck and solve them." What I oppose is the fact that decisions are taken on the basis of information that is inadequate or inaccurate, and which is not then brought up to date.
  I give a specific example. Professor Tomlinson now says that he was not given all the information he needed. The most contentious example is the fact that when he was shown the trend in the number of people admitted to hospital beds, he was shown only the figures for the most recent months before his report, and was not shown the figures for the period before that. The figures for the couple of months before the report showed a downswing, whereas the previous year's figures showed a consistent increase. Such a misunderstanding, which was not Professor Tomlinson's fault but a result of inaccurate information, led to conclusions that are now working their way through the system.
  Since then, Professor Jarman has shown that Professor Tomlinson was wrong; Professor Tomlinson has admitted that he was in part wrong. In the past couple of weeks, the inner London chief executives have brought matters up to date since Jarman. On the radio this morning, the Minister said, referring to Tomlinson:
  "nothing has really changed since then."
  Some things have changed, and I can prove that to him. In addition, some of Professor Tomlinson's conclusions were wrong because he was misinformed.
  Let the Minister have his review, and let him look at the evidence. I do not think that he is acting in bad faith. Let his evidence be accurate, and let it be updated by the facts. The review will then have the confidence of the people of London. The analysis must be right, and the changes must be brought into focus and accurately

  51
  represented. For whatever reason, many more people have gone into accident and emergency units in the past year than in previous years. I do not know why, but I know that it is a fact. If it is a fact, it must be taken into account.
  I am not here to defend vested interests in the professions. However, specialists, who are perceived by the Government to have vested interests, are often specialists in great institutions, which are not only great institutions, but the places that treat the poorest and the most deprived in our communities. They are the most important institutions.
  I have no compunction about saying in the House that the most valuable building in my constituency is Guy's hospital. Unarguably, it has done the most good for the most people over the longest period. The patients and the taxpayers are the only vested interests about which I am concerned—the people who pay for and use the service. What do they want?
  The people who pay for and use the service want large hospitals for specialist services. I understand all the arguments about that and I understand that having small accident and emergency units without adequate back-up is no good. However, there is no theological answer to the question of what the right size is.
  Above all, a different view should be taken about accident and emergency departments. Other specialties are much more high-tech and can be more limited in number around the country. There should not be replication of a service, whether oncology, renal services or paediatric services, between one hospital and the hospital next door, because that would be a waste of resources. There should be rationalisation and consolidation.
  However, services that the community needs should be located where the community is. It is no good—taking the argument to its logical conclusion—having a massive hospital with wonderful facilities that is not near enough to be of use to the people it is meant to serve. One cannot make decisions irrespective of the location of the communities and the users.
  There is one other point about which I want to persuade Ministers. All acute general hospitals should have elective beds—beds that are not used for emergencies, to which people can be admitted to have operations for which they have waited. People should not have the experience of the constituent of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who kept being told that he could not come in because of emergency cases. All acute general hospitals should have ring-fenced elective beds.
  London communities are just as entitled to community acute health care as all other communities. Let us assume that my constituency has the same population as the county of Herefordshire. No one argues that people in Herefordshire should go to Birmingham for less specialist treatment. They should get treatment in Herefordshire, and the same point should apply to London. London also needs low-dependency beds and—this is hugely important—nursing homes and residential homes where there are low-dependency care opportunities for the elderly. In inner London, there are hardly any.
  I want the Government to get things right. The problem is that people do not have confidence in the process because the precedent does not give them confidence. Many times, facilities have closed and we have not had a
  52
  replacement service to come to the rescue or, in many cases, a better service. People are, therefore, sceptical and need to be persuaded. Above all, if there is to be change, people need to know that the alternatives are in place and that they are working well.
  I conclude with the example about which, as the Minister knows, I am most concerned.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I underpin his point that the momentum needs to be maintained. Before he moves on to what I know to be a subject close to his heart, would he tell the House what he thinks about Labour's proposal that there should simply be a review and a total moratorium?
  Mr. Hughes: I can answer that question. I do not think that we can ever have a standstill, because the patterns of health care and of need never stand still. I am not arguing that we should stop everything for an indefinite period. I am arguing that there should be a perpetual review, with periodical decisions every five or 10 years, so that everybody knows what we are talking about.
  At the moment, we should work within a timetable set by the Government; they are perfectly entitled to set such a timetable. I shall suggest how we could take decisions in a way that would achieve the right results. I am trying to be helpful, because I believe that we have to break through some of the traditional failures in the health care structure in London.
  We must have decisions that command confidence. I take the example of Guy's and St. Thomas's. According to the proposals, the accident and emergency unit at Guy's will not be run down until 1996 at the earliest. Ministers can go with the existing proposals and say that they will not look at things again. They can say that they will close the unit and that the provision will shift. That is setting one hospital against another. Such a decision set Bart's against the London hospital, and it is now setting Tommy's against Guy's. The decision sets people against each other, because it is taken by a few people behind closed doors.
  Alternatively, Ministers could say, "This is the total money you will have. You work it out. You decide what your priorities are and where your services should be." The great benefit of that would be that the hospitals would have to work together and come to a conclusion. The Minister could say to us in south London, "This is the money; you will not get any more, because of the way in which the contracts work. You make the decision."
  I guarantee that the GPs, the community health councils, the Members of Parliament, the local councils and the community would agree to make that decision. We would make decisions to rationalise across the Guy's and St. Thomas's sites, but we might well decide that the priority was to open Philip Harris house for its full purpose, and to keep accident and emergency units on both sites.
  I now turn to the reason why Ministers have to get it right. I am trying to help them not to get it wrong again. On 25 July 1991, the Prime Minister wrote to Peter Griffiths, who was then chief executive of Guy's hospital. He said:
  "Thank you so much for helping to make our visit yesterday to Guy's Hospital such a successful and memorable occasion.

  53
  It was most interesting to learn more of the Guy's and Lewisham trust and its work. I was also struck by the positive attitude of not just the Board or senor management, but of all the staff I spoke to. I am sure Guy's will continue to lead the way in the development of the Trust concept throughout the county.
  Norma and I would be grateful if you could pass on our congratulations to all those who helped to organise yesterday's 'Topping Out' ceremony and visit."
  That letter was written four years ago. Today, there is not wonderful morale at Guy's hospital, there is not great confidence that it will lead the world in the development of the new flagship concepts of the trust, and the local community does not feel reassured.
  On 6 February, a note was sent internally to directors by two people in the local health commission, entitled "Meeting the Needs of the Residents of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe". In summary, it said:
  "We have demonstrated that the proposed acute changes will in the short-term make the poor health care provision in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe worse."
  There is no excuse for the Government making decisions that make things worse. I hope that they will listen to those of us who are trying to ensure that they do not make mistakes, so that, for everybody in London, especially those who use the London health service, the health service can be better, as—I hope—we all wish to see.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: I welcome the debate. It is the third one on London's health in the past 10 months. It is unfortunate, however, that Labour Members have deliberately sought to exaggerate the problems in London to try to give greater force to their argument. I intend to outline what I consider to be some of the problems, because it would be foolish to try to pretend that there are no problems when change is being engineered and implemented in the capital city.
  Any changes on the scale outlined in "Making London Better" and before those in the Tomlinson report, were bound to cause a degree of uncertainty. Change always causes uncertainty, and always causes fear. That has not been helped by Opposition Members—and, dare I say, some consultants and doctors in the hospitals concerned—whipping up that fear. It has made it much more difficult to conduct a rational debate on the important health changes in London.
  No one likes to see great institutions under threat of closure. My plea to the Minister is that, while we must rationalise the provision the London—I shall say why in a moment—we should tread very carefully before we succumb to grandiose schemes involving millions of pounds of capital expenditure, on a wing and a prayer that they will lead to minor revenue savings.
  I do not want to develop that point too much, but I make it with particular reference to proposals for St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London, which involve £250 million of capital expenditure. Coming from an outer-London borough, where we have always pressed for further developments in our district general hospital, as indeed has Bromley, the neighbouring borough, I repeat that we should tread with great caution before we accept such grandiose proposals.
  We must also recognise that the status quo in London is not an option. It was interesting that the right. hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not say that this afternoon, unlike her predecessor, the hon. Member
  54
  for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and, indeed, Baroness Jay. Most people involved in the national health service and with an interest in health matters have recognised for many years that there has been an over-concentration of teaching hospitals and resources in inner London. To one who represents an outer-London constituency, that has been only too apparent on the ground, since outer London has far fewer health resources than inner London.
  There has been much bandying about of statistics, yet they appear to be a moveable feast, as reports are published two to the dozen. As far as I can make out, spending in inner London, as quoted on previous occasions, has been 47 per cent. above the national average per person, excluding spending on the special health authorities. Including spending on special health authorities, the figure rises to 57 per cent.
  Much play has been made of beds. My understanding, again on figures previously quoted, is that in inner London there are 3.3 acute beds per thousand of the population, compared with a national average of 2.33 per thousand. Even today, in the second King's Fund London monitor report, which I received this morning and have studied at great speed to see if the statistics add up—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: They do not add up.
  Mr. Congdon: The hon. Gentleman is right, they do not add up. The problem with the report is that it talks of London as a whole. None the less, it says that there are 8 per cent. more available acute beds per capita in London than there are in England as a whole. What is more significant is that 40 per cent. of those beds are in inner London. There is a preponderance of beds in inner London. We also know that the length of stay in teaching hospitals in London is 15 per cent. above the average for the provinces.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South made great play of the fact that, in a sudden surge of inspiration, she had managed to determine that somehow the figures for London were not valid, because London was no better off than comparable cities up and down the country. Yet we knew that, because it was clearly stated in the original King's Fund report, which preceded the Tomlinson report and "Making London Better".
  Therefore, we are not debating London only, because the situation in London is comparable to that in other cities that also have to get to grips with problems. However, that does not negate the need to make progress in London. Despite all those figures—possibly because of the apparent over-provision—London has poorer primary care.
  I shall address some other aspects of health care in London. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the funding formula, because I think that it is important. Again, it was interesting that the right hon. Member for Derby, South did not remind the House that the original changes to funding, which have affected London so seriously, go back an awful long time, to the doctor who was a Minister of State for Health, Lord Owen. He introduced the resource allocation working party formula, which took funds away from London. Certainly Croydon has suffered from that ever since.
  There have also been recent changes to the funding formula which benefit Croydon. Whereas, before, the borough was about on target, it is now £6 million under

  55
  target. However, I was somewhat disconcerted to learn from figures that I received only today from the South Thames regional health authority that the South East London health authority, which was apparently £5 million under target, is now £4 million over target.
  I urge Ministers to look again at the funding formula. I know that they have relied heavily on work done by York university, but there is still concern that too much weight in the formula is given to the age profile of the population and the number of elderly people, rather than to deprivation factors, which clearly have a significant impact on health spending.
  We are well aware of the other pressures for change. The switch from secondary to primary care is leading each purchaser to reduce the percentage of funding it spends on secondary care. There is a welcome trend of more patients being treated near home. I know that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies outside London welcome the fact that their constituents do not have to travel to London for care, and that they can receive such treatment at their local district general hospitals.
  We have also heard about the significant switch to day surgery. It is obvious that beds are not needed for day surgery. At my local hospital, the Mayday University hospital, 90 per cent. of cataract operations are now carried out on a day basis, much to the benefit of the patient. Micro-techniques have led to much less invasive surgery, which also means shorter stays in hospital. All those pressures justify the general strategic direction that the reforms and changes are taking in London.
  I mentioned earlier the King's Fund, the Tomlinson report and "Making London Better". It was significant that "Making London Better" scaled down the figures for bed losses as outlined in the Tomlinson report.
  Although it was not really a target, "Making London Better" refers to a bed loss of between 2,000 and 2,500 beds in inner London in comparison with the 1990–91 figure. In last October's debate, I drew attention to the fact that, if London could improve its efficiency of bed usage to the level of other areas in England, that target could be achieved easily. If London could reach the level of 14 beds per 1,000 in terms of the population in inner London, 2,700 beds could he taken out of the system.
  That is not the end of the story. There is clearly a serious dichotomy between the strategic direction and analysis of the situation in London and what is happening on the ground today. I castigated Opposition Members earlier for over-exaggerating the problem. I believe that they do that, but it would be foolish to deny that there is pressure on beds in London.
  One need only visit accident and emergency departments to witness the pressure that they are working under. I visited the A and E department at Mayday hospital recently. I did not visit at its busiest time, but it was very cramped. I am pleased that major redevelopment is going on at the moment to provide proper facilities. When facilities are cramped and there are problems with getting people into beds in hospitals, there is the dreadful phenomenon of people having to spend time on trolleys. That is clearly unacceptable.
  The picture with regard to health in London is confusing, because it is rapidly changing. Reference has already been made to the report entitled "Hospital
  56
  Services for Londoners" by the inner London purchasers. The report makes several points. Interestingly, it refers to the fact that accident and emergency attendances had not changed significantly. That is surprising, because, from anecdotal evidence, some people had felt that A and E attendances had increased.
  It is noteworthy that emergency admissions, whether via an ambulance on a 999 call, or via an ambulance bringing in an urgent case from a GP, have increased significantly. One of the difficulties that I have found with the inner London purchasers' report is that it does not provide the figures. It does not give the scale of the increase.
  I am aware that my district general hospital, Mayday in Croydon, has seen an increase of 25 per cent. in emergency and urgent admissions in comparison to January last year. We have had a very mild winter this year. As far as I am aware, there has been no great spread of illnesses, such as a large epidemic of influenza, which would have had a significant impact on such admissions.
  I do not know whether the increase in Mayday's emergency and urgent admissions is mirrored across London. I would be surprised if it was, because the figure is extraordinary and it cannot be explained by straightforward demographic factors. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that that aspect is considered.
  I wonder whether all A and E departments in London are pulling their weight and taking their share of cases that come their way. I wonder whether some are closing their doors from time to time, putting pressure on other hospitals. If that is the case, it would clearly be unacceptable.
  While we are right to press on with the strategic drift of the changes in London, we must be cautious about losing further acute beds too quickly in London. I have received figures only today—today seems to be my lucky day—which show the bed position in London until March 1994. It would obviously be helpful if there were more up-to-date figures.
  I was particularly interested in the bed loss figures in inner London. Compared with "Making London Better" and Tomlinson, and the target of 2,000 to 2,500 bed losses in five years, 1,400 beds have been lost in inner London. It is interesting that, between 1991–92 and 1992–93, the bed loss was comparatively small, but it accelerated between 1992–93 and 1993–94. It is possible that that, in conjunction with the implementation of care in the community, in respect of which we know that there is a problem in getting elderly people out of hospital quickly enough because of problems with discharge, is a factor in influencing the pressure on admissions to hospitals in London.
  From talking to my district general hospital, my impression is that it is quite possible to reduce surgical beds even further, because of the advances in medical technology to which I referred earlier. However, it is difficult to reduce medical beds which tend to be used mainly by the elderly. Indeed, my hospital has had to open additional medical beds to cope with the demand, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that aspect in more detail.

  57
  In addition to the inner London purchasers' report, the clinical studies advisory group has produced a very useful report into A and E admissions and how A and E departments should be organised. I refer to those two reports because they make important recommendations.
  There is no doubt that there is a need to improve the management of A and E departments and to ensure that they have proper observation wards and, perhaps even more importantly, admission wards, so that people do not spend time on trolleys. The inner London purchasers' report states that some hospitals are operating to too tight a margin.
  If there is very high demand in a hospital, particularly on the emergency admissions side, the inner London purchasers' report makes it clear that the occupancy level of beds must be lower than would otherwise be the case if the level of emergency admissions was lower. That stands to reason, because if a hospital caters primarily for elective surgery, with very few emergency admissions, it can plan for that, and it does not need the slack for emergencies. However, if a hospital has a very high percentage of emergencies, there could be a sudden surge, which could completely disrupt the hospital. That hospital therefore needs greater spare capacity.
  The inner London purchasers' report states that hospitals should operate at a level of about 85 per cent. I do not know whether that is a good suggestion or a bad one, but it must be borne very carefully in mind. The report also suggests that, in assessing bed requirements, one particular formula to be applied across London is not necessarily the correct approach. The health authority should assess the needs in its area before reaching a conclusion about bed requirements.
  The report makes another important point. We know that London has more acute beds per 1,000 of the population than elsewhere. Interestingly, it has fewer nursing home places. That causes more pressure on medical beds, and that is why we must proceed with caution before reducing those beds further.
  The report by the clinical studies advisory group is interesting, covering issues such as bed management. That issue is crucial in any hospital. Too often, there are problems in getting patients on to wards. However, sometimes beds are being kept vacant by consultants. Hospitals must manage beds properly.
  It is also important to ensure proper consultant cover in A and E. Too often, patients turn up in A and E and find that the more junior doctors are on duty.
  The NHS does an excellent job catering for most people when they are ill. If one is seriously ill or in a major road accident, generally speaking one will be treated very well indeed. But it is not acceptable to have the main entrance to the NHS in A and E departments which are often not staffed by senior consultants and which are often short of facilities for getting patients out of A and E and into the main part of the hospital. That aspect of health care is critical, and it must be given priority.
  I shall say a couple of brief words about some specific changes in London, of which great play has been made. There has been concern about the closure of Bart's A and E department,. but I am hound to say that, given that it catered for only 30,000 attendances a year, it was right to centralise facilities elsewhere. Indeed, those facilities have been expanded. I welcome also investments in A and E at various centres within London, including King's, the Homerton, and the Mayday in Croydon.
  58
  I do not think that there is a crisis in the health service in London. The changes that have been set in train are proceeding in the right direction. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who made the plea that responsibility for bringing about those changes in the configuration of particular trusts should be left to them, rather than be determined by the center—but with the one key reservation that I have mentioned.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not agree to massive capital injections where they are not necessary. I urge my hon. Friend to be cautious in relation to further acute bed reductions, given the evident pressures on beds at present. I am happy to support the amendment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We have 39 minutes before the winding-up speeches commence, and four hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will be successful.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) talked about Opposition Members whipping up fears, concerns and anxieties. If he had been at Saturday's conference, which was organised by the Evening Standard, to which reference has been made, he would have seen for himself that such fears, anxieties and concerns need no whipping up and that they are genuine.
  I shall say something about the lack of strategic planning, control and accountability in London. I start with the London ambulance service. It has been apparent to the general public for many years that things are wrong with the London ambulance service. In 1991, I was involved in a report that was produced by the Association of London Authorities, entitled "London's Ambulances—a Service in Crisis". At about the same time, the National Union of Public Employees produced a report spelling out the difficulties that the London ambulance service faced. Those reports went to Mr. Wilby, the chief executive of the London ambulance service, and to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the then Secretary of State for Health, and they did nothing about the matter.
  We then had the computer crash in October 1992, when the Minister and the Secretary of State said that they would address the serious problems. Since then, we have had the Wells report, which confirmed what Opposition Members had been saying for a long time—that is, that there had been a history of underinvestment and a lack of funding within the London ambulance service. When the Wells report recognised that and made recommendations, the Secretary of State said that it was nothing to do with her and that it was a matter for the region.
  I now refer to the contrast in accountability in the London ambulance service and the London fire and civil defence authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has called it a tale of two services. The London fire brigade provides a first-rate service; the London ambulance service does not. The London fire brigade meets its performance targets; the London ambulance service does not. The London fire brigade successfully introduced a computerised mobilising system; the London ambulance service did not. The London fire

  59
  brigade has successfully set about revising and improving its management structure and working practices, whereas the London ambulance service has not.
  The difference between the London ambulance service and the London fire and civil defence authority is that the London fire brigade is accountable to a body of responsible elected representatives from each London borough. We would not have had the crisis in the London ambulance service if we had had the accountability that we have in the LFCDA.
  The London ambulance service has an appointed board that meets in secret. Not only are its minutes not available, but its agendas are not available for inspection, either. I understand that its minutes were not even available to the Page inquiry, which investigated problems within the London ambulance service.
  Let me deal with another aspect of the lack of control and the lack of accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has been trying to ascertain figures for the number of hospitals in London that have closed since 1979 and the number of beds that have closed. He has had a very hard task of that within the Library, because he has been told that there is no central source of that information. The Department of Health does not even collect the number of hospitals any more, let alone details of their closures.
  After much research, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton found that between 1979 and 1993–94 the total number of NHS hospital beds in London fell by a staggering 49 per cent., from 64,850 to 33,120. Acute beds fell by 45 per cent. and non-acute beds by 53 per cent. That is one of the consequences of the Government's policies and one of the reasons why the crisis exists. Unlike the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East, I believe that there is a crisis within the health service in London.
  I now refer to what some might think is a parochial issue, but it shows quite clearly the lack of accountability and the lack of control within the national health service in London. The catalogue of local disasters in the Greenwich area was put before the House in an Adjournment debate on 28 January last year. In that debate, I expressed my concern about the management of Greenwich health care trust. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I called for the chief executive's resignation. I felt that somebody should be responsible. Somebody should be accountable, particularly when that person, Mr. Bruce Joyce, appears to have been one of the 10 highest-paid chief executives in the country. I was pleased to learn from the new trust managers that Mr. Joyce had not claimed any performance-related pay when he left the service. What a pity. On the record of his negative performance, he probably would have owed us something.
  I am disturbed to read, however, in the Woolwich and Plumstead News Shopper that a BBC documentary alleges that Mr. Joyce, who retired to spend more time with his family, received a pay-off of between £200,000 and £400,000. Unfortunately, no one at the trust was available to comment. The Minister is available tonight, and I await his comment with interest.
  Let me now deal with a matter that I have raised with the Minister. In April 1993, the Brook hospital took delivery of a second-hand magnetic resonance imaging
  60
  scanner. In about September of that year, it came to my attention that the scanner was not working. It was alleged that there was something peculiar about the way in which the purchase had been arranged, that staff had not been properly trained, and that the scanner was incompatible with other equipment. I received assurances that the staff had been trained, that the scanner was compatible, that it was a shared purchase between the region and the Brook hospital, and that it was settling in and would be up and running soon. It was not.
  I raised the matter with the Secretary of State on 29 October 1993. On the same day, I asked her how many beds had been closed and how many operations had been cancelled for financial reasons. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), the Under-Secretary of State, told me that the Department of Health did not keep such information and that the scanner was nothing to do with the Secretary of State; it was
  "a matter for managers and clinicians".—[official Report, 29 October 1003; Vol. 230, c. 835.]
  The Minister referred me back to the trust, which referred me to the region. The scanner—£500,000 of hardware—had still not scanned a single patient. On 18 January 1994, I queried the purchasing arrangements with the Secretary of State. That time, I was referred by the Under-Secretary of State to the chairman of South-East Thames regional health authority.
  I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in January 1994. Half a million pounds-worth of scanner was sitting idle while £116,000 a year was being paid to a private hospital to provide a scanning service. Eight months after the scanner was purchased, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Woolwich about the commissioning of the MRI scanner, but, following the trust's inquiries into the matter, we will ensure that any procedural shortfalls are addressed. I understand that a meeting is to be held shortly."—[Official Report, 28 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 600.]
  On 15 December 1994–18 months after the scanner was delivered, 15 months after I raised the matter with the trust, 14 months after I raised the matter with the Secretary of State and 11 months after the Under-Secretary said that a meeting was to be held shortly and that shortfalls would be addressed—Greenwich health care trust and the South Thames regional health authority put out a joint press statement that they would be disposing of the scanner, which had never worked. Following an independent district auditor's review, they admitted weaknesses in the procurement procedures, breaches of the region's standing financial instructions and weaknesses in the trust's management of the project. Both the chief executive and the chairman of the trust have now departed. At least the new incoming acting chairman, who inherited the mess and a variety of others, admitted that the episode had
  "hurt the Trust and the taxpayer."
  It has been revealed that of the £416,000 purchase price, £117,000 came directly from the region and the other £299,000 came from Greenwich health authority's charitable trust funds. That one third of a million pounds was not taxpayers' money, but money donated by local people and grateful patients with an affection for their local hospitals. The money was often left in wills and legacies for improvements to local health services and added comforts for people at local hospitals.

  61
  That piece of equipment—although installed in a local hospital—was not for a local purpose. It was for the region's specialist neurosciences department, which the region and the Secretary of State had already agreed should move to King's College hospital in Lambeth in the spring of 1995. Why was the local health authority inveigled by the region into using local charitable moneys for a regional service that was about to transfer out of the area?
  I have asked the region to reimburse the local charitable funds, but the regional chairman tells me that that would be impossible as it would be ultra vires. But if the region breached its own standing financial procedures, and that went unattended by the Secretary of State for so long, was not the purchase ultra vires in the first place? If the region cannot reimburse the funds, I believe that the Secretary of State should.
  I shall refer briefly to psychiatric services. It is a year since the report into the Clunis affair, and a year since the Health Select Committee published its report, "Better Off in the Community". Both pointed to the fact that there is a crisis in psychiatric care within the capital.
  Psychiatrists across the capital have warned in recent months that the Government's care in the community programme cannot cope with the tide of demand for hospital beds for people with mental illness in London. Studies have shown that, across the capital, the average unit has a bed occupancy rate of between 100 per cent. and 120 per cent. What are psychiatrists to do in a crisis when all the beds in London are full and there are no beds throughout the south of England?
  Last September, a survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists revealed that, during one week, 84 people in London who needed hospital treatment were turned away, while a further 24 were prematurely discharged. The college calculated that an extra 426 beds were needed immediately to deal with the unmet need.
  In my area, the bed occupancy rate is 120 per cent. When space runs out, patients are referred to other hospitals—often private hospitals—as extra-contractual referrals, sometimes as far afield as Woking or Oxford. Finding an extra-contractual bed is no easy task. Local psychiatrists have told me that it is not uncommon for calls to be made to up to 35 different hospitals before a place can be found, with patients having to wait 24 to 36 hours to be placed.
  In 1990, researchers at Central Middlesex hospital predicted a bed famine if London's mental health beds continued to be closed. I do not dispute what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East said about the need for change, but it is the pace of change that concerns us. It needs to be balanced change. The rundown and closure of beds and institutions without adequate alternatives being provided is causing the crisis in the capital's health services, and a crisis it is.
  In support of the plans to cut beds still further, the Secretary of State relied heavily not only on Tomlinson but on an earlier report by the King's Fund. She appears less keen to accept the King's Fund's subsequent findings in "London—The Key Facts", which was published last April. The document stated that
  "the capital's health care needs have been underestimated. There are now good reasons for believing that London merits a larger—not smaller—share of the NHS cake".
  62
  The Secretary of State also appears unwilling to accept the King's Fund's proposition that purchasing power for hospital and community health services in London
  "should be increased by approximately £200 million".
  Professor Jarman's findings have been mentioned by my hon. Friends, and they were reinforced by a recent update by James Raferty of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and Nigel Edwards of the London Health Economics Consortium. They stated that in 1992–93, the loss of 400 beds would have equalised London's position with the rest of England, but 1,499 beds were lost. They identified particular problems for elderly people, as London has a severe shortage of nursing home and residential care.
  Those problems are leading to a crisis, but it will not be solved by cutting more beds. We must provide the resources and facilities elsewhere, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) was absolutely right on that matter. If there is validity in the theory that improvements in primary care will lead to a lessening demand for hospital beds, let us have those improved community GP services up and running before the beds are taken away.
  The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology bears out the view that if we improve primary care—particularly access to primary care for those who are currently denied it—we increase the demand upon hospital beds and specialist provision.
  I started by talking about accountability. Despite assurances that primary health care would be prioritised as hospitals close, there are now fewer GPs and health visitors in London than there were three years ago. Londoners have no voice in the current arrangements. The patients charter promises patients a greater say in their own health care, but, with no democratic accountability, Londoners find themselves on the receiving end of chaos and cuts.
  6.7 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the NHS. My children took advantage of the NHS, and my parents also take advantage of the service. I can say unreservedly that my family is entirely satisfied with the treatment that we have received.
  I do not see a crisis in the NHS. I see challenges and opportunities in today's world. Modern medicine is making tremendous advances and is giving us untold opportunities to provide the very best patient care. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her positive and caring speech. She has given many examples of investment in the health service and in patient care. I do not believe that anybody could have any doubts about her commitment.
  This debate has been full of gloom and doom. Opposition Members have run down the health service and have tried to frighten potential patients into believing that they will never get real service and care. The facts provide a totally different picture. More patients are being treated than ever before. Why do not the Opposition give credit for that? The length of time for which patients must wait for treatment has fallen sharply. Why do not the Opposition give credit for that? Health care and health have improved dramatically in the past few years, while life expectancy has risen by two years for men and

  63
  women. The perinatal and infant mortality rates have fallen by more than two fifths since 1979. Why do not the Opposition give us credit for the work that we do in the health service?
  Why do not the Opposition even mention that for three years in succession our immunisation programme has been so successful that no child in Britain has died of measles? Why do not they tell us that services at doctors' surgeries have improved, that there are now fewer patients on a doctor's lists and that the number of practice nurses has risen from 900 in 1978 to more than 8,500 in 1992? Why do not they give us credit for that?
  Why do not the Opposition tell the patients the good news rather than try to terrorise them? Why do not they admit the success of the patients charter? Should not the patient have the right to know the success and the results produced by a hospital? Should not patients have the right, which we have now given them, to be guaranteed a standard of service? I have not heard the Opposition mention once the success of the patients charter this afternoon. Are they simply frightened to admit success when it is happening?
  Why do not the Opposition accept that once again the Government have increased spending in real terms both last year and in the forthcoming year? The Opposition talk about a shortage of beds. I put a question to the Opposition, which I am sure will be answered during the replies to the debate. If they are so worried about a shortage of beds, as they allege, I am sure that they will support the Government's NHS reforms, their fight against waste and their battle for efficiency in order to provide more money for the very beds that the Opposition seek.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I can answer that now. We do not support the Government's reforms, and we do not support their waste either.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The Opposition say that they do not support the reforms, but by the same token they try to take away the opportunity to succeed and provide more for the patients.
  Perhaps it would be a good idea if I told the House a little more about the successes that my constituents experience. I have in Sutton the St. Helier NHS trust. It is a proven success. It has made achievements that are well worth noting. Let us take waiting times for an operation. Now, 60 per cent. of our patients are treated within six months. The vast majority wait only nine weeks for a non-urgent out-patient appointment. As everyone knows, urgent appointments can be made within days or, indeed, hours if necessary.
  Let us consider the success that we have achieved in hip replacements. Now, no patient need wait a day longer than six months. Let us consider gynaecology. No woman need wait longer than six months for treatment. Let us consider treatment for the eyes. No patient need wait even as long as six months. Often patients are treated within four months. Let us consider the success of day surgery. Now, 50 per cent. of non-emergency cases are treated as day cases. That is the result of modern medicine and techniques.
  Five years ago, 20 per cent. of cases in the ear, nose and throat department in Sutton were day cases. Today we get through 60 per cent. of cases as day cases and
  64
  more people are treated as a result. Let us go back for a moment to the patients charter. Does not the House think that it is marvellous that a patient can now expect to be seen within half an hour of arrival in out-patients? In my St. Helier hospital, 90 per cent. of patients are seen almost immediately.
  What about accident and emergency departments, which have been so run down by the Opposition? At my local A and E department, 90 per cent. of the patients who turn up are assessed within five minutes. The nurse makes the initial assessment, reassures the patient and the whole system is put in motion. That is a tremendous advance. There is no longer that sense of fear, not knowing and not getting immediate help. My hospital trust is aware of the pressures at the A and E department and has managed already to allocate resources for a further 25 beds as a result of our efficiency reforms in that department. Curiously, we have the resources for an A and E consultant, but no consultant has come forward for the post. I find that a sad reflection.
  Let us consider the success that we have had in children's medicine, which is an important area. Since the children's hospital was moved from the old Queen Mary building into St. Helier's, there is no doubt that children in Sutton have a much better environment in which to be treated. They no longer have to suffer the experience of being moved from one ward, loaded into an ambulance and taken to another building for an operation. Now they will be treated entirely on site. That gives the doctors more time for patient care and enables them to waste less time travelling around.
  As a result of the revision of our management of child care, we now have an intensive care bed for children. The children are taken care of by dedicated paediatrically trained nurses. Such successes in Sutton are appreciated by my patients. Why cannot the Opposition bring themselves to admit the successes that can take place within the management of an NHS trust?
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the similar chronicle of achievement at East Surrey hospital, which is not too far away from St. Helier hospital? Does she agree that the rationalisation of health care within central London frees up resources and that hospitals such as St. Helier and East Surrey on the edge of London stand to be prime beneficiaries?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is right that, when we re-examine the concentration of health services in the centre of London, it is appropriate that we recognise that there has been a depopulation of the centre and movement to outlying areas. Furthermore, patients no longer want to travel into the centre of London when they can receive excellent service and treatment close to home.
  Another success in St. Helier hospital is in the provision of diagnostic equipment. We now have the most up-to-date diagnostic equipment that any hospital could wish to have. We have a new magnetic resonance imaging scanner and we are ordering a new computerised tomography scanner. With that combination of diagnostic equipment, the hospital will be in the world class in providing services for patients.
  Let us contrast the success of medical care both nationally and in my constituency with the gloom, doom and fear-ridden material that has been fed to us by the Opposition. I find it stunning that the Opposition should

  65
  seek to use what I can only call the Chinese water treatment. They believe that if they give people big, bad news often enough, people will believe that it is true. Every time that I am out on the doorsteps in my constituency, I ask people, "How are you getting on? What are your worries? What are your concerns?" They tell me that they are worried about the health service. I ask what experience they have had that upset them. Then they say, "Oh no, I have been well treated. I have an excellent doctor. I had wonderful treatment in the local hospital. The doctors were dedicated. The nurses were kind. I came home and I am now fit and well." I ask why they feel worried. They say, "It is what the politicians say on television."
  It would be more appropriate if the Opposition stuck to honesty and the truth and acknowledged success when it happened. Such success is abundant and widespread. It does not help patients if they hear endless scaremongering stories that create a tremendous amount of nervousness and fear.
  I shall give the House an example. Hon. Members have only to look at the Opposition motion. In the first line, they refer to a "crisis". There is no crisis in the health service when it is moving along with the punch, the power and the impact of investment and resources. What do they mean by that?
  The Opposition also keep talking about failure. There is no failure when more patients are being successfully treated than ever before. It would be more worth while if the Labour party was a little more honest about what its plans would be, should it ever have the opportunity to run the country. Thankfully, the country will never vote for Labour.
  I do not believe that the patients, about whom the Opposition say they are so worried, have any idea that Labour plans to put our medical care under political control. The Opposition want to abolish GP fundholding and break down national health trusts, and put them under the local authorities and town hall politicians. As a patient, I would not want my medical future to be controlled by town hall politicians—certainly riot by socialist ones.
  Thank heaven a Conservative Government are taking care of the health service and that there is not a hope in hell that the Opposition will ever take over.
  6.20 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Tomorrow night we shall be debating Third Reading of the Health Authorities Bill. That Bill offered the Government the opportunity to set up a strategic health authority for London, which would have gone a great way to help to resolve the crisis in London's health care. Such an authority could have monitored health care throughout London, co-ordinated activity and avoided the duplication of services to which the Secretary of State referred. It could have targeted resources and developed a coherent health strategy for the capital, which would have benefited the people of London. The Government lost that golden opportunity because they do not listen, not only to the Opposition, but to the people of London.
  It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) say that people did not come to her with health care problems. In the past year, more than 60 people have come to my surgeries to
  66
  complain about aspects of London's health service. If that were duplicated throughout every London constituency, it would add up to about 60,000 people with complaints about what is happening to them and to the health service. It might be useful for the Minister, and through him the Secretary of State, to hear a few examples.
  A Miss Beirne was admitted to Lewisham hospital in May 1994 for two hip replacement operations and was given a blood transfusion on admission, in preparation for surgery. Her operation was due to take place within a week or two. Six weeks later, she was still in hospital and had not had an operation. She spent more than eight weeks in hospital for an operation that should have taken no more than two. The hospital said that it was a painful decision when the surgeon had to choose on which cases to operate.
  Mrs. Jean Anderson, a 78-year-old pensioner, suffered a fall in her home and fractured her leg. She was released into the care of her frail 80-year-old husband. No attempt was made to give her any form of care or back-up such as a home help. Thirteen days passed without any contact from medical services in the form of aftercare or otherwise. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were left to fend for themselves and, not surprisingly, Mrs. Anderson's health deteriorated dramatically. Her son contacted Lewisham social services, which offered assistance and, finally, visits from a community physiotherapist and a district nurse were arranged, but she collapsed and died at home less than 24 hours later.
  In a letter to me from the community health council, the acting chief officer said:
  "Her chances of surviving would have been increased immeasurably if she had been receiving social, medical, nursing and physiotherapy support."
  She received none of those.
  I mention that case because the Health Secretary suggested that there was sufficient aftercare and enough beds for elderly patients. The "London Monitor", published by the King's Fund, states that there is a severe shortage of residential beds for the care of elderly people, which is not compensated for by the greater than average number of hospital beds in the capital. London has 5 per cent. more hospital beds for acute and elderly care, but 30 per cent. fewer residential care beds for the elderly. The chief executive of the King's Fund said:
  "The complexities of the health care system in London require a high degree of co-ordination if change is to be achieved without paying a very high price in human terms."
  It is not only patients, or even nurses, who come to my surgeries to talk about the state of the national health service. Two weeks ago, a consultant neurosurgeon sat in the waiting room of my surgery for more than an hour because he wanted to talk to me about the state of the health service in his hospital. It comes to something when a consultant neurosurgeon has to queue up to see his Member of Parliament to explain the sorry state that the health service has reached in London. He said that the internal market was falling considerably short of being a "free market" because of the substantial financial distortions. He told me about the interminable forms that he must fill in whenever he wants to refer a patient. He now employs two secretaries when previously he had none. He told me that competition in health care has resulted in such problems that the free exchange of information has all but disappeared, which is having a negative effect on patients. He also said that the NHS

  67
  collects the most user-friendly, rather than the most accurate, statistics. One of his colleagues logged 36 appointments for eight patients. For statistical purposes, that was deemed to be 36 patient episodes and, therefore, 36 patients.
  I am a great fan of "Coronation Street" and I try to watch episodes whenever I can. I do not expect, and nor do my constituents in east Lewisham or Londoners, expect to be considered as episodes like a soap opera. It is a contemptible device, by which the Secretary of State can pretend that the health service is treating more people when it is not.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the Opposition, to patients in London, to nurses, to neurosurgeons and to the other staff of London hospitals. If she cannot listen to them, perhaps she will listen to the editorial of the Evening Standard today which says:
  "Of course there are national problems with the NHS reforms; in London however these are aggravated by dogmatic hostility to the teaching hospitals, chronic underfunding and a profound inability to appreciate the scale of problems unique to a capital city. There is no room for complacency. This is an urgent situation which calls for acknowledgment and amendment from Government."
  Let the Secretary of State for Health listen for once, not merely to us, but to the people of London and to London's newspaper, which held such a wonderful conference at the weekend. It explains today exactly why this debate is taking place—because of the crisis in health care in London.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall try not to delay the winding-up speeches too long. As the motion makes clear, more than anything else, there is a crisis of confidence in health care in London, especially in south-east London, and I am delighted to follow my good friend, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
  I was a member of the area health authority, as it was then, for Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark in 1976 and went on to be a member of the successor district health authority—it was disbanded in 1990—until I had to leave for having had the temerity to be an elected member representing Lewisham council. When I first joined the area health authority, there were at least 16 hospitals in Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. Today, there are four. At that time, there were six hospitals in Lewisham alone—today there is one.
  As a member of the district health authority, I was deeply involved in the planning of what became known as Guy's phase 3—Philip Harris house, which has been mentioned. I took great pleasure in imagining that, one day, it would serve the needs of the people of south London and much further beyond in the ways for which it was designed. That will not happen now.
  Trusts in south-east London need to be rebuilt. We suffered the first of the flagship authorities in the formation of Guy's and Lewisham. We were told at the time that Lewisham had to amalgamate with Guy's because it could have no independent existence worthy of the name and the matter was a fait accompli. The result of the consultation that took place was overwhelmingly against the creation of that trust, yet no notice was taken of it and the flagship set sail.
  68
  The Tomlinson report, which was merely a cover for the fact that, left to themselves, the market reforms would have severely damaged health care in inner London, then suggested that the Lewisham and Guy's trust could be broken and Lewisham could happily find its own way in the world as an independent trust. It said that Guy's needed to erect a new flag of convenience and amalgamate with St. Thomas's. If Lewisham did not have a secure future on its own in 1990, how could it have one in 1993? Either way, somebody was telling the people of south-east London less than the truth. Although the result of a consultation on the Tomlinson report was overwhelmingly against the setting up of a Guy's and St. Thomas's trust, once again that view was tossed to one side.
  The consultation on the latest plan closed last Friday. Most people fear that it will lead to the closure of Guy's hospital in all but name and that all its services as a district general hospital will be extinguished. South-east London needs that district general hospital and the expertise and excellence that Guy's has come to represent. I implore the Secretary of State to make this a genuine consultation exercise, to listen to what people say and to consider the alternatives. Nobody says that nothing at Guy's must change, but that part of south-east London needs four district general hospitals to serve the community.
  We need only look at the pressure that already exists at the accident and emergency departments of Guy's, King's, Greenwich and Lewisham, made worse by the closure of both Bart's and the Brook. The Brook hospital estimates a 20 per cent. increase in the pressure on the accident and emergency departments in surrounding hospitals and everyone in the area knows that those departments are not coping even now. Earlier speakers mentioned the fact that people are kept waiting on trolleys. A constituent wrote to me about her father, for whom even a trolley could not be found, who had to sit in a wheelchair for six hours at Lewisham hospital. It is foolish to believe that that position will do anything but deteriorate sharply if we lose the services at Guy's.
  To understand that, one need only see the response of clinicians at Guy's about the safety of medical procedures if the A and E and intensive care departments are curtailed. I remember speaking to Peter Griffiths, who was general manager of the district health authority in 1986. He went on to be chief executive of Lewisham and Guy's and was famed for being the man who could drive two cars at once, because that is what he got for the job. He then joined the national health service executive. In 1986, he said that there would be a Government clear-out of hospitals in central London, and his job was to ensure that, whatever else happened, Guy's was not one of them. Sadly, he has failed, but the thrust of what he foresaw was patently clear. We need to save the services at Guy's, not just for the people of south-east London but for its reputation as a research centre, which will be seriously undermined if the watered-down scheme being advanced is proceeded with.
  My final point is about the acute trusts and relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) said about accountability. I do not have the same problem with the mental health or primary care trusts, but getting responses to inquiries on behalf of constituents from any of the acute trusts is almost impossible. They respond only after they have been badgered time and again. I have occasionally been forced

  69
  to table questions asking the Secretary of State to tell them to reply. They do not reply because they know that they are accountable to no one for what they do and think that they can reply, or not, as they see fit.
  I shall have to ask the Secretary of State to press the acute service to respond to a letter about a case with which I am dealing. I have had replies, but only once they have been pressed into replying, from the patient liaison manager; the operational and nursing director; the service manager, anaesthetics and intensive care unit service; and the chief executive, all of whom say that they will provide more information at a later date. That shows the insularity that they enjoy in their privileged positions, where they are cut off from the public whom they serve.
  Others have said how the London ambulance service is scandalously failing to provide a proper service for the people of London, exacerbating people's problems when they eventually arrive at accident and emergency departments.
  Despite Government figures, people know that London's health services are being damaged. That is not because we are spreading bad news to them; on the contrary, they come to us with complaints of what is happening to them and to their families and loved ones. It is patently clear that that is damaging the Government. On Saturday, I received a letter from a woman who said that it took 10 hours for her son to have an emergency operation at Lewisham hospital. She said:
  "I am afraid I never voted for you at the last election, but as my MP I would like you to take up a matter with Lewisham Hospital."
  She went on to say:
  "I do not blame the doctors or nurses, but I do blame the bloated management and contractors for the poor state of cleanliness in the hospital—I will never again vote Conservative!"
  That is what the experience of the NHS is doing to Government supporters.
  The people of London need and deserve better from their health service. Once this Government are out of the way, they will get better.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: "I will never again vote Conservative" may be the most telling point to be made in this debate, and it has been endorsed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. Apart from the Secretary of State, only one hon. Member has spoken passionately and wholeheartedly in favour of the Government's current stewardship of health care in London. Every other speaker, with differing degrees of emphasis, has referred to his or her fears and concerns and, in the case of Opposition Members, expressed the belief that London's health care is in crisis.
  There is a financial crisis and a crisis in secondary care and in accident and emergency services. The promised shift to primary care simply is not happening. There is continuing underdevelopment of community health services, community care and services for the mentally ill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) rightly said, the London ambulance service remains a cause for concern, three years after the Secretary of State first said that she would make it her personal priority. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) rightly pointed out—the theme has been echoed by other hon. Members in the
  70
  debate—that there is neither an overview of services in London nor a recognition of the special and important features that affect health care in the capital.
  Condemning the Government's stewardship of the capital's health care services is no reflection on the hard-working public servants in the health service, from consultants to those who clean the hospitals. We do not condemn the work, heart and energy that they put into providing health care in the capital. If they had the Government's support and the necessary resources, they could do a first-rate job, but they have neither the Government's support nor the resources.
  I understand that Mr. Roy Lilley has just appeared on the early evening media speaking for the Conservative party about the nurses' pay rise and said:
  "The money is there for the nurses local pay rise; but not for just turning up"—
  which cannot be compared with Tory Members Parliament. That is not a fair way to deal with nursing staff, whose dedication is much admired on both sides of the House. I understand that the Secretary of State is hinting this evening that she is considering abolishing the pay review body if the nurses do not agree to a 1 per cent. national rise. If the Secretary of State is hinting at that, it is a complete disgrace. If she is not, although time is short, I will happily give way to her now to put all our minds at rest. Frankly, I will happily give way to anyone who can put our minds at rest, but I see that nobody is rising to do so.
  I return to the theme of today's debate: the health care crisis in London. At the bottom of the crisis is funding. The allocation of funds to the capital's health authorities, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has recently been recalculated. The new Government formula appears to benefit outer London at the expense of the inner-city areas. I wonder why. One does not have to think very hard about it. It is quite instructive to place a map of Conservative-held constituencies over one showing the just-losers in the redistribution formula compared with the heavy losers. I have no doubt that it is politically driven and that people who live in the inner cities will lose out. London's 16 health authorities stand to lose £111 million from their budgets over the next five years. That is a cut. As has been pointed out, the biggest losers are in the inner-city areas, with Camden and Islington the hardest hit with a loss of some 14.6 per cent. in purchasing power.
  Spending on health care in London as a proportion of total NHS spending has fallen from 20 per cent. in 1988–89 to some 15 per cent. in 1995–96. London has about 15 per cent. of the population, so the Government will no doubt argue that the figures are commensurate, but that is not so, as I hope to show in a moment. The Conservatives do not make the same argument when talking about spending on London's police force. Although the population is the same, spending is 29 per cent. of the national total. Average health authority spending per head for 1994–95 shows London lagging behind Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester—the other major metropolitan centres. There is also a shortfall in the spending per head on the family health services authorities.
  London is a special case, not just because it is the nation's capital, but because it has the nation's largest concentration of inner-city deprivation. Half the entire United Kingdom population of drug abusers is in London. London has 60 per cent. of the homeless population and 75 per cent. of all known AIDS cases. The unemployment

  71
  rate in inner London is double the English rate. Inner London has three times the English proportion of poor housing and overcrowding. Some 25 per cent. of London's school children qualify for free school meals. Although Conservative Members try to resist the argument, there is a direct link between poverty and health. London boroughs account for seven of the 10 most deprived districts in the UK, as measured by the "Breadline Britain in the 1990s" survey. London boroughs account for 11 out of the 12 of the most deprived districts in the UK, using the Townsend deprivation index.
  That has an impact on health. Inner London mortality rates are 25 per cent. above the English average. So London is a special case. The Government's claim to be redistributing resources from secondary to primary care is just not borne out by the facts. They are cutting the budget. The Labour party is calling for a moratorium, a chance to examine again the conclusions of the Tomlinson report. I know that the Minister of State will argue that it is a call for a review of a review, that it is, therefore, time wasting and that we should get on. That is what we are calling for. It is important. If the nation is marching in the wrong direction, it would be better to stop and think again rather than continue marching in that direction, which is the case that the Minister is about to advance on us.
  It is our view that the Tomlinson report is flawed. In fairness to Tomlinson, however, he was not asked to examine provision for health care in the whole of London—he should have been—and his report deals only with inner London, and mainly with acute beds. He concluded that London is over-bedded. On that he is wrong. The most realistic figure that I can get—it is substantiated by the House of Commons Library—is that London has 2.5 acute beds per 1,000 of the population. I know that when the Minister responds he will quote a figure of more than four beds per 1,000 of the population, but to get that figure he is including every bed he can possibly find—no doubt including those in the private houses of Conservative Members. It is an exaggeration.
  The other argument that Tomlinson addressed is that London has 15 per cent. of the population but 20 per cent. of the expenditure. When one excludes the London allowance and the extra costs involved in the teaching functions of secondary care in London, the comparison is 15 per cent. of the population and 15 per cent. of the resources. There are other reasons why the Tomlinson report is flawed, but time prohibits me from going through them.
  In summary, however, the report tries to treat inner London like an "average" English district, which of course it is not. It tries to suggest that increased primary care means fewer hospital patients whereas it may well not. One might well stimulate demand for secondary services by providing primary services. Tomlinson believed that patients from outer London did not use inner London hospitals. That, too, is wrong. Research by the King's Fund has shown that, of half a million in-patients treated in inner London, 150,000 came from outer London or other parts of the country. Tomlinson's calculations also failed to distinguish between the different types of beds—surgical and medical. The crisis is not just one of secondary care, but primary care as well. If the present rate of closure of London's psychiatric beds continues,
  72
  there will be none left by the year 2000. That cannot be the Government's objective, or the Secretary of State would never be out of the courts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the London ambulance service. Some 37.8 per cent. of ambulances failed to arrive within the patients charter standard time of 14 minutes in London. What on earth is the point of having a charter if the service that is supposed to be supervised by it cannot live up to the results? The London ambulance service is long overdue for a thorough management review, as promised by the Secretary of State three years ago. She told me that it was to become a trust. The trust institutions are the Government's remedy for the problems in the NHS. If that is their preferred remedy, why has it taken so long for it to be put in place in the London ambulance service, where the problems are the most acute?
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend noticed earlier that the Secretary of State will not say—I do not know whether the Minister will—whether she will reply factually to the matters that I raised in my two memorandums. Surely the answer is there somewhere, and with the Select Committee on Health examining the matter in its inquiry, which both Ministers have pre-empted.
  Mr. Brown: I am convinced that becoming a trust will not solve the problems of the London ambulance service, which seem to be management and technology driven rather than anything to do with the trust structure. If everything is all right in the London health service, why are waiting lists in London the longest in the country? When the Evening Standard sponsors a conference in association with the Association of London Authorities and the NHS Support Federation, why does it talk about the loss of beds, about there being fewer beds than in any other inner-city area, about the increase in waiting lists—just about everything except giving the Conservative party a ringing endorsement? It concluded by passing a resolution, part of which said:
  "We call for an urgent independent inquiry, open to the public, to secure London's threatened health services, teaching and research."
  That is not an endorsement of the Secretary of State's stewardship, but rather a plea to vote for the motion that the Labour party has tabled today.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for leaving me some time in which to wind up an extremely important debate.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned nurses' pay. I assure him that the Government do not wish to give any impression that they are thinking of abandoning the review body mechanism—an important mechanism set up some 14 years ago, all of whose report recommendations have been honoured. As the hon. Gentleman raised the point, let me also emphasise that there is money in the system to finance its recommendations. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in that regard.
  I said this morning—when I was engaged in some broadcasting with the hon. Gentleman—that Labour's policy was a review of a review, and that is exactly what it is: "Let's mark time, let's do nothing." I hoped that this afternoon we might hear some intellectual underpinning for that policy. We heard a number of the constituency

  73
  points that Opposition Members would be expected to raise in an Adjournment debate, but we were not shown a broad picture of what Labour intends to do about London's health care problems.
  We heard no suggestions from Labour Members to deal with the over-provision of specialties and the future of medical education in London. We were not told whether they endorsed the movements that were taking place in the context of our policies; they said nothing about the way in which they would tackle the challenges posed by new technology to the provision of acute care in the city, and how rationalisation could take place in the light of such developments.
  I expected the debate to give the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) an opportunity to address these matters anew. After all, she comes relatively fresh to her portfolio, and—as Conservative Members know—she comes to it refreshed by a vigorous campaign for the Labour party leadership. She should be in full flow, exhibiting the drive that she exhibited during that campaign in her examination of the policies. I wondered whether, between that time and now, the right hon. Lady would screw up her courage sufficiently to secure a positive policy from her party. She tells us that she and her hon. Friends have looked at the matter in the round, consulted widely and called for a moratorium. I do not think that that suggests that a great deal of thought lies behind what they are saying.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall move on.
  I was about to say that it was interesting to note the contrast between what the right hon. Lady said and what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who at least conceded that movement was needed on all these fronts and that it would be wrong to arrange a moratorium and yet another review. When asked this morning about the time scale of the review, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that the review and moratorium would both take place when Labour was in government, "in perhaps two years' time": I dispute that. In any event, organising the review and moratorium would doubtless take some time. Even if Labour achieved office, it would be committed to a "do nothing" policy for London until the end of the century. It would simply fiddle while London's health stagnated.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister is having fun with what he parodies as our policy, but he is not telling us much about his own. We are merely asking the Government to stop and think. They are going in the wrong direction. We are saying, "Do not carry on—stop and think."
  Mr. Malone: What London's health care needs is for a Government to act on the basis of information before them, and a positive agenda of bringing about change. I shall say more about that shortly.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South had a choice when she embarked on her present responsibilities. She could have played a constructive part in the on-going debate about what should happen to London's health care, or she could have adopted the more fashionable course and joined the "London luvvies" campaign. They attend every demonstration; they come fresh to the scene, and
  74
  then depart pretty quickly. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Lady seems to have jumped on to the fashionable demonstration bandwagon, rather than contributing to a constructive debate.
  Much has been made about whether there has been a real transfer of recourse to primary care. The answer is that there has been, particularly through the London implementation zone initiatives: they involve numerous projects that have improved health care substantially in hon. Members' constituencies. I have seen quite a few of those improvements. I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), and observed the results of the donation of £30,000 to a mobile unit in the area. That and the provision of £118,000 for community dental services in Hackney are just two examples of many that are being supported by the London implementation zone initiatives—together with the £170 million in capital expenditure on primary care that is taking place over six years.
  Earlier this week, I was pleased to be able to announce a £10 million education programme for primary care in London. Such initiatives will continue as primary care improves—and it is vital that that improvement takes place.
  During the debate, we heard a number of suggestions about when the need for a change in London's health care originated. In fact, it happened rather longer ago than any hon. Member suggested. I can provide a quotation that underlines what is being done for London's health care extremely well:
  "Never think that you have done anything for the sick of London until you have nursed them in their own home".
  That is precisely the context in which we are moving care from the acute sector into the community, closer to people; but the quotation is not from Tomlinson or Acheson, but from Florence Nightingale in about 1880. She understood exactly what was wrong with centralised services that were not serving the community properly.
  When the health care debate was well under way, the King's Fund said:
  "The status quo is not an option, because Londoners need a first class 21st century health service system, rather than a decaying 19th century one."
  The question is whether change can be managed, and whether transition can be given an impetus by Government. That is what is happening now, enabling the configuration of health services in London to meet the needs of Londoners.
  However, the debate is also important to those who live outside London. It cannot be right for a single part of the country—no matter how much it may say that it deserves resources—to take up an unfair allocation. There has been considerable discussion of hospital beds today. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is right: I shall cite the figure that he expected me to cite. In 1993–94, inner London had 4.2 available acute hospital beds for every 1,000 people; the national average was 2.3. That illustrates that a large management problem is involved in the spreading of resources around London's acute hospitals, and that it is time that it was rationalised.
  London now has 43 major acute hospitals, each of which has more than 250 beds. It has far more than any comparable city. It also has far more specialist services, which consume a tremendous amount of revenue and capital resource. They are spread around the city, and

  75
  need reconfiguration. That is why rationalisation is required—and not in the impossible never-never time scale set out by the Labour party.
  As for overall expenditure and commitment to the people of London, district health authority expenditure per capita in inner London is approximately 50 per cent. above the national average. Family health service authority expenditure, however, is approximately 5 per cent. below the national average. That demonstrates the need to ensure that the resource is transferred, over a reasonable timescale.
  Time will not permit me to answer a number of constituency points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall read the Official Report and if any of the points require an answer, I shall supply one.
  Opposition Members suggested that there was no funding for this transitional period. There is continual funding, both for the acute sector and for primary care. I mentioned the London implementation zone initiatives. In addition to that, £65 million of transitional funding is available for the acute sector. I completely deny any suggestion that what is happening is not being properly funded.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South made what she thought was a rather amusing remark about hooligans on the terraces. We are the players on the pitch and the right hon. Lady is the hooligan on the terrace shouting to cause delay. The Opposition are hooligans with the oddest possible slogan. Hooligans usually shout, "Oh, ah, Cantona!" The right hon. Lady has a new one—"Oh, um, moratorium!"—but it will not wash.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 282.

  Division No. 77]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caravan, Dennis

  Alton, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Church, Judith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Coffey, Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cox, Tom

  Betts, Clive

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

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

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Caborn, Richard

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

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dewar, Donald

  76

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Dononoe, Brian H

  Maddock, Diana

  Dowd, Jim

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Enright, Derek

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Etherington, Bill

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fraser, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morley, Elliot

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Olner, Bill

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoey, Kate

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd South West)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCartney, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McFall, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKelvey, William

  Spellar, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  MacShane, Denis

  Straw, Jack

  77

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watson, Mike

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, Jimmy

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ms Estelle Morris and Mr. John Cummings.

  Wareing, Robert N

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Faber, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Booth, Hartley

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bowis, John

  French, Douglas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gallie, Phil

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gill, Christopher

  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)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Couchman, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Cran, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hicks, Robert

  78

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  79

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wood, Timothy

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

  Mr. David Lightbrown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  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.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that, because of medical advance, shifts in the population and the changing needs of patients, reform of the health service in London is both necessary and long overdue; congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its resolve in addressing the modern needs of people in the capital and the South East, in sharp contrast to the vacillation and evasion of the Opposition; and believes that policies now being pursued have already delivered a better health service for the area, enhancing the excellence of research, teaching and treatment as well as improving local health services in the parts of greatest need.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the President of the Board of Trade's decision not to refer the hostile bid by Trafalgar House for Northern Electric to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, given its unpopularity with the majority of Northern Electric's shareholders present at the special general meeting of 15th February, the absence of any experience on the bidders' part in running a private domestic monopoly energy utility, the concerns of the Director-General of Electricity Supply about his ability to regulate a regional electricity company which becomes subsumed within a larger group, the ongoing inquiries being made by the Securities and Futures Authority into insider dealings involving the bidders' advisers the Swiss Bank Corporation, and the expiry on 31st March 1995 of the golden share held by the Government in the 12 regional electricity companies, which will leave them open to predatory or hostile bids without any established procedures for transfer of ownership or the protection of small shareholders, consumers and employees.
  It is appropriate and timely that the House should have the opportunity to debate the future ownership, control and regulation of regional electricity companies. The motion reflects the widespread public anger—indeed, contempt—felt by consumers and employees alike for a Government and their energy privatisation policies that have left them wide open to exploitation.
  Those views are strongly held across the United Kingdom. They are reinforced week in, week out by further news of massive pay rises, huge no-risk share options and self-enrichment by directors who award themselves grotesque increases which bear no relationship to their own or their companies' performance. It is an abuse of their stewardship that we, the public, the press, consumer watchdogs and successful directors in the private sector condemn, but which the President of the Board of Trade condones, defends and, apparently, even believes in.
  People are rightly outraged by the frequent widespread abuse of private monopoly power, which Ministers take no action to prevent. Consumers increasingly despair of a regulator who is powerless to act in their interests, who cannot prevent abuses and who has no remit to consider the employees' situation in regional electricity companies.
  Everyone recognises that electricity privatisation created private monopoly power, captive consumers and weak regulation in cash-rich industries, all of which have been a recipe for exploitation. As one City analyst said last week:
  "Regional electricity companies are quite unlike anything else. As monopolies governed by a kind of regulator they are a licence to print money."
  That is what experience has confirmed. Everyone believes that with the apparent exception of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. As the Under-Secretary claimed again last Wednesday, when referring to regional electricity companies,
  "they are indeed normal companies, operating in the private sector."—[Official Report, 15 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1002.]
  It appears that Ministers are unique in their isolation in holding to that belief. The City does not believe that; the press does not believe it; consumers do not believe it;

  81
  even the chairman and directors of the regional electricity companies themselves do not believe it. They know that if what the Minister said was true and if market discipline genuinely prevailed, they would not be able to get away with the hugh share options and salary increases through which they have been ripping-off consumers. It is a scandal.
  Outstanding share options for directors and chief executives in regional electricity companies add up to more than £103 million. The 14 million share options total £103.4 million, according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library. That is the nature and scale of the rip-off that those people are awarding themselves at the consumers' expense. Far from any protection for consumers, the great and false claim at the time of privatisation that regulation would protect them has failed to have any effect. The price controls imposed last summer were so lax that shares in regional electricity companies rose immediately afterwards. The City was pleased that the new regime allowed the money machines to continue.
  Sir Michael Grylls: It was probably a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Gentleman said that share options were ripping off the consumer—I think that those were his words. I am sure that he did not mean that because, as he knows—or should know—share options are not paid by the companies; they come from shareholders. Any share option does not cost the company one single penny. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that that is true.
  Dr. Cunningham: We all know where the shareholders' money is coming from—straight out of company dividends. Shareholders and directors are the main beneficiaries of what has been going on, at the expense of consumers, employees and the taxpayer. Following last year's new decisions, shareholders once again won at the expense of consumers and employees.
  It is against that background that the first hostile bid to take over a regional electricity company has occurred; indeed, it is because of that background that it has occurred. It involves Northern Electric and Trafalgar House, but it could be any regional electricity company and any predator. With one or two exceptions, the scenario would be the same.
  We should bear in mind the fact that the Government's privatisation White Paper envisaged retaining regional-based electricity companies to respond to local needs and to promote regional identity—that was the Government's policy at the time. That basic concept has apparently been abandoned by the President of the Board of Trade. Apparently, any bid for any regional electricity company is now authorised. It is open season because he has ignored—indeed, he has abandoned—any public interest in the matter.
  Strong grounds remain for a reference of these issues to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on public interest grounds.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What would be the point of referring a United Kingdom company's bid for a regional electricity company on public interest grounds when no such reference would be made in relation to a bidder from another European country?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure that that is necessarily true. A number of public interest grounds exist, including
  82
  not least the ability of the regulator to continue even with his weak powers in the face of a takeover by a multinational conglomerate, whether it be Trafalgar House or any other organisation.
  The Labour party strongly holds the view that the bid should be referred. It is not alone in that view, as the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) knows. That is the view of the National Consumer Council, the public watchdog. Its chairwoman, Lady Wilcox, has made that clear. She wrote to the Office of Fair Trading to raise key consumer concerns. She said:
  "Questions about issues like cross-subsidy and disposal of assets must be fully explored by the MMC to safeguard consumers … We believe this will become a major issue for consumers which needs to be tackled as soon as possible."
  The letter goes on in that vein. No doubt exists, therefore, about what the council believes.
  The industry regulator holds the same view, but it has been swept aside by the President of the Board of Trade. The very person appointed by the Government with a framework of regulation to look after consumers' interests believes that the reference should take place. That is not all. I have a copy of a letter written by three Back-Bench Conservative Members to their colleagues. It is from the hon. Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I am here.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased to see that at least one of the hon. Gentlemen is in his place. Apart from reiterating my point that
  "the privatisation White Paper sets out the case for retaining regional based electricity companies"—
  the hon. Gentleman is right about that—those three Conservative Back Benchers say:
  "A reference by the President for the Board of Trade to the MMC is an appropriate way for the important issues raised by the Trafalgar House bid to be examined."
  On this occasion, we can safely say that support for the reference exists on both sides of the House. It may come as some surprise to the hon. Member for Colchester, North that his Back-Bench colleagues do not share his view, but I thought that he would like to know that they share the Labour party's view. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us how many other Tory Members have written to him expressing the same view.
  Mr. Devlin: In the letter that I and my colleagues sent to many of our colleagues, we did not express a view as to whether Trafalgar House should be allowed to take over Northern Electric. We said that a number of issues needed to be explored. When I was on the radio the other night in Newcastle, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would not answer the question of what Labour would do if it were in power. Would it refer the bid or renationalise the industry? No Labour Members have yet said a word about their attitude to that.
  Dr. Cunningham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at being found out, but there is no doubt that we would refer the bid to the MMC. I share his view. This is not a question of Trafalgar House, or of being for or against the management of Northern Electric or Trafalgar House. This is a test case. We know that all the other regional electricity companies will be up for grabs.

  83
  In the public interest, the matter should be thoroughly examined, and the MMC is the most appropriate forum in which to carry out that examination.
  I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us how many more letters he has had in that vein from his right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Stockton, South and his colleagues the hon. Members for Ryedale and for Tynemouth will have their resolve put to the test, because at 10 o'clock tonight, they will be able to vote for a reference of the bid to the MMC. The hon. Member for Stockton, South has told his constituents that he wants a reference. Those three Conservative Members will have the opportunity to vote for that at 10 o'clock tonight. We and his constituents will be watching to see whether the hon. Member for Stockton, South puts his vote where, apparently, his beliefs are.
  The President of the Board of Trade has no interest in the public interest. He is, after all, the man who boasted at the Tory party conference of his determination to intervene—he is the great intervener. He has failed another test, passed up another opportunity, and sold out on intervention in this case, as in many other cases before. His decision has produced a huge scramble for cash in the City. As we all know, every electricity company will become a target, not for investment in new plant or equipment, not for investment in new skills, education and training, and, above all, not in attempts to give consumers lower prices or better services; they will become a target in the battle to control private monopoly power to generate cash without competition, as those organisations have been doing since their inception.
  To defend itself, Northern Electric is offering shareholders more than £500 million in cash or in marketable securities, including its share of huge windfall profits from the sale of the national grid, another sell-out of the taxpayer's interest by the Government. That offer will be financed, among other things, by huge borrowing, by more job cuts, as the chairman of Northern Electric has candidly admitted, and by reducing investment in the business—so much for long-term approaches to the future of electricity supply. Consumers and employees are the losers. Customers will, of course, pay heavily for the cost of the takeover, whatever the outcome of the struggle for control.
  All of us, including taxpayers, will pay for all of this because Trafalgar House's bid will be significantly financed by its overseas tax losses, perhaps totalling some £300 million over time. Trafalgar House, cleverly, saw the possibilities for financial engineering, to acquire Northern Electric and make the taxpayer foot part of the bill. At least it made a gesture to consumers, with the offer of a rebate of £20 per consumer, or perhaps per household. Consumers are rightly asking themselves, "If all that money is available to battle for control, and if rebates can be given, why are we paying so much for our electricity?" Why is the regime so lax that all that money can slosh around in the system to benefit shareholders but not consumers?
  Employees are asking, "If the companies are so profitable and desirable, and are such cash generators, why should we pay for all this with our jobs?" The likelihood is that those events will be replicated in other regional electricity companies. In Yorkshire, the
  84
  midlands, the north-west o and elsewhere, consumers, employees and taxpayers will foot the bill for the President's indifference to their position.
  The Government sold Northern Electric for £240 million. Trafalgar's first offer is £1.2 billion. The difference of £770 million is the amount by which the Government shortchanged the taxpayer with their ill-judged privatisation. There are 12 RECs. All were underpriced and the loss to the taxpayer runs to billions of pounds. The fact that Trafalgar values Northern Electric at £1.2 billion says it all. Mr. Kevin Lapwood of Smith New Court said:
  "It represents a capitulation on the part of the politicians"—
  he meant the right hon. Gentleman and his friends—
  "and the regulator."
  That view is not surprising, given that RECs now have market capitalisation of more than £16 billion, compared with £5.2 billion four years ago.
  It is not as though consumers had a good deal on prices. Figures from the Library show that between December 1990 and January this year, electricity prices rose by 4.3 per cent. in real terms against a background of falling world basic energy prices—oil by 26 per cent., gas by 27 per cent. and coal by 18 per cent. So much for claims that privatisation has done a good job for consumers.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Why does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, since privatisation, electricity prices have fallen by 3 per cent. on average?
  Dr. Cunningham: Because they have not. The hon. Gentleman is confused. Last September's study by London Economics on productivity growth in RECs stated:
  "No clear privatisation effect is apparent. Whilst there is a slight improvement in the overall average productivity level in the post-privatisation period, this is so small as to not be considered statistically significant … Furthermore, there is no consistent record of improvement among the 12 firms that would suggest that privatisation can be associated with efficiency gains. In fact, while six of the companies improved productivity, three experienced slower productivity growth in this period, two were unchanged and one company actually became less efficient … We cannot accept the hypothesis that productivity growth in the distribution industry as a whole is higher in the post-privatisation period than in the period before."
  There is no escaping the conclusion that in privatising RECs, the Government got it hopelessly wrong. Directors and shareholders are winners, while consumers, taxpayers and employees are the losers—as are energy conservation policies, long-term capital investment and, ultimately and disastrously, the future of the coal industry and mining communities.
  I put specific questions about the Trafalgar House bid to the President and his Ministers before and received no answers, but I will try again. Are the assurances given to the President by Trafalgar House legally enforceable—yes or no? If regulation is unable to protect consumers now in respect of a stand-alone utility, will it not be completely inadequate to deal with multinational conglomerates? The regulator thinks that the answer is yes. What is the right hon. Gentleman's answer?
  Is it appropriate for the bid to proceed when the Securities and Futures Authority, the Securities and Investments Board takeover panel and the right hon. Gentleman's officials are investigating the conduct of the Swiss Bank Corporation in respect of share deals in

  85
  Northern Electric? Is not it possible that at least some of those inquiries may lead to proceedings under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1993?
  Who tipped off Trafalgar House last Monday, 13 February, that the President did not intend to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Trafalgar clearly knew last Monday, before any public announcement by the right hon. Gentleman. As he was in London on Monday, he clearly made his decision then, so why not make a statement to the House? That Trafalgar House knew on Monday is confirmed in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) from the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation. Professor Littlechild wrote:
  "Following the announcement of the Secretary of State's decision, members of my staff met Trafalgar House representatives on Tuesday 14 February."
  So far, so good. He adds:
  "The meeting was arranged in the afternoon of Monday, 13 February."
  That was the day before the announcement. Professor Littlechild concludes:
  "I hope this information is helpful."
  It is, because it tells us that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's quasi-judicial role—his excuse for not answering questions in the House—he must have been in direct communication with Trafalgar House, telling it of his decision before having the courtesy to inform the House. He did not have the courage of his convictions or to tell Parliament of his decision. Instead, he announced it in a press statement the next day, after he had left the country. Who tipped off Trafalgar House before any public statement was made?
  If the President was so sure that he had got it right, why did he not tell the House of his decision? He had every opportunity. We pressed the Department for a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman ducked it. If he had had his way, the House would not have had an opportunity to debate the issue. If the President and his colleagues had had their way, nothing would have been said in the Chamber. Our private notice question brought the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to the Despatch Box last Wednesday, and our selection of this topic today has given the House the opportunity for debate.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like the news in a parliamentary answer that I received shortly before this debate. The President of the Board of Trade received the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on the matter on 2 February. Twelve days passed before the announcement to the House. A meeting with Trafalgar House was held at the right hon. Gentleman's behest on 13 February. Is my right hon. Friend disturbed by that information?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is just confirming what is apparent—that the President of the Board of Trade, or his hon. Friends or officials, had conveyed to Trafalgar House long before the announcement of his decision, what the effect of the decision was when that decision was clearly in its interests.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Would this be the appropriate moment to remind the House that Trafalgar House has given £600,000 to the Conservative
  86
  party since 1979? Does my'right hon. Friend think that it is possible that there is an inside track for companies that enjoy this close relationship with the Conservative party?
  Dr. Cunningham: I suppose that Tory Members would describe that as throwing public money at the problem.
  The regulator clearly believes that his powers are insufficient to deal with an electricity company wholly owned by Trafalgar House. Does the President of the Board of Trade support the regulator in his wish to require Trafalgar House to float off 25 per cent. of the company? Will he give us a straight answer to that question when he replies? The regulator is dissatisfied and has made a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because he cannot get satisfaction from Trafalgar House. Will the right hon. Gentleman overrule a reference by the regulator? Yes or no? The public interest reasons for a reference of the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are overwhelming. The President of the Board of Trade should think again. In its vote tonight, the House should oblige him to do so.
  7.40 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'applauds the improvements in performance in the electricity supply industry since privatisation; welcomes the benefits which customers are receiving in terms of lower prices and improved service; supports the continuing development of competition in the electricity market and the maintenance of effective regulation where this is necessary; and notes that the Director General of Electricity Supply will continue to promote competition and protect the interests of consumers.'.
  In anticipation of this debate, I spent some time looking at the Opposition motion. If I may, I shall take the motion as my text. I hope that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will forgive me for sticking to the subject as expressed on the Order Paper.
  Apparently, the reason for deploring what I have not done is that the bid by Trafalgar House for Northern Electric was unpopular with
  "the majority of Northern Electric's shareholders"
  who turned up at a meeting on 15 February. That is the first reason.
  The second reason is that, apparently, Trafalgar House has no experience of
  "running a private domestic monopoly energy utility".
  The third reason is that
  "the concerns of the Director-General of Electricity Supply about his ability to regulate a regional electricity company which becomes subsumed within a larger group"
  were ignored. The fourth point, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland referred, is
  "the ongoing inquiries being made by the Securities and Futures Authority".
  The fifth point is
  "the expiry on 31st March 1995 of the golden share held by the Government in the 12 regional electricity companies".
  Those are the reasons which the Labour party gave notice that it wished to draw to the attention of the House tonight.
  I am at something of a loss to understand the thinking behind those reasons. Perhaps we can explore just what Labour Members have in mind. It seems that, if a

  87
  company has a meeting at which an undefined, unprescribed number of shareholders turn up, and if a majority of those who turn up hold a particular view, no matter how few they are, no matter the views of the others and no matter whether proxies are registered from the majority, the fact that those who turn up hold a view should be the determining factor. That is a curious constitutional innovation in the way in which British public companies should be run.
  I find it fascinating that the Labour party believes that the view of a small number of possibly wholly unrepresentative shareholders should be the basis on which the President of the Board of Trade reaches his judgment. What about all the other shareholders who did not turn up? What about the majority who may not have expressed an opinion? Supposing that they were against the view of the small minority who did turn up? Am I supposed to ignore them? Am I not supposed to listen to their views and to a range of other people's opinions on the matter?
  The fact is—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many seated interventions. I expect Front-Bench Members in particular to set a good example.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are absolutely right.
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman coming out with this fraudulent nonsense about listening to people's views. He did not want to listen to any views. He did not want to come to the House, and he did not want to make a statement. He did not want to answer a private notice question, and he did not want a debate. The truth is that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, he did not want to listen to views.
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman could have put all that in his motion, in which case I would have addressed it. My point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has no answer, is that nothing is so lacking in intellect or logic as the suggestion that I should take the views of a minority of shareholders as the determining factor in such a matter.
  The nearest equivalent I can think of immediately is the mass meeting of the trade union movement at which a minority of vocal militants were able to dominate the scene, which led to strike action. This is the sort of technique that the right hon. Gentleman thinks should be introduced in British public affairs. I am not prepared to have anything to do with such an argument.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, because I want to make a bit of progress.
  I move on to the next argument paraded, which is the absence of any experience on the bidders' part of running a private domestic monopoly energy utility. This is said by the party that, for 40 years, has nationalised industry after industry after industry so that it can put trade unionists, civil servants and politicians in charge of the commanding heights of the British economy. This is the party that, for 15 years, has sat on the Opposition Benches.
  88
  Labour Members have never run any serious industry in their lives, yet they now claim the right to run the whole of the British economy. I have never heard—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves.
  Mr. Heseltine: If Labour believes that a company making a takeover bid must have had specific experience in the particular industry, it should say so. The fact is that lack of experience has never stopped Labour Members pursuing any policies of any sort in any circumstances. I cannot believe that they seriously believe that this argument should weigh with me.
  I move on to the concerns of the Director General of Electricity Supply about his ability. Here I thought that the right hon. Gentleman asked some important questions, but I was intrigued that he managed to avoid any reference to the Director General—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Condescending.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I have made the point before that a continual running commentary from a sedentary position is not acceptable.
  Mr. Heseltine: I come back to the point. How can the right hon. Member for Copeland pray in aid the views of the Director General of Electricity Supply, important though his views are, without reference to the Director General of Fair Trading? There was a difference between the two regulators, which I freely admit, so I had to weigh the advice that I was given from two different regulators. I chose to follow the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
  I found it absolutely fascinating, having listened to what I thought at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were to be paeans of praise for the Director General of Electricity Supply, that he provided a catalogue of criticism on how the industry had been badly regulated, how prices—apparently—had been allowed to go up and how consumers had been ripped off. But all that is the responsibility of the Director General of Electricity Supply, the one person who, according to the motion, I am supposed to listen to, as opposed to the Director General of Fair Trading.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Director General of Electricity Supply can work only within the regulations laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The Director General of Electricity Supply is as much a victim of this hopeless, hapless system as are the consumers who are paying the price.
  Mr. Heseltine: Now we have—I have not got the words down, but we will have them all in the morning, as they will be carefully recorded—an apparently hapless system that is so unsatisfactory. So I gather that the Labour party, if it ever had the chance, would want to change it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is very interesting. Would I be right in thinking that that would be the case not only for the electricity industry, but for a

  89
  range of other industries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Yes, it would change industry after industry after industry. Where would the Labour party stop?
  Mr. Stuart Bell: At the utilities.
  Mr. Heseltine: It would stop at the utilities. So am Ito understand that the National Freight Corporation, British Airways and British Steel, and all those other privatised companies, have been given a clean bill of health? Are they now safe from the predatory instincts of the Labour party? We are talking only of the utilities. That is what one might call a halfway house. All the utilities are under threat from the Labour party.
  Dr. Cunningham: No, they are not.
  Mr. Heseltine: No, they are not. Let us not talk about a divided party. Let us not have references to splits. Are we for clause IV or are we against clause IV? Are we dealing with clause IV(a) or clause IV(b)? Who is the great arbiter between clause IV(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or anything else'? Is it the spokesmen for the party above the Gangway, below the Gangway, on their feet, on their bottoms? Who speaks for the Labour party?
  Mr. George Mudie rose—
  Mr. Michael Clapham rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way to both hon. Members.
  Mr. Mudie: Will the President be serious about a matter that may be funny to him, but is of extreme importance to millions of consumers? The man whom the President has to represent consumers, the regulator, advised the President not to allow Trafalgar House to take over 100 per cent. of Northern Electric, and that 25 per cent. was needed for transparency. The man responsible for protecting consumer interest put that position. Will the President take that advice, which would give the customer some protection, or will he sweep it aside?
  Mr. Heseltine: I would seriously like to help the hon. Gentleman. The Director General of Electricity Supply has responsibilities, which he is discharging. I understand that he is in conversation with Trafalgar House. Certain assurances have been given, and those are now being discussed by the regulator. It is right and proper that that should be taking place. What the outcome of those discussions will be, I do not know, because that is something within the purview of the director general. But the right hon. Member for Copeland raised some important questions, on which I want to be as helpful as I can to the House, such as the timing of the announcement.
  It is perfectly true that, on Monday last week, I left for India. During that afternoon, I reached a judgment about the matter. It followed from that judgment, because I was interested in the assurances that Trafalgar House was offering, that officials in my Department pursued the matter, which they did.
  Of course, it was not possible to announce the outcome, because we did not know at that stage whether such assurances would be forthcoming. It is also perfectly true that it fell to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to make the statement. I would be the first to say that I felt uncomfortable, because I could see how the circumstances were developing. I shall share exactly with the House the dilemma that I faced.
  90
  I knew that I was leaving for India. It was a very important trip, as the House would recognise. There was nothing that I could have done, or that I would have wanted to do, to avoid it, and I am sure that no one in the House would have asked me to do so. But I knew that, if I were to have made the statement, it would have had to wait until I had returned on Thursday. I did not believe that information of such sensitivity would hold between Monday and Thursday.
  Therefore, I took the initial decisions, and I instigated the consultations that were to lead to the assurances which were forthcoming, and which are now the subject of discussion. I believe that, in that way, I behaved perfectly properly.
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the President tell the House whether those assurances are legally enforceable?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, they are not legally enforceable. But that is not the end of the matter, because the powers of the director general remain. He has powers first—as he is now doing—to discuss the matters with Trafalgar House; and, secondly, he has powers to refer Trafalgar House to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, if, in future, he should in any way feel the need to do so. So it is important to understand the balances that exist.
  Dr. Cunningham: If the regulator determines that a reference should be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that decision, or would he overrule it?
  Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, once that process is under way, I am in a quasi-judicial position. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must understand that someone in my position, a position which this House has put me in, as a quasi-judicial authority, is extremely constrained, and rightly so, in their actions. I cannot prejudge matters. I have to listen to all representations, I have to take all such matters into account, and I have to be guided by the very clear legislative framework within which I operate. The judgments are often complicated, finely balanced and difficult, but I reject utterly and absolutely any suggestion that such matters are not carried out in the proper and full way.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the President comment on the assurances that have been given? Trafalgar House does not have a reputation for being a company in which there is total transparency. It is felt that cash assets are being transferred from one member of the group to another. Have we assurances that such movements will be transparent, so that Northern Electric's consumers may be sure that they are not paying to prop up some other member of the group?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises essential questions, and those exact issues are now being discussed by the director general and Trafalgar House. The director general is bound to do that. It is not for me to say that I support him in doing so. It is his legal duty so to do. I understand, as does the House, that that process is now under way. I also understand the need for that transparency, and the public confidence which would flow from it, to be in place.
  Dr. Cunningham: Those are important points, as the right hon. Gentleman says. A question now arises over the apparently independent regulator having a right to make a

  91
  reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Is the President of the Board of Trade saying that he would respect that independent right? If the regulator were to act in such a way, would the President intervene again to refuse the reference?
  Mr. Heseltine: I have no power to stop the director general referring the matter to the MMC. I have a right to challenge the view of the MMC in the recommendations that it makes, but afterwards. That would be done in public, after public debate, and I would have to account in public to this House or wherever appropriate for any decision that I took. I would hope that, like any Secretary of State from any party, I would exercise that discretion and make those decisions in the way in which the House would expect me so to do.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the President give the House his view on the notice presented by Offer, in terms of changing and varying the licence in relation to section 11(2) of the Electricity Act 1989? If there is an objection in 28 days, there could well be a referral to the MMC.
  Will the President give us the Government's view about that variation of the licence which, I think, was printed in The Financial Times on 10 February, particularly in light of Northern Electric's position on pricing when it can effectively give shareholders about £380? That point was referred to a little earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham). That was effectively price control, which could now vary the licence conditions that were printed in The Financial Times on 10 February. Will the right hon. Gentleman gives us his view about that?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises a complicated issue. It is not a straightforward issue, and I will not give him an answer off the cuff. However, I will ensure that he gets a proper answer, because these are highly complex and technical legal matters, and the House is entitled to be properly informed. Either my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry will reply to the hon. Gentleman in his response to the debate, or I will ensure that the Chairman of the Select Committee receives a letter setting out the matter in detail.
  We have now dealt with the substance of one of the legitimate concerns. I hope that the House feels that I have dealt with it at some length, and I do not apologise for that.
  I was surprised at the suggestion that, if the takeover is successful—I do not know whether it will be successful or not—that is somehow centralising the decision-making in London. As I understand it, Trafalgar House has made it clear that it will leave the headquarters of Northern Electric where it is presently based. It will therefore remain a provincially based company.
  I could not understand how the Labour party could argue in that way when, during the last half-century, Labour nationalised provincial company after provincial company and centralised the control of those companies in London. I do not understand why Labour should find it extraordinary that this Government have returned all those companies to provincial headquarters.
  92
  The fact that the water and electricity companies and the gas industry now have major provincially dominated headquarters is a very important part of the Government's process of spreading power throughout the country, as opposed to centralising it in London. It is not in the Labour party's gift to suggest that we are trying to centralise powers by the back door—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the President give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I want to say something else—
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the truth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Rhondda say that the Secretary of State was not telling the truth? If so, I hope that on reflection he will want to withdraw that comment.
  Mr. Rogers: I said that the President of the Board of Trade was misleading the House. I will withdraw the remark that he is not telling—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That will not do at all. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his comment.
  Mr. Rogers: I never said that he was deliberately—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment.
  Mr. Rogers: I withdraw my comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Heseltine: We all make such mistakes. However, if I had made that mistake, I would have admitted it more quickly than the hon. Gentleman did.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has just corrected himself. He should just sit there.
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the President of the Board of Trade is not giving way.
  Mr. Heseltine: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not giving way.
  The most distressing feature of the debate, of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Copeland, and of many of the comments made by Labour Members is the relish with which they want to portray a major British company like Trafalgar House in the least favourable light.
  Trafalgar House is one of our leading overseas companies. It falls to my Department, and it is my privilege, often to spend a lot of time with the export managers, directors and executives of that company, travelling the world trying to obtain business. I wonder what kind of impact Labour Members feel it makes on the people whose lives are devoted entirely to trying to further British interests when they have to listen to the carping criticism that we have heard from Labour Members.

  93
  If by any chance the takeover bid goes through—I have no knowledge as to whether it will go through or not—Trafalgar House will then be able to point to its experience of running an electricity company in the United Kingdom as it bids for major world opportunities to install, run and manage electricity facilities internationally.
  In this country, we must understand that fighting in the international marketplace today demands a scale of expertise in an ever-toughening competitive world. If, every time we try to put together a major British company to win in the world, we hear carping criticism from Labour Members who constantly talk about rip-offs, the consumers being robbed, soaring prices and any other slanderous attack they can find, they are simply undermining this country's ability to win in the world marketplace.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, the right hon. Gentleman has had a fair go. He knows full well that he and the rest of those on the Opposition Front Bench never miss an opportunity to undermine the excellence of British exporting companies across the world.
  Mr. Clapham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, there is another Opposition Member trying to get in on the same act.
  We are now winning in the export markets of the world on a scale which would have seemed almost inconceivable two or three years ago. We should be immensely proud of that.
  We heard another classic canard from the Labour party. I do not want to blame the right hon. Member for Copeland for originating it. The canard was that prices have been soaring—
  Dr. Cunningham: No.
  Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Member for Copeland did not say that, I apologise straight away. I turn my attention to where the blame should lie, and that is with the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, there is another split in the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition says prices are going up, but the right hon. Member for Copeland does not believe they are.
  That is a welcome conversion—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Copeland should be quiet for a moment and decide which side of the argument he is on. I want to nail the Leader of the Opposition. When the Electricity Bill was before the House, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
  "outside of the Conservative party and the Department of Energy, it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."— [Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 684.]
  What has happened? Prices to customers have fallen. They are down by 9 per cent. in real terms to domestic users in the past two years. Industrial consumers have also seen falls in real terms. That record compares with a real increase of 5 per cent. in industrial prices, and a 22 per cent. increase in domestic prices under the last Labour Government.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland cannot deny that he said that the quality of service has not improved. However, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in the
  94
  number of domestic customers who have been disconnected. Customer complaints to the regulator are falling. The right hon. Member for Copeland then said that investment was not taking off. However, the electricity industry has increased investment by more than 10 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.
  Productivity is also rising. It is perfectly true that the regional electricity companies have reduced staff in comparison to pre-privatisation levels. They have introduced more flexible work patterns and pay bargaining. However, is Labour arguing that we must continue to employ people in companies that could achieve the same results with fewer people? Is that what Labour Members are saying? If they are saying that, how would they achieve productivity gains to pay the real increases in wages, upon which real increasing prosperity depends?
  Whenever there were job losses in any industry, Opposition Members never said, "Britain is becoming more competitive." They tried to pretend that we could freeze—fossilise—our industrial and manufacturing capability in the chaotic world that we inherited from them 15 years ago. That simply is not an option. It was not an option then—that is why they lost power—and it is not an option now. We are winning so much extra export market because we have turned the tide of British productivity.
  In this debate, as in all others, Opposition Members cannot come to terms with the fact that it is only within the private sector that we will make the gains upon which the increasing wealth of this country depends. Opposition Members talk about shareholders doing well. I take credit for that and pride in it, because I know that shareholders are the pensioners, the people with the insurance companies, the people who are the savers, and the workers in industry who bought shares in their companies. One should rejoice in that, not condemn it left, right and centre whenever one has an opportunity.
  The Labour party cannot come to terms with the fact that, 100 years ago, some lunatic dreamed up the idea called "socialism". It is bust, it is finished, and that is why Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches, and will stay there.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I do not intend to take up much time because this is a short debate. I come not to praise Northern Electric or to condemn Trafalgar House, but to refer to the concerns of users, employees and some of the shareholders of Northern Electric. At a special general meeting in Newcastle last week, to which reference has been made, the individual shareholders who attended the meeting and voted overwhelmingly against the threatened takeover were heavily outvoted by the proxy votes of big institutions. So much for the so-called benefits of wider share ownership, which privatisation promised. That point is made in the motion, and well the President of the Board of Trade knows it. The fat cats still call the tune and their poodles in the Tory party dance to it. That might be a rather badly mixed metaphor, but it is appropriate.
  I have no particular sympathy with Northern Electric. The company is responsible for 700 job losses since privatisation, a further 800 job losses between now and 1997 and, we are told, about 100 job losses per year after

  95
  that, in search of more efficiencies. I look forward to the day when directors will be rewarded according to how many jobs they create rather than how many they destroy, which does not seem to require great genius.
  While all those jobs have gone, putting pressure on remaining employees to produce the same and more, the salaries of members of the board of Northern Electric have risen sixfold. The company chairman now makes more money in his lunch hour than the waitress who serves him makes in a whole week. On top of that, senior directors stand to make more than a quarter of a million pounds each from shares obtained by virtue of their position as directors.
  To try to stave off the Trafalgar House bid, the company has offered what has been described as a package of perks, the cost of which is reflected in the forecast job losses after 1997 and the decimation of the investment programme that we were told would be one of the great benefits of privatisation.
  What of electricity users? I refuse to call them customers. They do not go out shopping for electricity. We are told that the price of electricity has come down since privatisation. Of course, that means since 1991. Electricity prices were hiked up before privatisation in order to make the sell-off more attractive and to allow for a fall after privatisation so that board members could tell us how clever they were and justify their huge salary increases. Users, along with employees and the investment programme, too, will bear the cost of that struggle for power. Last week, BBC North produced a programme about the matter, entitled "Better the Devil you know". That is the theme which the majority of northern Labour Members, electricity users—which, of course, includes all of us—and employees have adopted during this sorry saga. There are implications for the rest of the industry and, of course, for the taxpayer, estimated to be about £270 million in lost tax revenue if the takeover goes ahead.
  The electricity supply industry cannot be treated as if it were a sweet factory. It is not like any other industry. It could not possibly be allowed to collapse and threaten the continuity of supply. In such circumstances, however unlikely, even a Tory Government would be forced to step in. We must remember that a Tory Government nationalised Rolls-Royce to save it from extinction. The industry should never have been removed from the public sector. I for one certainly look forward to the day when it might be returned to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, indeed. I share that hope with the vast majority of the British public, certainly people in the north-east who now suffer because of privatisation.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: Does the hon. Gentleman share that aspiration with his own Front-Bench colleagues?
  Mr. Clelland: The Labour party believes that the major utilities should be in public ownership or control. [Interruption.] That is without question; there is no argument about that. In the meantime—[Interruption.] If the President of the Board of Trade wants to go into the matter a little more deeply, I am sure that the time will come when we can do so.
  96
  In the meantime, we must suffer the unedifying sight of the money market squabbling over an industry that is vital to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people who are helpless to influence the outcome, because their Government have relinquished control over the industry and prefer to leave its fate to market forces.
  The campaign against the takeover that is now being waged in the north-east is about not Trafalgar House but the retention of control over a vital industry—vital to the regional economy and to everyday life—within the region that it serves.
  In his recent answer to me, the President of the Board of Trade confirmed that he regarded the continued regional basis of the electricity supply industry to be an important principle, but there seems to be no sign that he or the regulator have any intention of enforcing that principle. On the contrary, his refusal to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has led to open season on other regional companies and the creation of even bigger monopolies. In his answer last Wednesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs confirmed that the safeguards to which the President of the Board of Trade referred are not protected by statute. Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade confirmed that again tonight.
  The major utilities are too important to be left to the financial juggling of the market. They are too important to our regional structure to be subjected to the threat of takeover or sell-off. It is the job of Government to secure such services in the interests of the people and of the country. If the Conservative Government will not do that, a Labour Government will.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: I shall make a brief contribution. I am the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench deregulation committee. I am also the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby, which are supplied by Northern Electric. I am a business man with a factory which is on the coast and which consumes electricity supplied by Northern Electric. I am also a householder who spends most of his life trying to turn out the lights that his children have left on. I do not, however, speak as a shareholder. I carry no torch for either company involved in the discussions.
  In my dealings with Northern Electric, I have found it responsive and helpful. Towards the end of last year, there was a proposal to erect pylons from Lackenby to Whitby, which would have vaulted across some of England's finest coastal scenery and through many villages in my constituency. I should like to record my thanks to Northern Electric for shelving those plans. I hope that they remain firmly on the shelf.
  The motion is yet another example of scaremongering and nit-picking. Opposition Members know nothing of the world of business, in which takeovers, both hostile and otherwise, are commonplace. Their experience as employers is limited to the countless research assistants who saturate the Palace of Westminster, yet their motion feigns concern for small shareholders whose company may be subjected to predatory or hostile bids. The only hostile or predatory bid that the shareholders need to fear is that which might come from Opposition Members should they seize the reins of power.

  97
  The motion undermines Trafalgar House in a most dishonourable manner that suggests an "absence of any experience". The absence of experience lies entirely on Opposition Benches. In the world of business, it is not unusual for a company to diversify by acquiring unrelated interests. Sometimes enormous opportunities flow because of the dovetailing of such interests with those of other companies within the group.
  In the Financial Times, Trafalgar House is listed among the diversified industrials, as is the Hanson Trust. No one ever asked Lord Hanson what he knew about batteries before he bought Ever Ready, about cigarettes before he bought Imperial Tobacco, or about bricks before he purchased the London Brick Company. No one bothered F.H. Tomkins when it took over Firth Cleveland or Rank Hovis, yet all those companies have thrived.
  I would not mind if the Labour party thought that Trafalgar House was a stranger to the north-east, but it is not. The firm owns Redpath, John Brown Engineering, the Davy Corporation and the Cleveland Bridge Company, which is based in Darlington. The last named has just won the Hong Kong harbour bridge contract, which is much to its credit, and many jobs will flow from the company's activities.
  Many people in my constituency, and thousands of others in the north-east, rely on Trafalgar House for their employment. It is wrong of the Labour party to suggest that some of those people might lose their jobs as a result of the takeover. It made the same prediction when Rowntree was taken over by Nestle, but the factory in York has thrived.
  If there is any danger to employment, it is presented by the Labour party, a party whose members attacked the Japanese for so-called "alien practices" when Nissan came to the north-east, a party that wants to impose a European job-shredder on companies in this country in the form of the social chapter, and a party masquerading as the business-friendly party of the 1990s. Yet beneath the veneer lurks the same old monster, intoxicated with the urge to regulate and tax. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Labour motion with the contempt that it deserves.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: The consequences of the President of the Board of Trade's decision not to refer the Trafalgar House bid are vast not only for this case and the many consumers whose interests it affects, but rather more for the precedent that it will set for the future. I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in expressing disappointment that the Government did not choose to bring the matter to the Chamber of their own accord.
  The stock market is already preparing itself for the prospect of a wave of takeover bids for regional electricity companies. The Trafalgar House bid sets a precedent for the takeover of utilities by companies that do not have the supply of utilities as a core business. Questions legitimately and reasonably must be addressed about the commitment of those firms towards the electricity industry.
  There is a central contradiction in the decision not to refer the bid, between the Government's stated objectives when they privatised the electricity companies and the attitudes implicit in the decision to give the bid the green light. The prime example is the golden share. The
  98
  Government's golden share was intended to protect companies such as Northern, presumably because the Government believed that ownership was a matter of public interest. Certainly, previous Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have seen the provision of power to several million customers as a matter of public interest. There was enough of an interest to ban bids from state-owned firms from abroad, which have been tipped by some to follow the Trafalgar House example now.
  Most people naturally presumed that the public interest was the justification for the golden share in the first place, and that its purpose was to provide a defence against precisely such a bid. Perhaps the Government would like to explain the purpose of the golden share in the light of the fact that it has been used only to delay a takeover, rather than to prevent one.
  Another central argument about the privatisation of the industry and a stated objective of the Government was on the importance of regional identity. Under the present set-up, there is scope for substantial input from regional electricity companies into their respective regions, whether it is in the arts, sport or any other issue of community importance. Without saying anything specific on this case, I believe that the likelihood of foreign or multinational companies which bid for the regional companies having the same high commitment to the regions is minimal.
  Even if the company headquarters remained in Newcastle, decision making would in reality move to London, to the detriment of the north. There have been notorious examples in other cases, when promises that have been given about corporate headquarters have been nakedly broken after the event.
  Another stated objective of privatisation was to deliver the efficiency and strength that would benefit customer, employee and company alike. Yet a precedent is now being set for allowing takeover bids from companies which have manifestly failed to prove that they can improve investment or even long-term customer care.
  We have been offered only four promises on the maintenance of standards, and the President of the Board of Trade admitted this evening that they had no legal substance whatever. The assurances need to be judged in the light of certain economic truths. Takeovers create a self-perpetuating climate of insecurity, and that has already added £1 billion to the value of the regional electricity companies on the market.
  Dividend payments will rise, as they must if the price of shares is not to drop, leaving companies even more vulnerable. Prices in turn will rise, as the price cap allows, to provide the cash flow needed to maintain high dividends and, for the very same reason, jobs will be cut. Investment will not be exempt from the squeeze required to keep shareholders happy, and that runs to the core of the problems that have beset British industry for such a long time.
  As a nation, we distribute far more in dividends than our competitors—double the proportion, for example, of Germany or Japan. The results are higher prices for customers, the threat of redundancy for workers and the loss of essential investment in the industries.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Does the hon. Gentleman have evidence for his assertion that prices are higher or that customers are in some way disadvantaged because of dividend policy? There is no evidence of that.
  Mr. Harvey: It is self-evident that if more is given out to shareholders in the form of dividends, less will be available for investment, salaries and any other cost that a company might incur.
  Serious questions need to be asked about Trafalgar House's commitment to fulfilling the Government's stated objectives at the time of privatisation. What was the purpose of the golden share? How committed is Trafalgar House to the region or to investment? How determined is it not to shed jobs for the sake of maintaining dividends? What evidence is there that the takeover is not simply designed to give Trafalgar House tax advantages? Has not the company admitted that financial engineering is part of the rationale of the bid? Will the customer benefit from the new ownership?
  Those questions will undoubtedly return when other regional electricity companies are subject to takeover bids. For that reason, the bid should have undergone a more thorough and impartial investigation at this time. The President of the Board of Trade's explanation that he had two different pieces of advice from the two regulators and chose one rather than the other does not stand up to much examination. The Director General of Fair Trading has a general concern on competitive issues, but the Director General of Electricity Supply has a much more specific interest in the industry. The fact that either of them raised serious concerns or interests should have amounted to a case for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The idea that the two were looking at the same issues does not seem to be right at all.
  A referral to the MMC would have been appropriate and desirable, considering the precedent that the case will set. On Wednesday last week when the issue was briefly debated, Conservative Members claimed that those pressing for a referral to the MMC did not understand the market. The truth is quite the opposite. We understand the market only too well—well enough to understand the difference between competition and monopoly, well enough to understand the difference between a company that is subject to all the rigours of the market and a company whose customers have nowhere else to go, and well enough to understand the difference between a chief executive and a management team whose salaries reflect a genuine market value and those who are in the privileged position of having a trapped market.
  We understand that the regional electricity companies are fundamentally different from the majority of other private companies, and that is why they are regulated. That is why a case such as this should be referred to the MMC. The electricity industry is not internally competitive. It provides a necessity that people cannot do without and, as such, it has social obligations to its region and customers. That was the reason behind the golden share and the reason why there is a regulator.
  This situation is typical of the many problems that the Government's economic policy is running into. The Government's "hands-off' approach is undermining Britain's competitive aspirations. It seems that
  100
  asset-stripping, job-shredding, executive riches and financial engineering are now the ideals of the laissez-faire system. Those who claim—as the Government do—to be the champions of the free market must find that something of an embarrassment.
  A sound takeover proposal has nothing to fear from a referral to the MMC for investigation. If Trafalgar House could have proved that the various fears that had been raised were unfounded and that the customers, employees, the region and the company would not be disadvantaged, that would have become apparent. Unfortunately, the opportunity has been missed, so the fears remain. The President of the Board of Trade has declared open season. The customers of Britain stand to lose out.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: We have had this evening from the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) a parade of verbiage which has not done his argument any favours. He talked about exploitation, a licence to print money and ripping off the consumer. From hon. Members behind him on the Opposition Benches we had a parade of fat cats, as if we were not well aware that that was the dream of the Labour party. It dreams about the horror of fat cats. In the mythology of the Labour party, fat cats are companies that make profits. That is what Labour Members want to get rid of—any company that makes a profit.
  Opposition Members have shown no appreciation of what privatisation produces. They have shown no understanding of how it reduces the interference of bureaucrats and the lack of motivation that prevails in a state-organised utility or company. To quote the words of a former Treasury Minister:
  "When the government owns, an owner's concerns dominate its thinking. If we look at parliamentary records for the 40-year period after World War II—when nationalisation was at its peak—debates on the state-owned industries focused on such things as investment needs, losses, debts, labour relations, and strike records. Little time was spent on Parliament's more diffuse obligation to consumers."
  The Opposition have shown little, if any, understanding of the market. There has been a reference or two to customers, but the regulator was not referred to as a constraint on an entrepreneur and a business, which is what he is in practice. No, not at all. The regulator was paraded before us as an example of the alleged failure of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Opposition Members have shown no appreciation of the role of the investor and the City. There was a reference from the Conservative Benches, but none came from the Opposition Benches, to the fact that probably everyone in the Chamber, many millions of people in the north of England and many millions of people who are represented by Opposition Members have a stake in what was going on. They have a stake not because they are direct investors but because they have pensions or policies. They have a small stake in the City institutions that happened to vote in the majority to put the bid through in what is referred to in the motion as the "meeting of 15th February".
  Nor is there any understanding on the Opposition Benches of the performance of the electricity companies since privatisation. The right hon. Member for Copeland said that I was wrong when I intervened to say that there had been price reductions since privatisation. I can give

  101
  him and the House my source. It is a small booklet available in the Library of the House of Commons. It says:
  "In the case of manufacturing industry, the latest DTI figures"—
  this was published last year—
  "show that average electricity prices have fallen in real terms by nearly 7 per cent. in recent years.
  Domestic consumers are also starting to benefit from lower prices. Overall, real terms domestic electricity prices have fallen by over 3 per cent. since privatisation, and by 7 per cent. in the last two years."
  I challenge the Labour party. Perhaps it has better figures. There have been real reductions in prices to both domestic and manufacturing consumers of electricity. Instead of the proper appreciation of the industry that we would have expected from Opposition Members, the politics of envy has been paraded intermittently through the debate. It positively replaces the understanding of management and its role.
  I understand that some of the directors of utility companies have received huge pay increases. They may well have demoralised some of their employees by taking rises when others have taken pay cuts. That may be a management mistake, but it has nothing to do with the politics of envy. That, and the failure of the Labour party to make the broader point, shows exactly where Labour Members are coming from.
  What of the performance of the Labour party with nationalised electricity? We have heard a great deal of rhetoric, but we have not yet heard precisely what was the Labour party's performance during its last tenure of office. Prices rose by 2 per cent. Was that between 1974 and 1979? No. Was it per year? No. Was it six monthly or even three monthly? No. Every six weeks electricity prices rose 2 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. That is the performance of the Labour party. It cannot get away from it. Comments such as the one that we heard a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), in which he suggested that we raised prices artificially moments before privatisation, totally fail to recognise that the Labour party increased prices 2 per cent. every six weeks between 1974 and 1979. It was a hypocritical statement. What about concern among the customers? That was a bust fuse, too.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I wish to deal with a different issue—the possible changed ownership of the regional electricity companies in the context of its effect on the strength, diversity and success of local and regional economies. You and I share the same region, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I am sure that you will not mind me referring to our region as an example of the issue that it is most important for the House to consider.
  Whatever can be said about privatisation, the efficacy of regulation and the balance of benefits to consumers or shareholders, there is one indisputable fact. Electricity, water and, to some extent, gas companies can and do act, under private or public ownership, as positive forces in the building and rebuilding of a viable industrial base in the regions of Britain.
  There is clear evidence of strong support and commitment to the regions on the part of the utilities and certainly my local regional company, Yorkshire Electricity. The company is built on its relationships in Yorkshire. It expanded its involvement in the economic
  102
  development of the region. The company is active in assisting small, medium and other enterprises on a variety of issues. It involved itself extensively in a range of local initiatives such as the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association. It supports local universities and works to develop profitable partnerships with training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and the institutions that seek to secure a dynamic life for the region. Opposition Members would be poorer if we did not recognise some of those facts.
  In that respect, Yorkshire Electricity is not dissimilar to some of the other privatised utilities. All three companies have put themselves at the heart of the economic and industrial regeneration of the region, whatever else we may think of them.
  Given the constraints of European directives, Yorkshire Electricity and many other regional electricity companies have consistently tried their utmost to maintain their position as significant purchasers of locally derived goods and services. In other ways, such as in its proactive role in local campaigns involving disabled people, children and the environment, Yorkshire Electricity has become a familiar and reliable member of the local community. Opposition Members understand that.
  At a time when the arts are increasingly dependent on private-sector sponsorship, local electricity companies, such as Yorkshire Electricity, have become most important benefactors and have fulfilled valuable social and cultural roles in the regions.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I have been listening carefully to what he has said and he seems to be giving us a eulogy to privatisation. Can he confirm that?
  Mr. Sheerman: I am trying to point out that, under both public and private-sector ownership, Yorkshire Electricity, NORWEB and Northern Electric have played an important role in supporting the regional economy. Perhaps, after hearing something that he might like, the right hon. Gentleman will hear a few things that he will not like. I am trying to give a reasonably well-balanced group of remarks.
  In concert with local authorities, regional electricity companies have developed effective partnerships on a range of questions, including public lighting, crime prevention and energy efficiency. We have observed the growth of an awareness on the part of those companies that their future prosperity and development are inextricably linked to that of their consumers and the community that they serve. On that basis, they represent a major regenerative influence and have the potential to diversify and develop exciting initiatives in the regional economies.
  Opposition Members would be foolish to ignore that, but the move that the President of the Board of Trade has set in train will at one stroke destroy all that potential. He is often seen as a man of action, rather than deep thought. In this instance, his thoughtlessness could do incalculable damage to our other goals and objectives in the regions. He espouses many other causes to try to help the development of local industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. He expresses concern about regional diversity and growth and about the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to flourish. Indeed, his competitiveness White Paper, his interest in regional

  103
  supply networks, local sourcing and business links all point to a commitment to, and concern for, a successful and diverse regionally rooted economy.
  However, all that is hot air if we judge it by the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to refer the bid for Northern Electric to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. All the effort that is being put into a range of initiatives by chambers of commerce, TECs, local authorities, universities and colleges could be utterly wasted if his decision on the ownership of regional utilities remains unchanged. What is more, regional economies on the brink of real growth and development will fall back into decline, with yet another positive influence hived off to London or beyond.
  Too often, we have witnessed the effects of a takeover that results in the ownership of a company transferring to a national or international conglomerate. The Government have not been very forthcoming about those sorts of decisions. To the detriment of local companies and whole regions, decisions are no longer made in the regions, or even in this country. Down-sizing, asset stripping and the mean bottom line are all that counts. Local and regional loyalties are consigned to the waste bin. The Government's policies have initiated and hastened that process time and again.
  In our region, an example is the disastrous effect of the Government's initiatives and legislation on the brewing industry. Look at the, perhaps unintended but disastrous, consequences of the change in the franchising system for regional television. We have lost the independent Yorkshire Television, which has combined with Tyne Tees and is soon likely to be taken over by Granada.
  Time and again, the Government's policies carelessly destroy the viability of local and regional industries. It is a sad day when a political party—whatever its other ideological follies and sheer wrong-headedness—abandons values that, at one time, it held dear. There was a time when the Conservative party believed profoundly in the diffusion of economic power and saw the strength of our democracy being rooted in strong regional prosperity. Today, they have sacrificed that belief, like so many others, on the altar of market forces with tragic consequences that will leave our regions permanently damaged, demoralised and disheartened.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I must start by declaring a minor interest. Like hundreds of thousands of people, including no doubt some Opposition Members, I hold a few shares in regional electricity companies, but not in Northern Electric or in Trafalgar House.
  This has been an interesting debate for me as I had some knowledge of the predecessor to Northern Electric, the North Eastern electricity board, when I represented Newcastle upon Tyne, Central in the 1980s, before I gracefully withdrew to enable the present hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, to pursue his political career, which I gather that he is still contemplating.
  Much play has been made of the involvement of regional electricity companies, such as Northern Electric, in the general good of the regions. Before the companies were privatised—under the old nationalised set-up—the
  104
  regions and areas in which they operated received little support, yet the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) seemed to be extolling the virtues of nationalisation and promised that, when he had the opportunity, he would return electricity to state ownership. That would certainly strip away any opportunity for regional support to come from the unit serving the area.
  I do not believe that the fact that ownership might change need in any sense alter a company's commitment to a region. When I was in the north-east, it was evident that many of the companies that gave great support to the region—I will not be unfair by picking out one or two—were branches of national concerns. They were not locally based or local companies, but simply had regional offices there. In certain cases, they had decided as a matter of policy to support certain regions. There is no necessary connection between where the corporate headquarters of a company is and ownership resides, and where its loyalty can be found, in terms of support for an area in which it operates. If that were the case, virtually no regional support would emerge from such companies. It would all be channelled to the area in which it had its corporate headquarters—central London or elsewhere. That simply is not the case.
  For some time, I worked for Northern Engineering Industries, which was a proud north-eastern company, connected with the electricity industry in that it supplied generating plant. Eventually, Rolls-Royce took over NEI, which ceased to have its corporate headquarters in the north-east. At the time, there were many scares and it was said that when Rolls-Royce took over there would be wholesale redundancies in the north-east. That did not happen. There were some—I was one—but it was hardly wholesale. People also said that there would be wholesale reorganisation and that all the power would seep off to London or Derby, with no control left in the area. That turned out to be totally untrue. Control remained in the area and almost as many decisions were made there as before.
  It was said that control would be completely lost, but the company—I refer to NEI but the same applies to Northern Electric—was ultimately controlled by its shareholders, the majority of whom did not reside in the region in any case. Moreover, like any large company, the company depended on the operation of capital, which in turn was largely controlled by the City. So the idea that the power base is automatically transferred when a company is taken over flies in the face of fact.
  The Opposition seemed to believe that they could change the position and that, if they had state control of industry, the market could he ignored. That does not happen in reality. They now seem to believe that they can insulate an individual company against the operation of the capital market and that Northern Electric could be retained as a private company and protected against takeover bids. That, too, is wrong.
  Trafalgar House has given guarantees, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said.
  Mr. Rooney: Name them, then.
  Mr. Merchant: It has guaranteed that it will give sufficient financial and management resources to enable Northern Electric to carry out its statutory and licence obligations; it will ensure that the Director General of

  105
  Electricity Supply is provided with such information from any company in the Trafalgar House group as he requires in relation to the exercise of those functions.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Merchant: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. First, I shall finish answering the question posed to me by naming two other guarantees: Trafalgar House will co-operate with the DGES in ensuring appropriate financial separation and financial independence for Northern Electric; and it will ensure that Northern Electric agrees to appropriate licence amendments.
  Moreover, it is clear that if those assurances are breached, the DGES can refer the matter to the MMC, under the Electricity Act 1989.
  Mr. Mullin: Did the hon. Gentleman not hear the President of the Board of Trade say that the guarantees given by Trafalgar House were not binding?
  Mr. Merchant: If I remember correctly, my right hon. Friend said that they were not "legally" binding, but a guarantee is not invalid if it is not legally binding. In all our activities, we give guarantees that are not legally binding. The important qualification is that, under the Electricity Act, the DGES can still refer the matter to the MMC if those guarantees are broken.
  Opposition Members, particularly those who represent north-east England, should rely less on what a few shareholders may have said at a public meeting that they attended, but should weigh up what would be in the best interests of the region. I do not speak in support of the Trafalgar House bid and I understand why people in north-east England feel strongly about the need to retain regional identity among the companies that operate up there. I hope that, if Trafalgar House goes ahead with its hid, it will give further guarantees about maintaining the headquarters of Northern Electric in the region and other links with the region.
  Opposition Members should be careful, however, because takeovers are not necessarily bad and Northern Electric may be strengthened, having been taken over by a large outside company. It may benefit from being part of a bigger organisation with access to more capital and expertise; more markets for its products, as well the ability to draw on existing markets; and more financial strength to back it. Consumers may benefit from the better service that would thereby be provided. Opposition Members spoke of the critical job losses under Northern Electric. As part of a larger organisation, instead of simply being made redundant, people could be transferred to other jobs within that organisation. Consumers may benefit from lower prices and a better service as a result of a takeover, and current shareholders in Northern Electric may gain a better return. So the advantages of a takeover should be weighed in the balance. Neither must we forget the role of the regulator and his considerable power to protect consumers' interests.
  We should look at the motives of Opposition Members who spoke strongly against the Trafalgar House bid and want it stopped or referred to the MMC. I understand their regional affections but some of their arguments are muddled and they do not see the positive benefits. I suspect that the smoke screen that has been thrown up is to hide the desire of sections of the Labour party to return Northern
  106
  Electric to public ownership, perhaps not in the direct way referred to by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, but in a more subtle and dangerous way, by extending the power of regulation and control in such a way that the company could not operate in a free market but would be at the whim of political manipulation and control.
  We should not allow this debate to pass without marking the success of privatisation of the electricity industry. We must not allow one debate, important though it is, to obscure that fact. We are the only large European country to have reduced our electricity prices. Even including VAT, the price of electricity in this country is the fourth lowest in Europe, so all the talk about the rapid rise of electricity prices is inaccurate. Small companies pay among the lowest prices in Europe; since 1993, disconnections have been reduced by 95 per cent., and the number of complaints has fallen by 30 per cent. New options such as "Fuel Direct" are available for people who have difficulty paying. Customers who do not receive proper service now receive payment for default and there has been a revolution in management skills and attitudes. Whereas, in 1979, the taxpayer had to foot the bill when losses amounted to £50 million a week, now the Exchequer, and therefore the taxpayer, receives net proceeds of £48 million a week.
  The case for privatisation has now been made, in terms not just of rhetoric but of hard fact and experience. I fear that this debate is motivated by a desire to spoil the truth with scares about what might happen in hypothetical situations. Using one example, every negative outcome that could possibly be conjured up has been used in an attempt to spoil the truth that should be put clearly before the House: privatisation has been a success for all involved, but particularly for the consumer.
  8.58 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: The Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs made it clear to the House on Wednesday, in the debate on Northern Electric, that ownership of the regional electricity companies should be decided by the market, and that the Director General of Fair Trading, in his statutory advice, said that the merger did not raise any competition concerns. That is hardly surprising, as Northern Electric, like the other regional electricity companies, will be a monopoly supplier in the domestic market until 1998.
  I am interested in the other public interest aspects of the bid. So far, they have been dealt with via advice to the President of the Board of Trade from the regulator and the Director General of Fair Trading, which has led to some discussion about the extent of the regulator's concern and the response of the President of the Board of Trade to that concern. I am further interested in why the regulator has not used his powers under the Electricity Act 1989, to which the Under-Secretary of State referred in the debate in the House last Wednesday, to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on public interest grounds.
  Section 12(1) of the Act says:
  "The Director may make to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission … a reference which is so framed as to require the Commission to investigate and report on the questions—

  (a) whether any matters which —

  (i) relate to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity in pursuance of a licence; and

  (ii) are specified in the reference,

  107
  operate, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest; and

  (b) if so, whether the effects adverse to the public interest which those matters have or may be expected to have could be remedied or prevented by modifications of the conditions of the licence."

  Public interest is the key phrase. This goes beyond the definition of the director general's role in the Government's amendment, which says that the Government
  "notes that the Director General of Electricity Supply will continue to promote competition and protect the interests of consumers."
  Public interest has a common law interpretation, and it may be considered as something to be distinguished from the private interests of individuals so that the expression is akin to the economic doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. Public interest is synonymous with public benefit. The question, of course, is whether a particular thing that is in the public interest is a question of the times and is a question of fact, to be decided in the light of all the circumstances and conditions as they exist at the present time.
  It is easy to see how the MMC can decide whether a monopoly situation operates against the public interest by increasing prices or whether economies of scale outweigh that advantage. Even then, however, there are considerable problems in practice—I refer the Minister to the brewing industry. Ultimately, of course, the objective facts must be evaluated, and at the end it comes down to individual judgments. The President of the Board of Trade is an elected member of a democratically elected Government, totally committed to the free market, and believing that public interest is served by the free market. That is his belief.
  What of the regulator, however, who is supposedly independent and unfettered by such ideology? Why has he not referred the matter in the light of the following issues? First, some £300 million in tax payments to the Treasury would he lost if the bid goes ahead. Is that not a matter of public interest? I can certainly think of things that the Treasury could spend £300 million on—raising nurses' pay beyond the miserable 1 per cent. that they have been given, for instance, and perhaps giving local education authorities the money to fund the teachers' 2.7 per cent. increase in salary which currently looks as though it will be funded by lost jobs.
  Secondly, there will be further job losses in addition to those already lost. In that context, it is specific not only to this bid but to other electricity companies. Some 10,939 jobs have been lost since privatisation and it is likely that the number of job losses will increase as the regional electricity companies come under increasing pressure to give ever larger returns to shareholders to keep them happy. Is that not a matter of public interest?
  If the regulator feels that those issues are not of public interest and do not merit referral to the MMC, he has a very narrow definition of public interest—as narrow as that of the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps public interest is ultimately a matter of individual judgment based on individual belief. I do not know what the regulator's personal beliefs are, but in this bid, after the abdication of responsibility by the President of the Board of Trade, the regulator was the last protector of public
  108
  interest in the widest definition of the greatest good for the greatest number—a definition that I know is not shared by the Government.
  It is important that the regulator should refer the bid to the MMC so that we can have a proper examination of the public interest and the public can see the independence of the regulator operate; otherwise he will open himself to a critical examination of his independence on public interest issues and bring into dispute the whole regulation system.
  9.4 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) referred to the public interest. The interest taken in the debate by Opposition Members is shown by the number who are present; but I believe that the hon. Lady confused the public interest with interest to the public, given the allegations that she made. Let me point out to her that the public interest is best served by cheap electricity and an efficient company. An inefficient company will result in job losses and high prices; we want jobs and low prices, and both have been provided following the privatisation of this company and many other formerly nationalised concerns.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did a masterly demolition job on the motion. In their speeches so far, Opposition Members simply have not made their case. The motion refers to a meeting at which an unknown number of shareholders expressed concern about, or indeed opposition to, the proposed takeover. I have an answer for those shareholders: they do not need to sell their shares.
  Another point—which has been answered time and again—relates to the Director General of Electricity Supply and his ability to regulate the industry. I was astounded when I saw that in the motion; I can only assume that it was tabled by someone who was not present last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, concentrated on that and many other pertinent points relating to the takeover.
  The third aspect of the motion that strikes me is the concern about the removal of the golden share from the regional electricity companies, which would apparently make them vulnerable to "predatory or hostile bids". A well-run, efficient company, looking after its customers and employees, need not fear a hostile takeover as it will know how to fight such takeovers effectively. If a company is insulated from the market place, it is insulated from the needs of its customers and will no longer act in the best interests of those customers. That is why companies must be left to trade openly and fairly.
  If a lesson is to be drawn from the debate and the bid, it is that if regional electricity companies want to defend themselves from takeovers they must continue to reduce consumer prices. I also believe, however, that takeovers and amalgamations often produce a combined strength—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) referred—allowing companies to compete in an international market place which they would not have been able to do alone.
  Mr. Mullin: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems of the takeover culture that exists in British industry, and especially in the City of London, is that it

  109
  obliges companies to be remorselessly short-term in their thinking? One effect of regular takeovers is that everyone is concerned with making the fastest possible buck in the shortest possible time, which is not necessarily conducive to the long-term interests of either companies or customers.
  Mrs. Knight: Remarks such as that can be made only by someone who has lived in a sheltered world, perhaps a lecturing establishment, rather than working for companies. If the hon. Gentleman had worked in industry, he would know what an extraordinary comment that was. If—as his expression suggests—he has now decided that he has worked in industry, I suggest that he go back and find out what it is all about.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Knight: No. I have already given way once, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to have his say later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It was extraordinary that, in the somewhat mournful diatribe with which he opened the debate, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should talk about the sale of the national grid. I have news for him: the national grid has not yet been sold. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is already putting down yet more markers against privatisation. He criticised the difference between the sale price of the regional electricity companies and their valuation now, implying that the companies had been underpriced in the first instance. That increase in the valuation of the companies shows the improvement in their performance since privatisation. We should be proud of that: it demonstrates precisely what privatisation has done.
  The hon. Gentleman then quoted one year's electricity price increase. What a selective use of statistics! I also obtained the statistics from the Library, which was the hon. Gentleman's source, and they show a continuing trend of price reduction. Long may that last. In the debate the anti-privatisation lobby has come back out and reared its ugly head. I am sure that we all recall the debate on British Airways when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that British Airways would be the pantomime horse of capitalism, if it was anything at all. British Airways is now the world's favourite airline.
  When we debated British Telecom privatisation Opposition Members said that the public telephone box would be threatened with extinction. The number of call boxes has doubled, and what is more they work. These things mean something to people. British Gas prices have fallen since privatisation but that was never projected by Opposition Members. I do not know whether any of them read the journal Science in Parliament which is sent to us. The one which arrived last week had articles on nuclear power and nuclear privatisation by Greenpeace, which is in favour of privatisation. That is a turn-up for the book, and the articles are well worth reading.
  As the House knows, I spent many years in industry before being elected to Parliament. In the years before privatisation the experience with nationalised companies, the state monopolies, was quite different and poorer from what happens today. Those companies, including the electricity companies, frequently ransomed British industry. They were able to do that because they were in state control and, ultimately, they were responsible to the
  110
  House of Commons. Hon. Members took a close interest in them and effectively ran them. That is why they were inefficient and why they made a loss of about £50 million a week.
  Opposition Members should be honest about these matters. If those companies had not been privatised the money that they now contribute to the Exchequer would not be available to be spent on the health service, education and social security. They contribute a great deal weekly, monthly and annually to the Exchequer. If the Opposition do not want that they should say which hospitals and schools they want closed because that is the choice.
  Irrespective of whether it is taken over I want this electricity company to continue to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for its consumers and in an efficient and practical way. That has happened because of the competition that has resulted from privatisation, and more competition is now entering the electricity industry.
  One of the matters of substance in the debate is regulation. Hon. Members have said that the regulator has no power, that he is some poor, weak individual sitting in an office and that he cannot do or say anything. That is rubbish. The regulator's key duty is to protect customers and promote competition in the electricity industry. That is what we want and it is what industry and the consumer want. He is responsible for settling disputes, issuing licences and investigating complaints, and for making sure that prices are not excessive. His responsibility for fixing a price formula has resulted in a drop in price to the consumer—my consumers and those of every hon. Member.
  Those are some of the benefits that have resulted from the work of the regulator. Why does no Opposition Member seem to be prepared to speak about some of the positive happenings? Why are they always so mournful and negative? Not only have consumers benefited because prices have gone down but complaints have gone down as well. There was always a stream of complaints about electricity and long waits for repairs. People never knew when they would lose power or when it would come back. What is more, one could never get through on the telephone but the charges continued. That was the reality of a state monopoly.
  The reality for my family in 1988 was that the electricity supply was cut off on Boxing day and it was not reconnected until two days later. That would not happen now because there is an efficient organisation which 99.8 per cent. of the time reconnects the electricity supply within 24 hours. It answers the phone and it compensates people who have lost their power supply. That is the sort of improvement from which customers have benefited. Opposition Members should give the electricity companies credit for that. It is the sort of service that my constituents want.
  I mention briefly someone who has been ignored in this debate—the shareholder. He is always portrayed as some awful, scrubby individual in a black mac who somehow makes a profit at somebody else's expense. Who are the shareholders? They are the pension funds—indeed, there are 15 million people in pension funds, which means 15 million of my and other hon. Members' constituents. I want their pension funds to increase so that they can benefit. Who else is a shareholder? Some 6 million private individuals, both men and women, have put their savings into such companies. I want the electricity company we

  111
  are debating to benefit them. The shareholder is an ordinary man or woman who has saved some money, put it to one side, and who has now invested himself or is in a pension fund. He has benefited and will benefit from the electricity companies.
  It is shameful that the shareholder is either ignored or painted in the way that he was this afternoon. The great achievements of privatisation have been the efficiencies and improvements that have resulted in companies being taken out of the Government's hands. The Opposition have done some if-ing and but-ing about whether the regulation system should be changed for the utilities or whether it should be changed for everybody else. Some Labour Members spoke about renationalisation, but their Front-Bench spokesmen rapidly shook their heads. They do not know what they are in favour of, other than taking as much control as possible. That will do nothing for the companies, the customers or the shareholders.
  There are one or two improvements, however, that I would like to see. I would like more competition within the industry and for there to be lower prices, especially for some of the major energy users. The prices that they pay should be brought closer to those paid by some of their competitors on the continent. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
  Although I am conscious that the privatised utilities receive more scrutiny than almost any other company, I would like greater clarity and coherence in the remuneration packages of a few who work within them. There are many thousands of hard-working, first-class directors and managers in the industry and I would not want their efforts to be destroyed because of the perceived excesses of a handful. I want to ensure that the undoubted benefits to the consumer of privatisation are not muddied by over-concentration on the pay of a few. What I want is concentration on the successes; something that is not even mentioned in the Opposition motion.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: When the President of the Board of Trade gave some guarantees about the electricity industry, my mind went back to his guarantees to the miners about the mining industry and the possible closure of 31 pits. Despite his guarantees, all 31 pits have now closed. His guarantees are not worth the paper that they are written on.
  Our debate today is not about shareholders or about whether the industry is being run in the right or the wrong way. The industry has been privatised. I worked in a nationalised industry—the coal industry—all my life before coming to this place. Nationalisation has its faults—I could talk about them all evening— but this matter involves one big fault. It is all about a company—Trafalgar House—which is not into electricity, about the capitalist system, and about private entrepreneurs taking a stake in what was a nationalised industry.
  The industry was privatised and, obviously, it put up the costs. Figures show that fact, and my hon. Friends have mentioned that prices have risen. Anyone who thinks that they have not should look at their own bills. We do not have to defend that view. I would not even try to defend it. People out there know that their bills have gone up since privatisation. That is where all the profits have
  112
  come from—hence Trafalgar House's bid for Northern Electric. It made the bid, not because Northern Electric does not deal with complaints any more, or is run badly, but because it has good cash flow and has made a whopping big profit. Trafalgar House wants the takeover to get itself out of the mire.
  Tax was mentioned. I have raised the question of tax on two occasions, once with Prime Minister. I did not hear the President of the Board of Trade mention the tax that will be lost to the Treasury.
  Mr. Booth: How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) that it is not just a few rich entrepreneurs making a profit? Privatisation is helping 15 million pensioners and others to secure their futures.
  Mr. Campbell: As I have said, it is not a question of someone making some money for some dear old pensioners, but of a company taking over another company which has good cash flow and vast profits. The profits would be wiped out. It is not a question of anything else. All the hogwash that I heard the other night was crazy. This is about the money that Northern Electric has accrued and about the cash flow that is coming in.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of the takeover, Trafalgar House is likely to save £270 million in advance corporation tax? The taxpayer will lose because the company will be able to set that money off in buying Northern Electric.
  Mr. Campbell: That is exactly what I was saying. I asked the Prime Minister about tax last week, but he refused to answer because he was not aware of what was happening. Perhaps the Prime Minister has washed his hands of the matter and disagrees with the takeover because he is on the Treasury's side. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will he peeved.
  We are not talking about only £270 million. That amount is involved not just with one electricity company, but with all 12 electricity companies. One could speculate beyond that—one thinks of the water companies, with their vast profits and cash flow. Ministers cannot tell me that water bills have not been increasing for many years.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, when those companies were nationalised, the taxpayer used to lose £50 million every week? The taxpayer is now gaining £48 million every week. Is that not a significant factor in the equation?
  Mr. Campbell: As I said, I am not arguing about nationalisation in the old days. I know who ran the nationalised companies—Colonel Blimps and other people. It was a "give us a job" sort of thing. They ran a company but did not know what the hell they were doing half the time. That was the problem with nationalisation. There is nothing wrong with nationalisation if it done run properly. In the mining industry, we have always said that if we had been given the chance we would have run it properly. That is the problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]
  Of course I would renationalise, because the industry is a utility and it belongs in the public domain. Any energy company belongs in the public domain. I hope that the mining industry will be brought back into the public domain. I hope that the mining and electricity industries

  113
  will be returned to public ownership. However, when we return to power the companies will be in such a mess that we shall not have a penny to do anything, because the Government have got the country knackered now.
  We heard tonight of insider dealing by the Swiss Bank Corporation, which is now buying shares in Yorkshire Electricity. Perhaps the Minister can say why—and perhaps the corporation is buying shares elsewhere. There is some hanky-panky going on, and it will come out in future. I hope that the press are listening because someone who delves deep enough will find that there is a rabbit away and that someone made a lot of money from the deal.
  Mr. Mullin: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) seemed to be under the impression that electricity companies did not make profits before privatisation. They all made profits. Northern Electric made profits of £50 million in 1985–86, £49 million in 1986–87, £47 million in 1987–88, and so on.
  Mr. Campbell: The National Coal Board also made profits in a few years when I was there and broke even in other years. If the Minister for Energy and Industry examines the records, he will discover that for himself. That is not to say that they were all right. I could talk all night about the faults of nationalisation, but if I were a Minister in charge of nationalisation I would at least know where the faults lay, which the Minister does not. I know where nationalisation went wrong in the pits. It was not the fault of the miners or of the men at the pit head, but of people elsewhere.
  The regulator is most important, but Professor Littlechild will see his job disappear. More takeovers will occur. Yorkshire Electricity will be next, and Trafalgar House may take over the whole lot, with the Swiss Bank Corporation. The companies may be formed into one huge multinational electricity industry, which would take us back to square one. If the regulator loses his powers, he may as well sign on the dole because the big companies will not take a blind bit of notice of him. They are interested only in making vast profits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that the Tory party has made £600,000 from Trafalgar House since 1987. Over the next few years, I will keep a close eye on how much the Tories get from this deal. I bet that they do very well from it—and from any company taking over other utilities, such as water.
  I begin to wonder if a rabbit is not away here and that all this is being done on purpose. A Labour Government will soon be in power. I know what I would like to do, but I am not a member of the Front Bench. A Labour Government will tighten the powers of the regulator, but such takeovers will make a nonsense of him and put him on the dole. When Labour comes to power, we will not even be able to regulate the industry. It will he a case of dog eat dog, vast profits, and billions in shares for directors. It is absolutely crazy.
  All this is not about pensions and small shareholders in Newcastle and the north-east. It is about greed by private companies and monopolies in taking over industries that have cash flow and profits.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I want to make a couple of points about the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric which have not been mentioned in the debate but which merit examination. Trafalgar House is a very large company which has a number of large companies within it based in my constituency. It is majority owned by British institutions. It owns Cleveland Bridge, Cleveland Structural, Davy Offshore, Davy Engineering and Trafalgar House Offshore. It has maintained its subsidiary headquarters in the north of England.
  I hold no brief for Trafalgar House or for Northern Electric. However, Northern Electric has, to its credit, brought down the price of electricity, imposed a pay freeze for the past three years and reduced its prices to large consumers in real terms since privatisation.
  In this debate, Labour is caught on the horns of a dilemma. It waxes on about high pay and the supposed deficiencies of privatised electricity companies, but it now wants to save some of them from the rigours of the market economy. On the radio last week the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) told us:
  "It's our money and we want it back."
  What does that mean? As we have heard from the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), it means nationalisation. But that is not official Labour policy.
  Labour's policy is, apparently, to restore state control by the back door by giving the regulator greater powers to intervene. In the weeks and months ahead, as we head for the general election, I look forward to exposing the truth about the Labour party's position. Labour has a hidden agenda to renationalise many companies, but it will not tell anyone in case it does not get elected because of it.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I start by responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and I refer to a briefing that Trafalgar House made available this evening, on ownership of the regional electricity companies. It makes the point that neither the Government nor the Opposition are opposed to a change of ownership of the regional electricity companies in principle. The point is that we are not here this evening to renationalise those companies. We are concerned about the position, among others, of the regional stakeholders who have invested money in companies across the country.
  Many of us were in the House when we first dealt with the privatisation of the electricity companies. We heard at that time that it was to be an extension into the regions of popular capitalism and that it was to be an opportunity for ordinary people to get a share in major utilities in their area. The fact is that the utilities are not like international conglomerates; they are different in character and in function. They are subject to different disciplines, depending on the nature of the market.
  It was significant that the President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that any company that had been at some stage in public ownership was a public utility for the purposes of this debate. As far as we arc concerned, a company that has responsibility for providing gas, water

  115
  or electricity—the fundamentals of a civilised life in our society—has to be the subject of regulation and has to be the subject of special and different forms of control.
  The President of the Board of Trade has refused to intervene in a bid for a regional electricity company and we must look at the reasons why. It could be suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is merely bowing to one of the major paymasters of the Tory party. It could be that he is ignoring the deep anxieties about the behaviour of the Swiss Bank Corporation, or it could he simply that he is turning his back on the small shareholders and favouring his friends in the City. Those criticisms are commonplace when dealing with takeovers of any kind.
  Some of us in the House remember the same criticisms and the same concerns being voiced at the time of the Guinness bid for Distillers. We were told then that the headquarters of Guinness were to be located in Scotland. We were told then that it would be a major international company operating out of Scotland. Virtually within days of the bid being agreed, all those undertakings were reneged on. The now discredited owners and leaders of Guinness turned on their heels and left Scotland behind them. It is against that background that we judge tonight's speeches on the takeover.
  We are dealing with a private energy utility, which has at least three more years of monopoly franchise to run. Indeed, it is quite likely that that franchise will run for longer. The regulator has already stated that he has no idea how long it will be before the metering technology is available to enable competition in the regions in the electricity market. At present, there is not the means whereby domestic consumers' electricity consumption can be metered from more than one source. So it is quite possible that the three years of monopoly under the franchise will be extended for a much longer period.
  It is certainly clear that with such a monopoly and the lax price controls that the regulator put in place last year—if anyone doubts the laxity of the controls, he need only remember the reaction of the market to the distribution price review, when the prices of shares rocketed because of the relief that the regulator was going to give the industry an easy time—Northern Electric can look to increasing its debt ratio to a figure in the region of 225 per cent. by March next year, if the bid is successful. It will take another four years after that before its debt ratio comes down to about 100 per cent.
  Indeed, the Financial Times is right to say in its editorial today:
  "As stable, cash generative businesses, the Recs ought to carry high proportions of debt".
  They should be capable of carrying such debt because they have the guarantee of income and the guarantee of a market for some considerable time to come.
  It is not surprising that, having become so cash rich, Northern Electric should feel so relaxed about throwing money at its shareholders to defend itself. After the privatisation of the regional electricity companies at an artificially low price, and after they have been allowed to be regulated by the most feeble poacher-cum-gamekeeper, it is not surprising that so much interest is now being taken in them.
  Perhaps it is not right to attack the director general personally, but it has to be said that he seems somewhat lax to choose, in the middle of a major industrial crisis of
  116
  the kind that seems to be currently taking place, to go on his holidays. It certainly suggests that he has not quite got his eye on the ball.
  One can understand the frustration of Trafalgar House at the regulator's suggestion that it should separate its activities so that he can regulate them more effectively. The regulator maintains that that separation could be achieved either by a re-flotation of some 25 per cent. of Trafalgar House's electricity business, at a cost of between £100 million and £150 million, or simply by changing the original operating licence. If a re-flotation is unacceptable to Trafalgar House, is a change in licence acceptable to Northern Electric? After all, the power to amend electricity licences arises only after a report on the merger has been laid before Parliament and when both parties are subjected to the regime of the Electricity Act 1989. I believe that Trafalgar House is not subject to the Electricity Act regime at present. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in his winding-up speech.
  As we understand it, if Northern Electric is not prepared to have the licence changed, there is no reason why the licence should be changed. If the licence change was not available, Trafalgar House, even if it were successful in its bid, would not be able to sell electricity under the terms of the Electricity Act. Therefore, there is almost a power of veto in the hands of Northern Electric.
  The licence modifications have already been referred to in the debate. Indeed, one of the few useful parts of the President of the Board of Trade's speech was when he came down to earth and addressed the status of the guarantees. He made it perfectly clear that the guarantees to be given by Trafalgar House to the regulator were meaningless because they had no force in law. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the regulator was not satisfied, he, the President of the Board of Trade, would be powerless if the regulator sought to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  The President said that, at the end of the day, he has to decide whether to accept the MMC report. However, the report may take a considerable time to produce and it may sufficiently frighten off potential predators for other regional electricity companies and make things that much more untidy and difficult for the people concerned.
  I refer to the behaviour of Trafalgar House and its supporters last week at the meeting to which reference has been made. I am glad that the President has returned to the Chamber. He did not seem to appreciate that, when he was in purdah, or in opposition, writing books or having books written for him, telling us how he was going to intervene in industry, when the privatisation went through, the companies were organised on a regional basis precisely to attract the small shareholders into those companies.
  When meetings are held to consult those people, it cannot be unreasonable for those voices to be heard, especially when at least one of the participants in the casting of the block vote, because that is what the institutions were doing—the Swiss Bank Corporation—is still under investigation for insider dealing. I am led to believe that an appeal to the takeover panel's ruling could still be made by Northern Electric and Warburg.
  It is not just the shareholders and the bankers who are important. We must also consider the work force and the customers. In recent weeks we have heard a great deal about highly motivated men who have been richly rewarded by grateful shareholders. We all know about the

  117
  massive pay-outs awarded to directors and senior executives who, it can be argued, were simply being recompensed for paying off others.
  After all, the so-called savings that have been achieved have not been as a result of massive capital investment, because there has been little of that at this stage. They have not been achieved as a result of an imaginative or original pricing policy, because it was dictated by a regulator who seemed to be more concerned with inflating share prices than with cutting electricity bills.
  Those so-called savings have been achieved because of lower transmission costs and falls in the international price of coal and gas, through subsidised nuclear power and, most of all, as a result of the paying off of massive numbers of staff. One of the major attractions of Northern Electric to Trafalgar House is that its staffing cuts have been only about 15 per cent., which is only half Eastern Electricity's figure—it has cut 30 per cent. of its staff—and three quarters of that of Midlands Electricity, which has cut 20 per cent. Of the 12 RECs, five have cut more staff than Northern Electric.
  It is little wonder that the workers of Northern Electric are looking anxiously at the intentions of both parties as their jobs will have to be sacrificed, as will future price cuts and investment, to pay for the takeover battle.
  Mr. Caborn: Does my hon. Friend agree that not to allow the stock exchange's investigation to be concluded when the Swiss Bank Corporation took 8.5 per cent., at £135 million, in Yorkshire Electricity alone and Yorkshire Electricity had to have a search in companies legislation because the investment was supposed to be market-making, is totally out of sync with anything that has ever happened before on the stock exchange? Is it acceptable to allow the takeover to take place? Are the genuine shareholders being protected?
  Mr. O'Neill: The activities of the Swiss Bank Corporation should be investigated further, if only because it seems to be a very easy and convenient arrangement whereby it is consulted by Trafalgar House and, before anything else happened, it acquired a substantial shareholding in the company in respect of which it is supposed to be acting as an adviser in relation to the takeover. It all seems to be too convenient. If the Minister had considered that, he should have thought again about a reference.
  The current board of Northern Electric is prepared to sacrifice any number of staff to save the board's skin. However, the responsibility of the House is to all the people of the north-east. It is not their fault that they will be the captive consumers of a monopoly electricity supplier for years to come.
  If Trafalgar wins with a higher bid than that promised by Northern, there will be precious little money left for distribution of the national grid flotation funds, which will have to be used instead to reduce the gearing or, alternatively, to offset tax losses elsewhere in the financial black hole that is called the Trafalgar House accounts. That company may be able to run cheap discount food stores, but, judging by the experience of passengers on the QE2, when the December Atlantic sailing was made to look like Christmas on Elm street, it has a lot to learn about consumer relations. Its one test in relation to individual consumers in Britain was a disaster.
  118
  These matters will not he decided by debates in the House. We shall not receive proper answers from Ministers—we have discovered that tonight. We need the cool assessment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  When energy was privatised, many Opposition Members feared that a great many risks were being taken. Some of those fears have been proven to be exaggerated—we must admit that. There have been complaints about regional electricity companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made the point—if the President of the Board of Trade had been present, he would have heard it—that many of our past concerns have diminished. In terms of the accounts and the complaints side of things, matters have become better. However, other fears relating to price, certain aspects of customer satisfaction, the protection of small shareholders' rights, future employment guarantees and management profiteering have still to be resolved. Most of them will require a change of government.
  What is required now is reference to the MMC of this, the first, but not the last, bid for a regional electricity company. Such companies will he monopolies for years to come. The shareholdings represent the major savings of many people of modest means. They have provided well-paid and, until now, safe jobs for many people in areas of high unemployment. RECs have responsibility to keep people warm and safe in their homes at reasonable costs. Utilities controlled by small groups of largely unaccountable people deserve better treatment and protection than a brush-off from an indifferent Government. For all those reasons, we call on hon. Members who believe that there are public issues that can be considered only by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has a reputation for being a moderate—a man of the centre road within the Labour party, always waiting to smell the wind, and always waiting to keep just the right side of it. It was interesting to hear what he said. He detests shareholders. He is not prepared, nor is the Labour party, to allow individual shareholders and institutional shareholders to make up their minds and to make their decisions about whether to accept the hid by Trafalgar House. Not a bit of it.
  The hon. Gentleman is not interested in protecting the interests of the many hundreds of thousands of pensioners, both present and future, who will have the right to make decisions based on their investment, which has been made on their behalf. He is not willing to trust the judgment of individual shareholders of Northern Electric and elsewhere. Opposition Members do not understand the free market system or how free enterprise works. [Interruption.] Opposition Members revert instinctively to central planning. [Interruption.]
  I am not surprised that we have some interruptions from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). He is deeply uneasy about what his Front-Bench colleagues say. He thinks that the hon. Member for Clackmannan is too moderate. It would he very interesting to take a straw poll. Based on the contributions of Opposition Front-Bench Members, what would north-eastern Members really think about the future of the electricity industry in their area? I

  119
  shall tell the House. It was clear that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) wanted renationalisation, as did the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) who was honest and came out with it immediately.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must control himself.
  Mr. Eggar: It took a good honest Yorkshireman to stand up for Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) yelled out the benefits of Yorkshire Electricity, and pointed to the major contributions it has been making throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman defended privatisation, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) agreed. The hon. Gentleman said that there might be one or two things right about privatisation. He admitted that privatisation works.
  One of the great pleasures I have had since the general election has been my frequent visits to the north-east, because I looked after the north-east for the Department of Trade and Industry until July. I admire and respect the sense of community and belief which goes deep in the north-east. There is a deep-rooted belief, shared by local Members of Parliament, that whatever is local is good, and that the status quo has to be defended at any cost.
  If the status quo happens to be a nationalised regional distribution board for electricity, it must be defended. [Interruption.] Nobody fought privatisation harder than the hon. Member for Blyth Valley, or the other north-east Members. But now we have a privatised regional company, and what do they do? They rush to defence what is local. They defend the status quo.
  Those hon. Members do not use as a defence the argument deployed by my hon. Friends, that prices have come down and that standards of service have improved—not a bit of it. Their defence is simple. It is a north-east company, and it must be defended whatever its rights or wrongs. Northern Electric is worth defending because it is there, but those hon. Members forget that Trafalgar House is also a major company in the north-east.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) pointed out the number of companies which the firm owns in the north-east, and I believe that Trafalgar House employs almost as many—if not more—people in the north-east than Northern Electricity.
  Mr. Devlin: More.
  Mr. Eggar: I am sorry. I did not pick that up.
  Ms Armstrong: Will the Minister confirm that the taxpayer—with whom we are supposed to be concerned—is likely to lose about £270 million if the deal goes through?
  Mr. Eggar: Of all the points which I thought the scarlet lady might bring up, nothing could surprise me more than that. The new, modern Labour party is worried about the taxpayer. It might have been worried about the customer. That is the first time that the hon. Lady has mentioned the taxpayer.
  What the Leader of the Opposition said about privatisation is really interesting, because he was the Opposition spokesman when electricity was privatised.
  120
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there would he a dramatic upward pressure on prices when electricity was privatised. He was wrong and, what is more, the hon. Member for Clackmannan admitted that he was wrong. Opposition Members said much about the share options issue, and I thought that the great new leader of the Labour party was bound to have made a lot about the share options issue when he lead the Opposition on electricity. I read through Hansard, but I could find no evidence at all that the right hon. Gentleman had ever referred to share options.
  I thought that my eyes might have misled me so I arranged for the new marvel, the parliamentary on-line information service, to be interrogated. We fed in the word "Blair". We added "electricity" and "share options". We gave all the relevant dates. What came back? A big round zero. In all the time that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) led on electricity for the Opposition, he never raised the issue of share options. He has the nerve to mention the golden share in his motion. Much mention has been made of share options.
  Certain myths persist. When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield opposed privatisation, he said that there would be no competition between the regional electricity companies. He was wrong. Already more than half the competitive market—the over-100 kW market—is provided by companies other than the local regional electricity company. There is already extensive competition. As even the hon. Member for Clackmannan admitted, there will be full competition for domestic consumers in 1998.
  The debate has not been about regulation in the electricity sector. It has been about something much more fundamental. It has been about the real priorities of the Labour party. It has been about the dispute between the hon. Members for Blyth Valley, for Tyne Bridge and for Huddersfield. It has all been about clause IV and what the Opposition will do in the future about regional electricity companies.
  You might not be a regular reader of the News of the World, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can recommend it to you and to all Opposition Members. There is an interesting contribution to it. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said something which I recommend that all Opposition Members should take account of. He said:
  "The last thing we want … is to start contemplating our navels with this unnecessary debate. I don't think Clause 4 should be changed."
  That is not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see what clause IV has to do with the debate. Stick to the debate.
  Mr. Eggar: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate is entitled
  "Future ownership, control and regulation of regional electricity companies".
  If the debate is not about whether the Opposition want to renationalise the regional electricity companies and the policies that they want to introduce, what on earth is it about?
  I have a word of advice for the hon. Member for Blyth Valley. When he wants to get off early in the evening one day during the week, he should not look to mosey up close to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). He should go along the corridor a little further

  121
  and talk to the hon. Member for Jarrow. I am sure that he will oblige. I do not think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will be so lucky. The hon. Member for Jarrow will read his speech in the debate this evening. The hon. Member for Huddersfield will be here throughout the night and probably the next day.
  We cannot get away from the fact that, despite the new label, the Labour party is a socialist party. Whenever Labour Members are confronted with a difficult issue and have to make a difficult policy choice, what do they do? They rush for central control. They really believe that the man in Whitehall knows best and that the heyday of the socialist party was the day of maximum nationalisation—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must stop bawling and control himself. I have already told him that. [Interruption.] Order.
  Mr. Eggar: There we see it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley—
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 280.

  Division No. 78]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cox, Tom

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darling, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benton, Joe

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Denham, John

  Berry, Roger

  Dewar, Donald

  Betts, Clive

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boyes, Roland

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Burden, Richard

  Enright, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Flynn, Paul

  Caravan, Dennis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Chidgey, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fraser, John

  Church, Judith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clelland, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  122

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Graham, Thomas

  Milburn, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Henderson, Doug

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rendel, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Simpson, Alan

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maddock, Diana

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Timms, Stephen

  Marek, Dr John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike

  123

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. George Mudie.

  Worthington, Tony

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dover, Den

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

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

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunter, Andrew

  124

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Pickles, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Key, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Richards, Rod

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knox, Sir David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Sackville, Tom

  Leigh, Edward

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lidington, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lightbown, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, Sir David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Sykes, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  125

  Willetts, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Wood, Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 247.

  Division No. 79]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butler, Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  126

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howel, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jack, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  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, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Norris, Steve

  Waterson, Nigel

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Watts, John

  127

  Wells, Bowen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Enright, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beith,Rt Hon A J

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Galloway, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Berry, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Graham, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Chidgey, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hodge, Margaret

  Church, Judith

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jowell, Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle. Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  128

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Radice, Giles

  McAllion, John

  Randal, Stuart

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCartney, Ian

  Redmond, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  MacShane, Denis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McWiliam, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Madden, Max

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maddock, Diana

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek,Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Timms, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Olner, Bill

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L

  Ms Barbara Roche and Mr. George Mudie.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the improvements in performance in the electricity supply industry since privatisation; welcomes the benefits which customers are receiving in terms of lower prices and improved service; supports the continuing development of competition in the electricity market and the maintenance of effective regulation where this is necessary; and notes that the Director General of Electricity Supply will continue to promote competition and protect the interests of consumers.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  DEFENCE EVALUATION AND RESEARCH AGENCY
  That the draft Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
  That the draft Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid.before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  ISRAEL (AGREEMENT)
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9th December 1994, relating to the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Israel; and supports the Government's view that this is a welcome development in relations between the European Union and Israel.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. George Kynoch be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Allan Stewart be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Roland Boyes be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Bill Olner be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Business Rates (West Suffolk)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to reply.
  About four weeks ago, many of my constituents who run businesses received an unwelcome notice from the district valuer. Although, of course, there were beneficiaries, overall there were increases in my constituency. In a number of instances, that caused alarm and consternation, with some increases of more than 40, 60 and even 70 per cent.
  All non-domestic properties are revalued every five years. The next revaluation comes into effect this year on 1 April. Any judgment of rateable value has been based on the increase or decrease in assessed rental values in the five-year period from 1 April 1988 to 1 April 1993. In 1988, the economy was growing strongly. Obsession with the value of property was a characteristic of that period, as was a belief that the road to riches lay in bricks and mortar. Those were the heady days of boom.
  In common with every industrialised country, by 1993 the position was different. Property prices and rentals had weakened, bankruptcies of both a personal and corporate nature had risen, unemployment had increased, and the atmosphere of business confidence had become considerably more negative.
  During the boom years, the counties of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire enjoyed the highest levels both of economic growth and of population anywhere in Britain. It is only in the past 12 months that confidence in the business community in west Suffolk has resurfaced, and growth, albeit patchy, in the region is happily once again the highest in the nation.
  With that perspective, there was widespread and firm confidence in my constituency that the district valuer would reflect that background in his rental assessments. I fear that, four weeks ago, we were to be disappointed. There are two district councils in my constituency: St. Edmundsbury and Forest Heath. Both fully share my concern at the effect of those revaluations on the business sector.
  Let me deal with what I regard as the most glaring aberration—the town of Mildenhall is suffering an average increase of nearly 18 per cent. With the adjacent villages, Mildenhall has 13,500 inhabitants. Unfortunately, it does not have a large supermarket to act as a magnet for shoppers. Forest Heath district council invited the district valuer to visit Mildenhall personally. Its members showed him the obvious number of empty properties. He saw what is perfectly clear to any objective observer: that the economic base for small shopkeepers in the town is, at best, fragile. In view of his visit, the increases proposed were an enormous and unexpected shock.
  Among dozens of letters, the secretary of the Mildenhall Retailers Association, Mrs. Barbara Coppeard, has written to me in these terms:
  "You are aware that many shops have closed over the last few years. Some have tried to re-open with new owners, sadly failing

  131
  again within a short time … indeed trading conditions have steadily declined, despite the efforts of hard working small retailers. The town centre is contracting.
  If the proposed increases are imposed in April they will inevitably affect the viability of many businesses."
  Bluntly, I believe that those increases will have a severe impact on the economy of the town. The district valuer, to whom I have spoken directly about this matter, has said that he will consider it sympathetically if information about vacant shops and rental levels is produced afresh. I trust that he will. As the town's Member of Parliament, I cannot stand idly by while the livelihoods of my constituents are put at risk.
  I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the situation of Lakenheath, which has a population of 5,500. It has a much smaller number of shops. The average increase of 23 per cent. cannot be justified. The chairman of Lakenheath parish council, Mr. Bruce Rutterford, wrote:
  "With an almost universal decrease in takings, the proposed increases may well be the final straw and may well lead to closure of some shops. If these shops do close, it is most unlikely that they will ever open again, and it will be a bad day when we start losing more shops in the village. There is much concern and confusion as to just how the district valuer arrives at the figures that are provided, so there appear to be certain inconsistencies here."
  The number of United States service personnel attached to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath is steadily increasing. The direct and indirect economic contribution made by those bases to the area is enormous. However, there is a changing pattern of purchasing activity by the Americans. As they have expanded in numbers, so have base facilities. They include restaurants, sports facilities and shopping commissaries. The upshot is that the overwhelming bulk of consumer items are purchased on favourable terms on the bases, and paid for in dollars.
  The overall impact is spelt out in a letter from E. Carter and Sons Ltd. of Mildenhall, a home furnishing, removal and storage business in the high street. Mr. Carter wrote:
  "The proposed revaluation of my property shows an increase of 44.87 per cent. I consider this to be excessive as my shop has not had a material change since the last valuation, and indeed trading conditions in Mildenhall have declined. With my business suffering a 3.13 per cent. decrease in turnover and a net loss over the last three years, the true rentable value has in fact decreased as traders leave town. This increase places an unfair burden on my profitability and will affect my long-term viability."
  My own inquiries and observations endorse Mr. Carter's comments. There is no objective basis for any general upward revaluation of properties in Mildenhall and in Lakenheath in particular, and I share my constituents' concern at the proposed increases, which will considerably damage the commercial life of those towns.
  The largest town in my constituency is Bury St. Edmunds, where there is also considerable concern about a number of projected revaluations. The same sentiments have been expressed by shopkeepers in Newmarket and in a letter from Mr. Eddie Stewart, the chairman of Brandon chamber of trade, where the average increase is 13.5 per cent.
  I appreciate that the overall increase in west Suffolk is modest compared with other parts of England, but I want to highlight the collection of data to assess rateable value. That process results in erratic assessments, some of which
  132
  bear no reality to true rental values. With the best will in the world, the district valuer does not appear to have full information on base rental values.
  In 1993, it was common for all sorts of incentives to be offered in conjunction with lettings. It may be that the district valuer was not aware of rent-free periods and even reverse premiums. Much of the district valuer's evidence comes from rent returns by individual occupiers. Local chartered surveyors informed me that some forms were inaccurately completed.
  One solution would be to sub-contract the preparation of the valuation list to local estate agents, surveyors and valuers on a 100 per cent. basis or—as with the council tax—the district valuer could undertake some valuation work, supported by local surveyors and valuers. That would have a dramatic effect on reducing excessive anomalies.
  I shall now examine the appeals procedure. It is true that this is free, but many small business men seek professional advice. I need only add that there is a huge number of fly-by-night so-called professional advisers. The appeals procedure is unquestionably stressful. Given that, I applaud the help and guidance being given by Forest Heath district council to potential appellants in its area.
  What is particularly troublesome, however, is that the process can take a long time. In respect of the 1990 list, it took at least a year for appeals to be dealt with, and in many cases there were periods of two, three, four and even five years before appeals were considered. Such cases exist in my constituency. In practice, the district valuer is not predisposed to respond until the appeals are listed for hearing by the local valuation court.
  Business ratepayers have to pay the new rates on their assessment when entered into the list, even if it is clearly incorrect, and they get a refund of overpaid rates only following negotiations with the district valuer's office. It is my understanding that the district valuer's office is paid per appeal. However, if the anomalies are substantially reduced in the first place, the considerable number of appeals will diminish too. If we can cut down on the unreasonable anomalies, we can time-limit appeals.
  If patients are guaranteed national health service treatment within specific times, the principle should extend to business rate appeals. I suggest a maximum of one year. All council tax banding appeals were effectively dealt with in under one year. It can and should he done.
  I fully support the principle behind the Local Government Finance Act 1988, with the uniform national non-domestic rate and the formula of rateable value multiplied by a standard rate poundage. I make it clear that I recognise the substantial help of the £500 million of transitional relief. The increase on properties with a rateable value of £10,000 will be confined to 12.4 per cent., and below £10,000, the figure is 9.9 per cent. Of course, the limits will increase until full rates liabilities are met.
  In a discussion document produced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, it was argued that business rates should be returned to local authority control. When I stood as a

  133
  parliamentary candidate at Ashton-under-Lyne, I saw for myself the appalling consequences of this. Business rates were far too high, with the result that fledgling businesses could not prosper and would often have to move out of the area to survive at all.
  That was the value that a Labour-controlled authority placed on the enterprises that created jobs in the area. What I saw was a disgrace, yet it was not as bad as the ruinous anti-business policies pursued by many other Labour-controlled authorities. I for one never wish to see whole areas of our country blighted again by such destructive policies.
  Is there no way in which well-managed local councils can benefit from their own sensible policies? I have two excellent Conservative-controlled district councils in my constituency. Neither St. Edmundsbury borough council nor Forest Heath district council is proposing any increase in council tax this year. Additionally, the former is debt-free. Is there not some way in which such local authorities can be rewarded, especially if they create an environment for business expansion and job creation? Is not some form of rates repatriation possible?
  I very much applaud the viewpoint of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, being from Suffolk, is right in his desire to strengthen town centres as lively, prosperous and agreeable places in which to live and shop. At a minimum, therefore, could some part of the moneys collected in well-managed local authorities be ploughed back into town centre improvements? Better lighting and pedestrian precincts encourage people to live and shop in town centres. I believe that all the towns in my constituency—Bury St. Edmunds, Newmarket, Mildenhall, Brandon and Lakenheath—would benefit from that. Their attractiveness would be further enhanced. I believe that that course would be right and fair.
  The small business sector is the engine of west Suffolk's local economy and of job creation. It is the very lifeblood of my constituency. The Government have brought forward a number of welcome measures to help the small and medium business sector. I mention in particular the substantial number of businesses which have been taken out of VAT altogether, the cut in corporation tax for small businesses, and the higher profit limits for the smaller companies' rate of 25 per cent. The abolition of inheritance tax and the abolition of capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts are to be greatly welcomed. I hope that the abolition of the statutory audit will be the first of a number of further deregulatory policy initiatives.
  However, while the principle of a national non-domestic rate is correct, in practice it produces too many specific anomalies, which cause stress and anxiety to smaller businesses which are finally beginning to put the recession behind them. The Government have made a number of important and useful concessions on business rates, but more needs to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect positively on the ideas that I have put forward, which would be greatly welcomed in west Suffolk and, indeed, throughout the country as a whole.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) has put the concerns of his constituents most eloquently, not only tonight but in a substantial number of representations that he has made to me and to other Ministers in recent weeks.
  Let me first say that the Government think it essential that rateable values keep pace with the property market to ensure that rates fall with relative fairness on businesses everywhere. That is why we have regular revaluations and, indeed, have tied ourselves to undertake them every five years through statute. Parliament has approved that.
  Rates, of course, are based on rents. Data collected by the Valuation Office Agency—I shall turn to how that is done shortly—shows that in my hon. Friend's constituency, rents rose between 1988 and 1993, the dates on which the two recent valuations are based. That has resulted in a rise in rateable values of 11 per cent. in Forest Heath, and of 13 per cent. in St. Edmunsbury. With the transitional arrangements that we have introduced to cushion the effects of the revaluation, my latest information suggests that bills will rise in those areas by, on average, 5 per cent. And 4 per cent. respectively.
  The effect of the transitional arrangements will be to limit rate rises for small businesses to no more than 7.5 per cent., after allowing for inflation. For property with a new rateable value of £10,000 or more—or £15,000 or more in London—increases will be limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. For small properties consisting of business and living accommodation, the corresponding limit will be 5 per cent. Those limits will continue to apply throughout the period up to the next revaluation in 2000.
  More than 3,000 properties in my hon. Friend's constituency, and 1.25 million in England as a whole, will benefit from the scheme. In East Anglia, that is worth almost £50 million to ratepayers. Part of the cost will be met by the Exchequer and part by limiting rate reductions. Of course, the revaluation will not affect the overall yield from business rates. Statute requires us to adjust the poundage to account for any changes in the total rateable value for England.
  As it happens, the 1995 revaluation will hardly change the total of rateable values. That is why, as my hon. Friend noted, we have only increased the poundage in line with inflation, from 42.3p in the pound to 43.2p. After allowing for the effects of future appeals and inflation, that ensures that the rates burden overall is unchanged.
  Moving on to how data are collected, broadly speaking, valuation officers are required to assess the market rent for properties using values from April 1993. The best evidence of a market rent is the actual rent on the property itself. That is why valuation officers ask all occupiers for details of the rents they are paying. They have been collecting that information since April 1993. That evidence is used to assess the open market rent, and then the rateable value of the property.

  135
  It is quite possible that, when agreeing actual rents, occupiers will receive incentives such as a lump sum payment or a period when no rent is payable. That would, of course, alter the level of rent agreed. That is why valuation officers ask for full details on those incentives and adjust the rents accordingly. Indeed, some of the information may also be incorrect. However, the valuation officer will be able to examine the rental evidence on many similar properties, and will ignore those which appear out of line.
  However, I am pleased to hear that ratepayers in my hon. Friend's constituency have started to talk to the valuation officer. For the first time with this revaluation, the Valuation Office Agency has let ratepayers know their rateable values in advance of their rate bills. That notification, together with a booklet from my Department explaining the new arrangements, went to ratepayers so that they would have early notice of changes. If they think the valuation officer has not taken all the facts into account, they can provide him with more information and open a dialogue with him—the aim being to resolve matters more quickly.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's suggestion that there may be scope for contracting out to private firms some of the work on future revaluations. Ideas of that kind are timely, because the VOA is currently undergoing its first framework review as an agency.
  My hon. Friend referred to the use of private firms in the banding of dwellings for council tax. That was indeed a success, and a practical illustration of how the private sector can contribute to valuation work. We are examining other possibilities in the framework review. However, we need to recognise that the parallel between council tax handing and valuation for rating is not an exact one.
  The banding of domestic property, whatever its organisational challenges, was less difficult technically than the revaluation of non-domestic property. Information about the sale prices of houses and flats is relatively plentiful, accessible and easy to interpret. Because the task was to allocate properties to one of seven broad bands rather than to determine precise values, much of the work could be carried out at the desk, and internal inspections were not required.
  Valuation for rating is different in all these respects. It requires a more specialised expertise, which normally takes a number of years of training and experience to develop. The rating profession is a small and fragmented one. Finally, detailed inspection of properties is often needed, and VOA officers have powers of entry. It would be, at least, quite a departure to give such powers to a private contractor.
  I certainly do not want to suggest that there is no potential role for the private sector in future revaluations. There are, however, a number of difficulties to consider, which did not apply in the case of the council tax.
  My hon. Friend suggested that there might be scope for restoring to local government, or at least to some authorities, a measure of control over the non-domestic rate. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the logic of our 1990 reforms was extremely powerful, and remains so even now that memories of the worst
  136
  excesses of local government under the earlier arrangements have started to fade. It continues, besides, to enjoy the support of the main business organisations. I take it, therefore, that he has in mind only some marginal adjustment to the new regime, rather than wholesale change.
  I can well understand that authorities which had always made moderate and responsible use of their rating powers in the past may have felt frustrated by the 1990 changes. I do, however, see some difficulties with the idea of rewarding good past behaviour with some relaxation of the current regime.
  First, there could be no question of simply rewarding those authorities of which my hon. Friend and I happened in our wisdom to approve, even though I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath councils: objective statistical criteria would be needed, and I doubt whether those would prove technically straightforward or uncontroversial, or could be guaranteed not to throw up perverse results.
  We would need, too, to ponder rather carefully the nature of the reward. Would it, for example, consist of a power to raise a supplementary levy on the non-domestic rate to finance additional expenditure? That would seem on the face of it a rather illogical way of recognising previous restraint in budgeting. Offsetting measures would be required, too, to ensure that the selected authorities' use of their power did not add to the total of public expenditure. Clearly, the issue requires a great deal of thought, but I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend has put his proposal forward, and new ideas in the area are always welcome.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the appeals procedures are far from satisfactory. We would agree, which is why we have undertaken extensive consultation on the issue, and are to make changes to the system. The new procedures will allow ratepayers who disagree with their new value to appeal at any time up to 1 April 2001. In 1990, ratepayers had only six months to lodge an appeal.
  After 1 April this year, if the valuation officer does not agree with the ratepayer's proposal for a new value, he must pass it to the local valuation tribunal as an appeal within three months of receiving it, not six months as is the case at present.
  However, when he talks about his constituents with appeals still outstanding from 1990, my hon. Friend should bear in mind the fact that appeals can still be made against the 1990 list. If there is a change in the property, or a change in the locality, ratepayers can appeal up to six months after that change. Of the 1.25 million appeals received so far in England, nearly half have been made in the years since 1990. So it is not surprising that some cases have still to be heard.
  By the end of December last year, my hon. Friend's constituents had made just over 3,000 appeals against the 1990 list. Over half of those were made after the initial appeal period. I understand that there are some 600 outstanding. Eighty per cent. have been settled— slightly better than the national average of 76 per cent. We expect that the vast majority of proposals received by the end of March 1995 will he cleared by the end of 1995–96.
  We hope that our new procedures will speed the process for the next quinquennium. We also hope that the removal of time limits for initial appeals will make

  137
  it less easy for fly-by-night operators to press the unsuspecting ratepayer into parting with money to make an appeal which never happens. I am very aware of the instances of fraudulent activities, and I am greatly concerned about them. My Department's information leaflets contain warnings to ratepayers to be on their guard against those companies. The professional bodies have also issued warnings, which have been picked up by the national press as well as the trade press.
  I believe that businesses are considerably better off under the new system of uniform business rates. They can now be assured that local authorities cannot increase bills from year to year to finance extra expenditure. That compares with the 1980s, when poundages rose
  138
  by 37.4 per cent. more than inflation. Since 1990, increases in the poundage have been restricted to the rate of inflation. In the past four Budgets, the Chancellor has committed a considerable amount of relief to ratepayers. That has ensured that, in real terms, ratepayers now pay less in rates than they did in 1989–90.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to air such important issues, and I hope that I have assured him that we are looking at other ways of doing things and, in the case of appeals, are taking immediate steps to change things.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Fort William Sleeper
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the estimated subsidy per passenger of providing the Fort William sleeper service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The cost net of revenue per passenger of the Fort William sleeper, excluding infrastructure charges, is £180. The figure is £540 if infrastructure costs are allocated pro rata to non-infrastructure costs. Using infrastructure charges specific to the Fort William service the figure becomes £453. The figures are based on British Rail's best estimates, using 1993–94 demand levels and the 1994–95 price base.

  Runway Capacity, South-East
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the distinctions drawn by his Department between(a) a second runway at Gatwick and (b) a close parallel runway at Gatwick; and what factors cause (a) to be ruled out and (b) not be ruled out by the existing legal agreement between the British Airports Authority and West Sussex county council.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 861–62, to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that the options studied by RUCATSE for a second runway at Gatwick should not be considered further. These options were for full runways, located well away from the existing runway. A close parallel runway would deliver a smaller gain in runway capacity, but would also have less widespread environmental impacts. I understand that the existing legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex county council applies to any additional runway at Gatwick.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make publicly available the results of public consultation referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 2 February,Official Report, column 861–62 concerning runway capacity in the South-East.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My Department has recorded some 350 responses from organisations and some 4,100 letters from members of the public. A number of petitions were also received.

  A1
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the A1 road development from Darrington to Hook Moor in West and North Yorkshire.
  2
  Mr. Watts
  A total of £110 million.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce the design, build, finance and operate concessions in respect of the proposed A1 new road developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  There are no proposals at present to introduce design, build, finance and operate projects in respect of proposed A1 new road developments, beyond the short length of A1 between Hook Moor and Bramham included as part of the M1-A1 link road design, build, finance and operate project and the A1 widening project between Alconbury and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire. Tenders for both were invited on 9 January.

  Area Flying Restrictions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons underlie the policy of not publishing individual area flying restrictions.

  Mr. Norris
  Temporary restriction of flying regulations are classified as local statutory instruments. By virtue of regulation 5 of the Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947, local instruments are exempt from the requirement to be printed. We believe this is due to the limited number of persons affected by such statutory instruments and the disproportionate costs that would he incurred in publication.

  Full details of these statutory instruments are promulgated to the aeronautical industry by aeronautical information circulars or, in cases of urgency, by notices to airmen.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what review is being undertaken of search and rescue helicopter provision along the channel coast.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: None.

  School Buses
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what types of seat belts and fittings his Department recommends for fitting into minibuses used for the transportation of children;

  (2) what types of seat belts and fittings are recommended for school minibuses.

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations 46 and 47 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended) specify, for all vehicles, the minimum standards for both seat belts and anchorages. In the case of minibuses, most seats may be fitted with either lap or three-point belts suitable for use by adults or children.

  Vehicle Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects on employment in the regional vehicle registration offices of proposals to privatise the means of preventing vehicle tax evasion.
  3
  Mr. Norris
  No decisions on the future vehicle excise duty enforcement regime will be made until after the consultation period has ended later this year.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a requirement to retake the driving test for all drivers whose driving licences have been suspended(a) for drink driving, (b) for refusing breath tests or (c) for any other reason, for six months or more.

  Mr. Norris
  None, but the courts have discretionary powers to require any such drivers, or other drivers convicted of endorsable offences, to retake the driving test.

  Bray's Detective Agency
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contract Bray's detective agency has with his Department; and what was the purpose of the attendance of an employee of the agency at Winchester county court on 30 January.

  Mr. Watts
  Bray's detective agency has no contract with the Department of Transport and did not attend Winchester county court on the Department's behalf on 30 January.

  QE2 (Safety)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons the QE2 was found unsafe by United States officials during the vessel's visit to the United States of America in December 1994;

  (2) what were the responsibilities regarding safety of the Marine Safety Agency surveyor who sailed with the QE2 from Southampton in December 1994;

  (3) what were the precise differences between United Kingdom and United States regulations which allowed British authorities to allow the QE2 to sail from Southampton in December 1994, but which led the United States authorities to require further work to be undertaken.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom and the United States of America apply the same international standards relating to passenger ships—the safety of life at sea convention. In accordance with those standards, a limited passenger certificate was issued authorising the QE2 to sail from Southampton to New York with a reduced number of passengers. Heavy weather prevented completion of work during the voyage, and it became clear that further work would be required by the Marine Safety Agency before the ship could leave New York with her full complement of passengers.

  The MSA principal surveyor who had been involved from the conceptual designs through to the refit sailed with the ship to see the completion of outstanding survey items and witness appropriate tests. He had no wider responsibility for the safety of the ship during the voyage. The surveyor remained on board in New York until satisfied that all necessary safety work was being undertaken and would be completed before departure.
  4

  Ministerial Visits Overseas
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what overseas visits he or his Ministers have made since 1 July 1994; and what was the duration and cost of the visits and the organisations and groups that he met during the course of such visits.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the overseas visits made by Transport Ministers since 1 July 1994 are as follows:

  Country visited

  Duration

  Cost £

  Organisations/Groups met

  THE RT HON DR BRIAN MAWMNNEY, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

  USA

  1 day

  2,863.20

  HM Ambassador, Washington*

  France

  1 day

  115.08

  EPS Eurostar

  USA

  5 days

  11,764.20

  Texas Instruments

  Texas Turnpike Authority

  American Airlines

  United Airlines

  Illinois Dept of Transport

  Winconsin Central

  GT Capital Railcar

  Thrall Car Manuf.

  Co. Wabash National Corp.

  Union Tank Car Co.

  Chicago Aviation Commissioner

  Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

  Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project

  France

  1 day

  579.99

  Telematics Conference

  Holland

  2.5 days

  624.64

  Dutch Transport Ministry; Town of Houten; Schiphol Airport

  France

  1 day

  663.20

  French Transport Minister

  Belgium

  2 days

  1,040.58

  Transport Council

  Belgium

  1 day

  722.38

  Transport Council

  JOHN WATTS, MINISTER FOR RAILWAY'S AND ROADS

  Germany

  3.5 days

  3,419.96

  German State Secretary and President of Deutsche Bahn

  France

  1 day

  470.85

  Chambers of Commerce and Bridge Designers

  France

  1 day

  318.00

  Prometheus Ministers' Day

  Germany

  2 days

  603.40

  German State Secretary and Rhineland TüV

  France

  2 days

  689.64

  Informal Transport Council

  LORD GOSCHEN, MINISTER FOR AVIATION AND SHIPPING

  Denmark

  1 day

  704.00

  Danish Shipping Minister

  Japan

  3 days

  10,967.22

  Kansai Airport Management; Transport, Trade and Industry Ministers; Defence Agency; Shipowners, Shipping and Marine Associations; Kawasaki Heavy Industry; Wakagyama Marine City; Virtuality Group; Airline, Railway, Shipping, Heavy Industry and Travel Companies; Media Representatives

  Denmark

  1 day

  1,125.08

  Ministers of Paris Memorandum of Understanding Group

  France

  1 day

  No costs

  P&O Ferries and Calais Chamber of Commerce

  Belgium

  1 day

  649.4

  Transport Council

  STEVEN NORRIS, MINISTER FOR LOCAL TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY

  Portugal

  2 days

  1,248.80

  Road Haulage Assn Conference

  France

  1 day

  514.20

  Paris; Ministry of Interior; The Paris Region Transport Administration

  The figures include the cost of officials accompanying Ministers, with the exception of. *.
  5

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the real increase in take-home pay for a married couple with two children at the bottom 25 per cent. of the earnings distribution between(a) 1973–74 and 1978–79 and (b) 1978–79 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenhiem
  Real take-home pay for married couple with two children at the bottom 25 per cent. of the earnings distribution increased in real terms by 1 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 and by 24 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1993–94.

  Workshops
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average cost per person

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Remploy

  7,229

  8,325

  8,864

  9,472

  9,727

  Local Authority Workshops

  7,292

  8,262

  8,907

  9,547

  9,729

  Voluntary Body Workshops

  5,776

  7,022

  7,733

  8,488

  9,200

  Local Authority Placements

  3,683

  4,064

  4,337

  4,530

  4,600

  Voluntary Body Placements

  3,456

  3,748

  3,907

  4,138

  4,223

  I hope this is helpful.

  Remploy
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's view on the decision of Remploy in Barking to increase the number of able-bodied employees and of the effect of this policy on employment opportunities for disabled people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Remploy's Barking factory is a twin site, with both bookbinding and packaging units. There are 146 severely disabled employees with 15 non-disabled employees in clerical, technical, supervisory and managerial roles. Remploy has not increased, and does not intend to increase, the number of non-disabled employees in either unit.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment what consideration his Department has given to the knock-on effects of the interwork scheme on the skills base of Remploy; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Remploy has around 8,900 severely disabled employees of whom about 1,450 are employed under interwork. The interwork scheme enables Remploy's disabled workers to be supported in jobs in a variety of host firms outside Remploy. The interwork scheme has had no knock-on effect on the skills base in Remploy factories; the company is in fact taking steps to increase the skills of its employees.

  Remploy has introduced a special programme called Choices designed to give new recruits to Remploy, as well as the company's existing employees, the opportunity, guidance and training to plan a career best suited to their individual needs. Remploy has introduced individual training plans aimed at improving skills. Company training programmes encourage development of basic core skills, such as numeracy and literacy, while aiming to help people gain a national vocational qualification or
  6
  employed by (a) Remploy, (b) local authority workshops, (c) voluntary run workshops, (d) local authority sponsored sheltered placements and (e) voluntary organisation sheltered placements on each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 20 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the average cost per person on the Supported (formerly Sheltered) Employment scheme.
  The information you requested is shown in the following table. This shows the full cost to the contractor, per person, per year, towards which the Employment Service (ES) makes a contribution. In 1993/94 the ES contribution was £3,480 per worker to local authorities and £4,310 per worker to voluntary bodies. In the same year, the subvention for Remploy was £89.2 million.

  credits towards one. Remploy groups are working towards investors in people status and some factories have already achieved this.

  Petroleum
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he had made of(a) current progress towards the revision of the Petroleum Consolidation Act 1928 by the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the interim measures that have been agreed under the deregulation process.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Commission is seeking to make early progress with the review of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 and other petroleum legislation but the timetable for completion is currently under review. HSC's review of the guidance on petrol filling stations and other sites where petroleum is dispensed is already well advanced and the first part will be available in the summer.

  Mercury
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Health and Safety Executive is required to take when notification of the arrival of a consignment of waste mercury has been received.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There is no legal requirement for notification to the Health and Safety Executive of the arrival, transportation, treatment and disposal of a consignment of waste mercury at premises for which it has enforcement responsibility.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what notice is required by the Health and Safety Executive of the arrival, transportation, treatment
  7
  and disposal of a consignment of waste mercury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There is no legal requirement for notification to the Health and Safety Executive of the arrival, transportation, treatment and disposal of a consignment of waste mercury at premises for which it has enforcement responsibility.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment of those unemployed in the London borough of Lambeth how many have been unemployed for more than(a) two years, (b) one year and (c) six months.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Unemployed claimants in Lambeth (January 1995, not seasonally adjusted)

  Total

  Claimants unemployed for over 2 years

  6,228

  Claimants unemployed for over 1 year

  10,940

  Claimants unemployed for over 6 months

  15,485

  Information on ILO unemployment in Lambeth is not available by duration.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the question from the hon. Member for Monklands, West on 31 January,Official Report, column 849, if he will publish the statement of the Medical Research Council on alleged Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, on 8 February,Official Report, column 331.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister whether all departmental ministers in answering questions on items received from Ian Greer in the last month included all packages and all correspondence from Messrs Ian Greer Associates.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for individual Ministers to answer questions as they consider appropriate.

  European Single Act
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letters received by the then Prime Minister from Heads of Government of member states of the European Community concerning the interpretations of those points of the draft European Single Act treaty concerning controls to be exercised by the United Kingdom at the frontiers between it and other member states of European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The acceptance by Heads of Government of the right of member states to take measures necessary for the purpose of controlling 8
  immigration from third countries and to combat terrorism and other serious crime was signified by their agreement to the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) in the last 15 months, over the opt-out negotiated to the Single European Act over frontiers in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: Meetings and correspondence between myself and my Ministers are confidential.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February Official Report, column 793, by what article of which Community treaty he expects to maintain a degree of frontier control and inspection in respect of persons and goods arriving from other member states of the European Union similar to that practised in 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The Government take the view that there is nothing in the treaty to prevent the continuation of its practices in relation to persons and goods at frontiers. They base this view on their interpretation of article 7A, read in conjunction with the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a copy of legal opinion obtained by the Government in 1991 concerning the legality of the opt-out from the Single European Act negotiated in 1985 permitting the United Kingdom to maintain frontier controls to he placed in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The advice of the Law Officers is not normally disclosed.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what specimen treaty, providing measures to exclude certain categories of people from entering the European Union, has been approved in principle on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: At its meetings on 30 November and 1 December, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a standard format for the conclusion of bilateral readmission agreements between member states and third countries. The documents are available in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Income
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the division in percentage terms between(a) all forms of earned income including PAYE and self-employed persons and (b) all forms of unearned income including rents, investment income, pensions, and transfers from the state in the form of benefits.

  Sir George Young
  Information on personal sector income is published in table 4.1 of "1994 UK National Accounts Blue Book". A more detailed breakdown based on the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes is published in table 3.4 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994", copies of which are in the Library.
  9

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for National Heritage of 7 February 1995,Official Report, column 160, what will be the income to the Exchequer, during the course of a full year, from (a) the investment of £65 million of lottery proceeds in Treasury bills and (b) of £22 million in gilts.

  Sir George Young
  None. Income from Treasury bills and gilts goes to the beneficial owner, which is in this case would be the national lottery distribution fund, and not to the Exchequer.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many projects are being considered for the private finance initiative; how many have been agreed; arid what is the estimated value of the contracts involved.

  Sir George Young
  Since the autumn statement of November 1992, notices for 29 projects of a value of greater than £5 million have been issued in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The estimated value of the capital investment under these contracts is £5 billion. Records are not held centrally for projects which are under consideration but are not yet in procurement or which are less than £5 million in value.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will disregard the increase in the rateable value of crime prevention measures where these have been provided at the cost of a tenant when assessing new rateable values for tenanted properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Regulations due to come into effect on 1 April 1995 will require valuation officers to reflect the value of plant and machinery provided for protection of properties from a range of hazards. This will include plant and machinery that is used to protect the property from trespass of criminal damage. It is likely that the impact of these measures will be material where security is an important feature of the property concerned, for example, bullion stores, and likely to be less significant in relation to small businesses.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for taxing carbon dioxide emissions; and what discussions he has had with his

  Year

  PAYE amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total PAYE collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  Classes 1 and 1A NIC amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total NIC classes 1 and 1A collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  9,914

  0.05

  26,975

  1,056

  0.01

  2,873

  1981

  11,432

  0.08

  28,345

  1,158

  0.01

  2,871

  1982

  15,281

  0.06

  34,603

  1,261

  0.01

  2,855

  1983

  22,622

  0.08

  47,227

  1,555

  0.01

  3,246

  1984

  33,312

  0.11

  64,863

  1,971

  0.01

  3,838

  1985

  46,695

  0.14

  82,879

  2,213

  0.01

  3,928

  10
  colleagues in relation to improvements to the environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no plans to tax carbon dioxide emissions as such. However, the commitment to increase road fuel duties by on average at least 5 per cent. a year in real terms, and the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power, now held to 8 per cent., both play an important part in achieving the United Kingdom's commitment to return CO2, emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2000.

  I have regular discussions with my colleagues about improvements to the environment.

  Tax Self-assessment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of developing the computer facilities necessary to support the introduction of tax self-assessment; and what plans he has to involve the private sector and from what date.

  Sir George Young
  About £200 million. The Inland Revenue's information technology partner, Electronic Data Services, is due to take formal responsibility for this work from January 1996, but EDS is already involved in the programme and has expressed its full commitment to it.

  Doctors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury will publish its general schedule for 1994–95 for doctors undertaking part-time work for central Government Departments and other agencies.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Treasury will not be publishing revisions to the schedule which was effective from April 1993. It is not mandatory on Departments and agencies. Subject to any statutory Treasury involvement in specific cases, they can decide whether to vary the schedule's provisions in the light of their own judgments on best value for money and affordability within cash constraints.

  PAYE and National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions deducted but not paid over to the Revenue, in figures and as a percentage of the total amounts, for each year since 1979 expressed in 1994 prices.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The amounts of PAYE and national insurance contributions uncollected and consequently remitted or written off as uncollected are as follows:
  11

  Year

  PAYE amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total PAYE collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  Classes 1 and 1A NIC amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total NIC classes 1 and 1A collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  1986

  60,915

  0.17

  100,334

  4,377

  0.02

  7,209

  1987

  92,560

  0.25

  137,559

  8,514

  0.03

  12,653

  1988

  130,724

  0.33

  174,624

  15,894

  0.06

  21,231

  1989

  122,890

  0.28

  151,176

  15,127

  0.05

  18,609

  1990

  107,091

  0.22

  122,314

  17,239

  0.05

  19,689

  1991

  135,285

  0.26

  148,307

  21,644

  0.06

  23,732

  1992

  381,172

  0.71

  401,898

  32,570

  0.09

  34,341

  1993

  388,190

  0.72

  388,190

  41,257

  0.11

  41,257

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with 1993 prices.

  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue has very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Colombian Government over the human rights situation in Colombia.

  Mr. David Davis
  We maintain a regular dialogue on human rights with the Colombian Government. We welcome recent measures taken to address problems they acknowledge exist. My current visit to Colombia will provide a further opportunity to discuss this issue.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to persuade the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to appoint a special rapporteur on Colombia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 14 February,Official Report, column 580. We do not believe that the appointment of a special rapporteur is needed.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the crisis in Chechnya with the German Foreign Minister; and what assessment he has made of whether a common European response to it exists.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last discussed the crisis in Chechnya with the German Foreign Minister, Herr Kinkel, on 1 February.

  A common European response has been agreed within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. All EU members share the view that the fighting in Chechnya needs to be brought to an end, and negotiations on a political settlement started. The EU has given its full support to the OSCE's efforts to help find a lasting
  12
  solution. Its position has been made clear in statements issued by the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January and 6 February.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest estimate of(a) Russian military casualties (b) civilian casualties in Chechnya.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are no independently verifiable figures available for the casualty figures in Chechnya. However, on 11 February, General Kolesnikov was quoted as saying 1,020 Russian soldiers had been killed. On 9 February, the Russian Interfax agency claimed that 3,400 Russian soldiers had been wounded.

  The Russian human rights ombudsman, Sergei Kovalev, has estimated 25,000 civilians have been killed or wounded. He arrived at this figure after questioning refugees about their personal experiences and extrapolating an overall figure from these eye witness accounts.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for replacing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with a nuclear weapons convention using the chemical weapons convention as a basis.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are no such plans. We believe the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has worked well to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now be making a new submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use and threat of nuclear weapons in any circumstances following the United Nations Assembly decision on 15 December to refer the issue to the court; and if he will publish the submissions already made.

  Mr. David Davis
  We intend to make a further submission in the light of the resolution adopted by the 1994 United Nations General Assembly, seeking an advisory opinions the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The International Court of Justice requires that submissions are kept confidential until the case is heard.
  13

  Embassies
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department plans to open embassies in(a) Armenia and (b) Georgia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  On 15 February 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we would be opening embassies in Armenia, Georgia and Turkmenistan this year.

  Social Summit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries and how many heads of state have accepted invitations to the United Nations social summit in Copenhagen in March.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Over 90 heads of state or Government have confirmed their attendance at the summit. A number of other countries will also be represented.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's input to the United Nations social summit in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign Office is co-ordinating preparations for the United Kingdom's participation in the summit.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there will be a United Kingdom policy statement to the United Nations social summit in Copenhagen in March; and whether it will be publicly available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has prepared a background brief on the world summit for social development. This is available from the FCO's information department. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  European Single Act Treaty
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take measures to ensure the publication in the United Kingdom treaty series of the current contents of the treaty of Rome, the European Single Act treaty and treaty of the Union and in a single command publication of A4 size; and for what reasons this has not already been done.

  Mr. David Davis
  In line with normal practice, the treaty on European Union was published as Command Paper No. 1934 in May 1992, following its signature by the United Kingdom, as Command Paper No. 2485, in March 1994, following its entry into force. A consolidated text is published by the office for official publications of the European Communities, and is available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Pirate Attacks
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many attacks by pirates on British shipping off the coast of Brazil have been recorded since 1987.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [pursuant to his reply 1 February 1995, column 701]: My Department has now been provided with new information. This shows that eight attacks off Brazil have been recorded; five on British flagged vessels, one on a Hong Kong flagged, British-managed ship, and
  14
  two attacks on ships with a British interest, but flagged in other countries.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Languages (Judges)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest number of judges serving in England and Wales; how many of these are fluent in(a) Urdu, (b) Punjabi and (c) Welsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table lists the number of judges in each of the offices shown in England and Wales as at 13 February 1995. Our records regarding judges' knowledge of languages are not comprehensive but show that 19 judges speak Welsh. None are recorded as speaking an Indian or Pakistani language but it is believed that a few do. Of those serving in a part-time capacity or in a full-time capacity not listed on the table, according to the limited information available, 55 speak Welsh and 16 speak an Indian or Pakistani language. Urdu and Punjabi are not separately identified in the records and the records do not indicate the degree of fluency.

  Total number

  Lord Chancellor

  1

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  11

  Heads of Division

  4

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  30

  High Court Judges

  93

  Circuit Judges

  511

  District Judges1

  321

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  88

  Masters2

  29

  1 Including District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division.

  2 Including Bankruptcy Registrars.

  Residency Orders
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many shared residency orders have been granted by the courts for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Boundary Disputes
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost of legal aid given for boundary disputes in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to identify separately the cost of boundary disputes from other proceedings relating to land. It is only possible, therefore, to provide information on the cost of all "land" related matters. The total net cost to the legal aid fund of all "land" matters—excluding landlord and tenant
  15
  proceedings—where proceedings were concluded, in each of the last three years, was as follows:

  1991–92: £5.2 million

  1992–93: £7.7 million

  1993–94: £10.9 million

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of legal aid given for disputes involving medical negligence in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The net cost to legal aid of cases involving medical negligence, excluding multi-party actions, where proceedings were concluded, in each of the last three years was as follows:

  1991–92: £5.9 million

  1992–93: £10.8 million

  1993–94; £21.9 million

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to respond to the report of the United Nations Committee on Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding his policy on secure training centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The proceedings of the committee ended with its concluding observations. But I take this opportunity to record that we reject the committee's observations about secure training orders. Its observations contain serious misunderstandings, despite the extensive written material provided to the committee before its oral hearings, and despite the specific information given by United Kingdom representatives at the end of nine hours of hearings during the brief opportunity to respond to the committee's oral questions on this matter.

  The committee appears to believe that the existence of the secure training centres could he inconsistent with the provisions of the convention requiring that detention or imprisonment of a child shall be used as a measure of last resort. As was explained to the committee, that is not so. By section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, custodial sentences, whether for adults or children, are available to the courts only in limited circumstances and in effect as a last resort. Secure training orders, when brought into force, will be subject to that provision. Such orders will be available only for persistent offenders, and will be served in purpose-built establishments providing a high standard of training and care reflecting the needs of the young offender concerned, and the need to minimise the risk of further offending.

  Football Pools
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to enable football pools companies to pay small winnings in retail outlets, to operate on an equal footing with the national lottery through the subsidy of prize money and to remove 16
  restrictions on the type of events on which pools may be based.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My hon. Friend announced during the course of the debate on the motion on the Adjournment on 10 February,Official Report, column 642, that licensed betting offices should be permitted to pay pools winnings. I intend to bring forward an order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 later this year, following consultation.

  I am currently reviewing the scope for further deregulation and have asked officials to discuss a range of issues with the Pool Promoters Association.

  Immigration
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those passengers on the Leisure International Airways flight from Kingston, Jamaica in December 1993, who were granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom, have(a) returned to their country of origin, (b) been granted further leave to remain in the United Kingdom and (c) are of unknown location.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available. Comprehensive statistics are not kept of departures from the United Kingdom or of applications for leave to remain by reference to the flight of arrival.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom immigration rules are not breached by immigrants entering the United Kingdom from other European Union countries.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom operates a full immigration control on all non-European economic area nationals arriving here, regardless of the country from which they have travelled, and we shall continue to do so.

  Roy Higginson
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the conduct of each authority under his jurisdiction in the case of the remand, conviction and subsequent escape of prisoner Roy Higginson;

  (2) what inquiries he has instigated in respect of prisoner Roy Higginson since 15 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Andrew Miller, dated 20 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Roy Higginson.
  Mr. Higginson appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on 8 May 1992, having been previously granted bail, and was sentenced to four years imprisonment. He was held in closed prisons for the first sixteen months of his sentence during which time he successfully completed a period of home leave. After careful assessment he was

  17
  judged to be suitable to work outside the prison. He was transferred to Kirkham open prison.
  Two further home leaves were successfully completed before Mr. Higginson absconded on 30 December 1993. This was reported to Lancashire police immediately.
  The responsibility for apprehending absconders is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The Cheshire Constabulary followed their normal procedures and made enquiries in the Ellesmere Port area and visited Mr. Higginson's house in an attempt to apprehend him. They will be looking at their procedures to see what they can learn from this incident.
  He remained unlawfully at large until he surrendered to custody at Lancaster prison on 14 January 1995. He was charged under prison rules with absconding. A full inquiry was held by the governor at Mr. Higginson's adjudication on 16 January; he was found guilty and twenty eight days were added to his sentence.
  It will also be necessary for Mr. Higginson to serve that part of his sentence for which he was unlawfully at large. His security category was upgraded and he is now held in secure conditions at Wymott prison.

  North-east Constabularies
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may police officers are currently serving in the north-east constabularies; and how many were serving in 1978.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table:

  North-east Police Forces—Strength (as at 31 December)

  Force

  1978

  1994

  Cleveland

  1,311

  1,435

  Durham

  1,289

  1,356

  Humberside

  1,797

  2,042

  Northumbria

  3,208

  3,595

  North Yorkshire

  1,303

  1,313

  South Yorkshire

  2,472

  3,026

  West Yorkshire

  4,621

  5,037

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians are currently serving in the north-east constabularies; and how many were serving in 1978.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table:

  North-east Police Forces—Civilian strength (as at 31 December)

  Force

  1978

  1994

  Cleveland

  300

  522

  Durham

  510

  485

  Humberside

  503

  651

  Northumbria

  777

  1,285

  North Yorkshire

  341

  507

  South Yorkshire

  583

  1,157

  West Yorkshire

  1,170

  1,945

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time taken to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice by his Department during 1994 or for the latest year available; and how many cases which are currently being examined by C3 division of his Department, at the latest date available, have been outstanding for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Excluding cases over 12 months old, the average time taken in 1994 to complete 18
  consideration of an allegation of wrongful conviction was 36 working days. On 1 January 1995, there were 38 cases which had been under consideration for more than 12 months.

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to modify the structure, management and functions of the Metropolitan police force forensic science laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 10 February,Official Report, columns 426–27.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the measures(a) available and (b) used to protect the lawful export trade in live sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government keep the public order legislation under review to ensure that the right balance of measure is available to the police and prosecuting authorities. I am satisfied that no additional powers are needed at this time.

  The policing of demonstrations, including those against live animal exports, are operational matters for the chief officers of police concerned. They are not matters in which Government Ministers can intervene. I am satisfied that chief officers are taking all reasonable steps to ensure that those concerned with the carrying of live sheep and other animals to their point of departure can go about their lawful activities without obstruction.

  Offences against Children
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the introduction of laws in Australia, France, the United States of America, Germany, Sweden and Norway to prosecute nationals who have committed sexual offences against children extra-territorially, where that offence is also a crime under the other country's law;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce extra-territorial jurisdiction over nationals who have allegedly committed offences against children, where that offence is also a crime under the other country's law.

  Mr. Maclean
  We continue to monitor the position in those countries known to have adopted extra-territorial jurisdiction over sexual offences against children. The most recent information available indicates that prosecutions have been brought in Germany, Norway and Sweden against citizens of those countries. In only one case—in Norway—is a prosecution known to have been successful. However, the evidential requirements of United Kingdom courts are such that similar prosecutions would probably not be successful here; our courts rely largely on oral testimony, and would require the attendance of witnesses from the countries where the alleged offences had been committed.

  We have no present plans to introduce extra-territorial jurisdiction over our nationals who have allegedly

  19
  committed offences abroad against children, although we remain ready to assist the judicial authorities in other countries to enforce their laws in this area.

  Wolds Prison
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria underlay the awarding of the contract for the Wolds prison to a firm which did not submit the lowest bid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 20 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the awarding of the contract for Wolds prison.
  Of the bids submitted to the Prison Service, two were lower than Group 4's bid. Although all three bids were considered to be acceptable, the key factors were the assessment of the bidder's ability to deliver the service that was proposed at the price that was being offered. There was concern about the lean staffing levels in the lowest bid and that they would not be sufficient to deal with any incidents that might arise. The lowest bidder also lacked the United Kingdom experience of Group 4, which included the operation of the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre. These risks were considered to outweigh the higher price bid by Group 4. The overall conclusion was that Group 4's bid offered the best value for money, together with an assurance of quality.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria used by his Department in the short-listing of individuals seeking to serve on the Metropolitan police committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  I considered all applications to serve on this advisory committee personally, in consultation with Sir John Quinton. We had regard to the individual merits of each candidate and took into account the need to balance skills and experience in the light of the needs of the committee as a whole. I short-listed 20 candidates from the original field of over 100, and the successful candidates were seen by Sir John Quinton prior to their appointment.

  Probation Service, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the impact of the November 1994 budget statement on the South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1994 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 for the South Yorkshire probation service of £9.4 million, plus a further £0.6 million to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office. It is for the South Yorkshire probation service to decide how these resources are best used and to determine what specific changes within the service should be undertaken on the basis of the total expenditure limit implied by this level of grant support.

  Tote Board Chairman
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to advertise for applications for the post of chairman of the Tote Board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Court of Appeal
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were referred to the Court of Appeal following investigation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Cases referred under section 17(1) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

  Number of cases

  Number of defendants

  (a) in respect of conviction

  1990

  7

  20

  1991

  10

  12

  1992

  8

  11

  1993

  8

  9

  1994

  9

  12

  (b) in respect of sentence only

  1990

  3

  3

  1991

  4

  8

  1992

  1

  1

  1993

  Nil

  Nil

  1994

  2

  3

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases he referred to the Court of Appeal following an investigation by C3 division at his Department in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Number of cases referred under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

  Month

  Conviction

  Sentence

  1994

  February

  Nil

  Nil

  March

  1

  Nil

  April

  1

  1

  May

  Nil

  Nil

  June

  Nil

  Nil

  July

  2

  Nil

  August

  Nil

  Nil

  September

  Nil

  Nil

  October

  2

  1

  November

  Nil

  Nil

  December

  3

  Nil

  1995

  January

  1

  1

  Pornography
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training currently exists for British police to monitor and take action on pornography or other illegal entries on the Internet.

  Mr. Maclean
  The way in which officers are trained in relation to the detection of computer pornography is for
  21
  chief officers to determine in the light of their operational requirements.

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 January,Official Report, column 810, how many of the escapes from prisons in (a) 1979, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1985–86 were non-key performance indicator escapes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 20 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question, pursuant to his Answer of 2 February, Official Report, Column 810, asking how many of the escapes from prisons in (a) 1979, (b) 1984/85 and (c) 1985–86 were non-Key Performance Indicator escapes.
  I greatly regret that the information I gave in response to your original Question was incorrect, as the figures for 1979, 1984/85 and 1985/86 did not include all escapes. The 1993/94 figures were correct. The correct information is shown in the table below:

  Year

  Escapes from prison

  Escapes from Greater London prisons

  1979

  232

  2n/a

  1984/85

  211

  2n/a

  1985/86

  202

  2n/a

  1993/94

  1171

  11

  1Excludes non-Key Performance Indicator escapes (ie those recaptured within 15 minutes).

  2Full Information not available

  Key Performance Indicators were not introduced until the Prison Service became an Agency on 1 April 1993. Non-Key Performance Indicator escapes were, therefore, not recorded in 1979, 1984–85 or 1985–86.

  EU Treaty
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will confirm or modify the ministerial description of the operation of articles 1000 and 7A of the current main treaty of the European Community and Union given orally by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 27 January 1993,Official Report, column 122.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The position on both articles 1000 and 7A of the EC treaty remains as set out by my right hon. and learned Friend. The draft external frontiers convention, if implemented, would provide for the mutual recognition of visas in certain circumstances but this convention has not yet been signed.

  EU Frontiers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) in the last 15 months, over the opt-out negotiated to the Single European Act over frontiers in 1985; and if he will make a statement;
  22
  (2) what communications he has had with the Prime Minister over the last 15 months, concerning the legality of the opt-out negotiated by Her Majesty's Government to the Single European Act in 1985 relating to internal frontiers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: Meetings and correspondence between Ministers are confidential.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Written Questions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to put upper and lower limits on the number of written questions an hon. Member may ask in any single parliamentary Session; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans.

  Masons
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make proposals to require hon. Members to declare if they are members of a masonic lodge.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Colonies
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for greater scrutiny by Parliament of the administration and governance of the colonies in respect of those responsibilities within the jurisdiction of the governor and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to change the existing arrangements.

  Sittings of the House
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the making of the new timetable for the sittings of the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  On the basis of less than six week's experience of the experimental changes agreed by the House in December, my initial assessment is that they are working well.

  Question Time
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider moving certain Question Time sessions to the morning.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Transferred Questions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for Government Departments to consult with hon. Members before transferring their oral questions to other Departments.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.
  23

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission expects child care facilities to be made available in the building.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

  Stationery
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will investigate the propriety of arrangements in operation for overprinting between certain printers and the suppliers of House stationery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Micheal J. Martin
  Arrangements for overprinting of House of Commons stationery provided from the Serjeant at Arms' stores is the responsibility of individual Members.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make a statement on progress towards making the Official Report available to the public via the Internet and how this could be done; and what assessment he has made of whether the current production systems for the Official Report are capable of being connected to the Internet.

  Mr. Gary Waller
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 14 February 1995 at column 573. The Information Committee has not yet considered the possibility of distributing the Official Report via the Internet.

HEALTH

  Jarman Indices
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Jarman indices relating to deprivation has not been updated on the basis of the 1991 census; and if she will now take steps to do so.

  Mr. Malone
  In its recently published report for 1995–96, the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body recommended that future deprivation payments should be based on 1991 census data. The Government have accepted its recommendation.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people under the age of 14 years have been admitted to psychiatric hospitals in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on admissions to national health service hospitals for the under 14 years age group for mental illness is given in table 5.24 of the annual 24
  publication "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England" copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Staff Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the range of cars provided to staff of health authorities and NHS trusts shall be limited to those costing no more than those provided for Government Ministers.

  Mr. Malone
  Staff employed on national terms and conditions may be eligible for a lease car under the terms of section 24 of the "General Whitley Council Handbook", copies of which are available in the Library. Employees who choose to have a car which is larger or more expensive than that due to them under the terms of the agreement must pay the excess costs involved.

  National health service trusts have the freedom to make their own staff transport arrangements.

  Personal Assistance for The Disabled
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will bring forward proposals to assist those local authorities which are unable to provide payments schemes for the disabled;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the expense caused to the disabled by legal barriers in direct payments to disabled people for personal assistance; and if she will review this policy.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is, as yet, no such scheme. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on 24 November 1994 at columns 332–33.

  Malaria Chemoprophylaxis
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to the cost-effectiveness of the charging for the provision of malaria chemoprophylaxis.

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of malaria prophylaxis represents a small part of the overall costs of travelling to malarious areas and some anti-malaria drugs can be bought over the counter cheaper than the cost of a national health service prescription. The Government are not changing their recommendations that all travellers to malarious areas take appropriate measures to prevent malaria but do believe that, in this case, the individual traveller should meet the cost of protecting their own health. The cost-effectiveness of permitting general practitioners to charge for prescribing anti-malarial drugs has been considered as one factor in reaching this decision.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have taken on new national health service patients in(a) Christchurch borough, (b) East Dorset district, (c) Dorset and (d) Great Britain in each year since 1979.
  25
  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of dentists who had additions to their register by year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Dorset

  244

  244

  242

  240

  England

  15,126

  15,295

  15,268

  15,217

  1. Additions to the register include instances of patients reregistering with a dentist after a break in attendance and instances of reinstatement of registrations that have been cancelled in error.

  2. Some dentists have contracts with more than one family health services authority. The figure for Dorset includes all dentists in contract with Dorset FHSA meeting the criterion. The England figure represents the total number of dentists in contracts in England meeting the criterion.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all major capital projects carried out at hospitals in the northern region since 1979 with their cost at 1995 prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information will be placed in the Library which lists all major capital projects with a works cost of over £1 million.

  Cochlear Implants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at which locations in England and Wales cochlear implant operations are carried out for adults and children.

  Mr. Sackville
  Cochlear implant operations are carried out at the following locations:

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham;

  The Royal Infirmary, Manchester;

  North Riding Infirmary, Middlesbrough;

  General Hospital and Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham;

  Bradford Hospitals Trust;

  Royal Southants Hospital, Southampton;

  Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge;

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals Trust;

  In London: University College and Middlesex Hospitals;

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington;

  Hospitals for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street.

  The provision of this service in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on cochlear implant operations in England and Wales since the start of this operation; and how many operations have been carried out in each year on(a) adults and (b) children.
  26
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Female Circumcision
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the number of cases that have involved female circumcision and have required treatment at NHS hospitals covering the Greater London area.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 17 February at column 836.

  Misconduct
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce fines for misconduct for all holders of public office.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the mortality rate from breast cancer in(a) England and (b) other OECD countries for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993 the provisional mortality rate for malignant neoplasm of the female breast—ICD1 184—in England was 49.3 per 100,000 women.

  The latest available data for other Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries can be found in the "United Nations Demographic Yearbook", copies of which are available in the Library.
  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Medium Secure Psychiatric Units
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally ill people are awaiting placement in medium secure psychiatric units, by region.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Takare plc Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 649, on how many occasions registration requirements for a Takare establishment have been relaxed as a result of representations received from Takare plc by the chairpersons of individual health authorities responsible for such legislation under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Bowis
  None to my knowledge. The hon. Member should let me have evidence of any such allegations.

HEALTH

  Local Pay Guidance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance she has issued to health service units seeking trust status regarding the development of post Whitley Council arrangements for the determination to pay and conditions for employees.

  Mr. Malone
  In 1994, the national health service executive launched a further comprehensive programme for national health service trusts in support of the pay and personnel freedoms introduced in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The programme embraces advice and guidance on the key issues involved in the development of locally determined pay and conditions.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications for a health service unit's progress to trust status of plans to retain nationally negotiated agreements for the pay and conditions of its employees.

  Mr. Malone
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 enables NHS trusts to employ staff on such terms as the trust sees fit and a health service unit's plans for pay and conditions do not have a bearing on application for trust status.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has had and will have with regard to the proposed 1991 area classification based on the census; and if the results of the classification will be produced at constituency level.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) consulted census advisory groups representing Government Departments, local authorities, health authorities, the academic community and the market research industry about proposals for an area classification. A classification has now been prepared following the lines of classifications produced and published after the 1971 and 1981 censuses: details will appear in the next issue of "Population Trends", copies of which will be placed in the Library. OPCS has no plans to produce a classification of parliamentary constituencies.

  Exploitation of Children
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department undertakes to combat the commercial exploitation of children.

  Mr. Bowis
  A comprehensive framework of protection for children below minimum school-leaving age undertaking part-time work has existed for many years. Detailed controls are contained in local authority byelaws, and local authorities are responsible for enforcing these.

  Allergy Services
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many allergy physicians there are working within the Bradford health authority;
  28
  (2) what provision there is for allergy services within the Bradford health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Zahida Manzoor, chairman of Bradford health authority, for details.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the uniformity of(a) provision and (b) availability of allergy services in the United Kingdom within the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. This is for providers to agree with their purchasers.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whom she has commissioned to conduct an independent study into priority despatch systems in ambulance services; what are the terms of reference; what are the qualifications and experience of those concerned; what is the cost; and when she expects the study to be completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have commissioned the medical care research unit at the university of Sheffield to conduct this study, whose primary focus is to assess the reliability and safety of prioritised despatch systems. The research team, headed by a professor of statistics, is well qualified and has considerable experience in this field. The cost is £60,000. I expect to receive the final report of the study by the end of 1995.

  NHS Trust Chairmen and Chief Executives
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the NHS earnings of each trust(a) chairman and (b) chief executive in each year since 1991–92; and what are the expected earnings in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: For 1991–92 to 1993–94, this information was published in the annual accounts of each trust, but for 1991–92 and 1992–93, this information was not collected centrally. For 1993–94, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 16 February at column 808. Forecast information for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is not available.

  Health Spending
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was(a) total NHS expenditure, (b) current expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (c) capital expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (d) expenditure on the family practitioner services, (e) expenditure on centrally funded NHS services and (f) expenditure on personal social services in England in each year since 1974–75 giving each in (i) cash terms, (ii) adjusted using the relevant pay and prices index and (iii) adjusted using the GDP deflator;

  (2) if she will give for each year since 1974–75 total capital spending on hospital and community health services and spending in net terms after deducting proceeds from land and property sales (a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted using the GDP deflator and (c) adjusted using the relevant index of NHS prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1995, column 14]: I regret that there was an error in one of the

  29
  tables provided. A corrected version will now be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Information Society Meeting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are Her Majesty's Government's key priorities for the British Government at the forthcoming G7 meeting on the information society;

  (2) if he will list those individuals from Her Majesty's Government who will attend the G7 information society meeting recording their post and department in each case;

  (3) if he will list the ministerial representatives from G7 countries attending the meeting on the information society.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As the Minister responsible for co-ordinating policy on the information society, I shall be representing the Government at the G7 ministerial conference on the information society in Brussels on 24 to 26 February. I understand that the following Ministers from other G7 countries currently intend to participate:

  Country

  Post

  Canada

  Mr. Manley

  Minister of Industry

  Mr. Dupuy

  Minister of Canadian Heritage

  France

  Mr. Rossi

  Minister of Industry, Posts, Telecommunications and External Trade

  Germany

  Mr. Rexrodt

  Federal Economics Minister

  Mr. Boetsch

  Federal Minister for Posts and Telecommunications

  Italy

  Mr. Clo

  Minister for Industry

  Mr. Gambino

  Minister for Posts and Telecommunications

  Japan

  Mr. Hashimoto

  Minister for International Trade and Industry

  Mr. Oide

  Minister for Posts and Telecommunications

  United States

  Mr. Gore

  Vice President

  Mr. Brown

  Secretary of Commerce

  As indicated in my reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, (Mr. Arnold) the conference will provide a timely opportunity for Ministers responsible for the information society to exchange views on latest developments in the sector. I shall be emphasising that Governments must do everything possible to remove obstacles to the creation of the information society, in particular by liberalising telecommunications infrastructure to bring prices down to a level which will make the development of a wide range of innovative services commercially attractive. I shall also urge United Kingdom industry to demonstrate how its multi-media
  30
  equipment and products can contribute to educational and community services.

  I shall arrange for relevant papers from the conference to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what issues will be discussed at the G7 conference on information society in Brussels to he held on 24 to 26 February; what are the United Kingdom Government's objectives in attending the conference; who will be representing the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Naples G7 Summit in July 1994 invited the European Commission to host a G7 ministerial conference on the information society. This will take place in Brussels on 24 to 26 February, and I shall he representing the Government. The conference will begin with a round table of 45 business leaders from the G7 countries. The UK participants in the round table will be Sir lain Valiance of BT, Peter Bonfield of ICL, Lord Blakenham of Pearson, and Bob Phillis of the BBC. Ministers will then hold discussions on three broad themes: the regulatory framework and competition policy, development of information infrastructure; and social, society and cultural aspects of the information society. I shall be a lead speaker on the first of these subjects. The conference will also launch a number of pilot projects to demonstrate the scope for international collaboration in different areas of the information society.

  The conference will provide a timely opportunity for Ministers responsible for the information society to exchange views on latest developments in the sector. I shall be emphasising that Governments must do everything possible to remove obstacles to the creation of the information society, in particular by liberalising telecommunications infrastructure to bring prices down to a level which will make the development of a wide range of innovative services commercially attractive. I shall also urge UK industry to demonstrate how its multimedia equipment and products can realistically contribute to educational and community services.

  I shall arrange for relevant papers from the G7 conference to be placed in the Library of the House and on the Internet.

  European Funding
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to allow the private sector to match funding for European regional development funding and European social funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friends and I have agreed with the European Commission target figures for private sector contributions to the regional single programmes co-financed by the ERDF and ESF. The Merseyside programme, for example, envisages private contributions totalling 368 mecu alongside ERDF and ESF grant of 813 mecu: 816 mecu domestic public finance is also required for this programme.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what models the Government have developed of how the private sector should he encouraged to access the European regional development fund; what models have been submitted to the EC; what discussions have taken place or are planned on this issue between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission; and what plans Her
  31
  Majesty's Government have to introduce agreed changes in time for approval of 1995 submissions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government wish to maximise the private sector contribution to projects to which the ERDF makes grants and has put to the Commission proposals for facilitating this while ensuring that projects are of general economic benefit to the areas concerned and that ERDF grants do not lead to excessive profit. The Commission's comments are awaited. Any changes to current practice will be introduced as soon as they are agreed. The timetables for considering applications vary from region to region.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations he has had or intends to have with the European Commission concerning procedures through which the private sector could access the European regional development fund;

  (2) if he will allow private sector companies to match finance for projects obtained from the European regional development fund and the European social fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) today.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the application of European Commission rules concerning the private sector's ability to wholly match finance projects eligible for European regional development fund support in objective 1 regions of other European Union member states.

  Mr. Eggar
  Some individual projects, in other member states as in Merseyside, may be financed exclusively by the private sector and the ERDF. However, the European Commission has in each case agreed with the Governments concerned that the aggregate of projects will be co-financed by specified amounts of national, including regional and local, as applicable in each case, public sector money, and as any private sector finance.

  Following are the aggregate figures in mecu for those single programming documents which show ERDF projects separately from those co-financed by other European structural funds:

  ERDF

  Private

  National public

  Flevoland (Netherlands)

  80

  181

  423

  French Guiana

  92

  0

  78

  Guadeloupe (France)

  160

  37

  223

  Hainaut (France)

  307

  210

  374

  Martinique (France)

  166

  43

  123

  Réunion (France)

  320

  118

  229

  Merseyside

  475

  289

  480

  Northern Electric
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he sought from Trafalgar House assurances as to the continued employment of sufficient staff at Northern Electric.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No such assurance has been sought from Trafalgar House.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the advice of the Director General 32
  of Fair Trading on the possible reference of the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The advice was received on 2 February 1995.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he or his representatives met Trafalgar House plc to discuss assurances in their bid for Northern Electric; whether representatives of the Director General of Electricity Supply were present; and whether Northern Electric, the takeover panel and the Office of Fair Trading were informed of this meeting.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Officials from my Department and representatives of the Director General of Electricity Supply met representatives of Trafalgar House on the afternoon of 13 February to discuss such assurances. The Office of Fair Trading was aware of the discussions. Neither the takeover panel nor Northern Electric was informed by my Department about the meeting.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his statutory authority(a) for asking Trafalgar House to ensure that sufficient financial and management resources and other facilities were available to carry out the obligations of Northern Electric and (b) to secure compliance with such an assurance.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The assurances obtained from Trafalgar House are not based in statute. If Trafalgar's bid for Northern Electric succeeds, the Director General of Electricity Supply—DGES—will monitor Northern Electric's behaviour, under Trafalgar's ownership, in the course of his normal regulatory duties. In doing so, the DGES will have available his usual regulatory powers, including the power to make an MMC reference under the Electricity Act 1989 and the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, if appropriate.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial guarantee the Government have provided and what costs have been underwritten in relation to Nuclear Electric's bid to gain a contract for reactor construction in Taiwan.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government, in their role as shareholder, have required Nuclear Electric to absorb any working capital or other financial requirements arising as a result of the bid within the company's existing external financing limit.

  Trade Delegation, Malta
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the delegation led by the Minister for Trade to Malta in January; who the delegation met with; and what were the results.

  Mr. Needham
  I was accompanied to Malta by a strong business delegation representing a broad spectrum of British industry and services, details of which are given. The visit was a success. We met four Ministers and held a seminar at the chamber of commerce. Many new business contracts were established and we have set up a United Kingdom/Malta roundtable to provide a forum for regular discussion.

  The Maltese Minister of Finance, whom I met in Malta, will meet my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London this week.
  33

  Mr. S. Naill Armstrong

  Director

  Andrews Holdings Ltd

  Mr. Alex Josephides

  Business Director

  Avro International Aerospace

  Mr. Keith Davis

  Executive

  Bovis International Ltd

  Mr. Nick Cooke

  Head of Corporate Affairs

  Forte PLC

  Mr. Geoff Ball

  Sales Director

  GEC Alsthom

  Mr. Jeremy Hand

  Assistant Director

  Hambro European Venture Ltd

  Mr. W. B. A. Tanner

  Chairman

  Motherwell Bridge Projects Ltd

  Mr. Douglas J. Ridley, Managing Director and Mr. Chris Evans, Director Responsible for Malta

  Mowlem International Construction

  Mr. Maurice A. Hutson

  Executive Chairman

  Parker Plant Ltd

  Mr. Ian Butler

  Export Director

  Stanton PLC

  Mr. M. Walker

  Director, Africa Department

  Taylor Woodrow International Ltd

  Mr. Geoff Hollyhead

  Chairman

  Trinity Holdings PLC

  Mr. R. G. Hepburn

  Sales and Marketing Director

  John Brown Engineering Ltd

  Mr. Walter Herd

  International Sales Manager

  Leyland Trucks Ltd

  Mr. Roy Lester

  International Sales Director

  Marconi Instruments Ltd

  Mr. John Hill

  Vice Chairman

  UBAF Bank Ltd

  Sir Anthony Kershaw, Chairman and Mr. John R. Richardson, MD

  Tilhurst Limited

  34

  Mr. Alistair Flemming

  Director

  Weir Group

  Mr. Buhagiar

  Local Agent

  Rank Xerox

  Graham Atkinson

  PEP, DTI

  Keith Gullick

  XAAA1c, DTI

  John Fordyce

  Export Promoter, for Malta

  Nuclear Incidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the conditions under which the nuclear industry must report accidents and incidents on its sites in local newsletters and to ministers.

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, to a question from the then hon. Member for Sherwood on 30 April 1987,Official Report, columns 203–4.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which customer countries have expressed an interest in the BNFL proposal to substitute high-level waste for intermediate and low-level waste.

  Mr. Page
  BNFL has signed reprocessing contracts which contain return-of-waste options with organisations in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Holland. All have indicated that they would be prepared to consider substitution, if BNFL were to offer it.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to return to high-level wastes resulting from reprocessing at THORP to their customer countries, including wastes arising from spent fuel used at Japanese magnox plants.

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 1 February 1995,Official Report, column 696.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations he has given to enacting an export moratorium on the component parts of anti-personnel mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 14 February 1995]: I am not aware of any case having arisen. Any application

  35
  for an export licence for specially designed components for land mines would be subject to export controls, and would be considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of the indefinite moratorium which the United Kingdom has declared on the export from the UK of anti-personnel land mines which do not have self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms, and other established criteria.

  Voluntary Works Councils
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study his Department has made of the work of the voluntary works councils in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government encourage voluntary employee involvement and monitors significant developments in

  Requests from Housing Executive

  Requests from other sources

  Quarter ending

  Number of requests received

  Number of assessments carried out

  Number waiting at end of Quarter

  Number waiting at end of Quarter

  March 1994

  156

  126

  167

  297

  June 1994

  177

  94

  218

  313

  September 1994

  142

  166

  237

  400

  December 1994

  177

  145

  216

  364

  Total 1994

  652

  531

  —

  —

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what steps he proposes to take to reduce the length of time taken to process occupational therapy reports in connection with Northern Ireland Housing Executive grant applications.

  Mr. Moss
  The health and social services boards have developed close working links with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and are exploring how the time taken to produce occupational therapy reports can be reduced. As a result, it has recently been agreed that some public sector minor adaptations can be processed directly by the Housing Executive freeing up time for occupational therapists to process other cases more speedily.

  The Department of Health and Social Services will publish a charter for community services next month. The charter will set standards for getting occupational therapy assessments for housing adaptations under way and for completion within agreed time scales. Each board will be asked to produce an action plan to achieve the targets.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time occupational therapists are employed in the Newry and Mourne unit of management; and how many are currently not at work due to (i) sickness or (ii) other leave.

  Mr. Moss
  There are 16 full-time and no part-time occupational therapists employed by Newry and Mourne health and social services trust. One member of staff is currently not at work for a reason other than sickness.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what steps he proposes to take to increase the number of occupational therapists stationed in the Southern health board area.

  Mr. Moss
  It is the responsibility of individual provider units and trusts to decide, in the light of available resources, on the number of occupational therapists 36
  this field but have not made any specific study of voluntary works councils in the United Kingdom.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Occupational Therapy
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many occupational therapy referrals were received in the Newry and Mourne unit of management in which a case report has not yet been issued in each month since January 1994.

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

  Quarterly data on assessment by occupational therapists for aids and adaptations to the homes of people with a disability in the Newry and Mourne HSS trust are shown below.

  required to provide the level of services which health and social services boards have agreed to purchase for their resident population.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list the outstanding Housing Executive grant applications in Newry district 1 and Newry district 2 that were received in each month since March 1993 for(a) renovations, (b) improvements, (c) disabled facilities and (d) replacements.

  Mr. Moss
  This is an operational matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I have been advised by its chief executive that the information requested is not immediately available.

  I have arranged for the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman once the information is available.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what(a) was and (b) is his policy in respect of giving additional work to Arthur Andersen following the collapse of the Delorean Motor Car Co. and what is the current annual total of fees paid to the consultancy arm of Arthur Andersen for work commissioned by his Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: I regret that I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question other than by saying that the details of the arrangements made between Government and Arthur Andersen are not available on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the amount of cash earned weekly by Camelot from its work in the national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what requirement he will place on Camelot to declare its profitability, inclusive of charges for supplies and services, achieved through the operation of the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are matters for the Director-General of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Members, placing copies of his letters in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Anne Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 1st February,Official Report, columns 674–75, if his estimate of the operating profit of the National Lottery in its first weeks of operation included services provided to the national lottery by investors in Camelot and charged for at a profit; what statutory provisions govern the disclosure of such services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: This is a matter for the Director-General of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his letter in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list, for each local education authority, the predicted change in pupil numbers for 1995–96.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 10 February 1995,Official Report, column 438.

  Class Sizes
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to her answer of 14 February, what assessment she has made of external research into the effect of class sizes on(a) pupil progress and (b) attainment levels; and if she will list the main research documents her Department has evaluated in this respect.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has taken account of relevant research including that summarised in Professor Mortimore's recent paper. There is no evidence from the accumulated research that marginal reductions in class size result in changes in pupils' performance.

  Educational Standards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made in respect of the merits of(a) standard assessment tasks and (b) league tables in respect of raising educational standards.

  Mr. Forth
  The Office for Standards in Education continues to confirm that national curriculum assessment 38
  is helping to raise standards. Performance tables provide parents and others with comparative data about the achievements of institutions, and encourage individual schools and colleges to consider how standards might be improved in the future.

  Sixth Forms
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many sixth forms there were in the(a) maintained sector and (b) grant-maintained sector in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives the number of sixth forms catering for the 16 to 18 age group in each of the last five years in(a) local education authority maintained and (b) grant-maintained schools.

  Year

  LEA maintained

  Grant-maintained

  1989

  1989

  0

  1990

  1926

  14

  1991

  1830

  41

  1992

  1733

  98

  1993

  1587

  188

  1994

  1377

  371

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current number and percentages of surplus places in each local education authority; and if she will list those local authorities, in rank order according to the proportion of surplus places in(a) secondary schools (b) primary schools (c) special schools and (d) grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the tables. Data on special schools and on surplus places in the 286 grant-maintained schools in stage 1 authorities are not available.

  The figures give the position in January 1994. In most cases, surpluses will have fallen from these levels as a result of pupil population growth. In addition, a number of authorities have implemented rationalisation proposals and further reduced their surplus capacity.

  Table 1: Surplus places by local authority area in rank order (excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) January 1994

  PRIMARY

  (see note 1)

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Wandsworth

  6,111

  30

  Isles of Scilly

  67

  27

  Gateshead

  4,887

  23

  Northumberland

  4,960

  21

  Liverpool

  11,436

  21

  Doncaster

  6,632

  20

  Staffordshire

  21,456

  20

  Lambeth

  4,060

  20

  Sunderland

  6,104

  18

  Southwark

  3,980

  18

  North Tyneside

  3,020

  18

  Wigan

  5,734

  17

  Knowsley

  3,277

  17

  Ealing

  4,358

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  11,457

  17

  Wolverhampton

  4,412

  17

  Oxfordshire

  8,237

  17

  39

  PRIMARY

  (see note 1)

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Hammersmith

  1,591

  16

  Newscastle upon Tyne

  3,704

  16

  Coventry

  5,133

  16

  Hertfordshire

  14,517

  16

  Bedfordshire

  7,272

  15

  Warwickshire

  7,966

  15

  Salford

  3,681

  15

  Cheshire

  14,860

  15

  Leeds

  10,425

  15

  Wiltshire

  7,604

  14

  Sheffield

  6,696

  14

  North Yorkshire

  9,048

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  13,457

  14

  Cumbria

  6,104

  14

  Durham

  8,368

  14

  Newham

  3,631

  14

  Calderdale

  2,722

  13

  Gloucestershire

  6,234

  13

  Lincolnshire

  7,434

  113

  Wirral

  4,398

  13

  Rotherham

  3,423

  13

  Humberside

  11,612

  13

  Walsall

  3,556

  13

  Wakefield

  3,924

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  7,978

  13

  Derbyshire

  10,637

  13

  Hampshire

  18,287

  13

  Essex

  17,814

  112

  Shropshire

  4,902

  12

  Solihull

  2,443

  12

  Manchester

  5,657

  12

  Hillingdon

  2,464

  112

  Kensington

  722

  12

  East Sussex

  6,671

  12

  Hackney

  2,046

  12

  Cleveland

  7,426

  12

  St. Helens

  1,985

  12

  West Sussex

  6,951

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,505

  11

  Dudley

  3,352

  11

  Norfolk

  7,383

  11

  South Tyneside

  1,710

  11

  Surrey

  8,483

  11

  Brent

  2,291

  11

  Kent

  14,638

  11

  Sefton

  2,884

  11

  Bradford

  4,099

  11

  Greenwich

  2,220

  11

  Islington

  1.630

  10

  Corporation of London

  22

  10

  Devon

  9,032

  10

  Leicestershire

  8,082

  10

  Suffolk

  4,559

  10

  Lancashire

  12,398

  9

  Berkshire

  5,946

  9

  Stockport

  2,448

  9

  Croydon

  2,442

  9

  Oldham

  2,152

  9

  Avon

  7,342

  9

  Bexley

  1,799

  9

  Northamptonshire

  4,410

  9

  Hounslow

  1,656

  9

  Sutton

  1,110

  9

  Havering

  1,817

  9

  Birmingham

  8,983

  9

  Bolton

  2,187

  9

  Rochdale

  1,709

  8

  Trafford

  1,562

  8

  Merton

  1,100

  8

  Kirklees

  2,714

  8

  Cornwall

  3,005

  8

  Dorset

  3,242

  7

  40

  PRIMARY

  (see note 1)

  Actual surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Tower Hamlets

  1,522

  7

  Waltham Forest

  1,422

  7

  Barnsley

  1,496

  7

  Barnet

  1,598

  7

  Tameside

  1,464

  7

  Haringey

  1,240

  7

  Westminster

  621

  7

  Bromley

  1,442

  7

  Somerset

  2,487

  7

  Sandwell

  1,857

  7

  Barking

  975

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  686

  6

  Bury

  848

  6

  Harrow

  998

  5

  Lewisham

  999

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  503

  5

  Isle of Wight

  384

  5

  Enfield

  1,013

  5

  Camden

  325

  3

  Redbridge

  406

  2

  Total

  540,729

  12

  1 Stage two for planning purposes.

  1. Primary figures show surplus after taking account of any summer entry.

  2. Stage 1 = less than 10 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 2 = between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 3 = 75 per cent. or more pupils in the GM sector.

  SECONDARY

  Actual Surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Isles of Scilly

  223

  65

  Manchester

  12,294

  36

  Lambeth

  3,142

  133

  Hammersmith

  2,606

  131

  Nottinghamshire

  20,327

  25

  Salford

  3,375

  23

  Doncaster

  6,439

  23

  Hackney

  2,132

  23

  Liverpool

  7,687

  22

  Warwickshire

  6,607

  121

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,421

  21

  Wandsworth

  2,308

  121

  Southwark

  2,296

  120

  Wakefield

  4,728

  19

  Gateshead

  2,695

  19

  Wolverhampton

  3,638

  119

  Islington

  1,656

  19

  Cleveland

  8,276

  19

  Sheffield

  5,612

  18

  Kensington

  712

  118

  Avon

  11,596

  18

  Coventry

  4,236

  18

  Greenwich

  3,038

  18

  South Tyneside

  2,076

  18

  North Tyneside

  3,101

  18

  Durham

  8,144

  18

  Wirral

  4,064

  18

  Sefton

  3,956

  18

  Newham

  2,794

  17

  Rochdale

  2,436

  17

  Merton

  1,488

  17

  Tower Hamlets

  2,239

  17

  Barnsley

  2,611

  17

  Bedfordshire

  9,021

  117

  Hertfordshire

  13,552

  117

  Cumbria

  6,169

  117

  41

  SECONDARY

  Actual Surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Shropshire

  4,947

  117

  Sandwell

  3,445

  16

  Oxfordshire

  6,858

  16

  Humberside

  10,912

  16

  Knowsley

  1,635

  16

  St. Helens

  2,245

  16

  Derbyshire

  10,782

  116

  Essex

  18,008

  116

  Brent

  2,383

  216

  Walsall

  3,565

  116

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,851

  15

  Leicestershire

  10,076

  15

  Kent

  18,000

  115

  Birmingham

  11,330

  115

  Trafford

  2,067

  115

  Wiltshire

  5,812

  114

  Berkshire

  7,754

  114

  Calderdale

  2,221

  114

  Haringey

  1,515

  14

  Rotherham

  2,875

  14

  Wigan

  2,969

  14

  Havering

  2,284

  113

  Bradford

  6,914

  113

  Lancashire

  11,754

  13

  Lewisham

  1,587

  13

  West Sussex

  6,051

  13

  Leeds

  6,358

  13

  Waltham Forest

  1,737

  113

  North Yorkshire

  6,304

  13

  Stockport

  2,209

  12

  Bexley

  2,005

  112

  Tameside

  1,737

  112

  Kirklees

  3,160

  12

  Westminster

  938

  12

  Cheshire

  7,983

  12

  Lincolnshire

  4,864

  112

  Hampshire

  10,114

  112

  Surrey

  5,407

  111

  Somerset

  3,486

  11

  Suffolk

  6,000

  11

  Bolton

  2,000

  111

  Northamptonshire

  5,423

  111

  Sunderland

  2,408

  11

  Dudley

  2,218

  111

  Croydon

  1,716

  111

  Northumberland

  3,333

  11

  East Sussex

  3,783

  10

  Kingston upon Thames

  843

  110

  Isle of Wight

  1,093

  10

  Barnet

  1,947

  110

  Gloucestershire

  3,417

  110

  Camden

  1,047

  19

  Enfield

  1,781

  19

  Norfolk

  4,041

  19

  Dorset

  3,964

  19

  Hillingdon

  1,336

  29

  Bury

  947

  9

  Cornwall

  2,601

  8

  Buckinghamshire

  3,231

  18

  Solihull

  1,144

  8

  Ealing

  1,056

  17

  Staffordshire

  4,919

  7

  Devon

  4,160

  7

  Oldham

  1,145

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  2,837

  17

  Redbridge

  835

  6

  Bromley

  891

  15

  Richmond upon Thames

  288

  4

  Harrow

  278

  4

  42

  SECONDARY

  Actual Surplus

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Sutton

  367

  13

  Barking

  307

  3

  Hounslow

  435

  13

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  Total

  475,628

  14

  1 Stage two for planning purposes.

  2 Stage three for planning purposes.:

  1. Primary figures show surplus after taking account of any summer entry.

  2. Stage 1 = less than 10 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 2 = between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils in the GM sector.

  Stage 3 = 75 per cent. or more pupils in the GM sector.

  Table 2: Surplus places in GM schools, by LEA area and in rank order, in stage 2 and 3 authorities

  PRIMARY

  LEA

  Surplus

  Percentage

  Lincolnshire

  673

  10

  Essex

  2,060

  9

  Hillingdon

  124

  4

  1. Includes schools which became grant-maintained on or before 1 April 1994 2. The percentage column shows the actual number of surplus places as a proportion of total capacity within the GM sector.

  SECONDARY

  LEA

  Surplus

  Percentage

  Warwickshire

  1,239

  21

  Cumbria

  2,288

  18

  Brent

  1,988

  17

  Lambeth

  676

  17

  Wandsworth

  1,179

  15

  Berkshire

  1,277

  15

  Essex

  11,090

  14

  Kingston upon Thames

  440

  14

  Walsall

  892

  14

  Bolton

  401

  13

  Wolverhampton

  360

  13

  Hertfordshire

  3,067

  13

  Kent

  7,303

  13

  Southwark

  389

  12

  Croydon

  725

  11

  Wiltshire

  1,653

  11

  Derbyshire

  1,711

  10

  Trafford

  356

  10

  Surrey

  1,285

  10

  Lincolnshire

  1,733

  10

  Northamptonshire

  961

  9

  Bedfordshire

  895

  9

  Birmingham

  1,534

  9

  Calderdale

  615

  9

  Gloucestershire

  1,906

  8

  Dorset

  810

  8

  Hampshire

  1,280

  8

  Barnet

  745

  7

  Dudley

  327

  7

  Enfield

  378

  6

  Hillingdon

  776

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  997

  6

  Bromley

  684

  6

  Norfolk

  512

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  487

  5

  Bradford

  231

  5

  Ealing

  272

  4

  Bexley

  134

  4

  Shropshire

  127

  3

  43

  SECONDARY

  LEA

  Surplus

  Percentage

  Hounslow

  63

  3

  Sutton

  192

  3

  Waltham Forest

  40

  2

  Tameside

  28

  1

  Havering

  18

  0

  Camden

  6

  0

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  Kensington

  0

  0

  1. Includes schools which became grant-maintained on or before 1 April 1994 2. The percentage column shows the actual number of surplus places as a proportion of total capacity within the GM sector.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State how many orders have been issued in the last 12 months to(a) local education authorities and (b) the Funding Agency for Schools requiring the elimination of surplus places in (i) secondary schools and (ii) primary schools; and to whom those orders were issued.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No orders have yet been made under section 232 of the Education Act 1993. My officials are consulting a number of local education authorities and, where those LEAs share responsibility for the supply of places, the Funding Agency for Schools, about the extent to which surplus within the LEA area might be removed. In the light of the outcome of these consultations, my right hon. Friend will consider whether in any case an order would be appropriate.

  Private Education
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her Department's latest estimate of the number of children under the age of five years who are educated privately in the United Kingdom, and what information she has on the current average cost of such education for a half-day session.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1992–93, there were over 50,000 pupils aged under five in independent schools in the United Kingdom.

  Percentage of children under five in maintained nursery schools and primary schools in each LEA in England1 January 1994

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Camden

  1.0

  0.8

  11.4

  12.2

  23.6

  0.0

  Greenwich

  4.8

  5.0

  4.1

  33.4

  14.7

  0.1

  Hackney

  1.0

  1.7

  12.4

  22.7

  13.7

  0.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7.3

  8.1

  12.6

  15.7

  14.2

  0.3

  Islington

  3.2

  3.7

  20.3

  11.9

  29.2

  0.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.0

  2.5

  11.9

  6.3

  11.3

  0.3

  Lambeth

  2.7

  3.7

  7.9

  19.7

  14.2

  0.6

  Lewisham

  1.4

  1.9

  5.2

  28.5

  14.4

  1.1

  Southwark

  2.8

  4.9

  8.8

  26.6

  29.5

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  7.4

  4.8

  22.8

  18.0

  30.7

  0.0

  Wandsworth

  1.7

  1.6

  12.6

  20.2

  26.4

  —4

  Westminster

  1.4

  3.6

  10.9

  14.9

  12.7

  0.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  40.1

  33.3

  0.0

  Barnet

  0.2

  6.4

  0.1

  24.6

  25.2

  1.0

  Bexley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  22.5

  17.3

  0.2

  Brent

  2.6

  0.6

  9.8

  25.1

  30.1

  0.0

  Bromley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2.2

  31.0

  —

  Croydon

  0.0

  4.9

  —4

  11.5

  30.1

  0.1

  Ealing

  0.2

  5.2

  0.1

  39.2

  28.5

  0.1

  Enfield

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  22.7

  30.7

  0.3

  Haringey

  2.9

  1.2

  7.8

  34.3

  29.6

  0.0

  Harrow

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  19.2

  30.6

  —4

  44
  Information on the average cost per session of such education is not available. Figures published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in "Day care services for Children", copies of which are in the Library, indicate that in 1990 the average termly cost to parents in England of sending a child aged under five to independent infant or primary school full-time was £650.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the total level of expenditure on private education for children under the age of five years in the United Kingdom, and what this amount is per head of children under the age of five years who are privately educated.

  Mr. Forth
  An estimate is not available. Information on expenditure on private education is not collected.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three and four-year-old children currently attend(a) maintained nursery schools and (b) nursery classes in maintained primary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  In England in January 1994, there were 52,262 pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools and 294,331 pupils in nursery classes in maintained primary schools.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current ratio of staff to children in state nursery schools.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1994, the pupil—staff ratio in maintained nursery schools in England was 8.9:1.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children under the age of five years has(a) a full-time and (b) part-time place in (i) reception classes in schools, (ii) nursery classes in schools and (iii) nursery schools by local education authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on pupils aged under five being taught in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1994 is shown in the table.
  45

  Percentage of children under five in maintained nursery schools and primary schools in each LEA in England1January 1994

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Havering

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  8.3

  16.8

  17.7

  Hillingdon

  0.0

  1.8

  0.0

  44.7

  0.7

  0.9

  Hounslow

  0.0

  0.0

  2.1

  41.0

  28.6

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.7

  4.4

  0.3

  26.7

  13.4

  14.4

  Merton

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  54.5

  16.7

  3.9

  Newham

  1.1

  10.8

  1.2

  44.7

  0.1

  0.0

  Redbridge

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  18.8

  18.5

  1.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.2

  1.4

  0.0

  18.3

  0.8

  23.3

  Sutton

  0.0

  5.2

  0.0

  34.6

  0.8

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  0.6

  4.2

  1.6

  32.8

  14.7

  0.2

  Birmingham

  2.8

  4.8

  6.4

  20.6

  31.7

  —4

  Coventry

  0.3

  2.0

  0.8

  22.1

  32.8

  —4

  Dudley

  0.1

  0.7

  1.2

  34.0

  33.3

  0.0

  Sandwell

  1.3

  1.3

  1.7

  51.6

  34.1

  0.1

  Solihull

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  34.9

  35.6

  0.0

  Walsall

  1.2

  9.8

  0.6

  47.7

  33.1

  —4

  Wolverhampton

  0.0

  11.6

  —4

  42.0

  31.1

  0.0

  Knowsley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  55.4

  32.8

  0.2

  Liverpool

  1.7

  2.9

  3.8

  43.3

  35.7

  0.0

  St. Helens

  0.1

  1.5

  —4

  33.8

  32.5

  0.0

  Sefton

  —4

  4.0

  —4

  27.9

  31.5

  0.1

  Wirral

  0.1

  3.4

  —4

  21.4

  31.6

  0.0

  Bolton

  0.3

  6.4

  4.6

  29.1

  31.6

  0.0

  Bury

  1.1

  2.0

  3.3

  23.7

  31.1

  0

  Manchester

  3.0

  1.2

  30.5

  20.9

  17.4

  0.1

  Oldham

  0.0

  0.0

  13.7

  22.9

  33.5

  0.0

  Rochdale

  0.8

  13.4

  1.6

  17.2

  31.2

  —4

  Salford

  7.2

  8.2

  26.8

  13.5

  31.9

  0.0

  Stockport

  1.1

  11.1

  0.0

  13.8

  31.4

  —4

  Tameside

  0.0

  5.3

  0.1

  33.9

  33.6

  0.0

  Trafford

  0.0

  0.0

  —4

  38.1

  30.5

  —4

  Wigan

  —4

  2.2

  0.0

  22.8

  31.8

  0.3

  Barnsley

  0.0

  3.0

  0.0

  46.5

  16.6

  0.2

  Doncaster

  0.0

  0.0

  0.8

  41.3

  32.3

  —4

  Rotherham

  0.0

  5.5

  1.7

  37.5

  14.9

  0.0

  Sheffield

  1.0

  5.5

  1.8

  35.6

  15.9

  2.9

  Bradford

  1.3

  2.2

  1.2

  38.3

  25.6

  1.6

  Calderdale

  0.0

  0.0

  5.0

  29.1

  33.4

  0.0

  Kirklees

  0.0

  5.3

  0.0

  36.0

  31.1

  —4

  Leeds

  0.0

  0.5

  0.6

  43.7

  29.9

  0.2

  Wakefield

  0.0

  5.4

  0.5

  47.8

  17.5

  1.2

  Gateshead

  0.1

  1.1

  0.1

  34.7

  31.8

  —4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8.5

  0.4

  11.2

  22.2

  29.9

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  0.8

  3.9

  1.3

  48.0

  33.0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  0.4

  9.8

  0.4

  43.2

  31.8

  0.0

  Sunderland

  0.5

  12.2

  —4

  28.5

  32.8

  0.1

  Avon

  2.8

  4.4

  1.0

  13.0

  31.3

  —4

  Bedfordshire

  2.1

  7.1

  3.1

  21.5

  11.1

  4.6

  Berkshire

  0.6

  9.4

  0.5

  19.2

  2.7

  0.3

  Buckinghamshire

  0.0

  3.1

  0.0

  11.9

  5.5

  11.5

  Cambridgeshire

  0.1

  3.8

  —4

  7.9

  30.6

  0.4

  Cheshire

  0.1

  3.1

  0.1

  17.7

  31.9

  —4

  Cleveland

  0.0

  0.8

  —4

  56.5

  32.4

  —4

  Cornwall2

  0.2

  0.8

  —4

  13.1

  15.8

  14.6

  Cumbria

  0.0

  6.5

  0.0

  18.2

  31.6

  0.1

  Derbyshire

  0.6

  5.6

  1.4

  30.9

  16.2

  5.7

  Devon

  0.2

  1.0

  0.6

  9.2

  15.9

  0.4

  Dorset

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  5.5

  7.1

  24.3

  Durham

  0.3

  16.1

  0.1

  29.2

  31.1

  —4

  East Sussex

  0.0

  1.7

  0.0

  7.5

  14.6

  15.3

  Essex

  0.0

  0.7

  0.2

  5.3

  15.7

  0.4

  Gloucestershire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  31.9

  0.1

  Hampshire

  —4

  0.7

  0.1

  3.9

  22.1

  8.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  6.4

  15.1

  0.1

  Hertfordshire

  0.2

  6.2

  0.1

  26.0

  16.0

  2.0

  Humberside

  0 8

  4.1

  2.9

  31.0

  22.9

  0.1

  Isle of Wight

  0 0

  0.0

  0.1

  6.3

  32.8

  0.0

  Kent

  0 0

  0.2

  0.0

  4.7

  23.4

  7.9

  Lancashire

  0 2

  9.1

  —4

  11.3

  32.6

  —4

  Leicestershire

  0.0

  0.2

  6.5

  14.1

  15.2

  2.3

  46 47

  Percentage of children under five in maintained nursery schools and primary schools in each LEA in England1 January 1994

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Lincolnshire

  0.4

  1.3

  0.3

  7.9

  32.8

  —4

  Norfolk

  —4

  2.1

  0.0

  2.6

  19.9

  9.7

  North Yorkshire

  —4

  2.2

  0.7

  18.5

  25.9

  1.5

  Northampton

  0.0

  3.6

  0.2

  13.6

  32.6

  —4

  Northumberland

  0.5

  1.2

  0.3

  37.7

  30.8

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  —4

  2.2

  0.8

  45.7

  7.2

  0.7

  Oxfordshire

  0.3

  7.2

  0.4

  10.9

  4.6

  2.2

  Shropshire

  0.0

  1.6

  0.0

  16.3

  16.1

  2.2

  Somerset

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  3.7

  31.9

  0.8

  Staffordshire

  2.6

  4.9

  5.2

  11.5

  31.4

  0.2

  Suffolk

  0.0

  0.5

  —4

  16.4

  14.3

  0.2

  Surrey

  0.3

  1.3

  —4

  9.4

  16.5

  1.8

  Warwickshire

  0.0

  5.9

  0.7

  10.3

  32.2

  —4

  West Sussex

  0.1

  2.6

  0.0

  3.4

  15.8

  0.3

  Wiltshire

  0.0

  0.0

  —4

  3.5

  19.2

  0.8

  England2 3

  0.7

  3.3

  2.1

  20.4

  22.9

  2.2

  1 Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January 1994.

  2 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  3 Includes Corporation of London

  4 Less than 0.05.

  Teacher Qualifications
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information is held by her Department on(a) the total number of staff and (b) the proportion of staff working in state nursery schools who hold each relevant qualification.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1994, there were some 3,600 full-time equivalent staff working in maintained nursery schools. Of these, 1,575 were qualified teachers.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list all local education authorities in England in rank order showing the proportion of school leavers with five or more GCSE results at grade A to C.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. The table lists the percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE Grades A to C in each local education authority in England in rank order for 1994.

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or more CCSE grades A to C in England, 1994 School performance tables 1994

  Percentage

  Rank

  Isles of Scilly

  68.0

  1

  Sutton

  52.9

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  51.6

  3

  Barnet

  51.1

  4

  West Sussex

  50.4

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  50.0

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  49.4

  7

  Dorset

  49.3

  8

  Bromley

  49.2

  9

  North Yorkshire

  49.0

  10

  Stockport

  48.6

  11

  Harrow

  48.4

  12

  Berkshire

  48.2

  13

  Solihull

  48.0

  14

  Surrey

  47.8

  15

  48

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A to C in England, 1994 School performance tables 1994

  Percentage

  Rank

  Hertfordshire

  47.6

  16

  Somerset

  47.4

  17

  Shropshire

  47.3

  18

  Cheshire

  47.0

  19

  Redbridge

  46.5

  20

  Gloucestershire

  46.3

  21

  Oxfordshire

  46.3

  21

  Cornwall

  46.0

  23

  Bury

  45.6

  24

  Wiltshire

  45.5

  25

  Sefton

  45.1

  26

  Hampshire

  44.3

  27

  Trafford

  44.1

  28

  Suffolk

  44.1

  28

  Hereford and Worcester

  43.8

  30

  Cumbria

  43.4

  31

  East Sussex

  43.3

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  43.3

  32

  England Average

  43.3

  32

  Devon

  42.9

  35

  Lincolnshire

  42.6

  36

  Warwickshire

  42.6

  36

  Havering

  42.5

  38

  Bolton

  41.9

  39

  Wigan

  41.7

  40

  Dudley

  41.4

  40

  Essex

  41.4

  40

  Northumberland

  41.3

  43

  North Tyneside

  41.2

  44

  Lancashire

  41.1

  45

  Derbyshire

  40.9

  46

  Camden

  40.6

  47

  Isle of Wight

  40.5

  48

  Enfield

  40.4

  49

  Kent

  40.4

  49

  Bexley

  40.3

  51

  Hounslow

  40.3

  51

  Bedfordshire

  40.3

  51

  Avon

  40.1

  54

  Norfolk

  40.1

  54

  49

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A to C in England, 1994 School performance tables 1994

  Percentage

  Rank

  Wirral

  39.7

  56

  Leicestershire

  39.3

  57

  Northamptonshire

  38.9

  58

  Staffordshire

  38.1

  59

  Hillingdon

  37.7

  60

  Kirklees

  37.3

  61

  Croydon

  37.2

  62

  Calderdale

  36.8

  63

  Leeds

  36.2

  64

  Sheffield

  35.6

  65

  Wakefield

  35.6

  65

  St. Helens

  35.5

  67

  South Tyneside

  35.5

  67

  Brent

  34.9

  69

  Rotherham

  34.8

  70

  Cleveland

  34.8

  70

  Nottinghamshire

  34.6

  72

  Durham

  34.6

  72

  Kensington and Chelsea

  34.5

  74

  Coventry

  34.3

  75

  Tameside

  34.2

  76

  Humberside

  33.8

  77

  Doncaster

  33.7

  78

  Gateshead

  33.6

  79

  Merton

  33.4

  80

  Walsall

  32.3

  81

  Rochdale

  32.3

  81

  Ealing

  32.2

  83

  Oldham

  32.1

  84

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  31.9

  85

  Birmingham

  30.4

  86

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  30.3

  87

  Waltham Forest

  30.1

  88

  Sunderland

  30.0

  89

  Barnsley

  29.8

  90

  Wolverhampton

  29.6

  91

  Wandsworth

  29.1

  92

  Salford

  29.1

  92

  Haringey

  28.4

  94

  Barking and Dagenham

  27.6

  95

  Sandwell

  27.3

  96

  Lewisham

  21.1

  97

  Greenwich

  27.0

  98

  Bradford

  26.7

  99

  Westminster

  25.1

  100

  Liverpool

  25

  101

  Manchester

  23.2

  102

  Newham

  23.0

  103

  Hackney

  22.7

  104

  Lambeth

  22.0

  105

  Islington

  21.9

  106

  Knowsley

  21.3

  107

  Tower Hamlets

  18.7

  108

  Southwark

  18.3

  109

  Underspending
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the numbers of primary and secondary schools and the amount involved where underspending of the budget has occurred in 1994: and if she will make a statement on the level of teaching staff in those schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the cumulative net balances recorded in local education authorities' local management of schools outturn statements for 1993–94 is contained in the answers which I gave my hon. Friend the 50
  Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 19 and 27 January, Official Report, column 641–43 and column 410–11 respectively. The Department has made no estimate of the number of schools whose expenditure in that year fell short of their budget shares for the year. Where schools have delegated budgets, it is for their governing bodies to consider what level of staffing is appropriate and affordable.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the capital allocation as a percentage of the bid for each local education authority for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table, covering schools annual capital guidelines for English LEAs in 1995–96.

  LEA

  Total ACG for 1995–96

  ACG as percentage of bid

  Barking

  1,899

  26

  Barnet

  1,408

  16

  Bexley

  1,420

  31

  Brent

  179

  4

  Bromley

  1,335

  17

  Croydon

  1,860

  17

  Ealing

  891

  2

  Enfield

  3,234

  20

  Haringey

  2,713

  18

  Harrow

  1,644

  13

  Havering

  199

  2

  Hillingdon

  475

  5

  Hounslow

  2,035

  14

  Kingston

  487

  8

  Merton

  681

  7

  Newham

  829

  5

  Redbridge

  5,132

  86

  Richmond

  121

  2

  Sutton

  1,660

  27

  Waltham

  2,028

  16

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  570

  10

  Westminster

  40

  5

  Greenwich

  487

  4

  Hackney

  241

  3

  Hammersmith

  91

  3

  Islington

  207

  2

  Kensington

  67

  2

  Lambeth

  389

  3

  Lewisham

  1,540

  7

  Southwark

  740

  12

  Wandsworth

  2,994

  29

  Tower Hamlets

  12,131

  55

  Birmingham

  9,210

  23

  Coventry

  3,587

  63

  Dudley

  499

  8

  Sandwell

  275

  3

  Solihull

  1,805

  35

  Walsall

  430

  6

  Wolverham

  1,087

  9

  Knowsley

  935

  6

  Liverpool

  4,576

  25

  St. Helens

  1,236

  20

  Sefton

  1,698

  38

  Wirral

  1,912

  26

  Bolton

  884

  15

  Bury

  557

  18

  Manchester

  17,190

  30

  Oldham

  1,660

  18

  Rochdale

  301

  3

  Salford

  5,625

  26

  51

  LEA

  Total ACG for 1995–96

  ACG as percentage of bid

  Stockport

  736

  20

  Tameside

  2,403

  53

  Trafford

  575

  8

  Wigan

  2,066

  23

  Barnsley

  3,314

  62

  Doncaster

  536

  6

  Rotherham

  267

  6

  Sheffield

  4,177

  10

  Bradford

  5,076

  12

  Calderdale

  2,193

  37

  Kirklees

  1,455

  15

  Leeds

  2,081

  7

  Wakefield

  8,704

  31

  Gateshead

  1,306

  21

  Newcastle

  3,093

  12

  North Tyneside

  1,520

  19

  South Tyneside

  827

  14

  Sunderland

  4,159

  41

  Isle of Scilly

  37

  100

  Avon

  9,318

  37

  Bedfordshire

  1,455

  13

  Berkshire

  1,961

  13

  Bucks

  9,245

  36

  Cambridge

  6,669

  25

  Cheshire

  6,657

  21

  Cleveland

  6,051

  57

  Cornwall

  3,719

  23

  Cumbria

  4,105

  16

  Derbyshire

  4,031

  11

  Devon

  11,627

  34

  Dorset

  3,340

  14

  Durham

  3,545

  7

  East Sussex

  15,026

  43

  Essex

  9,668

  13

  Gloucester

  10,611

  23

  Hampshire

  14,762

  44

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,865

  44

  Hertford

  1,109

  7

  Humberside

  4,994

  25

  Isle of Wight

  4,693

  46

  Kent

  21,248

  31

  Lancashire

  8,105

  20

  Leicester

  3,845

  40

  Lincoln

  9,867

  61

  Norfolk

  3,122

  18

  North Yorkshire

  3,647

  11

  Northampton

  3,454

  20

  Northumber

  1,499

  29

  Notts

  1,677

  9

  Oxfordshire

  6,767

  22

  Shropshire

  7,423

  75

  Somerset

  2,608

  22

  Staffs

  1,291

  5

  Suffolk

  7,676

  38

  Surrey

  5,545

  24

  Warwick

  1,074

  6

  West Sussex

  2,400

  13

  Wiltshire

  2,786

  36

  Students
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the correlation between student drop-out rates in higher education and student poverty.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information about the reasons for student drop-out is not collected centrally. Since 1990, total support available to students has increased in real terms. The Government have also provided access funds to help 52
  students in particular need. There is no evidence of widespread student poverty.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each local education authority(a) the total number of discretionary awards, schedules 1 and 2, (b) the total value of those awards and (c) the average value of each award, for (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for 1992–93 is published in tables 7 to 12 of "Statistics of Education, Student Support Volume 1992–93" copies of which are in the Library. Tables 7 to 9 show data for section 1(6) awards and section 2 awards in higher education; tables 10 to 12 show data for section 2 awards in further education.

  Returns made to the Department by local education authorities about discretionary awards for the academic year 1993–94 are being received now. Information at LEA level will not be available for publication until this summer.

  Schools, Suffolk
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money is held in reserve by schools in Suffolk.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At the end of the financial year 1993–94, £13.5 million net.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are the total balances currently held by grant-maintained schools;

  (2) what procedure is involved in authorising overspending in respect of grant-maintained schools which have incurred a deficit;

  (3) if she will list the grant-maintained schools which have currently accumulated deficits, giving in each case the size of the deficit.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on, and policy relating to, balances and deficits of grant-maintained schools are a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Realising our Potential Awards"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a full itemised list of all 239 "Realising our Potential Awards" funded projects, together with the amount of Government financial support.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  A full itemised list of all ROPA projects awarded to date and the associated amount of Government financial support has been placed in the Library.

  Government Consultation Documents
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how many HMSO Government consultation
  53
  documents have had to be reprinted because demand outstripped supply.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Since 1 January 1994, HMSO has published 41 consultative documents. At no time were stocks exhausted, but two publications were reprinted in anticipation of continuing public demand.

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what use the Government are making of the information super-highway; and how it can be used to make citizens charter data more readily available.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The CCTA Government information service enables Government Departments and agencies to make information freely and widely available over the Internet. Eighteen Departments have information available already, and most others have plans to use the service. There have been more than half a million requests for information over a four-month period. We also use the Internet to broaden the scope of consultation through consultative open groups.

  The CCTA Government information service already includes a web page for the citizens charter unit, and the full text of 16 charters. The remaining charters will be made available shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to stop farmers dumping milk on the land on economic grounds.

  Mr. Jack
  We have seen reports that some farmers who anticipate having to pay super levy are disposing of their surplus milk by dumping it on their land. However, the arrangements which the Government have provided for milk producers to buy, sell or lease milk quota to meet their individual business needs are an alternative way for farmers to avoid the payment of super levy.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensue that dairy farmers are assisted by the efficient completion of is annual activities by the intervention board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The intervention board is responsible under the common agriculture policy arrangements for supporting and managing a range of measures in the dairy sector including the operation of the milk quotas register. I am confident that it is able to discharge these responsibilities in and efficient and timely manner.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken by his Department in cases where this is evidence of the illegal movement of milk.

  Mr. Jack
  The intervention board is currently investigating information it has received concerning irregularities in connection with the trade in milk. If there is evidence of such irregularities, those involved would run the risk of heavy fines, payment or super levy on undeclared sales of milk and, possibly imprisonment.

  Hunting
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library current copies of the permission to hunt in respect of those hunts licensed to hunt the New forest, together with details of any special considerations imposed.

  Mr. Jack
  Copies of the current permits have been placed in the Library of the House. The permits include details of the conditions imposed.

  Arctic Fox Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Arctic fox fur farms there have been, by region, in each of the last five years in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my predecessor the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 346.

  Deer
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what role is played by Forestry Commission employees in identifying the whereabouts of deer or any other activities in support of deer hunting in the New forest.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission keeper selects the animal to be hunted on each occasion. The animals selected are those which would have been culled by the Commission during its normal management operations.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Forestry Commission's keeper in the killing of a deer by the New forest buckhounds on 13 January;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the inspection of the carcase of the deer killed in Dames Slough enclosure in the New forest on 13 January.

  Mr. Jack
  A copy of the duty keeper's report on the hunt by the New forest buckhounds on 13 January has been placed in the Library of the House. The duty keeper does not prepare a separate report of his inspection of the carcase. He would have recorded the details in his report if he had found that the animal had sustained injuries which indicated that the hunt had not been conducted in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what account of the cost of fencing hill land is made in assessing the level of the hill livestock compensatory allowance each year; what formula is used in this assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Decisions on the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances are taken in the light of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. The source of the economic data used in the review is the farm business survey in which costs of fencing are taken into account in calculating the various measures of income.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what evidence he has of infringements of directive 74/577 in other European Community states; and if he will list the countries involved since 1990;

  (2) what instructions he has given to his veterinary department for checking that (a) journey times for farm animals to be exported from the United Kingdom are properly completed, (b) that such animals are fit to travel and (c) animals being exported to Greece are being sent to abattoirs which comply with the European Community directive protecting the animal's welfare at slaughter; how many times since January 1993 his veterinary department has failed to follow these instructions; what steps he has taken to ensure in that future failures will be avoided; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what measures he is taking to ensure that British animals being exported for slaughter to Greece are killed in accordance with legislation designated to ensure humane slaughter;

  (4) what representations he has made to the Greek Agriculture Minister regarding the slaughter of British sheep in Greek abattoirs; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will list the abattoirs in Greece used to kill British sheep over the last three years;

  (6) what discussions he has had with the RSPCA over the export of British sheep and pigs to Greece for slaughter, and if he will make a statement;

  (7) when he expects to receive a reply to his letter to Mr. Franz Fischler on the subject of Greek slaughter practices; and if he will place a copy of the reply in the Library;

  (8) what information he has on the compliance with the EC welfare at slaughter standards of the Tripolis abattoir in Greece in respect of British sheep sent there in July and August 1994; if their hauliers conformed to all welfare during transport regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, as amended, requires journey plans to be completed for farm animals being consigned from the United Kingdom to another member state, and to be signed and returned to the relevant divisional veterinary officer when the journey has been completed. All such animals also require a health certificate, completed by a local veterinary inspector stating that the animals are fit to travel; officials are fully instructed in the application of the rules,

  From contacts with the RSPCA, it has emerged that there is no evidence that sheep or pigs originating in the United Kingdom travelled to the slaughterhouses which featured in the society's recent report and video, I have written to both the EC Agriculture Commissioner and the Greek Minister urging them to take action on the quite appalling scenes of cruelty depicted in the RSPCA video.

  Enforcement of the EC legislation both on the welfare of animals during transport and at slaughter is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the member states. The European Commission is responsible for overseeing the application of EC miles across the European Union. It is MAFF Minister's practice to bring any apparent infringements of directive 74/577 to the
  56
  attention of the Commission and of the authorities in the member states concerned. Since 1990, allegations of infringements of directive 74/577 have been made in relation to slaughterhouses in several member states. Those which appeared to be supported by reasonable evidence were reported to the appropriate authorities and to the Commission.

  The Greek authorities have undertaken to investigate the recent RSPCA report and video on Greek slaughterhouse practices and Commissioner Fischler is considering sending Commission personnel to Greece to investigate the implementation of welfare at slaughter legislation there. Copies of the Commissioner's press statement leave been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will fully fund in Scotland the recommendations of the pay review body for nurses and midwives.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Individual increases arising from the recommendations of the pay review body are a matter for individual employing bodies. All Scottish NHS employers are expected to make efficiency savings in 1995–96. In addition, the NHS in Scotland will receive a cash terms increase of £143.2 million in 1995–96; an increase of 3.6 per cent.

  Common Services Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the feasibility study commissioned from KPMG Peat Marwick into the assessment system for earnings of the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency, and the ability of management to handle the system; and if he will place a copy of that report in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following a competitive tendering exercise, the study was carried out at a cost of £12,500. The report to the CSA board was made on a commercial in confidence basis and will not be published.

  Marriages
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the refusal of the Registrar General to grant temporary written authorisation to the Humanist Society in Scotland to solemnise a marriage under section 12 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.

  Mr. Lang
  Sections 9 to 16 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 deal with religious marriages solemnised by approved celebrants, defined in section 8. Section 12 gives the Registrar General power to grant a temporary written authorisation to a person over the age of 21 to solemnise a specified marriage or marriages. The Humanist Society of Scotland wrote to the Registrar General in November 1994 seeking an authorisation under section 12 for a person to solemnise a particular marriage, but it made it clear in its application that this would not
  57
  be a religious marriage. The Registrar General, having obtained legal advice, replied to the effect that, as the proposed marriage ceremony was not intended to be the religious solemnisation of a marriage, he had no power to grant authorisation. The Secretary of State has no function in granting such authorisations and it would therefore be inappropriate for him to comment upon the matter.

  Cochlear Implants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average cost of the cochlear implant operations carried out for children at Crosshouse hospital in the current year; and what will be the marginal cost of further operations in the current year;

  (2) how many profoundly deaf children there are in Scotland in each age group; and what percentage of them is assessed as likely to benefit from cochlear implants;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 10 February, concerning cochlear implants, Official Report, columns 449–50, what he has to add to his answer in relation to the case of Gillian Graham;

  (4) what steps he has taken to inform all doctors and health centres in Scotland about the availability of cochlear implant operations at Crosshouse hospital, Kilmarnock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average cost of a paediatric cochlear implant operation is £28,725 in 1994–95. The cost of the additional operation purchased in the current financial year was £17,960.

  Information is not yet available on the numbers of profoundly deaf children in Scotland and those who might benefit from cochlear implants but this is being collected as part of the on-going needs assessment. Information on the range of all national services, including cochlear implantation, is issued by the national services division of the Common Services Agency.

  As my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State explained in his letter to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie of 26 January, Crosshouse hospital hopes to provide Gillian Graham's operation in the spring.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many children in Scotland are in the process of being assessed for cochlear implants;

  (2) how many adults in Scotland are in the process of being assessed for cochlear implants;

  (3) what plans he has to fund cochlear implants in Scotland on the same basis of contractual referral as in England and Wales;

  (4) if financial restraints have prevented any child in Scotland from receiving a cochlear implant at an age that the surgeon would consider optimal;

  (5) what medical advice he has received in respect of the relationship between the age of the child and the benefit from cochlear implants for children between the ages of four and seven years;

  (6) what assessment he has made of the importance of time as a factor affecting the efficacy of cochlear implants for adults; and what account he takes of this in allocating resources.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are currently nine paediatric patients and 14 adult patients undergoing assessment at Crosshouse hospital, Kilmarnock and five adult patients undergoing assessment at the Royal 58
  infirmary of Edinburgh. Assessment of individual patients is a matter for clinical judgment.

  Cochlear implantation is a national specialist service in Scotland and the allocation of resources is determined through negotiations between the purchaser—national services division of the Common Services Agency—and the provider units. Activity levels for paediatric cochlear implantation in 1994–95 were agreed with North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust at the beginning of the financial year and funding was made available to the trust in accordance with this. Future funding arrangements for cochlear implantation will be reviewed in the light of a forthcoming national needs assessment.

  The initial findings of the Medical Research Council's evaluation of the national cochlear implant programme suggest that implantation by about the age of seven has produced positive initial outcomes.

  Police Laboratories
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to modify the structure, management and functions of the Tayside police force laboratory and the Strathclyde police force laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have no plans to modify the structure or functions of these laboratories.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed in(a) the Tayside police force laboratory and (b) the Strathclyde police force laboratory; and what are their functional responsibilities in each.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 22 staff currently employed in the police forensic science laboratory, Dundee. This laboratory serves, and is jointly funded by, the police authorities for Tayside, for Fife and for Central Scotland police forces. The Strathclyde police laboratory currently employs 47 staff.

  Each laboratory employs a range of scientists for a variety of functions. These functions are mainly in the areas of forensic chemistry, forensic biology and physical examinations, but the laboratories also undertake document examinations, ballistic and fire investigations, and blood alcohol analyses.

  Secure Accommodation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for secure accommodation for young children have been made in each of the past four years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of requests for secure accommodation for young children made in each of the past four years is not available centrally. However, the numbers of actual admissions of children into secure accommodation in the past four financial years are given below:

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  250

  1991–92

  243

  1992–93

  197

  1993–94

  1291

  1Provisional.

  Hospital Social Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances hospital social workers may be expected to perform the role of key worker for an individual.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions about who should be an individual's key worker should be made after consultation between professionals who are aware of the individual's needs. For hospital patients and people recently discharged from hospital who need social care, it will often be appropriate for hospital social workers to perform the role of key worker.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to monitor and record the level of referrals to hospital social workers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities have varying practices for the deployment of social workers responsible for hospital patients and people recently discharged from hospital. Statistics on these would be of limited value at national level and there are currently no plans to collect them.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many social workers were based in hospitals in(a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table below shows the whole-time equivalent number of local authority social workers based in hospitals for the most recent five years for which information is available centrally.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Strathclyde

  211

  215

  238

  216

  250

  Scotland

  478

  496

  500

  486

  511

  Information at district level is not available centrally.

  Secure Facilities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the secure facilities currently available for young people which are provided by(a) regional and island authorities, (b) the voluntary sector and (c) the private sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The secure facilities currently available for young people in Scotland are given below:

  Secure Facility

  Status

  Rossie School, Montrose

  Voluntary

  St. Mary's Kenmure, Bishopbriggs

  Voluntary

  Rimbleton House Young Persons Centre, Glenrothes

  Fife Region

  Kerelaw School, Stevenston

  Strathclyde Region

  St. Katherine's Centre (Guthrie Unit), Howdenhall, Edinburgh

  Lothian Region

  Howdenhall Children's Unit (Braid), Edinburgh

  Lothian Region

  Hightrees Assessment Centre, Closeburn

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Private Children's Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private children's homes were listed in each local authority for each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The definition of a private children's home is a home administered by a private commercial establishment. Numbers of such homes for each local authority for each of the last five years are given below:

  Year

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Strathclyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Total

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Community Care
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics are obtained from local authorities on their use of independent sector residential accommodation and day and domiciliary services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on independent sector residential accommodation and day centres are provided in the "Community Care Bulletin 1992", available in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many social day care places were available for(a) the elderly, (b) those with learning disabilities, (c) those with physical disabilities and (d) mentally ill people in (i) local authorities, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) the private sector in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information from 1980 to 1992 is available in the "Community Care Bulletin 1992", available in the library of the House. Figures for 1993 are shown in the table. Figures for private and voluntary centres are not routinely separated.

  Number of places at 31 March 1993

  Day centres for:

  Local authority

  Voluntary and private

  Total

  Older people

  4,392

  3,888

  8,280

  People with learning disabilities

  7,756

  775

  8,531

  Physically disabled people

  1,103

  577

  1,680

  People with mental health problems

  75

  225

  300

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many supported hostel places were available for people with mental health problems in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The only available information is contained in the "Community Care Bulletin 1992", available in the Library of the House.
  61
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's definition of(a) community care and (b) care provided under the care in the community provisions, and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Community care, as used in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, refers to the provision of services and support which people who are affected by problems of aging, illness or disability need to be able to live as independently as possible in their own homes, or in residential care. Care in the community is a term used specifically to refer to policies for mentally ill people and people with learning disabilities which enable them to live as full, independent and normal lives in or as near to the community as possible.

  Social Work Contracts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts have been awarded by(a) health authorities and (b) local authority social work departments to the private sector in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested in(a) is not centrally available and in relation to (b) the information requested can he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken for the ambulance service to respond to an emergency 999 call in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclye and (c) elsewhere in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average response times for the period April to December 1994—the latest information available—were(a) eight minutes, (b) eight minutes, 12 seconds and (c) seven minutes, 15 seconds respectively.

  These average response times are within the national targets of 95 per cent. of calls responded to within 14 minutes. These have been achieved against a 4 per cent. increase in the number of emergency calls last year.

  Prison Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to convert Cornton Vale woman's prison into a mixed, local prison; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to establish female prisoner units into prisons throughout Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans he has to incarcerate young male offenders in Cornton Vale prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E.W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 20 February 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your questions about whether there are plans to convert Cornton Vale
  62
  women's prison into a mixed local prison, to establish female units in prisons throughout Scotland and to incarcerate young male offenders in Cornton Vale Prison.
  The Scottish Prison Service is presently considering the best use of its estate against the background of overcrowding in some prisons and under-utilisation in others. We are studying also the location of convicted women prisoners, their opportunities for progression and the possibilities of open prison conditions comparable to that available to male prisoners. There are already small remand wings for women in Aberdeen, Dumfries and Inverness Prisons but all convicted women prisoners have to go at present to Cornton Vale. We are conscious of the disparity between male and female prisoners where convicted males can serve short sentences in prisons close to their home area.
  Feasibility studies of all the various options are not yet complete and no decisions have been made.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of Scotland what has been the cost to public funds of managing the Prison Service in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 20 February 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost to public funds of managing the Prison Service in each year since 1979.
  The attached Annex sets out yearly expenditure from financial year 1979/80 onwards.

  Annex: Scottish Prison Service Expenditure

  £000

  SPS annual report

  Total net expenditure

  1979–80

  33,319

  1980–81

  44,037

  1981–82

  51,030

  1982–83

  56,615

  1983–84

  62,837

  1984–85

  72,443

  1985–86

  80,649

  1986–87

  85,112

  SPS annual report

  Total net expenditure

  1987–88

  96,304

  1988–89

  111,073

  1989–90

  121,499

  1990–91

  125,908

  1991–92

  136,763

  1992–93

  152,214

  1993–94

  154,343

  Note:

  The figures in this Annex include the cost of Central Administration and expenditure met from the votes of other Departments on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service.

  Surgical Beds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the figures of(a) the number of surgical beds, (b) the number of intensive care beds and (c) the number and location of surgical beds without common-site access to an intensive care unit for (i) Renfrewshire and (ii) Strathclyde as a whole.
  63
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the tables below.

  National Health Service hospitals in Scotland Table 1: Average available staffed surgical and intensive care beds. Renfrewshire and Strathclyde; year ending 30 September 1994

  Surgical3

  4Intensive

  Renfrewshire1

  233

  22

  Strathclyde2

  3,856

  337

  1Comprises Royal Alexandra hospital, the only hospital in Renfrewshire with surgical beds, also has an intensive care unit.

  2 Comprises Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Lanarkshire and Greater Glasgow health board areas.

  3Comprises general surgery, orthopaedics, ENT, ophthalmology, urology, orthodontics and paediatric dentistry, oral surgery and oral medicine, restorative dentistry, surgical paediatrics, gynaecology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, plastic surgery and spinal paralysis specialties.

  4Comprises special care baby unit and intensive therapy unit specialties.

  Table 2: Hospitals in Strathclyde with surgical beds and no intensive care beds; year ending 30 September 1994

  Number of surgical beds

  All hospitals

  330

  Rothesay Victoria hospital

  8

  Dunnon and District General hospital

  9

  West Highland hospital, Oban

  33

  Canniesburn hospital, Glasgow

  68

  Stonehouse hospital, East Kilbride

  87

  Ballochmyle Hospital, Mauchline

  125

  Rights of the Child
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has in respect of his obligations under Article 44 of the United Nations convention following the Committee's report on the Rights of the Child in the United Kingdom; if these proposals will he embodied in the Children (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government fulfilled their obligations under article 44 of the UN convention on the rights of the child by publishing the UK national report in February 1994.

  The general principles of the convention have been taken into account in drafting the provisions contained within the Children (Scotland) Bill.

  University Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he had concerning the 1985 out-of-court settlement by W. S. Atkins and Partners to the Welsh Office with respect to design faults at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, prior to his decision to sell the Common Services Agency of the Scottish National Health Service to W. S. Atkins and Partners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None

  M77
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if an environmental impact assessment which conforms to European Union standards was carried out 64
  before he authorised work to begin on constructing the M77 in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory procedures for the Ayr road route were initiated prior to the implementation date of European Community directive number 85/337. Consequently, there was no requirement to carry out an environmental assessment for this scheme. Notwithstanding this, an environmental impact assessment was undertaken for this scheme and details were presented at a pubic local inquiry prior to the Secretary of State approving the works. The Government believe that this assessment would have satisfied the directive.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the absence of security personnel and construction workers on 15 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to work on the M77. The responsibility for organising the resources necessary to discharge the contract lies with the contractor.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 465, how many appointments to public positions have been made by his Department in the last year.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: The Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994" shows 3,971 appointments in Scotland held at 1 September 1994. Of these, 3,656 are the responsibility of my Department. This figure reflects the total appointments held, including new appointments and re-appointments made in the year ended 31 August 1994. The information held centrally in my Department does not show the number of appointments made in any given year.

  Generic Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 229–30, if he will list the aggregate figures for brand name and generic prescribing costs for each health board area, classified by total GP fundholders and total non-fundholders.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The table gives the gross ingredient cost of prescribing of generic and brand name items by fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners for each health board area for financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  65

  Health board

  1992–93 fundholdersPrescribed generically

  1992–93 costs Prescribed by brand name

  1992–93 Non-fundholders Prescribed generically

  1992–93 costs Prescribed by-brand name

  1993–94 fundholders Prescribed generically

  1993–94 costs Prescribed by-brand name

  1993–94 Non-fundholders Prescribed generically

  1993–94 costs Prescribed by brand name

  Argyll and Clyde

  0.271

  1.168

  4.880

  25.603

  0.508

  1.864

  5.916

  26.606

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0.039

  0.218

  3.456

  24.786

  0.311

  1.448

  4.199

  24.916

  Borders

  —

  —

  1.536

  5.404

  0.143

  0.329

  1.831

  5.166

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  1.475

  9.077

  —

  —

  1.910

  9.775

  Fife

  0.064

  0.249

  3.824

  17.747

  0.212

  0.751

  4.441

  18.857

  Forth Valley

  0.102

  0.530

  3.559

  15.330

  0.186

  0.846

  4.302

  16.063

  Grampian

  0.619

  2.678

  4.607

  21.207

  3.045

  10.625

  3.880

  14.438

  Greater Glasgow

  0.214

  0.858

  10.862

  51.933

  0.434

  1.524

  12.949

  54.422

  Highland

  0.035

  0.168

  1.975

  9.861

  0.163

  0.697

  2.316

  10.385

  Lanarkshire

  0.152

  0.768

  5.043

  36.430

  1.386

  5.046

  6.184

  32.726

  Lothian

  0.152

  0.546

  9.632

  34.963

  0.998

  3.093

  10.935

  34.376

  Orkney

  —

  —

  0.217

  0.853

  —

  —

  0.251

  0.900

  Shetland

  —

  —

  0.139

  0.944

  —

  —

  0.166

  1.080

  Tayside

  0.465

  1.235

  6.057

  21.081

  1.59

  3.500

  6.819

  19.940

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  0.328

  1.287

  —

  —

  0.400

  1.476

  Total

  2.113

  8.418

  57.590

  276.506

  8.976

  29.723

  66.499

  271.126

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 229–30, if he will give the aggregate numbers of general practices in the fundholding and non-fundholding categories and the total number of

  Practices

  GPs (whole-time equivalent)

  Patients

  Column 1 Non-fundholders

  Column 2 fundholders

  Column 3 Non-fundholders

  Column 4 Fundholders

  Column 5 Non-fundholders

  Column 6 Fundholders

  1992–93

  Argyll and Clyde

  100

  5

  275.8

  26.5

  409,874

  36,944

  Ayrshire and Arran

  60

  4

  232.8

  14.8

  365,971

  25,475

  Borders

  22

  1

  70.3

  4.8

  100,153

  7,064

  Dumfries and Galloway

  36

  —

  111.8

  —

  153,280

  —

  Fife

  59

  2

  196.3

  11.8

  328,138

  23,177

  Forth Valley

  53

  2

  179.8

  7

  277,793

  12,369

  Grampian

  65

  25

  177.9

  146.8

  281,721

  251,365

  Greater Glasgow

  219

  4

  588.6

  22

  970,192

  39,328

  Highland

  74

  1

  166

  8

  200,111

  12,311

  Lanarkshire

  83

  9

  271.3

  48.3

  489,873

  93,750

  Lothian

  124

  12

  444.8

  48

  724,778

  78,247

  Orkney

  15

  —

  24.0

  —

  20,047

  —

  Shetland

  11

  —

  19.0

  —

  22,770

  —

  Tayside

  67

  10

  207.3

  43.3

  337,168

  73,125

  Western Isles

  15

  —

  30.0

  —

  29,977

  —

  Scotland

  1,003

  75

  2,995.7

  381.3

  4,711,846

  653,155

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  100

  5

  273.0

  26.5

  406,156

  36,476

  Ayrshire and Arran

  58

  5

  230

  21.0

  357,126

  34,588

  Borders

  20

  3

  63.8

  10.8

  91,605

  16,028

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35

  1

  107.8

  4.5

  145,942

  7,097

  Fife

  59

  4

  191.0

  21.5

  312,824

  39,813

  Forth Valley

  51

  4

  171.5

  18.0

  259,114

  31,421

  Grampian

  50

  39

  133.0

  197.3

  205,865

  331,612

  Greater Glasgow

  212

  11

  554.6

  55.3

  910,275

  90,409

  Highland

  68

  7

  154.5

  21.0

  184,026

  29,225

  Lanarkshire

  79

  14

  228.0

  92.0

  409,664

  174,173

  Lothian

  118

  18

  402.5

  98.5

  645,354

  159,376

  Orkney

  15

  —

  24.0

  —

  20,079

  —

  Shetland

  11

  —

  19.0

  —

  22,944

  —

  Tayside

  68

  11

  201.8

  50.8

  326,492

  83,849

  Western Isles

  15

  —

  31.0

  —

  29,828

  —

  Scotland

  959

  122

  2,785.3

  617.2

  4,327,296

  1,034,067

  As requested in column 2 for each year the figures represent the number of individual general practices involved in Fundholding rather than the number of Fundholders since more than one practice may group together to manage a single fund.
  66
  general practitioners in each category on a full-time equivalent basis and the number of list patients covered at each of the dates specified.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  67

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was collected within each health board area in patient charges by dentists in each financial year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The information requested is shown in the table. The figures have been taken from the annual accounts of the 15 Scottish health boards. No information can be provided for 1989–90 as, prior to 1990–91, expenditure figures were collected on a net basis only—that is, total expenditure less patient charges collected by dentists.

  General dental services patients charges

  £000

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,995

  3,476

  3,135

  3,000

  Ayr and Arran

  2,632

  3,051

  2,596

  2,480

  Borders

  778

  948

  962

  971

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,051

  1,229

  1,101

  1,014

  Fife

  2,361

  3,582

  2,620

  2,710

  Forth Valley

  1,939

  2,255

  2,246

  2,285

  Grampian

  3,372

  3,928

  4,633

  4,634

  Greater Glasgow

  6,316

  7,181

  6,691

  6,698

  Highland

  1,431

  2,366

  1,750

  1,589

  Lanarkshire

  3,320

  3,817

  3,493

  3,551

  Lothian

  6,269

  7,180

  6,654

  7,201

  Orkney

  81

  101

  112

  115

  Average waiting periods in weeks

  Court

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Aberdeen

  11

  9

  14

  17

  19

  16

  13

  12

  14

  14

  Airdrie

  23

  20

  16

  14

  12

  15

  12

  15

  15

  15

  Alloa

  17

  16

  20

  12

  13

  10

  11

  8

  10

  9

  Arbroath

  11

  17

  14

  14

  11

  13

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Ayr

  14

  16

  16

  18

  15

  12

  12

  14

  12

  11

  Banff

  12

  11

  10

  10

  9

  10

  11

  13

  13

  8

  Campbeltown

  8

  11

  12

  12

  13

  9

  6

  8

  8

  10

  Cupar

  14

  12

  12

  14

  11

  9

  12

  11

  12

  12

  Dingwall

  10

  11

  9

  9

  12

  11

  12

  12

  13

  10

  Dornoch

  7

  9

  9

  10

  11

  12

  10

  9

  10

  10

  Dumbarton

  17

  18

  23

  27

  19

  19

  16

  11

  10

  11

  Dumfries

  20

  24

  21

  18

  13

  9

  13

  11

  12

  12

  Dundee

  4

  5

  7

  8

  7

  5

  7

  9

  14

  17

  Dumfermline

  15

  14

  16

  12

  8

  10

  9

  7

  14

  12

  Dunoon

  22

  19

  12

  12

  12

  14

  12

  13

  10

  12

  Duns

  6

  5

  6

  5

  7

  9

  9

  9

  10

  10

  Edinburgh

  8

  10

  16

  18

  20

  19

  17

  12

  10

  11

  Elgin

  13

  13

  9

  8

  9

  8

  8

  10

  8

  9

  Falkirk

  22

  16

  13

  9

  11

  12

  8

  15

  17

  12

  Forfar

  14

  16

  13

  9

  10

  8

  8

  7

  9

  10

  Fort William

  9

  10

  11

  16

  11

  10

  10

  12

  15

  12

  Glasgow

  15

  12

  14

  16

  12

  13

  13

  17

  22

  26

  Greenock

  26

  19

  13

  16

  17

  13

  13

  10

  10

  13

  Haddington

  18

  13

  10

  35

  8

  11

  12

  16

  15

  13

  Hamilton

  24

  26

  26

  16

  14

  22

  23

  17

  15

  15

  Inverness

  12

  12

  13

  9

  13

  11

  10

  12

  11

  12

  Jedburgh

  8

  4

  9

  6

  8

  10

  10

  9

  11

  11

  Kilmarnock

  12

  15

  17

  18

  14

  13

  13

  12

  10

  12

  Kirkcaldy

  10

  13

  10

  9

  12

  12

  9

  12

  12

  12

  Kirkcudbright

  13

  14

  12

  14

  10

  11

  11

  12

  11

  10

  Kirkwall

  8

  7

  8

  9

  8

  9

  10

  9

  8

  8

  Lanark

  17

  16

  10

  8

  10

  10

  11

  12

  12

  11

  Lerwick

  7

  10

  5

  9

  13

  11

  12

  8

  7

  8

  Linlithgow

  9

  12

  11

  11

  9

  15

  18

  16

  16

  21

  Lochmaddy

  10

  15

  10

  10

  9

  10

  9

  12

  13

  8

  Oban

  9

  9

  11

  10

  13

  13

  10

  12

  11

  12

  Paisley

  22

  29

  26

  21

  19

  15

  12

  13

  14

  16

  Peebles

  9

  9

  8

  10

  9

  10

  8

  12

  11

  11

  Perth

  14

  12

  13

  11

  7

  8

  11

  13

  10

  11

  68

  General dental services patients charges

  £000

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Shetland

  61

  102

  153

  177

  Tayside

  3,314

  3,718

  3,637

  3,905

  Western Isles

  94

  140

  134

  118

  Total

  36,014

  43,074

  39,917

  40,448

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross expenditure on general dental services in each health board area in Scotland in the financial year 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: Gross expenditure figures for the year 1989–90 are not held centrally. However, net expenditure figures are available. These were provided to the hon. Member in my answer to him of 26 January 1995, Official Report, column 347–48.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the reported average waiting periods between pleading and trial dates for each sheriff court in Scotland for each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The information requested is as shown in the following table:
  69

  Average waiting periods in weeks

  Court

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Peterhead

  12

  11

  10

  13

  15

  11

  13

  12

  17

  14

  Portree

  12

  15

  12

  10

  11

  5

  9

  9

  9

  8

  Rothesay

  10

  9

  8

  7

  10

  13

  11

  11

  9

  10

  Selkirk

  7

  6

  7

  10

  7

  8

  10

  10

  9

  11

  Stirling

  19

  19

  12

  12

  13

  9

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Stonehaven

  12

  11

  9

  10

  11

  11

  8

  12

  12

  11

  Stornoway

  9

  10

  11

  14

  12

  11

  13

  14

  13

  11

  Stranraer

  17

  19

  15

  10

  13

  10

  10

  11

  10

  11

  Tain

  10

  12

  9

  7

  7

  8

  7

  13

  11

  10

  Wick

  8

  12

  10

  8

  8

  8

  11

  12

  11

  12

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his objectives for the delivery of social security benefits.

  Mr. Lilley
  My principal objectives are:

  to focus benefits on the most needy

  to improve incentives to work and to save

  to encourage personal responsibility

  to bear down on fraud and abuse

  and to ensure that the system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens are awaiting the outcome of their appeals against the habitual residence rule.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Post Office (Automation)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to encourage the private sector to invest in Post Office automation in relation to the work of his Department.

  Number of unemployed claimants by benefit entitlement

  Total

  UB only, or contribution-based JSA only

  UB and IS, or JSA based both on contributions and on income

  IS only, or income-based JSA only

  No benefit (NI credits only)

  381

  132

  1,763

  266

  Latest actual estimates August 1994

  2,542

  15 per cent.

  5 per cent.

  69 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  Estimates for 1996–97 assuming JSA

  350

  100

  1,660

  300

  system

  2,410

  15 per cent.

  4 per cent.

  69 per cent.

  12 per cent.

  Estimates for 1997–98 assuming JSA

  240

  100

  1,730

  340

  system

  2,410

  10 per cent.

  4 per cent.

  72 per cent.

  14 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. UB = Unemployment Benefit. IS = Income Support. JSA = Jobseeker's Allowance. NI = National Insurance.

  2. Assumes that in 1996–97 and 1997–98 the personal rate of Unemployment Benefit is higher than the personal allowance of Income Support for people aged 25 or over.

  3. Assumes in 1996–97 and 1997–98 claimant unemployment of 2.4 million and an Unemployment Benefit caseload of 500,000.

  4. Estimates for 1996–97 and 1997–98 rounded to the nearest 10,000. Current figures rounded to the nearest 1,000. Percentages rounded to the nearest percentage point. Individual figures may not sum due to rounding.

  5. Assumes that claimants who lose entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance continue to sign for credits. If they do not, then the claimant total falls.
  70
  Mr. Lilley
  I am very keen to see the involvement of the private sector in the project to introduce an automated system for paying benefit at post offices. We are therefore looking to the private sector to design, build, finance and operate systems for automation of post offices, and the introduction of benefit payment cards, under the terms of the private finance initiative.

  Some 90 companies responded to a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities in August last year. On 9 December, Official Report, column 385, my hon. Friend was able to announce the names of five companies, some of which lead consortia, which have been invited to develop proposals.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers and the percentages of unemployed who will gain the new jobseeker's allowance during its first year of operation; and how these figures differ from current claims for unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  On current assumptions, 2,110,000 people would be receiving jobseeker's allowance at any one time in its first year of operation. Once transitional protection has ended, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of unemployed claimants will be receiving JSA. This compares with 20 per cent. who currently receive unemployment benefit.

  The figures are in the table. The figures for 1996–97 reflect the transitional protection which will apply to unemployment benefit claimants in the first year of jobseeker's allowance.
  71
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The jobseeker's allowance is designed to help get people back to work, to secure better value for money for the taxpayer, and to improve the service to unemployed people themselves. Its financial effects are summarised in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Jobseekers Bill.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a benefit payment card.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 11 May 1994, I announced plans to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books and girocheques will eventually be replaced by a benefit payment card which will allow access to payment information held electronically. This will reduce cost for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and guarantee the future of post offices. People wishing to be paid by automated credit transfer will continue to be paid in this way and will not hold a benefit payment card.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in the last month concerning the operations of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Approximately 500 letters, covering a range of views about both child support policy and operations, were received at DSS headquarters during January 1995.

  Benefit Arrangements (Europe)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish details of the social security arrangements in other European countries which limit the payment of income-related benefits to persons who are not habitually resident in a country in which they claim benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Details of the social security arrangements, including payment of income-related benefits, in other European countries are in the following publications, copies of which can be found in the Library:Social Protection in the Member States of the Community—"MISSOC"—tables, published by the European Commission.
  Comparative tables of social security schemes in Council of Europe member states, published by the Council of Europe.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the action the Government are taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to reduce discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon).
  72

  Benefits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether pensioners will be able to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are committed to giving pensioners the choice of payment directly into their bank or building society by automated credit transfer or at a post office. If they choose to continue to receive their pensions at a post office, they can still be paid by ACT into a Girobank or National Savings account. For pensioners and others who do not want to be paid in this way, we are planning significant improvements in the delivery of benefits at post offices. The post office network will be automated, and orderbooks and girocheques replaced with a benefit payment card.

  Social Security Reforms
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings he estimates will result from the social security reforms announced since 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) earlier today.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department takes to ensure that payments of housing benefit to local authorities should at all times be in time to avoid any arrears arising on tenants' rent accounts due to late housing benefit payments.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Housing benefit is paid by local authorities. Regulations require local authorities to make payments of housing benefit within 14 days of receipt of the claim or as soon as practicable thereafter. Local authorities are also required to make payments on account if it is impracticable to determine a rent allowance within 14 days of the claim being made provided that the delay is not due to the failure of the claimant to provide information in support of that claim.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the additional cost to the housing benefit budget of people moved out of care institutions under the care in the community programme to date.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No information is collected about the number of people re-entering the community under the care in the community programme, or about their housing arrangements. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the additional expenditure in housing benefit.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sum was paid in housing benefit in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 10 January,Official Report, column 55. I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 30 November, Official Report, column 1205, concerning the measures we propose to introduce to tackle the rapid growth in housing benefit expenditure.
  73

  National Insurance Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many self-employed people failed to qualify for sickness benefit due to inadequate contributions for each of the last 30 years;

  (2) how many self-employed have failed to draw national insurance benefits in each of the last 30 years because of an inadequate contributions record; and if he will present these data according to each of the major national insurance benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information for sickness benefit is in the table. Earlier figures can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures are not available for the other national insurance benefits.

  Period

  Number of sickness benefit spells commencing in the period, where the claimant declared themselves self-employed, and did not satisfy the contribution conditions for the payment of the benefit.

  4 April 1988 to 1 April 1989

  24,000

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  32,000

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991

  38,000

  Year

  Number of cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  Average weekly amount of mortgage interest included in the assessment (£s)

  Estimated annual expenditure on mortgage interest (£m)

  1979

  98,000

  5.96

  31

  1980

  134,000

  10.18

  71

  1981

  196,000

  12.18

  124

  1982

  235,000

  13.87

  170

  1983

  242,000

  11.94

  150

  1984

  277,000

  15.18

  219

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  356,000

  18.96

  351

  1987

  334,000

  19.31

  335

  1988

  300,000

  18.33

  286

  1989

  281,000

  24.18

  353

  1990

  310,000

  34.33

  553

  1991

  411,000

  44.41

  949

  1992

  499,000

  44.03

  1,143

  1993

  555,000

  42.17

  1,217

  1994

  548,000

  37.98

  1,082

  Notes:

  1. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in 1988.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures are not available for 1985.

  4. Mortgage interest has only been collected as a separate item since 1983. Previous estimates were based on owner-occupiers' residual housing costs and included an element for ground rent.

  5. Estimated annual expenditure on mortgage interest is calculated as total numbers multiplied by average weekly amount multiplied by 52.

  Source:

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979–1993 for number of cases and 1983–1993 for expenditure. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry February 1994.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many workers failed to pay full national insurance contributions in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will give the distribution and the spread and the number of weeks of contributions not covered by the weighted number of workers.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of national insurance is the responsibility of Mr. George Bertram, the acting chief executive of the Contributions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  74

  Period

  Number of sickness benefit spells commencing in the period, where the claimant declared themselves self-employed, and did not satisfy the contribution conditions for the payment of the benefit.

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  35,000

  6 April 1992 to 3 April 1993

  35,000

  Notes:

  1. The employment status is that declared by the claimant at the start of their spell of incapacity, and is not verified by the Department. There are a number of spells where the employment status is not known or "other".

  2. The information is based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants to benefit in Great Britain, and is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households have received income support for mortgage interest; and what was the average amount of benefit received in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. Frank Field, dated 17 February 1995:
  As Acting Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for all operational aspects of the National Insurance scheme. I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding the number of workers who have failed to pay full National Insurance contributions (NICs).
  I am afraid that our management information systems do not provide the information you have asked for in your question.
  I can however tell you that contributors who have not paid (or been credited with) sufficient contributions to provide a qualifying year for benefit purposes are notified through the issue of a

  75
  deficiency notice about 18 months after the end of the tax year. About 3.5 million deficiency notices are issued annually.
  Deficiency notices provide contributors with the opportunity to confirm that the correct amount of contributions have been recorded on their NI accounts and, where appropriate provide for queries to be made or make up contributions paid. There are various reasons for deficient records, the most common being where earnings are below the appropriate threshold, persons may be employed for only part of the year or contributors may have spent time outside the UK. The 3.5 million do not include those married women who elected to pay reduced rate contributions. Because they have made such an election they are not entitled to pay make up contributions which make the deficient year count.
  Separate arrangements exist whereby self-employed contributors are advised of liability for unpaid weeks through the Quarterly Billing payment system.
  I regret that I am unable to give you the precise information that you requested but I hope that this reply will prove helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many applications for disability living allowance have been lodged for each month since June 1994 for babies at the local district office for the parliamentary constituency of Lewisham, Deptford; how many were lodged nationally; of these, how many were refused; what were the grounds for refusal; how many lodged appeals and how many appeals were successful; and what is the average time taken to process appeals.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 17 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for babies.
  Information is not available in the exact format requested. The vast majority of claims to DLA are forwarded by the applicant direct to one of eleven regional Disability Benefit Centres at which all claims to DLA are processed. Thereafter any action required is undertaken, in the main, by the Disability Benefit Unit at Blackpool. It is not possible to establish the number of claims, awards refused and appeals made within any particular Benefits Agency District area without incurring disproportionate cost.
  However, I am able to provide you with the national figures as requested. As at 30 November 1994, 1,600 awards for DLA were estimated to be in payment for children aged under one. At the same date, 5,400 awards were estimated to be in payment for children aged between one and two. This information is an extrapolation of a 5‥ sample of the DLA liveload at the given date.
  The average time taken to process all DLA appeals to the point at which the case is submitted to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) is 35 days. That average has been calculated for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995. The ITS is an independent body and the listing of hearing dates cannot be influenced by the Benefits Agency. When a Tribunal's decision is notified to the Benefits Agency by ITS the aim is to implement the decision within 10 days.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for family credit were lodged in November 1994, December 1994 and January 1995 in the local district office for the parliamentary constituency of Lewisham, Deptford; of these, how many applications for family credit are still waiting to be processed; what is the average time taken to process 76
  applications for family credit; and what help is available to applicants who are experiencing unusually long delays in processing their applications.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit 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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 17 February 1995
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Family Credit (FC) claims made from the Lewisham area; also about the time taken to process a FC claim and the help that is available to applicants who experience unusually long delays in processing their applications.
  The vast majority of claims to FC are forwarded by the applicant direct to the FC Unit in Blackpool. Information is not available in respect of the number of applications lodged from any particular Benefits Agency District area.
  The average time taken to process applications to FC for the months of November 1994, December 1994 and January 1995 are 13.19, 14.93 and 15.21 days respectively. The increase in the average clearance time over this period is due firstly to the loss of productivity over the Christmas period; secondly due to the FC Unit concentrating its resources on clearing cases where there has been a long delay. These cases have arisen due to an increase in workload experienced during October and November.
  Help is available to those who are experiencing delays in processing their applications. Customers can contact the Family Credit Helpline Service on 01253 500050 where full explanations of any delay can be made and outstanding matters resolved if at all possible. Alternatively, customers can contact the Customer Services section in their local Benefits Agency office, or the Client Advisor in their local Employment Service office, who will attempt to expedite any outstanding claim.
  If a customer is in financial difficulty as a result of an outstanding FC claim which cannot be resolved, a claim can be made to the Social Fund (SF) section at their local Benefits Agency office. Crisis Loans are available to anyone who needs financial help to meet expenses in an emergency or a disaster, who is facing serious risk or serious damage to their health or safety. The applicant does not have to be in receipt of any benefit, but any income or capital which he has will be taken into account by the SF officer.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the Information Technology Services Agency have left in the last five years to take up employment with companies concerned with information technology or consultants; and if he will give the companies concerned.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Information Technology Services Agency has records of seven staff who were given permission in the last five years to take up outside business appointments with companies concerned with information technology or consultants in accordance with civil service rules. The companies concerned were Siemens Nixdorf, Price Waterhouse, Andersen Consulting, ICL, BT Telecommunications, Syntegra and Fairhaven Computer Services.

  Income Support
  Mr. Colin Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what plans he has to help students whose
  77
  levels of student maintenance are lower than the minimum income support threshold.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In general, it is the education maintenance system, not social security benefits, which is designed to provide for full-time students and we have no plans to change this.

  Correspondence
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letters dated 29 November 1994 and 5 January 1995 from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford concerning her constituent, R. Wilson.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I sent a reply to the hon. Member on Thursday 16 February.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he has taken of the actual costs incurred in arranging a funeral when setting a new ceiling on social fund payments to those with insufficient funds to pay for a relative's funeral.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on Thursday 16 February,Official Report, column 735.

WALES

  Welsh Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express total Welsh manufacturing output for(a) 1994 and (b) 1993 as an index with total Welsh manufacturing output for 1979 equal to 100; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Data for 1994 are not yet available. The total output of production industries in Wales in 1993, indexed with 1979=100, is estimated to he 102.8. Information for manufacturing only, for 1993 and 1979, on a consistent basis, is not available.

  Completed Consultant Episodes
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1990(a) the number of finished consultant episodes completed and (b) the number of individual patients seen by doctors in hospitals.

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of completed consultant episodes is available only from 1991–92 onwards. The latest estimates of the number of completed consultant episodes and discharges and deaths each year are given in the following table. Information on the numbers of individual patients seen by doctors in hospitals is not available.

  Completed consultant episodes1

  Discharges and deaths

  1990–91

  n/a

  577,488

  1991–92

  619,600

  627,700

  78

  Completed consultant episodes1

  Discharges and deaths

  1992–93

  660,900

  662,700

  1993–94

  709,400

  712,500

  Source:

  Patient episode database for Wales, Form QS1.

  Note:

  1Not all hospitals return complete information to the patient episode database for Wales. The figures on completed consultant episodes will therefore slightly underestimate activity.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express the total manufacturing output in Wales at factor cost and constant 1994 prices for(a) 1994, (b) 1993 and (c) 1987; and if he make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Total manufacturing output at factor cost and current prices in Wales was estimated at £6,081 million in 1993 and £4,485 million in 1987. No official Welsh deflators are available to convert the figures to constant prices. Information for 1994 is not yet available.

  York Road CP School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit York Road county primary school, Connah's quay;

  (2) if he will visit York Road CP school, Connah's quay to discuss staffing with the governors and parents.

  Mr. Richards
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any plans at present to do so.

  Custom House School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the Education Assets Board concerning Custom House county primary school, and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to resolve the problems concerning a building on the site of Custom House CP school Connah's quay, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  I have had no consultations with the Education Assets Board concerning the annexe to the Custom House Lane county primary school at Connah's quay, nor would it be proper for me to do so in view of the appeal I have received from Clwyd county council. This case is under active consideration and I shall reach a decision regarding the appeal in due course.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific objectives he has set for his health strategy in Wales for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Objectives for people in Wales with osteoporosis are included in the Welsh health planning forum guidance on physical disability and discomfort and on injuries, and in the forum advice on health and social care for older people.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those family health service authority sub-areas
  79
  in Wales where there are no longer any dentists taking on new NHS patients.

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not held centrally. General dental practitioners are independent contractors who are free to choose who they will accept on to their NHS dental lists. Most dentists have NHS patients on their lists but may open and close those lists to new patients as they see fit. The situation may vary from week to week.

  If any person has difficulty in obtaining treatment from a general dental practitioner, they should contact their local family health services authority which is best placed to advise on local availability of NHS dental services, including emergency dental clinics and the community dental service.

  Crystal Chandeliers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts installed crystal chandeliers in boardrooms in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the specific differences pertaining for Wales and not England that have led to his Department being in the consultation process for the implementation of the EU habitats directive at present when in England policy planning guidance was issued in October 1994;

  (2) what is the compliance date that his Department has to observe in respect of the EU habitats directive; and when he expects to issue a policy planning guidance paper to enable the directive to be complied with in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 make provision for the purpose of implementing, for England, Scotland and Wales, the habitats directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and came into force on 30 October 1994. The directive requires member states to submit a list of proposed special areas of conservation to the Commission by June 1995. The Commission has to establish a list of sites of community importance by June 1998 and the member states then have a further six years in which to designate the sites as special areas of conservation. Draft planning guidance is being prepared and my right hon. Friend intends to go out to consultation with Welsh interests before the summer.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  School

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Bryn Elian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  485,753

  6,285

  1,728,982

  160,000

  Derwen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  187,104

  8,447

  266,160

  97,632

  Eirias

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,437,715

  18,655

  2,377,713

  280,000

  Emrys ap Iwan

  —

  —

  675,534

  7,695

  2,572,873

  1,502,114

  2,600,799

  315,726

  Maelor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,299,960

  776,172

  1,256,667

  460,241

  Pen-y-Bryn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  262,174

  9,228

  404,731

  45,096

  Brynmawr

  —

  —

  786,883

  156,068

  1,357,858

  1,440,649

  1,391,797

  680,042

  Cwmcarn

  517,899

  —

  857,744

  60,944

  911,486

  405,620

  954,412

  265,853

  Our Lady and St. Michaels

  —

  —

  —

  —

  128,140

  3,850

  369,555

  190,000

  St. Albans

  —

  —

  —

  —

  411,915

  5,610

  1,435,871

  598,846

  Caergeiliog

  —

  —

  —

  —

  435,543

  15,360

  409,665

  337,230

  80

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the sixth form colleges in Wales by local education authority giving the numbers of teachers employed and students attending in each case.

  Mr. Richards
  There is one such college in Wales—St David's Roman Catholic sixth form college in south Glamorgan. The college employs 57 full and part-time lecturers and at November 1994 there were 787 students attending.

  Still-Born Babies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to establish statutory guidelines with respect to transportation of still-born babies and foetuses between hospitals for pathological examinations and for the establishment of minimum standards on use of specialised containers, dedicated vehicles and drivers and other matters.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am at present considering the matter.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many children in Wales are currently in classes of more than 30 children; and if he will give the numbers for each local education authority.

  Mr. Richards
  Information on primary school pupil numbers is not held centrally in the form requested. Some information on the size of registered classes in primary schools in each local education authority area is shown in table 3.04 of "Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools No 2, 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 of the same publication show details of pupil numbers by size of class in secondary schools.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grant-maintained schools in Wales giving their total budgets together with the capital and revenue allocations made by him in each year since becoming grant maintained.

  Mr. Richards
  The main recurrent grant for GM schools is annual maintenance grants. In addition to this, GM schools also receive transitional grants to help meet the transitional costs of school's newly approved for GM status, special purpose grants to help with a variety of activities, and capital grants. Details of the budgets allocated to GM schools, broken down between revenue and capital, are as follows:
  81

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  School

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Llanerfyl

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66,572

  6,837

  77,233

  85,831

  Mary Immaculate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,543,300

  —

  St. Cyres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  808,996

  9,610

  3,192,764

  432,000

  Stanwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,222,422

  1,159,664

  2,431,228

  1,934.065

  Bishop Vaughan

  583,235

  —

  2,220,813

  292,260

  2,523,603

  827,650

  2,416,363

  510,171

  1 1994–95 figures are provisional.

  Revenue figures include annual maintenance grant, transitional, and special purpose grants.

  Private Sector Institutions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the legal status of(a)grant-maintained schools and (b) universities and colleges as private sector institutions.

  Mr. Richards
  Grant-maintained schools are classified as private sector institutions by the Central Statistical Office according to its criteria for the purpose of national income accounts. Universities and colleges which receive funding from the higher and further education funding councils for Wales are independent autonomous bodies in the private sector. These are publicly funded institutions and are subject to public law—that is, their decisions are subject to review by the courts.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the Touche Ross feasibility study on the sale of the Estatecare division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; what is the deadline for the preparation of documents and decisions on the sale procedure; and if the sale will be advertised(a) throughout the European Community and (b) will be in accordance with the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 and the EC supply and services directive.

  Mr. Redwood
  The report has been commissioned by the authority for its own use. The exercise is expected to be completed during the next financial year in accordance with all relevant statutory requirements.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he had made for the market-testing of(a) the work carried out by the whole of the Estatecare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and (b) its constituent parts; what procedures he has put in place for ensuring the equal comparison between public sector and private sector bids for the work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is currently being considered by the authority which expects to report to me in April.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the health trusts and authorities in Wales with respect to the pros and cons of(a) market-testing and (b) outright sale of the Estatecare branch of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; if he will make arrangements for publication of the views of those consulted on the modus operandi for preparation for sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The authority is considering options in discussion with the relevant NHS bodies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of those on the project board charged with following the instructions in relation to the 82
  preparation for sale of the Estatecare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  The project board set up to advise WHCSA on the feasibility of privatising the Estatecare group includes:

  Mr. K. C. White, non-executive member, WHCSA (chairman)

  Mr. Colin Hughes Davies, chairman, Glan Hafren NHS trust

  Mr. E. F. Lloyd Fitzhugh, chairman, Gofal Cymuned Clwydian Community Care NHS trust

  Mr. A. Beddow, chief executive, West Glamorgan health authority

  Mr. N. Kirk, chief executive, WHCSA

  Mr. J. I. Cook, managing director Estatecare Group

  Mr. L. V. Wood, chief executive, Gofal Cymuned Clwydian community care NHS trust

  Mr. E. Kinsella, chief executive, Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS trust

  Mr. R. Wheeldon, director of facilities, Swansea NHS trust

  Mr. R. Badman, director of development and facilities, University Hospital of Wales and Cardiff Royal Group

  Mr. S. Fletcher, chief executive, Pembrokeshire NHS trust

  Mr. R. C. Williams, Welsh Office (observer)

  Mr. D. Simpson, project manager, WHCSA

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for the employees of the Estatecare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to be allowed financial, accountancy and legal assistance for a management led employee buyout.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the authority.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he will make to ensure a continuation of the independent steriliser testing services of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in the event of a successful sale of the Estatecare division of Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  This will be taken into account at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries there have been to date with a view to possible purchase of the Estatecare division of Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  Eight.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he expects to reply to the letter dated 4 November 1994 entitled "Charges for household water customers in Wales" from the managing director of Welsh Water plc;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Director General of Water Services concerning the contents of the letter from the managing director of Welsh Water dated 4 November 1994 and entitled "Charges for household

  83
  water customers in Wales"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not consulted the director general on the issues raised by Dwr Cymru. The company's views have however been taken into account by the Government during their considerations, the outcome of which will be announced in due course. At that time, Dwr Cymru will be advised of the Government's conclusions.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with water consumers, consumer organisations and the Welsh Consumer Council concerning the order of preferences of(a) council tax bands, (b) standard annual licence and (c) universal compulsory metering as the main basis for charging for domestic water and sewerage services after 2000; if he will issue the details of a formal programme of consultation on this issue; and what representations he has had in relation to the use of compulsory water metering in (i) new properties and (ii) old properties with renewed water mains.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not undertaken any such formal consultations. However, I have from time to time received representations on water charges and the use of compulsory metering from various organisations and individuals.

  W. S. Atkins and Partners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 707, if the decision not to allow health authorities in Wales to appoint W. S. Atkins and Partners to major new commissions without prior reference to the Department related exclusively to the out-of-court settlement in cognisance of design faults at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor or was additional to the out-of-court settlement in relation to faults in the design of the University hospital in Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  The decision not to allow W. S. Atkins and Partners to be appointed to major new contracts without prior agreement was made in the light of the out-of-court settlement involving design faults at Ysbyty Gwynedd.

  Pupil Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement explaining the calculations made to assess pupil-teacher ratios in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, with particular reference to the method used for evaluating part-time pupils and part-time teachers.

  Mr. Richards
  The same method of calculation applies to both primary and secondary maintained schools. Pupil-teacher ratios within schools are calculated by dividing the number of full-time equivalent pupils by the number of full-time equivalent qualified teachers.

  The number of full-time pupils is calculated by adding half of the number of part-time pupils to the number of full-time pupils.

  The number of full-time qualified teachers is calculated by dividing the total hours worked per week by part-time teachers by 32.5—the assumed number of hours in a full
  84
  week in maintained schools—and adding the number of full-time teachers.

  The schools census held in January each year is the source of all information used in the calculations for PTRs within schools.

  In the calculation of PTRs, teachers temporarily absent on census day are included; relief teachers taking their place are excluded. Teachers absent for long periods or seconded for other duties are excluded but their replacements are included. Peripatetic teachers are excluded.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will happen to local education authority schools when the county councils disappear in 1996.

  Mr. Richards
  Responsibility for their maintenance will pass from county councils to unitary authorities.

  WDA
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 903, if he will give details of the further legal and administrative consideration given to the issue of the propriety of participation of the Welsh Development Agency in the underwriting and sub-underwriting of share issues.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 19 December,Official Report, column 903. I have already said that my Department's legal advisers are considering the issue.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 708, what representations he has had from the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the staffing requirement of incremental intensive care unit beds at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  None, although the South Glamorgan health authority is currently looking into this issue.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the non-departmental public bodies he sponsors have introduce new logos and corporate identities in the last three years; and what consultations he has had with non-departmental public bodies about any future proposals to introduce new corporate identities.

  Mr. Redwood
  Three non-departmental public bodies have introduced new logos in the last three years—the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Land Authority for Wales and the Sports Council for Wales. I have had no discussions with NDPBs about proposals for new corporate identities, but I do not favour spending much money on this type of activity. I have asked the WDA to do less corporate advertising and more marketing of Wales as a good investment location.
  85

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many computer modelled tests have been carried out under the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement, to nuclear weapons or major parts of such weapons by the United States of America for the United Kingdom and vice versa.

  Mr. Freeman
  Computer modelling is a tool used extensively as part of the design, development and qualification of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. Under the auspices of the US-UK 1958 mutual defence agreement, there is an on-going exchange on techniques and data associated with computer modelling. The Ministry of Defence does not hold a database of every individual computer simulation which has been conducted or discussed with the United States and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Anglo-French Aero-engine Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 869, if the cost-sharing arrangements are based on juste retour principles; what is expected to be the expenditure under the memorandum in the next financial year; and if the memorandum excludes missile or missile engine development.

  Mr. Freeman
  The memorandum of understanding contains a commitment to equitable share of costs and work between the two nations. It is not MOD policy to release financial information which is commercial by sensitive. The arrangement does not apply to any missile engine development.

  IMS Export Finance House
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the IMS export finance house was a profitable commercial operation; which enterprise or agency acted as its auditors; and if the National Audit Office had full powers to investigate the operations of IMS export finance house;

  (2) what access IMS export finance had to the full rate export finance scheme; and if the terms offered were limited to the terms of the OECD interest rate consensus.

  Mr. Freeman
  The export finance house set up by International Military Services Ltd. in 1985 proved unable to secure finance house business and was wound up the following year. Consequently, no audit requirement arose.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how the existence and financial performance, of IMS export finance house was reported to Parliament.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was no requirement to report this commercial initiative to Parliament.

  Mr. Roy Ricks
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what employment, duties or services were carried Out for,86
  or on behalf of, his Department or its agencies by Mr. Roy Ricks and over which periods of time.

  Mr. Freeman
  So far as can be ascertained, none.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the amounts spent on domestic and household staff costs, (b) the number of domestic and household staff and the nature of their duties and (c) the cost of food and drink provided at each residence in each of the last five years in the official service residences in Gibraltar and the United States of America.

  Mr. Soames
  There is currently one official service residence in Gibraltar and one in the United States of America.

  Twelve staff are currently employed in the Gibraltar residence, and four in the residence in Norfolk, Virginia. The duties of these staff include valeting, cleaning, cooking, waiting at table and gardening. Gardening at the Norfolk residence is carried out under contract. Staffing levels have been the same for the last five years. Based on annual capitation rates, the annual staff costs are £175,000 for the Gibraltar residence and £95,000 for United States residence, plus a £5,000 annual gardening contract. Although there have been other OSRs in Gibraltar in the past five years, information on these is not readily available.

  Occupants of OSRs pay for food and drink for themselves and their families, and are provided with an entertainment allowance to fund official entertaining. The current annual rates of entertainment allowance for the two posts are £4,870 for the Gibraltar post and £7,470 for the Norfolk, Virginia post.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated final cost of the independent investigation into expenditure at Haymes Garth; and what is the estimated cost of the internal audit of expenditure on official service residences generally.

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated staff cost of the internal audit of expenditure on official service residences is £62,000. The cost of the report by Ms Sheila Masters was some £100,000.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the value of contracts entered into with the assistance of the Defence Export Services Organisation in each year since 1989; and for each year to date giving the three companies entering into contracts with the highest total value.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Defence Export Services Organisation has played an important part in increasing defence export orders over the period. British defence equipment manufacturers won export orders worth £3.9 billion in 1989, £4.8 billion in 1990, £3.5 billion in 1991, £5.3 billion in 1992 and £7 billion in 1993. Figures for 1994 are not yet available. It is for individual companies to give details of the value of their contracts.

  Military Attaches
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all the overseas posts for military attaches, (b) the total cost of maintaining the

  87
  posts and (c) the date of the most recent review of the value of military attachès.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom currently has 126 attaches in 70 countries. A further 65 countries are covered by non-residential accreditations. The countries in which the UK has attaches are as follows:

  Capital

  Country

  Abu Dhabi

  UAE

  Accra

  Ghana

  Algiers (currently based Tunis)

  Algeria

  Amman

  Jordan

  Ankara

  Turkey

  Athens

  Greece

  Bangkok

  Thailand

  Beirut

  Lebanon

  Belgrade

  Yugoslavia

  Berne

  Switzerland

  Bogota

  Colombia

  Bonn

  Germany

  Brasilia

  Brazil

  Bratislava

  Slovakia

  Bridgetown

  Barbados

  Brussels

  Belgium

  Bucharest

  Romania

  Budapest

  Hungary

  Buenos Aires

  Argentina

  Cairo

  Egypt

  Canberra

  Australia

  Caracas

  Venezuela

  Colombo (post closes in July 1995)

  Sri Lanka

  Copenhagen

  Denmark

  Damascus

  Syria

  Dhaka

  Bangladesh

  Dublin

  Irish Republic

  Guatemala City

  Guatemala

  The Hague

  Netherlands

  Harare

  Zimbabwe

  Helsinki

  Finland

  Islamabad

  Pakistan

  Jakarta

  Indonesia

  Kampala

  Uganda

  Kathmandu

  Nepal

  Kiev

  Ukraine

  Kingston

  Jamaica

  Kuala Lumpur

  Malaysia

  Kuwait City

  Kuwait

  Lagos

  Nigeria

  Lisbon

  Portugal

  Madrid

  Spain

  Mexico City

  Mexico

  Moscow

  Russia

  Muscat

  Oman

  Nairobi

  Kenya

  New Delhi

  India

  Nicosia

  Cyprus

  Oslo

  Norway

  Ottawa

  Canada

  Paris

  France

  Peking

  China

  Prague

  Czechoslovakia

  Pretoria

  South Africa

  Rabat

  Morocco

  Riga

  Latvia

  Riyadh

  Saudi Arabia

  Rome

  Italy

  Santiago

  Chile

  Seoul

  South Korea

  Singapore

  Singapore

  Sofia

  Bulgaria

  Stockholm

  Sweden

  Tel Aviv

  Israel

  Tokyo

  Japan

  88

  Capital

  Country

  Vienna

  Austria

  Warsaw

  Poland

  Washington

  USA

  Wellington

  New Zealand

  Zagreb

  Croatia

  The cost this financial year of pay, allowances and related equipment and support costs for the accredited attachès and their dedicated support staff both overseas and in the UK is £25.7 million. Attaché costs are reviewed annually. The most recent independent review of attaches was the Goddard study, which reported in July 1993.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1995,Official Report, column 743, if he will set out Hodge and Company's full trading name and address.

  Mr. Soames
  The information will be provided on completion of the sale.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the statutory barriers against water companies using council tax band information for the purposes of developing a charging system.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities do not have the power to supply information to anyone, other than for council tax purposes. Furthermore, access to the contents of valuation lists may be given only within the terms of section 28 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, that is, to enable a person to establish what is, or has been, the state of a list. Release of such information for any other purpose may be construed as unlawful.

  Drigg
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates of each seizure and checking of waste consignments to Drigg made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution since 1990; which of these consignments breached the Drigg authorisation; and if he will give the nature of the breach.

  Mr. Atkins
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has seized waste consigned to Drigg on the following occasions: 1991 March, 1992 two in January and one in October; 1993 October; 1994 one in May and one in December.

  All the consignments seized, for which full results are available, conform to the conditions specified in the consignor's and the Drigg site's authorisation with the following exception. In several instances, the presence of trivial quantities of free liquids were detected in the form of paint cans, pressurised aerosols and similar residues in containers. I can confirm, however, that none of the consignments seized has breached the consignment limits in the Drigg site authorisation.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the large sliding door, referred
  89
  to in HMIP's response to Greenpeace's complaint regarding a perceived breach of paragraph 4 of the Drigg authorisation, had been stored between its delivery to Drigg and the Greenpeace entry in July 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  The large sliding door in question was delivered directly to trench 7 at Drigg, where it remains today. The item was disposed of as low-level radioactive waste under the provisions of the Drigg site authorisation.

  Endangered Birds and Animals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many birds were listed as(a) threatened and (b) subject to limited trade imported into the United Kingdom from (i) Spain, (ii) other EC member states and (iii) non-EC member states in each year since 1987;

  (2) how many (a) Hyacinth macaw, (b) Blue-crowned pigeon, (c) Palawan peacock-pheasant and (d) African grey parrots were imported into the United Kingdom from (i) Spain, (ii) other EC member states and (iii) non-EC member states in each year since 1990;

  (3) what assessment he has made of Spanish legislation and its enforcement to stop the import of endangered birds and animals into the EC and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The import of endangered species to Spain should be controlled by EC regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83 which have direct force in all EC member states. Enforcement of these regulations in Spain is the responsibility of the Spanish authorities. The regulation requires all member states to notify the Commission of the implementation measures they have adopted within their area of jurisdiction.

  The regulations do not require records of intra-community movements to be kept. Information on imports to the UK from non-EC countries is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Hyacinth macaw

  1

  5

  21

  1

  2

  Blue-crowned pigeon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Palawan

  peacock-pheasant

  2

  9

  8

  4

  2

  African grey parrot

  7,170

  5,643

  2,638

  2,829

  1,391

  Imports of birds of all species listed as threatened—that is, listed in appendix 1 of CITES—or subject to limited trade—that is, listed in appendices II or III of CITES—were:

  Appendix I

  Appendix II/III

  1987

  79

  39,672

  1988

  79

  108,817

  1989

  105

  90,666

  1990

  231

  96,236

  1991

  192

  79,094

  1992

  148

  49,384

  1993

  105

  24,804

  1994

  60

  21,606

  Freedom of the Cities Initiative
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has undertaken into, and what assessment has been made of,90
  the freedom of the cities initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans for a freedom of the cities initiative.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory impediment there is to designating a new unitary authority as a county council where it is conterminous with a county area, in terms of the allocation of district functions to that authority.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Under section 14(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 1992, I may abolish a local authority whose functions would all vest in another as a result of any structural change or whose area would be abolished or otherwise substantially affected by any recommended boundary change. It follows that where there is an existing district council for an area whose boundaries are not recommended to be changed, and it is proposed to establish unitary local government in that area, I cannot abolish the district council and accordingly I cannot establish a unitary county council for the area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the levels of(a) uncollected rents, (b) uncollected community charge and (c) uncollected council tax for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A table showing information on uncollected rents as at 31 March 1994 was published by the Department on 14 November 1994; a copy of the table is available in the Library of the House.

  Information on uncollected community charge and council tax for each local authority is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publishes estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1994 are available in its revenue collection statistics 1993–94 publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much community charge remains uncollected by each local authority.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on uncollected community charge for each local authority is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publishes estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1994 are available in its revenue collection statistics 1993–94 publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the effect on the north-west regional economy of the revaluation of rateable values on the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have received a number of representations from the north-west about the 1995 revaluation of non-domestic property and its effect on businesses. The Government have introduced transitional arrangements to phase in the impact of the revaluation on rate bills; over 180,000 ratepayers in the north-west will benefit from these arrangements.
  91

  Urban Programme Funding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria for deciding which bodies qualify for urban programme funding; if he will place these criteria in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 1 April 1993, urban programme funding has been restricted to meeting commitments on projects approved in 1992–93 and earlier years. The urban programme is one of the 20 programmes which now comprise the single regeneration budget. "A guide to funding under the Single Regeneration Budget", the "Bidding Guidance", was published on 14 April 1994 and copies were placed in the Library.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reduce greatly dioxin emissions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have already taken action in several areas to reduce dioxin emissions. These include banning stubble burning; encouraging the uptake of unleaded petrol; setting maximum levels of dioxin in pentachlorophenol and limiting its use as a wood preservative; and implementing integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control for incineration processes. Waste incineration has been a major contributor of dioxins to the environment. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, however, has set a limit for the emission of dioxins from incinerators of 1 nanogramme per cubic metre, to be achieved by 1 December 1996. This target will reduce releases of dioxins from the incineration plant they control by over 90 per cent.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his assessment of the draft report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency on dioxin pollution; and when he expects to publish his assessment.

  Mr. Atkins
  An initial study has already been made of the EPA's draft report on dioxins. A copy of the comments sent to the EPA has been placed in the Library of the House. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment is carrying out an expert review of the health effects of dioxins, including the work referred to in the EPA draft report. This should be completed during the summer and should be published shortly thereafter.

  Planning
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue further guidance on expenditure acceptable under section 106 of the Planning Land Compensation Act 1991 and his circular 16/91 on planning gain funds; at what distance from a development a project can be considered to relate to it; and what types of project qualify.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made 92
  of the environmental impact of incinerating (a) household and (b) industrial waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department published a report in November 1993 of a study on the environmental externalities from landfill and incineration. The study considers the environmental impacts of the two methods of waste disposal, and discusses the extent to which these impacts are controlled through the regulatory arrangements and reflected in waste disposal prices. Findings from the study suggest that incineration with energy recovery may offer real environmental benefits.

  A consultation draft of a waste strategy for England and Wales was published by the Department in January 1995. In discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the various options for waste disposal, it expresses the view that the recovery of energy from waste through incineration offers a number of important environmental advantages. I am arranging for a copy of the draft strategy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Index of Local Conditions
  Mr. Bells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment if he will publish the index of local conditions on a constituency basis using additional indicators which have been used at local authority level.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department published the index of local conditions in May 1994 setting out information drawn mainly from the 1991 census at three levels—local authority district, ward and census enumeration district. The index includes a range of indicators at the different levels reflecting the availability and robustness of data at the smaller scales. It is not technically possible to calculate the index of local conditions at parliamentary constituency basis using additional indicators which have been used at local authority level.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the index of local conditions on a constituency basis using the seven indicators currently used at ward level.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my separate answer today. The fuller analysis requested could be done by the Department only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department has an agreement with the London Research Centre to make available the data from the index of local conditions at a charge to cover the costs of any analysis requested. It is open to anyone to approach the London Research Centre to request extra analysis of the data.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the representations made to him by the Merseyside European liaison unit about(a) the additionality requirements for 1995 objective 1 funding, (b) its submission concerning the strategic role of local authorities in determining priorities and (c) the enhancement of private sector participation in the objective I programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replied to the representations from the Merseyside co-ordinating committee—to which the Merseyside European liaison unit reports—on 6 February.
  93
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which small and medium—sized enterprises are obtaining a proper and adequate response through the objective 1 mechanisms.

  Mr. Curry
  A major part of the objective 1 programme in Merseyside is focused on the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. For business advice and support alone, projects approved in principle in the 1994 bidding round will finance a package of assistance worth some £50 million.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that competition rules will be breached if EC funds are matched to private sector funds in an objective 1 area; and what discussions he has had with the EC about this.

  Mr. Curry
  Private sector funds are being matched in objective 1 areas without breaching competition rules. Issues such as the need for state aid clearance are considered and resolved in advance of aid being granted.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to allow the private sector to apply direct for objective 1 funding for large infrastructure and productive investments.

  Mr. Curry
  The structural funds are used to support projects which provide economic benefits to the area concerned. This will not generally involve direct support for productive investment. Such support is made available through intermediary bodies. Proposals for facilitating the private sector contribution to infrastructure projects part funded by the structural funds have been put to the Commission and their comments are awaited.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to permit private sector companies to apply direct for objective 1 European regional development fund support for large infrastructure projects.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton).

  Waste Mercury
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the land fill sites where waste mercury has been disposed of in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally. Each waste regulation authority maintains a register which contains information about all landfill sites licenced by that authority under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current licensing requirements for the treatment and disposal of waste mercury.

  Mr. Atkins
  The treatment and disposal of controlled waste is subject to the licensing requirements of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994—S.I. 1994 1056. Controlled waste which is "special waste" is also subject to the requirements of the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980—S.I. 1980 No. 1709. Mercury is one of the substances listed in part I of schedule I to the 1980 regulations and guidance on the circumstances in which it may meet the criteria for 94
  definition as special waste is provided in waste management paper No.23.

  Suffolk County Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the proportion of staff employed by Suffolk county council which are employed to fulfil statutory functions of the authority.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information necessary to make this assessment is not available.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff per 1,000 head of population are employed by Suffolk county council; what the figures were three year ago; and what comparisons he has made with other similar authorities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Suffolk county council employed 35.4 staff per thousand head of population in general services in June 1994. The comparable figure for June 1991 was 35.6. Comparable data for all authorities were deposited in the Library following my answer of 14 February 1995 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw),Official Report, column 549.

  Lancashire and Gloucestershire County Councils
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are employed by(a) Lancashire and (b) Gloucestershire county councils; what these figures are as a proportion of the population of the county councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Lancashire county council employed 47,162 full-time and part-time staff in general services in June 1993—the latest available data for Lancashire; this represents 33.2 staff per thousand head of population. The comparable figures for Gloucestershire for June 1993 were 12,560 staff and 23.1 staff per thousand head of population; for June 1994 they were 11,417 staff and 21.0 staff per thousand head of population.

  Pollution, Docklands
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the pollutant effects of emissions from the newspaper print works in docklands on the local environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: The Department, in co-operation with local authorities, monitors nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and black smoke in the Greenwich, Stepney and Woolwich areas. The South East Institute of Public Health and the London borough of Tower Hamlets have just provided the Department with a copy of their report of a survey of volatile organic compounds in the Wapping area.

  Regulations were made in May 1994 which clarified the inclusion of larger cold set web offset and sheet feed offset litho printing processes within the local authority air pollution control system established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We issued guidance on standards for these printing processes in November last year.

  The UK has signed and ratified the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe protocol which

  95
  requires a reduction of 30 per cent. in national emissions of VOCs comparing 1988 with 1999. We published a strategy for achieving this reduction in October 1993, which forecasts 49 per cent. reduction in VOCs from all printing processes.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the conference of the parties of the climate change convention in respect of targets for reductions of carbon emissions beyond the year 2000 will be.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The Government will support the position of the European Union, agreed at the meeting of the Environment Council in December.
  96
  The conclusions of that Council call, inter alia, for the current commitments in the climate change convention to be strengthened and extended, and for the negotiation of a comprehensive protocol on greenhouse gases to be set in hand at the First Conference of Parties.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the relationship between social equity and sustainable development.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The Government set out their understanding of sustainable development in the UK's strategy of 25 January 1994—Cm 2426. This emphasised two themes: the need for economic development to secure rising living standards for the whole of society, and the importance of protection and enhancement of the environment for the benefit of this and successive generations.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the criteria by which they assess the contribution to overseas development of the United Nations, Bretton Woods and other multilateral institutions.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we work to ensure that contributions through multilateral agencies support the overall development objectives of the UK aid programme.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that helpful reply, does he agree that it is essential to make the monitoring of the impact of World Bank and IMF policies on social development more effective? For example, does he agree that the introduction of user fees for health and education in countries implementing structural adjustment programmes too often have a disturbingly negative impact on the poor?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, one of the aspects of aid which we consider to be of paramount importance is to ensure that the aid recipients are operating political and administrative systems which ensure the effective generation of wealth in their countries. One of the consequences of that may be that in the short term problems arise relating to poverty. It is only by breaking the vicious circle that, in many instances, we can help them to help themselves and thus raise their standards of living.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, have I correctly interpreted the brief nature of my noble friend's reply as indicating that he agrees with me that the form in which the Question is couched is too wide for oral Questions and that it would be more deserving of a general debate?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that comment. It is obviously a matter of major importance and certainly merits debate. Nonetheless, I shall endeavour to respond to noble Lords' Questions in a way which will satisfy them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether our Government keep in touch with other contributing governments to ensure that all those who contribute can make reasonably certain that aid is used in the best possible way?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is in the interests of all donors of aid to ensure that the money given is not
908
wasted. We endeavour to work with our European Union partners and other donors to ensure that the results are as satisfactory as possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the evidence so far made available in the United Kingdom suggests that the overseas aid administered by the Minister for Overseas Development is usually far better directed than that directed by some of the institutions mentioned.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we in this country pride ourselves on the quality of our bilateral aid. At the same time, we try to ensure that our contributions to multilateral programmes are so targeted that they in turn contribute to effective multilateral projects. It is certainly the case that in a number of instances we were concerned about various aspects of multilateral aid. But we must get the matter in perspective. There is a role for both bilateral and multilateral aid and we want to see, from our perspective, that balance maintained.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to any proposals for development in Tibet, such as those recently laid before the European Union, will the Government have regard to the danger that those projects may be used as instruments of Chinese colonialism? Will the European Union, or anybody else being asked to fund development in Tibet, take advice from the Dalai Lama?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his question. I am afraid that I am not intimately acquainted with the proposals to which he refers. However, were such proposals to be used as instruments of political oppression, that would run entirely counter to the policy of good governance which we like to see attached to our aid proposals. However, I shall take his specific suggestion back to my noble friend the Minister of State.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that their policies of trade and aid over the past 15 years have increased the disparities in income and wealth between countries and regions across the world? Bearing in mind that that has led to social instability and an increase in absolute poverty, will the Government now take steps to change that policy regarding trade and aid to ensure that income and wealth disparities are reduced rather than increased?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is undoubtedly the case that during the past 15 years there have been incidents of political instability around the globe. However, it is probably ascribing too great a political potency to our aid policies to suggest that the problems are due to our aid programme. The important point is that trade and aid go together. For example, when one looks at a number of the Far Eastern countries, one sees that those countries which at one time accepted significant amounts of aid are now extremely prosperous and their prosperity is based on trade with the rest of the world. That is why we believe it is important to have an open trading system.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in response to the point made by the noble and learned

909
Lord, Lord Hailsham, we on this side would welcome a debate on the international financial institutions and their role in development? However, does not the Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable that the poor, who were in no way responsible for the irresponsibility of governments in the Third World, should carry the burden of paying off the debts incurred by irresponsible leadership? Does he further agree that whenever the World Bank or the IMF undertake structural adjustment programmes there should be a thorough review of exactly where the burden will fall so that the poor can be protected?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it clearly is the case that problems have arisen where corrupt or misguided regimes have received aid. Where there have been large amounts of outstanding debt, the proposals of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which led to the Trinidad terms have led to an alleviation of the problem. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that in identifying proposals which are intended to alleviate poverty it is important to see exactly what will be their impact because, as I said in my response to an earlier question, it frequently is the case that, regrettably, things have to get worse before the economies of the countries concerned then generate wealth and matters become better.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the form designed for aid and trade provision has a serious number of questions attached to it? If those questions can be answered honestly, the format of that aid and trade provision can be regarded as nothing other than honest?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if it is a satisfactory proposal, then it is something of which we are in favour.

Trident
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Lord Henley's statement that Trident and its predecessor Polaris were and are "independent" nuclear deterrents (H.L. Deb. 11 th January, col. 175) is compatible with the Nassau Agreement; with the Trident Purchase Agreement; and with the extension on 30th December 1994 for a further 10 years of the amendment to the 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States for Co-operation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes (Cm. 2686).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the full operational independence of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent is not affected by any of the arrangements cited by the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, for the first time the noble Lord has used the words "operational independence". On a previous occasion I pointed out that there is a general interdependence which these
910
treaties confirm. Does he not agree with that? Has he seen the latest development along these lines, which was set out in a report in the Independent on Sunday whose front page was headed with the words:
"US urges Britain to ditch Trident"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the newspaper article to which the noble Lord refers. If he is suggesting by that article that the United States is putting pressure on us to reduce our deterrent, I can only say that we have received no representations whatever from the US to reduce the size of our Trident deterrent, which will remain as the minimum deterrent necessary for the defence of this country. With regard to the independence of the nuclear deterrent, as I have made quite clear on previous occasions and as we made quite clear at Nassau and on subsequent occasions, our forces are committed to NATO, but we have reserved the right to use it independently should national interests so require.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Lord had the opportunity to look at the definition of the word "independent" in the Oxford English Dictionary? If he has not, perhaps I may remind him that it says:
"not depending on something else for its existence, validity, efficiency, operation or some other attribute; not contingent on or conditioned by anything else".
Does the noble Lord believe that to be a fair description of the Trident fleet?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is irrelevant and rather silly. The simple question is: can we or can we not use our independent nuclear deterrent? The simple answer is that we can: it is under the ultimate control of the Prime Minister at all times.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if my question was silly, the noble Lord's response was ludicrous. Under what circumstances would the Prime Minister remove our Trident fleet from NATO and use it independently?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not have to answer that question. The important point is that he can use it if the national interest so requires.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Trident missile depend on United States' satellites for targeting? If that is so, and the United States refused to give access to its satellites, would our deterrent still be independent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the targeting is under our own control.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that "interdependence" is the right word to describe the position of Trident and to some extent of the American nuclear missiles as well? There is a large degree of interdependence. Is the noble Lord now prepared to admit that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, since the 1958 agreement there has obviously been a considerable degree of

911
co-operation between both countries. But co-operation between the two countries does not affect the operational independence and the use of that weapon.

David Rundle: Parole Board Recommendation
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have overturned the decision of the Parole Board to detain David Rundle, a mandatory life prisoner recalled to prison last March, in an open prison for one year.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Parole Board recommendation was rejected because Mr. Rundle was considered to be an unacceptable risk for open conditions following his recall to prison in March 1994.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that that is one of the most pathetic Answers ever given by a Minister from that Bench?
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I cannot think of a worse one. Is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Rundle was recalled to prison last March—nearly a year ago—without having committed any criminal offence? Is she further aware that after eight months' consideration the Parole Board, having twice considered the case, came to certain conclusions? Can the Minister tell us whether the Home Secretary has any information which was not available to the Parole Board in November?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not regard considering the safety of the public or the public interest as being a pathetic reason for overruling a decision of the Parole Board. The vast majority of recommendations made by the board are accepted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but Mr. Rundle was recalled because of concern about public safety following police and probation reports that he posed a danger to a vulnerable woman. Mr. Rundle had a history of volatile relationships with vulnerable partners. Mr. Rundle's deception in continuing the relationship bore similarities to the events surrounding his murdering his wife in 1978. He did not co-operate when on licence. He ignored advice from his probation officer and a formal letter from the Home Office about his unsuitable relationship with a woman. He deliberately misled his probation officer by continuing the relationship in secret. All the information that was available to my right honourable friend is made available to Mr. Rundle himself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her original Answer was thoroughly sensible and her second answer conclusive?
The Earl of Longford:: My Lords, does the Minister believe that that nonsensical intervention by the noble
912
Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, helps her case at all? He knows nothing whatsoever about Mr. Rundle, whom I have visited for 13 years. What the noble Lord believes he can contribute is beyond me. But does the noble Baroness agree that the truth is that all this information was available to the Parole Board after eight months' consideration and that the Home Secretary, knowing absolutely nothing about it, reached a different conclusion? That is the situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely wrong in what he says. To say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary knew nothing about the case is totally wrong. All the information available was given to my right honourable friend. He takes advice from all his legal colleagues in these matters, including the Lord Chief Justice. Certainly part of that advice comes from the Parole Board; but consideration of the public interest and public safety must be paramount. I believe that I have made it clear that there were very good reasons to be concerned about Mr. Rundle.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that I know far less than either the Home Secretary or the Parole Board about this matter. The supplementary question which my noble friend Lord Longford asked, however, was as regards the information available to the Home Secretary which was not available to the Parole Board. The noble Baroness did not answer that question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did answer it. Hansard will bear me out. I said at the very end of my answer that all the information that was available to my right honourable friend was also made available to Mr. Rundle.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that does not answer the question. The question was this: what information did the Home Secretary have which the Parole Board did not have, not which Mr. Rundle did not have?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was no information that the Parole Board would not have had. It can consider as much information as it wishes in order to come to a conclusion. My right honourable friend is the long stop in these matters. He takes information from the Parole Board, but he also has a specific responsibility in law to consider the public interest as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so the Minister is confirming that the Home Secretary had no further information than that which was available to the Parole Board but simply made a different judgment. Therefore, the question becomes political. Is this the right system, when an amateur politician can overrule the views of those who are paid and expert in these matters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the information which the Parole Board wishes to have to come to its conclusion comes from the police and the probation service and it can also call for information. As regards Mr. Rundle, it asked for further reports. Mr. Rundle and

913
his solicitors took three months to present that information. The decision was held over until it was received. It was fully considered and all the board's deliberations were made available to my right honourable friend, who in law is accountable to Parliament. He has the long stop decision to make, taking advice from his legal colleagues, including the Lord Chief Justice, in coming to a decision about the public interest, which he is specifically charged to consider.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Home Secretary, like other Ministers, is responsible and accountable to Parliament and that public safety is the responsibility of Parliament?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is absolutely true. It is a specific obligation in law laid on my right honourable friend which he carries out to the letter. I have also made the point that in the vast majority of cases my right honourable friend accepts the advice given to him by the Parole Board. As regards Mr. Rundle, he considered that the public interest had not been fully met.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has referred twice to the Lord Chief Justice. Do I take it that he was consulted in this case? That sounds a most unusual proceeding in a parole recall case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. I was making a general comment that my right honourable friend can take information from the Lord Chief Justice as regards release. I cannot comment now on whether he did so in this case, but I can write to the noble Lord.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sure it is my fault, but can the Minister make the situation clear, at least to me? Is it right that when the Home Secretary came to his decision he had no information which had not previously been made available to the Parole Board?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when my right honourable friend makes a decision, which he is specifically obliged to do under the law, he will have all the information made available to him by the Parole Board. He will also have official advice from the department and he can take further legal advice. All the information that he receives in order to come to a decision is made available to Mr. Rundle. If the noble Lord is asking me specifically, I am fairly certain that there was not a word, a dot or a comma that my right honourable friend had before him which was not available to the Parole Board and which would have been material to that body had it had that information.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is that the case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord doubts my word I shall find out. However, I can say that no information which was material to the Parole Board making its decision was withheld from it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not questioning whether the noble Baroness is telling us other than that
914
which she believes to be true. All I want to establish is what she is telling us. If I understand her correctly, she is now telling us that she is fairly certain that the Home Secretary did not have any additional information other than that which had previously been available to the Parole Board. If that is the situation, can she check it and perhaps write to us?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course I shall. I shall check what I said. My right honourable friend quite specifically considers the public interest, and that is not a specific obligation of the Parole Board. In considering the public interest, it may well be that my right honourable friend took other advice.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the position. If the decision of the Parole Board is overturned by the Home Secretary for very good reasons, has the man a right of appeal?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, the man does not have a right of appeal when such a decision is made. The prisoner has the right to present his or her case to the Parole Board, and the full opportunity was taken as regards Mr. Rundle.

Local Education Authorities: Finances
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to recompense local education authorities which have suffered a loss in grant due to the new financing arrangements for pupils outside a local education authority's own area.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may explore the matter a little further. Do not the Government regard it as anomalous to consider a pupil to have different socio-economic characteristics—that is the basis of SSA and grants—just because he is educated in a neighbouring borough rather than in his home borough? Does the Minister agree that he is the same child with the same needs? Does she further agree that the new financing arrangements represent a penalty for an LEA running a successful education service and attracting pupils from other LEAs into its own service? How do the Government square that with their advocacy of market forces?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a question of debate and there has been a great deal of it between the Government and local authorities as to how the standard spending assessment should be made up. There have been a number of authorities in the same camp as the noble Baroness saying that pupils who move from one local authority to another should bring with them the average characteristics of that authority. There have been many others who say that pupils who move tend not to carry with them the special educational needs other than the statemented typifications of the authority the child

915
comes from—in other words, pupils who move tend not to have special needs. However, the Government have sided against the noble Baroness and decided that local education authorities, which have the responsibility for special educational needs in their area, should retain the funds to deal with such children in their area in the expectation that, in the main, those pupils will stay with them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord may not be aware that that decision caused considerable misgivings in this House when it was taken. However, is he aware that the problem that we are discussing centres not on special educational needs, but on additional educational needs—notably, the need for free school meals? Is the noble Lord further aware that since they are such a vital part of the income of families on benefit he risks being accused of exporting his problems to the Department of Social Security?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think that we take any position of principle on standard spending assessments; it is merely a matter of practicality and what arrangements suit the facts best. If the noble Earl or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can produce evidence that the current arrangements are not in accordance with the way things are, I am sure that that will be taken into account next year.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whenever the standard spending assessments are changed some authorities gain—and they are, of course, very pleased—but some authorities lose and they, quite naturally, feel aggrieved? I hope that my noble friend will agree that there would be considerable merit in stability, but, since the SSA is patently perceived to be a fallible formula, there is a constant need to adjust and improve it; hence the constant feelings of either glee or pain depending on which side of the adjustment an authority happens to fall.
Lord Lucas: My Lords. I agree with my noble friend who puts the matter very well. The world changes and SSAs have to change. We do not pretend that they are perfect, but we do think that they are the best that we can achieve.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the SSA is a formula for the allocation of grant? Does he not also agree that because it varies, because it is unpredictable and because it is inevitably and ultimately a crude mechanism which cannot reflect the needs of each locality, it is therefore totally wrong for the Government to cap local authority expenditure and refuse to allow local authorities to adjust their spending to meet the real needs of their localities and the children in them? Does the noble Lord further agree that children should not have to suffer simply because the Government and Whitehall have a fixed formula approach to the needs of children and their education?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, whether a local authority runs up against its cap is a matter that relates to all of its expenditure, not just to education. It is to the totality
916
of their expenditure that local authorities must look if they want to see how they can best serve the needs of their populace.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it ill behoves local education authorities—and, I have to say, their allies on the Labour Benches opposite—to complain about any loss of grant when they were largely responsible throughout the 1980s for so conducting and mismanaging our state system of education that there came to be 1.5 million empty places in our schools, with all the colossal waste that that involves?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that I would not wish to put it as strongly as that, but there is certainly considerable opportunity for savings to be generated by removing surplus school places. A number of local authorities are achieving savings in just that way.
Baroness David: My Lords, reverting to an earlier answer from the noble Lord, will the department be willing to review the arrangements for pupils with special educational needs if the new arrangements appear to penalise LEAs which have more than an average number of those pupils?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is a fact—is it not?—that LEAs will not be encouraged to provide nursery education near the border with another LEA as parents from the other LEA will have the right to send their pupils across the border to the providing LEA, but the home LEA can refuse to pay. Will Her Majesty's Government therefore introduce recoupment for children under five and, if not, why not?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that all those matters will be taken into account in our general proposals on nursery education, for which I hope the noble Lord can wait.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it sometimes causes great inconvenience and family hardship if mentally handicapped people needing special education are sent long distances out of their own area in order to receive it elsewhere? Is it not therefore quite proper that the Government should be encouraging local education authorities to have their own arrangements, which pretty well all of them are capable of establishing?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is the sort of consideration which has weighed heavily with us and which, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has won the day with us. However, I recognise that there are other sides to the question.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I shall spare the House the detail of the problems to which I alluded in my supplementary question, but that I shall accept with alacrity his offer to review the position further for next year? I shall pursue that with him, if I may.

South Africa Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMM1'ITEES in the Chair.]
Clause 83 [Inalienability of occupational pension]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 47, line 7, leave out ("no agreement can effect any of those things") and insert ("an agreement to effect any of those things is unenforceable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to make the meaning of the subsection clearer. Its purpose is to clarify that any agreement to assign, commute, surrender or have a charge, lien on or set off exercised in respect of an entitlement or an accrued right under an occupational pension scheme is contrary to this subsection and is legally unenforceable. The amendment gives further clarification to our intention that all occupational pension rights should be inalienable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 47, line 37, leave out ("negligent").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to make the job of the trustees less of a risk than at present. We are anxious that people should act as trustees and it is important that they should not feel that they are putting themselves at considerable personal risk in doing so. The amendment deals with the provisions whereby there can be a charge resulting from a
"criminal, negligent or fraudulent act".
We agree that such provisions should apply to criminal or fraudulent acts, but the word "negligent" can be widely interpreted. It would be easy for someone, with the best will in the world and acting as competently as he was capable, to take some action which might subsequently be described as "negligent". We do not want to frighten people away from taking on such work. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This amendment has our full support. The word "negligent" is very wide and could mean that somebody could stumble accidentally into a situation where penalties would become applicable. That does not seem right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Similar provisions concerning the right of an employer to exercise a charge or lien on, or a set off, against a person's accrued right
918
or entitlement to a preserved pension have been in force for some time. The existing provisions enable an employer to recover a monetary loss arising out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission. The PLRC considered that those provisions were generally satisfactory and recommended that they be extended to cover all pension entitlements, and that is what Clause 83 does.
The amendment seeks to limit employers' rights to recover monetary losses. An employer would no longer be able to recover losses arising out of a negligent act or omission. We do not consider that such a restriction is necessary. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baronesses that these provisions will not permit an employer to act in a totally unrestricted manner. We have put in place restrictions which will limit the recovery to either the amount of the loss or the value of the member's actual or prospective benefits, whichever is less. In addition, where there is a dispute, the employer's rights will not be enforceable without a court order or an award of an arbitrator. In the light of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should like to consider what the Minister said before the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 47, line 37, at end insert:
("(e) a surrender or assignment of part of the person in question's benefits in connection with matrimonial proceedings in prescribed circumstances.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192. I recognise that the issue I am raising—occupational pensions in divorce—is outside the original scope of the Pensions Bill as presented to this place. The reason I raise it is the one I gave on Second Reading. This is a subject which was first drawn to my attention at least eight years ago. I have put down a parliamentary Question on it. I have been in correspondence on this matter with interested groups ever since. I have said to them all that I believe the point is important; that I hope to put right an injustice; and that I would raise it when a suitable opportunity arose. I believe that that opportunity is now before us with the Pensions Bill.
I believe that the amendment has great support from all parts of the Committee. I know that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but I believe the same is felt by the Liberal Benches and the Cross Benches. It has great support outside this place. The matter was first drawn to my attention by the Diplomatic Service Spouses' Association, and by an organisation called Fair Shares. Judging from the number of letters on the subject that I have received, the interest and concern continue.
I spoke on this issue at length on Second Reading. I do not wish to go over all the arguments again. There are two facts as a backdrop to the amendments. The first, of course, is the greatly increased number of divorces. In 1991 there were 171,000 and, regrettably, I am sure that that number is considerably higher now.

919
The second is the increased number of women living longer. There is also the particular concern of those women who are unable to earn for themselves their own occupational pension in their own right. I think especially of wives of those men serving in the Foreign Office who accompany their husbands abroad and who therefore cannot pursue a career in their own right; wives of members of the Armed Services, of the British Council; and many others whose husbands work abroad and who therefore are unable to pursue a career for themselves.
What all that shows is that times are now very different from when occupational pension schemes were first established. There is now great urgency about making amends and justice. This is not an easy issue to resolve because, if it had been, someone would have resolved it before now. The first question to be raised is: does the partner have the right to part of an occupational pension scheme on divorce? The answer to that is clearly yes, because of the changed circumstances which I have just described. There can be little doubt that a pension may be the largest financial asset a couple may have at the time of a divorce, particularly if they do not happen to own the house in which they are living.
So let us look at the situation. As I understand it, in Scotland the law on divorce is entirely different from that in England and Wales. It is covered by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. That states that the matrimonial property must be taken into account in the divorce settlement. Another section in the Scottish Act states specifically that matrimonial property includes pension and life assurance arrangements. The law in England and Wales is covered by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and in particular Section 25(2), which states that the court shall in particular have regard to the matters set out.
Then paragraph (g) states:
"In the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring",
and so forth. Thus we can see from Section 25(2) (g) that the pension can be taken into account, but it is not always taken into account. I understand that there has been a great deal of debate about the term "will lose". I can see that being a fruitful source of debate for lawyers and others.
What difficulties arise from the law as it stands at present? The principal difficulty is that the courts have no right to split a pension, as under pensions law it is inalienable. Hence the husband tends to keep the pension and the wife frequently receives the house. That is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs. It is not satisfactory for three reasons, one of which I have already mentioned: if the couple have been living in rented accommodation, there may be no free assets to split, and as the pension itself is inalienable it means that the wife will receive no benefit under the separation arrangements.
Then, the pension has been built up in a tax-free environment, and, if other assets are given to compensate for pension they are not receiving, the same
920
tax-free advantages that the pension has had and the pension scheme assets can be sold at the current time and transferred, whereas the pension cannot be sold.
A number of people, including the organisation to which I referred on Second Reading (the Pensions Management Institute), have looked at the matter. As I said on Second Reading, they quoted at least five occasions in the past 20 years when the matter has been looked at and upon which a report has been made. The Pensions Management Institute set up a working party which comprised members of the Family Law Bar Association, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Solicitors' Family Law Association, the Association of Pension Lawyers, and the Law Society. They recommended that the pension on divorce should be valued by:
"The leaving service or transfer method".
That method is well known to people in the profession, and, as I understand it, does not cause any dispute. It was agreed that the pension should be split so that the wife should have the option of leaving it in the pension scheme, if she wished, transferring it to her own pension arrangements, or transferring it to a personal pension or a Section 32 annuity. If the pension were in payment, it should be earmarked in a way not dissimilar to the current position relating to salary or earnings after a divorce takes place. At the same time, the husband's pension in the pension scheme should be reduced by the corresponding amount. It would be equally true that if on divorce the wife were the earner the same arrangements should apply to her. I regard that as only fair.
The Pensions Management Institute put forward its proposals almost at the same time as the Government published the Pensions Bill. It is a great pity that the Government have not included the proposals in the Bill and have said that they are setting up another committee to look further into the matter. I am at a loss to understand what new information the committee can find. Five committees have already investigated the position and it is unfortunate that yet another will report in September after this Bill has become law.
My amendments attempt to deal with this urgent and worrying situation. It is causing some people, who never expected it, to live almost in penury. None of us wishes to see that. I hope that I have said enough on the matter today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and on what I am sure other Members of the Committee will say and that if he believes that the amendments are not correct he will come back at a later stage with amendments of his own. However, I should be satisfied if amendments were tabled in another place because it is important that the situation is dealt with.
The proposals meet the case for justice and it is difficult to see what additional information is needed. Above all, I do not believe that extra public expenditure will be created. There will be some loss to the Inland Revenue, but that will be more than compensated for by savings in the social security allowances currently paid to divorced wives. I regret that I do not have any figures to substantiate that statement, but I believe that if the amendment is put into effect there will be some offsetting savings.
Amendment No. 192 is an enabling amendment. If it is necessary to wait until a further report is available it will be possible to introduce the provisions at a later stage. That is not the measure that I prefer. The Scottish situation is an improvement but does not go far enough. We require an amendment that covers all the situations that I have described. What we really want is an amendment made to the Bill in this Chamber.
I assure the Minister that I speak on behalf of many people who are currently suffering, and many people who, I regret to say, will suffer in the future if the matter is not put right. I am certain that in moving the amendment today I have support from all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It gives me great pleasure to follow the clear and eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in moving Amendment No. 166. I wish to speak to that amendment and to Amendment No. 182A which stands in my name. They present different approaches but achieve the same objective. I hope that the Minister will not say that he does not have an abundance of choice as regards the routes to follow.
Few women have the chance to build up a decent occupational pension of their own. During their lifetime they earn less, and often their working life is properly interrupted by having children and caring for them or by caring for elderly relatives. That is the result of a family decision taken by husband and wife together. Wives may move home several times in order to support their husbands' occupations, and each time give up a job in order to keep their families together.
Yet after a marriage of perhaps 30 or 35 years some women face divorce and possible penury in old age. I was told of a woman who had looked after her children until they were grown up. She trained to be a teacher, took a job as such and then developed multiple sclerosis. Two years after developing the disease, her husband divorced her. She was most surprised, shocked and upset. She faces an old age without pension rights. As she has no access to her husband's pension she will almost certainly have to sell the bungalow that was specially adapted for her needs.
As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, one-third of marriages end in divorce with the pension being the largest single financial asset in the marriage. It is no longer enough to keep those in separate compartments. As was clear from the response to the noble Baroness's speech, all Members of the Committee recognise that the present situation is unfair and unjust. I am sure that we should all like to find a decent and fair solution for all parties in such a situation.
I am sure too that the Government will say that it is all very difficult. I do not believe that it is. The Government may well seek to persuade the Committee that while they are hugely sympathetic to the problem—and I do not doubt that the Minister is—and that they are anxious to do all that is possible, the time is not right and further research is needed.
922
They have just commissioned further research and they may say that we should wait to see what the problem is. Seven pieces of research have already told us what the problem is. Many pieces of research, including the latest PMI report, tell us precisely what we might do.
I fear that the Government might seek to prevaricate and delay. I hope that the message from the Committee today will be, "We don't do that". We have a major Pensions Bill and we cannot expect another such Bill in the foreseeable future. Nor can we expect a Matrimonial Causes Bill in the immediate or foreseeable future. This is the right Bill at the right time backed by the right research and it is right for us to say clearly to the Minister that this is an issue that we can tackle today in ways that are fair, just, equitable and straightforward to all parties.
Why is there a problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, rightly told the Committee that under trust law, on the one hand, and the special tax privileges given by the Inland Revenue, on the other, occupational pensions cannot be split or assigned to anyone else. That is sensible; it is a protection against, say, a creditor. However, it means that an occupational pension cannot be split or assigned to a spouse, even though it may be the family's largest single financial asset.
In tabling the amendments today, we are asking that the courts shall have a duty to take pension assets into account as part of the financial settlement on divorce and that the courts shall have the power to divide them, override any trustees to that effect and without jeopardising Inland Revenue status. The way in which they are apportioned will be determined by the courts at the point of divorce and in the light of the family circumstances. We are providing a duty on the courts to take them into account and a power on the courts as to how they do so.
The PMI report outlines three basic ways in which the courts might take those assets into account. The first is offsetting; the second is earmarking; and the third is splitting. We favour the third suggestion; but perhaps I may enlarge on all three. The first way of taking a pension asset into account is by offsetting. The courts can do that now; that is, they can offset against the pension, which must remain with the scheme member (who is usually the husband) other assets such as savings or the matrimonial home. The courts can do that now; and very often, all too often, it does not work. Why is that? As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, there are insufficient offsetting assets and the pension is worth very much more than the rest of the assets put together so that the wife is short-changed.
Alternatively, even where both the material and pension assets balance each other out, immediate assets are being set against long-term assets. Therefore, in order to keep a pension which he may never live to enjoy, the husband is stripped of his short-term assets such as the matrimonial home and savings. Neither party would wish that to be the way forward. Therefore, offsetting does not work although it could continue if there are sufficient assets and that is what both parties want. We have that already but it does not work.

923
The second route is to earmark so that the pension is divided at the point of retirement. That is uncertain unless one is receiving a pension at the time at which the divorce occurs. What happens when the scheme member changes jobs? Does he carry the earmarking with him to four, five or six different jobs, with the employer having to make a record of that? What happens if the scheme member dies before he is 65 and the scheme deeds allow a widow but not somebody who is divorced to be a beneficiary? What happens if there are two or three spouses each with a charge on a pension but not knowing what they will receive or when, so that they have to wait until the age of 65 to know what are their future prospects?
Earmarking merely delays to the point of retirement the financial settlement which should have been made properly at the point of divorce. What most people would like is a clean break so that they can get on sanely and sensibly with the rest of their lives rather than continuing an on-going financial relationship for 20, 30 or 40 years after the marriage has ended.
We have offsetting now and it does not work. Earmarking is messy and chancy and leaves all parties insecure. Therefore, what is the right way forward? As the noble Baroness, Lady Young said, it is to divide pension rights at the point of divorce. That is what the PMI, the Law Society, Goode, Fair Shares and the EOC call for, and I believe that that is what voices call for on all sides of this Committee.
On divorce, the cash value of the pension so far accrued would be calculated precisely as it is now, often several times during a working life, when a scheme member changes jobs and wants his pension rights transferred with him. In other words, in relation to divorce we should be using the well-established procedure which is easily and continually used by scheme professionals and members every time a scheme member changes jobs. It is not difficult. It is easy and straightforward. It follows well-established actuarial principles. At present the cash value of a pension is calculated for transfer. It can be calculated in exactly the same way to divide it. What could be simpler than that? It is already done several times during a scheme member's working life. We say that that straightforward principle should be applied to the unfortunate situation of a divorce.
If that were done, much of the bitterness over financial arrangements on divorce would be avoided. Both parties could get on with the rest of their lives. It would not be retrospective. We have learnt that lesson in relation to the CSA. It would bring English law broadly into line with that of Scotland. It would apply to men and women alike. It would be clean, decent, fair, simple and straightforward, and we could do that now.
If the Committee were minded to support the amendment, the Bill would lay down the principles requiring the courts to take pensions into account and to divide them as appropriate at the time of divorce. Justice would be done to men who would be able to retain more of their current cash assets. Justice would be done to women who would have some financial security in their old age.
924
This is a major Bill in which we are seeking to deliver a pension promise to scheme members to protect them against insolvency and fraud. If Members of the Committee will it, we can do something else; namely, share that pension promise fairly and decently between husband and wife at the point of divorce. We do not need to delay, defer or prevaricate. We do not need further research. We can just do it. Let us do it because I am sure that every one of us believes that it is the right thing to do.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Although the amendment is not in my name, I can confirm the expectations of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the amendment receives wholehearted support from these Benches. Again and again we have seen cases of women who have supported their husbands, perhaps for 20, 30 or 40 years, while they are building their careers and who are then divorced at the stage at which they are beginning to need financial support in the form of a pension. There is no need to go into a great deal of detail. It is common justice that the woman should receive an appropriate share of that pension because of the contribution that she has made during her married life.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I should not wish it to be thought that only noble Baronesses support the points that have been made so powerfully by my noble friend Lady Young and others. It seems to me that the present situation is grossly out of date. It smacks of the days when the wife was the appendage of her husband who said, "The little woman will have what I assign to her but no more". That might have been appropriate at one time but the situation has changed completely now.
As has already been said, a man who earns a satisfactory occupational pension very often has a loyal wife at home keeping the show on the road. She is enabling him to do a good job and to receive improvements in his salary. In this day and age it is surely wrong that, whoever may be at fault in the divorce, the woman who has done so much is cut out completely from any right to benefit from the occupational pension scheme.
On Second Reading my noble friend was sympathetic, but when Ministers say that something is difficult one must be very cautious about what they really mean. My noble friend said that a project had been set up to look into the matter. I say to him that we have enough research. It is time for action.
Lord Milverton: I hope the Minister will accept the amendment and not merely say that he will look at it again. The amendment and the principles behind it are reasonable and fair. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, many women who have given loyal, trusting and strong support to their husbands are treated unfairly. Many of those women could have used their abilities to further careers of their own. Therefore, it is only right and proper that they should not be unfairly put upon if they find themselves involved in a divorce. I believe that there are still some decent men about who would be pleased to see fair treatment for women.

925
I hope that the Government will not just reconsider the matter but will accept the amendment or agree to come back at the next stage with a better amendment if they feel that this amendment is not good enough.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I should like to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond more positively than he did on Second Reading. The reasons and benefits involved in the proposal have been well aired. However, one consideration in particular is the fact that, if the amendment were accepted, it might do a great deal to reduce the divorce rate.
Baroness Seccombe: I wish to express my wholehearted support for the amendment. I understand the complexity of finding a solution, but that is no reason for not pursuing the matter until we get an answer. Following articles that have appeared in the press during the past few days, I have received letters from women who have suffered in the past and who are continuing to do so as a result of the present situation.
I received a letter from a mother of three, one of whose children suffered from severe asthmatic attacks. She had worked throughout the marriage as a part-time teacher and, obviously, had nursed her daughter through long illnesses. The woman's consequent pension contributions were lamentably low. Meanwhile, her husband continued to build up a healthy pension fund. Now that the couple are separated, their futures are vastly different. The man has comfort and security, while the woman tries to find employment when she can, with certainly an unknown future. Another letter came from a woman whose husband's occupation took them to Japan. She gave up her practice as a chiropodist, but, now that her husband has left her, his future is assured with a pension of £70,000 per year while the woman has no such expectations.
I believe that we are discussing a problem which is very much one of our time, especially for elderly women who are left to fend for themselves. More and more women are now contributing to their own pensions. If both husband and wife have made such provision, I believe that that should be taken into account. I should have thought that most pension fund administrators would be able to assess the size of an individual's fund, as they do every time someone changes a job. It might be possible for that pension to be assigned —or, at least, part of it—to the wife and, perhaps, frozen until her retirement or assessed in another way.
At a time of divorce there is a great deal of stress and strain and those involved really do not think logically. I believe that legislation bringing pension rights into the equation is absolutely essential if we are to achieve fairness and ensure that there is a more dignified and comfortable way of life for divorced women in their old age.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young to which the noble Baroness has also put her name. I believe that both of
926
them spoke with great distinction and force. However, I should like to give my noble friend the Minister some encouragement. If he listens to what I have to say, he will be able to go back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and say, "I can save the country some money". Surely that is an ambition of all Ministers.
Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness stressed in their remarks that a considerable amount of social benefit and welfare has to be paid to women who are left with no income, especially those who are divorced later in life and who have not been able to build up a pension or save any money.
I should like to give the Committee three categories of examples as a result of correspondence that I have received. Indeed, I am quite certain that many noble Baronesses and other Members of the Committee will have received many letters on the subject, especially in view of the number of divorces. The first case relates to women who were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Seccombe; namely, those who go abroad, who are not able to work or earn and who are not, therefore, able to contribute to any pension fund. Very often, in the case of couples who go abroad on business representing British firms, the husband can build up a big pension by way of an occupational pension. Such men are very often making contributions in respect of their wives to a separate fund within the pension. However, that also is not allowed to be touched on divorce.
I received a letter from a doctor who had put money into a pension fund specifically for his wife in the event of his death so that she would receive an adequate pension based on his earnings and the way in which the pension fund was increasing. However, the couple then divorced. Therefore, wife number one received nothing because she was no longer the wife if and when the doctor became deceased. Similarly, the second wife would not receive anything because she was not the named wife. There is a case of an insurance company receiving contributions for a pension fund but, in the event, the recipient was not able to be the recipient. The first wife was left with no pension of any kind, despite the fact that money had been paid into an insurance fund for her benefit.
Another example is of a young couple where the husband is earning considerably with the wife, as has been mentioned, looking after the children. All the savings go into the pension fund. That very often happens, especially with younger people: they put all their earnings into pension funds in order to secure themselves in retirement. But, there again, where there is divorce, the court cannot take that into account. I know of a particular case where considerable sums of money were saved by way of a pension fund, but where the wife on divorce was not able to receive anything from it. In such circumstances, all the money saved during the couple's life together would go to the husband or to the second wife should he predecease his second or third wife.
The latter are examples of specific cases of gross unfairness to the wife who has worked, saved and stayed at home looking after the children while the money goes into a pension fund. She is not eligible for any of that

927
money and will, as the number of divorces continues to rise, become a burden on the state. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that into account when considering the matter. Being a sensible man, I am quite certain that he will adopt the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Lord Bridges: I should like to support the amendments, especially that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I have had some personal experience in seeing what happens to the wives of Crown servants employed abroad when a marriage breaks up. The result is often very distressing and can lead to great hardship. Such women will have loyally supported the careers of their husbands for, perhaps, a long period of time. In many cases it should be remembered that, although such women are highly qualified and skilled, they are unable to pursue their professions abroad because they are prohibited from doing so by foreign governments who will not allow the wives of foreign representatives to take employment in their countries. So what happens? A woman finds herself divorced with no entitlement to the pension benefit that her husband will eventually obtain to which she has made, in practically every case, a very strong material contribution.
I, too, find it odd that a Bill which deals with so many issues governing pensions does not tackle a matter which has been in the public knowledge for a very long time. I hope that it will be possible to include the provision when we reach a later stage. It is fair to say that the speeches made this afternoon have revealed a large lacuna which means that many women do not receive adequate justice. I believe that it is the duty of the legislature to try to fill that gap. If the Government believe that they are able to do so in better terms, then it is up to them to tell us the nature of those terms.
There is one further cause of delay which may be cited by the Minister. As I understand it, a case is pending before the Appellate Committee which has not yet been heard. It would not be surprising if the Minister had been advised to say that, because the matter is sub judice, it would be inappropriate for him to enter into any discussion. However, I hope that that will not deter the Minister from reviewing the matter. We cannot be sure what the Appellate Committee may decide. Indeed, our learned colleagues may feel that the matter could be more properly dealt with by legislation. I believe that that would be quite the right course for us to follow. At the end of our discussion I hope that the Minister will be able to take such matters into account and that he will bring forward something if he is unable to accept any of the amendments that have been put forward.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of the unanimous support from all quarters of the Chamber for my noble friend's amendment I am a little disappointed and surprised that my noble friend the Minister has not already intervened to say that the Government accept it in principle even if they are not going to accept the precise terms of the amendment, and that they will themselves put in a suitable amendment at a later stage
928
of the Bill. I have been hoping that my noble friend the Minister would take that line but his silence, if he will allow me to say so, seems to me a trifle ominous.
I put this point to him. This is an opportunity to deal with a real and growingly urgent problem. It can be dealt with under this Bill. If we miss the opportunity created by this Bill, one cannot tell when it will be possible in the future to introduce this amendment or its equivalent. Obviously there will be no more pensions Bills in this Parliament. Who can say whether there will be a pensions Bill early in the next Parliament? That is guesswork. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will either accept this amendment or give a clear undertaking that an amendment to deal with this problem, and to deal with it on the lines of this amendment, will be introduced either in this Chamber or in another place, but somewhere before this Bill becomes law. I think he will find that unless the Government are prepared to accept that point of view they may be in quite serious trouble.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, too, rise to speak in support of the amendment and to mention a particular example that was brought to my attention as a local councillor. I use this example because, contrary to popular belief, it is now the case that women lose more years from their careers caring for elderly relatives than they do for young children. There may be a short or a slightly longer career break when children are born and then, just when many women are approaching the stage when they are free from that domestic responsibility, they take on the responsibility of elderly relatives.
I remember the case of a constituent who had given up her career to look after the children when they were young and who then went back to work and was obtaining promotion and enjoying her life. Her husband's parents were later taken ill, one after the other. At the end of that time—after the final parent had died—the husband announced he had found someone else. He divorced his wife and she lost her entitlement. That is not an isolated case. It is a difficult set of circumstances that women can face. It is usually, but not always, the woman who is in that position. I urge the Minister to give a positive acceptance to this measure and to assure us that Government will tackle this anomaly and this injustice with the passage of this legislation.
Lord Boardman: I wish to support the amendment by adding one brief example, which I hope underlines the reason it should be accepted. I refer to the case of a man who was a civil servant and who spent much of his time serving abroad. He was married for many years and then he divorced. Shortly afterwards he remarried—that had no connection with the divorce—and shortly after that he died. His second wife became entitled to a full pension which she believed she had no right to have. She did everything she could to disclaim it. However, there is no mechanism by which that pension could be disclaimed. That pension was payable to her. The only way in which she could make good to the first wife what she believed belonged to the first wife was to do as she did and create a series of deeds of covenant to make

929
that possible. That was a case—it may be unusual—of a second wife who desperately wanted to see justice done and to ensure that the first wife received the share of the pension she deserved. However, there was no mechanism which enabled that to be done.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support this amendment I wish to present a slightly different scenario. It is only right that we take note of the tragic cases that have been reported this afternoon and that Parliament should take action to deal with those and ensure that fairness is brought about. However, we also need to recognise that there are changing patterns of employment and changing patterns of partnership. The point I wish to make is that it is not just a case of ensuring fairness to women and to wives who may suffer as a result of divorce. I envisage a situation where men will suffer because of the different employment patterns and the different patterns of life that prevail at the moment and probably will prevail in the future.
I give one example. Obviously an example that is picked from today we hope does not result in divorce, but the financial implications will become clear to the Committee. There may be a young couple both of whom are practising barristers. One decides to go into politics and the other stays at the Bar. The female who stays at the Bar can have an earnings expectation that is three times that of her husband who has gone into politics. After 20 or 30 years they may divorce. Surely it would be right that her higher pension entitlement, or part of it, should go to the husband. This is not just a consideration as regards improving the lot of women that we are debating this afternoon; we need to ensure fairness between the sexes.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly pensions on divorce is a highly emotive and sensitive issue. I listened with some interest to all the points made, especially the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am not entirely sure that a court would think that a husband going into politics was necessarily a compelling reason for awarding a larger share of a wife's pension. A court may decide that one was fairly daft to go into politics and not stay with the law. In some ways the noble Lord—whether he meant to or not—has revealed how complicated the issue is when one moves away from the serious cases which all of us know about, and which have been the basis of this debate, to situations where each member of a couple has an entitlement to a pension and they make career decisions which ought not to impinge on the other's pension rights but, if one is not careful, might do so.
I have listened to the debate, as I did at Second Reading. The amendments all seek to deal with this issue in slightly different ways. However, they undoubtedly create a scenario which would have pretty far-reaching consequences for courts, for pension schemes and for the parties to divorce. I believe my noble friend Lady Young has pressed for a more general regulation-making power in Amendment No. 192. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of
930
Glaisdale, is not in his place. I suspect that if I were proposing a broad regulation-making power of this nature which is not just a Henry VIII clause, it is just about a Henry VIII Bill, I would be taken to task to some considerable extent for attempting to do so. As the Committee has already expressed considerable concern at the extent of delegated powers within this Bill we would not be wise to give governments and Secretaries of State—no matter how excellent they are—a delegated power of the breadth, nature and scope that Amendment No. 192A would do.
Of course I understand her argument that she would like to have something on the statute book which we could use after the research project, which I shall mention in a minute or two, has been completed. However, I believe that it would be far better to wait until we are in a position to bring forward detailed primary legislation. It is not a question of inserting a clause or two in the Bill; it would require much more work than is suggested in the amendments.
It would be difficult not to have sympathy with those who list examples—both specific and general examples—and say that action is needed now. However, it would be irresponsible of any government, of whatever complexion, to enter into major legislation of this kind before the issues had been fully and properly considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that under her preferred option of valuing pensions on divorce much of the bitterness would be removed. I have a great deal of sympathy for many of the other arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, but that one fell on very stony ground because I do not believe that the bitterness would be removed. Indeed, I can envisage scenarios in which it might be aggravated. I do not pray that in aid as a defence, I say simply that we would be foolish not to recognise that there could be severe problems and considerable bitterness in the scenarios being painted.
I recognise that cases of real hardship may be caused as a result of ignoring pension rights in a divorce settlement, but it is important that we do not overlook the fact that when making financial provisions on divorce the courts are already required to take into account the loss of pension rights as a result of divorce. For every case in which it is claimed that hardship occurs because pension rights have not been included in a divorce settlement there may be other cases in which a perfectly equitable settlement has been reached. The fact is that we simply do not know because nobody has taken the trouble to find out.
That is why we have commissioned detailed research, which I mentioned a few minutes ago. The project will explore the current treatment of occupational pensions on divorce. Through interviews with some 2,500 women (including 500 recent divorcees) the husbands of 400 of those women and a sample of solicitors involved in 900 recent divorce cases, we shall be able to build up a more detailed picture than that provided by the anecdotal evidence which has been cited in various debates and reports on the subject.

931
The research will provide extensive information about divorce cases, including the type of pension provision involved, the value of pension assets at divorce, the method of valuation used, the treatment of contingent benefits and the use made in current divorce settlements of alternative methods of accounting for pension rights.
I have been asked by a number of Members of the Committee why matrimonial law in England and Wales is not brought into line with that in Scotland. The difference between the two jurisdictions is very slight. We need to consider what difference exists in practice. That is why we have commissioned a separate study within the research project to look specifically at the position in Scotland where, as one or two Members of the Committee pointed out, the law is different.
Clearly any changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 are a matter more for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor than for me. But I can assure the Committee that we are looking very carefully at whether that Act could be amended so as to place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the courts when considering financial provision on divorce. Consideration will also be given as to whether a power should be taken to prescribe a method of valuing pension rights on divorce. I hope that the Committee will acknowledge the extent to which that shows that the Government are prepared to listen arid respond to the representations that have been made.
Both the Pensions Management Institute working group and the Pension Law Review Committee recognised the complexity of this issue. Given that complexity, I believe that we would be criticised—and rightly so—if we were to rush into hastily conceived and ill-informed decisions. We would run the very high risk of getting it wrong and creating new problems and new inequities.
The PMI working group report considered a number of options. Its preferred approach involved the splitting of pension rights between the divorcing parties at the time of divorce on a cash equivalent basis. That was the third solution to the problem suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The problem is not so much the difficulty of establishing the cash equivalent—that is comparatively easy—but how it should be apportioned between the parties after that cash equivalent basis has been established.
Another option was to require pension rights to be earmarked for payment to a divorced wife once her exhusband retired —a form of deferred maintenance. That was the second option. It is my understanding that the working group was divided on the relative merits of the options and that the final recommendation for the cash equivalent approach was finely balanced.
The fact that the PMI working group itself was so uncertain about the way forward is a telling indication of the potential minefield into which it was treading. The PLRC considered the PMI working group report and recommended that the Government should carry out further detailed work. That is precisely what we are doing.
My noble friend Lady Young and my noble friend Lady Elles went a little further in trying to tempt me into thinking about potential savings. I am not sure
932
whether this is the right debate in which to remind my noble friend of the old adage "yield not to temptation", but I shall not yield to the temptation. However, I can tell my noble friends that preliminary analysis shows that the tax revenue losses would be well in excess of any savings on income benefits. Therefore, they ought not to use that argument, although that is not to deny that the other arguments have considerable benefits.
The PMI report was a considered and valuable piece of work which built on previous reports on the subject. But it did not set out the options in the context of a quantitative analysis of the perceived problems. Nor did it consider in any detail the possible implications and costs of the options put forward. That is the detailed work to which we believe the PLRC referred.
For any such analysis to be worth while it needs to be predicated on a clear understanding of the nature and extent of the problems. We expect that the results of the research project will provide an important contribution to that understanding, including a comparison of the position in England and Wales with that in Scotland. When we have had an opportunity to analyse the research findings we shall be very much better placed to consider the case for change and to ensure that the change we make is the right change and does not raise as many problems as it resolves. We ought not to prejudge the issue in this legislation.
I began by saying that this is a sensitive and emotive issue. I hope that I have been able to persuade the Committee that we are by no means unsympathetic to the problems that have been described. At Second Reading I said that I knew of a lady who had found herself in exactly one of the scenarios mentioned by Members of the Committee. But this is not a matter which we can decide merely because we know of some hard cases. We have to be certain that any legislation which we introduce in this very difficult and complex field is right. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that we could add to the bitterness mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
We have undertaken the research. Once we have the results of that research we shall honour the undertaking that we have given to look seriously at how we resolve the problem if there is a clear and agreed approach. We have accepted the PLRC's recommendation to undertake further work. As I mentioned in relation to the Scottish provision, we shall see whether we are able to bring something back at Report which might place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account in England and Wales and, importantly, to give the courts a basis on which to value pension rights.
I hope that with that explanation of the position and what we believe we can do in the Bill, my noble friend and other Members of the Committee will feel that, although we may not be going as far as they would like us to go, we are attempting to tackle this very difficult problem in a way which ought to improve the situation in England and Wales and will give the courts a basis on which to value pension rights. That should place the courts in a better position to do what they can already

933
do and what many are doing—as in the case of the lady who was mentioned, if her lawyer makes sure that the court considers pension entitlements.
With the explanation of what we contemplate bringing forward in the Bill, and of what we are doing regarding the more difficult issues involved in splitting the pension, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Elles: Before my noble friend sits down, will the Minister be kind enough to make available the figures to which he referred in stating that it was more expensive in certain cases for the Government to give social security rather than allow income tax off on certain pension issues. I should be grateful if he would allow that information to be made available.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My understanding is that it is very much a preliminary analysis. I doubt whether figures are available on the basis that my noble friend seeks. But I shall check on that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps we may press the Minister on some of his remarks. His major point—as I believe many of us expected—was that we need further research because the situation is difficult and (to use his words), "We must not rush; we must not be hasty; we must not go in for ill-conceived legislation; we must not go in for ill-informed legislation; we must not prejudge the issue", and so on. Such statements are perfect Cornford microcosmographia, are they not? The time is not ripe; we must have more research.
Let us address the specific issues that the Minister picked up. First, he said that the courts already have the right to offset the pension as an asset against other assets but that there is a need to know when that situation worked and when it did not. Why? We know now that for many families it is appropriate that the assets represented by a pension are offset against other assets. We also know—and I refer to the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, cited—that where there is no matrimonial home to be sold the family cannot make such offsetting apportionments. For the remainder, why does the Minister need to know that information? The courts need to know because they make the decision, but the Minister does not need to know. He needs to know that the problem exists. So long as he empowers the courts to address that problem, as they do when considering all the other financial assets that they distribute, that the problem exists is all the Minister needs to know.
Secondly, the Minister states that the PMI report was uncertain, complicated and not quite sure how far it should go. On the contrary, I have the PMI report. It is strictly unambiguous. On page 52 it states:
"We believe that throughout the UK it would lead to a fairer division of assets on divorce if the courts were given power to reallocate occupational and personal pension rights between the divorcing parties. Our detailed recommendations are as follows".
934
There is nothing ambiguous about that. There is nothing uncertain. There are no doubts, no problems and no difficulties. The Minister invents them as an excuse to say, "We want to come back to this problem at some time in the future"—perhaps never.
The question is not, "What does the Minister not know?". It is, "What is it that the Minister does not know that nonetheless cannot be resolved by the courts?". The Minister has said that the courts would know how to assess the transfer cash value of that pension. That is done now. Therefore we know already what the pension asset represents in cash terms. We know too that the courts have years of experience in sorting out complicated allocations of financial assets on divorce, such as who will continue to pay the mortgage on a matrimonial home in which only the wife will remain. The courts have such experience now. So what does the Minister need to know which the courts cannot sort out?
Nothing that the Minister said today gives any evidence or weight to the argument that we could not now proceed with our current information. The research will be useful. That is fine. Let such research influence through the Lord Chancellor's guidance, steering the courts through how to apportion assets if that is appropriate. But at this point in time the need to state in the Bill that the courts must take pension assets into account and that they may do so by dividing them without jeopardising other privileges should not be undermined.
Will the Minister tell us why the courts cannot have that power, authority and discretion?
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am the last person to wish to cast doubt on the good will of the Government in commissioning research on the matter. I have been a survey researcher all my working life. I was mildly encouraged by what the Minister said about the research that is being conducted. I am glad to hear that it is being conducted among those who have experience of divorce—in particular among solicitors in recent divorce cases. It sounds as though the sample size is large enough to give what may well be reliable results.
The question which has to be asked is: what is the brief to researchers and how will the results in due course be used to influence government policy? Echoing my noble friend Lady Hollis, I wonder whether the Government have fully understood the nature of the issue now before the Committee. It is not a matter of establishing down to the last decimal point the proportion of divorces in which the transfer value of a pension is an important consideration. In adding the power for the courts to take pensions into consideration, it is surely enough to know that there is widespread suffering as a result of the existing law. Whether that widespread suffering represents 1 per cent., 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of divorces is not the essence of the problem that we consider today.
The problem is that in respect of pensions the courts are denied the power that they have regarding other assets, such as the matrimonial home. Valuable though

935
statistical information on the number of cases in which that issue is a problem will be in determining public policy and the costs and effects on the pension industry, it does not go to the point of our present discussion.
I do not disagree with what my noble friend Lady Hollis quoted regarding the Pensions Management Institute report. Its views are entirely clear. However, that is despite the fact that the pensions industry will not benefit from the amendment. The pensions industry does not want to have to calculate transfer values at the time of divorce, or at any other time, if it can avoid it. It has no interest in paying pensions to two people instead of one. We are not dependent on the good will of the pensions industry for doing justice to those who have already suffered the pain of divorce. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, argued the proposal most persuasively. It is being proposed because it is right, not. because it is convenient to the pensions industry. Therefore, quite frankly, the views of the pensions industry are secondary in the matter. If the pensions industry were to be opposed to the amendment, it would not detract from justification for the amendment.
I hope that the Committee will not be unduly influenced by what the Minster said about the value and relevance of the research. Research is, of course valuable. But the principle which has to be established does not depend on the result of the research.
Baroness Seear: The Minister never took account of the most important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. It is a point which could perfectly well be dealt with in this legislation without waiting for research. As I understood it, there is no power to allocate part of a pension. The courts are not allowed so to do. It is no good saying that one can make an agreement on the assets if the most valuable asset of all cannot be divided. In a great many cases the pension is the only valuable possession which the couple have. If that cannot be divided because the law prevents it from being divided, then the courts cannot make a proper, sensible division.
It is not possible at law to split a pension. To make that possible is surely a change which the Minister could introduce. It would be in line with his claim that the best way to deal with the matter is by division of the assets. One cannot have that division if the most important asset cannot be divided.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: When my noble friend replies, will he clarify what he said about the actions that the Government would take on Report? Will they bring forward a proposal or merely give advice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to try to be helpful. However, it is always difficult to be the voice of calm reason, which I am trying to be. We all know of cases where we, rightly, feel a degree of indignation on behalf of the wife who has been left pensionless. This is a complex issue. It would be foolish of this House and Parliament in general not to accept that the issues are complex and that it is important to get them right when we act on them. I wish to make a number of points before I again rehearse what I said in my remarks about the position of my noble and learned
936
friend and myself on one aspect. I remind the Committee that the PLRC broadly endorsed the PMI working group's approach. However, it recognised the complexity of the issue and recommended further detailed work.
I do not wish to take anything away from what the noble Baroness said and I hope that we do not have too heated an argument about it because we are agreed on the fundamentals. On the PMI working group, according to my information, the final decision was finely balanced.
The research project is being carried out by social and community planning research, which is an independent research institution. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the project will explore the current treatment of occupational pension rights in relation to divorce as part of a programme of research into women's pension provision in Britain. We hope that the results of the report will be available by the end of the year. The study will also cover Scotland separately, in order to pick up the difference in the legal position there.
Responding to my noble friend, I repeat that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I will consider the proposition that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should be amended so as to place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the courts when they are considering financial provisions on divorce. At the same time we shall also give consideration to whether a power should be taken to prescribe a method of valuing pension rights on divorce. Those are the two points I made and I have little doubt that we shall return to them on Report.
Lord Ezra: Will the Minister kindly elucidate on what he said about empowering the courts to take pensions into account? If the courts were to decide that a fair and equitable allocation of the assets in divorce involved the splitting of the pension, could that be done without jeopardising the tax position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that that would be possible within the rules of pension schemes as they are currently constituted. In a way, that is the second part of the problem which we are trying to address this afternoon. The first part, as I have already explained to the Committee, is to ask the court to take such matters into account. The second part is what I am trying to persuade the Committee is a more difficult problem. The difficulty is not the valuing of the pension which, as I explained, is comparatively easy; the difficulty is how one sets about splitting it. The existing position is difficult: it depends on the kind of pension. As was mentioned, a case is currently before our noble and learned friends in their capacity as Law Lords. They are examining a case on the just division of the pension on divorce. So it depends on the pension arrangement whether the pension can be split.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend left vague exactly what he will do on Report, but he used a usually significant phrase at this stage in the examination of a Bill. Arguments have been made on various facets and when, from the Dispatch Box, a Minister says that he

937
will do something at Report stage, it gives an indication that the point has been made. Will some action be taken on this Bill or will my noble friend talk to his noble and learned friend merely about what ought to be done in the future? The Minister said that certain things were better carried out in primary legislation. What does he mean when he says that he will give it consideration at Report stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to be as clear as I can. I said that the question of dividing pension rights on divorce would be better dealt with in primary legislation because, whatever Members of the Committee might say, it is an extremely complex area.
The second point I made was in response to the argument that the position in Scotland is different. The Scottish courts are obliged to take pensions into account. I said that my noble and learned friend and I would consider whether or not the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 could be amended so as to place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the courts in England and Wales when they are considering financial provision on divorce. We shall also give consideration as to whether or not a power should be taken to prescribe a method of valuing pensions on divorce. Those are the two points which I made. I wish to make clear, before anyone else jumps up, that we are talking about provisions during the course of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has still not dealt with the point I made, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. What is the use of doing all those things unless we clear the matter of whether pensions can be split? One cannot value the assets, including dividing the pension, if the Minister is saying that, with the present state of the law, the pension cannot be split. Surely that is the position and the point could be dealt with in the Bill. Alternatively, is that a matter which the Minister says will be dealt with in an amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, to which he referred?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I was being careful, I was trying to make a distinction between two different problems. In some cases, as I explained, pension rights can be split. The point about bringing forward legislation, as I was requested to do in the amendments of both noble Baronesses, is that it would be wiser, in the Government's view, to wait until we hear the detail of the research to see how it works out in practice. Then we shall see how to resolve some of the problems. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is an extremely complex area where we are dealing with the relationships between people. Whatever anyone says, that normally ends with a fairly bitter and acrimonious exchange.
As regards the difference between the law of England and that of Scotland, raised by some Members of the Committee, at the risk of repeating myself I point out that my noble and learned friend and I will look carefully at whether the Matrimonial Causes Act should be amended so as to place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the courts.
938
I know that that does not answer or resolve the second part of the noble Baroness's question, but I believe that it goes some way towards resolving the first part.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am still not entirely clear; I am sure it is my fault. Is the Minister saying that, although he would be willing to support consideration of strengthening the rights of the courts to take pension assets into account, if the only way those pension assets could be taken into account is by dividing them, he will not empower the courts to do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would not have put it like that. I would use much more sensible and, dare I say, neutral phraseology. We propose to ascertain whether the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should be amended so that greater emphasis is placed on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the court, as well as the valuation of the pension rights, so that the court has a method of deciding what value to place on them.
The second part of the noble Baroness's question deals with how the pension right is split up. On a number of occasions I have acknowledged that this issue is extremely complex. My recommendation to the Committee is that we await the outcome of the research project to see how the issue is dealt with in the courts. When Parliament returns to the matter, as I have no doubt it will, we shall be in a far better position to make sensible law that will last for the long term.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: Nothing is being conceded. If the Minister agrees with his noble and learned friend to bring back an amendment at Report Stage and the courts are asked to take pension provision into account but there is no capacity to divide the pension that leads us nowhere. There may be no other assets that can be given to the spouse who has nothing to compensate her for half of the pension rights.
There is unanimity throughout the Committee. I have never known this Chamber so united on an issue. What could be established after this debate is the principle that we accept that pension rights should be divided on divorce. All of us accept that it is not an easy matter; it is complicated. But a timescale could be laid down in the Bill which would enable the Government to take into account the research that was mentioned as well as other research already carried out. The Government could take into account the experience of the Scottish courts, which are already required to take pension provision into account. Later, at a determined date, the courts could implement the principle for which the whole of this Committee asks. I do not see any need for us to wait until further research is before us. We all know that we support the principle of division on divorce. It is now a question of working out the mechanisms. That could be done between now and a commencement date which could be included in the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that the noble Baroness invites me, as I said earlier, to propose to the Committee a Henry VIII clause, or clauses, of very considerable proportions to allow us to do

939
something in a month or sometime next year the detail of which is at this time not very clear and which will be left to the good sense of the Secretary of State. I normally try that argument about matters which are—dare I say?—of much less importance than this. Your Lordships are very sceptical of that argument. I would be reluctant to advance it even in such a good cause.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, we are all agreed that there is a very real problem here. I should like to think that I have gone some way to alleviating people's fears that the courts in England and Wales do not take pensions into account—there is no evidence that they do not—and some way towards ensuring that they do take them into account by way of a "first step". I have little doubt that we shall have to return to the issue at some stage in the future once the research project is complete and when we see clearly how to proceed.
The noble Baroness mentioned a proportion of 50:50. It may not of course be 50:50. One has to go into much more detailed propositions—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The courts decide the matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am being told from a sedentary position that it is for the courts to decide. It is up to Parliament to make clear that it puts on the face of legislation what it intends should be done in circumstances such as these. This is a very difficult issue. The suggestion is that there will be two willing parties in the splitting up of pensions on divorce. I do not believe that any Members of the Committee live in such an unreal world as to believe that that is the case—
Lord Wolfson: Will the Minister keep in mind the position of a partner in the event of remarriage when deciding what recommendation the House will give to the courts on the division of the pension?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I seem to keep repeating the same point. So far as the provisions in Scotland are concerned and the way in which they differ from those in the courts in England and Wales, I have said that although the two jurisdictions are different, the difference is not great. The research project will help us determine how great the difference is. We fully appreciate the arguments and agree with the concern expressed on this issue as divorce increases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, a pension is a very considerable part of the wealth that has been created by the couple in marriage. We are prepared to look carefully at whether to amend the 1973 Act to place greater emphasis on the need for pension rights to be taken into account by the court. I accept that what I have said does not go nearly far enough for most Members of the Committee who want to get into the difficult issue of dividing pension rights but I hope that it will certainly go part of the way to ensuring that the courts take into account not only the ordinary savings and the property but also what could be a very significant part of the wealth created by the couple; namely the pension rights.
Lord Monkswell: We are—
Noble Lords: Baroness Young.
Baroness Young: We have certainly had a very good debate. I begin by thanking all those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of this series of amendments. I do not think that I have ever heard such unanimity of view from all parts of the Chamber on any one issue. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will convey both the strength and the unanimity of feeling to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Both are very unusual.
They are unusual, not—if I may say so to my noble friend the Minister—because we are being very emotional about this matter, but because we believe that society has changed and that there is an injustice in the present state of affairs which needs to be put right. It could be put right in the course of the passage of this Bill.
In thanking all those who have supported me, I should like to underline some of the points that were made and return to what I thought was the extremely important argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She explained in considerable detail that the legislation that was passed which governs the ability of an employee to change jobs and to take his pension with him gives us the basis of finding a way of valuing the pension and so of dealing with one of the most difficult of the issues. That legislation is now in place. It is my contention—I believe it would the contention of everyone who has spoken—that all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are there on the table. They simply need to be put together.
I should like to underline the point that was made by my noble friend, Lady Elles, about cost. I said that I had been unable to get precise costings; I understand that that applies also to my noble friend the Minister. It is very difficult to claim the cost of the loss to the Inland Revenue over any of the proposals that are adduced and not to be able to counterbalance it with the cost from the Department of Social Security on social security benefits. In a way, in the second half one is trying to prove a negative, which is an impossible situation. But common sense tells us that there would be a counterbalance in savings. Any information that can be given to us on costs would be very helpful.
I should like to repeat what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter set out clearly; that is, that if we do not do something on this Bill, there is unlikely to be another opportunity to do anything. I find it difficult to believe that another Bill on pensions will be introduced and it would be a curious piece of legislation which simply amended the 1973 Act, if that was proposed as the way forward.
Everyone who spoke drew attention to the difficult cases that exist, including my noble friend Lord Dean. My noble friend Lady Seccombe mentioned some of the examples in the correspondence she received and my noble friend Lord Boardman drew attention to a woman who wanted to disclaim a pension and could not do so. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that we are not defending the pensions industry; the simple fact is that divorce has made life today more complicated and pensions are one of the complicated issues that become part of divorce. Divorce is now a part of life and I for one am sad to think that it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

941
I have considerable sympathy with the comments made by my noble friend when he was winding up. I was a Minister and feel deeply for him in the position in which he finds himself—probably more deeply than anyone else who spoke in the debate this afternoon. I want to say something constructive and helpful at the close of the debate and I hope that my noble friend will take back the strength of feeling and unanimity of view on this matter.
The Committee wants the Government to bring forward an amendment to correct the injustice which exists. I believe I can speak for the Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when I say that none of us pretends that our amendments are perfect. We want a government amendment. If that is not forthcoming by the Report stage, we would be satisfied with an undertaking that it will be brought forward before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
I doubt that any one of us fully understands the purpose of the further research. Though my noble friend mentioned it on several occasions, it is difficult to see what it is that we are looking for that we do not already have. I believe that my noble friend is worried that some proposals may smack of retrospective legislation. I am well aware of the difficulties that arose over the Child Support Agency which, in principle, had the support of everyone and then ran into difficulties. One of the more obvious difficulties was that in a clean break divorce people were being asked for something extra.
On the issue before us I do not believe that anybody is asking for a retrospective view. We are looking to the future. I am against retrospective legislation and believe it to be quite wrong. However, one cannot guarantee that there will not be any hard cases. In my experience, whatever one does in public life, hard cases arise as well as cases that one cannot imagine beforehand. But I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are not advocating retrospective legislation.
I shall read carefully what my noble friend the Minister said on this matter. But I hope that he too will reflect carefully on what happened this afternoon. When such a strength of feeling exists on an issue; when it is a matter of justice and when there is an opportunity to put matters right, that is the moment to act. The Minister would bring great credit on himself if he could do something today on this important issue. On the strength of what he said and because I want to give him the opportunity to bring forward an amendment at a later stage, I shall not press the amendment today. Of course we shall return to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 [Forfeiture, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 166A not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 166B:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
Named beneficiary
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2), any occupational pension scheme which does not contain a rule to provide for the benefits on death to be paid, whether at the same or at a lower rate, to a person who has been nominated by the scheme member as his chosen beneficiary upon death shall be treated as including one.
(2) Where the scheme member is married, the nominated beneficiary shall automatically be his spouse.
(3) Every scheme member shall be informed by the trustees of the scheme of his right so to nominate.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 166B will provide a new clause after Clause 84, which deals with forfeiture of pensions. The amendment seeks to correct an omission in the Bill. Its effect would be to allow an unmarried member of a scheme to declare a beneficiary in the event of his or her death while a member of that scheme.
This is neither a new nor a radical idea. In fact, it already applies in many private occupational pension schemes —for example, BT, Unilever, Tate & Lyle, Massey Ferguson, BP and the AA. Those companies already include the provision within their schemes. The amendment would therefore ensure that those private schemes which do not currently provide for such a declaration, will do so if the unmarried member of the scheme chooses to exercise that right. The provision will also change a disparity in the public sector. At the moment 4.5 million public sector workers are affected by rules which do not recognise their partners in the event of death. I refer to the schemes for local council workers, civil servants and even public employees who put their lives on the line day in and day out like policemen and fire fighters.
I suggest that pensions should not be based upon moral judgments or upon the lifestyle that people choose to live. Contributions are paid or assessed as paid for a pension promise at the end of a working life. If that working life is abruptly stopped by the death of the member in the scheme, then in all schemes the widow or widower will benefit. The amendment deals with schemes where members are not married. The latest government figures for 1990 show that 7 per cent. of all people between the ages of 16 and 59 live together but are not married. For men between the ages of 25 and 29 and women between the ages of 20 and 24, the figure increases to 15 per cent. We are not therefore talking of an inconsiderable number of people.
The single factor across all public pension schemes is that a partner who is not married to the scheme member receives nothing in the event of the death of that member under the scheme. Let us look at an example. Being a policeman is a hazardous job where people put their lives on the line day in and day out. Apparently they pay 11 per cent. of their salaries into the pension scheme yet, if an unmarried policeman is killed on duty, his partner receives nothing from the pension scheme. In fact the scheme makes clear that death in service benefits depend on the officer being married. The benefit can be paid to the parent, a brother or sister or a

943
child over 19, but not to the partner—who is probably the parent of the officer's children. For example, a young police officer worked for ICI for five years and then entered the police force. He was killed while on duty and left his partner of seven years with a five year-old and a one year-old child. She received absolutely no benefit at all from the police pension scheme. But she received a benefit from ICI for his period of employment with that company.
Fire fighters' pension schemes are payable only to the "married spouse". The principal Civil Service pension scheme says that a pension is payable only to someone you are married to. Yet there are non-pension related benefits where the Government give recognition to a partner who is not married. For instance, if a civil servant has to move home in the course of his job the cost of that move is taken into account despite the fact that his partner may not be married to him. The local government superannuation scheme has no provision to nominate an adult partner to receive an equivalent widow or widower's pension without the member giving up part of his pension. The teachers' superannuation scheme provides for dependants, but those dependants are not the partner; they are the parent, brother or sister, or the widowed step-parent, with whom the member may never have had a close relationship. The partner gets absolutely nothing. The same is true in the National Health Service where nothing can go to the partner who is not married. In some circumstances benefits may go to the brother or sister; yet the death of that member of the pension scheme could leave the family of the member bereft.
The lack of provision for survivors at common law and for same sex partners in long-term relationships offends against equal treatment. This is a gap in the Pensions Bill. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the proposal is not radical and is not new. It is based on a member paying contributions into a fund or being assessed as paying contributions into a fund and at the end of his or her working life getting a benefit. If he or she dies during service the widow or widower in each case will get a benefit. But if they are not married, in many cases in private sector schemes, and in all cases in public sector schemes, they get absolutely nothing. That inequality needs to be rectified. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am in some difficulty because the noble Baroness's speech did not quite accord with the amendment which she moved. The effect of the amendment would be to take away trustees' discretion to decide who should receive lump sum death benefits. It would require such death benefits to be paid to a person who has been nominated by the scheme member as his chosen beneficiary. Where the member is married, the death benefit would automatically have to be paid to the spouse. On the words in the amendment we do not consider that such a requirement for a binding nomination is necessary.
As the Committee may possibly be aware, trustees are under a duty to act fairly and not to take irrelevant considerations into account in exercising their discretion. Nor do we believe that this change would be welcomed by pension scheme members and their families. Current arrangements provide a flexibility to
944
allow for circumstances where the member may have made a nomination which is out of date. Members are usually asked to fill in a formal nomination or expression of wish at the time when they join a pension scheme. They are requested to update that if their circumstances change but they could, of course, forget to do so. Under the binding nomination arrangement as proposed in the amendment, death benefits would always be paid to the nominee, whether or not the member's circumstances had changed.
In addition, payments at the discretion of trustees do not form part of the member's estate and do not therefore depend on the grant of probate of the member's will which can take some time. Trustees can make payments very quickly to cover immediate loss of current income to those financially dependent on the deceased. However, we accept that in some cases the wording of trust deeds, particularly older deeds, can be unnecessarily restrictive. We agree with the PLRC that schemes should consider amending their trust deeds where trustees' decisions on the payment of death benefits are restricted. We have therefore introduced provision in Clause 61(2) (a) that will enable trustees to modify a scheme by resolution in order to extend the class of persons who may receive death benefits. That avoids the need for the intervention of a third party, such as the courts or the authority.
In the light of what I have said about the rather narrow point that we took from the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it. She widened the discussion away from death benefits to public sector schemes and the question of whether only the legal spouse should be entitled. This is a wider public policy issue. I shall certainly pass on the noble Baroness's comments to my Treasury colleagues but I hope that what I have had to say about paying lump sum death benefits will satisfy her that the provisions in the Bill are perfectly satisfactory.
Lord Ezra: Will the noble Lord clarify a point which he made in his remarks? He started by saying that the noble Baroness's proposition is unnecessary because of the discretion which trustees have in the case of payment of benefits on the demise of the member. To go back to her example of a policeman who was unfortunately killed on duty and had a partner of seven years with small children, were the trustees in that case guilty of not exercising their discretion?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is exactly the point I made at the beginning and at the end of my contribution to this short debate. The police come inside the public sector schemes. We rather assumed that the noble Baroness's amendment was aimed at a different problem. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer a question about public service schemes. I have only really looked into the question of lump sum death benefits in occupational pension schemes with trusts and the like.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: In debating the Bill I am becoming used to the words "not necessary". We are all becoming experts on the interpretation of those words. In this case I interpreted the Minister as saying, "We do not accept the argument

945
and we are not prepared even to look at the point which has been put forward". However, it is a genuine point and what we have proposed is necessary.
In private pension schemes trustees have discretion, although they do not always exercise it. Many large multinational company schemes provide for benefits to be paid to the non-married partner where the individual member has so designated. The Minister said that many people in pension schemes are opposed to our proposal. We have been lobbied very hard on this point by a large number of pension schemes and we have been told that what we have proposed is necessary. In the public sector, there are no trustees and there is no discretion. There is no moving from that. That is the reality of the position.
On the basis of what the Minister said, I feel that I should not withdraw the amendment. It is an important point. I should like to take the opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Addington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jacques, L.

Avebury, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bridges, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chapple, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milverton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Freyberg, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Halsbury, E.

Weatherill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

946

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Killearn, L.

Ailsa, M.

Kimball, L.

Aldington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsay, E

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Boardman, L.

Manton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McConnell, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookes, L

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Carnegy of Lour, B,

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L.

Onslow, E.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Courtown, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Geddes, L.

Swansea, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hothfield, L.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wolfson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Clause 85 [Sections 83 and 84: supplementary]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 49, line 3, leave out ("and other schemes falling within a prescribed") and insert ("or to other schemes falling within a prescribed class or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 167ZA. The purpose of Amendment No. 167 is to clarify the

947
regulation-making powers in subsection (1) (a). We intend that regulations made under this subsection will modify the provisions contained in Sections 83 and 84 with regard to public service schemes or to other schemes of a particular class or description.
It is intended that regulations will set out the circumstances under which a public service pension can be forfeited. We intend these regulations to reproduce the effect of existing provisions contained in Section 78 of the Pension Schemes Act concerning the forfeiture of public service pensions. We believe that in certain circumstances the rules on the forfeiture of public service pensions should differ from those in the private sector. For example, in some cases forfeiture of pension is appropriate where it would be regarded as contrary to the public interest to pay a pension payable under a public service scheme.
The only other types of schemes we have in mind as suitable for possible modifications are schemes which do not have tax approval and which provide benefits in excess of Inland Revenue limits on earnings in excess of the earnings gap. Generally these so-called "top-up" schemes are not trust based and are unfunded. This power would enable us to make regulations, if necessary.
On a general note, I should like to reassure the Committee that we would only consider modifications where it was absolutely clear that certain provisions in Clauses 83 and 84 would be wholly inappropriate to a particular type of scheme.
Amendment No. 167ZA is intended to make the meaning of "pension" in Sections 83 and 84 clearer. In those clauses we want to protect all rights and entitlements under a scheme, not just those to pensions. This amendment would clarify that for the purposes of these clauses any reference to pension in relation to an occupational pension scheme includes any benefit under the scheme and any part of a pension or benefit. For example, this would include rights to a lump sum, to payments under an interim agreement or rights used to purchase an annuity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 167ZA:
Page 49, line 7, leave out ("includes") and insert ("in relation to an occupational pension scheme, includes any benefit under the scheme and any part of a pension and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Provision of information]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 58, line 13, leave out from ("in") to end of line 14 and insert ("such a manner, at such a place and within such a period as may be specified in the notice.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will enable the Compensation Board itself to specify how, when and where evidence should be provided. As currently drafted, the arrangements for providing such evidence would be prescribed in regulations. We do not believe that this would give the Compensation Board sufficient flexibility. The circumstances of each case will be
948
different and only the board will be in a position to decide what arrangements are appropriate. The amendment ensures that the Compensation Board has the flexibility it requires to discharge its functions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 to 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Offences by bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 60, line 22, after ("a") insert ("Scottish").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 168, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 181.
Clause 105(3) provides that where a criminal offence under Part I of this Act is committed by a partnership and it is proved that it was committed with the consent or connivance of, or as a result of neglect by, an individual partner, then that partner is also guilty of the offence and is liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
However, this provision is required in respect of only Scottish partnerships. This is because only a Scottish partnership can be treated as corporate body with its own legal personality—which can protect individual partners from prosecution for wrongful acts committed by the partnership. Amendment No. 168 takes account of the different legal position afforded to partners of Scottish partnerships. It provides for the authority to act against individual Scottish partners in the same way as against English partners.
Clause 112 provides interpretations of terms used in Part I of the Bill. To clarify the term "Scottish partnership", Amendment No. 181 inserts a definition of the term at the appropriate place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 60, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 169, I should like to speak also to Amendment. No. 170.
The effect of Amendment No. 169 is to delete Clause 105(4) from the Bill. As it stands, subsection (4) provides that where an offence is committed by an unincorporated association, any officer of the association or member of its governing body may be held responsible for the offence and be proceeded against accordingly. However, under UK law such an unincorporated association has no legal personality. Consequently, any action taken against such a body would have to be against its members, so subsection (4) is not required to provide for this.
Amendment No. 170 removes the words
"or failure to comply with"
from Clause 106. This is because Clause 112, which sets down the interpretations of terms used in Part I of the Bill, provides that "contravention" includes failure to comply, and the term "contravention" is already used in Clause 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 106 [Breach of regulations]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 60, line 33, leave out (", or failure to comply with,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 106, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: We oppose the clause standing part of the Bill because it embodies powers, by regulation, to create what are in effect criminal offences which, on summary conviction, can carry a fine of up to level 5. It has been said frequently during the debate that the Government are taking far too much power by regulation to deal with matters arising in connection with the Bill. We recognise that, given the nature of the Bill, a great deal has to be done by regulation, but we do not consider that "by regulation" should be a sufficient way of creating what is an offence carrying a considerable fine. An action which carries such a penalty should be an action resulting from provisions on the face of the Bill; it should not be an offence that is created by regulation. That is why we oppose Clause 106 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in opposing the Question that Clause 106 stands part of the Bill. We also oppose the inclusion of Clause 134, which has been grouped with it. Of all the 200 or so regulatory powers in the Bill, I believe that those two clauses are the most worrying. Together, they give the Secretary of State power to make a criminal offence by regulation. What is more, the Secretary of State has specified no limit on the penalties that he may impose for the criminal offences that he has created. Furthermore, I understand that it will all be done by negative procedure so that neither House need have an opportunity to debate it.
That matter was of sufficient concern to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that it stated:
"In view of the extent of the powers to create criminal offences and of the difficulty of assessing the significance of individual powers, the House may wish to consider with care whether the powers in Clause 106 and Clause 134 are sufficiently clearly defined"
It also questioned whether they should be,
"subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, to ensure at least some consideration in both Houses".
We expressed our concern about that both on Second Reading and earlier in Committee. We have since been joined by other noble Lords. However, the Government have not so far tabled any amendments to define the scope of their powers, to limit the penalties or to use the affirmative procedure. In the absence of any move from the Government, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in arguing that the clauses should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These clauses empower the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part I of this Bill or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, to provide for contravention of the provisions in those regulations to be a criminal offence. They also specify the maximum penalty for such an
950
offence as level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000. Consequently, it is intended that any offences created will be summary ones and will not attract a prison sentence.
Clause 134, in addition, enables regulations made under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to provide the alternative penalty of a civil fine imposable by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. It also makes it a criminal offence for any person knowingly or recklessly to provide the pension schemes registrar with false or misleading information.
The provisions in Clause 106 are similar to those in Section 168 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (which Clause 134 replaces), which enables regulations under that Act to provide for the contravention of their provisions to be a criminal offence and sets down the maximum penalty for such offences.
While we expect most of those responsible for the running of pension schemes to comply with the new obligations that are to be placed on them, clearly it is essential to have appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. I am sure that neither noble Baroness would disagree with that. Although the authority will have the power to impose civil penalties, we want to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. We consider that criminal penalties are appropriate for the most serious offences in order to emphasise the severity of the offence and provide a serious deterrent to wrongdoing.
These clauses are necessary because many of the obligations that will need to attract a penalty for non-compliance are likely to be created in secondary legislation—either under Part I of the Bill or under the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recognised that regulation-making powers were necessary, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because the legislation covers detailed, complex and technical matters. Without the provisions of these clauses we could not underpin satisfactorily all the obligations created in secondary legislation with appropriate penalties. In addition, without the provisions of Clause 134 the enforcement structure for obligations introduced through the Pension Schemes Act would not mirror that available for those introduced through the powers in this Bill.
However, we recognise the concerns that have been raised about this approach. We are aware also that the scrutiny committee considered that the powers to introduce criminal offences under Clauses 106 and 134 were too wide. An alternative approach might be to provide, on the face of the Bill, that breaches of regulations made under any particular clause would be criminal offences, but that would not improve clarity. Very few of the obligations will need to be backed up with criminal penalties. These clauses enable us to be selective when attaching penalties to breaches.
It is right that criminal penalties should be included in the range of enforcement powers available to the authority. Nevertheless, we will consider whether we can focus the scope of these provisions to meet the scrutiny committee's concerns. One way of doing so would be to take up its suggestion of requiring any regulation introducing a criminal obligation to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

951
We have already said that we will consider the options put forward by the scrutiny committee in respect of civil penalties introduced through the powers of Clause 9 and this clause. We did that during a previous debate. The alternatives proposed were that the Bill should set down the maximum penalty, or regulations introducing a civil penalty should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I hope that what I have said persuades the noble Baronesses that I am alive to the criticism that has been made of those two clauses and that we are looking at two possible avenues which we think would answer the concerns expressed in this debate, on Second Reading, and by the scrutiny committee in its report.
Baroness Seear: It is welcome news that the Government sometimes listen. While it is by no means all that we would like, given that the Minister has said that he will at least see that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, that is a very real advance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is my noble friend saying that he will introduce amendments to that effect at the next stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that I was saying that we would look at two different approaches to the problem. We will bring forward at another stage of the Bill whichever one appears to offer the best solution.
Baroness Seear: We withdraw our objection to the clause.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Powers to modify this Part]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 170A, 170B and 170C:
Page 61, line 8, leave out ("section 68").
Page 61, line 13, at end insert ("or").
Page 61, line 15 leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 151BA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
Consultations about regulations
(" .—(1) Before the Secretary of State makes any regulations by virtue of this Part, he must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) to regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked by them,

(b) to regulations in the case of which the Secretary of State considers consultation inexpedient because of urgency,

(c) to regulations made before the end of the period of six months beginning with the coming into force of the provision of this Part by virtue of which the regulations are made, or

952

(d) to regulations which—

(i) state that they are consequential upon a specified enactment, and

(ii) are made before the end of the period of six months beginning with the coming into force of that enactment.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 and 191. Amendment No. 171 introduces a new clause which places the Secretary of State under a statutory duty to consult those he considers appropriate before making regulations on pension matters. I trust that that will be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 are consequential amendments relating to consultation on regulations. Their effect is to ensure that the Secretary of State will be under the same statutory obligations on consultation for regulations made under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 as he will be for regulations made under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are not going to oppose an amendment which introduces an obligation to consult. That is a constant theme in legislation, and Ministers will know that one of the constant devices by which oppositions seek to open up discussion on legislative matters is by introducing amendments to require consultation. But this is a pretty feeble attempt at introducing consultation into the Bill.
Let us concede that the amendment provides that the Secretary of State must consult, but then it states:
"such persons as he considers appropriate".
What kind of people are considered appropriate for consultation on regulations? In particular, I want to know whether the Secretary of State will consider consultation with the pensions industry itself adequate for the purpose because, of course, there are many kinds of people who are affected by pensions legislation. There are those who are responsible professionally for producing pension schemes; there are those who, by virtue of their role as employers, are responsible for pension schemes; and there are the punters—those who pay into and receive pensions. I should like an assurance that the Government do not exclude the third category from the proposed consultation.
It is not clear what is meant by subsection (2) (b):
"regulations in the case of which the Secretary of State considers consultation inexpedient because of urgency".
We have had consultation amendments before, but I have never seen a consultation amendment which makes that provision. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what precedent there is for what, on the face of it, appears to be a loophole which would enable the Secretary of State to avoid consultation in any case, because it is only up to the Secretary of State to consider what is urgent.
What if another person thinks that something else is not urgent, and that there are other opinions which could well be canvassed before regulations are made? It seems odd, at the very least, to put that matter entirely into the Secretary of State's hands. I suppose that we could let the transitional arrangements in paragraphs (c) and (d) go through without comment, but if the Government are going to introduce consultation provisions let us at least ensure that they have some real teeth.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend say whether there is any precedent for subsection (2) (b)?
Lord Lucas: Yes, I am told that the SSAC has the same provisions. Perhaps I may address the point more widely. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that we have the power to deal with another Maxwell; in other words, someone innovative and powerful making things go wrong quickly and radically. We do not wish to be without the powers necessary to deal with such a situation, if and when it happens. We do not envisage using subsection (2) (b) under ordinary circumstances. We shall consult whenever possible.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that we shall include members' representatives, trade unions, consumer groups, and similar organisations, in our consultation and not just people who might be considered to be pensions experts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Amendments consequential on Part I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 101, line 20, after ("Authority") insert ("or the Pensions Compensation Board").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 171B. These amendments allow information to be disclosed to the Pensions Compensation Board by any self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act 1986. They also allow the registrar of occupational and personal pension schemes to disclose information to the Pensions Compensation Board. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the face of it, the amendment appears to be welcome. However, I am puzzled why the information should be given under the Financial Services Act and the Pension Schemes Act but not, for example, under the Companies Act or any other legislation that is spelt out in detail in Schedule 3. Can the Minister help the Committee?
Lord Lucas: I do not believe that I can immediately help the Committee. I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 171B:
Page 102, line 25, after ("Authority") insert ("or the Pensions Compensation Board").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 103, line 4, leave out paragraph 26 and insert:
(". Section 144 (deficiencies in assets on winding up) is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 193, 196 and 197.
Amendment No. 193 inserts after Clause 139 a new clause which repeals Sections 136 to 143 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. These sections contain the Occupational Pension Board's powers to wind up schemes and to modify schemes for specified purposes.
954
They are either no longer required or will transfer to the new regulatory authority under Clauses 10 and 62 to 64 of the Bill.
Sections 136 to 143 of the Pension Schemes Act are incorrectly partially repealed in Schedule 3 to this Bill. Amendment No. 193 makes the full repeal as a new clause in Part IV of the Bill. Changes to other legislation consequential to the new clause should then appear in Schedule 6, not Schedule 3. The remaining amendments in the group achieve that.
The only exceptions are Amendments Nos. 172 and 173, which take account of the need to repeal Section 144 of the Pension Schemes Act. This contains the provisions for employer debt on wind up which are re-enacted by Clause 68 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. This series of amendments caused us a great deal of head scratching. One started with Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 in a grouping which appeared just before lunch today and then discovered that it all depends on Amendment No. 193. Even as regards those who spend a fair amount of time looking at amendments to legislation, it is possible to become confused—and I certainly did.
I am grateful for the explanation. I take it that all the other amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 193, which removes the relevant sections of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. I wish to be assured that the only purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those parts of the 1993 Act no longer appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: I am happy to give that assurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 103, line 9, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 10 insert:
("at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "or", and paragraph (d) and the preceding "or" are omitted, and
( ) subsections (6) and (7) are omitted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 103, line 13, at end insert:
(" . In section 158 (disclosure of information), after subsection (7) there is inserted—
"(7A) The Secretary of State may disclose to the Regulatory Authority any information received by him if he considers that the disclosure would enable or assist them to discharge their functions under—

(a) this Act, or

(b) the Pensions Act 1995,

or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland, and no such obligation as is mentioned in subsection (7) shall prevent him from doing so."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment inserts a new subsection into the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The new Section 158(7A) provides for the Secretary of State for Social Security, his department and its agencies to disclose information to the authority where it is considered that the disclosure would enable or assist the authority to discharge its functions.
We need to ensure that the authority can be provided with appropriate information from all relevant sources. This is one of a number of information gateways to the authority that we have opened up in our legislation. We consider this an important one. It is right that the Secretary of State for the Department of Social Security should be able to pass relevant information on to the authority. In particular, the Contributions Agency, which will have responsibilities in relation to contracted-out schemes, may need to report problems with a scheme to the authority.
There are already appropriate provisions in Section 158 of the Pension Schemes Act to allow the Secretary of State to disclose information to the registry. This amendment inserts appropriate provisions in respect of the regulator. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again, the amendment appears to be all right. However, I do not believe that the Minister would wish it to be recorded that he said "the Secretary of State for Social Security". As regards legislation, there is only one Secretary of State and he can change his departmental responsibilities and title without legislation thereby being made ineffective. I ask out of genuine puzzlement what obligations there are in subsection (7) which prevent the Secretary of State from doing so. I know that I should have looked at the legislation but it will do no harm for the answer to appear in Hansard.
Lord Lucas: I am afraid that again I am not clear as to what the answer might be. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I will gladly speak for as long as is necessary for the Minister to be handed a message from the Box. Although I accepted without hesitation his previous offer to write to me on what was, after all, a relatively trivial matter, the obligation as mentioned in subsection (7) appears in the amendment which the noble Lord has moved. It is not unreasonable of me to pick up the wording of the amendment and to ask what it means. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were in his place he would do so with much greater effect. However, even in my amateur way, I believe that I am entitled to some kind of explanation. I see an answer being handed to the Minister. Under those circumstances, I am content to leave it to him to respond as best he can to my entirely innocent and well-meaning question.
Lord Lucas: I am informed that information gathered under social security provisions cannot be passed on unless legislation expressly provides for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 180:
Page 103, leave out lines 15 to 19.
Page 103, line 23, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 25.
Page 103, line 29, at end insert ("and").
Page 103, line 31, leave out from ("160" ") to end of line 32.
Page 103, leave out lines 34 lo 36 and insert ("in subsection (3)—

(a) for "97(1), 104(8) and 144(5)" there is substituted "and 97(1)",

956

(b) the words from "or, in the case of" to "determined" are omitted, and

(c) the words following paragraph (b) are omitted").

Page 103, line 38, leave out paragraph 37.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 172. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 ["Connected" and "associated" persons]:
[Amendment No. 180A not moved.]
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 63, line 20, at end insert:
(" "Scottish partnership" means a partnership constituted under the law of Scotland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 63, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) References in this Part to the trustees of a trust scheme shall include references to the directors of a corporate trustee in cases where a company has been appointed to act as a trustee of a trust scheme.").
The noble Lord said: Part I of the Pensions Bill does not apply to corporate trustees. However, many occupational pension schemes have a sole corporate trustee rather than individual trustees, or sometimes they have individual trustees together with one corporate trustee.
A corporate trustee is a company which has been appointed to act as trustee of a pension scheme and whose constitution allows it to act as a trustee. Often a corporate trustee is preferred to individual trustees partly because it is easier to replace directors of the company than to go through the rather more cumbersome procedure required to remove individual trustees and appoint replacement trustees.
In the case of a corporate trustee, the trustee remains the same but the directors can be changed from time to time. Also, a corporate trustee company has the special knowledge and skills readily available which may take an individual trustee some time to learn.
Since corporate trustees are appointed widely in relation to occupational pension schemes, there seems to be no logical reason why Part I should not extend to the directors of corporate trustees. The purpose of the amendment is to put directors of corporate trustees on the same footing as individual trustees. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We agree with the principle of the noble Lord's amendment and we were already considering the point that he has raised.
Where a scheme is controlled by a corporate trustee, it is only right that the requirements of this part should apply to the company directors in the same way as to individual trustees. I do have some reservations about the drafting of the amendment but I would not, of course, as I have said on a number of occasions, wish to base any argument on that.

957
In the case where, for example, the employer sets up or uses a subsidiary company as a trustee, we consider that equivalent provisions to the member-nominated trustee requirements under Clause 14 should apply to the directors of the company. However, we do not think it is practical that those requirements should apply to professional corporate trustees. Such professional independent trustees may act for a large number of pension schemes. If they were obliged to include members from all those schemes on their board of directors, it could swell to unmanageable proportions. Schemes which wish to use that type of trustee will either have to accept the corporate trustee as a single trustee who sits alongside member-nominated trustees with exactly the same functions, or opt-out of the member-nominated trustee requirements under the provisions of Clause 15.
Nevertheless, I am willing to take away the issue and look carefully at the individual provisions of Part I to see whether it might be necessary to make clear that they do apply to corporate trustees, and if so whether any modification or amendment is necessary. If it is, I will bring forward suitable amendments on Report. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that undertaking. As we seem to agree that the principle is right, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Section 112: supplementary]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 64, line 19, after ("Part") insert (", except section 14").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment will add to Clause 113(4) the words "except section 14" which deals with member-nominated trustees.
Clause 113 as presently worded provides for regulations to change the meaning of the word "member". That is an extremely wide authority which goes right to the heart of the Bill, because the Pensions Bill is all about members of schemes. We suggest that the amendment is necessary. Clause 112 provides definitions of words in Part I. The clause defines "member" as:
"any active, deferred or pensioner member".
We do not challenge that. We think that is correct. But Clause 113 as it stands undermines that definition. More important, it also undermines the provisions of Clause 14, which go to the heart of the Bill.
On the one hand, the Bill gives and on the other hand it takes away by extending the definition of "member". We do not understand why there is any need for that. Clause 14 as drafted is clear. The definition contained in Clause 112 is also clear. And yet the very next clause gives authority to undermine that definition.
We must bear in mind that when the Bill becomes law, there will be considerable changes as regards trustees of occupational pension funds because, as we have said so many times in this Committee, only 35 per cent. of current schemes have serving, working member-trustees. A great many changes will take place. Regulations are no substitute for primary legislation. They will provide a wide remit for changing the definition of "member". Essentially, that weakens the Bill. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will explain why regulations may be needed to change the definition of "member" and why those changes will exclude any changes with reference to Clause 14, which deals with member-nominated trustees.
If the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment, will he explain why that definition may need to be changed? What are the situations which have existed or which factors has the Goode Committee drawn to the attention of Ministers which led to that provision in the Bill? We see no reason for it. If the Minister insists that it remains in the Bill, then this amendment is needed to prevent any weakening of Clause 14. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness appeared to imply that there is a hidden agenda as regards Clause 14, which is certainly not the case. We have been frank and open about the term "member" in Clause 14. There is no mystery. I shall try to explain in some detail exactly our intentions in this regard.
Clause 14(1) offers the potential to all members to select trustees. Subsection (3) gives existing trustees the freedom to develop appropriate rules for selecting member-nominated trustees. Those rules will, no doubt, be tailored to the particular circumstances of their scheme. It is those rules, rather than the clause, which will determine those members who will be eligible to select trustees. However, the rules will be subject to the approval of active and pensioner members as well as deferred members if trustees so wish.
There is also the power in subsection (3) to prescribe rules in regulations. We intend that prescribed rules will provide a procedure which is simple and easy to implement and will secure the basic policy intention that, where members wish it, there should be at least one-third member-nominated trustees.
The arrangements that we intend to adopt are those recommended by the Pension Law Review Committee as the most convenient and cost effective for schemes. They will require schemes to invite at least all active members to nominate persons for selection as trustees. We feel that it would be wrong to impose a requirement to involve members other than active members because that could impose significant cost and additional complexity on some schemes. We hope that it will be a measure of last resort.
The rules will lack the flexibility of rules developed by scheme trustees. We hope that that will encourage the majority of schemes to devise their own procedures for selecting member-nominated trustees. Prescribed rules, however, will be an integral part of the

959
member-nominated trustee requirements. Their purpose is twofold: first, as a fallback option for those schemes whose members and trustees cannot agree on an appropriate formula to select member-nominated trustees; and, secondly, we have no desire to allow schemes to avoid those requirements by delay or procrastination. Once the legislation comes into effect, we intend member-nominated trustees to be in place within a prescribed time-scale. As I indicated during the previous debate, we are looking at the possibility of that being a period of six months.
If trustees fail to take reasonable steps to introduce member-nominated trustees they may be sanctioned and removed by the authority. The authority may find itself in a position where it has to sanction trustees unless they introduce member-nominated trustees. In such a case, a readily available procedure which can be followed is required.
Finally, the term "member" in subsections (9) and (10), as defined in Clause 112, means any member, whether active, pensioner or deferred. We intend that any member may be nominated and selected as a member-nominated trustee and that there will be no restrictions on that. It is a matter for scheme members to decide who is best suited to carry out the duties of that position.
I hope that I have made our intentions crystal clear and that the noble Baroness will appreciate that her suspicions are unfounded and her amendment unnecessary. I see no reason to single out Clause 14 as the one in which the word "member" should not be extended or restricted. With that explanation of what we intend in that respect, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for his extremely detailed and helpful explanation as regards understanding the Government's intention on Clause 113. I should stress that I did not intend to imply that there was a hidden agenda. That is certainly not the view with which I approached the matter. I was trying to encourage the Minister to put on the record the reason for the provision. If, in fact, the Minister read into my comments that I was so implying, I withdraw those remarks. I do not have a problem in that respect. I certainly did not intend to imply that. I repeat, the Minister may have chosen to interpret my contribution in that way, but it was not my intention that he should do so.
However, the amendment has made the Minister give us assurances regarding circumstances in which the change through regulation of the definition of the word "member" will apply. I was heartened by the Minister's assurance that the change of definition of "member" will be to make the legislation work to ensure that the provisions of member-nominated trustees and the requirements under the Bill are put into effect. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 182B:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause:
Entitlement to share in occupational pension
(".—(1) If a resident of residential accommodation (other than a temporary resident) being a member of an occupational pension scheme, has a spouse (referred to in this section as "the remaining spouse") living other than in residential accommodation, the remaining spouse shall be entitled on application to the trustees of the scheme to receive one-half of the gross occupational pension which the resident would, apart from this section, be entitled to receive.
(2) Any payment made to the remaining spouse under subsection (1) of this section shall not be treated as the resident's income but shall be treated as the remaining spouse's income for all purposes.
(3) In this section—

"residential accommodation" means either accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or accommodation in a nursing home or residential care home as defined in Regulation 19 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 if such accommodation is not provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948;

"resident" means a person provided with residential accommodation;

"temporary resident" has the same meaning as in the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992; and

"gross occupational pension" means the amount of occupational pension to which the resident is entitled before deducting any income tax which would, apart from this section, he payable on that pension.").

The noble Baroness said: When Amendment No. 182A was called it occurred to me that Members of the Committee would have liked another hour-and-a-half of discussion on divorce, but I noticed that the Minister was looking, I hoped, still appropriately bruised, battered and, therefore, not willing to pursue the matter.
However, Amendment No. 182B raises the issue of residential care and also exactly the same issue that we dealt with as regards divorce. As we know, having spent a considerable time on the matter, occupational pensions at present cannot be divided or assigned. As we saw, that is a major issue when it comes to the division of assets on divorce. But the fact that occupational pensions cannot be divided or assigned raises even more poignant questions when an elderly couple are divided not by divorce but by long-term illness.
For example, the husband—and it is usually the husband with a substantial occupational pension—may have developed a long-term illness such as Alzheimer's disease. He may have been nursed tenderly at home by his wife until she could no longer cope. The wife is, perhaps, in her 70s or 80s. The husband goes into a nursing home or into residential care and, because his occupational pension cannot be divided or assigned, he takes with him his entire occupational pension towards the fees. His wife, elderly and with no occupational pension of her own—indeed, three-quarters of elderly women do not have such pensions—can be left with nothing other than the state dependent pension; namely, about £35 a week, topped up by income support from which she has to find, perhaps, the additional cost of visiting her husband, telephoning him, buying him treats and keeping their home repaired.
The husband and wife may have been sharing an occupational and state pension entitlement of £350 a week. Had the husband died, the wife would have received half of that amount as his widow. As, instead, she has lost him to Alzheimer's, the wife receives nothing but very inadequate state benefits. If the couple have modest savings, the wife will not even receive that amount until their savings have been eaten away to below £8,000 a year.
Local authorities can take such circumstances into account if the wife pleads poverty and contributes to his fees. As local authorities are in dire straits at present, they are very reluctant to make a discretionary contribution when, at the same time, they are having to cut statutory services. Where the husband's fees are met by the DSS in part or in whole because his occupational pension does not fully cover them, the DSS has no discretion whatever; indeed, his entire occupational pension must be taken because it cannot be divided. Therefore, the wife is left devastated twice over: first, by the loss of a husband to a dreadful illness; and, secondly, by her own financial insecurity which has arisen as a result of the loss of his occupational pension.
It should not be like that. If the amendment were accepted, it would not be. The amendment proposes that, in such circumstances, the trustees would be able to assign half of the occupational pension to the wife exactly in the way as it would come to her were she to be widowed. How many people are we talking about? According to Age Concern, about 10,000 men and 5,000 women who have occupational pensions are married and are living in residential care. Those are not very large numbers; but, for those involved, it is a problem of great poignancy. It is true that the DSS and local authorities may contribute more, as a result of the amendment, towards the cost of the husband's upkeep, but some of that would be offset by savings on income support to the wife who is left at home.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting the case of Mrs. F. which has been given to me by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. Mrs. F. is 77 and her husband is 80. He has had Alzheimer's disease for the past 10 years and has recently had to go into a nursing home because of the effect on his wife's health. He served in the Army during the Second World War and has worked all his life. The whole of his occupational pension is being used to pay the cost of his care. At present, Mrs. F. is living on £66 per week, including income support. She writes,
"I feel this is wrong as the pension was meant for both of us. Is there anything that I can do as I cannot live on £66 a week? This is worrying me very much".
No, there is nothing she can do. But there is something we can do. We can press the Government to accept this amendment tonight. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I shall be brief because the noble Baroness has made the case plainly. I am certain that no one ever intended this situation to arise. It was not foreseen. It is obviously extremely hard on the person who remains at home when the partner who cannot remain at home any longer has to go into residential
962
accommodation of some kind. This is yet again a problem arising from what we discussed at such length in connection with divorced women—the ability to assign part of a pension to someone other than the person who receives the pension in the first place. I hope that the Minister, who, I know, will recognise the seriousness of this problem, can find a way, either by accepting this amendment or by producing an amendment of his own, to ensure that such spouses are not left in the penurious situation in which so many of them now find themselves.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded the Committee, married women in these circumstances can be worse off than widows or indeed divorced women. That seems, on the face of it, to be an unfair situation in which to be placed. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been used but I make one point to which I am indebted to the Alzheimer's Disease Society. The society states:
"Local authorities do have discretion to increase a resident's personal expenses allowance … in order to enable him or her to continue to support their spouse at home. Recent guidance made specific reference to occupational pensions as one instance where local authorities should be using such discretion".
I am informed by the Alzheimer's Disease Society that it knows few cases where such discretion has been used. It appears that the Government are wholly sympathetic to the points made in the amendment. I hope we shall receive a sympathetic response from my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Swinfen: As my name is attached to this amendment I also wish to support it. The arguments have been made and well made. If my noble friend feels that he cannot accept the amendment because of the wording perhaps he will indicate to the Committee that he intends to bring back a more suitable amendment to achieve the same ends at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is a difficult and complex issue. If I take a few minutes to explain what the situation is currently, we can then see our way through the issue and to the amendment. Currently local authorities are required to allow residents to retain part of their income as a personal expenses allowance and they have discretion to vary the amount of the allowance in special circumstances so as to leave the resident with a larger sum. Local authorities may use this discretion to allow the resident to retain sufficient money to enable him or her to support his or her spouse remaining at home where the resident receives the major part of the couple's income and the spouse has little or no income or capital of his or her own on which to live.
I have in my hand a local authority circular from the Department of Health dated January 1994 in which paragraphs 6 and 7 deal with the treatment of couples. I do not wish to read it all out but I hope that with some judicious pruning I can convey the main parts of it. It states that,
"the way in which the charging assessment rules apply is less clear-cut where the resident is one of a couple who had sufficient joint resources before admission to remove the need to claim Income Support. Most often these are couples, now retired, where one of the couple has a significant occupational pension. Concern has been

963
expressed that, where the resident is the main recipient of the couple's income, (eg the occupational pension), the charging rules cart take all the resident's income into account and as a consequence the income remaining for the spouse at home is considerably reduced".
That encapsulates the problem the Committee has raised with me. The circular continues:
"In such cases local authorities should bear in mind that it may be appropriate for them to use the discretion available to them under section 22(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to increase the resident's personal expenses allowance (PEA) in special circumstances in order to enable him/her to continue to support the spouse at home. The use of this discretion is for the local authority to consider in the light of the individual circumstances of each case. The Department considers it reasonable to take into account factors such as the usual standard of living of the spouse at home, and if the spouse has higher than average outgoings for whatever reason".
That is the position at the moment. The circular continues:
"If a local authority is satisfied that special circumstances exist which make it appropriate for them to vary the PEA—"
that is, the personal expenses allowance—
"they should negotiate a reasonable figure which addresses the specific difficulties which give rise to these special circumstances".
The circular then points out:
"These points are covered in the annexed CRAG amendment pages".
That is a clear circular to local authorities from the Department of Health giving them the outline of how they should exercise the discretion. Perhaps I can go a little—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Can he tell us from his knowledge how many local authorities are doing as his noble friend Lord Dean said and making these allowances? What is the current state of practice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was going to turn the question round the other way because clearly that sort of information—like so much information as regards local authorities—is not collected. It would be expensive to collect it. It is not collected and therefore we do not know the answer. As I said, I was going to turn the question round and say that we have little evidence that local authorities are not exercising the discretion as we intend them to. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned Mrs. F. I do not want to discuss—
Lord Swinfen: May I interrupt?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: May I answer this point?
Lord Swinfen: My comment is specifically on this point. If my noble friend has little evidence one way, has he any evidence the other way because he gave the indication that he had not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I indicated that. If my noble friend will be patient, I shall explain that: what I said was that we do not collect the kind of statistics that would allow us to assess whether local authorities carry out this measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned Mrs. F. I always feel that it is wrong for us to bandy particular cases across the Dispatch Box. However, we would be interested in
964
receiving the details of Mrs. F and indeed of any other cases. If my noble friend Lord Swinfen has any specific cases which suggest that local authorities are not obeying the letter and spirit of the circular I read out, we would be interested to hear about those cases.
The amendment before the Committee is not required because if regulations made under the National Assistance Act 1948 were changed we would arrive at the same position. To that extent the amendment is unnecessary as the powers already exist through regulations made under the 1948 Act. However, the sort of change the amendment seeks to achieve could cause problems. The change would not necessarily benefit everyone. Take the case where the remaining spouse receives a means-tested benefit, most commonly income support. All means-tested benefits have to take occupational pensions fully into account. In such cases therefore the spouse at home would benefit only if the share of pension he or she received was substantial enough to lift him or her entirely above the level of benefit.
At the other end of the scale, the spouse at home might have substantial resources, for example large savings. If people in this situation were allowed to retain a half-share of their spouse's occupational pension, while the spouse in residential care was having to be supported by the local authority, I am not sure that that ought to command a high priority in the use of any additional public funds which could be made available. Therefore, we have to consider the matter very carefully. We also have to take into account the legal liability of husbands and wives to maintain each other. The legislation which provides for local authorities to place people in residential accommodation is the National Assistance Act 1948 Section 42 of which makes each spouse liable to maintain the other. The implications of that provision for the amendment we are considering would, to say the least, be complicated. There might be potential costs to local authorities.
As I have admitted, we have not been able to quantify the extent of the problem and it is difficult to provide any hard information in respect of the questions as to how many are involved and how much it would cost. Given all the demands on government and on local authorities, we have to be careful before we set off down a road involving more expenditure, and we have to be sure that we target that expenditure.
As the Committee will have deduced, I cannot commend the amendment to the Committee. However, it raises difficult and complex issues. I shall be grateful if any noble Lords care to draw particular cases to our attention. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is fully aware of the discussion about the problem and is sympathetic to the concerns which underlie it, as I am. That is why I shall be grateful for details of particular cases.
It is important to provide proper support for spouses and for other carers in the circumstances we are discussing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health keeps under regular review the whole question of the charging system for residential care. I can assure the Committee that this particular issue is one which will be considered as part of that process. I shall

965
certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the discussion we have had today and to any letters which any Member of the Committee cares to send me after the debate.
I hope that with those words the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Ezra: It is quite clear from the remarks of the noble Lord that he feels sympathetic towards the issue, as we all do. He reminded us that local authorities have a discretion, but the discretionary terms he read out seem to be extremely widely drawn. There is a view that they are not applied as extensively as the Minister implied, although he admitted that he did not have details. It depends on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, decides, but it is for consideration that we should return to the matter. If the Minister objects to the present form of words perhaps we can find some other form of words which would deal with these difficult cases more effectively than they are dealt with at present.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke also for those of us on these Benches. We noted that the Minister had genuine sympathy for the problem. He does not know the scale of the problem because apparently the department has not undertaken research to identify the scale of the problem, even though this is a major issue in community care and for his fellow Ministers in the Department of Health. I am a little surprised that the Minister had been unable to acquire more information to buttress his case. Certainly the information which has come from both the Alzheimer's Disease Society and Age Concern suggests that, although local authorities have a discretionary power, that discretionary power is used increasingly seldom and certainly not in a manner which would float a spouse off the need for income support.
It is also clear that at the core of the issue is the same problem as we discussed in relation to divorce; namely, that a pension cannot be divided as it would be were a woman widowed.
The Minister's reply is inadequate. We shall need to return to the matter. Providing him with information concerning individual cases is not enough. A principle is involved. Half of the pension which is reflected in the situation of widowhood should be assignable to the spouse where the expenses of the domestic home and so on continue. It is a principle that we should like to see reflected on divorce and also reflected here. It is clear that local authorities cannot be expected to make good the problem on a discretionary basis.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is an advantage in leaving this as a discretion. The noble Baroness talked about half the pension. That should be judged in the light of individual circumstances. I do not want to read the words out again, but they indicate that, in order to maintain the spouse at home, it would be reasonable to take into account factors such as the usual standard of living of the spouse at home. The spouse may have outgoings which are
966
higher than average, for whatever reason. I would not be willing to draw such a hard and fast line as specifying half of the pension.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder what the Minister thinks is the reason for tabling the amendment at all. Two of the most eminent organisations in this field—the Alzheimer's Disease Society and Age Concern—recognise that, although there may be a nominal discretion for local authorities, it is not being exercised in ways which allow the spouse decent maintenance because of the need for fees to provide for private residential care.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. When I discussed the amendment with officials I raised the question of whether complaints were being received and there was information on individual cases. Subsequently they contacted Age Concern, which I am told knows of no cases. I am therefore more than interested to hear of cases from Members of the Committee who have such information. That is a sensible way to proceed. That is the advice that I received about Age Concern. I did not want to bring that into the debate because I am more interested in encouraging such cases as there are to be brought to my attention. However, my officials contacted Age Concern which knows of no cases in the same grim circumstances portrayed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am surprised because my briefing, with which I did not trouble the Committee, includes three or four cases from Age Concern. Perhaps I can pass that briefing to the Minister if he wishes. I am puzzled. However, eminent organisations have identified a problem. There is a discretionary power for local authorities, but in their straitened financial circumstances they are not exercising that discretion. At present they have to underfund statutory services. As a result many women find themselves in a situation which they could never have foreseen and which we in this Chamber could mitigate.
The unhelpful and uninformative response of the Minister—although entirely sympathetic in tone—is not enough. A sympathetic tone is not good enough when people in this situation are being left almost destitute because the husband they have nursed for 10 or 15 years has developed Alzheimer's disease and they have no resources. We shall return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 182C and 182D not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 183:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("Entitlement to retirement pensions not to be affected by absence from Great Britain
. Section 113(1) (a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (which, except where regulations otherwise provide, disqualifies a person for receiving any benefit under Parts

967
II to V of that Act, and precludes an increase of any such benefit being payable in respect of any person as the beneficiary's wife or husband, for any period during which the person is absent from Great Britain) shall cease to apply in relation to a retirement pension of any category or graduated retirement benefit (including any increase of the amount payable in respect of any such retirement pension for adult and child dependants) payable under that Act; and accordingly a person who is absent from Great Britain shall be entitled to be paid the same amount in respect of any of those benefits as if he were resident in Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to ensure that expatriate pensioners living abroad shall be entitled to be paid the same amount in respect of retirement pensions as if they were resident in Great Britain.
The amendment gives us an opportunity to rectify an injustice which has existed for many years despite numerous attempts in both Houses of Parliament to remedy it and mounting public disquiet both here and abroad about the discrimination practised against expatriate pensioners, mainly in Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
At present United Kingdom law permits pensions to be paid anywhere in the world. However, unless the beneficiary lives in a country with which the UK has concluded a social security agreement which provides for the indexing of pensions, his or her benefits are not adjusted annually for increases in the cost of living. They are frozen at the rate which existed when he or she left Britain or when he or she reached retirement age.
Obviously that creates a number of anomalies. There are many variations in pensions in those countries, depending on when the beneficiaries retired and how long they have lived there. Most of them will have qualified in the same way that we do: through contributions for benefits. That means that some people receive less pension than others with exactly the same contribution qualifications. That situation creates many problems.
At present some 400,000 United Kingdom state pensioners worldwide have their pensions frozen. The great majority, some 340,000, live in Commonwealth countries. Approximately 300,000 pensioners living in 33 other countries, including all the countries in the EC and the USA, have their pensions index linked. They qualify for all increases because they have that arrangement. The arbitrary division based on domicile is because the United Kingdom has bilateral social security conventions which provide for index linking in those 33 countries, excluding the Commonwealth countries to which I have referred.
Inevitably, after debates on this issue in this House and in another place we are asked why that is the situation. People outside do not understand why one can live in America and receive a full index-linked pension, when those living next door in Canada receive £4.50 or £7.50 for exactly the same contribution qualifications. They are entitled to ask why. The main reason given by the Government for maintaining that arbitrary and manifestly unjust situation is cost. In a reply given by the Prime Minister some time ago, the estimated cost was about £35 million. We have had estimates ranging
968
from £100 million to £300 million. The current estimate is £230 million. That has to be found from social security.
However, it can be argued that those pension entitlements are not social security benefits, but state superannuation —there is a difference—which has been earned through individual contributions. Although £230 million might seem a high figure, it is a drop in the bucket. It represents a tiny percentage of available funds: one-third of 1 per cent. of the total social security budget.
Another reason put forward by Government for not indexing overseas pensions is that the position is the fault of previous social security legislation. They outline a number of enactments. The Government state that in 1955 it was decided that pensions payable abroad should be paid permanently at the rate initially awarded without any subsequent cost of living increases. Most of the agreements with other countries outside the EC which allow increases to be paid there were entered into a long time ago when constraints were not so bad as now.
Moreover, that is a poor defence. We are no longer in 1955 but in 1995. The Government have already blown that argument sky high by introducing bilateral conventions which mean that nearly 300,000 British pensioners living abroad have their pensions index linked. One cannot argue that the position results from previous legislation and then, through altering the legislation by introducing conventions, and so on, achieve the result that 300,000 pensioners receive upgraded pensions. There is a contradiction.
Some Government spokesmen have conceded that full indexation of British pensions worldwide could be achieved by a change in our domestic legislation. We would not have to go through any palaver and nonsense. That result could be achieved by a change in domestic legislation and that is what we seek.
Moreover, the Government concede that the relationship between the contributor and the state is an agreement giving entitlement to benefit, whose apportionment is clearly beyond their discretion. An insurance company which arbitrarily paid some of its superannuates less than others would be totally laughed out of court. The position is unthinkable.
The Government argue that the social security system is designed primarily for people living in this country. Money received by pensioners in the UK is largely spent on goods and services in the UK. They say that pension money received by those resident in Australia is not clawed back in the UK via indirect taxes. But, again, the UK retirement pension must not be confused with the many social security schemes which are funded by taxes. The British worker buys his retirement pension, which is in fact a state superannuation scheme, and discrimination by domicile is inappropriate and unacceptable.
It is a strange argument to advance that index linking is denied because some 17.5 per cent. of revenue from indirect taxation would be lost. We have often asked the question, "What would happen if those pensioners with overseas domicile were to come back?" Alternatively, if they do not come back, who has calculated how much is saved by the Exchequer in benefits relating to health,

969
social services, residence, and many others? If one wishes to argue that 17.5 per cent. of revenue from indirect taxation is lost, one has to argue that, by the same token, one is saving money which would have to be spent if those pensioners were still living in the UK.
Again, the Government state that the agreement between an individual and the state is that payment contributions will give entitlement to benefit subject to certain conditions, which are set out in leaflets. They emphasise that one condition is that retirement pension upratings are not generally payable abroad. But contributors to national insurance funds are not made aware of that condition. I have never yet met a pensioner who was informed when his pension was due, "Don't forget that if you leave this country, you won't get any increases". It may be that that condition is written in the small print. But one cannot blame people who have been brought up to believe what was clearly outlined by Sir Norman Fowler in his 1985 Green Paper. Paragraph 2.6 states:
"in return for contributions, benefits would be given as of right".
Paragraph 2.7 states:
"all insured people—rich or poor—would pay the same contributions for the same security".
The Green Paper continues at paragraph 2.8:
"the basic national insurance pensions must remain as an entitlement earned by people from paying national insurance contributions. That has been at the heart of our national insurance system since its inception and the Government is committed to it".
With those assurances, and it being written in Government documents, why should one search for a tatty sentence which states, "Yes, but we did not mean you to leave the country"? That document does not state that; it clearly sets out the position.
I do not wish to take up too much time. However perhaps I may refer to one or two letters that I have received which I believe are important. One is from the High Commissioner of Canada who outlines the position there. He states:
"Since 1977, the Government of Canada has sought to persuade the British Government to negotiate a social security agreement that would provide for this index-linking (to inflation) of UK pensions paid to the 118,000 British pensioners in Canada. This issue has been brought up at every level. It was also raised when Prime Minister Chrétien met with Prime Minister Major in June 1994, on the occasion of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day. At that time, Mr. Chrétien stressed the injustice of freezing the pensions of tens of thousands of servicemen, and their widows, who fought in the UK during World War II and who have decided to spend their retirement years in Canada. I too raised the matter with Prime Minister Major this January but to no avail. The UK has consistently rejected the Canadian approaches because of the costs of indexing its pensions in Canada. I should add that the British Government does not try to defend the obvious unfairness of the current UK policy on pension indexation".
He then cites some examples which indicate the anomalies to which I referred. He states that the average UK retirement pension paid in Canada amounts to £20. The amount goes down to £4.50, with steps in between. But the average is a pension of £20 compared with the retirement pension in this country of £57.50 for a single person. In Canada the pension, translated into sterling, is £91.78. There is a tremendous difference. The majority of the 20,500 UK pensioners in Canada who receive pensions of less than £10 a week are women—
970
a total of 17,600. Therefore, 85.5 per cent. of pensioners living on reduced pensions in Canada are women. The Canadian Government are particularly anxious to resolve the issue this year, given that it is the 50th anniversary of VE Day.
In Australia, a press release states:
"The Minister for Social Security, Peter Baldwin, said today that he hoped the United Kingdom Government would finally do something about indexing British pensions paid to people in Australia … The Australian Government has tried many times to raise the issue of the non-indexation of British pensions with the UK Government so that the current social security agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom could be amended to provide for indexation. The Australian Government is, and has been, ready to re-negotiate the Social Security Agreement to provide for indexation".
So who is stopping it? We have asked on numerous occasions why negotiations could not start with those countries for reciprocal agreements in the same way as they were conducted and completed last year with Finland. That was the 33rd country to qualify. Mr. Baldwin continued:
"When one of our pensioners goes to live in the United Kingdom or anywhere else for that matter, we index the pension twice a year to protect them".
So an Australian here is indexed twice a year to protect his pension but a Briton living in Australia is starving, or at least is in trouble. So Mr. Baldwin is also hoping that the debate which, he says, is to take place in the House of Lords this week—his timing is perfect—will be an opportunity to ensure that British pensioners living overseas,
"finally get a fair go. The same fair go that we give our pensioners who live over there. It would also give the same treatment to British pensioners living in Australia as, say, British pensioners living in many other countries such as the Philippines, Turkey, Barbados, the United States of America and Europe, who all have their pensions indexed".
I have another item from Australia News which refers to recent discussions that have taken place between the Australian Government and the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. The article refers to a number of difficult issues in recent years that had been solved. There were the Maralinga and Nauru compensation issues. After many discussions, those have been resolved. The only blip left in the UK/Australian relations is the outstanding issue about the pensioners and index-linked pensions. Senator Evans, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that the Australian Government had to top up the pensions of British pensioners living in Australia because the British Government had declined to index-link them, even though they did so for British residents living in European countries.
I conclude by saying that this selective and quite unwarranted discrimination is suffered by people who have served their country well as taxpayers and electors. We can remind ourselves of the propaganda at colossal cost; a few years ago the Central Office of the Conservative Party spent vast sums in trying to persuade all those people to vote in a general election. All those who have been denied pensions were asked for donations to the election funds with a form to fill in giving their vote by proxy or in some other manner. "We need their votes, we need their money, but we cannot pay them their pensions". So they are penalised

971
for obeying an irresistible longing to spend their declining years with their children who are now raising families in the former Dominions, once viewed by the British Government as the natural destination of our young emigrants. We .can all remember the schemes through which young people were persuaded to go to Australia immediately after the war, in their thousands, to take up residence there. Those people have grown up, but their parents are still here. If they decide to go to live there and watch their grandchildren grow up—a perfectly normal thing to do—they are penalised.
In her speech at the Normandy ceremony, Her Majesty the Queen said:
"You deserve the nation's thanks. May we, your fellow countrymen, be worthy of what you did for us".
I suggest that we can test and display our worthiness by voting tonight for the amendment to ensure that expatriate British pensioners receive fair and just treatment, by index-linking their pensions. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I shall be extremely brief as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, made the case so fully. I wish to underline three of the points that he raised. The first is that the pension is a statutory right because, unlike social security which is based on need, it is based on the right arising from contributions paid throughout the time that the pensioner was in this country.
Secondly, and very important, I know that the Government will say that the problem is money—"We cannot do it because of the money". What is to prevent them getting a reciprocal agreement? We have such agreements with other countries and if the Government give an undertaking that they will embark on a reciprocal agreement, that would go a long way towards establishing what we want.
Thirdly, where there is such a right, based on the claim to a pension which anyone who has contributed to a pension has, it is not good enough to say, "We can't afford it". That would be to say that a principle is of no consequence if it is expensive. If the principle is that people are entitled to the pension, then the money must be found from some other source which is a less good cause. That is all one can say. If it is a right, the money must be found in some other way. One cannot just disregard a moral obligation based on a right and say "In this case it is too difficult to find the money", when the money is being spent in other ways from which it could be taken.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In supporting the amendment which has been so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, there may not be much new that I can add. But I would like to put a little flesh on some of the bones which they presented to the Committee.
I wish to underline two fallacies in the Government's position on the issue. The first is the suggestion that our pensioners, who have gone to live overseas—particularly in the Commonwealth—knew what they were doing when they went. The second is that we
972
should not afford the £230 million annually to keep their pensions level with those who have continued to live here.
As to the first contention, the British Australian Pensioner Association strongly denies that the vast majority of its members knew what they were letting themselves in for when they left. I, for one, have no reason to believe that they are in bad faith. But my interest in this matter was awakened by a friend and business associate who lives in South Africa. He has been good enough to send me excerpts from his correspondence over more than 10 years; first with the DHSS and, more recently, the Benefits Agency.
Any fair-minded person reading that file could not possibly claim that my friend should have been aware of the disadvantage he was about to suffer when he moved to South Africa. He is not part of any official lobbying organisation, but he has recently spoken to six other people in similar circumstances there, only one of whom was aware of the problem before he left.
I feel fairly sure that that is a proportion which may apply to all our 400,000 overseas pensioners. I feel that it is up to the Government to show that what I and other noble Lords say on the matter is incorrect and that the Government's position is therefore vaguely tenable morally.
Certainly, the file from my friend in Johannesburg would not help them. Two longish letters, one from the DHSS in 1984 and another from the Benefits Agency in 1993, studiously avoid any mention of the disadvantage which the recipient was about to suffer. It is true that the DHSS did enclose a leaflet numbered NI 38, dated April 1978 and entitled National Insurance Guidance for People Abroad. But it is only with the benefit of hindsight that any normal person would be able to discover the warning hidden away on page 10. Indeed, even with hindsight the leaflet is printed in such a way as to make one think that index-linking would be withdrawn from the benefits only under point 19 of the document which covers:
"the widowed mother's allowance, child special allowance and guardian's allowance".
I would, of course, be happy to show my noble friend the Minister the leaflet in question and I believe he would have to agree that the wording and the layout are grossly misleading.
So to me at least—and I think to other noble Lords who support this amendment—it is clear that most of our 400,000 pensioners living abroad did not know of their impending disadvantage before they left this country.
However, I believe that the Government's position becomes even less sensible when they say that we cannot, and should not, afford the £230 million per annum required to bring all our overseas pensioners into line with those at home. This contention seems to miss the point that the 400,000 pensioners for whom we seek justice certainly save the Treasury very much more than the £230 million that it could cost to give them that justice. Indeed, a tiny indulgence in lateral thinking would show the Government that it is economically sensible to encourage our older people to go and live in the Commonwealth if they want to, rather than

973
discourage them from doing so, as we do now by withholding their index-linked pensions. I suggest this because they are no longer a burden on, for example, our health budget when they live abroad. I hope that a very few figures might help convince my noble friend of this and persuade him to look favourably on this amendment tonight.
According to the latest departmental health report of March 1994, our hospital and community health services cost £14,788 billion for the 1990–91 year. Of this figure, some 42 per cent., or £6.01 billion, was spent on the over-65s. Likewise, local authority net current expenditure on personal social services amounted to £4.6 billion in 1991–92, of which, again, some 40 per cent., or £1.84 billion, was spent on the elderly. Thus, of these two voices alone—and of course there are many others—some £7.85 billion was being spent on our resident pensioners in 1991. Our resident pensioners numbered some 10,087,000 in 1993. The 400,000 pensioners considered by this amendment therefore amount to some 4 per cent. of our pensioners here. It must be fair to assume that if they had continued living here they would have incurred 4 per cent. of the costs in the two areas that I have quoted. Four per cent. of £7.85 billion is, if I am not mistaken, £316 million, or £86 million per annum more than the £230 million which the Government say that the amendment would cost. So by going to live in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, these 400,000 pensioners would still save the Treasury £86 million per annum, on the voices I have quoted alone, even after they had been fairly treated and topped up at a cost of £230 million annually.
Of course, my noble friend may be tempted to reply that he does not have to pay the £230 million annually, and so he can happily save that and the notional additional £86 million as well. With much respect, if he is minded thus to reply, could I suggest that the Government look a little further ahead? People are living longer nowadays, and the number of our resident pensioners is rising, together with their associated costs. There were, for example, 8.7 million pensioners in 1979 and 10.09 million in 1993. I do not know what proportion of our total DHSS budget and other expenditure they consume—perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench can help us here—but it must be a very much larger figure than I have quoted. Indeed, total DHSS expenditure now stands at £102 billion per annum, of which £31.75 billion is for health and £70.36 billion is for social security. So colossal figures are involved. That is why I suggest it must be in the interests of the Treasury to encourage as many of our pensioners as wish to live in the Commonwealth to do so. Over time—and not very much time —the benefits would be far greater than the £230 million per annum at stake this evening.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: It is very unusual for a pensions Minister to have any friends when this matter is discussed. But I wish to be at least half a friend to my noble friend the Minister. As Members of the Committee know, the reality is that this particular
974
provision has existed in the National Insurance scheme ever since 1948. It has been quite clear from that day to this that any pensioner who goes to live overseas, unless there is a reciprocal agreement, will receive the pension at the level at which it stood when he left this country.
With respect, I do not attach much importance to the arguments of ignorance. The information is there if the pensioner wishes to seek it before he goes. The reality is that this matter has been discussed with governments of both political colours over most years; and they have all reached the view that the present position should obtain. There are some very substantial arguments, which I have no doubt my noble friend will deploy when he comes to reply to the debate.
There is of course another fact too; namely, that pensioners who have gone over—
Lord Stallard: Before the noble Lord continues, he mentioned the provision in the 1948 Act. But if we accept his argument, did that not apply equally to the 300,000 pensioners who went to other countries? Why should there be discrimination? The noble Lord discriminates in saying that this payment was there for all but we waived it in the case of 300,000. That is pure discrimination.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I believe that the noble Lord refers to reciprocal arrangements. I intend to come to that point. I agree that it creates anomalies which make it very difficult for pensioners living overseas to understand. Perhaps I may develop the other arguments first.
The reality is that pensioners who live overseas are not subject to United Kingdom tax. That is a harsh fact, but it has to be taken into account. We also have to take into account that in our arrangements the now annual increases in the National Insurance pension are based on cost-of-living increases in this country. There are no equivalent criteria that one can use for pensioners living in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or other countries with which we do not have reciprocal agreements. So I hope that my noble friend will feel that at least he has one "half friend". There are of course the anomalies, the disparities, which grow year by year. Every pension increase which takes place in this country means that the gap between pensioners in this country and those overseas grows bigger.
I wonder whether my noble friend is able to say anything at all about the possibility of progress through reciprocal agreements. I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, made. It is very difficult to explain to a pensioner who lives in Canada or in the United States that the disparity between the pensions should be as great as it is. If it were possible to have some progress with reciprocal agreements, that would help in dealing with the understandable grievance that overseas pensioners feel.
If that is not possible, I wonder whether my noble friend has considered, or would consider, the possibility of doing something special for pensioners who, say, are over 80 years of age. There is a precedent for a pension being introduced in this country for those who have not earned one through contributions. If no other progress is possible through reciprocal arrangements, is there any

975
possibility of some special consideration perhaps being given to those who are over the age of 80? I hope that I have not entirely spoilt the friendship with my noble friend with which I started my speech. But I very well understand the position, that Her Majesty's Government, like previous Governments, are likely to take up on this difficult issue.
Baroness Young: I, too, would like to say to my noble friend the Minister that I hope he will not accept this amendment. The arguments were very clearly set out by my noble friend Lord Dean.
I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had to say and am very conscious of the hard cases that have arisen. Indeed, when I was a Minister in i he Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I met groups of pensioners and frequently heard their case. But perhaps it is a very telling point that no government of any complexion have done anything about this point. When the Party opposite were in power, they did nothing. Nor have the present Government, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, set out, felt able to support it.
My noble friend Lord Pearson said that two fallacies existed. One was that pensioners did not know what they were doing. That may be the case, but when one is making what must be an important decision—namely, to emigrate—then one must look at the consequences, particularly in regard to one's income. I should think that one would ask a great many serious questions. I have not seen the leaflets concerned but if they need to be rewritten and made clear then that should be done. However, I believe in individual responsibility. When one is making such an important decision as moving abroad one should find out what the financial consequences may be.
I agree with those who say that at this stage we cannot commit the Government to an extra £230 million a year. It is a gross over-simplification to say that the Government can find that amount annually. I do not know what the Front Bench opposite will say. Commitments to huge increases in government spending, ultimately paid for from taxation, are unwise, particularly when the suggestion comes from your Lordships' Chamber. This is not the correct place in which to advocate that kind of expenditure.
It may be that, if all the pensioners returned, they would be a charge on the National Health Service and other services in this country, but it is most unlikely that most of them will return. The whole argument therefore is based on a sum we cannot deduce. We must face up to the cost of £230 million. That is a large sum of money and if it were indexed it would clearly cost more. It would be wrong to commit the Government to that amount at this stage. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not support the amendment, sympathetic as one may feel towards it. It would be inappropriate, and particularly so for this Chamber, to commit the Government to such vast sums of increased expenditure at this time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my noble friend. This is the oldest issue of all in the national insurance world. I dealt with it many years ago when I was the Minister concerned and ever since it has been raised by
976
oppositions and voted down by governments of all political colours. I venture to suggest that that practice will continue.
It may seem difficult to justify freezing someone's retirement pension. We must remember that the amendment is only concerned with retirement pensions. One or two speakers strayed on to other benefits such as service pensions, but they are not dealt with by the amendment. The amendment deals only with retirement pensions. Whenever a government had to face up to the issue, they rejected it. However, the possibility of reciprocal agreements is always open. I must confess to being responsible for negotiating a number of them, which probably benefited many people in many countries. There is also a good deal to be said for confining the relief to countries where it is possible to undertake reciprocal arrangements.
It is not right to say that we will suddenly reverse what has been the policy for the best part of 50 years. It is a considered policy and on the whole works well. No government will accept the change proposed by the amendment. It is clear that those going abroad as pensioners had full opportunity to find out what the effect of their absence would be. If they did not bother to find out, that is a pity. But information on the effect we are discussing was available to them, just as it was that they would be excused British taxation. That is perhaps also a relevant consideration. The people with whom the amendment is concerned pay no British tax; they pay whatever the tax may be in the country in which they have chosen to reside. Therefore, although they are on the whole worthy and admirable people, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendment and do what all governments have done so far and which I believe all governments will continue to do for years to come.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: When national insurance was introduced—a long time ago when I was quite young—we all assumed that pensions were contributory. If the Treasury has thrown the money away or wasted it in other ways, or perhaps not increased the contributions by as much as they should have done, that is not our fault. I do not understand what right that department, the DSS or the Government have to tell us where we must live after we retire. Also, people who have retired and who qualify for United Kingdom pensions, paid tax all their working lives. So I do not believe that the tax argument really washes either.
Lord Skelmersdale: To an extent my noble friend is right. If the state scheme was a fully funded one, the case for the amendment would be totally unarguable. I am sure that we would all accept that. Unfortunately it is not and never has been. Today's workers pay the pensions of today's pensioners in relation to the state scheme.
One point that has not been raised in the excellent defence put up by my three noble friends is how well today's worker, paying for the state pension, would take to the upgrading of the state pension paid abroad. I should have thought that they would take rather a dim view of it.
I want to take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. He said that index linking of British pensions paid abroad could be achieved by domestic

977
legislation. The Bill is the domestic legislation the noble Lord chooses to achieve that object. I agree that if it is to be done, it must be done by domestic legislation. The other point that occurs to me is that when we are talking of pensioners paying tax, it is not only the 17.5 per cent., or in rare cases 8 per cent., VAT mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Pensions in this country are also taxable as income. There are people receiving pensions who have enough income generally, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, to pay income tax. That point too must be thrown into the equation.
There seems to be a slight disparity of view between the Benches opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that if we could encourage reciprocal agreements she would be happy with that, so long as agreement was arrived at. I understood that to be what the noble Baroness was saying. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, wants a one-sided amendment to primary legislation.
7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord must not take words out of my mouth. I would prefer what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has suggested. But if we cannot have that, I would settle for a reciprocal agreement. I am always open to a deal.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am well aware that she is always open to a deal, having had experience in social security matters debating with the noble Baroness on this and many other points in the fairly recent past. The point about a reciprocal agreement is that it must be reciprocal. It must be reciprocal in terms of payments; but, as importantly, it must be reciprocal in terms of the numbers being paid. If there is a great disparity in the number of Canadian pensioners here compared with the number of British pensioners in Canada, with the best will in the world, that cannot be reciprocal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment requires the Government to pay retirement pensions in payment outside Great Britain at the same rate as if the beneficiary were still resident here and, as a few of my noble friends have kindly said, still paying taxes here—value added tax, excise duty, which has not been mentioned, and income tax. I was grateful for some support this time, unlike during the previous general debate earlier when I felt very much alone in my corner.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: You were.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness has pointed out, I was alone in my corner at that stage. I have noticed with some interest that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has not managed to get his Front Bench to rise to their feet to make any kind of commitment on this issue. I suspect I can understand why.
This issue, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has been around these matters for very many years, rightly pointed out, keeps returning. People who go to certain countries and receive British pensions do not receive the annual cost of living increase for cost of
978
living rises in this country. Those who emigrated when they retired continue to receive the pension at the rate payable when they left this country and those who emigrated when younger receive a pension payable throughout their retirement at the rate in force when they reached retirement age, as they may have had some qualifying years in this country before they left to go abroad; and, presumably, when they went abroad, they entered into pension schemes in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or wherever, which built up over the years.
The expression commonly used about these pensions is "frozen". This provision existed in the 1948 Act. In 1955 United Kingdom retirement and widows' pensions were made payable anywhere in the world but normally at the rate in payment when the pensioner left the UK or retired when living abroad. So this policy has been pursued by successive governments since 1955. Clearly, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is arguing it here today means that he had absolutely no success in persuading his own government when they were in office during some of the years between 1955 and 1979.
There has been a debate with regard to whether or not people knew their pension would be frozen when they went abroad. I find it quite difficult to believe that someone taking the very serious step of moving abroad, either as a pensioner or as an economically active person, would not ask a number of questions, including what effect that would have on his pension. That must be particularly true for people who are already retired when they go abroad. If they asked that question, and if they told the Department of Social Security that they were emigrating, as they are advised to do, they would have received the leaflet NI38 Social Security Abroad, which would tell them that pension increases are not normally payable to people abroad. If they were to contact their local office they would be told the detailed position in the country they were going to if they wanted any clarification. If they did not take such advice, they might not know the position. But I believe that the DSS did provide and has provided over the years advice and I find it very hard to believe that people taking this quite serious step did not make at least some inquiries as to what their position would be vis-à-vis any remaining obligations that the United Kingdom had to them on pension matters or anything else.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister is talking about the advice which a pensioner might have received from the department or from his local office. We can accept that if pensioners had sought that information and had obtained it, they would have been told that if they moved to certain countries their pension would not have been increased in line with inflation. But that is not the only information that they would have had. Will the Government not recognise that the other information that would form the background to their making the decision, more particularly since 1979, is the Conservative Government's thrust to reduce inflation and keep it low? On that basis, given that climate, the pensioner might have taken the decision to go abroad while thinking that it would not matter too much because the Conservative Government would keep inflation down. Do not the Government feel that they

979
have a certain responsibility because in that respect they are rather different from any previous government we have had?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure where that intervention takes me. If someone went abroad in 1980, 1983 or 1984 and decided that inflation would not be very bad through the rest of his lifetime in the UK and that he could therefore afford it, that is a view which he himself had to take. Interestingly enough, over recent years, it would not be too bad a view. But inflation goes on. Although it is low, it is not as low as we would like. It is still there and over time it is one of the problems that we have with inflation. If the noble Lord is a recruit to our campaign against increases in inflation, he will certainly be a recruit at the end of the debate to me preventing another £250 million of public expenditure, because the two are related.
This year the Government will spend around £900 million on pension payments to people who live outside Great Britain. Noble Lords have said—and I shall say it for the first time and not for the last—that if we were to pay out pensions to all pensioners who live abroad at the same level as we pay to pensioners in this country, the cost would rise. That £900 million would rise by about £235 million a year, an increase of £250 million. That figure is the latest estimate based on an actual count of 90 per cent. of the pensioners overseas and what their entitlement would be.
Some noble Lords might consider that £250 million a year is a small sum in relation to social security spending as a whole. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, invited me to take money from less good causes. She did not actually give me a list of the less good causes from which I might take £250 million. By any reckoning that is a very considerable amount of money. It would have to be found either from the existing social security budget or from an increase in taxation.
If I were offered by the Treasury, which seems an unlikely scenario, an extra £250 million to spend on the social security budget, I regret to say to noble Lords who have supported the amendment that unfreezing these pensions would not he my first priority by quite a long way. There are many other cases in this country of people who live here that I would certainly prefer to attend to than spending £250 million in that regard. Although I hope that the problem does not arise, a point which arose in one of our debates earlier this afternoon about people with Alzheimer's disease certainly springs to my mind as one area which I would certainly have higher up my shopping list of things I might do. I am quite sure that most Members of the Committee are in exactly that category.
Pensioners in the European Economic Area or in countries with which we have reciprocal agreements have their pensions uprated. We have some 30 agreements. The great majority came into force when cost was a less important factor than it is now. Other more recent agreements fulfil long-standing commitments entered into when the modest costs involved were considered affordable. It is part and parcel of our commitment to the European Economic Area. But some 90 per cent. of pensioners who do not
980
receive uprating live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or South Africa. While we do have reciprocal arrangements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, they do not provide for uprating. I know that Members of the Committee are particularly concerned about those countries. But one cannot unpick countries because those which I have mentioned would account for £210 million of the £250 million I have mentioned. That is the cost.
During the Second Reading of the Bill and today, the noble Lord made a point about the United States and Canada and the fact that pensioners in the United States receive indexation whereas pensioners in Canada do not. Annual pension increases have been payable in the United States since 1969 by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. I should explain that shortly after we concluded the agreement with the United States, the then UK Government offered to enter into negotiations with Canada to unfreeze UK pensions paid there. The Canadian Government were unable to discuss the issue at that time because of the federal nature of their social security system. By the time they were able to do so, inflation in this country had taken off and created a financial climate in which unfreezing for Canada was no longer affordable.
It has been argued that the cost of uprating these pensions would be offset by savings to public services here, like the health service and so on. Of course, they are not real savings; it simply means that we may have had to spend more. The argument that one gets a quarter of a billion pounds out of these savings is not very sensible in the real world, but I understand it.
It has to be said that pensioners who go abroad either when they are in work or are retired, no longer pay tax in this country, but are paying it in the country in which they are resident. They may be paying tax on more than just the United Kingdom retirement pension. They may pay tax on the portion of the Australian retirement pension on which they become eligible to pay tax or on their occupational pension, which was either earned in this country before leaving or in the country in which they now reside. Therefore, the balance of advantage is a much more complex problem than my noble friend Lord Pearson tried to pray in aid, and whether one can set out a credit and debit sheet as regards this group of people.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, in being "half friendly" with me, as he put it, asked whether we were looking at any further negotiations on social security conventions. There are no new negotiations leading to unfreezing which have been initiated in recent years. Due to the financial position I have laid out and the need to keep control of public spending, I do not foresee any prospect of re-opening negotiations in the next few years.
This is an emotive issue and Members of the Committee who have spoken in its favour have certainly done so in an emotive way. But the blunt fact of the matter is that in this country our social security spending is running at over £80 billion a year. Despite the measures which we are taking to contain costs—not universally approved of by the Benches opposite—they are expected to grow to something like £90 billion by

981
1996–97. We are committed to an efficient, effective and affordable social security system which protects the needs of the most vulnerable in our community. But we have to ensure that social security spending does not outstrip the ability of people in our country or the economy to pay for it. I believe that to look for an extra quarter of a billion pounds for this particular case is a bridge too far. As I mentioned earlier, if I had a quarter of a billion pounds (and it is billions) to spend—and I suspect most Members of the Committee would agree with me—I can think of other cases which might have a higher priority than this one.
Despite the sympathy which many have shown for those who have decided to live in climes other than our own, the Government's case is unanswerable on the ground that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, would impose a very considerable increase in expenditure on us. For that reason, if the noble Lord divides the Committee, I hope that noble Lords, having heard my argument, will support me in the Division Lobby.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Has my noble friend read leaflet NI 38 which he prayed in aid in support of the fact that people who have gone abroad will have been sent that document and will know exactly what is in store for them? If my noble friend has not read it, can he do so and do something about the drafting at .19 on page 10? As I mentioned in my few remarks, the pensions which are not to be index linked relate entirely to widows, the mother's allowance, the child special allowance and the guardian's allowance. That might make matters easier for people in future.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course I shall read the leaflet in some detail, including the small print. I do not think that that takes away from the point I made. If a pensioner had made inquiries about his position, either through leaflets or through officials of the department over nearly 50 years, he would have been told the situation.
Lord Stallard: I have listened very carefully to the debate and I would like to thank all those on both sides of the Committee who have participated. I have heard nothing new from the Front Bench opposite. In fact, that speech must have come from the files because there was nothing in it which has not been said by umpteen Secretaries of State in the noble Lord's position over many years. He said that Labour Governments have never done anything about this matter. It must have been a Labour Government in 1969 which negotiated the reciprocal agreement which the Minister mentioned.
Nonetheless, the whole tenor of the Minister's speech and others seemed to be that it was the pensioners' fault and that they should not have gone to Canada; that if they had listened to the Government they would have gone to some other place: one of the other 33 countries. The Government are not prepared to discuss reciprocal agreements with those countries. It is only the United Kingdom Government who are stopping the pensioners having the benefit.
982
The Government have been saying ever since I was a Member of the other place that the offer is there and those countries should come to talk to us. The Minister said that in 1972 an offer was made, but there were difficulties in Canada at that time. He covered that up by saying that when the Canadians had solved their problem, and when renegotiation was considered, the Government said that inflation had taken over and was sky high, so they could no longer discuss the matter. But when inflation was virtually nothing the Government still did not want to talk about it.
From all that, one can only assume that the Government are hell bent on continuing this discrimination. They have done nothing to solve the rift which exists. In fact, they have worsened it and spread it. On that basis I have no alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 183) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bottomley, L.

McConnell. L.

Brookes, L.

Methuen, L.

Chesham, L.

Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Dubs, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Shannon, E.

Geraint, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Gridley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jeger, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Westmorland, E

Leigh, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Addison, V.

Carnock, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Aldington, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Arran, E.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Courtown, E.

Balfour, E.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blyth, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Borthwick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Bridges, L.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Flather, B.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Caithness, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

983

Glenarthur, L.

Norrie, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E

Gray of Contin, L.

Palmer, L.

Greenway, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hacking, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Howe, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rodney, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lindsay, E

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Lucas, L.

Stockton, E

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Torrington, V.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monteagale of Brandon, L.

Wise, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wynford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not earlier than a quarter past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Health Patient Accommodation Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Central European Time Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Green Belt: Institutional Development
7.28 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why, contrary to their previous opinion, they now consider that appropriate institutional development in extensive grounds would conflict with "the fundamental green belt aim of keeping land permanently open" [H.L. Deb., 5th December, 1994 col. 794].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should say at the outset that it is not my intention to criticise the concept of the green belt, the "girdle of open space" as it was once known. As a former chairman of an inner London borough planning committee during the 1950s, I know something of the background and the workings of the policies relating to green belts. I recognise too the great importance which all governments have attached to green belts and the part they have played as an essential element of planning policy since their inception.
It is significant also that the purposes of green belt policy have remained pretty intact with very little change for some decades—until now. Twelve months ago, the Department of the Environment published a consultative paper relating to planning policy on green belts. It proposed revision of current Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts). Among the changes proposed was the deletion of the general provision for institutional use in green belt planning policy which was introduced by Circular 42/55 of 1955. Paragraph 5 of the circular stated that,
"inside a green belt approval should not be given except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings for purposes other than agriculture, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds".
That policy has been little used and appears nowhere in land use statistics. However, where it has been used the imprecise expression "institutions" and "extensive grounds" have created difficulties due to lack of clarity. In November 1992 following a case affecting the borough of Barnet on which Mr. Justice Auld commented, the Department of the Environment issued a letter to clarify the position. It states that,
"institutions standing in extensive grounds are included amongst the categories of appropriate development because it is considered that an institutional building which formed a relatively small and unobtrusive part of an extensive site would preserve the openness of the Green Belt".
In 1993 a DOE report, Effectiveness of Green Belts, recommended deletion of the category without any factual reason or justification. It was followed by a draft PPG2 in February 1994 which, in paragraph 3.2 recommended,
"the deletion of institutions in extensive grounds, on the basis that the category is inappropriate to the Green Belt, and difficult to define".
In the consultation that followed, representations were made by 674 organisations or individuals. Of those, 100 supported removal of the category and 249 made representations that the category be retained. Among those who supported the category's retention—I shall not bore the House by reading them at length—the Church Commissioners said:
"The Church makes an important contribution to the social fabric of rural areas and it is therefore vital that the special circumstances referred to include the provision of new churches (whether or not in replacement of redundant buildings) and parsonages".
Surrey County Council, which had discussed the consultation paper, said:
"The clarification of guidance on uses can be generally welcomed. However, the deletion of institutions in extensive grounds as an appropriate use of Green Belt land could cause difficulties as there

985
can be a genuine need for such developments to have a Green Belt location and the nature of extensive grounds is often contributory to preserving the openness of Green Belt".
The county council went on to ask the Secretary of State to take note of its deliberations.
The RICS said:
"Paragraph 3.2 lists a number of types of development that should generally be permitted in Green Belts. The associated notes indicate that institutions in extensive grounds are to be deleted from this list on the basis that 'the category is inappropriate to the Green Belt and difficult to define'. We do not agree that institutions should be deleted. They are not difficult to define. The Use Classes Order sets out institutional uses in Classes DI and C2. The recent High Court cases relating to institutional use in Bristol and Barnet did not present the judges with any insurmountable difficulties".
Following that, on 5th December 1994 a Question was tabled in your Lordships' House. In reply the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave two reasons for the removal of the category. He said, first, that
"it conflicted with the fundamental green belt aim of keeping land permanently open";
and, secondly,
"It had … proved unclear in operatin and had provoked extensive litigation".—[Official Report, 5/12/94; col; 794.]
The first reason given is contrary to the Government's clarification issued in November 1992 and to the more recent decision issued in February 1994. No reason is given for that about turn. On the second reason, everyone agrees that the policy is unclear. I said so in the Question I asked in December. The 1992 clarification helped a little. However, the Government have said that the clarification did not prevent the arguments continuing. That means that there is need for greater clarity. It does not mean that we have to delete the provision altogether. It means that there is need for greater clarity, and, according to the reports I have just read, that is not a problem.
The question of "provoked litigation" is covered in the Effectiveness of Green Belts report; three specific cases are referred to. In each case permission was given finally on the basis that the proposed development was appropriate in the green belt. The fact that local authorities and the Secretary of State have not accepted or applied their own policies cannot be laid at the applicant's door.
The Government went on to suggest that development could nevertheless take place if very special circumstances existed. That is unacceptable because "very special circumstances" is no clearer than the previous description. There may still be difficulties in clarifying and explaining what are "very special circumstances". They are not defined, so it is even less clear than before. Such an application is contrary to policy. It would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. Experience shows that local authorities refuse such applications, forcing an appeal, with its uncertainty, expense and delay—the litigation to which the Minister referred.
With regard to the specific instances where "very special circumstances" may exist, mention is made in PPG2 of motorway service areas and places of higher education which may qualify if there is a need which cannot be met elsewhere. Supermarkets and such places
986
could have been mentioned. In the case of places of higher education, it is stated specifically that it is government policy to encourage more people to take higher and further education. It is our policy too and one with which I agree wholeheartedly. Should it not also be government policy to encourage places of religious worship for the moral education and well-being of the country? We hear enough about that from the Government Benches. I am now asking them: should they not pay the same attention to moral education and well-being as we all do to further education?
Where developments have been allowed, they have provided an opportunity to clear up derelict sites. Most of the applications that have been approved have received approval on the basis that they were on derelict sites. Those derelict sites have been improved environmentally and the landscaping has been improved. Everyone who has known and seen them has said that. What is needed is a clear national policy presumption for places of worship. Their unsuitability in many urban areas means that some carefully guarded provision for green belt use is essential where no other suitable site is available. I hope that it is the Government's intention to issue a circular of guidance to local authorities which will include the points I have tried to make in reference to places of worship.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has raised an interesting aspect of the revised green belt guidelines. He showed me some of his notes before the debate, and it was obvious that he was concerned in particular about places of religious worship. I am sorry that I did not consult him earlier because I might have been able to make a more accurate response to what he has said.
The 1955 green belt circular allowed for institutional development in extensive grounds as appropriate in the green belt. Perhaps that reflected the reality of the existing situation where large hospitals—for instance, those in Epsom, Redhill and so forth—had long existed on land which was subsequently included in the green belt.
I am advised that when a year ago the revised guidance note was circulated, the ACC, for example, made no response. As the noble Lord suggested, there was among the counties a certain amount of disagreement as to what the response should be.
My understanding of the guidance is that if applicants wish to place an institution in the green belt they must make a special justification for that application. No matter what happens, it is likely to be called in by the Secretary of State rather than there being a presumption that all other aspects of green belt policy—for instance, visual impact, disturbance and causation of traffic—have been satisfied. Under the old guidance, the presumption would be that such an application would be granted.
Prior to speaking in today's debate, I contacted a number of people. My contacts suggest that the new approach is generally welcomed among many planners and conservationists because it represents a stronger protection for the green belt. As such, I welcome it. The

987
county of Surrey has a large green belt area; almost the whole of Surrey is within the green belt. Nevertheless, there are heavy urban concentrations in the north of the county and there is a constant desire on the part of developers to nibble away at the edges of the green belt. The district council in which I live has always resisted that. Sometimes one may quarrel about the individual application but the principle that such applications should be resisted is good.
It is worth noting that green belts around other cities are far less substantial than that around London. Therefore, one might suppose that they are even were more fragile and that the additional protection is welcome.
I find it difficult to understand why places of worship should be treated differently from, say, hospitals or old people's homes run by charities. I believe that all those institutions should be obliged to make their justification in the same way, rather than giving a list of specific uses which have a presumption in their favour and a list which do not have a presumption or have a presumption against them. I believe that that is a better way of proceeding.
I am not sure why people would wish to establish places of worship out in the country. I can see the financial attraction of such an approach but there are disadvantages; for instance, those who wish to go to such places of worship must travel longer distances. That would be against my understanding of protecting the countryside, reducing air pollution and so forth.
I am waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to explain that matter in his response. I apologise; I understand that the noble Lord cannot respond to the debate. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will do so. I believe that a special plea on behalf of places of religious worship needs to be justified.
The issue of traffic leads me to the only problem that I can see in the present regulations. Let us suppose, for example, that with the amalgamation of hospitals, which is almost bound to happen during the next few years, it were found necessary to bring together two large institutions. It would be extremely unlikely that they could be developed on existing sites, unless those sites were large. That may be one of the problems of any given hospital. Let us suppose that they cannot be developed on the green belt. In fact, during the past 15 or 20 years two hospitals have been developed on the green belt in Surrey. The implication is that they must go beyond the green belt into the countryside or rural areas. Again, that would increase the length of journey time, pose difficulty in access and so forth. We are all trying to avoid such difficulties.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will he grateful to my noble friend Lord Stallard for tabling this Question. I wish, first, to ask the Minister a number of questions about the status of policy planning guidance notes. PPG2 has been issued by the Department of the Environment but we are not entirely certain whether PPGs are meant to be policy statements, which was the original intention, or procedural statements. They appear
988
to be policy statements dominated by procedure. It would be more useful to have smaller documents concentrating on policy, leaving the implementation of policy to the local authorities. Otherwise, as regard procedure, there is no point in local authorities having a planning committee.
Perhaps I may give the example of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has been pruning Welsh PPGs down to their policy content and I understand that the Department of the Environment has employed consultants to review PPGs. If that is the case, will the Minister tell us when the consultants are to report? If they report in the way in which I hope, and recommend that PPGs should become policy statements and that procedures are handled by local authorities, will there be a proper statement from the Government of their intent?
I understand that the legal status of PPGs is that they are a material consideration when deciding planning applications or proposing development plans. They are not therefore determinant; in other words, a local planning authority can disregard the PPG. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount will tell me whether I am right or wrong. If they are more than a material consideration—that is to say, if they are binding on local planning authorities—what is the point of having local authority planning committees going through the whole procedure of planning applications? They are simply processing something which central government have handed down.
As regards the Question asked by my noble friend, we believe that PPG2 has, in its new version, some awkward problems. What are "very special circumstances"? If we take the instruction to local authorities that they are to have regard only to very special circumstances when giving planning permission to, say, motorway service areas or places of higher education, would it not be the case that on the whole local authorities will be negative about any application? If one is sitting on a planning committee and is told to give authorisation only under very special circumstances, one would naturally be reluctant to do so. One starts off by saying, "This is not very good and we will have a substantial bias against it".
As regards places of worship, the churches are being closed down in the centres of towns and in the inner cities because of the movements of population. That is certainly true of the Church of England. In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it has been shown that, although places of worship are not large institutions, such as supermarkets, where developments have been allowed in the green belt, they have provided an opportunity to clear up derelict sites and considerably improve the environment and the landscape. That is a fact of life which is reasonable. If we had an arrangement under which, on derelict sites and on sites that need clearing up, there could be some clarification of "very special circumstances", then all sides would probably be satisfied.
It is no use saying that existing buildings should be reused or that development plans should have regard to PPG12 in allowing for places of worship unless we are allowing local authorities to make specific decisions on a fairly specific basis. With my noble friend, I very

989
much hope that the Government will look at that and will say, "There is a problem here and we will issue clarification, guidance, of PPG2 along the lines already suggested". That is the right way to go in moderation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that in general we want to protect green belts, but there are some exceptions which the Government could easily allow, and with reason.
7.51 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is concerned with one of the changes to green belt policy made in the revision of PPG2 published last month. Before I respond specifically to the Question and the debate, it may be useful to the House if I indicate the statutory basis of PPGs, because that was one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked me.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities must have regard to current national policies. That is the wording in the legislation. Planning policy guidance is current national policy. That is how the PPGs must be taken into consideration by local planning authorities in formulating general policies in relation to unitary development plans (Section 12(6)) and structure plans (Section 31). And local plans, which are what we are talking about in this instance, must conform generally with structure plans. That is provided in Section 36(4).
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, seemed to say that that is all very well; but he asks whether there is a basis on which the Secretary of State can enforce what he sees to be the policy statement. Of course, it is no good having a policy statement and saying that the authorities must have regard to it unless there is some force behind it. Therefore, the Secretary of State is a statutory consultee in the preparation of development plans. He examines them carefully to identify whether they appear to conflict with national policy guidance and PPGs. He normally draws the attention of local authorities to those conflicts which do not appear to be justified by local circumstances. If necessary, he will make a formal intervention by objecting to a draft plan deposit, and by directing that a draft plan should be modified or, ultimately, by calling in all or part of a draft plan for his determination. That is under various sections—and I shall not weary the House with them—of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That gives him authority to move planning policy guidance into areas to which local authorities must have regard when formulating their development plans.
Having said that and having explained the statutory basis of PPGs, it may be helpful to explain the thinking behind the amended PPG2.
Green belts are a cornerstone of our town and country planning system. The revised PPG2 reaffirms the Government's resolute commitment to them. Since 1979 their extent has more than doubled. They now cover 12 per cent. of England. Research which we published in 1993 confirmed their effectiveness in preventing urban sprawl.
990
The 1995 edition of PPG2 is the first significant revision of national green belt policy in its 40 years of existence. Much of the policy, including its key elements, is rightly unchanged. The amended PPG takes account both of recommendations in our published research for making policy still more effective, and of extensive public consultation. The thrust of the revision is to buttress the strict controls over development which are fundamental to the long-term protection of green belts, and to boost the contribution they make to the quality of life. This should ensure that green belts are valued even more highly in future.
Within a framework of continuity, the revised PPG makes six main amendments: it reinforces the aims of green belt policy; it sets positive objectives for the use of green belt land; it encourages proper consideration of the long-term direction of development; it provides for the future of existing major developed sites; it fits policy on the re-use of buildings better to the circumstances of the green belt; and it applies the same rules to "institutions" as to other developers.
The new document seeks to provide the most clear and comprehensive guidance on green belt policy. The consultation draft was described by planning consultants as:
"A quantum leap in clarity over … the existing Planning Policy Guidance Note 2".
It should, they said:
"drastically reduce misinterpretation and abuse."
The final version has been widely and warmly welcomed, by, for example, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Countryside Commission, and the CPRE. According to an editorial in the property press, it provides:
"a sensible framework for local authorities, developers, environmentalists and the public to reach decisions about the future of their areas. Encouragingly, the generally positive response ... by widely different interest groups seems to signal that the second half of the 1990s may see less confrontation and more consensus about how we use our land."
The revised PPG2 learns from the experience of the last 40 years, and strengthens green belt policy to meet the even tougher challenges of the next century. It reaffirms that:
"The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of green belts is their openness."
In a nutshell, the revised PPG permits new building on previously undeveloped sites only for uses of land which preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it; for example, agriculture or essential facilities for outdoor sport.
I now turn to the specific issue of institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asks how the Government have come to the conclusion that institutional development in extensive grounds would conflict with the openness of the green belt.

991
National green belt policy was first formulated in the 1950s. In the words of the research report we published two years ago:
"Those who devised the original prescription saw the institutions category as recognising a pre-existing land use in the countryside. Sanatoria and similar hospital buildings, often Victorian in origin, were seen as necessarily located in the countryside to avoid the spread of infectious diseases."
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned hospitals.
In recent years the institutional provision has increasingly been used to press for wholly new development on a scale that is inappropriate in the green belt. Such development damages the openness of the green belt. The fact that the developer is an institution does not lessen the effect on the green belt. Nor is the green belt intended to be parcelled up into a series of developments in "extensive grounds". It is meant, as PPG2 says, to be kept permanently open. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, indicated, and understood, the concept of "institutions in extensive grounds" caused such difficulties of interpretation in recent years that it became effectively unworkable. That was evidenced by many planning appeals and extensive litigation. There was great confusion over what was and what was not an "institution"; and, still more, over what constituted "extensive grounds". I believe that the concept was tested to destruction.
In the revised PPG2 published last month, development by institutions is subject to the same controls as other development in the green belt. That was recommended in the research report we published in 1993, and proposed in the draft revision of PPG2 which we published for public consultation a year ago. That does not downgrade the value of religious institutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, they are important to the well-being of the individual and society and to the life of the nation. Planning policy rightly recognises religious needs.
The Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 require planning authorities to have regard to social considerations. Planning Policy Guidance Note 12, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, advises that they should consider the likely impact of their policies and proposals on religious groups. It states that development plans should make provision for land for places of worship and other community facilities.
The development plan process provides full opportunities for public consultation. Religious groups should involve themselves in plan preparation where they consider it necessary to seek provision for places of worship. I turn now to the query made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As regards the concerns of the bodies that he mentioned, I believe that that is the right place that those bodies should have in the development process; namely, to go in where there is opportunity for consultation.
However, there is no basis for giving religious institutions special treatment in green belt policy. Many interests might see themselves as equally deserving; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, charities.
992
The revised PPG2 does not rule out all possibility of development in the green belt in any circumstances. For the first time, it creates scope for the limited infilling, or the partial or complete redevelopment of major existing developed sites. It provides for the suitable re-use of existing buildings, and drops the former requirement for them to be redundant. It clarifies the leeway for development in existing villages. That applies both to villages which are inset into the green belt to allow limited development or expansion, and to those villages washed over by the green belt where infill development is permitted. Finally, essential facilities are allowed for uses of land which preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.
Those provisions apply to religious institutions just as much as to any other group. They should use the opportunities to the full. They also have the same scope as anyone else to plead very special circumstances to justify development which is normally inappropriate in the green belt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, posed a question regarding two hospitals amalgamating or requiring the concept of leap-frogging over the green belt. In those circumstances, I believe that those concerned could argue "very special circumstances" if one of the institutions within the green belt needed to develop in order to create the facilities for the amalgamation of the two. I believe that the concept of "very special circumstances" gives local authorities flexibility whereas, if there was no concept of very special circumstances, a local authority might say, "It's green belt and you can't develop". It could draw on this flexibility which allows authorities to consider such matters very carefully. In paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 there is extra guidance on the meaning of "very special circumstances". The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me about the research on the effectiveness of the PPGs. We expect to publish it later this year.
In conclusion, I should like to leave the House with two points. First, planning policy does give due weight to the need to plan for land for places of worship and other community facilities. It is for the groups concerned to make full use of the opportunities available to them.
Secondly, as we approach the 21st century, it is more important than ever to protect green belts from growing development pressures, and to enable them to make an even fuller contribution to the quality of life. That is why we have strengthened the policy, learning from previous experience. Over the years, the provision for institutions came to mean something with far greater effects on the green belt than were originally envisaged. In modern circumstances, there was no proper justification for continuing it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a further question to ask him. The noble Viscount did not mention the reason for the 1992 clarification. That clarification was to preserve the openness of the green belt. That has suddenly become inappropriate. Apparently, the Government do not

993
preserve the openness of the green belt. That is an about-face. Why was that decision taken? The Minister said nothing on that point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the clarification in 1992 was given in order to help overcome something which the people who were interested in developing in green belts were finding very difficult. Then, subsequent to that, a revision of PPG2 was undertaken in 1994. I do not accept that the clarification given in 1992 was sufficient to demonstrate that no clarification after some 40 years of PPG2 being in existence was the end of the matter. Therefore, a full revision of PPG2 was undertaken, with a great deal of consultation resulting from research which was carried out in 1993. The answer is that which was published last month.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until a quarter past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.7 to 8.15 p.m.]

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 114.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No. 184:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("Level of pension to be limited on basis of other taxable income
. After section 43 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Level of pension to be limited on basis of other taxable income.
43A. Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other enactment, there shall be an upper limit on the total amount of retirement pension payable to any person, such limit being determined on the basis of that person's other taxable income as specified in the following Table—

TABLE

Other taxable income

Maximum level of pension

Under £12,000

100%

£12,001–£14,000

80%

£?14,001–£16,000

60%

£16,001–£18,000

40%

£18,001+

20%.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 184 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 200. The Committee may be relieved to hear that Amendment No. 200 states that the section shall not come into force until 6th April 2010. There is therefore no immediate danger of any revolution with regard to that amendment.
It is a fact that state pensions are regarded by some not only as an article of faith but also as a statutory right, and that everyone is entitled to a state pension which they have paid for throughout their working lives. The fact that they have not paid for it throughout their working lives, but have merely paid for other people's pensions is beside the point. It is perceived that they
994
have a right to this provision. People understand that the state pension is graduated according to the contributions that have been paid.
No one should misunderstand me. I fully understand that there is a strong feeling that the pension is considered to be a right. Nevertheless, the real world marches on and it is accepted on all sides of the political spectrum, with the exception of those who have a conviction that the economy will grow faster than the population will age, that the state pension will be an increasingly intolerable burden on the working population in 20 years' time who may be asked to pay not the 10 per cent. of National Insurance contributions that they are now required to pay but probably 20 per cent. or more. It is a general misconception that the economy will grow faster than the population will age. This amendment is designed to relieve that pressure on the working population. This is only a parting shot across the bows of those who will retire from 2010 onwards. This is therefore a probing amendment.
The figures in the amendment are perhaps not entirely accurate. I have prepared some alternative figures to those which appear on the Marshalled List. It is possible that the starting range could be anywhere from £12,000 onwards. Where the figures on the Marshalled List show large and sudden drops of income, that could be relieved by reducing the range by 2 per cent. per £100 or 2 per cent. per £500. According to the Inland Revenue statistics and economics office, 89 per cent. of people who are in receipt of pensions have less than £12,000 a year. Therefore only 11 per cent. of the pensions population would be affected by an amendment to their income that would reduce from the figure of £12,000 onwards. As I say, the £12,000 figure could start at any point one wanted, but it would reduce the pressure upon the working population. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who was kind enough to tell me in advance about the amendment that he intended to move. I do not believe that he was at all surprised to learn that we on this side of the Chamber would have great difficulty in supporting it. The reasons are clear.
We do not want to see a further erosion of state pension provision, which we believe the amendment would bring about. That is not to say that we are opposed to a partnership between public and private provision. I strongly supported the legislation introduced in the mid-1970s which was designed precisely on that basis. I agree with the concept of two-tier pension provision—a basic pension payable to everyone irrespective of their income and a second-tier pension provided either by SERPS or a good occupational pension scheme.
In my view, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, undermines that system still further. It may be argued that we have to cut down on state provision because of cost or demographic changes, but in my view pension provision is a form of contract between the generations. Once, perhaps, that contract was filled by the extended family, which was expected to look after old people. However, we have long passed that stage.

995
We now have a situation in which it is up to the community to provide for basic pensions. It is because it runs against that concept that I cannot commend the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, to the Committee, although must confess that it is very innovative, given the philosophy that lies behind it.
I believe that we have to maintain a basic pension provision which has been paid for by national insurance contributions. I still support the insurance concept originally introduced by Beveridge all those years ago, which still has validity nowadays. I hope that the Government do not support the amendment. I certainly cannot commend it to the Committee.
Lord Dean of Harptree: The Committee owes a great debt to my noble friend for thinking the unthinkable and speaking the unspeakable. That certainly would not be possible in another place where, understandably, Members have to think about being re-elected. I would be very surprised if my noble friend the Minister warmed to the amendment at this time. Perhaps in a hundred years time the situation will be different. Nevertheless, this is a serious point which is worthy of a short debate, even at this late hour.
In 1948, when the national insurance scheme was introduced and extended to virtually everybody, very few people, apart from those in public service, had occupational pension schemes on which to rely. There were the thin '30s when the possibilities for savings were very limited. The situation now is completely transformed, very much to the good. I am told by my grandchildren that we now have a phenomenon called Woopies (well off old people). That does not apply to everybody, of course, but nowadays a growing number of people retire with the national insurance pension, an occupational or public service pension and also savings which they have managed to accumulate during their working lives.
Therefore, my noble friend is right to ask whether it is really necessary any longer for those comparatively well-off pensioners to be an obligation on the state. The answer to that question is no. How does one achieve that? My noble friend would achieve it by a means test for everybody, which would be extremely unpopular. My noble friend will realise the implications for the re-election of our party at the general election were his proposal to be introduced.
Having said that, this is a serious point. The time could well arrive—probably later rather than sooner—when we ought to reconsider whether the Beveridge approach is still necessary and whether it is appropriate that those who are comparatively well off in retirement should place this great obligation on the state and the large and ever-increasing social security budget, to which my noble friend the Minister has referred on more than one occasion during these debates.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam has approached the issue of retirement pensions from a different point of view from the normal one.
In general terms our policy on pensions has three strands. First, we are pledged to maintain the value of the basic state pension in line with prices as a solid
996
foundation for all in retirement. Secondly, we wish to encourage personal responsibility for additional pension provision through occupational and personal pensions. Thirdly, we wish to focus additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits to help those without other income.
It is often argued, and my noble friend argued this evening, that the £25 billion that we spend on pensions is poorly targeted. Some people think it wrong that contributors should fund pensions for millionaires and believe that state pensions should be withdrawn from richer retirees. While the proposed measure would clearly save money and target payment to less well-off pensioners, it was only five years ago that we abolished the earnings rule that applied to the basic retirement pension. I can tell my noble friend that we do not intend to introduce such a measure, even by the route he outlines in his amendment. It would be extremely unpopular. A means test of the kind he suggests could act as a disincentive to individuals to provide for their retirement and it would penalise pensioners who have made private provision for an adequate retirement income or who choose to continue working after state pension age.
Other measures in the Bill—and we shall come to some of them later this evening—are being introduced to help to ensure that the basic pension entitlement is affordable as it stands for future taxpayers. We maintain that the basic pension should act as the foundation of pension provision.
My noble friend's methods of dealing with the problem are ingenious, especially the proposal he puts forward to reduce the effect of the "cliff edges". We have tried to think what it might mean financially. Without working up a detailed scheme and making a number of assumptions about future incomes, because it would be difficult to take the future of SERPS into account, if such a scheme were introduced today and applied only to the basic state pension, we think tentatively that savings at 1995–96 prices would be around £900 million out of a budget of £27.8 billion. Taking account of the tax loss, the PSBR effect would be around £600 million per annum. Means testing on the scale envisaged is administratively complex and would be expensive to run.
I am grateful to my noble friend for encouraging me to turn my mind to this particular way of looking at the problem of pensions in retirement, but I believe that the basic state retirement pension is highly valued in this country. We are looking at different ways to address the problem of affordability. In addition, people who receive larger incomes in retirement as mentioned in my noble friend's amendment are liable to pay income tax on that income. Therefore, there is a certain amount of clawback in that regard.
With those few words, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for speaking on my behalf. I am glad that I was found to be both innovative and unspeakable.

997
I wish to refer to one point. A number of people will pay 40 per cent. tax. That is a disadvantage to my own case. Those who pay the higher tax of 40 per cent. will not receive as much benefit. Therefore they might not be missing so much income in their retirement which they do not need anyway. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No. 184A:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("Mandatory personal pension contributions
. No person shall be eligible for a retirement pension under the provisions of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 unless, from the date of their 25th birthday, they have made a contribution, amounting in each year to at least 10 per cent of their gross annual income, to an Appropriate Personal Pension Scheme to which contribution would be made on contracting out of SERPS.").
The noble Earl said: If I were innovative on the last amendment I shall be even more so now. We are now in the realm of personal pensions. Having examined in great depth the navel of the occupational pension schemes, we turn to the subject of personal pensions. There is the need for personal savings, not only for the benefit of the saver but also to create a savings philosophy and culture throughout the nation and to involve the estimated 50 per cent. of the working population who are not covered by some independent pension arrangement. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that it was Beveridge's vision that we should make personal savings provisions and that in organising security, the state should leave room for voluntary action to provide more than the minimum. We need to provide more than the minimum because the £4,000 or £5,000 retirement pension, of which we have just been speaking, is not very much.
It is remarkable that Japan, which finances most of the world's debt, has successfully encouraged the accumulation of private capital. As a result, almost alone in the world, its pensioners as yet are self supporting. As I said on the last amendment, it is clearly acknowledged on all sides of the political spectrum that our own prospects of being able to support our old age pensioners in the 21st century are slim—certainly in the manner they might have expected. That was clearly debated in Second Reading speeches. Yet in this country some £500 billion is invested in pension funds largely provided from employers' profits. There is the need therefore to make radical improvements to existing pension provisions and to reduce the drain on corporate profits by providing increased investment for industry. I suggest that we do so by personal savings rather than at the expense of the company's profit and loss account.
There is the need for everyone to start a constant savings stream throughout their life. Would indeed that I had done so myself. The amendment proposes that a mandatory savings scheme shall be started by every national insurance contributor before the age of 25 by contributing 10 per cent. of his or her salary or wages to an appropriate personal pension plan with a minimum
998
contribution ideally of £1,000 a year. According to Part A of the New Earnings Survey 1994, Summary A14.2 indicates that of the 20.8 million people employed in this country, 12.8 per cent. earn less than £10,000. One thousand pounds a year is 10 per cent. of £10,000. Therefore, it should not be difficult to achieve that figure.
For those who contract out of SERPS, the appropriate personal pension plan already receives 4.8 per cent. of rebate. Assuming that contributions attract tax relief at 25 per cent., an additional 2.7 per cent. is all that is required to make up a total gross contribution of 10 per cent. Surely that is not too great an additional sum to ask of savers, or with regard to the very low paid, of their employers—although it is not my intention to involve the employer except in extreme circumstances. It can be shown that just 10 per cent. of earnings adjusted in line with inflation and earnings will provide the traditional two-thirds of final salary after 38 years, using a growth factor of 8 per cent. Some figures extracted from Money Management of November 1994 detailing performance figures for unitised personal pension funds show that such performance figures are not exceptional, and indeed are accepted by LAUTRO. However, I must confess that the 8 per cent. figure to which I referred does not account for commissions and charges. I shall come to costs in a moment.
In this context, it may be relevant to quote the BZW Equity-Gilt Study of the Real Return on Equities since 1918. I emphasise that it is 1918 and not 1980. From 1918 to 1993, the annual return on UK equities with taxed income reinvested was 7.9 per cent. over 75 years. Therefore 8 per cent. may not be considered over optimistic, especially in view of the fact that it is a LAUTRO-approved figure, a figure that includes cost of commission and management of funds.
There is the need to make savings and pension plans more efficient and by the same token less expensive. Plans which are mandatory need no selling. Hence there can be lower commission rates and charges. Fund management can be awarded by the recently conceived fund based commission. The basic management charge could be increased with fund performance. Fund managers of occupational schemes would equally manage the separate savings or appropriate pension plan. That will provide a bridge between the two systems which I envisage would meld over time. It is not too much to expect that as company funded occupational schemes become too expensive for a variety of reasons (which are obvious and which have been widely discussed previously) companies will start money purchase group personal pension plans instead which can incorporate, if only for investment management purposes, an appropriate personal pension plan such as I propose.
Crucially there will be a fund performance table run by SIB or PIA which could perhaps license specific funds and management teams in order to ensure that we achieve the 8 per cent. performance. There is, too, a need to simplify the transfer calculation on changing jobs and to provide for instant recognition by the saver of the value of the fund accumulated and to create an identity between the saver and his or her fund. Such

999
plans already exist in the form of the additional voluntary contributions and personal plans. Many of the additional voluntary contributions are applied to occupational schemes.
The mandatory appropriate personal pension plan which I propose is only an extension of the contracted out portion of SERPS which presently runs in parallel with existing occupational schemes and the AVCs which I mentioned. The APP would receive all transfer contributions. It already satisfies the requirement for portability between occupations. There should be reformed transfer charges but that would be the responsibility of the occupational pension fund managers and trustees who at present have a frightfully complicated system. The existing capping and funding limits of pension plans would continue to apply. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to a variable retirement age. That would be between 60 and 75—not just covering a decade. There would be no tax free cash sum. A compulsory pension would be taken from the accumulated fund.
One already has PEPs, additional voluntary contributions and many other additional ways of adding money to one's pension plan, if wished. Those could be applied through the normal routine of the present rate of charges and expenses and would top up the 10 per cent. that I propose. Capital sums would be available to pay off mortgages or other personal charges on retirement. Equally, the additional voluntary contribution scheme would be a vehicle for that extension of the principle.
The problem of the self-employed needs equal consideration, but only in respect of the enforcement of the contribution. That can be rated in the income tax return or the fund manager's certificate at present available. I have in my hand the BZW return on gilts, which carries through from 1918 to 1993 a figure of 7.9 per cent. The document has come from your Lordships' Library.
The suggestion may be considered innovative or even unspeakable, but I think that it is important. It is a contribution towards making personal pensions the new form of personal savings to look after our retirement and our old age. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: This is an interesting proposal, but I do not believe it is compatible with what we are doing in the Bill. Some time ago the Liberal Democrats came to the conclusion that it would have been wiser to abandon SERPS and have a compulsory contribution along the lines that the noble Earl suggested. The more one considers pensions, the more one is aware that it is an enormous undertaking to attempt to provide adequate pension provision on the scale that people rightly wish to have. Sooner or later some changes much more fundamental than those proposed in the present Bill will be necessary. I suspect that something along the lines that the noble Earl spoke of will have to be considered. However, I do not think that it is possible to consider them in the light of this Bill, which has its own slant and approach to the problem. That is probably the best progress we can make at present.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam that to provide an
1000
adequate income for people in retirement there is a need for a second tier of pension provision. By creating incentives to opt for occupational and personal pension schemes we have allowed for people and their employers to match their provision for retirement to their resources and needs. In that way, we have also shifted the balance from a pay-as-you-go state-based system towards funded private provision. As my noble friend pointed out, assets in British pension funds amount to £500 billion, which is more than all the funds in the rest of the EC put together. We are in favour of a range of non-state pension provision, including both occupational and personal pension schemes. However, no one is obliged to join any particular scheme, which is what my noble friend suggests we ought to consider doing.
Instead, we believe that it is crucially important that individuals have a choice of pension provision, so that they can make the best arrangements for their own circumstances. My noble friend believes that occupational pension schemes will eventually be replaced by group personal pensions. We expect salary-related schemes, a very important type of pension provision, to continue to play a major role in pension provision in the future. Moreover, contracted out money purchase schemes, which first became available as recently as 1988, already have half a million members. The measures contained in the Bill to introduce age-related rebates should ensure the continued popularity of this type of provision, and thus a continued range of pension choices.
My noble friend referred to the levels of charges for appropriate personal pensions, and mentioned that these could be reduced if such plans were mandatory, since no selling would be required. Making appropriate personal pensions mandatory with this objective in mind would surely be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Such compulsory investment is likely to act as a disincentive to other forms of savings, some of which may provide a better return to individuals than paying more into a pension scheme.
I can appreciate that my noble friend is trying to ensure that people invest sufficient funds for their retirement income and make adequate contributions over and above the rate of the contracted out rebate. In this aim, we are of one mind, but I do not believe that this amendment proposing compulsion is the right way to go. It is better to promote confidence, to educate and to use publicity to encourage people to plan to maximise their retirement incomes. I hope that with those few words of reaction to my noble friend's proposal he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her kind words. I agree that we have a problem. The most important point that I made in the amendment was that the savings should start before the age of 25. That is a vital requirement. Anything that one does before the age of 25 will give a reasonable and successful result when one is 65. That vital point is missing from my noble friend's kind remarks. However, I quite agree that this is neither the time nor the place for such an amendment

1001
to the Bill. I put it forward for consideration in the future. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Equalisation]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 184AA is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 184AB or 184AD to 184AG.
[Amendments Nos. 184AA to 184BA not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184BC:
Page 109, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) In section 44(3) (b) of that Act (as amended by this paragraph) following the words "for the relevant years" there is inserted "or, if there are more than 39 such surpluses, of those 39 which are the largest".").
Page 109, line 50, at end insert:
("( ) In section 44(3) (b) of that Act (as amended by this paragraph) following "for the relevant years" there is inserted "or, if there are more than 44 such surpluses, of those 44 which are the largest").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 184BC and speak to Amendment No. 184BD. The amendments deal with the best years rule. Our anxiety is that equalising the pension age at 65, as the Bill proposes, hurts women twice over. They not only have to work five years longer for the basic state pension, but because their SERPS additional pension is averaged over the whole of their lifetime and in the last five years they may not be in work or only in low paid work, they will receive a lower pension at the end. They work five years longer for a lower pension. We cannot believe that that is what the Government intended and these amendments would correct that situation.
The first of the amendments proposes that instead of averaging SERPS over the whole of one's working lifetime of 49 years, as with the basic state pension, it should allow a modest flexibility to discard up to 10 years under the first amendment, or up to five years on the second amendment. By dropping the 10 weakest years, as the first amendment suggests, we would bring SERPS into line with the state pension where five years may be dropped at any rate and a further five years by autocredit.
The second amendment would allow the dropping of the five weakest years, thus at least ensuring that women are no worse off than at present and low paid men—those not in occupational pensions but in SERPS—would similarly benefit. Thus, the amendment benefits women and low paid men alike. It is well targeted. Without subverting the whole-life basis of SERPS, it introduces a modest flexibility; the discard of some years which the basic state pension allows. It would permit years to be dropped at the end of the working life or, for someone in part-time work, caring for a partner, or if they are unemployed.
The cost would be relatively modest for the state. No expenditure would come until 2017 or 2024, according to whichever amendment was pursued. It would be
1002
phased in gradually and it would mean that women would not enter the new regime penalised twice over by working longer for less. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Very briefly, I support this amendment. I want to underline the fact that it gives some additional help to the worst paid of the people who are likely to be most poor in old age. The second point to emphasise is that it is helpful to both men and women. In these days when the earnings of both sexes are very much interrupted, the ability to choose the best years rather than having to average over the whole uneven earnings, therefore pulling down the ultimate amount of the pension, is very valuable. It is particularly valuable to the poorest people, who will need the greatest help in retirement in old age.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The purpose of this amendment is to provide for SERPS to be calculated on the basis of the best 39 years, or, as in one of the other amendments, on the basis of the best 44 years of a person's earning. Either option would cancel out the effect of moving the SERPS working life for women to that which currently applies to men. The 39-year option represents a significant improvement on the current position for women reaching state pension age after 2017; while the 44-year option would ensure that the current position remained for most women. Either option would represent a significant improvement for men compared with current arrangements. The amendment seeks to improve—or, in the noble Baroness's words to safeguard—the position of women as the retirement age moves to 65. I am quite surprised that we have not discussed the movement from 60 to 65, but we have not. This is, as it were, a consequential amendment—
Baroness Seear: I assure the noble Lord that we shall.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am glad to hear that we are to discuss that point—I presume under Schedule 4. But we have not discussed all the various options that were on the Marshalled List. We seem to have passed them by.
To return to the point that I was making, the principle involved here is this: because we are shifting the retirement age for women to 65, it obviously adds five years to their working life. In doing so, we add five years to what perhaps I might call the "denominator" in the SERPS provision. The SERPS provision will obviously take account of the five extra years of working, both of the income during that time and of the years themselves. We have here two proposals from which to select; namely, that we return to the best 39 years, or that we take the best 44 years—and in order to keep matters equal between men and women, we drop the retirement age for men to the same as it was for women. The 39-year option would represent a significant improvement on the current position for women reaching state pension age after 2017; while the 44-year option would ensure that the current position remained for most women. As I have said, either option

1003
would represent an improvement for men—one of five years and the other of 10 years compared with current arrangements.
We see here another amendment that is designed to mitigate the effect of our proposals for women and to bring benefit to many better-off men. There have been a number of amendments during the course of today, and on other days, which have explored the possibility of more public expenditure when it comes to the matters that are before us.
SERPS was introduced in 1978 with a view to providing all employed people with a second-tier pension and to reduce reliance on income-related benefits. We recognised in the mid-1980s that the cost of the scheme would escalate rapidly. My right honourable friend, Norman Fowler, was then Secretary of State. The Fowler reforms were introduced, which were designed to curb that cost in the next century.
The original intention was that SERPS would represent 25 per cent. of average revalued reckonable earnings over the best 20 years of a person's life. The 1986 reforms removed the best 20 years' provision, and reduced the accrual rate in stages for people retiring after April 1999 to 20 per cent. for people retiring in 2010 and indeed later. We decided—and Parliament agreed with us at the time—that the provision of SERPS, as it was then being worked out, would become unsustainable into the next century. We therefore made those changes.
At the same time, provision was made for home responsibility protection to be extended to SERPS from April 1999. That was intended to cushion the impact of the reforms for people in vulnerable groups who would have particular difficulty building up additional pension provision. In the State Pension Age White Paper we confirmed that we would fulfil our commitment to bring in the necessary regulations to do this. We have already discussed the importance of home responsibility protection when it comes to the state retirement pension. People—it has to be said that it is most usually women, but that may not necessarily always be the case—who have responsibilities, let us say, for looking after children and who opt to look after the children at home, or those who stay at home and give up their job in order to care for an elderly relative, can receive home responsibility protection. This reduces the number of years that they have to target before they are eligible for a full state pension. That is an important aspect of the retirement pension provision that we have made in order to help women who find that they cannot have a full lifetime's contribution record because they stay at home to look after their children or perhaps to look after somebody who is unwell and who needs the kind of care and attention which they have to give up their jobs to provide. So home responsibility protection is already there for old age pensions. It will be introduced. As I say, provision is in the White Paper. We confirmed that we would fulfil our commitment to bring in the necessary regulations to do this.
The Bill also introduces a further measure that will provide help for families and working disabled people with low incomes to improve their additional pension entitlement. I am sure that everyone accepts that the
1004
same argument applies to people who have families and to working disabled people because they cannot accumulate over their lifetime the kind of income that will give them the level of pensions that we are looking for. I believe that that is one of the points to which my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam referred in his speech a few moments ago; namely, that if people are asked to make compulsory savings, there is something of a problem in providing for those people for whom such compulsory pension provision would make quite a dent in their income. Clearly, we appreciate that there is a problem with regard to these matters. We are trying to help in this regard.
Both men and women in low earning families will be helped by the two measures that I mentioned; namely, family credit and disability working allowance. These measures treat FC and DWA as if they were earnings in the calculation of both SERPS and basic state pension, thus focusing help on workers with low incomes. That help is targeted on groups of people with low incomes who will face particular difficulty in preparing for their retirement—both those with families and those with disabilities. It promotes working, and it encourages the take-up of in-work benefits such as family credit, which are there to help people who can only find low earnings. To encourage them to take up work, the family credit scheme comes into effect and makes up their income. We believe—and I believe that everybody agrees—that this is an important part of the provision to encourage people into work, to encourage those who are in work, and to make sure that those in work (even if it is quite low paid) are helped with their family responsibilities. These provisions in the Bill will be directed at this particular group of people, whom, I am sure, the noble Baroness would wish to help. I am referring to the kind of people who may find themselves with a poor contribution record towards the end of their working lives. The noble Baroness rather hurried over that argument. But I am saying that our measures on family credit and DWA will help. The improvements to family credit and DWA, such as the £10 premium for those working 30 hours or more per week as announced in the Budget, will provide further enhancement of SERPS entitlement.
Any of the improvements—such as the various systems that will come to your Lordships' House later in the Session when we come to the job seekers' Bill—on the income of low-wage earners will eventually feed through to their SERPS provision, as does home responsibility protection when it comes to people looking for the old age pension.
The reforms before us ensure the continued affordability of the scheme into the future, while protecting the position of the most vulnerable groups in our country, some of which I explained. By contrast, the amendments would make inroads into the steps we are taking to put SERPS on a long-term sustainable basis. They would raise expenditure in the long term in a poorly-targeted way. Indeed, high earning men would benefit as well as low earning women. I cannot believe that that is what the Benches opposite seek to do. I find it hard to square their normal desire to help the poorest

1005
in the community with the way in which the amendment brings in for help some high earning men who would gain from the reduction in the number of years.
We need a viable, affordable, long-term SERPS provision. It does not make sense to make available across the board the five or 10-year "free" period which the amendment would provide. Earlier this evening, when asked to find another £250 million in order to fund the frozen pensions of people in retirement abroad, the Front Bench opposite did not vote —I presume because they realised that that kind of commitment is not responsible. I presume it was also felt that in the unlikely event of their being elected into government, they would find it extremely difficult to find that amount. They probably also felt that if they had voted in favour of spending another £250 million, I would have my calculator ready to add that on to the total amount of public expenditure that they were happily and busily pledging.
Therefore, earlier this evening, we saw a small indication of what we must probably welcome as financial prudence and responsibility. It is important that we take a financially prudent and responsible attitude to the provision of SERPS. Many of the proposals on SERPS, such as those put forward by my right honourable friend Sir Norman Fowler, were designed to make SERPS a more affordable provision into the next century. If we had not done that, we would be putting on people in 2020 and 2030—just as we would be if we did not move the pension age of ladies to 65—considerable extra expenditure which is not sensible. It is certainly not sensible for those of us who hope, with a bit of good luck and keeping fit, to be there to see those days come. We hope that the taxpayers and workers at that time will be able to fund the pension provision and the SERPS provision which will be in place at that time.
Those of us who are in the happy position of being members of occupational schemes, where the funds are already earmarked, in place and being invested, are particularly privileged. We must recognise that in order to ensure that those who are not in occupational or personal pension schemes are able to obtain some money in retirement to give them a reasonable life, which is what we all want.
The proposal is that we add five or 10 years; that is, by reducing the number of years in the denominator over which the SERPS entitlement will be calculated by five years in the case of one amendment and 10 years in the case of the other. We would have to consider whether such a proposal could or would work alongside the generous assistance already built into the system by means of HRP. I have already mentioned how HRP will help women—and that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is worried about—both in accumulating a full record for a full state retirement pension and also in helping them with SERPS provision, which we intend to take forward by April 1999 as we promised.
The SERPS position of those people—mainly, though not always, women—who have to stop work at 60 because of caring responsibilities or if they are receiving incapacity benefit, is something the noble Baroness,
1006
Lady Hollis, specifically mentioned in her speech. One of the problems, whether in this debate or in the 60/65 age limit debate, is that there is a tendency to assume that the situation today will be the same at the end of the century, in 2010, 2020 and 2030. But that is not so. The position of women in the workplace is changing—some noble Baronesses and even some noble Lords may say too slowly. But more and more women are in occupational pension schemes and will have full contribution records. They will therefore accumulate, whether it be one-eightieths or one-sixtieths, the same sort of pension provision as their male equivalents. Equally, more and more women will be working for the whole of their working life and make the necessary Class 1 contributions. That means that they will be eligible for a full state pension in their own right.
A change was made in 1977 to remove what was then the married woman's small stamp under which married women did not contribute to their own pension provision but were entirely dependent on their husband's contribution record. That is working through the system. However, more and more women will be coming to retirement—not immediately but we are looking into the next century—for whom that option was not available and therefore they did not make that choice. If they were in employment they paid class 1 contributions and therefore will be building up pensions in their own right.
We have to look ahead when we are discussing these issues: whether it be this issue which concerns changing the basis of the SERPS calculation or looking at the 60/65 argument. We must not look at the position as if nothing will change between now and 2010/2020. The position will change. It is gradually changing already as women take an equal place alongside men. They are expecting—and perfectly correctly expecting—to retain their jobs just as long as men. Consequently, many younger women may continue working until their new pension age of 65 and will get more SERPS from the extra years of earnings revaluation. In fact, they may well get a higher pension than the lower one which the noble Baroness fears.
As we look ahead to 2020 we come on to the point which arises in later amendments. I am surprised that it has not already arisen as there are down on the Marshalled List two important amendments. There is an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, whom I so missed hearing this evening, on the subject of whether we should go to the age of 63 as a sensible compromise between men and women. But we did not hear about that. I am not sure whether we are past the amendment which introduces a flexible decade of retirement. I am quite surprised at how matters which were considered at Second Reading to be great issues have not been discussed. I prepared quite lengthily for an interesting debate on all these items. However, all of a sudden the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have had a change of heart and think that there is no point in inviting the noble Lord the Minister to have a discussion about the matter because the arguments are so clearly on his side and they have therefore withdrawn the amendment. I am tempted to give them the arguments

1007
whether or not they ask for them because I took so much time looking at them and working out their consequences.
The same is true of SERPS whether the age is 60, 63 or 65 or whether there is a flexible decade. The situation is moving dramatically. It is changing and will continue to change over the next few years. As we move into the next century the ratio of those available in the workforce to those who are retired will go in what I might describe as the wrong direction—certainly, the wrong direction if one is elderly. In 1991 the number of people of working age in the population was 34.4 million. In 2010 the number will be 36.2 million. In 2030 the number will be 33.7 million. In 2050 the number will be 32 million. With that kind of picture, I do not think one can say that just because today unemployment is happily corning down, and coming down quite considerably, although it is still too high, the same factors of people moving out of the workforce as readily as they do today will be the same in 20 or 30 years time when the number of people of working age will have declined by the kind of figures I have just mentioned. We cannot assume that people who today might not be able to have a job or keep a job between 60 and 65 will be in the same position when we come to the years ahead.
Women will be able to secure and stay in reasonably paid work until they are 65. With our proposals not starting until then I do not believe that one can predict forward from today. Even today just over half the men between the ages of 60 and 64 are still in work or are seeking work. Even at the age of 64, 40 per cent. of men are still working. When one considers the various occupations, such as the Civil Service, which already allow for a retirement age of 60, one can see that a great many people who want to carry on working are perfectly able to carry on and to build up SERPS entitlement, if they are still in SERPS, or to build up their ordinary occupational pension entitlements.
One has to look quite carefully at this amendment and ask whether it is really sensible. A situation is proposed where the SERPS divider, if I can call it that, will be related to the number of years people will be able to work. The idea of giving a five-year or 10-year free period is not soundly based. It ignores what the labour market is likely to look like in the years ahead. It also ignores people who are well enough off and who will gain an advantage, as I am sure the noble Baroness does not intend. It will increase the cost of SERPS on the working population at that time. The correct way forward is that which we outline in the Bill. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have heard what the Minister said at great length. I am unimpressed by his argument but, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 184BD I point to an error in the Marshalled List. The amendment should refer to page 109, line 48, not line 50.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184BD:
Page 109, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) In section 44(3) (b) of that Act (as amended by this paragraph) following "for the relevant years" there is inserted "or, if there are more than 44 such surpluses, of those 44 which are the largest"").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move. The Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184BD) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Methuen, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkender, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Freyberg, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L,

Stedman, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollick, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tope, L.

1009

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wigoder, L.

Varley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whaddon, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Aldington, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E

Birdwood, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Northesk,E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Rennell, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Stewartby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stockton, E.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Torrington, V.

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wise, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Monkswell: The Minister complained earlier this evening that he had not heard my contribution on the flexible decade of retirement and the alternative dates upon which a common retirement age could be determined. In agreeing to the previous amendment, the Committee has demonstrated that it wants to see, and has obtained, some improvement to the SERPS for the vast majority of comparatively low paid people.
We must recognise that we have a complicated position regarding the requirement to ensure that men and women retire at the same time. One of the ways in which we can look at the problem is from the point of view of the cost of any change to the Exchequer. Another is to look at the fairness of the position. There is a further view. It is the message that our decision sends to the people of this country. The message we have already agreed this evening is that this place wants to be fair to those people who probably do not have a personal pension or an occupational pension. They are probably among the least well off men and women in our society.
We have taken that decision, and we are all glad that we have done so. However, we are still faced with the question of what common retirement age we should aim
1010
for. There are those who suggest that we should have a common retirement age at 60. There are some who suggest that it should be 63. The Government have suggested 65. My preference is for the age of 70, and I shall seek to explain that.
We must recognise the message that we send out to the people of this country. If we say that we shall have a state retirement age of 60, we are saying effectively that we do not expect people to work over 60. We are expecting them to work to 60 and then to retire. That would be a sad message to convey. Unfortunately what has happened over the past 10 or 15 years is that more and more people have been forced out of work and effectively retired. In the earlier debate, the Minister gave the figure which shows that 50 per cent. of people between the ages of 60 and 65 are effectively unemployed. I hesitate to ask what the figure would be for those between the ages of 55 and 60.
As a result of economic circumstances, one of the problems is that people have come to expect that they will be finished on the labour market at the age of 50, 55 or 60, when 15 or 20 years ago women could have expected to work until they were 60 and men until they were 65. It is a sad message to send to people that they are considered to be valueless and worthless to our society because of the statement which the Government accept—that it is okay to be retired and not to work at a relatively young age.
One of the messages we could send today on the subject of a common retirement age is, "Yes, we expect and wish the citizens of this country to continue to be economically active". We know that they can be because people live longer and are comparatively more fit. There are also many more jobs which do not require the expenditure of hard physical labour.
We want people to be economically active for as long as possible and that is one of the reasons why I argue that the state retirement age should be 70. Implicit in that is a recognition by the Government and Parliament that we expect people to work until they are 70. If the economy is not running in such a way as to ensure that people can be economically active, it should be the job of Government and Parliament to ensure that steps are taken to enable people to contribute usefully to society.
It is important to recognise that we expect some people to work in particular ways but where there is no market for their labour in the general accepted sense of that term. I am talking in particular about women, although men enter the category too. I refer to carers; that is, the carers of young children or of elderly or disabled relatives. We recognise the changing attitude to the concept of looking after children or caring after relatives.
In the Bill the Government acknowledge that the work of carers should be recognised. However, they undervalue the work. I argue that, instead of the years spent as a carer counting towards the basic old age pension, a credit should be made to the SERPS contribution record that is equivalent to average earnings. That credit should be given for the years when they were performing that caring role and contributing so effectively to the well-being of our society.

1011
it is only right that Parliament and Government should recognise the role that women in particular play in that caring role. They should recognise the contribution that they make to the well-being and economy of our society. I argue that there should be a credit to the SERPS contribution record of those people who are carers and not in the normal labour market.
The Minister was curious as to why we did not move the amendments which identify the different ages for common retirement and so forth. We must recognise that in Committee it is probably useful to probe the Government on this issue and to ask for information. I am glad to have opened what I hope will be a probing debate and asked the Government for their response to my contribution and those of other Members of the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the opposition to Schedule 4 being agreed to. On occasions, I reach different conclusions from my noble friend but, despite the slight improvement made by the passing of the previous amendment, many parts of the schedule make the position more detrimental to women.
In responding not only to the amendment which my noble friend moved but also to the other amendments which the Minister thought would be moved, he put forward once again the case for equalising the pension age at 65. Once again, his arguments left out a number of important considerations. Of course, he failed to acknowledge that women will be worse off financially under the Government's proposals and, secondly, that men are moving in a reverse direction because 40 per cent. of men are already retired before they reach the age of 65.
As the Minister said, it is true that an increasing number of women are going into paid employment. Regrettably, it is true also that, under the Government's employment policies, a large proportion of those women are going into part-time low-paid employment. Therefore, they are failing to build up a sufficiently large pension to support themselves in retirement.
The Government's assumption is that by 2010, 90 per cent. of women will have a pension in their own right. One has to ask what kind of pension that will be given the following factors. First, in 1992 only 54 per cent. of full-time and 19 per cent. of part-time women workers were in an occupational pension scheme.
Secondly, 2.25 million women in work earn less than the lower earnings limit and therefore do not contribute even to the basic pension. Thirdly, 1.1 million women workers still pay the married women's national insurance contribution, which means that they are relying on their husband's pension rights and not their own.
On my reckoning, that means that at least some 7 million women of the 10 million women workers will not earn anything like an adequate pension by the year 2010 or even by the year 2020, when the Government believe that they will have a full pension. The
1012
Government's proposals fail to address historic and contemporary social factors which constitute indirect discrimination against women.
Nor can one be certain that the Government's actuarial calculations will have the outcome that they expect. Government actuaries have cautioned against their likely accuracy when they move into the years ahead. That doubt about the forecast can certainly be supported by the fearful predictions that we had a few years ago about the demographic timebomb which was to go off in the early 1990s. It was predicted that the number of 18 year-olds would be reduced drastically and therefore there would be a great shortage in the labour force. Certainly, the number of 18 year-olds coming out of schools has reduced drastically but the difference from the predictions is that instead of there being a shortage in the labour market unemployment among 16 to 19 year-olds has been running at 22.4 per cent. and among 20 to 24 year-olds at 16.3 per cent. Similar consequences may follow if more 60 to 65 year-old men and women continue in employment. Indeed, the Government's pension scheme for the Civil Service now has a compulsory retirement age of 60.
In May 1993, 53 per cent. of Civil Service pensioners drew a pension of less than £3,000 per annum—that is, £57.70 per week. Although the normal retirement age in the Civil Service has been reduced to 60, those with very low pensions had been able in the past to continue work in order to accumulate a more adequate pension. However, it is now government policy that they must all retire at the age of 60, as a means of reducing the number of civil servants.
Women on the lowest earnings, and, thus, on the lowest pensions, will not be able to draw the state pension which helps make retirement possible for a further five years under the Government's present Bill. The normal retirement age of 60 is now common throughout the public sector and the finance industry, but that will not be so in the future. I really believe that this is double-think on the part of the Government. If they are having to reduce the retirement age in the Civil Service, thus creating such problems for low-paid civil servants, what will happen to workers in other industries?
We must not create more poverty or perpetuate the already existing poverty in retirement. There is no doubt that women would lose out by increasing the retirement age to 65. I suggest that the Government need to rethink the whole of this section of the Bill and, perhaps, come back to us with an improved Schedule 4.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I, too, should like to support my noble friend Lord Monkswell in his opposition to Schedule 4 standing part of the Bill. I do so in response to the Minister's invitation at an earlier stage in his recent, extremely long speech when he requested the benefit of our thoughts on the flexible decade of retirement. The Minister said that he could not understand why we had not reached the stage where we could explain to him the implications of that flexible decade of retirement. However, now that we are discussing Schedule 4 which would equalise pension ages at 65 and, therefore, remove the possibility of a

1013
certain degree of choice for men and women, I am sure that the Minister wants to hear the arguments in favour of the flexible decade of retirement that, unfortunately, we were not able to explore in rather greater depths earlier this evening.
As we know, the world of work has changed hugely since the 1960s. Yet, we have a fixed retirement age devised when most men had very similar working lives. They worked continuously from the age of 16 to 65, often with the same employer, while the wives worked without pay at home. However, over the past 20 or 30 years, many events have come together. For example, we have seen growing unemployment with 40 per cent. of all men being unemployed in the past five years. We have seen greater job mobility in that men and women together have, on average, between five and six employers. We have seen a fragmentation of full-time jobs into part-time fragments which, if one is fortunate, can be reclustered into a portfolio. We have also seen men dropping out of the labour market earlier; indeed 57 per cent.—that is, more than half—of all men between the ages of 55 and 64 are not in work, compared to only 8 per cent. in 1977. Moreover, we have seen women joining the labour market both as full-time and part-time workers. While the years spent in child care have reduced, we have often seen increased years spent in caring for the elderly.
Therefore, compared to 20 or 30 years ago when most men worked and expected to work full time until the age of 65 and most women expected to be supported by their husbands' earnings and pension, that similarity of experience has now fragmented for the reasons that I have outlined. Each family is now positioned differently. What we ought to do, what we want to do, what we should all be able to do, and what we should choose to do will vary enormously. Yet while we recognise that increasingly divergent experience from family to family we still persist in a fixed state retirement age which will be even more inflexible when men and women are both required to retire—if this Bill goes through unamended—at 65.
We need to have our pension provision reflect the same flexibility that people now experience in their working lives. Men, for example, may contentedly retire with a decent occupational pension at 55 or 60 if they are in certain jobs such as the Armed Forces, the police, mental health nursing or if they are air pilots. Indeed, 43 per cent. of occupational schemes permit retirement at 63 or earlier. But, equally, they may want to continue to do full-time work until 65. Perhaps if they are an MP, or in another job equally rewarding and not too demanding, they may seek to continue their employment beyond 65 to 70. On the other hand, they may suffer poor health and not be fit to return to manual work. Although a man might be fairly fit himself his partner, or in her case her partner, could develop, for example, multiple sclerosis or severe rheumatoid arthritis and may wish to work part-time or take early retirement. Equally, someone may be made redundant, and, particularly if it is a man who is unskilled or has unsuitable skills, at the age of 57 or 62 he is unlikely to work again.
1014
Equally, if there are several years disparity in ages between husband and wife—one might be 65 and one might be 61—they might wish to retire at the same time. I have given a dozen different examples of the ways that men and women and their families are now differently positioned from what they might have expected 20 or 30 years ago. Every Member of the Chamber could add several more such instances to the ones I have given. They are all different. Yet with this Bill the Government are trying to shoehorn all of this experience, all of this diversity, all of this variety and all of this need for choice into one common state retirement age. It is absurd. Why should the state make that decision when men and women and their families could and should make that choice—a choice which reflects their circumstances, their needs and their wishes? They may have to leave the labour market earlier than they want; they may want to leave the labour market earlier than they are permitted, but the state is not allowing people to make that choice for themselves.
If we are to have a flexible life of work—as the Government insist is the future ahead of us—why should we have an inflexible year of retirement? Why not allow different retirement choices before as well as after the pivotal year? Of course, families must make that choice in the light of its financial consequences. But if, for example, we supported a flexible decade of retirement but with a pivotal year of 63—that is our alternative to Schedule 4—it would cost no more than present arrangements. The increase in start-up costs would be offset by the fact that men and women now have to have an income when not in work. Whether one calls it income support, incapacity benefit or state pension it still for the most part has to be paid. However, with a pivotal year of 63—the position that certainly we on these Benches and I believe Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches share—and a flexible decade of retirement, if people retired before that date they would have a reduced pension. If they retired later than that, they would have an increased pension.
I accept that those seeking to retire earlier may be the neediest who would then have a proportionately lower state pension—but that is the case now—while the great majority of families under such a proposal would instead be free to make the choice of when to retire as best suits them, their health, their wealth and their family circumstances. A further advantage to a flexible decade of retirement, and another reason for agreeing with my noble friend that Schedule 4 should not stand part of the Bill, is that such a proposal is attractive to employers. That is why the National Association of Pension Funds also supports a flexible decade and a pivotal year of 63 because it gives flexibility not only to employees but also to the employer who can agree with staff individually the retirement arrangements that suit them both. The NAPF has suggested it would expect an 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. compound discount below or addition above the pivotal year to be financially cost neutral.
Such a proposal would not be especially complex to administer as that principle is already in place for those who stay on in work past 65 and add to their basic state pension. I repeat that with a pivotal year of 63 the

1015
proposal is certainly financially neutral and may even generate modest cost savings. It is fair as between men and women. It is flexible. It places the choice back where it belongs, with the families, the men and women who have earned their pension rights.
That is why I join with my noble friend in believing that Schedule 4 should not stand part of the Bill and instead the Committee should be considering a flexible decade of retirement.
9 45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The Liberal Democrats have long had a policy of a flexible decade of retirement. We are delighted that the Labour Party has caught up with us on yet another item of policy. We therefore support the proposal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has come off the fence and told us what the Labour Party's policy is i n this regard. It is a pity that she did not do so in the form of moving an amendment which would have provided us with a proper debate on that proposition instead of telling us about it when we debate the Motion that Schedule 4 stand part of the Bill and the option of 65.
Baroness Seear: Had she done so, we would have had an even longer speech from the Minister, because he had to fill the time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I advise the noble Baroness not to tempt me. As I said in the first debate today, yield not to temptation. That is easier in this case but I had a great many words to say about flexible decades of retirement and retirement ages of 63, 65 and the like.
I turn to the point at issue; namely, Schedule 4. I could reasonably assume that opposition to Schedule 4 standing part of the Bill indicates some disagreement with some of the detail of Schedule 4, but I am pretty certain that it does not indicate that at all. It indicates a desire for a general debate. In fact, a more relevant point for a general debate is Clause 114 which introduces the proposition of a common retirement age of 65. Therefore, I may resist the temptation—although I shall leave it in front of me in case I decide that I ought not to resist it —to explain in some detail what Schedule 4 actually does. However, it is tied in with Clause 114 which introduces the retirement age of 65.
Clause 114 answers the question, which came about due to the fact that, as a result of the changing face of society, we have all decided that the different retirement ages for men and women of 65 and 60 are no longer relevant in today's world and that men and women should retire at the same age. There are as many propositions as one likes.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in a welcome intervention—I had thought that he had taken a vow of silence this evening—suggested that 70 ought to be a possibility. We do not have a retirement age of 70 in front of us. If the noble Lord could give guarantees that we would all reach 70 hale and hearty, we might all sign
1016
up to his proposal very quickly. However, as I suspect that he is unable to give that guarantee, we shall have to stay with the options which are in front of us.
The options are to fix on the age of 60, to fix on 65, to fix on something in between or to fix on something called a flexible decade of retirement. An important part in that argument is where one places what is called the pivot. I shall not go into the interesting actuarial proposition at great length, but it is one of the problems. One cannot merely say that we shall have a flexible decade of retirement without looking at the question of the pivot. The noble Baroness has helped me and suggested 63 would be the pivot. I was listening to her with some interest. I do not wish to become diverted too far because the proposition before us is whether we agree or disagree with the age of 65. The option of debating those other choices in some detail really has passed us by. As I explained already, I am deeply sorry that it passed us by. However, the fact is that wherever one makes the pivot—whether at 65, as one could do, or at 63—there is the choice that the person who retires earlier than at the pivotal point will have his or her pension abated not just for the two or three years between 60 or 61 to the pivot, but for the remainder of his or her life.
We are all concerned about pension provision over the whole of retirement. I believe that the flexible decade, with the pivot at 63, has drawbacks for the individual who decides to retire at 60. There is some evidence from other countries that flexible decades mean that people retire at the earlier age without thinking about the consequence. If the pivot is at 63 or 65, one does not have one's pension restored to what it would have been if one had retired at that point. One loses every year for the rest of one's life. That is the situation.
I am glad to see that the party opposite has managed to put out a press release already about the small victory it had earlier this evening. If I need to do so I might even read out the noble Baroness's words. I wonder whether it was prepared before the event; I do not know.
In Government, we were confronted with the problem of equalising the state pension age. There was some suggestion creeping into the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that somehow the state was compulsorily retiring people at whatever age the state chose. That is not the case. People can go on working, as indeed they do in your Lordships' House, long after the state retirement age. Currently one can retire at 60 or 65 and be eligible for the retirement pension. It is important that we differentiate in the terminology. Although we are all guilty of shifting between one and the other, I am sure that we all know exactly what we mean: that people can work on after the normal retirement ages of 60 and 65.
However, in our splendid document, Equality in State Pension Age, we address the problem. In December 1991, we put forward the options. We looked at the ages 60, 63, 65 and the flexible decade. In December 1993 after consultation and careful consideration of all the options, with the publication of the White Paper we announced our intention to equalise the state pension age at 65. The change will be phased in gradually

1017
between 2010 and 2020, allowing people, we believe, plenty of time to alter their pension and retirement plan. That is what Schedule 4(1) provides for. It states that pensionable age is 65 for men. It is 60 for women born before 6th April 1950, 65 for women born after 5th April 1955, and, according to a table which is laid out, for every two months that passes one month is added to the retirement age. During that decade, women will gradually move from 60 to 65. That is a 10 year phasing which starts in 15 years' time.
We believe that 65 is the right choice. The consensus of opinion is also moving towards that view for the only realistic option for the future. Both the Social Security Advisory Committee and—dare I mention it?—the Commission on Social Justice set up by the party opposite recommended a retirement age of 65. Equalising the retirement age at the age of 65 recognises women's changed role in the workplace. I discussed that briefly when I was responding to the last amendment. Women represent a large and increasing share of the labour force; they are able to make their own provisions rather than relying on their husbands.
It is also true that we are all living longer and healthier lives. People who are now drawing their pensions do so on average for four years longer than in Beveridge's time. That leads me to the argument about the demographic effects of two factors coming together, not just in our population but in the population of most of the economically advanced countries in the world and certainly all our European neighbours. There is an increasing proportion of elderly people who have to be supported by the working population of the day. That working population is declining. If we do not take these measures then the cost of pensions would rise from just under the £30 billion now to over £66 billion in 2030. That reflects the real growth in pension value through the maturing of the state earnings related pension, as well as increased numbers. Equalising at the age of 65 will save £5.2 billion in benefit expenditure by 2030. I believe that that is an important aspect.
If that were all and we had a population which we thought could afford to fund that, then we might be prepared to accept that increased expenditure. I discussed it during the last debate, but the simple fact is that the number of people over the state pension age is increasing. The population of working age is decreasing. What is called the support ratio—the number of people of working age per pensioner—is declining. For example, I give as base figures the current scheme if we did nothing. In 1991, four years ago, there were 10.3 million people of state pension age. That increases slowly until it reaches a peak in 2040 of 16.3. By 2050 it falls back a little to 15.8. If we reduce the state pension age to 60, then the position is that the figures increase from 10.3 million at the beginning of this decade to 15.3 million in 2020, 17.9 million in 2040 and then it falls back to 17.5 million in 2050.
With the age at 63, the same trend is quite apparent, although at a lower level as the age has increased. At the age of 65—which is what we propose—the number
1018
of pensioners rises in each decade: 10.3 million, 11.7 million, 11.6 million, 13.7 million in 2030, 14.7 million in 2040 and 14.0 million in 2050.
The population of working age moves in the opposite direction. Without any change in the retirement pension age, in 1991 it was 34.4 million, in 2010 it will be 36.2 million; in 2030 it will be 33.7 million; and in 2050 it will be 32.0 million. If we reduce the age to 60, in 2030 it would be 31.6 million people of working age and in 2050, 30.2 million.
Our proposals would bring about 35.8 million in 2030 and 33.8 million in 2050. A quick calculation will show that the support ratio—the number of people of working age per pensioner—if we do nothing, would move in each decade from 3.3 at the beginning of this decade to 3.1 in 2010, 2.7, 2.1 and 2.0. If the age is decreased to 60, then by 2030 it is 1.8 and by 2050, 1.7. The age of 63 is naturally better, but even that is not what is proposed and it would be 2.2 and 2.1. The age of 65 keeps us in the middle between 2.0 and 3.0 in 2030 and 2050. Thus there are compelling demographic reasons for shifting the pension age to 65. Those, taken together with the financial ones, are the first two arguments. There are other arguments to do with our competitors. But I do not want to get a reputation for making long speeches.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I read out a table at Second Reading.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think the Minister wants us to vote again!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am enjoying myself. Am I not allowed to? I read out a table at Second Reading which showed that many of our competitor countries were moving to 65. It showed Denmark already at 67; Iceland at 67; and Norway at 67. It was quite interesting. That is the third reason: the international trend means that we have to guard against damaging our ability to compete internationally.
Part II of the schedule provides equality for men and women in certain pensions and other benefits. It also introduces other changes which will improve the retirement income of many people. I have already mentioned some of them, but they are worth putting on the record. I fully accept that some of them are important. It will equalise the treatment of married couples, irrespective of whether the man or woman is the older partner. For example, the older spouse, be it man or woman, will, on reaching 65, be able to claim an increase in respect of a dependent spouse who has not yet reached pension age. Similarly, where both partners are of pension age, either the husband or the wife may be able to claim a pension of their own based on their partner's contribution where their own record is incomplete.
Secondly, it will increase the amount of basic state pension payable by deferring a claim from 7½ per cent. a year now to approximately 10 per cent. from 2020. The present ceiling of five years' deferral will be abolished. These changes will make postponing a pension claim worth more, and will enhance flexibility

1019
and the options that are available. In other words, they will introduce a little flexibility after 65 and not close it down after five years. Powers will be provided to equalise the award of graduated retirement benefit for men and women. That will also come into effect in April 2010.
Both in the introductory clause to this schedule and i n the schedule itself, we accept that it is wise and sensible from the point of view of the taxpayer, of the economy and of pensioners themselves in the years to come to make this decision now in the interests of all those people, and that we should go for a common pension age for men and women of 65. That is what the clause that leads into Schedule 4 does, and that is what Schedule 4 does. I heartily commend the schedule to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before my noble friend decides what he wants to do about his proposition, could I ask the Minister how many of our competitors who are moving to a higher retirement age also allow flexible retirement from a younger age? I understand that it is rather a lot.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am looking at a table. I see just one proposal to make pension age flexible from 61 to 70 in Sweden. But I do not see any other proposal in the other countries. Of course, I never believe that I am totally the fount of all knowledge, and I may be missing something. Yes, I see that currently Belgium has a flexible arrangement, from 60 to 65; it is considering equalisation, which I do not think helps: That is what I am advised. Then there is mighty Luxembourg, in which the age is 65 currently and which is considering flexibility, but I am not sure to what extent. Those are the two countries (along with a proposal from Sweden) that propose to move from 65 to a flexible age. But our major competitors are certainly not considering that.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I might drop one point into the discussion over the flexible retirement age. The Minister quite rightly made the point that people who took the earliest possible retirement age under a flexible decade would have a much lower pension, and that that lower pension would continue. I think he was implying that that would cause considerable disadvantage and hardship as people got very much older. My party at one point put forward an idea in favour of a flexible retirement age but recognised the difficulty of having it actuarily adjusted and the problems as people grow older. The suggestion was that those who survived to a ripe old age—I think we said 80, but that could be fixed at whatever was appropriate—should then be brought up to full pension. By that time their numbers would be greatly reduced. People still die during that period so the cost would also be considerably reduced. However, there would be security when people reached the age of 80, which is normally thought of as being so old that there is very little that they can usefully do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Even at this time of night and with limited attendance in your Lordships' Chamber I make no observations about 80 being a great age or not a great age. It sounds as though the noble
1020
Baroness, Lady Seear, is playing a typical Liberal trick in trying to have her cake and eat it. She sees a major problem and tries to find a nice, balancing way out. I hear what she says. If the Government fell for that, in no time at all it would be 75, then 70 and then we would be arguing about bringing the pivot down altogether. The complications of a flexible decade of retirement, added to the difficulties it may cause for individuals who are tempted into thinking about today rather than about the 10 or 20 years that lie ahead of them, do not make it an attractive proposition.
Lord Monkswell: I thank all those who contributed to the debate. The speeches ranged somewhat and I was concerned that the Minister did not see fit to comment on my suggestion regarding the value of the contribution made to society and our economy particularly by women through the work that they do at home, either caring for young children or elderly disabled relatives. Perhaps the Minister will take that matter away and consider it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not want the noble Lord to think that I have not noticed it. I responded earlier in relation to home responsibility protection to protect people who take time off work to look after children or elderly parents. However, the Opposition seem to be so little bothered by that that we rolled over that amendment by it not being moved. I am deeply sorry about that because I wanted to debate the issue.
Lord Monkswell: I shall not rise to that comment. One of the difficulties with which the Government are faced is the practical realities of their policies rather than the theory of their numbers. In that regard I recognise the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she pointed out that civil servants are being compulsorily retired at 60, yet the Government are effectively saying that they will not be able to collect their state pension until they are 65. Even though some civil servants are well paid and have inflation-proof pension provisions and so forth, a number of people—particularly women—are low paid and will effectively have a gap in their provision. The Government effectively made no response to that.
One of the other practical aspects of the Government's policies concerns me. The Minister mentioned various figures and what would happen to the state pension bill if we had a common retirement age of 60. He was indicating that there would be a 30 per cent. increase in one year—2040 or 2050—which in absolute numbers sounded enormous. In fact the reality is that there would have to be contributions to pay for that, and the Minister did not mention that side of the equation.
The Minister went through a whole list of figures in relation to the number of people it was computed would be in the retired or the working population. But he did not say what proportion of that computed working population would be productively employed in the economy. If we look at the situation now compared with what it was 20 years ago, we can see that the Government have an abysmal record when it comes to ensuring that people of working age in our country are productively employed.

1021
Obviously, we shall face problems if we reduce the retirement age for both sexes and at the same time do not harness the productive potential of those of working age. But it does not need to be like that. We could have a government who say, "We shall make use of all the people. We shall productively employ them; and where they are not productively employed in the market economy we shall recognise the contribution that they can make to the benefit of society and the economy by working at home in an unpaid capacity." But the Government have not sought to address any of those practical realities. What they have done is to decide on a figure for a common retirement age which will be the cheapest option they can get away with and sell politically and then call in aid to suggest how responsible their decision is a whole set of figures which are suppositions about the future and which do not reflect what could be the reality or what would be the reality if the Government stayed in power until that point in time.
I recognise that we still need to tease out a few more elements in this whole debate. Given that the amendment which was passed prior to this debate changed Schedule 4, it would be unfortunate if we did not agree to Schedule 4 as it is amended. I shall therefore withdraw my opposition to the schedule being agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 116 [Additional pension: calculation of surpluses]:
On Question, Whether Clause 116 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not wish to take up very much of the Committee's time but we are concerned about this clause which the Government have presented as a technical change for the annualisation of SERPS. We do not believe it is technical. We believe that it has serious implications. As far as we can tell, its effect will be to cut the value of SERPS—SERPS is the pension which women and the poorest paid men enjoy—by about 14 per cent., or more than £2.5 billion in current terms, by 2020. If so, that is not exactly technical.
The clause changes the basis for revaluing earnings each year on which SERPS is based. At the moment total PAYE earnings up to the upper earnings limit are revalued to retirement age and then the lower earnings limit is deducted. Under the new arrangements the lower earnings limit will be deducted and only the excess will be revalued each year. In other words, it will be annualised. In the process the Government will cut 14 per cent. of SERPS' value. That was never part of the original legislation which made clear that revaluation would be done at the point of retirement and not at each and every year. We fear that this is a device for cutting still further the value of SERPS and therefore the value of the retirement pension for women and poorer paid men.
1022
The Government have already halved the value of SERPS by averaging it over the lifetime, minus five years as a result of tonight's amendment, rather than the 20 best years. That cut, along with others, will further severely reduce the value of SERPS. We believe it is deeply unfair. Why are the Government doing it except to save still more money from those who are among the poorest of our population?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This clause introduces new subsection (5A) into Section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The new subsection amends the method of calculation of State Earnings Related Pension for those who qualify after 5th April 2000.
The change (known as annualisation of SERPS) will correct an anomaly, which has arisen since moving to prices indexation and has meant that small entitlements are going to groups who were never intended to receive SERPS, such as the self-employed.
The present calculation revalues total earnings (up to the upper earnings limit) for each year in line with the increase in average earnings and then deducts the annual lower earnings limit for the last complete tax year from each year's revalued earnings to give a surplus for each year. Because the lower earnings limit grows in line with prices, SERPS entitlements have been growing in an unintended way. Annualisation will change the calculation so that the annual lower earnings limit is deducted before revaluation takes place. That simply means that when one looks back at a person's working life in each year the amount which is used for the revaluation calculation up to the date of retirement is the difference between the salary, if it is below the upper earnings limit, and the lower earnings limit. It will be on that portion above the lower earnings limit which will be revalued.
The current situation was not intended when the position was changed. The current situation is that the total and the lower earnings limit are revalued on a different basis. I shall not make any secret of the fact that this is not a small technical change. It is a technical change, but it is certainly not small. The change will result in a public expenditure saving of £400 million in 2010 rising to £2.3 billion by 2050. The maximum weekly reduction in individual entitlements is estimated to be £2.70 in 2000, rising to £4.90 in 2020 at 1994–95 prices. This effect is a flat rate one and applies to those with a complete work history of earnings above the lower earnings limit since 1978. For those with broken work records the effects will be smaller. There will be no loss for people reaching pension age or who qualify for widow's benefits before 6th April 2000. This fulfils undertakings made during the passage of the 1986 Social Security Act that no changes would be made to SERPS this century.
The purpose of this clause is, as I said, simply to correct an anomaly and to restore policy intention that State Earnings Related Pension entitlements are based on average earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184BE:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Improved pension rights for separated women
(".In section 48 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where a person has reached pensionable age and is married but either—

(a) is not residing with his spouse and has been residing apart from his spouse for two years previously, or

(b) is residing apart from his spouse because the spouse is resident in residential accommodation (other than as a temporary resident) and

(c) in respect of the tax year before he reached pensionable age and any previous tax year, does not, with his own contributions, satisfy the contribution conditions for a Category A retirement pension,

then, for the purpose of enabling him to satisfy those conditions (but only in respect of a claim for a Category A retirement pension), the contributions of his spouse may to the prescribed extent be treated as if they were his own contributions.
(1B) In this section—
"residential accommodation" means either accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or accommodation in a nursing home or residential care home as defined in Regulation 19 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 if such accommodation is not provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948;
"resident" means a person provided with residential accommodation;
"temporary resident" means a person whose stay is unlikely to exceed 52 weeks.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, I shall be brief. This amendment deals with the other side of the discussion which we had earlier on occupational pensions and residential care. Nearly all elderly married women do not at the moment have a basic state pension in their own right which is worth £58 a week. Instead, they have the Category B pension, which is the married woman's dependant's pension worth only £35 a week. If such a woman were divorced she would, on the substitution rule, be eligible for the full basic pension of £58. But if she is elderly and separated from her husband —perhaps for religious reasons they are reluctant to be divorced or are living apart because the husband has, say, Alzheimer's Disease and is living in a residential home—she remains eligible only for the dependant's pension of £35. If she is divorced or widowed she gets £57. If she is separated by the illness through which she nursed him for many years, she gets just £35.
A number of women are affected by this. It appears that there are about 83,000 women over the age of 60 whose husbands are not living with them either because of marital breakdown or because of long-term illness. This amendment will ensure that such women are no worse off than if they were either divorced or widowed. I am glad to say that we recognise that this is a diminishing problem in time because more and more women will qualify for the basic state pension in their own right. However, in the meantime it is a problem for many women who are among the poorest of our elderly.
Such an amendment might help to lift them above their dependence on income support. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness has explained, this amendment seeks to extend the scope of what are known as the "substitution provisions" to people who are married, but are not residing with their spouse. The "substitution provisions" allow people whose marriages have ended by death, divorce or annulment and who do not remarry before reaching pension age to improve their basic pension entitlement by substituting their former spouse's contribution record for their own for the period up to the termination of the marriage.
The provisions were introduced in 1957 primarily to help divorced women to gain pension entitlement. As the Committee will be aware, historically, many married women did not work or pay full rate contributions and were reliant on the "married woman's" pension, based on their husband's national insurance contributions. Where a couple divorce before pension age, the woman loses access to the "married woman's" pension and she may not be able to qualify for a basic retirement pension on the contributions she pays following her divorce.
The "substitution provisions" are therefore designed to help her to gain entitlement to a basic retirement pension in her own right to replace the "married woman's" pension to which she would have been entitled had her marriage not ended.
Separated couples do not come within the scope of the substitution provisions for the simple reason that the fact that a couple are not residing together does not exclude the woman from entitlement to the "married woman's" pension.
I can well understand the noble Baroness's reasons for seeking this amendment. The "married woman's" pension, or "married person's" pension, as it becomes under the provisions of paragraph 20 to Schedule 4 to this Bill, is paid at a lower rate than the standard basic pension. However, we need to look at the amendment in the context of the retirement pension provisions as a whole.
Entitlement to state retirement pension for couples has always been linked to legal marriage. As there are over 10 million recipients, half a million of whom reside abroad, the conditions of entitlement must by necessity be easy to understand and administer. The fact that a marriage has been terminated by divorce is fairly readily ascertainable —a decree absolute will have been granted. However, establishing whether the "residing apart for two years previously" condition at paragraph (a) of the amendment is satisfied could involve detailed and time-consuming inquiries of both parties.
Turning to the point about where separation occurs because one spouse is temporarily or permanently resident in residential accommodation, that is part of the wider issue that we discussed earlier. I believe that I indicated that I understand the importance of that issue. I have already discussed our debate with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege—although admittedly briefly because that discussion occurred during one of the

1025
Divisions. However, I have discussed the matter with my noble friend and shall certainly draw the Secretary of State's attention to our debate and I look forward to hearing in detail about the problems. Therefore, perhaps we might leave that matter to one side for the moment to be dealt with under the terms of that debate. I hope that my explanation of the difficulties with the amendment will persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand the difficulties about women who are separated but not divorced. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated to the Committee that he has already spoken to his noble friend about the position of people entering residential care. I hope that on Report the Government will find themselves able to bring forward an amendment to cover both the situation affecting occupational pensions, about which we talked
1026
earlier, and that facing women on the basic state pension, about whom we are speaking now. This is a real and poignant problem for those who are affected by the provisions. Under the Bill, we could, if we choose, do something about that.
I look forward to the Minister coming forward on Report with something helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 [Minor amendments]:
[Amendment No. 184BF not moved.]
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Pedestrians' Charter
  Pedestrians' Charter
  Defence Equipment Procurement: Belorussian Bids
  Defence Equipment Procurement: Belorussian Bids
  Burma: Attacks on the Karen People
  Burma: Attacks on the Karen People
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposition to Closure
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposition to Closure
  Multi-focus Hearing Aids
  Multi-focus Hearing Aids
  NHS Hearing Aids
  NHS Hearing Aids
  NHS Trusts: Staff
  NHS Trusts: Staff
  NHS Trusts and Regional Health Authorities
  NHS Trusts and Regional Health Authorities
  Live Animal Transport Welfare
  Live Animal Transport Welfare
  Revenue Support Grant
  Revenue Support Grant
  Fly-Tipping
  Fly-Tipping