Sitting of 21 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]>
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2)BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    School Financing, London
    1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the effect on average class sizes in London of the 1995–96 financial settlement for schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): London local education authorities will receive an extra £73 million for the 1995–96 settlement. Class sizes will depend on the way in which authorities and schools choose to spend their resources.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will she confirm that the severity of the 1995–96 settlement, coupled with the systematic underfunding of the teachers' pay award, is nothing more than a shameful camouflage, by which the Government are attempting to revive interest in their flagging policy of encouraging opt-outs? Will she also confirm that it is a shameful attempt to try to put a few pennies in the bank for tax cuts, which will not work, at the next general election?
    Mrs. Shephard: No, I will not confirm any such thing. Next year's settlement must be seen in the context of two years in which there have been generous settlements for local government. The settlement also allows an increase across the board and for education for all authorities. We expect local education authorities, by identifying priorities, by drawing on balances and by making sensible savings in central services, to accommodate the pay settlement.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the content of a letter that has come into my possession, which is written by the education chairman of my local authority, the London borough of Merton, which is Labour controlled? She asks all her colleagues to unite in an effort to, as she puts it, "stir up aggro" among the governors and parents in the London borough of Merton against the council's "difficulties", so-called, in being able to fund education this year.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is a great pity that the chairman of the Merton education committee should so waste her time.
    140
    She would be very much better employed identifying sensible priorities within her education authority so that the children of Merton do not suffer.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in London, there are almost 100,000 primary school pupils in classes of more than 30 and that the figure is set to rise unless more money is made available from the Treasury for the education service? Will she tell the House what endeavours she has made in the past few weeks to obtain more money from the Treasury and with what success?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have already explained that London local authorities will receive an extra £73 million for the 1995–96 settlement. We must also remember that over the past five years, the standard spending assessments of London authorities have increased by 25 per cent. above the rate of inflation. London authorities also receive considerably more cash per pupil in their education SSAs than do other authorities. For all those reasons, I see no reason why class sizes should rise in London.

    Compulsory Sport
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new initiatives she has to encourage compulsory sport within schools.
    Mrs. Gillian Shepherd: The revised national curriculum for physical education places much greater emphasis on team games and competitive sport.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Sir Roger Bannister that we have become a nation of the contentedly unfit? Does she also agree that an element of compulsion is essential if children are to take sport seriously? What is the Department's policy on teaching cricket in schools, following our dismal and dreary performance down under?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am probably one of the discontentedly unfit. My hon. Friend certainly speaks for himself. We think that competitive and team games are a very important part of a balanced PE curriculum. It will perhaps be of some comfort to my hon. Friend to learn that, in future, 14 to 16-year-olds will have to engage in two activities in the PE curriculum, one of which must be a competitive game. No doubt many of them will wish to take cricket.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: How does that rhetoric square with the sales of local authority playing fields, which have been forced by the persistent cuts that the Government have made in local authority funding? What does she say also to the Dartford West high school for girls, which has had its playing fields asset-stripped and given to neighbouring grant-maintained schools for their sole use, resulting in the exclusion of 750 young girls in Dartford?
    Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is among the ranks of the contentedly unfit.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I was once a PE teacher.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentlemen claims that he was once a PE teacher. I am glad to hear it. He should therefore know that regulations are in place which define

    141
    the amount of playing fields that schools should have. They cannot be sold if the effect would be to reduce the area below the required minimum.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if children were encouraged to take part in compulsory sport, as Conservative Members believe should be the case, they would take a serious interest in the support of our national teams and not indulge in the kind of mindless violence that we saw so appallingly exhibited in Dublin last week?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is to be hoped that that might be so. Certainly, taking part in competitive and team games helps to teach young people to work together as a team, how to co-operate and how to strive towards a common goal.

    Student Loans Scheme
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to make changes in the operation of the student loans scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Government have no current plans to introduce major changes to the loans scheme, but keep its operation under review.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the student loans scheme is seriously flawed and very unfair? Once former students reach the threshold at which they have to begin making repayments, they soon start having to pay £70 a month, when they still have low incomes and increasing commitments. Why will not the Government recognise that the scheme is a waste of time, scrap it and introduce a fairer system?
    Mr. Boswell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is way off beam. The average repayment currently under the Student Loans Company scheme is £14 per month. Nobody need start repayments until his income has attained at least £14,600 per annum. That is a fair provision, which should be acknowledged.
    Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the ill-informed comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who clearly knows as much about the student loans scheme as I do about black pudding manufacturing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interest-free student loans scheme will remain and that we shall not go down the route of a graduate tax, as some Opposition Members advocate?
    Mr. Boswell: I can tell my hon. Friend, who I am sure is a dab hand at making black puddings in his spare time, that we have no plans to charge a commercial rate of interest for student loans, nor have we any plans to impose a graduate tax. I can tell those Opposition Members who hanker after this nostrum to get them out of their intellectual difficulties that the likely rates of tax under those provisions would be sufficient to alarm them and, indeed, students considerably.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Minister not recognise that the Student Loans Company was besieged by student complaints—35,000 before Christmas—because it could not provide students with the resources they need? What on earth is going on when the assessor, who is meant to
    142
    adjudicate between the company and student complainants, has dealt with three cases only in the past four years, has found in favour of the company on all three occasions and has been paid more than £30,000 for his pains?
    Mr. Boswell: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the fact that the assessor has been called in on only a limited number of occasions in the past suggests—as our evidence suggests—that the company's performance was satisfactory at its inception. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the performance last autumn was not satisfactory.
    Thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House, Ministers and students themselves, we said that that was not satisfactory and that the company would have to deal with the situation. It has now done so, and it has also undertaken a full review of the repeat application procedure in which it is involving representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the National Union of Students and others. That shows a responsive organisation which is anxious to help students and not the kind of caricature which the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) has already thoughtfully set out in the press release which I have.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my hon. Friend recollect the scare stories that went around when the student loans scheme was introduced? It was said that the scheme would either put off students from poorer backgrounds from applying to university or prevent them staying there. That has not proved to be the case in Portsmouth. Can my hon. Friend give me some information on the national scene?
    Mr. Boswell: Yes, I will readily give my hon. Friend that information. It is clear from the student income and expenditure survey which was published a year ago that, for the first time, the proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds exceeded 50 per cent. The existence of the loans scheme and the resources provided make that possible.

    High School Graduation
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what survey she has conducted of the results of US research on the effects of the system of high school graduation on the motivation of pupils.
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend has conducted no survey of the results of such US research.
    Mr. Gunnell: Given that there remain in our system an unacceptably high number of pupils who leave school without any tangible qualifications, does the Minister not think that there are practical lessons that we might learn from the United States system, which graduates more than 80 per cent. of its pupils from high school and encourages many of them as adults to go back to school part time to complete that qualification?
    Mr. Forth: I yield to none in my affection and admiration for most things American, not least Mrs. Forth. However, the implication behind the hon. Gentleman's question is not something that we can all recognise. There are many aspects of the American system that are good, but there are many which are not so good, and that is

    143
    recognised in the United States itself. I would always he prepared to look at, and to learn from, what is good in other countries, but I would be very cautious about jumping to the conclusion that we can somehow transmute that from other countries to our system, to our benefit.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that he does not need to consider research in the United States? He simply needs to consider an independent report from the university of Leeds, which showed quite clearly that, in terms of motivation of pupils, the most important aspect was the expectations that teachers had of them. Under the Leeds system, in the primary sector—this is translatable across the country—expectations were far too low. It is now 19 years since a Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said that there had to be an end to progressive teaching techniques and that we had to serve more the needs of industry and vocational occupations. Despite that recognition, the Labour Government did absolutely nothing about it.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important matter, which has been highlighted time and time again by independent reports, not least recently by Ofsted and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. Too often, teachers in schools which are seen to be disadvantaged in some way, or which are in what are regarded as difficult areas, do not have sufficiently high expectations of their pupils and do not make sufficient demands on themselves—the teachers—or on their pupils. If they did, that would be a key to raising performance, expectations, staying-on rates and qualifications of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is absolutely right.

    School Leavers (Skills)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specific steps are being taken to ensure that pupils leaving school have the skills required by manufacturing industry.
    Mrs. Gillian Shepherd: The national curriculum and the new vocational qualifications all contribute to providing pupils with the skills necessary for working life.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree with John Fraser, currently president of the Chemical Industries Association Ltd. and chairman and chief executive of Ciba plc—an international company with its headquarters in Macclesfield—who states that what manufacturing industry wants is a supply of excellent theoretical and practical scientists, school leavers with a thorough grounding in science and a general public who are scientifically literate and can appreciate the benefits of science rather than being concerned about its mysteries?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am interested to hear from my hon. Friend the views of the president of the Chemical Industries Association, a group in which my hon. Friend takes a keen interest. It is important that the needs of manufacturing industry and employers in general should be addressed by the national curriculum. Manufacturing needs will be met principally through design and technology, but also through rigorous standards in science and mathematics. We are also devoting resources to
    144
    developing the use of information technology, which again is of clear relevance. What matters most is that standards should be rigorous.
    Mr. Blunkett: Given that industry is dependent on young people being literate and numerate, is this not entirely the wrong moment to be cutting investment in our education service? Will the Secretary of State this afternoon give the House and the country a pledge that, following her statement in Leicestershire last Wednesday, she is prepared to listen to what is happening in schools and colleges and to do what her predecessor—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—did three years ago and go to the Cabinet and argue for further investment to meet the teachers' pay increase? Would that not avoid a reduction in standards, a reduction in opportunity and a reduction in the literacy and numeracy which our industry requires for the future?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not cutting investment in education. As I made clear earlier, next year's settlement allows for an increase across the board. The total of more than £28 billion is a considerable investment in the future of our young people. It is time that the hon. Gentleman stopped scaremongering in this way, and looked at the framework for standards and rigour, which is hacked by £28 billion of investment.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in the north of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): There are 137 grant-maintained schools in the north of England.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, out of the 900 schools inspected so far, just 9 per cent. are grant-maintained schools, yet out of the 52 schools identified in the "best improvers" category, 14 were grant-maintained? Does that not show that, above all, the argument is about quality? Is it not a pity that more parents in the north have not had an opportunity to vote on the issue?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has stumbled across an interesting statistic. It is fairly well known that many of our best schools have become self-governing. What is less well known is that many of our most improving schools have also become self-governing, and the figures which my hon. Friend has given clearly underline that point. I would simply add that that will only increase the attraction of those schools to parents—including, of course, parents who are also Labour party activists.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The reorganisation in my constituency involves Keswick school. With that in mind, will the Minister tell me whether grant-maintained schools have advantages in being able to raise money for capital projects over and above other similar schools which are not grant-maintained? If they do have advantages, why, in principle, should they?
    Mr. Squire: The answer is a little complex. It is not true to say that grant-maintained schools may borrow formally. They can certainly look to outside interests which may be interested in making various arrangements

    145
    with them, as indeed can an LEA school. Of course, an LEA can borrow significantly greater sums. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would sit quietly for a moment, he might hear something useful. In 1993–94, nearly half of all capital expenditure by local authorities on schools was funded other than by Government-approved borrowing. That is why grant-maintained schools must have access to other forms of funding, including a reasonable capital allocation.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the trend in the formation of sixth forms in comprehensive schools; how this compares with the development of sixth form and tertiary colleges; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Boswell: Schools continue to bring forward proposals for the addition of sixth forms. All such proposals which come before my right hon. Friend are carefully considered on their merits in the light of our published criteria. Sixth form and tertiary colleges continue to thrive.
    Mr. Colvin: I acknowledge that the introduction of local management of schools and grant-maintained status have greatly added to choice and diversity in education. Does my hon. Friend agree that comprehensive schools must think carefully before seeking to add sixth forms to their schools, especially when sixth form and tertiary colleges already exist locally and where those have a campus atmosphere more appropriate to sixth form education?
    Mr. Boswell: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that comprehensive schools should consider carefully the importance of making such a proposal, which would be judged against our published criteria. Those include whether there is a basic need for new provision and, if not, whether the viability of existing good-quality provision would be adversely affected if the proposal were approved. A school would have to satisfy us on that criterion, among others, before we took a favourable decision.
    Mr. Rooker: Does it remain part of the Government's published criteria that, in terms of value for money and educational opportunity, a sixth form should not have fewer than 150 pupils? If so, why have the Secretary of State and her predecessor continued to approve new comprehensive school sixth forms with fewer than 150 pupils, which is bound to damage choice and opportunity for those pupils?
    Mr. Boswell: It may be for parents and pupils to determine whether choice and opportunity are removed. The criteria state specifically that the provision should be of sufficient size and quality to deliver a reasonably wide-ranging curriculum, and we consider the inspectorate's observations in deciding on a proposal. So the hon. Gentleman's concerns are not overlooked. However, there is no precise criterion, and we judge each case on its merits.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Given the popularity and success of the Government's recent reforms affecting further education, will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when
    146
    considering the best way to fund schools in the future, the fact that the funding of further education colleges is transparent while the funding of schools in the secondary sector is not?
    Mr. Boswell: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it may interest the House to know that, over the past quinquennium, there were 267,000 pupils aged 16 to 18 in the maintained sector and 471,000 pupils in FE and sixth form colleges, so the rate of increase in further education has been markedly sharper than in sixth forms.

    Discretionary Awards
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what monitoring she plans to undertake of the discretionary awards system.
    Mr. Boswell: Discretionary awards are the responsibility of local authorities. The Department will continue to collect a range of relevant statistical and other data from them.
    Mr. Hain: Is not the discretionary award system now an absolute shambles? Legal, dance and drama, music and many other categories of student have no chance whatever of getting a discretionary award because of the Government's cuts in funding. The Minister must not insult the intelligence of the House or of students by pretending that local education authorities can bridge the gap, when he and his Government are savaging local education budgets.
    Mr. Boswell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman feels that his intelligence will be insulted if I invite him to consider the facts. When the Gulbenkian Commission, which is not under Government control, considered that matter, it projected an increase of about 20 per cent. in the total number of discretionary awards between 1990–91 and 1993–94, a 32 per cent. increase in further education courses and an increase in expenditure of 14 per cent. in real terms in the same period. The fact that there is worry about local provision in some local education authorities should not be taken by the hon. Gentleman as an excuse for a diatribe against a system that we continue to fund, and which is not failing.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities, especially Labour and Liberal Democrat controlled authorities, do not pay proper attention to the discretionary awards system, and that young people miss out as a result in terms of course, career and their future? Will he seek to do something about it?
    Mr. Boswell: I do hear what my hon. Friend says and I respect his expertise in that matter. All the local authority associations with whom we have discussed the matter want very much to continue their discretion; the problem is that some of them, wilfully or for whatever reason, choose not to exercise it and thereby deprive young people of the resources that we make available with that purpose in mind.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on class sizes in schools.
    Mr Robin Squire: Class sizes are rising slightly, as pupil numbers increase. At the same time many schools are raising pupils' standards of achievement.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware of the substantial worries of parents, teachers and governors in County Durham schools about the impact of his funding policies on class sizes and on educational standards?
    With more than 1 million primary school pupils already being taught in classes of over 30, is not teaching becoming less a means of offering children a valuable learning experience and more a matter of crowd control? What sort of future is that for our children?
    Mr. Squire: First, the average class sizes for both primary and secondary schools in Durham are close to the national averages, which are certainly not too high.
    Secondly, one might have thought, from listening to the hon. Gentleman's question, that the position in 1979 when the Conservatives came to power was not about 400,000 pupils greater than the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave for those in classes of over 30.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: When considering class sizes in Lancashire, does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the local education authority, which puts the interests of maintaining its centralised bureaucracy above that of maintaining or reducing class sizes, will only encourage more parents to consider grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend echoes some of the comments of the Audit Commission about too large bureaucracies in local government, and his argument is a good one. I expect Lancashire education authority, as I do every other education authority, to review all its expenditure and to examine it closely before it considers cutting teachers at the sharp end, and to look more closely at the administrators in county hall.

    Accessibility Audit
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made on the accessibility audit of primary and secondary schools.
    Mr. Forth: Local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools are required to provide the Secretary of State in May this year with information about the accessibility of schools to pupils in wheelchairs. The Department issued guidance on that exercise on 6 January.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for that reply. What plans does he have to extend that audit to further and higher education? When all those audits are completed, and they confirm what we know already—that most primary schools, most secondary schools and most colleges of further and higher education are far from accessible to people with disabilities—will his Department make new and extra money available to increase that accessibility?
    Mr. Forth: What we want to do first is to consider and assess the results of the first tranche of information, which will be important in setting the scene. I hope that we shall be able to build on that in terms of discovering where we most need to ensure better accessibility.
    148
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House accept that we cannot and do not necessarily want every school to have wheelchair access. It is a matter of establishing priorities. I believe that a satisfactory mechanism already exists in further and higher education to tackle the problem of access, but we shall constantly look to that sector to bring forward its further proposals. I hope, some time in the near future, to be able to announce a new project to improve accessibility in our schools. There is a lot going on in that area and the survey results will be the first step in a number of successive measures to he taken.
    Mr. Congdon: Given that the Spastics Society produced a report showing that many schools could provide accessibility to people with disabilities relatively cheaply, does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that local education authorities gave accessibility of schools the priority that it so richly deserves?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, and the schools themselves must make accessibility a priority. Each school must now have a published policy on its treatment of special educational needs and that, together with the special needs code of practice, makes me believe that we should see a lol of progress in this area which, in the past, has been somewhat neglected by schools and authorities alike.

    Spoken and Written English
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations she has received concerning standards of spoken and written English; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I regularly receive letters from parents and others concerned about standards of English. I share their concern.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that English is the richest and the most versatile of all the living languages, and increasingly the world language of business and commerce? Does she further recognise that employers in my constituency are concerned that young people are coming onto the job market without a sufficient command of written and spoken English? Does she believe that that issue must be addressed not simply in schools and colleges, but by the media and by the employers themselves?
    Mrs. Shephard: People are judged by whether they can express themselves clearly and employer organisations constantly say that good communication skills are important for all areas of employment. We must ensure that all pupils are equipped with the skills that they need, and the combination of the revised national curriculum with testing and regular inspection will ensure that that happens.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Secretary of State is concerned that the standards of spoken and written English should improve and genuinely believes that individuals are judged on their ability to use the English language well, why has she not waged a stronger defence to prevent the cutting of section 11 funding—a comparatively small amount of the overall education budget—which has shown quite extraordinary returns,

    149
    particularly in inner urban areas, where children who do not have English as a first language have improved their use of our language?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the use of section 11 funding for the teaching of English—especially when it is a second language—has been extremely effective, particularly in many of our inner cities. That is why I am delighted that the Government announced the doubling of section 11 funding in November.

    Discipline
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to help schools enforce firm discipline.
    Mr. Forth: Last May guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline was sent to all schools, as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. The guidance aims to help schools maintain and improve discipline. In September 1994 the Department published an anti-bullying pack to help schools combat bullying.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend admit that there is an awful lot of media hype about schools being out of control and does he agree that the recent report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools gives the lie to that? Does he agree also that parents have some responsibility for helping to improve discipline in our schools?
    Mr. Forth: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to point out that all recent impartial reports by the inspectors demonstrate that the standard of behaviour in the majority of our schools is good or very good.
    My hon. Friend's other point is equally valid. One of the great difficulties that teachers now face in seeking to exercise discipline in the classroom is that they do not receive sufficient support from the parents. We cannot expect teachers to do everything with regard to disciplining pupils; parents must also play a full role.
    Mr. Blunkett: In the light of that reply and given the importance of discipline to a learning environment, what advice would Ministers give to a teacher who manages a class of more than 40 students? Would they give the same advice to the Prime Minister, who cannot manage a class of 22?
    Mr. Forth: The list of measures and sanctions available to anyone having difficulty with disciplining a group of people include interruption of break or lunchtime privileges, detention, withholding privileges such as participation in trips, completion of assigned or additional written work and carrying out a useful task. [Interruption.] I hope that anyone involved in bringing discipline to bear will find my list helpful.

    Truancy
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat truancy.
    Mr. Forth: The Department is currently supporting locally-devised projects to a value of some £14 million in more than 80 English local education authorities under the truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the grants
    150
    for education support and training scheme 1994–95. In December, we announced further support for some 90 projects in 1995–96 to a value of £15.6 million.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that during my present tour of every school in my constituency, the subject of truancy has been mentioned, and that Basildon heads will be mentioning it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when they meet her on 8 March? As GEST expenditure forms a considerable investment of public funds, can my hon. Friend reassure Basildon heads that the present schemes are working?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, as ever, raises an important point which concerns the Secretary of State and myself constantly. I hope that he agrees that our considerable investment in those projects has great potential to show enormous benefit, particularly when the team of consultants that we have asked to conduct an independent survey of the projects report to us later this year. We want them to evaluate the projects to find out how best to deal with the difficult problem of truancy and then to disseminate that as good practice to help my hon. Friend's head teachers, who I know will want to work with him in dealing with that extremely difficult problem.

    Teacher-pupil Ratio
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's policy on the optimum number of pupils per teacher in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and if she will make a statement as to how far this policy has been achieved.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Our policy is that schools should be free to organise classes and deploy teaching staff within the resources available as they judge appropriate.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that Devon county council has told schools in my constituency and throughout Devon that they will have to cut the number of teachers, increase class sizes and get rid of the choice of subjects in schools because they can not afford to pay? Could my hon. Friend please tell me that this is part of a scurrilous campaign by the Liberal county council to terrify parents and to make people fear that cuts will be made when the money could be taken from elsewhere in the budget?
    Mr. Squire: I know that my hon Friend's attention to his own LEA's detailed expenditure will be greater than mine. It is open to his local education authority and to some of the others we have already mentioned this afternoon to choose priorities in such a way that they do not damage the quality of education in the schools in their area. If his authority is not doing that, it must be judged by the standards that it sets. The Government have determined increased expenditure for education; it is up to authorities, if they so wish, to choose other priorities.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A few weeks ago I asked a question for written answer about teacher ratios in the local education authority in Northumberland. There has been an enormous increase in teacher ratios, and last week teachers in Northumberland told me that, if the cuts go ahead and teachers are lost, there will be another

    151
    enormous increase in teacher ratios there. What will the Minister do about that, or is he just in charge of the nursery school and not education?
    Mr. Squire: A good try, I suppose. The hon. Gentleman has heard successive Ministers say from the Dispatch Box that how schools organise themselves must be a matter for individual schools. He may also have heard a moment ago, in response to an earlier question, that I drew attention to the fact that while numbers of classes over 30 in primary schools are indeed rising slightly to just over a quarter, that compares with a figure of 35 per cent. when the Government that he would have supported left office.
    Mr. Riddick: Following the Audit Commission report which showed that local authorities took on an extra 90,000 staff between 1987 and 1993, does my hon. Friend agree that local education authorities should be trying to reduce spending on central bureaucracies rather than spending on schools?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable knowledge of education matters, is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Although Opposition Members do not like hearing the truth, they are going to hear it. It is important for an authority to examine the whole range of its services, and in particular to try to protect its teaching force as far as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hutton: In the light of today's announcement that the chairman of the National Westminster bank has awarded himself a 35 per cent. pay increase, and the news that the seven wise men appointed by the Confederation of British Industry to provide new guidelines on executive pay have themselves shared more than £4 million in pay and tax this year, does the Prime Minister think that it is time that he joined the British public in condemning those latest examples of executive greed in Britain's boardrooms?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, when excessive and unjustified pay increases have been agreed I have condemned them—and condemned them from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. Where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree is on whether, in the private sector, it is right for the Government to institute a pay policy both at the top—as the hon. Gentleman would clearly like—and with minimum pay controls at the bottom, as the Labour party would like.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood noise nuisance and noise pollution are a
    152
    real and growing problem in today's society? Will he urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to speed up his inquiry into the problem, and advance positive suggestions for its alleviation as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that noise pollution is a nuisance. I am sometimes inclined to think that it is a particular nuisance at 3.15 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt about the extent of nuisance that is caused to many people, and the Department of the Environment is examining that now. I hope that we shall have some proposals on which to negotiate in the next few weeks, and I shall be pleased to hear the views of not only my hon. Friend, but anyone else who has views to offer on the issue.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, since the internal market reforms in the health service, the costs of its adminstration have risen by over £1,000 million?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know—for the Socialist Health Association will have told him—that improved internal adminstration is necessary, not least because of the lack of financial control that existed before.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the problem the difference between what Ministers say about the health service and people's experience of it? [Interruption.] Conservative Members would do well to listen to their constituents.
    Is not the problem the fact that people who see wards, and sometimes whole hospitals, facing merger or closure would prefer that £1,000 million to be spent not on more accountants and company cars but on beds, nurses and patient care?
    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what the public say. He may have seen the recent "British Social Attitudes Survey", which makes it clear that, since our reforms, the number of people satisfied with the national health service has leapt by another 20 per cent., and that nine out of 10 people think that the national health service is satisfactory or better.
    He may also have seen the recent survey by doctors, which found that the overwhelming majority felt that health needs were being better met under the reforms than previously, and that a 2:1 ratio felt that competition among hospitals had improved service. That is the view of the public who use the service and of the doctors who run the service, both of whom have a greater and more in-depth knowledge of it than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blair: I have just one question for the Prime Minister: if the service is so good, why did the deputy chairman of the Conservative party ask before Christmas, in the interests of the Conservative party, for zero media coverage of the health service?
    The Prime Minister: I want a lot of coverage and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why—so that we can refer to the 8 million patients in total who are treated each year, to the 119,000 cataract operations, to the 333 million free prescriptions, and to the growth of the national health

    153
    service over the past few years. I might also remind the right hon. Gentleman not only that more people are treated and that they are better treated, but that a wider range of service is available to the NHS today than ever before. Before he and his colleagues doubt the Government's commitment to the health service, they should consider the additional funding that we have provided, and recall that Labour were the only Government ever to cut resources to the NHS.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage and that it is considering the future of the British film industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Ken Loach, an English director, is today premiering his new film, which champions the cause of nationalisation on behalf of Labour's Defend Clause IV group? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that film will be a nostalgic romp, looking at the nationalised car industry and the nationalised steelyards, and that it will possibly feature a romantic look at Red Robbo? Will my right hon. Friend be nominating that film for an Oscar?
    The Prime Minister: I very much doubt that I will be nominating the film for an Oscar, but it seems to be the sort of film that deserves a wide circulation. There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to wish to abolish clause IV from his party's constitution. The only matter of surprise is that so many people in the 1990s still disagree with that obvious and worthy cause. The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman will succeed, and the answer is that of course he will, because he will have the support of the unreconstructed trade unions in doing so.
    Mr. Salmond: May I offer the Prime Minister a chance actually to do something about fat cat salary increases? Some thousands of small shareholders in British Gas, supported by the staff, are going to the annual general meeting in two months' time with a motion to cut the outrageous pay increase of Mr. Cedric Brown. Does that motion carry the Prime Minister's support or not?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and to others that, if one puts an industry in the private sector, it must make its decisions in the private sector. That applies to British Gas, as to other companies.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom livestock industry leads Europe, both in terms of the quality of meat production, and in standards of animal welfare? Will his Government continue to press for higher welfare standards across Europe and, at the same time, uphold the rule of law in
    154
    Britain, so that farmers and haulage firms can go about their legitimate business, free from the constant disruption of animal rights activists?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with both my hon. Friend's propositions. There is no doubt about the need to maintain law and order, whatever the cause, where the law has been broken. As I have said, legally and practically, we need to work at Community level if we seriously want to bring the standards of animal welfare across the European Union up to the standards in this country. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is seeking to do, and I hope and believe that he will be successful.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: What advice does the Prime Minister have for the governors of schools such as St. Agnes in my constituency which has seven teachers to cover the seven age groups in the school and who are now having to decide whether to make one of those staff redundant because of the failure to meet the teachers' pay increase? Should the school engage in those redundancy procedures now, or should it wait a few weeks to see whether the Secretary of State for Education comes up with the goods in her argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: I think, perhaps, the first thing the governors should do is to examine whether their education authority has its priorities right in determining where the money that has been allocated to it has gone. Then, they might look at how many surplus places there might be in that education authority. I suggest then that they look at the balances in the education authority. When and if they are absolutely satisfied that the money is being spent properly, perhaps they can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has convinced me that that is so in this case.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Is it not manifestly unfair and totally undemocratic that I was not consulted, briefed or spoken to at any stage during the drawing up of the draft document? Does not the Prime Minister feel that, in view of the involvement through Dublin of the Social Democratic and Labour party in the drafting of the document and in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government, through their representatives, have been talking to the political wing of the terrorists, that this is a contemptuous way to deal with Unionist Members of Parliament? Surely, when the Prime Minister speaks directly to the people of Northern Ireland, they will remember this.
    The Prime Minister: There has been widespread consultation. It is not the case that other parties have been involved in the drafting of the document that is to be produced. As my hon. Friend will know, the document is for consultation and consideration with my hon. Friend, with representatives from all the political parties in the House and with people right across Northern Ireland. What we are seeking to do, as we were asked to do by the political parties, is to set down some ideas for consideration, discussion and negotiation between the

    155
    political parties. When and if they are able to reach agreement, we will carry the matter forward. The objective that I have is the same as that which I know my hon. Friend has and that is to ensure that what has been thus far a ceasefire is able to be turned into a permanent peace for the well-being of all the people in Northern Ireland, including my hon. Friend's constituents, whom he represents so well.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Prime Minister agree that a well-directed and well-planned approach towards a practical solution to Northern Ireland's problems would be better than a never-ending debate about some sort of theoretical process—the sort of debate that has gone on for 10 years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—which did not deliver peace, stability and reconciliation? Will the Prime Minister undertake to read and to study my party's document entitled "A Practical Approach to Problem Solving in Northern Ireland", with a view to arriving at a solution and not continuing this theoretical and futile debate for yet another 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish not to have a futile debate. The way to ensure a constructive debate is to come together and discuss the ideas that are about and that are on the table. Ideas have
    156
    been produced at the request of the political parties. As it happens, I received the document in the hon. Gentleman's hands last evening, and I have read it this morning. I have no doubt that other documents will be produced. One has already been provided by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Further documents may be prepared.
    What is necessary; what the obligation owed, I believe, to the people in Northern Ireland who want a permanent peace, is for all of us—the Government, the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and the people of Northern Ireland—to make sure that those matters are examined, discussed, considered, and decisions reached that will enable us to move forward into a permanent peace. That is what I wish to seek, and my mind is open to the right mechanism to ensure that we achieve it. But what I am determined is that we do seek to move forward to try and ensure that the chance that is in our hands—we may not be able to hold it—that the chance of peace that is in our hands should not slip away because we are not prepared to examine the matter, to talk about the matter, to consider the matter, and to reach the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see reached.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    James Donnelly Touhig, Esq., for Islwyn.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are two related aspects. I am concerned that the House of Commons was seriously misled this afternoon by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who raised a Dartford constituency matter during Education Questions without giving me notice of his intention to do so. He stated that the Dartford West secondary school for girls had been stripped of its playing fields. That issue was open for public consultation until 11 February, and no decision on it has yet been issued by the Department for Education. Will you require the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement and to apologise?
Secondly, may I make you aware, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman visited that school, which is in my constituency, last Thursday and did not give me any intimation or message of his intention?
Madam Speaker: These are not points of order.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I see nothing to withdraw.
Madam Speaker: That being the case—
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. Let me deal with one question at a time. Hon. Members are too anxious to be heard in the House.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is telling me that there is an untruth in the allegation made here. If he would like to table an early-day motion or use the Order Paper, that is what he must do if the allegation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is incorrect.
As I have often said in the House, when hon. Members visit another hon. Member's constituency, it is only right that they give him or her notice of doing so. That is a common courtesy and is the way in which we behave in the House. Hon. Members inform me when they come to my constituency, and they are very welcome, but they always let me know in advance when they are going to be there.
Mr. Foulkes: I apologise for rising too soon earlier, Madam Speaker. During the first two or three Parliaments that I was a Member of the House, statements were regularly made to the House after European Council meetings, whether they were meetings of ECOFIN or the Fisheries or Agriculture Councils. The Minister who had attended the meeting made a statement and was open to question. For the past few months—indeed, for the past few years—there have not been regular statements, which means that the Government are increasingly unaccountable to the House for their actions at European Council meetings.
For example, last week I know that Baroness Chalker—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House does not have time to listen to the hon. Gentleman's examples. I understand his point. He is asking for Government statements after various meetings have taken place. As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I have no authority to require a Minister to make a
158
statement at the Dispatch Box. It is for the Leader of the House to determine when statements are made, and the matter can be put to him during Business Questions. The hon. Gentleman is often on his feet during Business Questions and I shall look for him on Thursday, should he care to put the matter to the Leader of the House—that is without commitment.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to the earlier point of order relating to—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order once I have dealt with a matter. We could go on for ever. If it is a new point of order, I shall listen to it.
Mr. Devlin: It is a separate matter, Madam Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that, if an hon. Member intends to refer to another in a debate, he should let that hon. Member know? That was not the case last night, as you will see from column 82 of Hansard.
Madam Speaker: I have in my office a sheaf of statements that hon. Members can collect. I am weary of making statements about the way in which hon. Members should behave towards each other. I have made two or three such statements in the past six months. Hon. Members should know how to behave with common sense and courtesy, but, if they need reminding, let them come to my office, where I shall give them a file of the statements that I have made to the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you seen a report in today's Daily Mirror on the misnamed "Commissioner for the Protection of Trade Union Rights"? It appears that £1.9 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on 16 cases of trade union bashing. Has the Secretary of State for Employment, or even the Prime Minister, said that he intends to explain to the House that abuse of public money?
Madam Speaker: I have had no indication that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today on any matter.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your having told us about the sheaf of statements in your office. What power do you have to act when hon. Members ignore your advice by not informing other hon. Members when they go to their constituencies, especially if they are going in an official capacity such as that of Front Bench spokesmen? It seems that your advice is being ignored despite your having warned us about this previously.
Madam Speaker: I expect hon. Members to behave with a degree of common sense. I am the servant of the House, and the House gives me authority to carry out various instructions. If the hon. Member would care to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, the Committee may make a recommendation giving me some authority in these matters, and it might not be a bad idea if it did just that.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Your rulings on such points of order are clearly of great importance because they set precedents. I hold many Labour party meetings around the country. Are you in effect saying that, if an hon.

159
Member is going to hold a party political meeting in another hon. Member's constituency, he should give notice to that hon. Member about that fact?
Madam Speaker: I should have thought that that was pretty reasonable. Only this week I had a letter from a Member of the Government Bench, telling me that he is coming to my constituency for a political meeting. I doubt that his party will win the seat from me, but I said that I would be delighted to see him. I think that hon. Members should be informed, irrespective of what the visit is for.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding your point about courtesy, it could be a mistake to take the matter to the wrong conclusion. Members of Parliament do not have proprietorial rights over their constituencies. We do not own our constituencies and there must be no barriers to prevent Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from going on fact-finding missions anywhere in the country. They should not require permission from any other Member of Parliament to do so.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House must not run away with the idea that permission is required. It is simply a matter of courtesy to tell the hon. Member concerned. It is right that a Conservative Member who comes to my constituency to hold a political meeting should let me know about it. The hon. Gentleman might feel the same. There is nothing wrong with that; it is common sense and courtesy. I would do the same if I visited another hon. Member's constituency.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order. Apparently, you have upset one of my constituents who is one of your greatest fans. I have had a letter from Mr. Paul Cooper of Swanage telling me that you told us last Thursday—you have confirmed this in a letter to us today—that we would commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of world war two. Mr. Cooper tells me in his letter that his war did not end until August and that this May, we shall celebrate the victory in Europe—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for me. I made a comprehensive statement last week and questions were raised during Business Questions with the
160
Leader of the House. Everyone knows precisely what we are commemorating—the ending of both wars—and it will be done properly.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Given that I come down to Westminster every week, should I write to the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) before I come here?
Madam Speaker: I find that a totally ridiculous waste of the House's time. There is no common sense in that ludicrous point of order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order now. We have business to do here.
Mr. Anthony Steen rose—
Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman just decided that he has a point of order?
Mr. Steen: No. I wanted to be helpful to you, Madam Speaker, because I have listened for some weeks to the exchanges between you and Opposition Members about what should happen when an hon. Member visits another hon. Member's constituency. I chose not to raise a point of order because I did not want to trouble the House or take up time. However, having heard the exchanges today, I want to ask for your help.
When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) came to my constituency two weeks ago, he held a public meeting in the civic centre in Totnes which attracted 700 or 800 people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—which is the entire membership of the Labour party in South Hams. He did not have the courtesy either to write to me or to tell me about his visit beforehand or afterwards. Could you, Madam Speaker, do more than just criticise hon. Members? Could you do something to prevent hon. Members who misbehave in this way from attending the House?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my earlier response, he would know that I suggested to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that he might like to refer to the Procedure Committee whether I might have some authority to take action. I am surprised about the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have always found that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has very good parliamentary manners. The hon. Gentleman may be rather sorry that he has raised the matter today, because he has given the meeting greater publicity than he may think it deserves.

Television Sport (Public Access)
3.43 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 to provide that listed national sporting events, namely the F.I.F.A. World Cup Finals, the F.A. Cup Final, the Scottish F.A. Cup Final, the Wimbledon Finals, the Olympic Games, the Derby, the Grand National and Test Matches in England continue to be available on terrestrial television, and for connected purposes.
My Bill will provide for major sporting events to continue to be available on the main television channels. Millions of people—I freely admit to being one of them—enjoy watching sport on television. If viewing figures are anything to go by, sporting events are very popular. Last year, the grand national attracted 17 million viewers, the World cup finals were watched by 13.5 million people, the F.A. cup was watched by 12 million people, 11 million people watched the Olympics and perhaps the most spectacular viewing figure of all—I am not sure that everyone would call it a sport, but many fellow citizens do—was 24 million people, getting on for half the adult population, who watched Torvill and Dean at the winter Olympics.
The appeal of sport on television, lest I be accused of simply pleading sporting interest, goes far beyond people who are sports enthusiasts. When the grand national is on television, it is discussed before the race, during the race and after the race in pubs, clubs and households everywhere. Indeed, major sporting events of the past are often remembered even generations after they occurred. Who could forget the 1953 Stanley Matthews cup final, which is remembered 42 years afterwards? Whether one supported Bolton or Blackpool, the memories are strong.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What was the score?
Mr. Grocott: Three-two. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, it wasn't."] It was 4:3. [Laughter.] Who could fail to remember the last moments of the 1966 World Cup final? Even the words of the commentator, "They think it's all over—it is now", are almost part of national memory. Such events are more than just sporting events, as are other triumphs in sport, whether by Coe, of whom some hon. Members may have heard, Ovett or Daley Thompson.
More recently, although people do not always describe it as a major sport—it has been popularised by television—who could forget the match between Dennis Taylor and Steve Davis, when Dennis Taylor won in the early hours of the morning on the last ball of the last frame? Millions of people stayed up to watch that event. Those events are part of our national life, they enrich our national life, they sometimes give us unforgettable memories, they amuse us and they entertain us.
What has been happening recently? In practice, there has been a steady loss of events from the main terrestrial channels. It makes a pretty long list. In golf, for example, the Ryder cup, ironically having been popularised by the BBC, is being lost, as is the United States PGA tournament, one of the four major golf tournaments. One-day cricket internationals in the United Kingdom are going and the Benson and Hedges cricket matches are going. We cannot even see the highlights of test matches overseas, let alone any live coverage. Most important of
162
all, from our national sport with its huge popularity football at its highest level—the Premier league—was lost to ITV and has now gone to Sky.
Rumours abound about further losses of sporting events from terrestrial channels. It is no secret that Sky has been interested in acquiring the finals of Wimbledon, and there are rumours that cable television wants to take over coverage of the Endsleigh league. There is no doubt that the cable and satellite companies are interested in acquiring major sporting events and, obviously, increasing their number of subscribers by so doing.
People may criticise my Bill by saying that free-market forces somehow act in the magical interests of all viewers, or they may ask why we should worry because it is only a matter of time before satellite and cable channels are available to everyone. There is a short answer to such an allegation—those suggestions are rubbish.
Let us be clear about how many people watch major events once they are transferred to satellite and cable channels. The truth is that only a fraction of viewers watch them. The penetration, if I may use an advertising man's word, of terrestrial television—the number of people who can receive it—is 99 per cent. of the population, or 23 million households. The penetration of satellite and cable is 18 per cent., or 4 million households. When a major event is transferred from one format to the other, most of our constituents cannot see it. The viewing figures speak for themselves. Earlier this year, as any football supporter will know, one of the major events of the season—the game between Manchester United and Blackburn Rovers—easily achieved Sky's largest viewing figure of 1.2 million.
When ITV had the contract for First Division football four years ago, a game between Manchester United and Leeds United in 1991 attracted 9.3 million viewers. The simple averages are as follows: on average, under 1 million watch games on Sky, but when games were available on the terrestrial channels, the averages were between 7.5 million and 8 million viewers.
The net effect has been the loss of millions of potential viewers of major sporting events. We must be clear that recorded highlights are no substitute. Any sports enthusiast would agree with that. Indeed, shrewd television company managers are not interested in the sporting highlights. They are aware that if they want to get the viewers, they must show sport live.
Some people will say, "Don't worry; it will not be long before everyone has satellite and cable." Even the most optimistic estimates are that there is no possibility of that happening in the foreseeable future. There is no chance of anything like half the population of this country having access to such stations before the turn of the century. In the lifetime of any hon. Member in the Chamber, there is no chance of satellite and cable having the same level of access as the terrestrial television companies.
We must also consider the cost. If someone wants to watch major sporting events on satellite or cable, that will cost about £180 a year. From the viewers' point of view, what was previously part of their normal television service is now something that they have to pay large sums of money to have the privilege to watch. As Michael Grade, the head of Channel 4, said:
"Sky's main contribution to choice has been the opportunity for the public to pay more for what they have already."

163
No one believes that there is any chance of those sporting events coming back to terrestrial stations once they are lost. All the executives of the television companies that I know anything about admit that they cannot compete, with their overall obligations for programming in financial terms, with a dedicated sports channel with a high subscription.
There is also a loss to sport. If young people, in particular, cannot see major sporting events, it is bad news for the future of the sport. It may be all right for the heads of the major sporting authorities such as the Football League or the Football Association to say that they will make money in the short term by selling exclusive rights to certain sporting events. However, that is a very short-term view. Although money may be available in the short term, people will not have the opportunity to see those sports in the long run and, one hopes, be encouraged to play them. We are all aware of the impact of television on the interests of people and their likelihood of playing sports.
In the short time left to me, I want to explain that my Bill is an attempt to stop the rot in respect of the loss of major sporting events from the major channels. The recommendation in my Bill is in line with the recommendation of the National Heritage Select Committee, which stated in its report last year that the major listed events—the English and Scottish cup finals, the World cup finals, the Wimbledon finals, test cricket in England, the grand national and the Derby—should not be available exclusively on subscription channels. That would effectively protect them for the main terrestrial channels.
For that to happen, there would have to be a change in the Broadcasting Act 1990, but I believe that that change would have overwhelming popular support. I would go much further: I would like to see many more major sporting events included in the list so that they are protected for the enjoyment of all of us and not just retained for a few.
The members of the National Heritage Select Committee and many other hon. Members can be under no illusion that there is overwhelming public support for my proposal. In far too many areas of our national life, good things that we have grown up with have been steadily eroded and we are poorer as a result. The
164
spectacle and drama of sport at the highest level brings pleasure to millions for all of us to see. In the past, due to our democratically regulated broadcasting system, we were able to see those events. I commend my Bill to the House.
3.54 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I oppose the motion in a qualified way. I have written to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) to say that I support the broad thrust of what he seeks to do; but, as the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench sports committee, I simply ask him to bear in mind something that he mentioned towards the end of his remarks. There is a substantial responsibility on the part of the national sporting bodies not to go for short-term profit, but to ensure that national sporting occasions are, as he suggested, available to all.
I hold no brief for the cable television channels, and I support the broad thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. [Interruption.] I hope that he will concentrate on encouraging—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that he must raise his voice in opposition.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Evans, Mr. John Maxton, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase and Mr. Dennis Turner.

TELEVISION SPORT (PUBLIC ACCESS)
Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 to provide that listed national sporting events, namely the F.I.F.A. World Cup Finals, the F.A. Cup Final, the Scottish F.A. Cup Final, the Wimbledon Finals, the Olympic Games, the Derby, the Grand National and Test Matches in England continue to be available on terrestrial television, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
Orders of the Day
  Health Authorities Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1
  ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  'After section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 there shall be inserted—

  Annual report on activities of regional offices of NHS executive
  9.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the activities of the regional offices of the National Health Service Management Executive in respect of the discharge of all duties and functions transferred to those offices from Regional Health Authorities with effect from 1st April 1996.
  (2) In this section, 'regional office' means any office of the National Health Service for the time being designated by the Secretary of State to have responsibility for the "oversight of the finances and activities of National Health Service purchasing authorities and trusts on a regional basis.'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.56 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Duty of Secretary of State to publish accounts relating to projected expenditure savings—
  'The Secretary of State shall, no later than 1st April 1997, lay before the House of Commons a statement of accounts giving—

  (a) the level of expenditure on National Health Service administration in the financial year ending on 31st March 1996, excluding any expenditure attributable to the costs of implementing this Act,

  (b) the estimated outturn of expenditure on National Health Service administration for the financial year ending on 31st March 1997, and

  (c) an explanation of the factors to which any differences between the figures provided under paragraphs (a) and (b) above are attributed.'.

  Mrs. Beckett: New clauses 1 and 2 go to the heart of the Government's purpose, or what we believe to be their purpose, in enacting the Bill, although new clause 2 relates principally to the financial consequences of the Bill. New clause 1 creates a mechanism by which Parliament can be informed of the outcome of the legislation, and can monitor its effects in practice as opposed to in claimed intent.
  If the Government's real intention is what they claim—to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, to increase efficiency and create savings—the new clause will present them with no problems whatever. It creates an opportunity for the Government to parade their achievements. If, on the other hand, the Government's real intention is not what they claim but what we fear—to prevent public and parliamentary scrutiny of an operation which is to be carried out for the purposes of sheer dogma without regard for its potential and considerable practical difficulties and which might seriously inhibit the future
  166
  smooth running of the national health service—new clause 1, calling as it does for an annual report to Parliament, will be the last thing they want.
  Although the logic of new clause 1 is impeccable and its case irresistible, if the Government's primary purpose in moving the Bill was to draw a cloak of secrecy across the operation of the NHS, new clause 1—with its adherence to the principle of accountability to Parliament and to the public—strikes at that purpose itself. The logic of and the case for the new clause are irresistible, because the Bill is not just half-baked, it is not baked at all.
  In 1991, as part of the Government's so-called reforms, regional health authorities were given greater powers because it was judged that a strategic authority at regional level was required. On Second Reading, we highlighted some of the major responsibilities of the existing regional authorities, and our wish to explore in Committee how they would be addressed in future. We have had the Committee, but—in all too many cases—we have not had the answers. It is bad enough that, as usual, the Government have left so much to later regulation. But not only is there no detail as to what those regulations might contain, it seems all too often that the decisions have not even been made. Issue after issue is "to be decided" or is "being discussed", including the key issues of how future doctors and nurses will he trained and by whom they will be employed.
  A Government who embark on such a major structural change without working out how its consequences will be dealt with are a Government of crass irresponsibility. Incidentally, it casts an interesting light on the demands of Conservative Members for details of policies which the Labour party might pursue after the next election that this Bill is on its way to the statute book without the details having been worked out.
  Two matters are crystal clear: first, the Bill will allow infinitely greater secrecy and concealment in hospitals and trusts; and, secondly, it will ensure that all roads lead back to the Secretary of State. At present, regional directors of public health have a duty to produce an annual public report on health care in their region. Historically, the role of practitioners of public health medicine as potential whistle blowers for public safety is one of the glories of British medicine and British public service. At regional level, they will become civil servants, bound by the Official Secrets Act 1911, their duty not to the public but to the Secretary of State.
  The only remotely independent voice in the new structure that the Bill creates is that of the community health councils. Their chief executives—full-time salaried public servants—are presently employed by regional health authorities. We asked what will become of them and whether they, too, would become not public servants in the employment of regional offices but civil servants whose duty is to the Secretary of State. No answer came.
  At present, regional health authorities collect statistics at regional level and, as public servants, make much of that information public if requested. The only information that we can currently get about matters such as hospital closures comes from those regional health authorities. The Department of Health does not know about such matters and does not want to know. It tells us that, in future, regional offices will collect only the statistics that the Department wants for its own purposes in administering the system. On precedent, that would presumably not include information about hospital closures, the closure of

  167
  accident and emergency departments or other such decisions, which impinge directly on the pattern of available health care across a region and which are certainly of public interest, whether the Department wants to know them or not.
  Apart from the information that the regional health authorities will no longer collect, any requests for information, for example from Members of Parliament, will in future be referred to individual authorities or trusts. So there will not be the same responsibility for the flow of information to the public or their representatives for the use of public money.
  The mechanism in new clause 1 would allow Parliament to explore how those and other functions of existing regional health authorities are being carried out under the new structure or, if they are not being carried out, to consider the effects of the change. Vital responsibilities of the present regional health authorities are to stay at regional office level, including oversight of the cancer screening programme and maintenance of cancer registers—at least until what the Minister called "other arrangements" can be made, whatever that may mean. National confidential inquiries may still be handled at that level. Existing ethnic health units will be "centralised" in the NHS, whatever that may mean for their future and role.
  When we inquired about the training and education of clinical staff, we were told that it was "to be decided", although later the Minister of State said that it might remain "at regional level", as will the training of some junior doctors. However, the arrangements for such training and how they can take account of the role of universities and the dual academic-clinical role of postgraduate deans is, again, far from clear—if it has been decided at all.
  That group of issues is vital to the future of Britain's health care. The training of doctors, nurses and other health service staff, such as physiotherapists, and the holding of employment contracts for junior doctors impinge directly on whether the terms of their employment facilitate or even permit their continuing education.
  On all those matters, practitioners and their representatives express deep concern. They are alarmed at the prospect that those matters might be decided, in practice if not in theory, at the level of the individual trust, whose purpose, laid on it by the Government, is to secure its own future as a profitable health business, competing with other such businesses—not to co-operate in a general endeavour of training and employment, from which it can derive, as an individual trust, only partial benefit.
  We recognise that the Government have spoken of the possibility of consortiums, variously of trusts or authorities, but the fact that they continued to discuss in Committee an issue of such relevance and importance as the holding of junior doctors' contracts, highlights the recklessness of the endeavour behind the Bill and the irresponsibility with which those fundamental decisions have been approached.
  There remain severe doubts, including among health professionals, whether the new authorities that the Bill creates in place of regions will have the expertise to plan and co-ordinate the existing activities of those regional health authorities.
  168
  All that shows that, whether at regional office level or away from that level, there is a continuing and important role to be played by those charged with carrying out duties that are currently the responsibility of regional health authorities. Parliament must have the chance to scrutinise the effects of the legislation, not only by discussing regulations when they are proposed, but by exploring, year by year, the cumulative practical changes to which the Bill will give effect.
  It is useless to pretend that, under the new structure, even our present access to information will be maintained. Members of Parliament and other people with queries about the running of the health service will be referred to the individual authority or institution. Those are institutions in which staff at every level have gagging clauses in their contracts and local—no doubt soon performance-related—pay, to encourage them to remember where their loyalties are supposed to lie: not, as Mr. Roy Lilley recently remarked, to the patient, but to the organisation.
  The position that appears likely to exist after the passage of the Bill reminds me strongly of the famous quote from Henry IV Part I, in which Glendower says that he can
  "call spirits from the vasty deep",
  only for Hotspur to reply,

  "Why, so can I, or so can any man,

  But will they come when you do call for them?"

  Will the information come from the authorities or trusts when Members of Parliament or other people call for it?
  A classic example from proceedings in Committee illustrates why we doubt that the answer might come when we call for it; it is a classic example of the way in which that process works now, even before the Bill reaches the statute book.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) told the Committee that she had been so impertinent as to ask the chief executive of her local trust exactly how the trust had spent £215,000 of taxpayer's money on the costs of setting up that trust. That was a small part of the £120 million or so devoted to that purpose throughout Britain, but a substantial sum of taxpayer's money none the less. When she spoke in Committee—and, as far as I am aware, to this day—the chief executive had declined to reply, thinking it, presumably, none of her business how he chooses to spend what the previous Prime Minister used to call "our money".
  What advice did my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport receive from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), that staunch tribune of the people, the defender of the public purse? He advised her to
  "work to improve her relationship with the chief executive of her local trust"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 January 1995; c. 54.]—
  in the hope, presumably, that if she did so he might condescend to answer her letter and her queries on behalf of her constituents.
  No doubt Ministers will dispute whether the further concealment of the truth about the national health service is part of the purpose of the Bill. They cannot dispute, because they themselves acknowledge it, that the effect of the Bill will be the removal of information now in the public domain. New clause 1 would go some way to redressing the balance; I therefore commend it to the House.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am pleased to be able to respond to what has been a short debate on an important matter. It is obvious that those of my colleagues who were sitting, hanging on my every word in Committee, have been entirely convinced by the debates that we had on that occasion.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) talked about the "cloak of secrecy" which will be introduced with the passage of the Bill. I reiterate what I said in Committee: nothing could be further from the truth, and I welcome this opportunity to set out how the arrangements will work.
  The regional offices will be an integral part of the NHS executive and, therefore, part of the reporting arrangements which are already in place for the Department of Health through the departmental annual report. That is not simply a report which is issued to the public; it is a Command Paper which is laid before Parliament and is available to the public. It describes in detail the Department's activities and expenditure across all its responsibilities. The right hon. Lady said that information would be concealed, but the opposite is the case. The Department remains accountable to the House through its annual report and I cannot think of any stronger accountability than that.
  The right hon. Lady also said rather curiously, in an antithetical way, that all roads lead back to the Secretary of State under the new structure. They do, but the right hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. She argues one day that the national health service structure is not accountable either to the Secretary of State or to Parliament because the Government have fragmented it and sent it off in all sorts of directions, ending up in institutions which act on their own initiative and are accountable to no one. We sometimes hear that speech on a Monday afternoon, only to hear the right hon. Lady say on a Tuesday—as she has today—that all roads in the health service lead back to the Secretary of State.
  Ultimately, all roads lead back not just to the Secretary of State but to the House, to whom Ministers are accountable. During that part of the Committee proceedings which I was fit and well enough to attend, I was at pains to emphasise the fact that that responsibility is extremely important and is taken very seriously.
  Further information about NHS executive activities is made public through a wide range of publications, such as the NHS annual report. Further reports are planned, including a series of quarterly reviews which will start in May this year, an NHS quarterly magazine which will replace "NHS News" from June 1995 and, as the right hon. Lady knows, a range of statistical bulletins and issues-based newsletters concerning the performance of the service.
  It is entirely wrong for the right hon. Lady to suggest that a "cloak of secrecy" surrounds the NHS. I think that there is more like a blizzard of information which is published directly either for the purposes of the House or for those who are keen to research those matters in their or the public interest, as well as for the general public. That approach is right and proper and it will continue under the new structure.
  Mrs. Beckett: In making his remarks, I think that the Minister should address who controls the information that
  170
  is supplied. He says, quite correctly, that a blizzard of information is coming from the Department; but if one is so unwise as to request information which is not couched in precisely the form in which the Secretary of State chooses to release it, that information is not forthcoming.
  I do not think that anyone—except perhaps a Minister in this Government—could defend the fact that the Department of Health does not, for example, collect statistics about the current number of hospitals, how many accident and emergency units are threatened with closure, or what the pattern of provision of such health care should be across the nation. That is exactly the kind of information that is collected by regional offices because, as regional health authorities, they have a separate duty to the public. All that information will now be controlled by the Secretary of State, and precedent suggests that she does not tell anyone anything that does not suit her purposes.
  Mr. Malone: The right hon. Lady is entirely wrong about that issue. Information must be collected for statutory purposes—for example, to fulfil the requirements of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Commission and to report to the House through the departmental annual report. I regret that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends sometimes table questions in a way that does not allow me to answer them, simply because information is not available in the form requested. There are occasions when we puzzle over the questions, and only after conversations with the right hon. Lady's researchers are we able to guess at the purpose of a question.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
  Mr. Malone: We do what we can to answer and to be as full and frank as possible on every occasion. In that spirit, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Brown: The whole House has obviously caught the Minister in a good mood and that is to be welcomed. If he is saying, as he has on countless occasions, that information is not held centrally and, therefore, the questions that we table seeking factual information are not properly worded, perhaps he will assist the whole House by telling us in plain English how we could table a question to find out how many hospitals there currently are, how many his Department has closed and how many his Department plans to close.
  Mr. Malone: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first, we do not keep statistics on hypothetical questions. The other points that he raises relate to matters of definition—for example, what one defines as a hospital. There are many institutions that he may define as a hospital, that perhaps a member of the public might not define as a hospital, where information is held. The Government would never mislead the hon. Gentleman in any way by giving him any information that could not be precisely defined.
  While I have the opportunity to engage the hon. Gentleman's attention on this point, I hope that he will recollect that when questions are tabled, perhaps some regard could be had for the public expense incurred in answering them. I say that not about questions that seek

  171
  genuine information but about those that repeat what has been asked, sometimes a week previously, by his hon. Friends, and answered.
  I should also mention questions which are clearly trawling exercises for the purpose of basic research and on which published information is readily available. On one occasion, 155 questions were tabled in one day, at huge public expense and involving huge consumption of management time. I hope that we can use the debate to achieve a modus operandi so that public cash is not wasted on consuming health resources, which could otherwise be spent on patient care, by littering the Order Paper with what is essentially unnecessary.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Is the Minister saying that, in future, he will not be able to answer questions about hospital closures because his Department no longer has a definition of a hospital? If so, that will be an interesting debate.
  Mr. Malone: I shall be guided by better information than the hon. Lady suggests. Certainly that would not apply to matters which are ultimately the Department's responsibility and in which regional offices are involved, especially where such matters are referred directly to Ministers. Of course we shall continue to answer questions on those matters.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
  Mr. Malone: Before I move on, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I am in an extremely good mood this afternoon.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and even more grateful for his good mood. How does he define a hospital? It is interesting that the definition of a hospital is no longer what it used to be. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what he means by a hospital, so that not only Opposition Members but everybody else can be clear about just what it is.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman's uncertainty underlines my point that it may not be sensible to try to hit on a precise definition.
  Opposition Members have often said—the right hon. Member for Derby, South repeated it this afternoon—that the move from regional health authorities to NHS executive regional offices, which will be part of the service, will mean a loss of openness. The right hon. Lady asked specifically what would happen to reports from directors of public health. As I believe I said in Committee, regional directors of public health will not publish reports, for the simple reason that the function that they currently exercise will be devolved nearer the population, to health authorities. They will continue to make reports, but in the context of the health authorities. I hope that I have finally got the point across to the right hon. Lady.
  I hope to persuade the right hon. Lady that, as directors' reports will be made at health authority level, they will be far more relevant to smaller population groups. That is important when we are trying to identify and address health needs on an authority-by-authority basis. In any event, regional offices are not the bodies that need to be independent, as the right hon. Lady suggested. They will not make the decisions that will affect local people directly—the new health authorities will make those
  172
  decisions. They will be independent in the same way as regional health authorities and, in addition—under the codes of conduct and accountability issued in April 1994, which we discussed a good deal in Committee—will be expected to produce and publish annual reports.
  The regional offices will have a monitoring role. They will contribute to the development of central policies for the NHS, influencing the policy-making process by offering advice to Ministers. It is entirely appropriate for such tasks—including any that involve the collation of reports from health authority public health directors—to be performed by civil servants, who will be part of the process that requires direct accountability to Ministers.
  As for centralisation, as a result of the 1990 reforms responsibility has already been successfully devolved from regional health authorities to a level that is closer to patients. The Bill will devolve it still further by moving vital functions, such as non-medical work force planning and many public health functions, down from RHAs to the new health authorities.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South said that the reforms had not been thought through. In Committee, we did not discuss which functions would reside where after the enactment of the Bill. I shall not detain the House by repeating the lengthy statement of functions that I made in Committee, but I draw it to the right hon. Lady's attention. It seemed, if not to satisfy the Committee, certainly to silence it—which, at the time, I may have interpreted as something rather different.
  The right hon. Lady referred specifically to training and employment contracts. The Committee dealt with that in some detail, but for the sake of certainty I shall reiterate the position. The education contracts of registrars and senior registrars will be held at regional level by postgraduate deans; in Committee it was widely conceded that that was by far the most important aspect of the contracts, and the main source of concern.
  Future arrangements for the holding of contracts are still under discussion, but, as I said in Committee, that is more a technical matter. The fundamental issues were what would happen to education and who would guarantee that doctors could move around the system to secure proper training. I welcome this opportunity to tell the whole House that postgraduate deans will have that responsibility.
  I simply do not accept the premise from which the right hon. Lady starts—that this addition to the Bill is necessary. It is not true that less information is available on the service than before. Under the new national health service, far more information is available than ever before. Trusts are accountable to their patients and must publish annual reports. Across the country, more information exists about the performance of the health service in terms of waiting lists and of the quality of institutions that deliver health care, and it is much more widely available than in the past. Much of the debate that we have in the House and elsewhere about how the health service is performing involves information that is used by Opposition right hon. and hon. Members. In years past, under the old NHS, the lack of information would not have allowed such a debate to take place.
  The combination of annual reports, accounts and league tables—vital information that tells us how public money is accounted for, and how it is translated into patient care—is accessible not only to hon. Members but to a wider public. The new clause is not necessary. The service

  173
  will ultimately remain accountable in a proper way to the House. Perhaps, although I fear that this is a forlorn hope, the right hon. Lady will seek to withdraw the motion.
  Ms Coffey: The new clause seeks to make information available. I note the Minister's comment that he thinks that information is already freely available. He mentioned that the information will be available in the annual accounts of trusts, but I understand that the trusts' annual reports will be late this year. I have no clear idea of when my local trust's annual report, which will make all this information available to me, will be published.
  In Committee, I raised the issue of the £215,000 that has been spent by my health care trust on set-up costs. I have failed to obtain information from the trust's chief executive on how that money was spent. That is clearly symptomatic of the problem that Members of Parliament have in obtaining information from trusts. In a letter to me, the chairperson of the local acute services trust, said:
  "As far as accountability is concerned I am directly accountable to the Minister who is of course accountable to Parliament for the trust's action".
  Why is it then that, when I write to the Minister about some aspect of my local trust, he refers me back to the trust? Somehow, this wonderful circle of accountability does not go the circle.
  The £215,000 is public money, and was given to the trust for set-up costs. I have consistently asked the simple question: can the chief executive tell me how that £215,000 was spent? He has refused to tell me. He has referred me to the annual report. That seems illogical: if the information will be available in the annual report, why cannot the information be available to me now?
  Mr. Malone rose—
  Ms Coffey: The Minister is going to tell me.
  Mr. Malone: I ran through an analysis of start-up costs in Committee. I cannot give the hon. Lady a breakdown of the figures precisely in relation to her own hospital, but I will be delighted to consider that matter and to give her whatever information is available. I will write to her on that point.
  I have no idea where she gets the suggestion that reports will be published late—that is news to me. When those reports are published, more information will be available, for example, on management costs. That is an important step forward, which she would doubtless welcome, because Opposition Members question the service about the proportion of funding that is being spent on those costs. I hope that that underpins the serious intention of the Government to disclose, wherever possible, as much information as possible, so that the true performance of trusts will be publicly visible beyond the service itself.
  Ms Coffey: I was told that the annual accounts were to be late in a letter from one of the Ministers in reply to my letter asking why the information about the £215,000 was not being given to me. He referred me to the annual report, and said that it would be late. I should be happy to show the Minister the letter.
  I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to give me a breakdown of the £215,000 set-up costs. I should be happy if the Minister would tell the chief executive of my
  174
  local health care trust that the information should be made available to Members of Parliament. That would be a great step forward. I am sure that the chief executive believes that, by not giving me the information, he is in some way carrying out the Government's wishes. Clearly that is not right, and he must be made aware of that, as must all chief executives of trusts.
  4.30 pm
  The main issue I wish to raise with the Minister deals with the monitoring of the programme to discharge mentally handicapped people into the local community once the regional health authorities have been abolished. As the Minister is aware, the programme has been going on for several years and involves closing down institutions such as Cranage or Offerton house in my constituency, which for years nursed mentally handicapped people in an institutional setting.
  Over the years, that programme has been the subject of some financial dispute and argument between local authorities, district health authorities and regional health authorities. The arguments involved the money for those patients—it has been referred to in the past as dowries—as well as arrangements for financing the entire programme, including complicated deals about the notional value of regional health authority land and the selling off of that land.
  The programme is almost complete: effectively, the regional health authority programme has transferred to the health authorities, and people with mental handicaps are living in houses in the community. Financially, they are living as normal people, entitled to housing benefit and other benefits. Care is being provided by the health authorities and, in my locality, staff employed by the health care trust go in on a daily basis to care for those people.
  The patients are highly dependent; some of them have been living in institutions for many years. Therefore, transferring to the community can be difficult. The care they need must be of the highest quality, because, however much we talk about them living as normal people, their needs make them special. They are a risk to themselves: unfortunately, in Stockport recently a mentally handicapped person died in one of those homes.
  The care provided is paid for by the local health care trust, which also employs the staff. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the Stockport health commission, and there is no commissioning role in buying the care. It is provided through the money from the regional health authority, and has ended up with the health care trust.
  I can see several problems with this. If the Government felt able to accept the new clause, I believe that some of the inherent difficulties and conflicts might be resolved. A local health care trust should not be responsible for employing staff and providing care, because the cost of that care and the staff come out of the same budget.
  I was quite concerned to see an advert in my local paper, which asked for staff and said that experience with mentally handicapped people was desirable but not necessary. A cynical thought passed through my head—of course, it costs less to employ unqualified people than qualified people. The ratio of unqualified to qualified people in Stockport is on a balance with the unqualified people who are employed part-time on a bank staff basis, where at the beginning of the week they are sent here,

  175
  there and everywhere, depending on where the need is. That, obviously, is cheaper than employing full-time or fully trained staff.
  There is an inherent conflict, because if there is pressure on the budget—and there was last year—what better way of saving money is there than by employing less qualified staff on a lower rate of pay? That is not right, because mentally handicapped people who come into those homes have care plans, and the same authority that supplies and employs the staff monitors that care plan.
  That cannot be right. There seems to be no independent inspection. There are no targets laid down by the Government about the quality of care. The homes are not subject to inspection, because they are not considered to be residential homes. The health and safety regulations do not apply. The homes are, in fact, operated as mini-institutions.
  I am concerned about the quality of life for people in those mini-institutions. I have always supported the ideology behind community care—that institutions are not homes for people, and that it is better for people to be in a home and for care to be put into that home—but surely quality must be addressed. If mentally handicapped people in those homes are not provided with day care or stimulus outside the home, and if day care simply means providing them with Sky Television 24 hours a day. I am concerned about the quality of care, because that is not what community care is supposed to be about.
  Who assesses whether the quality of care for those people is better than that in the hospital in which they were previously resident? Community care is supposed to be about improving the quality of people's lives. Where, and by whom, is that judgment made? I am concerned, because of the abolition of the regional health authorities, and the duties of the new regional offices not being clear by any means, about how the programme is being monitored across the country. Monitored it must be, and properly inspected. Mentally handicapped people need protection. They cannot speak for themselves. There must be some independent inspection of their needs and the quality of their lives.
  I am not sure how the Minister will address that question and what input the regional offices will have. If there is a commissioning body—a health commission—and a provider unit, as in the trusts, in a sense there is some inspection by the health commission, because it purchases care and can demand to see the quality of that care.
  But if the provision and purchasing of the care happens within the same organization—for example, the trust—which appears to be the case in the care of mentally handicapped people, I suggest to the Minister that will stack up problems for the future. There must be some way in which to provide some independent inspection, whether that means, when the regional health offices go, placing that role back into the health commission and giving it the responsibility of commissioning care for mentally handicapped people. Perhaps that is a way round it. I am sure that it is not the only issue that needs to be dealt with, but it is in my thoughts, as this is happening in my constituency. No doubt other hon. Members could think of a number of other issues to be raised in this context.
  The problem is that it is not clear what the regional offices will be monitoring, and what their responsibilities will be. At one level, this important Bill may seem uncontroversial, but I suspect that it will have far-reaching consequences for the delivery of health care. It therefore
  176
  seems especially regrettable that it does not contain sufficient clarity. As we have discovered, we sometimes pass legislation without paying sufficient attention to its consequences.
  The new clause offers a safety net by ensuring that proper monitoring takes place and that appropriate information is available to the public. The Government claim to be in favour of access to information, so I do not understand why they do not support the new clause and ensure that information is open to the public.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: I apologise to the Minister of State for having missed the beginning of his speech, but I was upstairs at a meeting of the Carers National Association, listening to the trials and tribulations experienced by its members because of Government policies.
  My remarks all relate to accountability, or the lack of it. There is going to be no accountability in the national health service. The regional health authorities are to be kicked into obscurity, and their replacements will mean an absence of accountability. Brian Edwards, who used to be the secretary of Trent Regional health authority, has moved up into the money markets, and we have heard a great deal recently about people who have done extremely well.
  Let us consider the appointment of the chairman of the trust in Doncaster and of the people who sit on the board. It is remarkable that those people do not represent a cross-section of the community; it seems that only people from a certain clique are wanted. The Minister and the Secretary of State must take responsibility for such appointments. For there to be accountability, the people who sit on trusts should be under no obligation to the Conservative party. Due consideration should be given to the secretaries and chairmen of the community health care councils sitting, as of right, on trust boards.
  In the old days of the area health authorities, the press were invited to attend meetings, and the only matters from which they were excluded were those that required patient confidentiality. That is the only way to be open and above board, and avoid the sort of scandals about which we have recently heard so much. I am all for reform and progress, but making progress means going forward, not back to Victorian days.
  I have been to hospital in the past couple of years, and have been fortunate enough to receive excellent treatment from nurses and doctors. Indeed, were it not for their skills, I should not be here now. I have much to be grateful for, and I am sad to see the health service, which I love, being dismantled because of the Conservative party's political dogma.
  The Doncaster health authority used to spend about 3.5 per cent. of its budget on administration costs. I suspect that, were the Minister to do a similar calculation of the trusts' administration costs, he would find that the figure was more like 8 per cent. I am guessing, but it is an educated guess. In any event, it means that a tremendous percentage of available funds is not being spent on patient care.
  4.45 pm
  I believe that there is more accountability and openness among the Freemasons than in the health service. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] I live in the real

  177
  world of the doctors and nurses. I hear the Minister, the Secretary of State and Conservative Members expound the benefits of the new arrangements and talk about money in "real terms", but I lie in bed at night adding up the hours that junior doctors spend on the wards, and they are unacceptable.
  The general waste and handouts to get rid of bad appointees as chairmen of authorities all adds to the lack of accountability. Conservative Members should go out into the real world and talk to nurses and doctors, not the lackeys appointed by the Secretary of State. Patients praise the dedication of the nurses but condemn the money wasted on administration. Accountability is important, and the Conservatives need to understand what is really going on.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Once again, I stress the need for a strategic health authority for London but the Bill as drafted does not allow for the accountability that Londoners need in terms of their health care.
  My remarks are intended as an act of kindness. In London, as elsewhere, the Government are singularly unpopular and have wholly misunderstood what people in London want. We are giving them the opportunity to rectify that. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause as a measure of good will and take it as an opportunity for the Government to join us in seeking to provide a strategic health authority for London. It would be a popular decision among Londoners and would go some way to meeting London's health care needs. The chances are that my words will fall on deaf ears yet again, but I live in hope that one day even the Government might listen to Londoners.
  Yesterday, I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech on the health crisis in London. She talked at length about what was happening in London as a whole. I should have thought that even her comments made it clear that there is a need for strategic thinking when planning health care and health provision across London. It is not just that the capital city needs strategic planning—it does fundamentally. Strategic planning is important because the needs within London as a whole and within inner London in particular are so much greater than they are elsewhere.
  The Government often like to divide London from the rest of the country on the ground that London is over-resourced compared with the rest of the country. A number of the reports that have come out in the past year or two—certainly since the Secretary of State began her reforms in London—show that the Tomlinson report, on which the Secretary of State has based her slashing of services in London, was flawed because it was based on a great deal of misinformation, inaccurate statistics and unfounded dogma.
  Not only Professor Jarman but others have shown that the acute bed need in London is great, that waiting lists are now rising rapidly and that the health needs in London are significant compared with those elsewhere. London obviously has the highest level of homelessness in the country. I use the word "obviously" because people are attracted to the capital city, which is one reason why homelessness is so bad in the capital. There is also more pressure on housing to rent in London than there is elsewhere. Young people in particular have no
  178
  opportunity to get decent housing. Every medical expert tells us that homelessness has an effect on people's health. The level of homelessness is one way in which London is unique compared with the rest of the country.
  As a number of my hon. Friends have mentioned in other debates, London has the highest level of people who are HIV positive or who have Aids-related diseases which require specialist care in hospitals, in people's homes and in community care facilities. Such specialisation is costly, but it is necessary and we must do all that we can to ensure that whatever the resources available for people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS, they are made available to people when they need them.
  The capital also has the highest level of drug dependency in the country. This is a specialist area and we need to consider how to get resources to people as quickly as possible so that we can help them to survive. The amount of poor housing in London, the extent of homelessness and a series of other factors mean that other debilitating diseases are more prevalent in the capital city than elsewhere.
  The comments of the Secretary of State suggest that a strategic health authority for our capital city is vital. It is extremely sad that the Government have ruled against any possibility of such an authority being set up. Instead of setting up that strategic authority, as they could have done under the Bill, they have removed the present level of accountability, small though it is, to the regional offices. That will not reflect the needs of people in London.
  The Bill will have an especially dire effect on two areas. The Secretary of State has talked a great deal about care for the elderly and she appears to be terribly proud of her community care policy. In my experience and in the experience of many colleagues on both sides of the House, care in the community is simply not working in London.
  When elderly people are discharged from hospital and sent back to their homes, often with only an elderly, frail relative to care for them, there is little back-up and little thought is given to the resources and resource management that are needed to ensure that people can recover properly from whatever illness put them in hospital in the first place. Some people have to go back to hospital for a second or third time and others, sadly, do not survive the experience at all. Unless we have a strategic overview of what happens in our hospitals in London and of what happens when people are discharged from hospital into their local community, we shall not serve the people of London well.
  I now turn to mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) mentioned mental health and spoke about the needs in her area. London has a greater need for mental health services than elsewhere. There are examples, right across the capital city, of people being discharged from institutions into the community without any resources to back them up. There have been a number of tragic instances.
  A few weeks ago, a woman, who was not a constituent, came to my surgery. A relatively young person with a mental illness, who had been discharged into the community, attacked her when she had three children under five with her. Although she was not badly injured, it was a frightening experience and one that neither she nor anyone else would want to have. She recognises, as

  179
  the rest of us do, that the reason why such incidents happen is that there is no proper resourcing of community care in the city.
  People should be discharged from institutions only if the Government are prepared to put resources into the local community to enable care to be given properly. Some time ago, there was the tragic affair of the Clunis report, with which the Guy's and Lewisham health trust had to deal. There have been many other cases which hon. Members can cite.
  There is growing concern in the capital city that although people who have mental illnesses and those who are drug dependent or have some other specialist problems are more prevalent in London than elsewhere, they are not being properly looked after. The hospitals are totally under-resourced and we need to find a strategic way in which they can be resourced. Just before Christmas, there were examples of people with mental illness being shipped 50, 60 or 70 miles away because there were no beds in London in which they could be cared for.
  The Government seem to be committed to ignoring what Londoners want. The new clause would enable the health service in London to become more accountable. That would go some way towards alleviating many of the fears of people in London about the state of the health service here.
  I now touch on another aspect of accountability which I raised in Committee and which still concerns me because I do not believe that the Government have recognised the seriousness of the situation. I refer to the universities having a place on the health authorities. At present, they have a place on the existing health authorities as of right under a statutory provision. Under the Bill, that statutory place will be removed.
  That will be a tragedy not just for the universities, which are well aware of the problems that will arise, but for the new health authorities. They will not have the direct expertise of the medical practitioners and the academics in the universities who know about their teaching methods and about their teaching programmes, and who can influence and support the health authorities to ensure that they dovetail their programmes of work with that of the universities.
  Listening to the Secretary of State yesterday, I found it rather strange that she spoke eloquently about the centres of excellence and about the importance of our educational and academic training for doctors, in London in particular. The Secretary of State said:
  "I am also strongly committed to our international position and centres of excellence."
  She said later in the debate, when talking about the importance of education and research:
  "Those are fundamental to the reputation of London as a world leader in medical teaching and research."—[Official Report. 20 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 37–41.]
  In that case, it strikes me that we ought to acknowledge teaching and research by ensuring that those academics are involved in the process of decision making in the hospital service.
  Mr. Malone: I would not like the hon. Lady to give the House the impression that this matter has been disregarded and was not discussed in Committee. Of course it was and I pointed out in Committee that, if a medical school is in the area of the health authority, there
  180
  would be a medical school representative, a university representative, on the board. I made that absolutely clear. However, like every other board position of that sort, it will be prescribed in regulation. Perhaps the hon. Lady's debate is over whether those positions should be in regulation or in the Bill. She is giving the impression that there may not be representation at all. It is certainly the Government's intention—I gave an undertaking to that effect in Committee—that there will be such representation.
  Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. I was not clear about that in Committee. Although, as the Minister would expect, I disagree with him over the provision being prescribed in regulation; it should be in the Bill, but one step at a time is perhaps as much as we can hope to take with this Government.
  I believe such representation to be important. I have a special interest in training in general and, in this context, in medical training in particular. The fact that it will be purely under regulation and not a statutory requirement evokes fear for two practical reasons. First, when hospitals are being rationalized—closed, to those of us who understand the term—it is very important that universities are centrally involved in decision making because the costs involved of moving staff and medical students from one hospital to another can be enormous, as some hospitals elsewhere in the country have found.
  Secondly, universities fear, and justifiably so, that the Department for Education, which presently funds the moving of the medical training and therefore funds part of the health service, will say that it will not fund such future moves. Yet we must feel confident that universities are aware right from the start were such funding to cease, so that they can participate in the process and be party to events.
  As I said, the costs of changes can be enormous. It cost £15 million in Oxford, £20 million in Glasgow and Edinburgh—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order, I was hoping that the hon. Lady was coming to the end of that part of her speech. Frankly, the new clause does not apply to matters concerning the Department for Education.
  5 pm
  Mrs. Prentice: I am trying to establish the fact that the Department for Education funds part of the health service through the university medical schools, which is why accountability is so important. University medical schools need to be able to speak directly to the Department of Health about what is happening—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was listening to the hon. Lady and I was well aware of the point that she was making. It is perfectly proper to make an aside, but she is developing the argument. I hope that she will now desist from that and return to the main thrust of her speech.
  Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on, because the Minister has responded, to some extent, to my point.
  I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will remember that that aspect of accountability is centrally important if we are to ensure that those centres of excellence, which the Secretary of State discussed

  181
  yesterday, remain. I hope that there is accountability in medical education, and especially as an hon. Member who represents a London constituency which suffers great deprivation and has large demands, I hope that we consider again the need for a strategic authority in London to provide the accountability in their health service that Londoners want.
  Mr. John Gunnell: The two new clauses are excellent, and I urge the Minister to look at them carefully and to consider accepting them. They would strengthen the health service and provide the Department of Health with a much better defence against the proposed reforms than they have been able to put up against the reforms which have already been implemented.
  The new clauses are strongly linked and deal specifically with accountability, as most hon. Members who have spoken said. Accountability is very important. We recognise that there is an automatic lessening of accountability in moving from an authority that has some external features to a regional office of government. We recognise that that implies a loss of accountability, and we must establish how that accountability will be made good in the arrangements under the new plan.
  Financial accountability is also very important. Projected expenditure savings have been made. However, my interpretation of the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), on the day of the Committee's last sitting, was incorrect. When I looked back at what he said, I realised that he had been consistent in suggesting that he had projected savings of £150 million which applied to the whole country. However, it is fair to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), purloined £60 million of that overall amount for Wales, which left £90 million for England.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gunnell: It was said in Committee, and I urge the Under-Secretary to look at the relevant proceedings of the Committee sitting. We are talking about global figures, to which I shall return.
  Nevertheless, it is important to note that if savings are projected and Ministers have any confidence in them at all, they will obviously welcome not only the duty to publish accounts but the opportunity to publish them, to demonstrate how right they were in their projections. If they do not publish accounts and are not able to accept new clause 2, it suggests that they are not so confident about their projected figures. I shall return to that point.
  The annual report is an extremely valuable feature of the Bill. In response to questions which several hon. Members and I asked in Committee, the Minister said that he intended to make clear at some point where every responsibility of the present regional health authorities would lie in future. He indicated that they could all be dealt with and that all current responsibilities of regional health authorities would go somewhere to a specific responsibility—to a health authority or the regional offices which are being set up or to an even higher responsibility. It is important that that indication is
  182
  followed up—not merely by a statement from Ministers but by putting it into effect, so that the annual report clearly demonstrates how each function, if it has been necessary, is carried out.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) said, we are dealing with the removal of a strategic tier. Many of us believe that strategic matters are best handled by an authority that takes an overall perspective of the issues as they affect the region. A regional perspective is therefore important in several respects.
  Hon. Members have already referred to mental health. We must ensure that strategic facilities are available. The region plays an important role in that regard at the moment. I was a member of the health authority that contemplated the eventual closure of High Royds, a mental institution on the outskirts of Leeds. That institution is interesting as it sits on a large plot of land which, if suitable planning permission were given, would be extremely valuable. The institution was important to the region from a resource point of view. It was the region's job to allocate resources on a strategic basis throughout Yorkshire; therefore, the enormous accumulation of resources at Menston was an important potential asset, the use of which would have been determined strategically on a regional basis.
  I come from the Yorkshire region. Even though the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West—who is not in the Chamber at the moment—has described me as a foreigner—
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Gunnell: Yes, but one understands that, in Yorkshire, the definition of a foreigner is very precise. Under the Yorkshire county cricket club's former rules, I would certainly he regarded as a foreigner. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) would also he regarded as a foreigner.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What about as a KGB agent?
  Mr. Gunnell: No, such accusations have not been levelled at me. I would have to wait a long time and have a more august position than I have at present in order for it to be worth while to make such suggestions.
  From Yorkshire's point of view, the division of the large sum of money to which I have referred, and how it is allocated, is very important. Would it be allocated to mental illness, because mental illness requires huge resources? If we abolished the region and there were a great deal of income from a land sale, could we be sure that that money would be used in the area from which it came or, in the absence of regional authorities, would it go into a national pot?
  From the allocation of resources we know how much can be done within the health service. The allocation of resources is currently a regional function. How will resources be allocated in the health service in future? Will they be allocated through the national health service executive? Will regional policy board members argue for resources for their regions in an executive that considers all the resources and distributes them on a national basis? If savings are made in a particular region, will those resources be allocated within that region'?

  183
  Ministers must have already decided what will happen. They must know how they intend to distribute resources. In the absence of regional health authorities, how will resources be distributed? That point could be covered in an annual report which states how that function of the region is determined. Only if we know how the resources will be allocated can we be sure that they will be distributed with roughly the same results as now.
  I know that you take an interest in such matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I recall the reception that you gave downstairs. You are obviously concerned about the care of those who suffer mental handicap or mental illness. Yesterday, I launched a report by the Matthew Trust which showed how the trust funded, with very small amounts of money, care for people who were mentally ill and had suffered some other hardship.
  5.15 pm
  The trust was concerned with very small amounts of money, but it was clear that a section of people had somehow fallen through the net of our social welfare system. One might say that it is the health authority's job to ensure that those individuals do not fall through the net. However, one might also say that there is a responsibility at every level to ensure that the safety net that we believe exists—hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it exists in the welfare state—is made seamless so that fewer casualties fall through it.
  Many of the people whom I learned of yesterday suffered from mental illness. Many of them had other handicaps—for example, they had been victims of crime. Those people were falling through the net and they clearly needed help. We must ensure that our strategy is right. If the strategy used to be determined in part at regional level, how will it operate in future?
  Regions currently carry out many functions in respect of which we would like a report. When there are local disputes, the arbitration procedures are provided by the region. As we said in Committee, with regard to "The Health of the Nation", regions were given a specific function. Who will carry out that specific task of setting a health promotion strategy in future? Will there be a regional health promotion strategy or will it simply be a strategy set out by the Secretary of State here in the House?
  There are clearly regional factors at play if we consider disease across the nation. I believe that there should be regional health promotion. What will happen in that respect? Although I did not attend yesterday's debate on health care in London, I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State was concerned about centres of excellence. I wrote about the destruction of such centres of excellence and received a letter from the Minister for Health this week. I believe that we can learn lessons from the United States about the preservation of centres of excellence.
  The regions have responsibility for research and development. Where has that responsibility gone or where is it going? What about a region's responsibility for registration? Responsibility for fundholders and their registration is going to the district health authorities. We have already discussed that, so it is not quite at issue now; if, however, there were an annual report, it could have been made plain that that responsibility had been transferred.
  184
  The responsibility for the appointment of community health council chairs currently rests with the region. Who will have that responsibility in future? The appointment of the chairs of community health councils and of those connected with the councils is very important, especially to local communities. When we come to talk about other health service appointments, we will have the benefit of a paper produced by the Secretary of State only this month which says that responsibility lies specifically with individual regional policy board members. We do not know whether responsibility for appointments to community health councils will also lie with regional policy board members.
  A number of questions need to be answered. I would expect that an annual report would be able to say not just what was suggested by the Minister in Committee but where responsibility was exercised and who was exercising it. We need to know what will happen to those people who are working in the regional authority for the north and Yorkshire. We are told that there will be 135 people working initially in Harrogate, with some working in Durham and others elsewhere.
  No doubt, some people will be transferred to the civil service. We need to know where those people are and what tasks they will carry out. We also need to know what tasks will be given to those people who have been transferred elsewhere. What will be done at Durham when the building is built? What will be done at Quarry house? Which matters will be dealt with in Whitehall for which the region is currently responsible?
  In addition, we need to know about savings. My experience of savings brought about by abolition goes back to my time as leader of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, when it was abolished. I was told that the abolition of my county, and five other metropolitan counties, would save £50 million. That does not sound much when it is compared with the £150 million that the Government claim will be saved by this change. It was claimed that the saving was one of the motivating factors for removing democracy and abolishing those authorities.
  A study carried out three years after the abolition of those councils stated that, although it was not possible to say that the abolition had cost a great deal of money, it was certainly not possible to say that it had saved money. The report, produced by the university of Birmingham, suggested that the change had been financially neutral. I want there to be agreement that the forecasts that the Ministers make will be quantified. We must know where they think the savings will come from, as it is not enough to project a global figure of £150 million.
  I can understand that there will be fewer appointments to health boards following the merging of authorities, and therefore I can see where some specific savings will be quantified. I do not believe that those savings will come anything near £150 million, and Ministers must state from where the other savings will come. New clause 2 says that a statement of accounts must be produced before 1 April 1997. that might be a significant month for the Government. They will not be able to last here any longer than that without public approval, but I believe that the public will approve the presence of the Conservative party on the Opposition Benches.
  We know that health service reforms are a costly business. It is now a year and a half since the controller of the Audit Commission said that whether the NHS got value for money from its was a "very legitimate question".

  185
  I asked whether the Audit Commission had been allowed to look at the savings projected in the Bill, because that might have thrown an interesting light on the issue. That question was not answered, so I suspect that the Audit Commission has not been brought into the matter.
  It would be helpful to look at some aspects of management in the NHS. We know that the management of the introduction of the reforms has already cost the best part of £1 billion. Have we had value for money for that amount? I doubt whether many patients would think that we have; I am quite sure that they would have preferred much less to be spent on management changes and much more spent on patient care.
  We are talking about the future, and the Bill will bring about changes in the future. We are told the Bill will save £150 million. Hon. Members should ask for that to be demonstrated after the event so that, even if the changes are not justified in any other way, the Government can show that they have produced the forecast savings.
  The examples which I have been able to raise do not fill me with confidence. I understand the Minister's reluctance to put the new team working for Yorkshire and Humberside in Quarry house. We are told that Quarry house, which is near the centre of Leeds, is not in the middle of the region. I accept that. Harrogate may be a bit better, but that is not the centre of gravity of the region either. That, no doubt, is the argument for going to Durham; but the costs of going there must be regarded in the light of the fact that there is space in the £55 million Quarry house building in Leeds and there is also a building in Harrogate which, for the particular reasons we gave in Committee, will not get the best price in the market at the moment.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The situation is even worse than my hon. Friend outlines. There is, of course, a fourth building—the northern regional headquarters at Walkergate in Newcastle. Instead of having one headquarters per region, the Government—in their great push for efficiency and savings—are giving us four.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. It was remiss of me to have had such a Yorkshire-biased point of view. I ignored the building in Newcastle. [Interruption.] The Speaker admonished Members for going from one constituency to another. I was wondering whether the sacred turf of the Hawthorns in West Bromwich was in her patch, because hon. Members go there from time to time.
  The questions about the costs of change and why there must be an increase in expenditure for a new building in Durham have been unanswered. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), I can say that there are three buildings which are being neglected while a new one is built. That is the antithesis of the suggestions which Ministers usually come up with. There is a strong case to ask Ministers to accept new clause 2, and to be prepared to publish the financial results of their activity.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I have the feeling that I have been here before. The two new clauses are about accountability, and we explored the Bill's lack of accountability in Committee. We talked about democracy, openness,
  186
  accountability and consultation but we have not yet had a proper answer from the Minister of State on any of those issues. That does not surprise me, given his response when asked to define a hospital. If he cannot define what he means by a hospital, how on earth can we expect him to give us straight answers about democracy, openness, accountability and consultation? Is it really too much to ask a Minister what the Bill means and what the Government mean by accountability, openness and democracy?
  The two new clauses are basically no different from what we have discussed in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred to the secret service that operates in Doncaster. He and I share the same regional health authority and trusts, so we can both speak with experience about the lack of openness in our area. Other colleagues have a similar experience in their areas. We have the Doncaster Health Care trust; the district health authority, which is being merged with the family health service authority, piloting what the Bill is about; and the Doncaster Royal and Montagu Hospital trust. Of the three, the Doncaster Royal and Montagu Hospital trust—[Interruption.]
  The Minister might like to listen to what I am about to say because Opposition Members do not often sing the praises of a trust. Of the three, the Doncaster Royal and Montagu trust is the most open and accountable, and invites local Members of Parliament to talk about what it is doing and proposes to do. That is significantly different from the other trust and certainly different from the district health authority.
  New clause 1 seeks to have a report laid before the House. It says:
  "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the activities of the regional offices of the National Health Service Management Executive".
  Those reports must be a valuable feature. What possible harm could they do? Do not we need to know what is happening in our health service? Do not we need to know about the overview of the new regional bodies? Let us not forget that people employed in those bodies will be civil servants. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and justify why we should not have such a report? I see no reason whatever.
  The Minister said earlier that hon. Members table too many parliamentary questions and waste public funds. If we had those reports and could find out what was happening, hon. Members might not need to table so many parliamentary questions. Who knows, the reports may even contain a definition of a hospital. If the Ministers do not know, somebody in the national health service executive may know what constitutes a hospital. I might table a parliamentary question later today asking the Minister to define a hospital, because he did not answer that question in the Chamber this afternoon. I find it incredible.
  Let us not forget that the new bodies, which will be made up of civil servants, will still have a strategic role to play in overviewing their regions. It is important that we have that overview and a report on what is happening. Without a report, how will we know what those people are doing? Although they will report back to the Secretary of State, if a report is not laid before Parliament, we shall not know what is happening in our regions.
  Apart from the Secretary of State, who will monitor the new regional bodies? Will they monitor themselves? A lot of self-monitoring seems to go on in the health service. After all, to be appointed to one of those bodies, it takes

  187
  just a nudge and a wink. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned the Freemasons and he may not have been too far from the truth, because the new trust boards and the district health authorities are like secret societies. No one seems to know how people are appointed to them. A nudge and a wink, a word here or there, and suddenly someone with no experience whatever in the health service is appointed. So long as they are a friend of a friend—they might happen to be a friend of the Tory party or a friend or relative of a Tory Member—they are appointed. We have been round that circle before.
  New clause 2 is about accountability for expenditure in the health service. Again, I see no good reason why we should not have such accountability and why we cannot be told how taxpayers' money is being spent. How on earth are we to scrutinise whether taxpayers are getting value for money? Is the health service to be left to monitor itself?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) discussed the £150 million—or is it £60 million?—of savings that the Bill will make. Nobody seems to know whether savings of £150 million, £60 million or somewhere in between will be made. One reason why the Minister does not want us to have the financial report proposed in new clause 2 is because he does not want us to see that somebody somewhere—perhaps him—got the figure wrong along the way. If we have that report we may discover the truth, which I suspect is that savings of neither £150 million nor even £60 million will be made.
  It is hard to keep a straight face when the Government say that they will save money when they have been responsible for increasing spending on administration in the health service to figures as long as telephone numbers. It is unbelievable how spending on administration has risen.
  The two new clauses are about accountability and openness. We have been round that circle many times and will undoubtedly be round it again because we never get straight answers and Ministers seek to avoid the issue. In my opinion, the Government do not want openness, they do not want democracy and they certainly do not want accountability.
  Let me tell the Minister that people such as those whom I represent want openness, accountability and democracy in the health service; they want to know how their money is spent. The two new clauses will give the power to their Members of Parliament to obtain the answer to that question for them.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Rather perceptively, my notes are headed "NCI", which I assume must stand for "No Conservative in sight". The British public are entitled to draw the pretty obvious conclusion from the fact that not a single member of the Conservative party has come here today to take part in an important debate to defend the Minister's point of view, except for the Minister himself.
  I acknowledge that the Minister is here. He is ever present—apart from during the opening stages of the Bill, when he was unable to take part, and was helpfully described by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) as being ill-tempered and plague-ridden. It is not a description that I recognise of the Minister but, in fairness, his hon. Friend obviously knows him better.
  188
  The Minister no doubt hopes to cut an heroic figure among his parliamentary colleagues, standing alone at the Dispatch Box, holding back the forces of socialism, but the only nationalisation that is being undertaken here today has been undertaken by him, as he nationalises the functions of the regional health authorities by taking them in-house, under the direct control of the state, centralised under his direct personal control, inasmuch as the Secretary of State will allow him to exercise such control.
  Our amendments are modest. They merely seek to hold the Minister accountable for his actions. Specifically, our new clause 2 seeks to hold the Minister accountable for the public money that he spends. That appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition to put before the House. It has not originated in the ranks of the parliamentary Labour party alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) rightly said: it is a perfectly sensible suggestion of the Audit Commission.
  If the Government claim value for money, they have at least a duty to prove the point. Our new clause 2 would require them to do exactly that, no later than April 1997. We might not have felt it necessary to bring new clause 2 before the House had the Minister been more candid in Committee. Not only did he not appear to know the answers to the questions about the amount that he was spending, the amount that he was saving and the ultimate cost or saving to the taxpayer, but he offered us a moving feast of different figures.
  In the first week—I accept that it was not the Minister's fault but that of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, West—we were told that the savings would be £150 million, but the Committee was treated to that figure without any context. No doubt we were all supposed to be overawed by it and to think that it represented good value for money. We then discovered that the figure for savings in Wales was to be £3 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) calculated that, if one took the figure for Wales and applied a population factor to obtain an equivalent figure for England, one would obtain a figure of £50 million.
  The Minister then told us that the true figure that the Government anticipated for eventual savings for England was £60 million. Therefore, more money was to be saved from England, per head of the population, than was to be saved in Wales.
  The Minister knew enough about the figures to treat us to that information, but he was unable to tell us how the figures were calculated. He may have made them up, which is always a possibility, I suppose, or perhaps he had no intention of being candid with the Committee—he wished to keep the information to himself. I hesitate to suggest that his reasoning might have been that the information was commercially confidential, but nowadays, given the direction in which the national health service is going, frankly, one never knows. The Minister has not shared the information with the Committee. Labour Members believe that he should be required to share it with the House.
  The Minister boasts about a saving. On Second Reading, the Bill was accompanied by a money resolution. That money resolution was permissive; its purpose was not to facilitate the saving of money but to facilitate the spending of money, so the Minister is effectively saying to the House that he will need to spend money on implementing the legislation.

  189
  No doubt the Minister's argument is that he spends money now to save it later. That is a perfectly reasonable argument to make; we simply require him to justify it, and we are entitled, as is the country, to draw our own conclusions from the fact that the Minister cannot justify it, or at least has not done so so far.
  5.45pm
  If the Minister is unwilling to justify that argument, are we not entitled to draw some conclusions from the fact that he wishes that information to remain secret? Whatever it is, it is not good conduct; it is not good public administration; it is not parliamentary accountability. Indeed, the Minister is not even able to outline which functions will remain at the regional level, which will be devolved to local level and what the costs will be. If savings are to be made, I think that we are entitled to assume that some functions will be performed less well, perhaps not even performed at all. What functions? So far, the Minister has not said.
  The case for new clause 2 appears to be well made in terms of parliamentary accountability and the good management of public finances alone. There is, however, an even stronger case to explore further—as we seek to do in new clause 1—the strength of the arguments that lie behind the Minister's nationalisation of the functions of regional health authorities.
  The purpose of our new clause is to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament an annual report on the activities of the regional offices of the national health service executive in respect of the duties that will be transferred to them from the abolished regional health authorities. We are simply saying that the Secretary of State should be accountable to Parliament.
  If the Government think that they are justified in proceeding in the way they suggest, let them explain their actions to the House. That appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable stance for any publicly elected representative to take. I am surprised that the Minister does not embrace the opportunity to boast about his achievements, instead of running away from the opportunity. That fills me with doubts and uncertainties about his true motivations.
  Worries have been expressed by my hon. Friends. There are anxieties that the regional offices of the national health service executive will not have the resources or the expertise required to exercise effectively a range of functions—a subject that we explored in Committee, but which it is right to explore again with the Minister, as we received no satisfactory answers. Our fears are more deeply felt because, although staffing levels for those regions are to be similar, the size of the regions are not to be similar.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South cited the specific case of the North and Yorkshire region, as the Minister likes to think of two regions that have been added together. The Minister speaks to the House about efficiency savings. Those efficiency savings will not be found easily in the headquarters building.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South said, there is spare space in Quarry house in Leeds. The region has as an objective the sale of the existing headquarters at Harrogate. There is also an existing headquarters building at Walkergate in Newcastle, and, as
  190
  if three headquarters were not enough for one region, the region intends to build a fourth new building in Durham city to add to its property holdings. I think that people would like the regional health authority to add to the primary and secondary health care it provides, not to its steadily burgeoning portfolio of office buildings.
  We believe that the strategic regional overview of providing and purchasing decisions made by health authorities, GP fundholders and NHS trusts will be carried out in a thin and an episodic manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) raised concerns about services which may not be purchased enthusiastically as priority services in the Government's new marketplace, but which are nevertheless important. My hon. Friend referred to HIV/AIDS and drug dependency units, and my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South made a similar point about mental health care. Those important areas may be downgraded rather than given the attention that they rightly deserve in the Government's new structure.
  Although the argument stands true across the country, as we debated yesterday, I believe that there is a special and specific case for a region-wide overview of health care services in London. That case is extraordinarily well made, and the structures we will be invited to put in place later today will do absolutely nothing to help achieve it—although the Government seem to acknowledge the case for regional structures, albeit nationalised ones, elsewhere in the country.
  Our proposed new clause requires the Minister to report to the House about the outcome of the structural reorganisation. We want to know about the savings, the safety nets and the important functions that are perhaps not being monitored and carried out as well as they should be. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for Members of Parliament from London to draw certain conclusions about a structure which is perfectly all right for regional planning areas but which is not all right for the nation's capital. The Minister's report—if there were to be one—would provide hon. Members with useful evidence for any case that they may wish to make.
  There is a separate issue about training, including the co-ordination and strategic planning of nurses' training. In any market with a purchaser-provider split, it is often difficult to see what driving force will require the purchasing—that is the language that we must use these days—of nurses' training. The Royal College of Nursing has expressed some concerns. It believes that the ever-increasing demand for trained nurses will not be met, and it has pointed out that, since 1987, the number of training places for nurses in the national health service has been cut by 33 per cent. If that trend is being driven not by planning but by the marketplace, it is likely to continue.
  Similar fears have been expressed about the operation of cancer registries and the organisation of cancer screening programmes. That important regional function will be nationalised by the Minister and carried out directly by his Department. It will be supervised by him personally, but I am not sure how reassuring that will be for those who expect the programme to be provided by a regional health authority with clinical decision-making and health care priorities—not driven by the political imperatives which drive Ministers.

  191
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) drew attention to very important regional level public health initiatives. Where will they figure in the Government's marketplace? The Minister is effectively nationalising the people in charge, as the Bill transfers regional directors of public health from the employment of the NHS to the civil service. Regional directors will be not officials with a duty of responsibility to the general public but civil servants with a duty of responsibility to the Minister which, as we have discovered time and again in this place, is quite a different matter.
  The British Medical Association has written to all hon. Members who served on the Committee expressing its concern that the resulting restrictions will curb the necessary freedom of public health officials to speak out, even if it is inconvenient to the Government. It is very difficult for civil servants to do that, because it constitutes a breach of the Official Secrets Act. I suspect that the Minister would be the first to invoke such legislation if it were in his interests to do so.
  That is the sort of behaviour that one would expect of a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party. I see that the Minister is flinching; I thought that he would take it as a compliment, but he obviously considers it an insult to be accused of being an official of the Conservative party.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Deputy chairman.
  Mr. Brown: I am reminded by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, who graces us with his presence, that the Minister was a deputy chairman of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman is clearly taking a close interest in health care provision, and I will move on to facilities for the elderly later. The hon. Gentleman has told me that he has reached the age of retirement, and I for one will miss him very much, because he is my pair. I think that the laws of supply and demand may work against me in the next Parliament, so I will miss him more than he thinks.
  Before turning to those important considerations, I raise again the question of the siting of junior doctors' contracts. As the Minister would be the fast to acknowledge, junior doctors are the cornerstone of secondary health care. The Committee spent some time trying to explore with the Minister where the contracts of junior doctors would be located—would they be held by individual trust hospitals or by a consortia of trust hospitals, or would they be nationalised along with other regional functions and held by the state?
  It was clear to me at the beginning of the Committee process that the Minister did not know the answer to that question. By the end of the process, he had told us that the contracts would be held at a regional level for the time being, and that the situation would be considered further. The BMA was concerned that, if the contracts were held at trust level, the necessary rotation of junior doctors would be affected, and training might not be completed.
  It was clear to Committee members that the Government toyed with the idea of having a consortia of hospital trusts—a consortia of providers—hold the contracts. From the Government's point of view, it is perfectly rational to consider that proposal. Junior doctors are providers of health care, and it fits with the Government's purchaser-provider philosophy that the contracts should be held by the provider. When the
  192
  Government wish to sell off the hospitals to the private sector, the doctors and their contracts will go with them. Having the state hold the contracts at a regional level cuts across the market-based philosophy which is behind the rest of the Government's health care reforms.
  The Government may be retreating from the original structures that constituted their great vision in the mid-1980s when they embarked on this stupidity. That is one possible explanation for their change in approach. We require the Secretary of State to come back to Parliament with a report which sets out whether the restructuring has succeeded. That is the key proposition in new clause 1.
  My hon. Friends have raised correctly—although I accept that it is tangential to the main thrust of the argument—the question of involving universities and medical schools in planning decisions. Moneys are transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Health. The Bill removes the statutory position which was enacted only recently.
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 enabled universities and medical schools to participate in planning and decision-making at regional level. It is perfectly right that we should seek from the Government an explanation as to how the new interface is to work and to require, as we do in new clause 1, the Government to report to Parliament about the effectiveness of the new arrangements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East raised the separate issue of membership of health authorities and the Minister repeated the assurance which I understood him to have given in Committee: that, if a medical school or a dental school was involved, the appropriate person would be considered for membership of the health authority.
  6 pm
  The Minister told us something about the structures of the health authorities and the nature of the people who are to serve upon them, but from my point of view and that of other members of the Committee, that was not enough. He did not tell us about the rest of the composition of the health authority.
  Which other professionals are to be involved and how are the laity to he chosen? Who are they to he? Perhaps Conservative Members are absent from the debate because they are encouraging their friends and relatives and people of equal virtue to fill in their application forms to apply for the new lay posts. Perhaps they have a head start on the rest of the nation, and are trying to get in before the Nolan committee reports. Who knows? I would accept any explanation that the Minister was willing to give the House—perhaps "accept" is putting it too strongly: I would at least listen to it charitably.
  In any event, new clause 1 would require the Minister to report to Parliament on how the structures were working and to defend his decisions when they turned out to be perhaps politically motivated or even sordid.
  The Committee was worried about the co-ordination of vocational training for general practitioners—again that is not easily purchased in the marketplace—and who would undertake responsibility for GP fundholders. We did riot think it right that that function should he handed over to health authorities. That could not he done easily, as health authorities are responsible for the non-fundholders, and in the Secretary of State's new quasi-market, fundholders

  193
  and health authorities are supposed to be competing purchasers, no longer co-operating but fighting over patients—presumably the ones who are not ill, as they are the ones who are worth having in the new marketplace.
  Finally, the question has been raised and not satisfactorily answered as to how on earth hon. Members are to get parliamentary questions answered. The Minister already says that information is not held centrally, and hints that it is available somewhere. We have welters of answers saying exactly that. He suggests that we are not getting answers because we are not framing the questions properly.
  In the spirit of all-party co-operation, I sought from the Minister advice as to how to phrase questions. The example I cited was, how should I phrase a question to discover how many hospitals there were in the country—hospitals for which he is directly responsible to the House? I asked the Minister how many hospitals there are, how many had closed and how many he is planning to close. He said that planning to close a hospital was a hypothetical question. One assumes that there is still some planning in the Department of Health, and that not everything has been thrown to the market.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Perhaps, when he is tabling questions, my hon. Friend ought to go back to basics and ask the question, what is a hospital? [Interruption.] If he starts from there and he gets an answer to that question, he may be able to progress to other questions to which he would like answers.
  Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) advises me that the answer to such a question would probably be that the information is not held centrally. The perfectly reasonable information that I was trying to extract from the Minister was: how many hospitals are there in Britain, how many have closed, and how many is he planning to close?
  Perhaps, in a certain sense, planning is hypothetical, but Ministers have shared their plans with the House before in a candid way and in a spirit of openness and willingness to discuss, perhaps even learn and to listen to suggestions from others. In my experience, however, whenever the Minister suggests closing a hospital, the local halls fill up with citizens who are worried that their hospital will be taken away and most people are against it, which seems more rational that the Minister might expect.
  Not only is he unwilling to share information with us about which hospitals he is planning to close: he goes further in trying to conceal information by saying, as my hon. Friend for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) has just pointed out, that he cannot answer the question, "What is a hospital?" That is Jesuitical in the extreme.
  The Minister gave us no definition of a hospital. The Minister of State is supposed to hold an important office in the national health service, and he does not know what a hospital is. If the Minister does not know what a hospital is, how much confidence can we have in the rest of his legislation? Surely the Minister's lack of knowledge on a pretty fundamental and elementary point cannot reassure my hon. Friends or, indeed, Conservative Members.
  How reassured is the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) that the Minister of State does not know what a hospital is? I have heard the hon. Gentleman
  194
  speak eloquently about hospitals in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman has never had any difficulty in defining what he wanted kept open and wanted the Department to support rather than do down. The same is true of many Conservative Members. Surely they should join us in the Lobby tonight and support our proposition, which at least holds the Minister of State to account, and might even in future require him to explain what a hospital is.
  Mr. Malone: We had an admission from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) that we had run round the same course many times before during the debate. That was two hours ago. He said that we had already run round the course 47 times. Let me say to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that we gave up running round it and started to ramble across it at will during the past 30 minutes or so.
  I shall concentrate on new clause 2, which I did not deal with in my opening remarks, as it was not touched on by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Beckett). If Opposition Members were looking for proof that the savings from the Bill will actually be delivered, I am sorry to tell them from a reading of their amendment they will not get it from that.
  The amendment seeks to compare spending in 1995–96 and 1996–97. As I made clear in Committee, the savings will be made over a slightly longer time scale into 1997–98. We made all the figures perfectly clear in Committee, but I shall return to them for the purpose of absolute clarity during my short wind-up speech.
  Savings are already being made from slimming down regional health authorities in preparation for the transition to regional offices. For example, RHA core staffing has already fallen from nearly 7,900 in July 1992 to about 2,600 in March 1994. Savings are also being made from the integration of the work of DHAs and FHSAs, and in total we expect savings approaching £60 million to be made in 1995–96. There is no great mystery about what will happen thereafter. By 1997–98, when the new structure is fully implemented, the savings will rise to nearly £150 million net per year.
  Opposition Members asked how those savings are to be broken down. More than £100 million-worth of the total saving results from the abolition of RHAs and the consequent reduction and overlap of work between the central Department and the regions. The remainder is due to the replacement of DHAs and FHSAs with health authorities. As for savings in departmental running costs, savings secured from the elimination of functions that currenty overlap between regional health authorities and the NHS executive will also contribute to the saving of some £50 million in the running costs of the Department of Health to be made by 1997–98.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) raised a point that was also raised in Committee, asking whether savings would stay in the region concerned. In the case of certain savings, the answer is yes. All RHA spending, except the amount to be transferred to the Department of Health administration vote for the running costs of the regional offices, will have been devolved to the districts in the region, and will form part of their baselines before decisions are made about allocations to health authorities for 1996–97.

  195
  That relates to the direct part of the spending; as I said in Committee, any other savings that accrue will be available for general health needs. They will be spent on patients, and will be allocated in the normal way.
  New clause 2 is intended to ensure that savings are delivered. The annual departmental report—which, as I said earlier, is a Command Paper and is laid before Parliament—describes in detail the Department's expenditure and activities, including all its responsibilities and all major developments during the previous year. In future, it will also include the effects of the abolition of RHAs. It will be possible to quantify savings, and the House will have an opportunity to consider them in detail.
  The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) apologised for not having been present at the beginning of the debate; no doubt, if he ever returns to the Chamber, he will apologise again for not having been present at the end.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to his own experience of the health service, and described it as extremely good. Let me point out that it is no use Opposition Members always saying that the health service in general is useless—as they do in the House—and then, when narrating their own experiences, saying that it is good. I hope that their experience of the service is coloured by what happens to them when they have to use it.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) made a point about London planning. Health care in London—which was debated at length yesterday—is currently changing: the existence of the London implementation group, which was created to serve a time-limited purpose, is drawing to its conclusion. The hon. Lady feared that there might not be enough drive to ensure proper provision and a proper strategy for London's health care, but I assure her that there will.
  I should point out to the hon. Lady that the organisational structure of London's health service is now much simpler than it was; its former complexity led to the establishment of the implementation group. The four regional health authorities have become two, and, as part of the move to the new, streamlined regional structure, they now incorporate the work of the former outposts.
  All but one or two providers of health care will be trusts by 1 April, including most of the former special health authorities. The health authorities have been brought together to form commissioning agencies, responsible for assessing needs and ensuring that the right balance of services is available in both hospital and community in each area. We also expect a considerable increase in the number of GP fundholders in inner London, with an extension of the 14 per cent. of the population who are already covered to some 24 per cent. by 1 April.
  The role of the London implementation group is now largely completed, except in the case of primary health care: the primary care support force and the primary care
  196
  forum will remain. There is, indeed, a proper London perspective on health matters, and a much simpler structure which will enable that perspective to be implemented.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman has not participated so far, and I was on the point of finishing the speech.
  Mr. Hughes: I was not a member of the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman points out, he did not participate in the Committee stage, either.
  Mr. Hughes: Why?
  Mr. Malone: I shall not go into that, but we missed the presence of the hon. Gentleman's party. I understand that its members were not very excited about making an appearance.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] It is a genuine point of order for the Chair. Is it correct for the Minister to assert that members of my party were not represented in the Standing Committee, given that we were not nominated?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Malone: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that, if members of the hon. Gentleman's party had wished to secure a place on the Committee, they would have been entitled to do so; but they did not take advantage of that entitlement. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can complain to those who manage his party's business affairs, but it is a bit late for him to raise the matter on Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear that this has nothing to do with either the Chair or the debate.
  Mr. Malone: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak to the hon. Gentleman privately after the debate, so that he is certain about the position.
  I think that we have made it clear that there will be sufficient means of examining the savings generated by the reforms. The information will be available in the normal departmental report, which will be discussed in Parliament. Both new clauses are unnecessary, and if the Opposition choose to press them to a vote, I shall ask the House to reject them.
  6.15 pm
  Ms Coffey: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has already sat down. Unless the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech—
  Ms Coffey: I simply wish to ask, with the House's permission—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. She may make another speech if she

  197
  wishes to do so, but the Minister has finished his speech, and she therefore cannot intervene. Perhaps she will wait until a bit later.
  Ms Coffey rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is to speak, she will need the leave of the House.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Ms Coffey: I rise to speak because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear a no? Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I think she has.
  Ms Coffey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be addressed as "Mr. Deputy Speaker", or referred to as the Chair.
  Ms Coffey: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In my earlier speech, I asked some specific questions. I asked, for instance, who would inspect and monitor the community programme for the mentally handicapped. That is a serious issue, and I am deeply disappointed that the Minister did not refer to it: given that the RHAs are to be abolished, it is very pertinent.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 283.

  Division No. 80]

  [6.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Church, Judith

  Alton, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cummings, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell.Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Cabom, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Etherington, Bill

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  198

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Maxton, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Milburn, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Miller, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mudie, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Henderson, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchlirffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pearson, Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jewell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  MacShane, Denis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maddock, Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Mahon, Alice

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marek, Dr John

  Touhig, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Trimble, David

  199

  Turner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wilson, Brian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright Dr Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Peter Mandelson and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dicks, Terry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amess, David

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  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

  BakJry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Booth, Hartley

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kennelh (Ru'clif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Congdon, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  200

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howel, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow West)

  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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  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, Greg (Derby N)

  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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant Piers

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Trend, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Taysrde)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  201

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. David Willetts.

  Yeo, Tim

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

  AMENDMENTS
  Mr. Malone: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 14 and insert—
  '3. Section 12 (supplementary provisions about health authorities) shall be renumbered as subsection (2) of that section and—

  (a) before that subsection as so renumbered insert—

  "(1) Every Health Authority shall make arrangements for securing that they receive from—

  (a) medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives; and

  (b) other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care, advice appropriate for enabling the Health Authority effectively to exercise the functions conferred or imposed on them under or by virtue of this or any other Act.",

  (b) in that subsection as so renumbered,'.

  The amendment arises from a commitment that I made in Committee. I made it because of a general concern felt across the professions involved with medicine that their involvement in health authority decisions should not be left simply as a matter of good practice.
  In response to a full debate in Committee, I made it clear that the amendment would not set out a rigid system of professional advisory committees, because that would simply mean rebuilding the existing structure, which has already proved to be inflexible and which does not encourage arrangements to be tailored to local needs. I made it clear that we would be introducing something new. The existing structure does not take account of the full range of health care professions that need to contribute to a health authority's work. Therefore, the Bill removes the existing regional and district committee structure.
  The amendment will add force to draft health service guidelines entitled, "Professional Involvement in Health Authority Work", on which the Government are consulting. I referred to that in Committee and I am pleased to tell the House that there has been an excellent response to that consultation exercise. The Department has written to 92 organisations asking for their comments and it has circulated the draft guidance widely within the NHS community. A total of 57 responses have so far been received, the vast majority of which have been supportive. For example, the vice-president of the Royal College of Anaesthetists said:
  "The Royal College of Anaesthetists welcomes the guidance … The involvement of doctors and other professionals is essential for the proper planning, development and delivery of optimum health care for patients."
  The executive secretary of the British Orthoptic Society welcomed the fact that
  "the importance of professional input into Health Authority work is recognised."
  The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy said:
  "Broadly, we think the guidance is very helpful."
  202
  A consultant in old-age psychiatry from Southampton community health said:
  "I thought I should write and say how encouraged I was by this Executive Letter … We look forward to the implementation of this letter."
  Several professional bodies, notwithstanding their welcome for the Government's guidance, have said that it is important to secure effective professional involvement over and above the guidance. It is to provide that force, which I recognised in Committee and which was referred to by many hon. Members on the Committee, that we tabled this amendment.
  The guidelines are not rigid. They stress that models should be considered carefully but not copied unquestioningly. They do not prescribe in detail how professional involvement is to be achieved, but they leave in no doubt the importance of that involvement. The amendment will give additional authority to the guidelines by placing on each health authority a duty to make arrangements to ensure that appropriate professional advice is available to them at every stage. Exactly how that advice is obtained is left to individual health authorities to decide. That is where they need flexibility to adapt to local needs.
  A general feeling was expressed that advice must come not just from doctors and nurses but from a range of professions associated with medicine such as physiotherapists, ophthalmic opticians, dentists, pharmacists and dietitians. That point is stressed in the draft guidelines and is made clear in the amendment.
  Hon. Members will wish to know what arrangements will be made to ensure compliance with the new legislation and with the guidelines. Regional offices of the NHS executive will monitor individual health authorities closely, especially in the important early stage when arrangements are being set up. They will require that arrangements have a real impact on health authority work and that health authority employees can be confident of easy access to professional input as necessary for their work.
  I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that the Secretary of State has powers under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to give directions to health authorities with which they must comply. The Government will be willing to use those powers if it becomes necessary to ensure that all health authorities implement the new duty effectively. I make that point specifically to underpin the Government's view and to ensure that our commitment to professional advice is not just written into statute but will become an effective and living element of the way in which health authorities work from day to day.
  There is one further point, which is made clear in the guidelines but which I should like to take the opportunity to emphasise. The arrangements made must command the confidence of professions locally. In the Government's view, that will not be achieved if health authority management seek to control the agenda too tightly. Some concern has been expressed on that point, and it is that concern which I wish to answer.
  It is important that arrangements are flexible enough to allow professionals to initiate discussion on issues of concern to them. One of the representations made by a number of people on the guidelines was: could only the health authority initiate such discussion, or could professional advice be offered if the professional

  203
  organisation wished to take that initiative? I can assure the House that all professionals will have the opportunity to initiate discussions on issues of concern to them. Arrangements will be firmly in place, supported by the amendment, to ensure that such concerns are seriously and carefully considered.
  I am convinced that the amendment will give hon. Members and, more important, professions outside the reassurance that they need and have sought. Its purpose is to ensure that every authority does its work, and is seen properly to do so, by seeking professional advice. I give the House an undertaking that any authority that does not seek such advice or does not listen to it when it is volunteered and discussions are initiated will not be complying with the new statutory duty under the Bill.
  I commend the amendment to the House. It fulfils a number of the concerns that were expressed by hon. Members in Committee. I hope that hon. Members who spoke on the matter will feel that it also fulfils the commitment that I gave in Committee to table a substantive amendment on Report to deal with those matters.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Government plan under the Bill to abolish local and regional advisory committees in England, but are leaving the national advisory framework for Wales in place. In Committee, we challenged the Government on that proposal. In response, they tabled the amendment.
  The Government are making a clear statement in statute about the duty to recognise the importance of involving clinicians in the decision-making process. They apparently accept the importance of clinicians' involvement in the decision-making process in the NHS.
  The Secretary of State was explicit on the point on Second Reading, when she said:
  "Sitting on boards is not the only way for professionals to be involved, nor is it sufficient."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 642.]
  In spite of those words, however, the Bill still contains a provision that abolishes the local advisory machinery. Therefore, although I welcome the Government's amendment, I can give it only a partial welcome. I am happy that the Government have given the consultation of clinicians a force in statute, which may offer health professionals some reassurance, but I cannot understand the decision to proceed with the abolition of the advisory machinery, which facilitates that consultation and which is proposed under the Bill.
  6.45 pm
  The local advisory machinery has wide support. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing have expressed concern about the proposed abolition. The alternative arrangements are still not totally clear. It is only one month since the NHS executive issued its draft guidelines on the matter. Health professionals and their associations have had little chance to consider the guidelines, which were issued well after the legislation abolishing the current machinery. Consultation on the draft is still continuing, so we may not have the final guidelines for some time. Indeed, the Minister told us earlier that he has received only 57 responses so far.
  Although the Secretary of State talks about wanting an integral place for professional advice in the NHS structure, she cannot tell us what that structure might be.
  204
  She has hived off policy making to the NHS executive, and it is the executive, not the Secretary of State, that is making decisions.
  The Secretary of State, therefore, is asking the House to abolish something, yet we are not clear what will replace it. That has been typical of the Government's approach throughout the passage of the Bill, which is vague and lacking in detail. The Royal College of Nursing has described the duty in the amendment as welcome, but a "poor replacement" for the present statutory advisory machinery because it does not specify how or at what level in an organisation such advice should be maintained. There must therefore be reservations about the amendment. Welcome though it is as a small move in the right direction, Labour Members feel that it does not go far enough.
  The Government tabled the amendment to try to reassure professional organisations, but, as the BMA has made clear, without a formal structure to put before the House for consideration, opposition to the changes will inevitably remain.
  The Government appear to justify the abolition of the current machinery on the grounds that, somehow, it is peripheral. Professional associations do not share that view. They have been very supportive of the machinery and are alarmed at the Government's decision to abolish it. We need an alternative if we are to be able to judge the merits of change. To proceed with the abolition of the current arrangements without providing an alternative does not appear to fit in with the Secretary of State's apparent commitment to the importance of professional involvement.
  The amendment goes some way to ensuring compulsion to involve professionals, but Labour Members will want to be sure that the consultation is effective and real and that it is certain to be available to all levels in the NHS—locally, regionally and nationally. In that sense, the Government's proposals are a real disappointment.
  Proper consultation is the only way to ensure effective allocation of resources. Health care purchasers will need to know which treatments are clinically effective and proven. They will need to know a good deal about new treatments before deciding to proceed with the development of those services locally. Members of the medical profession must be involved in the purchasing and development of health services if purchasing is to be effective.
  Without the involvement of the professions in decision making, the efficiency that the Government claim to be pursuing will be difficult to achieve. Purchasing of services can be effective only if managers are aware of the clinical effectiveness of treatments, the difficulties that exist with services or units, the maintenance of quality standards and advice on new procedures and drugs that are available.
  The amendment may go some way to reassuring health care professionals of the Government's intentions, and Labour Members are pleased with the Government's decision to move it, but health care professionals have also stressed the need for a formal mechanism for advice to ensure that the views of clinicians are heard at all levels in the NHS.

  205
  I very much regret that the Government, in spite of their fine words, do not think the matter sufficiently important to introduce it in statute, but I look forward to seeing the final guidelines from the NHS executive.
  Mr. Gunnell: I shall add just a few comments to those that have been made.
  The Minister will recall that I moved amendments in Committee that would have retained the present advisory system, which is working.
  In Committee, the Minister said:
  "The guidelines make it absolutely clear that professional involvement is not an optional extra … Will this be a sticking plaster over a commitment or will it be something real that works on a practical, day-to-day level. I can assure him that it is the latter and that it is something that Ministers understand to be fundamental to health authority work."
  He went on to say that another important point was that
  "the arrangements that are in place are not just tokenism. They do not just go through the motions. Those professional arrangements will have a real impact on health authority work and decision making. On some issues, professional input may be needed which covers several purchasers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A ,7 February 1995; c. 152–3.]
  The Minister gave some commitments, and my reaction is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). The Minister has honoured his commitment but the amendment contains words that need to be firmed up. The consultation period on the draft guidelines, entitled "Professional Involvement in the Health Authority Work", is to end on 28 February. He has so far received 57 responses but I am sure that he will have more by that date, although it is not too far away. The BMA has told me that it has yet to send the Minister its response. That is probably true for nurses, too. Both groups welcome the amendment and are correct to commend it, but some words need further clarification.
  The amendment refers to
  "advice appropriate for enabling the Health Authority effectively to exercise the functions conferred or imposed on them".
  The question that must be asked is who decides the advice to be appropriate? Under the old system, medical advisory groups and other advisory committees representing various groups in the health service decided when they thought advice from them was appropriate. The committees would advise health authorities and, further up the scale, the Secretary of State on what they thought appropriate. In this instance, it is not clear who is to judge the appropriateness. If the Minister wishes to clarify the point, I should be pleased to give way.
  Mr. Malone: I am glad to oblige the hon. Gentleman with a little textual analysis so that his mind may be set at rest. I am grateful to him for reporting to the House at such length the speech that I made in Committee. It would not be sensible to have written all that into the amendment, which I know he is not suggesting should have been done.
  I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention specifically to the amendment. Proposed subsection (1) states:
  "Every Health Authority shall make arrangements for securing that they receive … appropriate advice"
  from various persons and groups. The reasonable interpretation is that health authorities have a statutory obligation to make arrangements "for securing" such advice. The fact that they shall "make arrangements" gives force to the amendment. The amendment goes on to
  206
  state what health authorities will get once they have made the arrangements. It includes in proposed subsection (1)(a) and (b) those to whom the health authority will look for the
  "advice appropriate for enabling the Health Authority effectively to exercise the functions conferred or imposed on them".
  That goes to the heart of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  The point is that health authorities must receive advice; it is not simply a matter of their seeking advice. It can be a two-way process: if the professions believe that they have advice that is appropriate, they will be able to tender it to the health authority. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gunnell: It is helpful, and the professionals involved will have to examine in detail what has been said. The amendment could have been interpreted to mean the subjects where the health authority felt that it was appropriate to have advice. If it in fact refers to when the profession feels that it is appropriate to have advice, the question that arises is what steps will the health authority take to get that advice? Will it set up something akin to an advisory committee? There is certainly a good number of advisory committees at the moment. We still seem to be at a flexible stage in deciding exactly what structure will prove acceptable.
  The Minister has ensured that there is a statutory responsibility to get advice, but what structure within the medical profession will provide that advice? Will it, in a sense, be open season and that anyone who wants to give advice can do so? That would probably not be the most efficient way to proceed but, if a more limited structure were set up, we should need a model for involving the right professionals and professional groupings in the giving of advice. I am seeking merely to ensure that the professions are comfortable with the way in which advice can be offered. Let me cite a specific example.
  We shortly expect the Secretary of State to make a statement on long-term care, about which there has been considerable speculation recently. She might be able to tell us tonight when we can expect it. We do not know whether her guidelines will leave a specific role for health authorities but, in commenting on what has so far emerged from the Department of Health, some people have said that health authorities will have a role in determining what they consider to be appropriate conditions for long-term care. I should have thought it was an issue in which some medical input was necessary. Such cases are often expensive so doctors might want to comment on individual cases as well as the category of people entitled to long-term care under the NHS. It is a very important issue, which is why we await the Secretary of State's statement with some interest.
  I feel that the new arrangements mean that we might be getting closer to the position in the United States, where I lived and where it is essential to have medical insurance offering some hope of long-term care should one be struck with some dreadful, long-term, paralysing illness. However, very few people have a foolproof insurance policy. If we take the view that the health service will in future provide long-term care only if there is some hope of medical improvement or mediation, people will be in a very difficult position if they ever need life-long nursing care.

  207
  We await the Secretary of State's guidance with great interest, but this is just the sort of issue in which the medical profession will want to have an input, for individual cases or in terms of policy for an individual health authority. The question is, at what level should that input be? The Secretary of State might take the view that her guidance is sufficiently clear for there to be no need for medical input, but some matters still need to be clarified. If further clarification is forthcoming, I assume that it will be after the conclusion of the consultation period with the professionals on 28 February.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North in welcoming the proposals. The professionals also welcome them but there are blurred edges which need to be clarified. We hope that when the full views of the professionals are known, the Minister will clarify the position. Perhaps there will be advice on structures for consultation. Perhaps he will make it clear that "appropriate advice" is advice that the professionals feel is appropriate, just as much as it is advice that the health authority or the regional office thinks is appropriate.
  7 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: In some ways, I am reassured that the amendment has no more clarity than most of the other proposals in the Bill. One of the things that has characterised the passage of the Bill is that the Minister has been unable to give us answers. It is always a case of, "Things will evolve", or, "You will hear about that in the future." In the same way, the amendment lacks clarity. It does not describe the mechanism or structure that will enable professional advice to be given to health authorities.
  Like some of my hon. Friends, I have thought about the way in which advice should be given. I thought that it would be wrong if the health authority just picked a doctor whom it knew would go along with whatever view it decided. We would need to get together a number of doctors at local and at regional level so that they could offer their advice. I then thought, "What would we call the groups?" In the end, I thought that the groups could be called, as they are now, local advisory committees and regional advisory committees. If the Minister has other plans, perhaps he will spell them out to us.
  The Minister gives the House a wrong perception when he talks about the people who have responded to his notice about guidelines. He talked about "a consultant". Throughout the Bill's passage, there has always been "a consultant in Newcastle" or "a doctor in Birmingham" to prove the Minister's point. The doctor says that whatever the Government are doing is right. I would like to read in detail all the responses from all the professional bodies. I suspect that they are saying, "Yes, we welcome the amendment, but we welcome it only because it is better than nothing." When the Bill began its passage through the House, the advisory committees were disappearing and nothing had been suggested to take their place.
  I have here a briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which says:
  "This amendment is being proposed in response to concerns about the Bill's abolition of professional advisory committees at district and regional levels … Whilst this improves the legislation, it does not specify how, or at what level within the organisation, such advice should be obtained. It is a poor replacement for the professional advisory machinery that currently exists."
  208
  That is fairly unambiguous. The Royal College of Nursing welcomes the fact that the Government are doing something in response to their concerns, but it does not welcome the changes. It would much prefer the old system to be in operation.
  Nurses provide 80 per cent. of patient care, so there is a real case for saying that they should have some involvement in decisions about purchasing. Should they not have some involvement in determining how the money is spent? They probably have far more involvement than Members of Parliament and far more involvement than many of the people who sit on the boards. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
  "We want professional advice to be integral in the new structure, and we want professional advice to become professional involvement."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 643.]
  I would welcome that; I would love to see professional involvement, because it does not happen at the moment.
  On Second Reading and in Committee, I quoted the fact that of the 240 chairs of family health service authorities and district health authorities, more than half had interests in business, consultancy or finance. That was their background. Of the 240 chairs, only 15 have any sort of medical background. We must ask ourselves whether we are picking the right people. If we do not have on the boards people who have medical experience, we need to ensure that the advisory system is toughened up an awful lot more than would be the case under the amendment.
  I know that the British Medical Association has not responded yet to the Minister. A BMA briefing makes the position clear. It says:
  "There should be comprehensive arrangements for medical advice and it is essential that some formal mechanism should be in place so that the views of doctors can be heard."
  The word "formal" is underlined. We cannot leave it to the health authorities to make their own arrangements. As well as saying that advice should be sought, the mechanism and structure by which advice is sought should be spelt out in statute. If we do not have that mechanism and structure, there will be different systems across the country. Some of them may be adequate, but many will be bad.
  I now turn to the factors that health authorities should take into account when they seek advice. If a health authority intended to purchase obstetric care, the consultant would advise on whether antenatal care, postnatal care and the delivery should be built into the contract. If a health authority was thinking of closing a hospital for the elderly, the GP should advise on the support services that would be needed to allow the elderly patients to live in the community.
  When considering the transfer of prescribing responsibilities, the health authority would need advice on the interface between what should be prescribed by the hospital and what should be prescribed by the GP. Obviously, health authorities need advice on such matters. When considering a contract for prostate surgery, there would be discussions on whether use specialist urology surgeons or general surgeons with an interest in urology.
  It is almost certain that medical advice would have an impact on every business and financial decision—every decision—made in a hospital. The Minister has missed an opportunity here, as he has missed so many opportunities in the Bill, to do something positive in terms of trying to ensure that the medical advice is adequate and available

  209
  to the health authorities. He could have taken such action, but he has not done so. With this amendment, as with the Bill generally, he has failed to grasp the opportunity in front of him.
  Ms Coffey: What interests me about the amendment is proposed subsection (1), which says that health authorities shall make arrangements to ensure that they receive advice from
  "other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care."
  I wonder what that means. I welcome the fact that advice will be sought from medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives, as is right and proper. However, some of my hon. Friends feel that if the Government had wanted the advice of such people to have a big impact, having them as full members of the health authority, with a vote, might have been a better way in which to achieve that aim.
  Leaving that aside, the category covering
  "other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care"
  is not very explicit. In fact, it is extremely vague. I wonder whether the Minister is considering involving users of health care at some point. Although I have a great deal of admiration and respect for professionals, they do not always know what is best. Sometimes, health care user groups have a perfectly valid and important point of view. If the Minister's intention is that
  "other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care"—
  Mr. Malone: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Coffey: Of course.
  Mr. Malone: Let me prick the hon. Lady's bubble, if I may, before we go too far down that line. The answer to her question, in general terms, is probably no. Proposed subsection 1(b) is drafted as widely as it is to take in the whole range of professionals. The Government did not wish to make an exclusive list. We were faced with the problem of certain professions and specialties emerging from time to time and describing themselves in different ways; so it would not have been wise to have been prescriptive. However, I would not try to suggest to the hon. Lady that the amendment would go beyond what it states to another area and cover, for example, areas which are perhaps already covered by community health councils, which are important for the user group to which she refers.
  Ms Coffey: The amendment should cover other areas because although community health councils represent user groups, they do not represent every user group. User groups often change depending on the issues that arise, as I shall illustrate for the Minister.
  The health commission in Stockport and—I think—the health care trust as well, which is the provider of the service, decided to change speech therapy from a school-based service to a clinic-based service. Since then, there have been horrendous difficulties in maintaining even a clinic-based service because of a certain underfunding of speech therapy and when speech therapists have gone on maternity leave, there has been no provision.
  210
  That move from a school to a clinic-based service has had enormous repercussions in the screening of children at nursery level, which, as Minister will be aware, is the best time for screening for possible speech difficulties which impact on children's educational needs. The service relies on parents to take children to clinics for appointments. I may add that, after two appointments, a parent is not offered a further appointment.
  The difficulty that arises, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, is that a child with well-motivated parents will receive that speech therapy service, but a child whose parents have difficulties, sometimes with transport, because not every clinic which has a speech therapist is accessible to every parent, will not receive that service. In fact, in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency, there is no speech therapy provision at all in the local clinic. Essentially, that policy has caused difficulties for those children who are perhaps in most need of speech therapy.
  If there had been an obligation on the health authority to consult a user group, parents and, indeed, nursery and primary school teachers, particular problems with that change in policy would have become evident. Since the health authority saw the change from its point of view—it is a cost-;saving exercise because, obviously, it is easier and cheaper to provide services in a clinic than to pay for speech therapists to visit schools—the policy was changed, which was unfortunate.
  I put part of the problem down to the fact that the appropriate user group—teachers—was not consulted extensively, nor, probably, did the health authority see any reason to consult it extensively. I am not saying that the health authority did not take on board some of the comments made by head teachers, but because it had only to ask, the advice given was not viewed as statutory, and perhaps the health authority evaluated it differently.
  7.15 pm
  Another user group which will become increasingly important is that of carers, especially those who care for people who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill or, indeed, elderly parents at home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, many aspects of health care are yet unresolved. One of the biggest unresolved issues is the separate responsibilities of the health authority and the local social services department to purchase health care for the elderly. There are no clear guidelines on that.
  At the moment, the situation is manageable because the social services have money in their community care budgets to enable the purchase of that health care—although at the expense of other community care—and the health authorities are quite happy for that to continue. The carers, the users of that health care, are not currently involved in any part of the consultation process. The tension exists merely between the health authority and the local social services.
  I am very concerned that, when that tension is resolved and local guidelines are drawn up—it is the Secretary of State's intention that local guidelines should be drawn up, issued and transparent—carers will not have any input. Often, the recipients of health care can tell professionals what will work and what will not work. In giving that advice, they can help to ensure that the available resources are effectively spent. History is littered with examples of professionals having good intentions of achieving a

  211
  certain objective which was not achieved because they failed to take into account something which could have been pointed out by the person who was supposed to receive the service.
  It is most disappointing that the Minister does not feel that the health authority should be asked to make arrangements for securing advice from the users of health care. The community health council has an important role and a different experience from the people who use health care.
  To give yet another example, the most difficult health care to deliver is in the most deprived areas where unemployment is high. It is a major challenge in health promotion to establish structures and strategies that will improve health in those areas. Indeed, health promotion in deprived areas all over the country is disappointing. If it is to be successful, health promotion must involve local people to find out how best screening can be provided or how best people may be persuaded to take advantage of health promotion programmes.
  I would not want the Minister to think for an instant that I think that such promotion would permanently improve health, because it is related to poverty. There will be ill health as long as there is poverty. However, within the remit of health promotion, it is obviously important to ensure that it is used effectively among groups that do not currently take advantage of it, for whatever reason. The health professionals need to consult more extensively and understand why that is happening. Whether as users of health care or not, the health professionals must be consulted.
  I am concerned about the fact that the Minister has not included that important user group. To use that over-used word "partnership", the professionals are part of the partnership for delivering a health strategy in a locality. Health authorities, trusts, local authorities and the users of health care are all involved in that partnership.
  I was also surprised that the Minister said nothing about consulting local social services departments. Although such consultation occurs at officer level to a large extent, there is an enormous variation across the country. The local authority has a prime role in delivering health care through the public services and as an employer. In addition, with the health authority, it is a joint health care purchaser of services for elderly people.
  Although the Government have made some welcome gestures towards consultation, it would have been more welcome if they had included the users of health care, and perhaps local authorities, to underline that partnership and the value of the role of health users and of the local authority as a health provider.
  Mr. Malone: I shall address briefly some of the points that have been raised during the debate. I am grateful even for the grudging response from several Opposition Members who I thought looked at me sceptically in Committee and probably thought, "He'll never bring a detailed amendment before the House on Report." However, I am delighted to honour the undertaking that I gave in Committee.
  I understand that the amendment does not go far enough. It was not designed to address concerns about board membership and making that prescriptive. It is therefore hardly surprising that I am going to fail the
  212
  expectations or wishes of the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) on those points.
  Opposition Members raised several important points about the detail and structure and I draw their attention to the draft guidelines which have been issued for consultation. No fewer than seven principles should inform local arrangements by health authorities for involving professionals. These will vary widely across the range. It is not right to say that the rather rigid and formalistic structure which is not going to be reiterated in the Bill means that it will be a case of come one, come all, and a loose arrangement.
  According to the principles, there must be an emphasis on outputs in the arrangements. They must be timely, relevant and authoritative, and they must improve patient-client care. That is a very important area for professionals to be involved with. There must be clarity about who is to be involved and what is expected of them. There will be an agenda for professionals to follow. The system will not be haphazard.
  There must also be a strong personal commitment to the intended outcomes by those involved. The professionals involved must accept the need for their input to be firmly based on research evidence where that is appropriate. Any old point of view will not do. There will have to be the clearest indication that soundly based evidence is brought to bear.
  There is an underlying principle that those involved must be given access to all relevant available information, including any relevant research-based evidence which may be needed to underpin discussions. It will not be a case of the uninformed talking to the well-informed. There must be a proper sharing of information with professionals. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
  I now come to the real change between those arrangements and the uni-professional activities that were undertaken before. There must be multi-professional, multi-disciplinary teamwork which addresses both the primary and secondary care aspects of any issue.
  That part of the guidance is the nub of what is intended. Teams must be brought together for specific purposes and they must look across the board at the implications of what they are discussing. There must be good communication between those working on an issue and any other related work by the health authority.
  That covers a broad spectrum of what the professionals should consider. It is right to set those points out in guidance and guidelines instead of being entirely prescriptive. It would be wrong to do anything other from the centre than lay out the principles. We do not want to place the health authorities in a straitjacket. We must address the important principles that will underlie the vital matter of consulting professionals.
  I hope that I have gone some way towards convincing Opposition Members that, although the guidelines are not as prescriptive as former arrangements, the principles are very firmly in place and I am sure that they will be broadly welcomed on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Gunnell: The seven principles are set out in the document relating to the involvement of the professionals. That document is out for consultation. The principles

  213
  appear to be sensible, but there will presumably be a response to those principles and thoughts about how one involves the 17 different professional groups identified.
  Mr. Malone: That is right. The principles are not set in concrete. As I said in Committee, and I repeat it tonight, we are talking about draft guidelines. However, the general thrust of the guidelines is clear. While there may be some modification around them, they are very important principles to which we will adhere. There is no suggestion that, as a result of consultation, we will suddenly say, "All these principles should simply be scrapped and we will set this out on a half-page of A4." That is not the Government's intention.
  I was keen to come to the House on Report to honour the commitment that, whatever guidelines are agreed after consultation, they will be give statutory force in the sense of the general obligation to take professional advice. It was right to do that at this stage.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) said that the amendment should be extended to take account of user groups. I said in an intervention that the interests of user groups are partly catered for by CHCs which do extremely important work. I again confirm to the House, as I explained in Committee, that that work will continue under the new arrangements.
  However, that is not all that happens when we take account of the views of consumers and carers. The hon. Member for Stockport specifically and rightly referred to that point. I remind her that the national users and carers monitoring group advises the Department, particularly with regard to the implementation of community care. The Department listens to that very important group, and the interests in that area to which the hon. Lady specifically referred are brought directly to the Department's attention.
  Ms Coffey: I understand that, but surely the Minister is aware that the problem is that there are no national criteria for the delivery of community care locally. There is an enormous variation in terms of criteria in respect of who is going to be accepted for care by a health authority and who is going to be paid for by a social services department. Although a national monitoring group is welcome, it does not address the problem of the local issue and the particular local criteria.
  Mr. Malone: As the hon Lady might anticipate, the purpose of informing nationally is not so that that can be done, everyone goes home and nothing happens. What happens on the ground is influenced in the new structure set out in the Bill. That will involve the regional officers who will ensure that best advice is given through health authorities and so on. There is a flow down from such national advice and, as I said in Committee, guidelines to be published in due course will clarify a number of matters to which the hon. Lady referred.
  In conclusion, I am delighted to be able to bring the amendment to the House on Report. There has been much discussion outside the House about increasing the weight of professional involvement from a range of people whose advice perhaps was previously honoured more in the breach than in the observance. A combination of the statutory power with the guidelines which we will issue once the consultation has been concluded will put that
  214
  right, and will assure all those who are concerned with the best possible delivery of health care and with the performance of health authorities that their voice will be heard, and heard effectively. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

  AMENDMENTS
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 27, at end insert—
  '(2) The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to give directions to such Health Authorities as may be established in Wales, requiring them to act so as to secure—

  (a) the promotion of common standards in the purchasing of equipment for, and design of capital works by, those authorities,

  (b) the publication from time to time of such information, including annual performance targets and details of defective or deficient work by contractors, as is necessary to enable progress towards the achievement of such common standards to be evaluated, and

  (c) the organisation of clinical and non-clinical services on an all-Wales basis where that represents the most efficient and cost-effective means of providing such services.'.

  I am pleased to be able to speak to an amendment that deals specifically with some of the problems pertaining to the application of the Bill in Wales. When one thinks of past major political figures from Wales such as Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan and the contributions which they made to the development of the NHS, it is right that we should have a debate on Wales. No doubt The Sunday Times will run a story next week alleging that Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan were Soviet agents with the code names of "Snow White" and "Taffy", or some such invention in which it specialises.
  There are areas where we are somewhat dissatisfied with the application of the Bill to Wales. The Bill should probably have solved more problems than it does. It comes forward with a raft of measures which try to bridge the long-standing gap between the purchasing of secondary and primary health care. It tries to reflect in statute the equalisation of status between GPs and the primary health care which they represent on the one hand, and the consultants and hospitals on the other—the historic prima donna-shopkeeper split within the medical profession—by merging the health authorities and the family health service authorities. That is okay as far as it goes.
  The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to come back later and to merge those authorities geographically as well, and that is also okay as far as it goes. It would have been better to have some way of debating that now. The amendment attempts to tie down the duties of the Secretary of State further, because there is a plain failure in the way in which the Bill has been drafted, to cover a lot of things which would have been covered had this been proper, competent and timely legislation.
  There should have been coverage of a unified complaints authority, and we try to deal with some aspects of that in the amendment. There should have been some reference to the future of the two special health authorities in Wales. Either merging them or doing whatever it is that the Secretary of State intends to do would at least mean

  215
  that we could debate the authorities. We have also covered that issue in the amendment in the best way we can to ensure that there is some form of debate on the issue.
  Finally, we need to clarify the role of the newly merged health authorities in relation to GP fundholders and other providers, hospital providers and the Welsh Office. It is an eternal triangle between the Department allocating the budget, the GP fundholders and health authorities as purchasers and finally the provider units such as trusts or directly managed hospital and community health care units. Those involved in that eternal triangle—in which the Secretary of State is the hypotenuse—must work out their relationship in an entirely new ball game.
  We have attempted to clarify that matter by giving the Secretary of State a set of duties. The Bill gives the Secretary of State all of the fun, and none of the duties. The fun is that he can decide without much debate after the Bill has reached the statute book how many health authorities there will be in Wales and what their function should be. Of course, he can announce the annual allocation of the budget, but he will not have any duties. We have injected duties into the amendment, so that the Secretary of State can impose duties on the purchasers and providers in the new health care system.
  The Bill, as has been often emphasised by Ministers, is a part of the final piece in the jigsaw of the health care reforms of 1990 and the establishment of trusts and GP fundholders. The effect of all that has been to break up the NHS in Wales into some 200 small businesses, which can buy their own equipment and services and manage their cash flow and capital expenditure, and which are able to save money by more astute purchasing. We have to decide—as taxpayers—what leeway those units will have to deal with that money.
  The Secretary of State must decide how much leeway he wants those 200 small businesses to have in how they spend their money, particularly when they can squeeze some cost savings out of the providers of health care and not spend all of the money that they been given through their capping formula. It is a difficult area for hon. Members. We are responsible to the taxpayers for the way in which the money has been raised, but we must assure taxpayers back in our constituencies that we are sure what has happened to their money.
  The breaking up of the NHS in Wales has led to the creation of 200 small businesses. If we apply that across Britain, we would be talking about several thousand small businesses. We cannot be sure what is happening to all of the money, and that is why we are trying to establish a set of duties for the Secretary of State to try to co-ordinate a system after the Government have broken the NHS into pieces.
  I shall give a simple example of the duties which we want to establish. The Welsh Office has produced documents relating to the general practitioner fundholders steering committee—there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one. The whole purpose of fundholding is to break up the system and allow GPs to do their best to buy health care with their own money; but, as soon as they set up as fundholders, they almost immediately form a steering committee to bring them back together again and to tell them what they ought to be doing.
  From the documents it is obvious that, in the coming financial year, GP fundholders are expected to make savings of some £10 million, and that will be free money for them. If we gross that up for the whole of Great
  216
  Britain, we are talking about £200 million of free money for GP fundholders to spend in ways which we cannot account for. That is why fundholders buying equipment should do so under a direction from the Secretary of State.
  If GP fundholders next year—when they will only be responsible for some 40 per cent. of the patients in Wales—have £10 million to spare, they will have made what is known as efficiency savings, although I do not think the word "efficiency" is used. That is free money, available to GPs to spend as they wish on capital equipment. They can extend their surgeries or buy additional physiotherapy or chiropody equipment. We have no way of registering the equipment, or of telling them that some forms of capital expenditure may benefit their pensions. When a GP retires at 65 or 70 and sells out his share of a practice, his pension may be enhanced by taxpayers' money.
  We need control over the process by which money which we have approved as taxpayers becomes eligible for savings simply by prescribing cheaper drugs or by forcing a harder bargain out of providers. We all want them to try to do that, but not necessarily in such a way that benefits their pension when they, as GPs and self-employed contractors to the health service, retire and sell out to a younger partner. If the practice has been extended three or four times, it will be worth a lot more when the GP sells up at 65 than it would have been if the taxpayer had not enabled him to have the ability to spend on capital equipment.
  The fact that the matter has perplexed the Government is shown in the general practitioners steering group documents. The matter is obviously causing the Government considerable problems in terms of the accountability of GP fundholders for the money that they draw out of the system by extracting "savings". Strangely, non-fundholders make the same savings but do not have the right to spend the money as they want on improved services. That money still belongs to the family health services authorities and is part of the traditional allocation from taxpayers' money. If it is not spent, it returns to the Treasury; if it is spent, the same amount plus an allowance for inflation is allocated the following year.
  The difference in treatment of fundholders and non-fundholders is not logical as there is no evidence that GP fundholders gain more in efficiency than GP non-fundholders. But they are given the benefit of spending taxpayers' money as though it were their own. I admit that they must spend it on patient care but it can be spent in a way that makes a considerable capital gain throughout a GP's career.
  Given that, next year, "free money" will amount to £10 million in Wales and £200 million in Great Britain, we must know what the Minister has to say about it, particularly in the light of all the questions that have been asked in the general practitioners steering group, which was set up by the Welsh Office to try to restore order to the chaos that it created. It is totally bewildering that the Government never foresaw that problem when they proudly set up the GP fundholders scheme in 1990 and announced the creation of those wild cards, which would float freely and be able to negotiate their own bargains.
  The amendment also seeks to provide that, as well as enabling powers that determine how many authorities we need, health authorities should have annual performance targets for themselves and suppliers of equipment, buildings or whatever. That links with the point about the

  217
  need for health professionals to be involved, through local medical committees, in advising on the purchase of X-ray equipment, sterilisers and various aspects of the health services' purchasing functions. There should be a professional input, and we hope that annual performance targets will help.
  In that process, a function exists for at least one all-Wales special health authority. We have tried to frame the amendment to fit in with the enabling pattern of the Bill. Sub-section (c) implies that, ultimately, the Secretary of State has discretion in that matter. It would be nice to have the whole Bill before us so that we could see the detail of all the practical implications. The enabling style of legislation that is becoming increasingly common makes debate at this stage far more difficult than in the past.
  The amendment seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to set out clearly for those in the health service what the performance of an all-Wales health authority should be. There are two such authorities at the moment, but we do not say whether there should be one or two. We say that, where the benefit of having an all-Wales health authority is evident, the Secretary of State should not be held back by a dogmatic aversion to an all-Wales health authority such as we have now. At present, dogma seems to drive the exercise.
  At the last Welsh Grand Committee but one in June last year, the Secretary of State told the Committee that he did not like the structure of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, which has clinical and non-clinical aspects. At that time, 1,000 people worked in the non-clinical part at the new headquarters building at Cardiff bay. The Secretary of State said that he would market test the non-clinical part of that outfit.
  Market testing is Government policy, and the Government do not require the House's authority to carry it out. But having announced that he would market-test the authority, the Secretary of State engaged not in market testing but in his own version of market testing—a game of "heads I win, tails you lose". The aspects of the authority which he wants offered up to the private sector are not allowed to compete against the private sector. People in those jobs have been told that it is not market testing in the usual sense. It is a new phoney version of market testing in which they are not allowed to make an in-house bid.
  The staff are extremely upset about that, because they were led to believe that the authority would be market-tested. A subsequent ministerial instruction appears to have been given to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority that there can be no in-house bids. That has not happened with the authority of this House. We have not come across that framework or any legislative backing for a "market testing exercise"—those are not my words but the words of the Secretary of State in the Welsh Grand Committee last year when that policy was announced—but it has subsequently been introduced by the actions of the Secretary of State, who says that his version of market testing involves no in-house bids.
  7.45 pm
  The staff are wondering what they should do. Should they simply resign and just give up? They have suggested that, if they cannot engage in a classic in-house bid, as
  218
  would normally be the case in market testing, they could try to privatise themselves so that they could bid for their jobs against outside contractors. But they have been told that they can have no assistance for doing that.
  Normally, the civil service and public agencies are allowed to employ accountants and legal advisers, but in this case they are being denied assistance and have been told that it will be strictly private contractors bidding for their jobs. That could result in no more than 100 people working at the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in 18 months' time. Indeed, I am told that that is the Government's estimate.
  Another oddity that I should draw to the attention of the House, as it is relevant to subsection (c), is that among the people who have inquired about bidding for a large part of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is W.S. Atkins and Partners, a company that is on a cautionary list published by the Department. The Welsh Office has told the authority that, except in exception circumstances for small jobs, it cannot use the company for hospital design work because it is responsible for the two major hospital design disasters of the modern Welsh health service, in Gwynedd and, before that, at the University Hospital of Wales, and it was required to make out-of-court settlements to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority with respect to those design disasters. Although it is on a cautionary list, sent on the Department's instructions to the authority, it is allowed to make an inquiry into buying the whole service and could take over hospital design services. That is the height of absurdity.
  As we said earlier, we need a clear list of the minimum standards required within the health service. Contractors are used by health authorities throughout Wales, and they must abide by a minimum standard set by the Department. Nowhere is the need for standards more clearly illustrated than by the appalling case of the stillborn baby who was transported from Wrexham Maelor hospital to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff for pathological examination. It took sixteen and a half hours to travel by private courier from Wrexham to Cardiff. The firm did not say how long it would take to reach Cardiff or whether it would go direct, and the package containing the stillborn baby appeared to have been left outside in the rain. That is why the package partly broke open when it arrived in Cardiff.
  How can it take 16 and a half hours for a package of that sensitivity to travel a journey that most of us know takes only four hours these days? That courier firm should not be on any private contractor list for any health trust, hospital or health authority anywhere in Wales. We need common standards and we need a clear complaints and public inquiry procedure to ensure that those matters are brought out into the open and not squashed.
  Dr. John Marek: My hon. Friend referred to the incident concerning the stillborn baby in Wrexham. The health authority produced a good report, in which it admitted that it was at fault, but of course it did not explain the length of time that it took for the baby to reach Cardiff, how it went and the instructions that were given to the private courier firm. However, the health authority has said that it will not use private courier firms in future, which is a good thing.

  219
  I asked the Welsh Office whether it would issue guidelines and at the time it said that it would not. Will the Minister reconsider that? If there is a case for issuing guidelines to hospitals in Wales, that surely must be it, and it is also a recommendation for amendment No. 5.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for using that argument, as the hospital is in his constituency and he has drawn attention to the need to set minimum guidelines. When one has an awful story of that type—
  Mr. Richards: I wish to clear up that matter, as it obviously was a ghastly incident, which I am sure everyone in the House regrets. The trust has prepared a report about that unfortunate incident. That report is with my Department and we are examining it carefully. If anything can or should he done or needs to be done, obviously we will do it. I do not think that we want to go much further on that point.
  Mr. Morgan: Obviously, something must be done; but it is not adequate for the Minister to say that he is considering it in the Department to discover whether anything needs to be done. Obviously something must be done; it is merely a matter of trying to decide exactly what it is.
  From the point of view of amendment No. 5, it is obvious that it is now up to the Welsh Office to set minimum standards and not simply to leave the setting of standards to each hospital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, the Wrexham Maelor trust itself prepared a report. It was an internal report, but it has been placed in the Library of the House and we have been able to read it. It is evident that the report tends to skip the critical facts—the exact way in which the package got rained on and the exact way in which a package of that sensitivity could possibly be transported to Cardiff in such a way that it took sixteen and a half hours to do a four-hour journey.
  Mr. Allan Rogers:I accept that the issue is extremely important, but I caution my hon. Friend not to labour the Welsh Office with tackling issues that would perhaps best be tackled at trust level. As long as the trusts exist, I should have thought that we should say to them, "Carry out your job properly."
  I would hate to think that in future the Welsh Office, which has great difficulties in coping with its job at present, a fact of which we are manifestly aware, will start laying down standards for everything. That is one of the big problems that we should consider as regards the distribution of effort throughout Wales and the level at which it is carried out.
  Mr. Morgan: That is the most backhanded compliment to the Welsh Office that I have heard in my time.
  We have mentioned the question of the way that one provides a form of health service in Wales in which we try to give people incentives to improve their efficiency but not necessarily resulting in those people doing much better out of it financially than before. The Government have converted people into quasi small businesses in a quasi-market. We are not happy with that.
  I think that some sort of warning system is being given to me, but I am not quite sure how it has been worked out. A new form of mathematics is being used in the timing mechanism here.
  220
  The contrast could not be wider than on the issue of the blood transfusion service in Wales—an all-Wales service, which is run by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. Uncertainty remains as to what will happen to it. The Secretary of State has said that, for the time being, it will remain under the care of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, but when we are engaged in the process of primary legislation of that type, we do not want references to what the Secretary of State will do for the time being; we want to know what the Secretary of State will do.
  The donor donates free of charge to the blood transfusion service. The costs that arise are simply the on-costs of the blood transfusion service itself, which governs what happens when the blood is passed on and processed or otherwise for use in operations. However, it is a free service. That is in total contrast with the increasing business and quasi market climate that the Government have created—a broken-up health service with everyone acting as their own business managers in a way that contrasts starkly with the ideas that Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan originally had when they made a great contribution to the social system of the country by setting up the national health service.
  That is why people in Wales feel especially strongly that the health service should remain a unified national health service, and that is why we have tabled the amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Richards: First, I should like to reply to one or two of the arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The Bill does not deal with special health authorities, as those are established by order and are not affected by the measure that we are discussing.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Richards: If I must.
  Mr. Rowlands: As we are in Committee, would it not be a better idea for the Minister to listen to the debate first and listen to an expansion of the case by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) before trying to reply to it?
  Mr. Richards: No; we are on Report. If I feel that I need to speak after the hon. Member for Cardiff, West makes a unique contribution to the Bill, I shall decide to do so at that time if it is appropriate.
  Fresh powers are not needed to deal with the special health authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority or the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. Indeed, I am fascinated that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who has a distaste for quangos, should wish to create what would, in effect, be a super health quango for Wales. It is not in keeping with his general distaste for health authorities.
  Mr. Morgan: Can the Minister confirm that it would result in the saving of one quango, with all the board expenses that that involves?
  Mr. Richards: It would not at all result in the saving of one quango. It would create a quango at least three times as large as the quango that we have already.
  The proposals on the relationship between health authorities and GP fundholders will be worked up in the next few months in consultations among those involved.

  221
  That work will consider accountability issues in detail, and the general practitioners steering group, to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred, is part of that process.
  The amendment is unnecessary to achieve the efficient and effective delivery of services. In the case of capital works, it would, in any event, not secure what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West seeks, as it does not acknowledge that the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, which is a special health authority, and NHS trusts have the key roles in contracts on capital works. In the case of capital works, it would add to the activities of health authorities and create a further tier of responsibilities, with additional bureaucratic costs cutting across the functions of NHS trusts. The design and implementation of capital works are subject to the law governing contracts between the NHS organisation concerned and the firm carrying out the work.
  Standards for the design of health buildings are published by NHS Estates and the Welsh Office and are common to England and Wales. Those include health building notes, health technical memoranda and health facility notes, which are used by designers, whether in the public or the private sector.
  Mr. Rogers: With the health trusts themselves being responsible for the placing of contracts for capital works, is the Minister now saying that they are bound to stick to the designs and specifications as laid down in the standards that he has just said are appropriate for Wales and England?
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my first sentence. Standards are published by NHS Estates and the Welsh Office and are common to England and Wales. They include health building notes, health technical memoranda and health facility notes.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
  8 pm
  Mr. Richards: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I think that I have made that point perfectly clear.
  The documents are all available through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study them, he is welcome to do so. Each development is project managed carefully. An evaluation is required for all capital projects which should identify important lessons in the planning, design, cost control and procurement of schemes, as well as in the use of the facilities.
  The private sector undertook 30 per cent. of the contracts placed for design over the past five years. The vast majority comply with all conditions and, where performance of contractors is considered unsatisfactory, any failures are pursued in line with the contract in the first instance; that would include action to remedy defective or deficient work by contractors.
  The Welsh Office is made aware of the conclusions of evaluations of all projects. That will continue whatever the outcome of the review of the EstateCare Group within
  222
  the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. What the amendment seeks to achieve is already undertaken and, therefore, it is unnecessary.
  Mr. Morgan: I think that the Minister has covered only hospital works. The departmental GP fundholders steering group refers in its document to the savings that GP fundholders can make. In paragraph 16, it says:
  "Savings must be used for the benefit of the patients of the practice. This statutory requirement allows the purchase of equipment and improvement of practice premises."
  The question of what happens to the "free money" that GP fundholders have—it was £4.7 million in the last financial year, it is about £7 million this year and it will be about £10 million next year, and it can be spent on premises—applies also but, unfortunately, it is not covered by what the Minister has said.
  Mr. Richards: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should speak in that way about savings that can be, and are, made by GP fundholders. He has said that any savings made—considerable savings can be made—should be used for the benefit of patients. Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes any development whereby more resources are made available to patients. I know how the hon. Gentleman will reply; but before he says that premises should or should not be included, I remind him that even the development of premises can be beneficial to patients—particularly if it means that consultants can visit GP fundholding practices to consult patients.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The amendment covers the way in which general practitioners extend their practices with the "free money". Unfortunately, there is nothing to oblige them to use the "free money". The departmental GP fundholders steering group document says:
  "Holding large cash balances is seen by some as an unproductive use of resources".
  They are the words of the Welsh Office. The document continues:
  "Is this the case and, if so, is there a risk that if this continues it will lead to criticism because it denies patients treatment?"
  They are not my words; they are the words of the GP fundholders steering group.
  Mr. Richards: With respect to the hon. Gentleman—I do not intend to pursue the point any further with him—I believe that that was a rhetorical question within the steering group document; it was not a statement.
  The Welsh Office is currently consulting on proposals for the future management of three clinical services—the blood transfusion service, the artificial limb and appliance service and Breast Test Wales—currently managed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. The consultation document makes it clear that the proposals are aimed at ensuring that the services develop in response to patients' needs, and that improvements in efficiency are reinvested in patient care.
  They also indicate that long-term programmes such as Breast Test Wales's contribution to the UK evaluation programme of screening as a means of treating cancer will be fully protected and that Wales will continue to co-operate with sister organisations elsewhere in the UK, for example, the blood transfusion service with the National Blood Authority. Assurances have been given about the continuing all-Wales requirements of the artificial limb and appliance service.

  223
  No final decisions have been taken on the proposals or the detailed issues which are out for consultation. We will take final decisions in the light of comments received. A reasonable period has been allowed for consultation and comments have been invited by 23 February. I reject the suggestion from some quarters that, because it took some months to work up proposals, a similar amount of time must be spent on consultation.
  I do not wish to anticipate decisions on the three clinical services delivered by the common services authority. Clearly there is merit in placing them in NHS organisations with relevant clinical expertise, although we do not propose any change in the current arrangement for the blood transfusion service for the time being. As the House is aware, their location within the common services authority is for management purposes only.
  Finally, it might be helpful if I set out the approach to the provision of clinical and non-clinical services generally. In the case of clinical services, decisions will be taken with a view to securing the most efficient and cost-effective results. Health authorities will commission services on that basis, and where it is appropriate for more than one to purchase together for a particular service, they will do so. With only five authorities in place from April 1996, subject to the passing of the Bill it will be possible for them to establish an all-Wales consortia to do so if that is appropriate.
  I am glad to say that progress is being made on the work which has been under way within the common services authority to bring about market testing and the possible privatisation of non-clinical services. I wish to bring matters to a conclusion, and I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, so that NHS trusts have the opportunity to purchase support services—information technology, supplies, estate design and maintenance—in the most cost-effective manner.
  The establishment of NHS trusts means that decisions should be taken at the hospital level. Where it can be shown that there is an essential need to deliver services on an all-Wales basis, one option would be for authorities and trusts to create consortia. The common services authority accumulated a number of services before trusts were established and, therefore, there is no criticism intended of the staff concerned. We are now placing responsibility on trusts to obtain their services in a cost-effective manner.
  Options for handling IT, supplies, estates design and maintenance will be ready for consideration in the next two months or so and, following that, tenders will be invited, as appropriate, for elements of activity. Until those exercises are completed, I cannot speculate on the outcome. However, I can assure the House that the whole exercise will be completed in the next financial year. The common services authority has already told its staff that my right hon. Friend wishes to have a small organisation in place by April 1997.
  The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong when he said that my Department had sent instructions to the common services authority to say that in-house bids would not be entertained. That is quite untrue: in-house bids will be allowed. I must stress that the April 1997 date has been set to allow for all detailed implementation arrangements to be carried through.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister clarify what kind of in-house hid he means? I illustrated two kinds in my
  224
  remarks. Is he referring to the conventional kind of market-testing approach, whereby an in-house bid from within the civil service or a public agency is allowed; or does he mean a situation where the in-house team is allowed to buy itself out in a management-employee buy-out? If that is so, why has it not been given the legal and accountancy assistance which is normal in those circumstances to permit it to make a viable in-house bid outside involving the same people?
  Mr. Richards: I was responding to the hon. Gentleman's comments because he asserted that the people already working within the common services authority would be excluded from making any form of bid. Without prescribing one form or another, they will not be excluded in the way that the hon. Gentleman implied.
  There may be a need to consider with health authorities and NHS trusts how consortia can be established to run some of the services now located within the common services authority, and I would not wish at this stage to give an indication of the ultimate size of that organisation.
  I share many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. In particular, I was delighted that at the start of his remarks he welcomed the principle of the Bill of merging the district health authorities and the family health services authorities in Wales. There is agreement between us that delivering services in an efficient and cost-effective way is of paramount importance. I have outlined how we intend to achieve that for the reasons I stated. It is not necessary, however, to include such provision in the Bill, and I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Rogers: I shall be brief. The Minister ended his speech on a note of critical importance to any part of the reorganisation that is to take place, with his reference to efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Opposition accept that that is necessary, but quality standards and clinical effectiveness are also necessary in a national health service. A drive simply for efficiency and cost-effectiveness by a group of accountants, politicians or bureaucrats is losing sight of what the national health service is all about. Quality standards and clinical effectiveness are equally important. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has arrived to hear my pearls of wisdom this evening. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, she came back especially to listen to me.
  I have a little problem with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, in that I am always concerned about over-centralisation. As I said earlier, the Welsh Office has great difficulty in coping with its functions and on occasions it appears to be breaking down. I hesitate to transfer willy-nilly all sorts of functions to the Welsh Office.
  If there is to be a centrally imposed direction on the trusts, whether it be at health authority level or from the Welsh Office, it ought to be consistent, coherent and agreed generally with those who have to provide the services to the patients. The measure is not about good order in the Welsh Office, in health authorities or in the management of trusts, but about delivering services to patients.
  Lastly, in addition to being consistent, coherent and generally agreed, decisions must be made swiftly. One of the problems that practitioners face now, particularly in

  225
  relation to standards being set across the board, is that the time taken to set those standards and implement them is quite inordinate.
  There is no doubt at all that all-Wales services are appropriate—for instance, in genetics and national screening programmes. Breast Test Wales is a classic example of where it is necessary to carry out comparative epidemiological examinations of the facilities that are provided. Of course we have a special point—as I am sure the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is aware—in carrying out certain clinical facilities, but north Wales is often far better served from Mersey, the north-west and the west midlands.
  I would hate us to continue talking about all-Wales provision of services on a nationalistic basis when services would be better provided from across the border in a much more efficient and coherent way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has a different perspective on the delivery of national services as such, but I am quite sure that the patients in north Wales, who are more crucial than any artificial boundaries, would appreciate the maintenance of the high-quality service often given by hospitals in Liverpool and Manchester to north-east Wales.
  My hon. Friend was right to have tabled the amendment because there is enormous concern among health service providers in Wales about the size of the common services authority. I was pleased to hear the Minister saying that he was seeking to make sophisticated or to streamline the functions of that organisation. We have witnessed central management costs spiralling upwards, while at the same time there has been much pressure on reducing management costs in the NHS in Wales.
  8.15 pm
  I have been given to understand that there has been little consultation with NHS Wales on the future of the common services authority, but I take hope from what the Minister has said. If he carries out what he has promised, I am sure that some of the present fears will be overcome.
  I said a little earlier that the problem of long time scales—for instance, in respect of the design of capital works by the CSA—could be resolved if there were proper dispersion of work to the appropriate level. There is evidence that the private sector could reduce those time scales without necessarily reducing the quality or the standard of the work, but I am concerned that certain standards are set.
  I tried to intervene during the Minister's speech when he spoke about the standards that are evidently relevant for England and Wales in respect of designs and specifications. If he made those standards mandatory on trusts, as they will be drawing up the designs and contracting out capital works, that is the best level at which to implement them; on the other hand, if a trust feels that it can aim for a lower standard and lower specifications simply to save money, we shall again reduce the service to patients.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I can think of no better example of his point than the siting of the Prince Phillip hospital in Llanelli, which was built on the site of two
  226
  former coal shafts. As a consequence, it cost the trust and/or the Welsh Office some £800,000 to ensure that the site was safe before the hospital could be built.
  Mr. Rogers: As an engineer and geologist by profession, when I had a proper job, I fully appreciate the problems that the designer might have had. I am still waiting for the Dungeness power station to fall down.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unless standards are given and specifications followed, once they are diluted or are brought down to the level of health trusts, the in-house design capability will be inadequate to ensure that problems such as the incident that my hon. Friend has outlined do not take place.
  Mr. Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because the Government have taken some rather stupid decisions—such as the transfer of all the coal records from south Wales to Bretby—when hospital trusts or any other trusts wish to establish new buildings, the cost of finding those records and seeing what they say adds enormously to the costs and poses difficulties, not only to the health service in Wales but, indeed, to everyone else?
  Mr. Rogers: I entirely agree. That is why I hesitate to support the offloading of functions to the Welsh Office. The present Minister, of course, is faultless; but before he entered his post, some very dubious decisions were made.
  We may talk of cost, efficiency, effectiveness, structures and the specification of contracts, but ultimately those who use the national health service will be affected by our decisions. We have a duty to deliver the best possible service. If that can be done better at Welsh Office level, fine, but it would be better still for it to be done at trust level. I have serious doubts about the advisability of establishing too many decision makers: one may end up simply passing the buck to the others.
  I shall support the amendment, but I consider it deficient in some respects. It refers, for instance, to
  "a duty to give directions to such Health Authorities as may be established".
  Will those health authorities have common standards, or will they decide individually on different standards, thus creating a patchwork quilt of provision in Wales?
  Mr. Morgan: Both.
  Mr. Rogers: If that is so, and order will be maintained, I shall be quite happy; but if direction is to be centrally imposed, it must be consistent, coherent and generally agreed, and decisions must be made swiftly.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am pleased to be able to speak in a debate that gives us a rare opportunity to consider some aspects of the health service in Wales. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for drawing our attention to a number of important issues.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for giving me an opportunity to respond to some of the points that he made. He seemed to suggest that I would not welcome cross-border co-operation; it may come as a nice surprise to him that I have always welcomed the fact that many of my constituents—and, indeed, members of my family—have benefited from the specialty services that exist in Merseyside—at the Clatterbridge centre, the Christie hospital and elsewhere. Long may that continue.

  227
  The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to learn that my wife received an excellent training at the royal infirmary in Liverpool. I have no problem with the idea of cross-border movements, in terms of either specialties or staff. Let me go a little further than the hon. Member for Rhondda, and suggest that we need to adopt a strategic approach to both clinical and non-clinical health matters in Wales.
  The decision of the Welsh Office to market-test the Welsh Health Common Services Authority has caused great problems in Gwynedd. In preparation for the market-testing exercise, the authority decided to provide the Welsh Office with some examples of ways in which it could cut costs. It suggested, for instance, that the stores provision at Ysbyty Gwynedd should be closed, and that medical and other supplies should be provided from a store in Denbigh in the Vale of Clwyd. I have no problems with that; I know the area well, having lived there for many years, and my wife's family originated there.
  Mr. Morgan: Before she went to Liverpool.
  Mr. Jones: And since she went to Liverpool. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that I support his amendment. If he wants me to attack it, however, he is going the right way about it—particularly if he says some nasty things about my better half.
  If medical and other supplies are transferred from Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor to Denbigh, it will not be possible to provide the same standard of service or to do so more efficiently. When Ysbyty Gwynedd was built in 1970, the stores were built alongside it. That meant that the wards were built without sufficient capacity to take on-site medical supplies. If the move takes place, there will not be enough space in the wards at Ysbyty Gwynedd to maintain sufficient supplies from time to time. Supplies will have to be transferred from the Vale of Clwyd by road, which will mean increased road traffic and increased costs.
  That is the sort of decision that the Welsh Health Common Services Authority has already made, in an attempt to demonstrate to the Welsh Office that it can save money. But what will be the cost to the people of Gwynedd, who need a health service that is properly resourced and has sufficient capacity within the county to deliver medical and other supplies?
  During the summer months in particular, it may be difficult for supplies to be brought quickly from the Vale of Clwyd to Bangor and other Gwynedd hospitals at times of emergency. We disapprove of the kind of decisions that are now being made, but if the amendment were accepted we could deal with the position, because the Welsh Office would have to give the authority guidelines on how it should discharge its responsibilities.
  It is, after all, the responsibility of Government to ensure that medical and other supplies are available to hospitals when they need them. What will happen under market testing? If a private firm says that it will provide the services that the common health services authority currently operates, what comeback will there be if it proves unable to deliver those services?
  The Minister said that the Government were currently considering only market testing of non-clinical supplies, and I accept that; but this is a first step towards further developments. Despite what some hon. Members have said, I will support the amendment, and urge the
  228
  Government to do the same. From time to time, strategic decisions will have to be made that can be taken only at an all-Wales level.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: The possibility of establishing fewer health authorities in Wales is one of the main aspects of the amendment. My constituency contains what is probably the smallest health authority currently operating in Wales—if not in England and Wales—and I am extremely concerned about the impact that the Bill may have not only on my constituency but on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
  This year's announcement of funds for the Pembrokeshire health authority was linked with the announcement relating to East Dyfed. In effect, a Dyfed health authority has already been created. But the indications are that Dyfed and Powys—the old, soon to be the former counties—will be united in a huge health authority, which would cover more than 50 per cent. of the service in Wales. Hon. Members who do not know Wales may find it interesting that it would be far quicker for me to travel from the extremity of my constituency to this place, than to travel from one extremity of the proposed health authority to the other side. It would probably take me twice as long to get from the far west of Dyfed to the far east of Powys than to travel to this place.
  The objection to the Bill involves the lack of accountability inherent in it. In relation to local government in Wales and England, the Government are saying that small is beautiful and that local authorities should be getting closer to their electorate and to the people they represent. Unitary authorities will be in place in Wales from April 1996. It is remarkable that, in relation to the provision of health care, the Welsh Office may be saying the complete opposite: that big is beautiful, and that being further away from patients and people who need care is a far better system. That is extremely worrying.
  8.30 pm
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House objected to the possibility of a reduction in the number of police authorities in Wales because of the lack of accountability, and because of the extremely effective performance of the smaller, in particular, rural police authorities. I would be worried if, because of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales could create extremely large health authorities.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Government are proposing to reduce the number of health authorities in Wales from 17 to five, it is vital to realise that some hospital trusts in Wales are relatively small, and that it would be helpful if some of them were amalgamated? Their delivery of services could then be improved, and the sort of duplication that occurs in some of them would not arise.
  Mr. Ainger: I agree. I welcome the amalgamation of district health authorities with family health services authorities. I am concerned, however, that combining those authorities will create large organisations, which will in effect, because of the enormous areas involved, become extremely remote and difficult to organise. That

  229
  is certainly the case with Dyfed-Powys, which I am concerned about. If the Secretary of State goes down the road of combining FHSAs with district health authorities, that will obviously cause administrative problems. Those two organisations have different roles.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in some of what he is saying, but we should remember that we are seeking to amend the awful system that was created by a Tory Government in 1973. Before that, far more effective and closer delivery of health services took place. There were, for instance, hospital management committees, which were much more appropriate for some areas. The false structure set up by the Conservatives in 1973 has been so inefficient and so bad that it must be amended. It was amended once, and it is still being amended now. I still would not want large authorities to operate to the detriment of small units, with a personal delivery at hospital level.
  Mr. Ainger: I agree. We must remember that the Bill is relevant only to health authorities—the purchasing authorities—and not to the running of hospitals. They must be sensitive to patient needs, because they are the ones that will be purchasing health care from the various trusts and from directly managed units. I do not want to be accused of making an awful pun, but they must obviously have their fingers on the pulse of what is required in their areas.
  It is important to remember that it is only a couple of years since reorganisation. In Pembrokeshire, we saw the disastrous effects of that reorganisation, which followed the establishment of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust and of the purchaser-provider split.
  In September 1993, Pembrokeshire NHS trust and Pembrokeshire health authority, prompted behind the scenes by the Welsh Office, called in independent advisers to sort out the problem where they could not agree a contract between themselves. They had to approach the chief executive of Clwyd health authority, Mr. Brian Jones, and the finance director of the Wrexham Maelor hospital trust, Mr. David Galley, to consider what had happened since the establishment of the trust and, effectively, the emasculation of the then Pembrokeshire health authority.
  It was an interesting report. Those two men spent three months in Pembrokeshire considering in great detail what had happened immediately before and immediately after the establishment of the trust. Their report makes interesting reading. It is certainly worth quoting. This is what those two experts in health care had to say about that reorganisation:
  "the residents of Pembrokeshire did not receive any increase in the level of services provided, although increased levels of expenditure were taking place."
  Pembrokeshire health authority lost virtually all its members of staff, bar two, to the new trust, because of the way in which purchasing staff had been transferred to the trust from the authority.
  The report continues:
  "a minimum of £750,000 has been diverted from purchasing health care for the Pembrokeshire population into additional purchasing management costs."
  The money went into administration, not health care.
  230
  We should not forget that the report was written by people who had spent virtually all of their working lives in the NHS and who were senior individuals. They went:
  "there appears to have been a significant increase in the cost of employing a number of senior managers within the trust during its first year of operation."
  Basically, that related to one particular individual, the then chief executive of Pembrokeshire NHS trust. Before the establishment of the trust, he had been general manager of the Pembrokeshire health authority, where he had received a salary of approximately £50,000. At the end of the first year of the operation of the trust, that individual, as chief executive of the trust, received a salary of £73,000—an increase of £23,000 in 12 months. By the end of the second year of the operation of the trust, he was receiving not £73,000, but £87,000. That is why we need to be careful, to establish a properly accountable system of health delivery, and to be sure that we do not make a mess of further reorganisations.
  That individual has retired from the Pembrokeshire NHS trust under interesting circumstances. I am told that the chairman of the NHS trust was informed by the chief executive in December 1993 that he had completed virtually 30 years in the NHS, and that he was looking for pastures new. He joined the NHS from school and, even after completing 30 years of service, he was only 47.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is being extremely unkind. He does not realise—I am sure that the Minister will advise him later—that executives of health trusts are in enormous demand within industry and management outside the health service, as well as in America and Europe. They need to have their salaries doubled year after year so that they can be retained in the health service. I am sure that the Minister will put my hon. Friend right.
  Mr. Ainger: I am not being unkind. I understand that the individual is now running an antique shop. His successor, who in my opinion had greater experience of running large organisations at senior level, was employed on a new contract. His total emolument is not £87,000, but £64,000. That is a significant saving. In the meetings that I have had with Mr. Stuart Fletcher, the new chief executive of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust, I have been extremely impressed with the quality of his performance and experience.
  It is interesting that Mr. Brian Davis told his chairman in December 1993 that he would like to leave the NHS trust to go to pastures new.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into considerable detail. I hope that he can relate his comments more closely to the amendment under discussion. If not, it seems more like a general history.
  Mr. Ainger: The essence is the lack of accountability within the current organisation in Wales. I am trying to enforce the point that we need an accountable system of administration in Wales in order to stop the abuse—I use that term advisedly—that has happened in the past.
  We must never allow individual managers to assume certain powers, often because of the weakness and ineffectiveness of other members of the board who improperly control the way in which salaries escalate, allegedly under performance-related pay. It is worth referring to that, because the Jones Galley report said that, while that individual's salary was increasing in the two

  231
  years that he was chief executive, the performance was going down, and the £750,000 was spent on administration, not on health care.
  It is vital that, if and when the new reorganisation takes place, it must maintain the true connection with our local communities, particularly in rural Wales. Large organisations find that difficult to do. It is important to ensure that, when we appoint new people to the boards, they know that they have a responsibility to ensure that the reorganisation is done smoothly, effectively and efficiently, and to ensure that we do not see a massive escalation in salaries.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hoped that the Government will advertise all the posts that will become available on the new health authorities, including the role of chief executive, so that we can have open competition? Does he agree that no job that currently exists should be protected, but that they should all be open to anyone, whether executive or non-executive, so that we have the best people running the health authorities? Perhaps early retirement packages could be looked at soon, so that those who are reaching the stage at which they need to think about retirement can be assisted in that direction.
  Mr. Ainger: I could not agree more. To illustrate my hon. Friend's point, it is interesting that, when the post of chief executive of the NHS trust in Pembrokeshire was first advertised, it referred to requiring somebody with business acumen. It did not mention health care or patients. That advertisement failed to lead to an appointment. After my intervention to point out the omissions, the post was readvertised, and included references to health care and requiring somebody with experience in the NHS. The excellent Mr. Stuart Fletcher was then appointed.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made the best speech that I have ever heard him make. He spoilt it by supporting the amendment at the end. I agree with his first point—
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister is being very unfair.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has a majority of only 64,000.
  Mr. Rogers: I wish my hon. Friend would not take the words out of my mouth. I am in such a sensitive position with my parliamentary majority that any compliments from the Minister can only put me in jeopardy.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about clinical effectiveness. The Government share his view, and attach a high priority to that. There are on-going trials. The Government also agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about centralisation. I am sure that he will agree that the health service reforms have devolved power and decision making to local people. His comments about the size of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority reflect the Government's view.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to standards of design. The current standards and the need to maintain standards will remain, and a capacity will be needed at the centre, either within the Welsh Health Common Services Authority or within the Welsh Office, to monitor the
  232
  projects. That will need a fairly small team, and the Welsh office will receive and consider all evaluations undertaken by trusts.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) gave one or two anecdotal examples of what I would call micro-level savings that might be made in Gwynedd. What we are doing with the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is on rather more of a macro-level. We are looking for greater efficiency and a better service. The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about the guarantee and continuity of supplies. It is for the customer—the trust or whoever—to ensure that continuity of supplies is maintained.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) raised the small versus large issue. The Bill is not the end of the road, but is very much the beginning. We envisage that, over time, the purchasing role will shift more and more to GP fundholders. Decisions will therefore he made much closer to the patient than he fears would be the case with rather larger health authorities than he would wish. With regard to his point about salaries and so on, the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that management costs must and should be kept under control, and, indeed, they include the salaries of senior executives within the trusts.
  Mr. Morgan: I rise briefly to explain why I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  The Minister mentioned, perhaps unwisely, the fact that Opposition Members supported one of the principles behind the Bill, but I do not think that he made any attempt to understand our objections. The idea of crossing the boundary between primary and secondary health care, in purchasing and commissioning—the new word, as the Government have a taboo about using the word "planning"—is one that the Minister does not seem to understand. We agree with crossing that boundary. We agree with merging family health service authorities and district health authorities, but the Government have demerged at the same time as they have merged.
  They are demerging GP fundholders, who represent an ever-increasing proportion. The figure is expected to be 40 per cent. in Wales—it may be higher in England, but it is certainly less in Scotland—from April. They are being demerged from the merger. That is the problem that the Minister has not understood and which causes us difficulties. Indeed, we know from the documents that we have from his Department that it is causing the Welsh Office considerable difficulties.
  How does one, having broken up Humpty-Dumpty, put him back together, when one has one created all these new animals that make their own purchasing and commissioning decisions? People have described the difficulty as one of herding cats in a thunder storm, but it was not me who said that, of course. When these alleged savings are created—I do not think that the Minister has dealt with this problem—what do we do with them?
  The savings are known as "do-it-yourself top slicing". If anybody under the age of 15 is listening, it is not something that I would advise them to do at home. The Minister top-slices sums to release into waiting list initiatives or whatever, but GPs are now able to do that themselves. They can reserve money—it looks as though the figure will he £10 million in Wales and probably £200

  233
  million throughout Britain—to spend as they want, in the same way that Ministers have the right to top-slice for special ministerial initiatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) attempted to solve the fundamental problem of the health service: how does one have local initiative and national guidelines? I made the point earlier about the Wrexham Maelor to Cardiff stillborn baby scandal—perhaps the Minister will refer to it with respect to the Glan Clwyd baby theft issue. We all want a local inquiry to try to solve the problem and for the Minister to say, "What lessons have we learnt from the local inquiry? Do we need national guidelines?" Perhaps he should have been a bit clearer about what lessons could be learned at an all-Wales level from those individual incidents, which teach all of us a lesson. That is the way in which one bridges the gap between the need for decisions to be taken locally, but with the right to establish national guidelines for minimum standards when required.
  Mr. Rogers: Surely the lessons are immediately apparent. When the Government issue instructions to health trusts to go outside to private contractors, they must impose particular standards. That is self-evident. We do not need a massive inquiry involving hundreds of thousands of pounds. Something should be done at a local level. It is all about controlling private contractors.
  Mr. Morgan: I entirely appreciate that; otherwise those scandals occur, and our functions as politicians is to slam the stable door shut with as much panache as we can, finding a new locksmith and so on, while trying to persuade the public to forget that the horses have been stolen in the first place. We are concerned that the Government are not good at listening when, if they have to listen, it cuts across the dogma.
  The Minister said that he was happy with the consultation on the artificial limb and appliance service in Wales and that he will preserve necessary all-Wales services, but he will have seen the scathing letter from the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association about the break-up of that service. I hope that he will reconsider the matter.
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) for any misunderstandings between him and me, as we are undoubtedly on the same side of the issue tonight. I am sure that we will be able to agree on any remarks that I made but which he may have misheard.
  I want to know whether we received a genuine concession from the Minister on in-house bids for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. He told me that I was wrong and that in-house bids would be allowed. I have to tell him that at a face-to-face meeting with the chairman, the chief executive, two union officials—one lay, one full-time—and several senior officials, the chairman told me that he had been instructed by the Welsh Office not to allow any in-house bids. I cannot do better than that. That is the information that I was given.
  Mr. Richards: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, so that there is no misunderstanding, that no
  234
  instruction has gone from my Department to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to exclude in-house bids.
  Mr. Morgan: The authority seems to have developed the opposite impression. Perhaps I should try to clarify that, and perhaps the Minister will as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made some extremely important points about the accountability of the health service, particularly of some of the rip-roaring practices that have occurred in the pay of chief executives, their perks and early retirement. In Pembroke, what is known as Bennett's folly occurred when one of my hon. Friend's predecessors, just before an election, formed a trust because the Government were determined to have a trust in place before the election.
  When the chief executive took early sick leave—I understand that he had been driving a Porsche, which had been paid for by the health authority, and he developed backache, because Porsches tend to have that effect—it is believed locally that he wrote on the application the reason for his illness as "Munchausen's syndrome by Porsche". The lesson for everybody is not to go for flashy cars if one is in a senior position in the health service.
  That was symptomatic of what was going wrong with Ministers exceeding their powers, or letting their vision of a new dogmatic health service overtake sensible planning of what the people of Wales wanted. It was also one of Bennett's follies to send the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to a new, expensive skyscraper office block, which has now become the target of the next Secretary of State's desire to eliminate bureaucrats in the health service. The Minister's predecessor has two black marks against him for the problems that he has created for people working in the health service.
  The predecessor before that was the Secretary of State who, of course, had all the wonderful pleasures that the present Secretary of State wants by virtue of this Bill, to decide how many health authorities there should be. His predecessor but one, Lord Crickhowell, decided that he wanted a local health authority for Pembroke and set up an additional health authority but the present Secretary of State wants to rationalise health authorities.
  It must be wonderful for Secretaries of State to be able to decide how many health authorities they can have, while the House does not have a great deal of opportunity to establish proper criteria to determine how many we need in Wales. If we are really to decide how many health authorities there should be in Wales, the job should possibly be left to a Welsh Assembly after the next election.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking leave to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. Morgan: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned that earlier.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was going to withdraw it, but did not do so.
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Gunnell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 21, line 5, at end insert—

  235
  '5.—(1) No appointment shall be made under paragraph 1(a) or (b) above unless the Secretary of State has first procured and considered independent advice as to the suitability of the respective candidate.
  (2) "Independent advice" in subparagraph (1) above means advice from a person or persons with relevant local knowledge or experience, with particular reference to the provision of health services, but who is, or who are, not—

  (a) employed in any capacity by, or in any commercial or contractual relationship with, any Health Authority or NHS trust,

  (b) employed by the Crown,

  (c) the holder or holders of any public elected office, or

  (d) affiliated to, or publicly identified with, any political party or cause.

  (3) "Suitability" in subparagraph (1) above means personal qualifications or aptitude, irrespective of political affiliations, for discharging the functions of the post to which the appointment is to be made.'.
  It was said earlier that we had been through some issues a number of times, and this is one such issue. We have discussed many times, and at length, the appointment of health authority members. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) thinks that we have spent an unduly long time on such matters, and I notice that, in support of his plea, the digital clocks have broken down. It is the first time that I have seen them out of action, and it means that we cannot check whether we are talking for too long. However, it is an important issue, and it is necessary to emphasise one or two points in the context of amendment No.4.
  9 pm
  The amendment seeks to change the procedure for the appointment of non-executive members and chairmen of health authorities and other health bodies. The Government have already accepted that their record in this respect has been very poor. They have made grossly biased political appointments and because they now feel some guilt in the past month the Secretary of State issued a paper on the appointment of chairmen and non-executive directors to NHS authorities and trusts.
  Much of the procedure is contained in the statement but not in the Bill. The Bill gives an outline but not the detail of how the appointments are to be made. The amendment seeks to add that detail to the Bill and to ensure that the system of appointments is more independent than that which the Secretary of State, to judge from her guidance notes, is trying to introduce.
  From a statistical point of view, appointments made since the NHS reforms have involved those with affiliations to the Conservative party. Analysis after analysis has made that bias clear. In fact, it is unusual for that bias to be denied, and only in the Standing Committee debating the Bill have I heard vigorous denials that there were political appointments. Even in Committee, evidence was produced to show that appointments were structured to favour Conservative party members. I stress that the barrier to changing the political bias in appointments is in the guidance notes produced by the Secretary of State.
  Our experience in Yorkshire shows the political nature of such appointments and, although I raised this matter in Committee, I shall do so again. I was a political appointee, albeit a Labour political one, to Leeds health authority. It might be argued that I was appointed as a member of the council, but I was appointed as a Labour member of a Labour-controlled council. Leeds Health Care, the health
  236
  authority that I joined, is, in many ways, a very good health authority. Four of its six members were clearly political appointees, if I count myself among them.
  The chairman, who I believe to be a good and effective chairman, was the chairman of Yorkshire area Conservative group. One member was the ex-leader of the then Conservative-controlled city council and another was a noted Conservative business man who had previously been the chairman of one of the two Leeds health authorities when they were divided. That makes three political appointments out of four, and there were two appointments that I regarded as neutral. A university appointee became vice-chair of Leeds Health Care and a second university appointee was director of the Nuffield centre for health service studies. That meant that there were two people who may have been generally politically neutral.
  The health authority made its decisions on the basis of what it considered to be best for health care in the city as a whole. I do not think that decisions were made on a political basis. The appointments were political, but the decisions were, on the whole, sensible. It was intended to reach consensus on the way in which Leeds Health Care worked.
  There are still some malfunctions in the way in which our authorities work, as shown by the case concerning long-term care to which I have already referred. The health commissioner found Leeds health authority at fault, yet the case was never reported to health authority members. Although the authority was strongly criticised by the health commissioner, none of the non-executive members of Leeds Health Care—those who were privy only to what went on in board meetings—were aware of the case. I do not think that the chair of the authority was aware of it, either. With a case that gained such notoriety, it was a reflection on the way in which we were organised that a decision that strongly upset the health commissioner was never, either before or after it was seen to be a difficult case, referred to the board. That matter needs to be looked at.
  In Yorkshire, although there were a number of Labour appointees, the then chair of the regional health authority made it clear to me that he was regarded as having appointed enough Labour members. When it was suggested that he might appoint another to another authority, he said that he felt that he was already somewhat suspect because most of the authorities in Yorkshire appeared to have a Labour member. As he told me, that was a contrast with what happened in other areas. If we look at the statistics as a whole, we see that the pattern in Yorkshire was not a normal pattern.
  What concerns me about the pattern established for the future is that we shall continue to have political appointments despite the fact that the wording suggests otherwise. The position is made clear in the draft guidance, which says:
  "The aim of this guidance is to establish a national framework within which Regional Policy Board Members … can implement new procedures for the appointment of non-executive directors and chairmen to NHS authorities and trusts."
  The guidance continues:
  "RPBMs are responsible for the integrity and effectiveness of the arrangements in their region and for making recommendations on appointments to Ministers."

  237
  As we run through the guidance, it is clear, again and again, that the decision rests with the regional policy board member. The guidance says that there will be a sifting process
  "conducted by a panel consisting of at least three local chairmen or non-executives … The panel may also include an independent member".
  When one gets to the end of the section on procedure, it is made clear that the appointment referred to is the appointment of a regional policy board member.
  "The RPBM will be able to use this information"—
  information about people's performance and information that has come from the independent panel—
  "when making his/her decision whether to recommend re-appointment to the Minister. RPBMs will retain the right to over-ride the preferences of any individual board chairmen when making recommendations."
  The guidance continues:
  "RPBMs should consult with all local MPs on those candidates intended for nominations to Ministers as chairmen."
  That is a means of ensuring that the appointments remain in the hands of the Conservative party. The regional policy board members who were appointed under the old appointment procedure—not under the guidance issued by the Secretary of State—were hand-picked members of the Conservative party, whose judgment could safely be relied on. I am sure that the Minister would tell me if he were not absolutely convinced that each appointee was a card-carrying member.
  Nothing is said, of course, about what the judgment of the regional policy board members will be based on. I have already mentioned a letter that I received from a regional policy board member of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. That board member attempted to consult hon. Members about an appointment to St. James's hospital trust—a critical appointment at a very important hospital. The Minister knows that it was a contentious appointment because the acting chairman, who was a Labour councillor, had extensive experience of the health service.
  In telling us about the appointment, Mr. Greetham says:
  "David"—
  that is the name of the person appointed, whom I have never met, so I am totally neutral—
  "has very wide management experience both in industry and in his distinguished career with the Territorial Army. I am certain that this will place him in a very strong position to lead the Trust through the challenging and changing times ahead, and I hope you will be supportive of this appointment."
  We are contrasting a person with distinguished service in the Territorial Army and experience in industry with someone acting as a chair of social services, who played an active role when the widespread issue of child abuse first came to public attention and who has been a member of the health service trust since it was established at St. James's seven years ago. The latter candidate also had experience of being acting chairman for over a year.
  238
  I do not discount experience in industry, but I wonder what the Territorial Army has in common with the national health service. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues would be able to suggest a reason.
  Ms Coffey: They all wear uniforms.
  Mr. Gunnell: I forgot that. I know that the Territorial Army is pretty hierarchical, too.
  We need a process that ensures much more genuine independence. The amendment suggests that independent advice should not be given by people who are holding office in the health authority, who are employed by Her Majesty's Government or who are the holders of any publicly elected office. They should not be political people. [Interruption.] We are suggesting that those people should not be identified with any political party. We are not suggesting that none of the appointees should have political affiliations, but we are suggesting that the independence of advice on suitability of candidates should be more genuinely independent than is suggested in the Bill or in the regulations.
  Ms Coffey: I want to add a few comments to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who gave a fairly comprehensive analysis of the problems. He described how the amendment would achieve some credibility in terms of the public's perception of objective criteria being used in relation to the appointments.
  I would be interested to know the size of the new health authorities which will comprise the old health authorities and the FHSAs. Obviously the size of the new authorities will vary according to the existing membership. However, there will have to be a process in some areas whereby existing members will not be reappointed to the new health authorities because there will be too many members when the members of the FHSAs are added to the members of the old health authorities.
  9.15 pm
  As there is no transparent system to show how the members of those authorities were appointed in the first place, I should be interested in the explanation of why some members are not going to be reappointed to the new health authorities.
  I was a member of an old district health authority. I did not sit on that authority after 1990 as elected political nominees were thrown off it. Of course, I was not a political appointee, but I was a representative of a political party. That was regarded as positive, because places were reserved for members of political parties.
  I sat beside other members of the district health authority who were clearly appointed because places were reserved for particular specialities. Others were appointed by mysterious routes. The problem about appointments is not recent; it has existed for some years.
  The difference between appointments to the old district health authority and the new appointments is that, in those days, no one was paid to be a member of the district health authority. People made a contribution because they were public spirited. They did that work voluntarily. With the new trusts and health authorities, there are executive and non-executive directors. That model is taken directly from private business and all the appointees are paid.

  239
  Some of the members of those authorities do not really know how they came to be appointed. One person told me that he had received a telephone call from someone who said, "You're a local business man. Would you be interested in being on this trust?" That man said, "Yes," so he knows something about his process of appointment.
  People who have been appointed in that way have not answered an advertisement. They have simply been approached informally. They know that somehow they have been appointed by the Government because telephone calls from people inquiring whether they wanted to be members of trusts or health authorities clearly came from people who have the power to make such appointments. Ultimately, the appointments are made by the Government, so everyone assumes that they are Government appointments.
  The problem for people appointed in that way is that they are not aware of the criteria for what they have to do. They do not know the criteria by which they were appointed. The appointments are short-term contracts. Presumably, members do not know whether they are going to be reappointed. The trouble is that that makes them less than independent. I am sure that some of them must think, ''Well, if we create too much trouble, we are not going to be reappointed by this mysterious process which appointed us in the first place. We are not here to be troublemakers."
  That attitude impinges on the members' ability to be independent, particularly if they are paid. A voluntary member might think that if he was not reappointed, he could do something else, but when it is a paid occupation, the matter must be given some consideration. That may affect their attitudes and perceptions about what is happening.
  The Government's view on appointments to trust boards is that trust boards—as the phrase implies—are business organisations. It is clear that they want to encourage people with business interests on to boards because they see the management of trusts essentially as a business enterprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) pointed out other difficulties, as there have not just been business appointments. I do not find it acceptable to say that a trust board is a business, and therefore we need people with business experience. But I suppose it is the logical view, if nothing else. A problem is that some appointments have been made for party political reasons.
  In Committee I told the Minister that the Conservative Member who lost the Stockport seat in 1992 materialised as the chair of the Tameside trust some months later. The Minister would find it hard to convince me that that man was appointed because of his experience. I think—as do other members of the public—that it was a pay-off to him for having lost his seat. That sort of appointment brings the whole system into disrepute and makes it difficult for us to take seriously the notion of objective criteria.
  Appointments to health authorities will be important because the Government cannot argue that those are business enterprises. Health authorities have a clear health commissioning role on behalf of the local population. If the Government's view is that health authorities should be responsive to local people, the people who sit on the authorities will be crucial. My experience in Stockport is that, almost without exception, the trust members came from outside the town. We shall be relying on those members of the health authority in Stockport to justify the idea of a locally responsive health service.
  240
  The attitudes and beliefs of the people who are appointed will be important. As the authority's purchasing role diminishes with the increase in GP fundholding, the strategic role which it performs will be absolutely crucial in the provision of care for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, the elderly and other specialities. It is important that the people on the health authority have the experience needed, and are local people. It is more important that they are seen to be appointed by a transparent system in which people can see what the criteria are and what the appointees are being asked to do, and that appointments have been made on the grounds of experience.
  If we cannot get on to the authority people who can do the best job for the people of Stockport, and who are seen to be the ones who can do that, it will not only bring into disrepute the whole system but will be a great loss to Stockport. That view can be duplicated for all health authorities around the country.
  It is not enough for the Minister to say that he believes that appointments should be made among people with the best experience. He should bring forward clear guidelines, and show how those guidelines are to be systematically adhered to and properly monitored. If he does not do that, there will be continual criticism that people get on to health authorities not because of experience, but because of who they know. Ultimately, that is to the good of neither the health authority nor the people it serves.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Everybody knows that the system is based purely on patronage. The Government have tried to defuse that criticism by changing the procedure for appointments. The new system, however, is also a closed process and the changes represent little more than a sham—a con trick to make people think that things have changed.
  The Government are not interested in real change or proper accountability and do not want people to see what is happening in the national health service. They do not want to be held accountable for the problems that exist in some parts of the NHS. They want to cover them up and keep them quiet. In short, they would be happy to take the advice of John Maples to have zero media coverage and keep the whole mess under wraps.
  The amendment seeks to encourage the Government to introduce a truly independent element into the process, for example, community health councils. The Government's attempt at change—the new guidelines which they announced on 14 February—is no great leap for accountability, openness or democracy. The new sifting panel will consist of chairs of trusts appointed under the old system, and the regional chair will have the final say. Those people, who were all appointed under the old system, will control who enters the national health service and Ministers will still have the final say on chairs of NHS trusts. That is what we in Doncaster call the "Old Pals Act", section 1, paragraph 1.
  One reason for our amendment is the fact that local people will have no opportunity to have a say. Five of the eight regional chairs are Tory supporters. A recent survey by The Independent showed that two thirds of the trust chairs examined had links with the Conservative party. That fact speaks for itself. Among them were spouses of Members of Parliament, former Tory politicians and party workers.

  241
  We need a more open and democratic system. Philip Hunt, director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, recognised that the changes made by the Government will not be enough to restore public confidence in the system. Lord Nolan seems to share that view. The amendment seeks to introduce an independent element into the system and ensure that people who are neither politicians nor civil servants, nor in health quangos, will have a say. The Secretary of State will be forced to seek advice to ensure that the candidate is the best possible person for the job.
  Needless to say, when the Government decided to reform the appointments guidelines they missed the opportunity to introduce an independent element. In response to their announcement last week, Lord Nolan pointed out that an independent involvement could give the Government an opportunity
  "to dispel the widely held perception that so many are Conservative appointments."
  The changes are an admission that the appointments system is neither fair nor open. The fact that the Government have made such a trifling change shows that they are not prepared to open up the system to greater scrutiny and independence, particularly locally. The Government have resisted almost every move to increase both democracy and accountability in the national health service. In Committee, they knocked back amendment after amendment on those issues whenever they arose. They will no doubt do the same with this amendment—I expect little better of them.
  The Government have no belief in democracy in the national health service. We have realised that time and time again as they have made their reforms. No doubt the "Old Pals Act" will prevail this evening.
  Mr. Malone: I am delighted, as always, to oblige the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) by not rising to any of the invitations that he gives to accept any of the amendments that are tabled. Can I say, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Madam?
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Malone: Mr. Deputy Speaker. My goodness, one has to be rapid in perception in the House, with the changes that take place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that it will not be regarded as a serious discourtesy, but I wish to refer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is not in the Chamber. I must say, in accordance with several admonitions from the Chair this afternoon, that I have not given the hon. Gentleman notice that I intended to refer to him, because I wish to make a fairly friendly comment.
  When I slipped out earlier, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), was responsible for an amendment, I did not expect that, when the hon. Member for Cardiff, West had finished, I would return to the Chamber to discover that all the clocks had stopped—but, having listened to him in Committee, I was not entirely surprised.
  242
  I have listened to the debate on amendment No. 4, and several questions occur to me. First, where will that paragon of independence be found? If we took the amendment literally, it is hard to imagine who would be left to take up that important appointment. I assumed that the Opposition tabled the amendment with serious intent, and I considered whether we could accept it. I was tempted by what the hon. Member for Doncaster, North said, and I might well have been tempted to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government, had there not been several problems.
  The amendment appeared to rule out anyone employed by the national health service as an independent contractor; so 830,000-odd souls in the country are ruled out by the amendment to start with. The amendment ruled out anyone with any type of contract with the NHS—whatever that means. Perhaps patients have contracts with the NHS—that is 78 per cent. of the public who visit their general practitioner. The amendment appeared to rule out any public sector employee or public office-holder and anyone who was a member of a political party—and presumably is a member of a political party—or identified with a cause. That no doubt also rules out many voluntary organisations.
  Amendment No. 4 is the amendment from the planet Mars, because only someone from the planet Mars would qualify to serve as the independent assessor if that amendment were to be passed. On that substantive and important reservation, I suggest that the House should reject the amendment in any event.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published new guidelines for the appointment of chairmen and non-executive directors of NHS authorities and trusts on 14 February 1995. The guidelines, which draw together examples of current best practice and appointment procedures, demonstrate the Government's commitment to a fair and open appointments system based on merit, not patronage. The implementation of those guidelines from 1 April 1996 throughout England will ensure that the NHS continues to benefit from the services of non-executives of the highest calibre.
  It is an insult to all those who serve the national health service in a non-executive capacity that the Labour party continues to attack them in a way that is reprehensible and entirely without substance.
  The new guidelines make it absolutely clear that all new candidates for non-executive appointments will be sifted by a panel of at least three people. Perhaps that meets the independence criterion in the Opposition amendment.
  Surely the people best placed to judge whether a candidate is suited to the demands of service as a non-executive director are people already working in that sector. I object to the suggestion in the amendment that people who are meant to be independent should be cut off from the service. I should have thought that the solution to ensuring that proper appointments are made is that people who know the way in which the service works, who can bring some of their knowledge to bear, are far better suited to select people who will serve the health service as chairmen and non-executive directors. That is why the guidelines say that people chosen to serve on the sifting panels should be local health authority or trust chairmen or non-executives.
  We recognise the need to avoid possible accusations of bias in the appointments system. We have said in the guidelines that members of the sifting panel must not be drawn from the same NHS health authority or trust board,

  243
  and that the panel may include an independent member. We have suggested, for example, that it might be a member of a local community health council—which no doubt would be welcomed by the Labour party—a local justice of the peace, or someone who is involved in the community. We recognise the value of the view of someone who is detached from the NHS, but who cannot be permanently detached from the NHS as the Labour party suggests in its amendment. The new guidelines establish the flexibility to meet local demands without compromising standards in the appointment process.
  On this issue, the Government are adamant that the best people, chosen from the widest cross-section of the population, are serving our national health service. I know that Opposition Members like to mock them, but that does no service to those who have given voluntarily to a substantial and a good cause. I think it is disgraceful that Opposition Members continue to do that.
  The amendment constitutes an absurd suggestion to introduce an independence that would detach people from the health service rather than bind them to it. The new guidelines will draw people from an even wider pool of candidates by advertisement, thereby encapsulating what is already well-established best practice. I suggest that the House reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This has been an extremely important debate, and I valued being present for Report as I was not able to serve on the Committee. It takes forward two of the Government's most important objectives for the national health service and it devolves many important responsibilities closer to patients, while ensuring that all parts of the national health service work to common standards upholding its ethos and its values.
  The Bill abolishes the regional health authorities and will create a new and more effective local health authority with responsibilities across the broad sweep of health and health care. It will also make a major contribution towards our goal of a primary care-led NHS. The merger of DHAs and family health services authorities is welcomed throughout the House, and I am sure that it will lead to much greater clarity for all of our constituents—the users of the health service.
  The new authorities will be in a stronger position to take an all-round view of local health needs; they will be able to secure a sensitive balance between prevention and treatment and between primary, community and hospital-based care.
  Mr. Heppell: The Secretary of State has talked about the consensus in the House concerning the amalgamation of the FHSAs and the DHAs. We want to see those two authorities merged into one; however, we want it to be done in an efficient and effective way.
  This is my only opportunity to ask the Secretary of State how she intends to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who wrote to her on 31 October to ask about the appointment of a new chief executive of the Health Commission. The former
  244
  chief executive of the FHSA, Mr. Tony Ruffell, was away on gardening leave. The Secretary of State replied then that he was being made redundant and that the matter was being sorted out. Apparently it was not sorted out, and my hon. Friend then asked the Prime Minister on 2 February—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That really is not a Third Reading point. I call the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Bottomley: As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a Third Reading point. That matter is still being investigated and I think that the individuals concerned are entitled to receive replies before I deal in the House with the issue of people's occupations.
  I am very pleased that, in Committee, a number of clarifications and improvements were made to the Bill. We have been able to clarify the question of junior hospital doctors, and focus on the importance of education and training and the role of postgraduate deans. Of particular importance is the amendment that the House accepted today which requires new health authorities to secure professional advice from across the whole range of disciplines.
  It is that integration of professional advice, rather than the rigid traditional structures, that will be much more effective. That process will include nurses, doctors and other health professionals, and it will give statutory backing to the commitment that I made on Second Reading that professional advice should become professional involvement.
  I draw the House's attention to a recent survey carried out among local directors of public health, reported in The Guardian last week. There was much debate in Committee about the role of directors of public health.
  The report showed that most of those involved see the NHS health reforms that have taken place over the past five years as having produced clear benefits in terms of improved public health. It revealed that 90 per cent. said that, since the reforms, the needs of the population were either being better met or at least that there had been no change; 91 per cent. saw benefits or at least no change from the purchaser provider system; 85 per cent. said that waiting times for in-patient treatment had improved; 65 per cent. said that hospital surroundings were better; 75 per cent. of local directors of public health thought that fundholding had improved the effectiveness of public health service or at least had led to no change. I hope that all those who feel strongly about the role of the directors of public health will at least take note of their opinions.
  I remind the House that, only five years ago, we were debating the Third Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Then, the Parliamentary Secretary spelled out the key issues as the need to provide better patient care, the need to continue with a NHS funded by the taxpayer, largely free at the point of delivery, the achievement of better value for money, the achievement of better choice for patients and the delegation of authority to NHS staff closer to patients. All those objectives are being achieved, and the improvements in patient care and a more flexible responsive service are at the heart of all our changes.
  The Bill marks the end of a period of change and reorganisation to free the NHS better to carry out its vital task for the people of Britain. The role of GPs is vital.

  245
  They, with other members of the primary health care team, have a pivotal role in shaping the provision of services. Advances in practice should not be held back simply because they are not available everywhere at the same time.
  Our policy is to level up, not down. I point out to the House—it is a very important point—that under our legislation, for the first time ever, the district director of public health will become a statutory post.
  The real point about the directors is that we are devolving important responsibilities to local level, where they properly belong. Regional directors of public health will have a new and important role within the regional offices.
  Apart from the clarification of the important nature of the Bill, we have learnt something else about the attitude of the Opposition. They continue to attack managers, but support bureaucracy. In Committee, they sought to amend the Bill to introduce strategic health planning authorities—a bureaucratic nightmare, a waste of money and proof of a Labour party still wedded to centralism not dynamism; to indecision not innovation and to pen pushers not patients.
  In contrast, our Bill will save £150 million every year for better patient care. The Labour party's advocacy of regional bureaucracy finds few supporters elsewhere and its enthusiasm for putting councillors in charge of the NHS finds even fewer friends. The BMA has rejected local authority control, and the RCN does not want councillors in charge. Nye Bevan did not want it, and the NHS does not want it. Anyone who has worked under the tyranny of Labour-controlled local authorities knows only too well that our constituents do not wish the health service to be run in same way as Labour-controlled local authorities.
  The Bill will create accountable health authorities with a job to do and the means to do it. It will reinforce our policy of allocating money to populations and not to institutions. Accountability will be strengthened through the public having access to a single body.
  The new authorities will involve the public in decisions about priorities. They must take on more responsibility for explaining the key issues that the health service faces. My hon. Friends were right to focus on the quality, calibre and merit of those involved as non-executives and executives on health authorities as well as trusts.
  The Bill is a sensible, timely and effective measure. It will build on the achievement of the new NHS and it will make it an even better place to respond to the changing needs of the patients. It is part of the Government's enduring, unshakeable commitment to the national health service and I commend it to the House.
  9.44 pm
  Mrs. Beckett: I was a little surprised to discover that the Secretary of State intended to speak on Third Reading. As I recall, it is not customary for a Minister who has not bothered to serve on a Standing Committee to take the prime slot in the winding-up speeches. I am no longer surprised, however: it is clear that the right hon. Lady wanted to bore us with yet more of her irrelevant ranting.
  246
  It was right, however, for the Secretary of State to refer to an aspect of the Bill to which I too wish to begin by referring. Although explored in Committee, that aspect has not been discussed much on the Floor of the House. I refer to the merger of district health authorities and family health services authorities to create the new health authorities which alone will replace the existing regional authorities.
  My party does not oppose the principle of such a merger; in fact, we have advocated it for some time, although we have never suggested that the merged authorities should replace the existing regions. Despite our support for the principle, however, the way in which the issue has been handled casts an interesting light on the Government's attitudes.
  First, the Secretary of State indicated in her statement announcing the legislation in October 1993 that mergers between authorities would be permitted by the legislation; in fact, they are to be compulsory. Secondly, to further the programme of mergers, the Secretary of State has taken sweeping powers in the Bill—more sweeping, I understand, than those allowed by any precedent. She has done so despite the doubt that experience of the Child Support Agency must confer on precedents of this kind, and on the idea of taking all the powers in legislation and leaving all the detail to regulations.
  The third revealing aspect even of this agreed element of the Bill is the way in which elements of the proposals that might arouse discussion or dissent have been withheld. I refer particularly to proposals relating to the shape and geographical spread of the new authorities. Ministers are well aware that the proposals arc likely to prove controversial: in fact, they were warned about that on Second Reading by a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman of my intention to quote what he said.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed his strong preference, and that of his constituents, for the present structure, whereby a more local health authority—a district health authority—relates to the Department of Health via a regional authority, rather than being structured like the previous, broader health authorities that drew in other elements across the area involved.
  We all know that the chances are that boundaries have been drawn up for the new authorities. Many administrators probably know what they are, but Parliament and the people will not be told until it is too late for the House to reject the Bill. The information that we lack about the new merged authorities, however, pales into insignificance in comparison with the information that we lack about the main provision of the Bill, which deals with the abolition of regional health authorities.
  The Secretary of State said a moment ago that it was only five years since the last major reorganisation Bill was discussed in the House. That is true—and it was as a consequence of those changes that greater powers were given to the regional health authorities whose abolition the Secretary of State now proposes. It is perhaps in that respect particularly that the Bill reaffirms the Secretary of State's reputation as the Madame Mao of the national health service, proceeding with her continuous revolution. Every element of the Bill takes us further towards the cultural revolution of privatisation that she espouses,

  247
  concentrating power as it does with individual health businesses that have been set up to be ripe for privatisation.
  The Bill will eliminate any pockets of resistance on the 14 regional authorities by abolishing them—although any lingering doubts about the need for their existence in their present form must surely be reinforced by the fact that so many of their functions are to be retained at regional level and, in the case of mental health tribunals, not just at the level of regional offices but at the level and in the structure of the existing 14 regions.
  The Bill will introduce positive vetting of a small group of regional representatives, all of whom are to be hand-picked by the Secretary of State. It will extend the practice of gagging independent medical experts such as the directors of public health. Although the Secretary of State spoke warmly of their role, she knows very well that the regional directors strongly resent the loss of their independence. The Bill will also reduce the rights of medical, nursing and other groups to the degree of representation that they have enjoyed in the past.
  The Secretary of State congratulated herself on giving way to our representations and on reinstating some statutory right to consultation in the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill takes away the role that those representatives have enjoyed in similar authorities in the past. The Bill will end the collection and publication of regional statistics, other than those approved by the Secretary of State. It will concentrate power, presently dispersed through a tier of authorities, in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  Just over a year ago, the British Medical Association expressed surprise and concern at the proposals, saying:
  "this has not been a consultation exercise in the proper sense of the word".
  It said that people had
  "been presented with a fait accompli."
  It questioned the rationale of the exercise of abolishing regions,
  "particularly since the increased size of the new regions will inevitably create communication difficulties which can only serve to undermine efficiency."
  It is no clearer now than it was on Second Reading before Christmas why the Government have really brought forward a Bill that has such substantial and damaging effects on the structures and staff of our health service, and that creates so little benefit. It is undoubtedly true that the Bill creates the opportunity for the Secretary of State to implement one recommendation of the Maples report: to create a closed world of health care in which staff, from regional directors of public health to nurses and others working on our hospital wards, can more effectively be silenced and gagged about what is happening in the health service.
  Earlier today, the Minister was sniffy about his claim that the Bill would make no real difference to the information available, but I should like to give the House examples, first, of the Department's way with statistics, and, secondly, of its way with other information. Those examples cast doubt on the Minister's assurances.
  In a press release published on 13 February, the Minister publicised information about the role of junior doctors. He referred to a questionnaire that was sent to them in July last year. It asked how the new roles were affecting their work. The press release says that 17 per cent. of junior doctors felt that their hours of work had
  248
  reduced. Clearly, it did not seem pertinent to the Minister to say that that presumably meant that 83 per cent. did not feel that their hours had been reduced.
  The press release draws attention to the fact 40 per cent. of junior doctors were experiencing more satisfaction in their work, which presumably means that 60 per cent. were not experiencing more satisfaction in their work. That is an interesting example of how the gloss on a piece of information can somehow subtly change its meaning.
  Apart from the issue of the statistics that the Department publishes, and how they are described, there is the issue of the new open government code proposed for the national health service. A report in December drew attention to the views of the Campaign for Freedom of Information on that matter. The campaign pointed out that, if that code of practice went ahead, information that would have to be disclosed today by the Department of Health could in future be withheld by health authorities and national health service trusts.
  It says that the new code
  "repeats the failings of the central 'open government' code, but omits its positive elements"—
  if such there be. It draws attention to the fact that the code allows
  "all information on commercial or contractual activities to be withheld—not merely information which could prejudice such activities, as in the central government code."
  Every piece of information that can be described or classified as relating to commercial or contractual activities may be withheld. In this new health service for which the Secretary of State takes such credit, just about everything comes under commercial and contractual activity.
  It is almost certainly the case that the major reason for the Bill is the control of information, but is it the only reason? We can dispose of the Government's excuses without too much difficulty. They claim that the Bill has been introduced because of their pressing desire to reduce bureaucracy and to create savings.
  On Friday, I received a parliamentary answer from the Department. It shows not only that the number of general and senior managers employed has soared far beyond what could be explained by the reclassifying of people as managers, but that the salary bill for such posts has gone from £156 million before the health changes to £600 million last year. Most of that burgeoning growth in numbers and costs has taken place not at regional health authority level—the Minister of State admitted today that the number of staff employed at regional level has fallen—but because of the division of trusts into individual businesses.
  There is yet another reason why there is no need for us to take the Government's claims seriously. They are hellbent on introducing locally determined pay. They have been pressing the pay review body for years to accept that that is Government policy and it must be the framework within which their own recommendations are made. Introducing local pay will mean hiring a fresh army of negotiators and administrators for every single trust. The BMA estimates that introducing it for doctors alone would cost £40 million at least, which would wipe out every penny of the savings that the Government claim have inspired the Bill. So they cannot be in it for the money.
  There are other potential reasons apart from secrecy. There were 14 regional health authorities with a minimum of about 140 board members. The clear pattern of the

  249
  Government's appointments is that those selected must be hand-picked Government loyalists. Perhaps there are not 140 people left in Britain who still loyally believe in the Secretary of State's health service changes.
  That view is strengthened by the fact that the 14 RHA are being replaced by eight regional offices in which the voice of the people is heard through eight individuals appointed by the Secretary of State. Rumour has it that those eight will soon be six. Perhaps even they are showing dangerously independent tendencies. I wonder whether finding even six reliable followers will soon be too much for Madam Mao. How long will it be before we have a gang of four?
  The other possible reason for the abolition of regional health authorities lies in the reaction of the Secretary of State's shock troops in the trusts. In the document "Managing the NHS", published by the Office of Health Economics, William Laing says:
  "Accountability of Trusts to central government has also been exercised through RHAs. Controversy arose because many NHS Trust chairs claimed that RHAs were attempting to exercise excessive and inappropriate control over Trust's operational activities."
  Perhaps they still believe in the national health service.
  Mr. Laing goes on:
  "The issue of who should monitor Trusts has now been resolved by the government's decision to abolish regional health authorities."
  Dr. Jeremy Lee Potter—[Interruption.] Yes, the former Conservative voter, as he has said himself—recently said:
  "at the root of the NHS changes lies political dogma."
  What really matters is where that dogma-driven change will lead. The Minister of State accused me today of claiming that the health service is being fragmented and that it is being centralised. He is correct: I did make both those claims, and both are justified. A total of 500 individual health businesses delivering health care is fragmentation by anyone's standards.
  It is the framework to which those businesses relate that is the real giveaway. That framework now consists simply of area health authorities which cannot possibly come together to present an alternative strategic view as the regional health authorities used to do. Within that framework, the individual trust will concern itself solely with its own business and the individual health authority will concern itself solely with its own area. Apart from that, we shall be left with a structure about which the BMA says that, instead of a "management tier … independent of" the Executive at national level, there will be an "increase in centralised control".
  In the document "Managing the New NHS" the new arrangements are described as a "single corporate structure". That structure will be without a countervailing voice, without any pretence of any democratic input, and every appointment within it will be made by and at the hands of the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State, like the Government and like the Bill, becomes more discredited daily. We shall vote to reject the Bill tonight, and if and when the British people
  250
  are next given the opportunity, if they vote to preserve and enhance their health service, they will vote to reject this Government.
  Mr. Malone: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, Madam Mao, may I present compliments to Polly Pot on the other side of the House, and make this simple point?
  The Labour party has opposed a Bill that will reduce bureaucracy, and create savings that can be spent on patients. That shows precisely where the Labour party stands on the issue. It always has, and always will. The Labour party is always for the vested interests of the producer, not the consumer—the patient, whom the Bill is designed to serve. I hope that the House gives it a Third Reading tonight.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 243.

  Division No. 81]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cran, James

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baldry, Tony

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gallie, Phil

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Cash, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  251

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  252

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Waterson, Nigel

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Enright, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Etherington, Bill

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Berry, Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galloway, George

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

  Gapes, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Byers, Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caravan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike

  Church, Judith

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  253

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Parry, Robert

  Hutton, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Bridget (LeW'm E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jowell, Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Randal, Stuart

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Redmond, Martin

  Lewis, Terry

  Reid, Dr John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Litherland, Robert

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooker, Jeff

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooney, Terry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Chris (Isfton S & F'sbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Maddock, Diana

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Touhig, Don

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Olner, Bill

  Tellers for the Noes:

  ONeil, Martin

  Mr. George Mudie and Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  War Widows' Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: This debate is about widows whose claim to the attention of this House is one of compelling priority. They are the widows of men who died or who gave the best years of their lives in the service of this country. They live with a sense of grievance which is shaming to us all and which, in this 50th anniversary year of victory in the second world war, the House must now urgently address.
  Their plea for help is being debated today not only here but in the House of Lords. There the debate is led by the young Lord Freyberg who, although he is a Cross Bencher, I am delighted to call my noble Friend. He is strongly supported by other peers of all parties and of none.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall my last Adjournment debate on war widows' pensions as the culmination of a campaign that led in 1989 to more adequate provision for tens of thousands of pre-1973 widows. But the campaign did not achieve all our objectives. There was unfinished business of importance both to war widows and to service widows which my early-day motion 186, with backing from all parts of the House, urges the Government to tackle without further delay.
  The motion was tabled at the request of the Officers Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain, strongly endorsed by all the 123 affiliates of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, and by Help the Aged. Today, the early-day motion has 167 signatures in addition to the declared support of right hon. and hon. Members who, by convention, cannot sign such motions.
  Some hon. Members have declined to sign the motion. They declined not because they disagree with its objectives but because they feel that early-day motions are of no importance. In my view, they are mistaken. It was the huge cross-party support for early-day motion 68 in 1989 that eventually persuaded that wily parliamentary tactician, Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, to concede the principal aim of the war widows' campaign of that year.
  Moreover, those who support our further objectives but decline to sign the new early-day motion strangely imply that such parliamentarians as the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), among many other senior Members of this House who are sponsoring the motion, know less than themselves about parliamentary realities.
  What is it that we now seek for war and service widows? We seek, first, pensions for war widows that will be for life; secondly, the provision now of pensions for the widows of men who married them after retirement from the services; and, thirdly, an increase in the pensions of elderly service widows from one third to one half of their husbands' pensions.

  255
  In regard to the first of our aims, let me make it clear that basic provision for war widows was markedly improved by what we achieved in 1989. But there remains a cruel and indefensible anomaly. If a widow remarries, she loses all her widow's pension. Should her further marriage end in a second bereavement, or if it fails, her DSS war widow's pension cannot be restored.
  Younger war widows, who have an attributable occupational pension from the Ministry of Defence, can apply for restoration, but even this is subject to a demeaning means test which 25 per cent. of applicants fail. That is why only one in 100 war widows feel that they can take the risk of remarrying. The other 99 per cent. remain on state benefits throughout their lives. They also suffer the enforced loneliness imposed upon them by regulations which are now very widely seen as anachronistic and inhumane. Should any war widow be found cohabiting, she forfeits her pension forthwith.
  I want to quote Janet Cross, from Manchester, whose soldier husband Phil was killed by an IRA bomb in 1991. Janet, now 36 and struggling to bring up their two sons on her pension, told me that because she and her husband had to move home every two years there was no way she could build up a pension in a long-term job. She added:
  "I don't have a penny saved. If I marry again, or live with another man, I lose my pension."
  Janet was speaking to me in a year when the National Association of Pension Funds has announced that 84 per cent. of widows' pensions in issue are now for life regardless of any change in status. At the same time, careful research by the Officers Pension Society into 14 pension schemes of our allies and former adversaries shows that eight of them never remove war widows' pensions on remarriage and, of the remaining six, five provide automatic restoration of her pension if a widow is bereaved again or the marriage fails.
  Ministers say that this is too costly for them to contemplate, but we are already paying full pensions for 99 out of every 100 war widows. There would also be savings to the Department of Social Security vote and the taxpayer if, as the ex-service community argues, the younger war widows retain only the Ministry of Defence attributable pension, but not the DSS war widow's pension, which I am assured would be accepted as reasonable by war widows themselves.
  I turn now to widows who married their service husbands after they had retired from the forces. In these cases, the marriage is termed a post-retirement marriage—PRM. The younger PRM service widows are allowed a pension from the MOD in respect of their husbands' service after 1978, but the older service widows have no such entitlement. That not only causes undoubted hardship, but often blights the final years of the service man's life.
  The prospect of leaving his wife penniless is deeply worrying to the service man, but all he can do is scrimp and save until he dies. It is especially unfair to the older service man because, in the late 1970s when almost all public servants worked until they were 65, he was compulsorily retired at an earlier age and much more likely to enter into a post-retirement marriage.
  The experience of Mrs. Heather Matthews is highly instructive. She does not receive a penny from the Army because her husband, the late Major-General Francis Matthews, retired just before they were married. He fought in the second world war and served until 1970.
  256
  Then he married Heather. Five years later, he had a heart attack and she nursed him until he died in 1976. She now ekes out a living at her home in Wiltshire and is "very bitter" that Britain is one of only two comparable countries to deny pensions to widows who married their husbands after they had retired from the services. She adds poignantly:
  "I hope something can be done for us."
  The Officers Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain want the Government now to accept that a service widow who married her husband after his retirement, but before the age of 65—up to which point the ex-service man is liable to recall—and provided the marriage lasts for at least three years, should receive a pension related to her husband's service. It is important here to note that pension provision in such cases is already made in 14 of the 15 comparable allied schemes studied by the Officers Pension Society.
  Here again, Ministers will point to the cost; but in a great many PRM cases the widows are on income support. That is almost twice as expensive to administer as widows' pensions and with none of the dignity of the as-of-right benefit they deserve.
  I come now to service widows who are entitled to only one third of their husband's service pay on retirement. Half-rate forces family pensions were introduced in April 1973, but those who had already retired—including many who fought in the second world war—were excluded.
  It may come as a shock to many Members of the House that Britain is now alone, among all the countries with which it can be compared, in paying any service widow entitled to a pension less than a half-rate pension. In the United States, the minimum figure is 55 per cent.; in Germany, 60 per cent.; in Australia and Belgium, up to 67 per cent.; and in the Netherlands, 71 per cent.
  The result of our Government's policy in retaining "third-rate" widows' pensions is exemplified by the case of a widow living in Oxford whose late husband was a Fleet Air Arm pilot. He flew throughout the war and took part in the famous raid on the Tirpitz in Alten fjord. He died at 37 of a massive heart attack while still serving as a pilot, but his death was adjudged not to be attributable to service. After tax, his widow's current MOD pension is £29.06 a week; scarcely enough, perhaps, for the main course of a meal fit for the chief executive of British Gas. In a recent television interview, she said:
  "A half-rate pension would give me another £800 a year—which would revolutionise my life."
  That is how pushed she is on her present income.
  The Officers Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain ask the Government to accept that, where service men had no opportunity to buy in an entitlement to a half-rate pension, their "third-rate" widows, most of whom are between 75 and 85, should now have their pensions increased to the higher rate for the closing years of their lives.
  Ministers may object that this would involve retrospection. But we all know that when it suits the Government, they do not hesitate to act retrospectively. State earnings-related pension schemes and delayed pensions for women to 65 come readily to mind. The latter is expected to save £5 billion a year, some of which will come from service widows. Compared with that £5 billion, the costs of righting the wrongs which I have described are very small change indeed.

  257
  In a moving letter to The Times on 13 February, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, a former Conservative Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, wrote that this 50th anniversary year of the ending of the wars in Europe and the far east is an especially appropriate moment to give comfort to those who suffered the loss of a husband and the end of their married life. He added:
  "Their numbers are with the passage of time diminishing, so the cost of a real improvement in their pensions will also diminish … An announcement of a generous increase in the awards to those who lost a husband in the War would seem to be the best way to commemorate the victory which their sacrifice helped us to achieve."
  Who can gainsay the justice of that appeal?
  Does the Minister refute what Lord Boyd-Carpenter says? If so, how does he respond to one of the more elderly of Britain's 28,000-plus "third-rate" widows who has written to me to say:
  "The Government will say yet again that there's no money left to help us. But there will be more than enough money for all the junketing that will take place. Tell them that not a single penny must be spent on that until there's some justice for us"?
  While millions will celebrate the 50th anniversaries of the victories of 1945, others will still mourn the loved ones they lost, not only the widows of men who gave their lives in the second world war but the widows of those who have died on active service since then—in Korea, the Falklands, the Gulf war, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. In a leader about their plea, The Sun states today:
  "Both Lords and Commons will debate their shabby treatment. But words aren't enough. We need action. While we're laughing on VE Day, the widows will be crying. Brave men didn't die for that."
  The vast majority of people could not agree more. Our debt to war and service widows cannot be measured in money terms, but lack of money inflicts hurtful indignities upon them. Let us, therefore, agree tonight that there is no better way of celebrating the historic victories of 1945 than by, first of all, meeting in full our debt of honour to Britain's war and service widows. If we cannot agree tonight and the battle has to go on, then go on it will, until justice is secured for them.
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on obtaining a debate on this exceptionally important subject. He has secured the support of a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends and some right hon. and hon. Conservative Members. We can all understand the right hon. Member's wish to help war and service widows. No doubt he did all that he could for them when he was Minister with special responsibility for war pensions in the Labour Administration in 1978.
  Today's war widow's pension is, for most widows, worth almost £140. In real terms, that is much more than it was worth in the right hon Gentleman's day. In 1978, half the war widow's pension was taxable; today, like all benefits under the war pensions scheme, that £140 is tax-free. In 1978, there were only two allowances in respect of age—at 65 and 70; today, there are three. The two earlier ones are worth more in real terms, and a new tier was introduced in 1984 for war widows aged 80 and over. That allowance is now worth £24.40 week.
  258
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, in 1978 there was no additional provision for pre-1973 war widows. Today, all second world war widows and many others receive, on top of the basic pension, a supplementary pension worth £48.70 a week. That supplement is not only tax-free but completely disregarded for income-related benefit purposes.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. To avoid confusion, I shall try to deal with each separately. What is being asked for today, both in the Chamber and in another place, and by means of the early-day motion to which the right honourable Gentleman referred, which has attracted much correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Houses is that, first, a pre-1973 DSS war widow's pension should be for life, irrespective of remarriage. Similarly, that widow's pension, under the post-1973 Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme, should be for life.
  Secondly, the half-rate armed forces widow's pension should be extended to widows who receive only a third-rate pension because their husband's service terminated before 31 March 1973. Thirdly, provision for occupational widows' pensions under the Ministry of Defence scheme should be extended to widows who married their late husbands after retirement from the forces, where that retirement took place before 6 April 1978.
  I shall deal with pensions for life first. The DSS war widow's pension may be awarded where the late husband's death is due to any service in the armed forces. Pension provision for widows under the Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme is a separate matter. The scheme pays two types of widow's pension: the normal forces family pension and the enhanced pension where the late husband's death was due to service. The rationale behind the DSS pension and both the Ministry of Defence pensions is to assist with the loss of support which a widow could have expected from her late husband. Those pensions are therefore paid not as compensation for the loss of a husband but for the widow's maintenance.
  As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, the consequence of remarriage, since the lady is no longer a widow, is that the widow's pension is withdrawn under both schemes. The DSS position on that reflects what happens to the national insurance widow's pension. The Ministry of Defence position reflects that of the other public service occupational pension schemes.
  As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, on remarriage, the DSS awards a gratuity equal to a year's pension, which normally amounts to about £7,000. Should the lady unfortunately become widowed again, she will be eligible for assistance from the social security system. There is no provision, under the DSS war pensions scheme, for the restoration of a war widow's pension.
  However, under the Ministry of Defence scheme and in line with the provisions of other public service occupational schemes, there is discretion to restore the pension. That discretion is normally exercised where the widow is financially worse off on second widowhood than when she was first widowed. In recent years, in 80 per cent. of claims for restoration, the pension has been restored.

  259
  The DSS war widow's pension is paid at a much higher rate than a national insurance widow's pension. Most widows receive, as I have said, almost £140 per week tax-free, which is approximately 250 per cent. more than the national insurance widow receives. In addition, a war widow is able to receive a retirement pension based on her own contributions, which could increase her income to nearly £200 a week, irrespective of any other income that she might have.
  For many widows, £58.70 of a war widow's pension may be disregarded as income for the purposes of claims to income-related benefits. Widows who benefit from improvements made to the Ministry of Defence scheme from 31 March 1973 receive a basic DSS war widow's pension but in addition can also receive a Ministry of Defence pension.
  Our record in this area is a good one. For example, we have improved significantly the value of the age allowances payable on top of the basic war widow's pension, we have increased from £4 to £10 a week the amount of war widow's pension that may be disregarded for income-related benefit purposes, and we introduced in April 1990 a supplementary pension of £40 a week, which will be £49.77 from next April, for those war widows whose husband's service ended before 31 March 1973; that is not only tax-free, but is completely disregarded for income-related benefit purposes.
  The proposal of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is that all those generous pensions should be granted for life regardless of any change in marital status. He referred to the matter of cost. He is right that war widows' pensions for life could not be introduced without further cost. Almost 90,000 war widows have remarried since 1939. Although we do not know exactly how many are still living and would claim restoration of their pension, it would almost certainly be extremely expensive. For pre-1973 war widows alone, it could cost about £60 million in a full year, and that is taking into account offsets for state benefits currently in payment.
  I assure the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that we fully appreciate the sacrifice that the late husbands of those widows made on behalf of their country. That is why we have ensured that the pension provision for war widows fully recognises that sacrifice. That of course is no more than the country would expect while the state of war widowhood remains. However, to continue to pay a very preferential pension when a war widow has remarried and still has or has had the support of a second husband is neither justified nor fair to the widow who loses her national insurance widow's pension on remarriage.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There appears to be some disparity with our own provision in the House. I understand that, if we pass on and our widows remarry, they can still enjoy the benefits of our parliamentary scheme.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall discuss that if I have some time later, but the difference that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has drawn attention to stems from the fact that, when the scheme for the House was set up, the contributions were set to take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
  I shall move on to those matters that relate solely to the Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme. The effect of accepting the changes that the right hon. Member
  260
  for Wythenshawe suggests would be to extend pension scheme improvements that were introduced in 1973 and 1978 to all widows of service men whose service ended before those dates. I should explain that it is a fundamental principle that improvements to occupational pension schemes should benefit only those serving on or after a qualifying date. There are good reasons for that.
  It would be impossible on cost grounds, if for no other reason, to introduce major improvements to schemes such as that without imposing a fixed and current date from which those improvements can be made available. Even though the cost of making just one concession for the Ministry of Defence scheme might appear to be modest, the wider implications are significant. To make exceptions for that scheme in any of the ways which the right hon. Gentleman suggests can only have expensive knock-on effects for other public service pension schemes.
  The first of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals under this heading is that all widows should receive a normal Ministry of Defence occupational widow's pension of at least half that of their late husbands' occupational pension. Before the introduction of improvements to the Ministry of Defence scheme from 31 March 1973, the widow received a pension at one third of the rate of her husband's pension. Those serving on or after that date were given the option of "buying in" to the new scheme and making direct contributions so that their widows could receive the half-rate pension. Each service man was given that opportunity, and many accepted it.
  Clearly, the widow of a service man who did not choose to make such contributions cannot receive the enhanced pension. That is partly because it would he quite unfair on those who did pay, and partly because the normal principle for occupational pension schemes is that those retiring before the introduction of an improvement may not benefit from it. The option to "buy in" given to those still serving would in itself make it impossible, in all fairness, to extend the half-rate pension to widows whose husbands had left the service before 31 March 1973 and who had not, as a result, paid towards the improvement—indeed, they could not have done so.
  I turn now to the last of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—that a Ministry of Defence occupational pension should be available for widows who married their husbands after they had retired from the forces and where they had no service on or after 6 April 1978.
  As I have said, when a person retires it is the provisions of the occupational pension scheme in force at the date of his retirement which determine his, and through him his widow's, entitlement to a pension. The Social Security Act 1975 provided that pensions should be given to those widows who married after their husbands' retirement. That improvement was introduced into public service occupational pension schemes, such as the Ministry of Defence scheme, from 6 April 1978 and those who left the forces before that date do not benefit from it. Even for those who do, because they left after that date, the post-retirement widow's pension may be calculated only on the length of service after that date.
  Finally, I come to the comparisons which the right hon. Gentleman made between the DSS and MOD schemes and the schemes of other countries. It is true that, in some countries, widows' pensions are either never removed or restored on second bereavement. As far as the DSS scheme is concerned, those arrangements cannot really be considered in isolation, but have to be viewed within the

  261
  context of the general social and welfare environment of each of the countries concerned. While many countries continue or restore war widows' pensions, their original pension rates are generally lower than those in the United Kingdom. For instance, the rate of our war widow's pension is significantly higher than that of Australia, France, Spain and New Zealand.
  As to the occupational pension schemes for the armed forces of other countries, again, comparisons are not valid. Apart from the different entitlement conditions that might apply, such as the level of contributions needed to qualify for a pension, different social factors will also apply in each country.
  Comparison of occupational pension schemes within the United Kingdom would be more realistic, and in that
  262
  respect the MOD scheme compares well with those offered by most employers and, in particular, with those of other public service pension schemes.
  As I have said, these are complicated and emotive issues, but I do not believe that there is any real justification either for providing pensions for life for the widows of men whose deaths were attributable to service, or for breaching the fundamental principle of public service pension schemes that any improvements to those schemes should not be made retrospective.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the current extent of the threat posed by Irish terrorists by reference to the position before the recent ceasefire.

  Sir John Wheeler
  While terrorist organisations retain all their munitions and operational structures, the threat of violence remains, as we have seen from the murder of Mr. Kerr in Newry and continuing callous "punishment beatings". Nevertheless, the incidence of violence has diminished and the security forces have responded imaginatively to the ceasefires.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many arctic fox fur farms there have been, by region, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  There have never been any arctic fox fur farms in Northern Ireland.

  Student Allowances
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students at universities in Northern Ireland received the mature student's allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage of all mature students in each year these figures represent; what was the administrative cost of operating the mature students' allowance in Northern Ireland for each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of Northern Ireland students receiving the older students' allowance, payment of which is the responsibility of the education and library boards, is available only for the following three years:

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  375

  1993–94

  439

  1994–95

  530

  Information about the percentage of all mature students that these figures represent and administrative operational costs is not readily available.
  98

DEFENCE

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit Hong Kong in 1995.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce an anti-alcohol programme into the armed forces as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soames
  Drunkenness is an offence under service law, and all personnel are made aware that the services take a very serious view of alcohol misuse. Considerable effort is put into dealing with alcohol-related problems and a comprehensive system of education and treatment, together with deterrent administrative and disciplinary action, has been developed. A series of alcohol education programmes, making use of pamphlets, films and lectures, has been produced to make all personnel aware of the dangers of alcohol misuse. Officers and NCOs are also trained to recognise symptoms so that alcohol misuse can be dealt with promptly.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about co-operation between the member states of the Western European Union on air transport.

  Mr. Soames
  WEU members continue to discuss the potential for enhancing co-operation between national forces, including air transport assets, that may be made available for the range of operations that the WEU might undertake.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to relocating search and rescue helicopters currently based at RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Soames
  None. It remains our intention to maintain a search and rescue flight at RAF Chivenor.

  Friendly Fire Incident (Normandy)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that a memorial service is held for the men killed on HMS Hussar, HMS Britomart, HMS Salamander and HMS Colsay in the friendly fire incident off Normandy on 27 August 1944; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  It is for veterans' associations to organise the commemoration of individual actions if they so wish. Official events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the D-day campaign as a whole were held last year. This year will see the commemoration of victory in 1945.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will give all reasonable assistance to those wishing to organise a reunion for those sailors who survived the friendly fire incident of Normandy on 27 August 1944 involving HMS Hussar, HMS Britomart, HMS Salamander, and HMS Colsay.
  99
  Mr. Soames
  The editor of "Navy News", the official newspaper of the Royal Navy, will be pleased to publish a request for survivors of this incident to contact the organisers of any reunion.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will lift the embargo on the names of those who died in the friendly fire incident off Normandy on 27 August 1944, involving HMS Hussar, HMS Britomart, HMS Salamander and HMS Colsay, and publish the names of those who survived prior to their dispersal to other units of the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Soames
  There has never been an embargo on the list of casualties from this incident. Indeed, details of those from the Britomart and the Hussar, the two vessels sunk, were published in The Times in October and November 1944. Any casualty details from the other vessels involved may well have been included in more general casualty lists frequently published in the press at the time, but these could now be checked only at disproportionate cost.

  The names of those who survived would be scattered among any number of contemporary records, and these also could now be checked only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of alleged Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Soames
  It is my Department's policy to investigate the allegations of a Gulf war syndrome in a scientific and objective manner to establish the full facts. We are concerned to ensure that those who are ill receive proper assessment and diagnosis, and where necessary are referred for treatment to those responsible for their health care. As part of these investigations, we have established a medical assessment programme to build up a soundly based data bank of information resulting from individual clinical examination of those Gulf veterans who are coming forward with concerns about their health in response to repeated ministerial requests. We are also following scientific developments in the United States and elsewhere examining the plausibility of the many postulated causes of the alleged syndrome and making comparisons of the health problems experienced by Gulf veterans against the normal incidence of such symptoms among the rest of the armed forces and the general United Kingdom population. Our investigations to date have found no medical or scientific evidence of a Gulf war syndrome, or of any medical condition peculiar to service in the Gulf.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving service personnel have reported sick claiming to have Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Soames
  To date, a total of 51 serving personnel have come forward, or have been referred, into my Department's medical assessment programme with concerns about their health as a result of Gulf war service. Of the 24 who have so far been examined and diagnosed, none has been found to have a medical condition peculiar to Gulf service.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel from the other allied 100
  nations who took part in the Gulf claim to be suffering from Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Soames
  The latest figures available to my Department indicate that approximately 13,000 United States Gulf war veterans have registered with the clinical evaluation programme established by the United States authorities to examine those alleging ill health as a result of Gulf war service. Among other allies, the claims of some 30 to 40 Canadians and 20 Norwegian Gulf personnel to be suffering from the alleged Gulf war syndrome are being investigated by their national authorities.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-military supporting staff are claiming to be suffering from Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Soames
  To date, my Department has received notification of 483 potential claims in respect of ill health as a result of service in the Gulf war. The information available shows that 12 are from individuals who were civilians at the time, seven of whom can be identified as non-military supporting staff paid by the MOD.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts awarded by his headquarters contracts branches to(a) Price Waterhouse, (b) EDS Defence Ltd. and EDS Scicon Defence Ltd., (c) Coopers and Lybrand, (d) Touche Ross Management Consultants and Touche Ross and Company and (e) Andersen Consulting for (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  The value of contracts placed with these companies by my Department's central contracts branches is as follows:

  1992–93

  Company name

  Total value £ million

  Touche Ross Management Consultants and Touche Ross and Company

  0.6

  Andersen Consulting

  0.2

  Coopers and Lybrand

  9.7

  Price Waterhouse

  0.2

  1993–4

  Company name

  Total value £ million

  Touche Ross Management Consultants and Touche Ross and Company

  0.05

  Andersen Consulting

  0.2

  Coopers and Lybrand

  2.4

  Price Waterhouse

  1.3

  No contracts have been placed by the central contracts branch with EDS Defence Ltd. or EDS Scicon Defence Ltd. over the periods in question.

  The figures given relate only to contracts let by my Department's central contracts branches. They exclude lower value contracts placed by individual budget holders, details of which are not held centrally.
  101

  Al-Yamamah Deal
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the money transferred to a Saudi by British Aerospace and Rolls Royce in respect of the Al-Yamamah deal was paid for out of his Department's budget; if(a) British Aerospace and (b) Rolls Royce paid for the use of these funds; and whether the funds have now been repaid.

  Mr. Freeman
  I know of no such payment.

  Surgeon Commander D. W. Sommerville
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the barrier to the release of Surgeon Commander D. W. Sommerville from the Royal Navy to allow him to take up the post of consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Raigmore hospital, Inverness.

  Mr. Soames
  Although we are giving all reasonable consideration to Surgeon Commander Sommerville's request for premature voluntary retirement to take up an appointment at the Raigmore hospital, the timing of his release must accommodate the need to maintain a satisfactory level of orthopaedic expertise to support the requirements of the armed forces.

  Army Divisions
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the Army's technical equipments division, Donnington, and vehicle spares division, Chilwell.

  Mr. Soames
  In June last year, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) accepted, as the basis for consultation, a recommendation that the Army's technical equipments division, Donnington, and vehicle spares division, Chilwell, should be collocated within a leased building in Telford near Donnington, achieving annual savings of some £6,000,000.

  During the consultation process, my Department received a number of alternative proposals for the siting of the collocated organisation. All these proposals have received the most careful and sympathetic scrutiny and have been subjected to detailed financial appraisals. However, none of the alternatives would provide a more cost-effective solution than the original recommendation to collocate in Telford.

  I therefore have to confirm that we shall now move to implement our plans to amalgamate the two existing divisions to form the Equipment Support Provision and Procurement Authority within a leased building in Telford by late 1995, early 1996.

  We will of course continue to consult with staff and the trade unions about the detailed implementation of the collocation.

  Export Finance House
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the turnover of IMS export finance house in each year it traded.

  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.
  102

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Coarse Fishing
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects lo announce his decision on the application by the National Rivers Authority for his approval to change the regulations governing the close season for coarse fish.

  Mr. Jack
  In December, the National Rivers Authority applied for confirmation of new byelaws intended to rationalise the existing rules for the coarse fish close season and to produce a consistent and uniform system for England and Wales. In place of the present widely varying rules, it has proposed that a close season should apply to all rivers, streams and canals from 15 March to 15 June but be dispensed with on all lakes, reservoirs and ponds.

  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 specifies a statutory minimum close season for fishing for coarse fish, but current legislation also gives the NRA the power to make byelaws to alter the close season or to dispense with it altogether. This power was available to the former water authorities which, prior to the creation of the NRA in 1989, were responsible for the regulation and management of salmon and freshwater fisheries. Many made use of the power with the result that in Devon, Cornwall and Gwynedd there is now no close season at all; in northern England and Lincolnshire there is a close season on rivers and streams, but not on stillwaters; and in the rest of the country there is a close season on all waters. As a result anglers are often confused about the rules that apply and the fishing opportunities that exist, in different regions.

  The NRA advertised the proposed new byelaws last September. Ministers received 256 objections. The NRA wrote to all objectors and, in the light of its explanations, six objections were withdrawn.

  In submitting its proposals to Ministers, the NRA stated:
  "there is no clear evidence that angling for freshwater fish during the period of the statutory close season will have a widespread deleterious impact on fish".

  Nevertheless, it considers that, in our current state of knowledge, a statutory close season serves a useful purpose on rivers and streams, where fish stocks are rarely discrete and fish move between stretches of river. Fishing rights along a river are often held by a number of different bodies, and, in these circumstances, individual fishery owners are not able to take the steps to protect fish stocks that they feel are necessary. The NRA is therefore proposing that there should be a uniform close season on all rivers and streams. There is widespread support for this idea, and there were few objections to this element of the NRA's proposals. We intend to accept it.

  The NRA has proposed that canals should be treated in the same way as rivers. This would entail imposing a statutory close season on canals in northern England and in Devon and Cornwall, which are currently not subject to one. There has been a substantial number of objections to this element of the proposals, both from individuals and angling clubs. We have considered these, together with the case put to me by the NRA, with care. We accept that there are sound reasons for wishing to have the same rules applying to all canals, but we have seen no evidence that the current lack of a close season on the canals in question

  103
  has had any adverse effect on these fisheries, or on fish stocks and, we have, on balance, concluded that there is not sufficient justification for extending the close season to these canals.

  In other parts of the country, the position may be different. In some areas it may be difficult to make a realistic distinction between rivers and canals, and there may be wider conservation arguments for retaining a close season on some canals. We would not wish to suggest, therefore, that the close season should be removed from canals which are currently subject to it without full consideration being given to all the relevant factors. If anglers or fishing owners feel that the close season should be ended on a particular canal in this category, they should take the matter up with the NRA. It will then be for the NRA to consider each case on its merits and, if it believes that a justified case has been made out, to propose the necessary change.

  In contrast to most rivers, the majority of lakes, reservoirs and ponds are under single management with discrete stocks of fish. The NRA argues that, in these circumstances, management of these stillwater fisheries, including decisions on whether to impose a close season, can be left to individual fishery managers and it is proposing that the close season should be removed on all lakes, reservoirs and ponds.

  This element of the proposals attracted a large number of objections. There are widespread fears that the removal of the close season would have adverse effects on spawning fish, breeding birds, other wildlife and, more generally, on the waterside environment. Both Ministers and the NRA have a duty, under the Water Resources Act 1991, to exercise their powers in respect of proposals they are formulating or considering so as to further the conservation of flora and fauna of special interest in so far as this is consistent with the NRA's statutory functions. A number of objectors felt that the proposals did not take adequate account of these wider conservation implications.

  We have carefully considered the case put to us by the NRA, and the points made by objectors. Our conclusion is that there is no convincing case to be made, from a fisheries management point of view, for the retention of the close season on these waters. We have also concluded that, in general, a statutory close season is not an appropriate instrument for furthering the conservation of flora and fauna. Not all waters are of equal conservation value, nor is angling the only leisure activity to have an impact on the waterside. Boating, walking, riding and cycling, for example, all take place on or close to many waters during the close season and in our view there is no justification for singling out angling as the one activity that must be statutorily suspended.

  Nevertheless, we fully accept that anglers and fisheries managers can make an important contribution to conservation, and we very much welcome the NRA's initiative in drawing up, in consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, guidelines to assist fisheries managers to manage their fisheries in an environmentally friendly way. We also recognise that ending the statutory close season could have an adverse impact on sensitive sites of particular conservation value, and we have concluded that, on balance, it should be retained for such sites. Accordingly, we are proposing to the NRA that its proposals be modified to retain the statutory close season on sites of special scientific interest
  104
  which might be adversely affected by its removal. English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales have been asked to provide advice on such sites.

  We have also noted an objection from the Broards Authority to the proposed removal of the close season on stillwaters in the Norfolk broads. The authority argues that the broads form a single, and important, ecosystem, and that there are no valid reasons for distinguishing between rivers and stillwaters in the broads. We accept this argument, and are proposing that the proposals be modified to retain the close season on them.

  In Yorkshire a byelaw currently prohibits the use of keep nets on stillwaters between 15 March and 15 June. The NRA has noted that such a prohibition does not exist in other regions that permit fishing to take place during the close season, and that this does not appear to lead to any problems. In these circumstances, it is proposing to revoke the bylaw in question. Although there have been objections to this proposal, we accept the NRA's arguments on this point and intend to confirm this proposal.

  Under the provisions of the Water Resources Act, modifications to proposed byelaws can be made only with the consent of the NRA. Provided that the authority gives its consent to the amendments I have outlined, I hope that it will be possible to bring the new arrangements into effect before the start of this year's close season on 15 March. Arrangements are in hand to ensure that those directly affected by the amendments we are proposing have the opportunity to comment on them; if necessary, further amendments could then be brought forward before the start of next year's close season.

  BSE
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of compensation paid in respect of animals slaughtered as BSE carriers has subsequently been discovered to have been paid in respect of animals which were not infected in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [Pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1995, Official Report c. 712–13]The figure in the table for 1994 was incorrect, the correct information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage unconfirmed

  1990

  15

  1991

  14

  1992

  15

  1993

  16

  1994

  117

  1 Provisional figure.

  A2 Crash
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many sheep were being carried in the truck that crashed on the A2 on 8 February; how many died; and what were the causes of death;

  (2) what was the intended destination of the sheep carried in the truck that crashed on the A2 on 8 February; what subsequently happened to the sheep that survived

  105
  the accident; and how long they were in transit without food, rest and water.

  Mrs. Browning
  A total of 417 sheep, intended for export via Brightlingsea, were being carried in the lorry. About half of the sheep died of suffocation and six seriously injured animals were put down by veterinary surgeons called to the scene by the RSPCA. I understand that the RSPCA states that 184 or 186 carcases were removed for disposal. The surviving sheep were taken to a lairage about five miles from the scene of the accident, where they were placed under statutory notice requiring their resting feeding and watering. The sheep were inspected at 09.30 hours on the following day by the veterinary officer who had served the notice. He considered them to be in good condition and fit to travel to the exporter's home premises near Canterbury. So the restrictions were withdrawn and the sheep were permitted to return to their premises of origin.

  European Quality Beef Promotion Scheme
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount and proportion of funding given to each member state from the European quality beef promotion scheme in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Jack
  Community funds approved to date under the European quality beef promotion scheme are as follows:

  ECUs

  Member state

  1993 approvals

  1994 approvals

  Belgium

  1,893,858

  0

  Spain

  984,984

  379,855

  Germany

  2,093,618

  675,395

  France

  4,027,536

  0

  Ireland

  2,574,653

  0

  Italy

  1,421,956

  1,787,093

  Netherlands

  1,119,546

  0

  Portugal

  0

  126,618

  United Kingdom

  2,251,200

  1,075,066

  In each case, Community financing represents 60 per cent. of the total cost of measures to promote quality beef.

  Shoreham Port (Livestock)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what factors led to the turning away of livestock from Shoreham port on the morning of 15 February;

  (2) what type of livestock animals were turned away from Shoreham port on the morning of 15 February; how many of them there were; what subsequently happened to them; what overall time they were in transit; what length of time they were travelling before getting rest, food and water breaks; how long these breaks lasted; how many breaks there were; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information was available as to weather conditions on the morning of 15 February; what consideration was given to not transporting animals to Shoreham docks on that day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Taking full account of the weather forecast on the day, the master of the vessel, in 106
  consultation with the Ministry veterinary officer on duty, decided not to sail on 15 February. The information was relayed to the police and the drivers of six vehicles that had arrived at the collection point outside Shoreham were informed.

  The lorries returned to lairages in Kent and East Sussex—respectively, approximately two hours' and one hour's travelling time from the Shoreham collection point. All journeys would have been well within the 15 hours rest, feeding and watering interval under United Kingdom legislation. The animals involved totalled 400 sheep and 668 calves. Prior to loading, the animals had at least eight hours rest and during that period were fed and watered. The animals remained in lairage overnight and were exported through Shoreham port on the following days sailing.

  December Fisheries Council
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 January to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell),Official Report, columns 543–44, what amount of additional financial aid was provided to Ireland at the December Fisheries Council meeting.

  Mr. Jack
  The amount of aid to be provided to Ireland was not specified in the agreement reached at the December Fisheries Council.

  Specialist Calf Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of specialist calf abattoirs in Britain in(a) 1971, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d)

  Mrs. Browning
  Information about the number cif specialist calf abattoirs in the years concerned is not available. However, we believe that in 1994 approximately 45 abattoirs in England, Scotland and Wales handled calves, or had handled them in the recent past.

  Veal Calves (Export)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received in favour of the banning of the export of veal calves to the EU.

  Mrs. Browning
  In the past six months we have received more than 20,000 letters on the subject of the transport of live animals for slaughter or further fattening, a high proportion of which call for such a ban.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Certificates
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans has he to suspend legal aid certificates held by prisoners who have absconded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Decisions in respect of civil legal aid in individual cases are a matter for the Legal Aid Board. It must consider whether, in the light of all the
  107
  relevant circumstances, it is reasonable, within the terms of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the regulations made under it, for an individual to receive, or continue to receive, civil legal aid. The fact that an assisted person is imprisoned and absconds is not, of itself, a specific ground for discharging a civil legal aid certificate.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the use by Roy Higginson of a current legal aid certificate after he absconded from prison.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. Higginson was granted civil legal aid in 1989—before he was imprisoned—in order to pursue a claim in respect of damage caused to his house. That certificate continues in force and will continue for as long as Mr. Higginson continues to meet the criteria for the grant of civil legal aid as laid down in the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the regulations made under it.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many escaped prisoners have current legal aid certificates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in respect of the Director General of Fair Trading's recommendation on consumer credit deregulation.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Our consumer credit legislation provides valuable and necessary consumer protection. That does not mean that it is perfect or unalterable. The Government share the director general's view that, while the basic framework has stood the test of time, some aspects of the legislation need to be changed.

  The Government are minded to accept the director general's proposals for changes to the consumer credit legislation. However, the Government have not closed their mind to other options and we shall wish to pay particular attention to further information on the costs and benefits of what has been proposed.

  The director general also proposed that some provisions of section 104 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 should be implemented and the necessary accompanying regulations made. Having considered this carefully, the Government have decided that they should not, at present, bring forward more regulations. However, they will keep the position under review and will reconsider the case for legislation should circumstances change.

  The director general also recommended that we should not proceed with previously announced proposals concerned with tightening the rules on the marketing of consumer credit. The Government propose to accept this advice, but in this case we shall keep the need for additional measures under review.

  The director general's report contains many proposals on consumer credit. It is not practicable to introduce them all at the same time. We shall given priority to the proposals on excluding lending and hiring to unincorporated businesses from regulation; revising the monetary limits and amounts in the legislation; restricting
  108
  the statutory obligation to notify the director general about changes in the officers of businesses operating under standard consumer credit licences or among those in a position to control them; achieving greater fairness in the rebates to be paid if credit agreements are settled early; and with repealing the regulations on quotations. Other consumer credit deregulation measures will be brought forward in due course.

  The Government wish to reiterate that the intention is to improve the legislation. By providing for consultation on the basis of detailed proposals, they expect that there will be ample opportunity for representatives of consumer interest, enforcement authorities and the credit industry to contribute to this process.

  Cable Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cable companies provide a free feed to educational institutions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have had several discussions with the cable companies about connections to institutions in communities within their franchise areas. I therefore welcome the Cable Communications Association announcement last week that the United Kingdom cable industry has agreed to offer a free standard connection to every school passed by cable networks. This policy will be co-ordinated by the association, which has said that it will also liaise with cable companies, programme providers and educational authorities with regard to programme content. So far, 350 schools have been connected to cable networks.

  I referred to these initiatives when I gave evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 25 January 1995.

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who has ministerial responsibility for ensuring that the social benefits of the information super-highway in education and training, medicine, the public services and Government are maximised.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am responsible for co-ordinating the DTI's interests in broadband communications and multimedia for the information society. I aim to encourage the public and private sectors to exploit the technology available and to take full advantage of the opportunities emerging. In doing so, I work closely with colleagues from Departments responsible for the sectors concerned, and with industry through the multi media advisory committee.

  I discussed these matters in evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 25 January 1995.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the approach to popularising communications and information technology adopted by Manchester city council with accessible electronic village halls for the local community; and how his Department intends to spread best practice in this area.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department supports initiatives to enable local communities to gain access to up-to-date information and telecommunications technology. It is exactly this sort of development which
  109
  the Government are encouraging more widely through initiatives of broadband communications, multimedia and the Internet. Indeed, the creation of electronic village halls in Manchester was an initiative pioneered in partnership with the council by the former Government-funded Manchester/Salford city action team, which provided £157,500 towards the scheme. Projects of a similar nature could be considered for funding via the appropriate Government office through the single regeneration budget.

  Information Society
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what benefits he expects for the United Kingdom from the European information society initiative in the social and economic spheres.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government agree with the European Commission in its White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment that the enormous potential for new services relating to production, consumption, culture and leisure activities will create large numbers of new jobs and new patterns of working. As a result of our successful policy of telecommunications liberalisation, the UK is very well placed to gain the maximum benefit from this process in both social and economic spheres.

  We are taking forward proposals arising out of the Bangemann report on the information society.

  N. M. Rothschild and Son Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 484, how many hours to date N. M. Rothschild and Son Ltd. has worked on the contract on the future of the coal industry; and if he will make a statement on the advice received by the then Secretary of State for Energy from officials.

  Mr. Eggar
  N. M. Rothschild has, to date, worked approximately 37,000 hours since the contract was awarded in May 1991. The content of advice from officials to Ministers is confidential.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the fixed rate export finance scheme of the Export Credits Guarantee Department from 1989–90 to the present.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The cost of ECGD's fixed-rate export finance scheme depends on the prevailing levels of short term interest rates. From 1989–90 the costs have been:

  Year

  £ millions (Rounded)

  1989–90

  349

  1990–91

  413

  1991–92

  237

  1992–93

  111

  1993–94

  minus 53

  1994–95

  minus 11 (Estimated)

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what staff have been seconded to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, however briefly, since 1992; in 110
  what capacities they served ECGD; and from which enterprises or companies they came.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: Since the beginning of 1992, there have been the following two secondments into ECGD:
  A Divisional Director from British Aerospace for 15 working days in 1993, under the auspices of the Whitehall Industry Group.
  An Economist from Barclays Bank plc, for just over three years, working as part of a team responsible for the provision of economic advice and forecasts for country risk assessments.

  Mine Closures
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates and reasons for closure of coal mines in the Northumblerand and Durham coal fields since 1963.

  Mr. Page
  I am advised by British Coal that the collieries listed in the table have closed in those areas since 1963, in each case through exhaustion of economically viable or technically exploitable reserves.

  Colliery closures in Northumberland and Durham since 1963

  Year

  Area

  Colliery

  1963–64(15 months)

  Northumberland

  Loughbridge

  Seaton Burn

  North Durham

  Addison

  Crookhall

  Fenhall Heworth

  High Marley Hill

  South Pelaw

  Stargate

  South Durham

  Haggs Lane

  Lanchester Townley

  Roddymoor

  1964–65

  North Durham

  Derwent

  East Tanfield

  Lambton 'D'

  Pelton

  Phoenix Drift

  Stanley Burn

  Watergate

  South Durham

  Hole in the Wall

  Tudhoe Mill

  1965–66

  Northumberland

  Algernon

  Bedlington 'F'

  Choppington 'B'

  Isabella

  Stobswood

  North Durham

  Beamish Mary

  Bradley Drift

  Clara Vale

  Harraton

  Lumley Sixth

  Witton

  South Durham

  Dean and Chapter

  New Shildon

  North Tees

  Sherburn Hill

  West Thornley

  1966–67

  Northumberland

  Choppington 'A'

  East Walbottle

  Hauxley

  Weetslade

  111

  Colliery closures in Northumberland and Durham since 1963

  Year

  Area

  Colliery

  1966–67 continued

  North Durham

  Barcus Close

  Chopwell

  Greenside

  South Durham

  DeafHill

  Middridge

  Ryhope

  Thrislington

  Waterhouses

  1967–68

  Northumberland

  Bedlington 'D'

  Newbiggin

  North Walbottle

  North Durham

  Byermoor

  Chester South Moor

  Hamsterley

  Handen Hold

  Ravensworth Park

  South Durham

  Brancepeth

  Brandon Pit House

  Bowburn

  Kimblesworth

  Staindrop Field

  House

  Trimdon Grange

  West Auckland

  1968–69

  Northumberland

  Cambois

  Linton

  Longhirst

  Pegswood

  North Durham

  Burnopfield

  Emma

  Washington 'F'

  Whitburn

  South Durham

  Brusselton

  Esh

  Mainsforth

  Stanley Cottage

  Wheatley Hill

  1969–70

  Northumberland

  Rising Sun

  Mill

  North Durham

  Craghead

  Harton

  South Durham

  Tudhoe Park

  Thornley

  1970–71

  Nil

  —

  1971–72

  Northumberland

  Bedlington 'A'

  North Durham

  Silksworth

  1972–73

  North Durham

  Washington Glebe

  Medomsley

  South Durham

  Shotton

  1973–74

  Northumberland

  Bardon Mill

  Fenwick

  Netherton

  North Durham

  Morrison Busty

  South Durham

  Fishburn

  112

  Colliery closures in Northumberland and Durham since 1963

  Year

  Area

  Colliery

  1974–75

  North East

  Kibblesworth

  Nettlesworth

  Usworth

  Whitworth Park

  1975–76

  North East

  Burradon

  Langley Park

  1976–77

  North East

  Havannah

  1977–78

  North East

  Dudley

  1978–79

  North East

  Metal Bridge

  Rainton Adventure

  1979–80

  North East

  Hylton

  1980–81

  North East

  Eccles

  Eden

  Woodhorn

  1981–82

  North East

  Blackhall

  Houghton

  1982–83

  North East

  Boldon

  Marley Hill

  1983–84

  North East

  East Hetton

  1984–85

  North East

  Bearpark

  1985–86

  North East

  Brenkley

  Sacriston

  Herrington

  Bates

  Horden

  1986–87

  North East

  Whittle

  1987–88

  North East

  Ashington

  1988–89

  Nil

  —

  1989–90

  Nil

  —

  1990–91

  Nil

  —

  1991–92

  North East

  Dawdon

  Murton

  1992–93

  Nil

  —

  1993–94

  North East

  Vane Tempest

  Westoe

  Easington

  Wearmouth

  Ellington

  Nuclear Review
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his Department's review of the future prospects for nuclear power.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 19 October 1994,Official Report, column 239.
  113

  Business Link Wirral
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the projected losses by Wirral Business Link in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: No. Business Link Wirral is a private sector company, and the financial management of the company is a commercial matter for the board.

  Pacific Crane
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the radioactive waste from the Pacific Crane and the reprocessing of its cargo at THORP will be(a) returned to Japan and (b) retained in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The Pacific Crane is one of the five ships used to transport spent fuel from Japan to be reprocessed in Europe. Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that reprocessing contracts with overseas customers shall continue to contain such options, that the options should he exercised and that wastes should be returned.

  Objective 1 Programme
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the impact of DTI co-financed schemes in 1994 in Merseyside; when this will be available to the objective I partnership; and what improvements Her Majesty's Government are planning to introduce in the current year.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: No separate assessment of the impact of DTI co-financed schemes has been undertaken at this early stage of the objective 1 programme, although a progress report will be submitted to the monitoring committee in due course. There are no current plans for an enhancement of the additional support available through co-financing. DTI schemes are subject to on-going evaluation to ensure value for money.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters of public interest he will take into account in the event of a foreign conglomerate proposing to take over one of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In the event of such a takeover qualifying for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be advised on the matter by the Director General of Fair Trading. In giving his advice, the DGFT would take account of all relevant factors, as would the President in making his decision.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to meet the Director General of Offer to discuss proposals for the regulation of foreign-owned regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I and my colleagues discuss a wide range of issues with the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation from time to time.
  114

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pension
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what was the value of the basic state pension as a proportion of gross average earnings in the United Kingdom for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table.

  Standard weekly rate of Category A Retirement Pension expressed as a percentage of all adults average earnings

  Date

  Weekly rate £

  Percentage of average earnings

  November

  1978

  19.50

  23.2

  November

  1979

  23.30

  23.2

  November

  1980

  27.15

  22.6

  November

  1981

  29.60

  22.4

  November

  1982

  32.85

  23.1

  November

  1983

  34.05

  21.7

  November

  1984

  35.08

  21.4

  November

  1985

  38.30

  214

  July

  1986

  38.70

  20.5

  April

  1987

  39.50

  19.9

  April

  1988

  41.15

  18.8

  April

  1989

  43.60

  18.2

  April

  1990

  46.90

  17.8

  April

  1991

  52.00

  18.3

  April

  1992

  54.15

  17.8

  April

  1993

  56.10

  17.7

  April

  1994

  57.60

  17.7

  Notes:

  The date shown is that from which the applicable rate became payable.

  Average earnings are based on the Employment Department's new earnings survey estimates of all adults earnings as at the relevant dates.

  Figures for 1978 to 1993 are taken from the "Abstract of Statistics" published by the Department of Social Security, analytical services division.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what grounds unsuccessful applications to the social fund for a payment for rent in advance are refused.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The social fund can help with requests for rent in advance in the form of budgeting and crisis loans. The social fund officer, when using his discretion in reaching a decision, has to take account of all the circumstances surrounding each application, as well as the guidance provided by Secretary of State on priorities. There will inevitably be some variations between decisions in a flexible, discretionary scheme.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.
  115
  Mr. Hague
  None of those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1994" will pursue separate pay arrangements from April 1995 or April 1996.

  Single payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total expenditure on single payments for(a) the Greenock and Port Glasgow district offices and (b) the Lothian central district office for (i) 1985–86, (ii) 1986–87 and (iii) 1987–88.

  (2) what was the total expenditure on single payments for (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland in (i) 1985–86, (ii) 1986–87 and (iii) 1987–88.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those gaining national insurance credits in the 1992–93 year were previously in employment or approved self-employment; and what would he the cost to public funds to contribute the sums which employers would have paid in national insurance contributions; assuming earnings at(a) two thirds average earnings and (b) average earnings.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1992–93, some 7.2 million employed earners and 0.6 million self-employed earners were awarded an average of 35 credits. If the employed earners were receiving earnings of two thirds average earnings1 for each of the 35 weeks they were awarded a credit, their employers would have paid £871.152 in contributions at current rates; on average earnings1 employers would have paid £1,306.552.

  Notes:

  1Calculations based on weekly male average earnings of £366 (New Earnings Survey April 1994).

  2 Calculations assume that contributions were paid at the not contracted out rate of 10.2 per cent.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many days in the last five years cold weather payments have been paid to people in Inverclyde; and which weather station covers this area.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the cold weather payments scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 20 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Cold Weather Payments.
  The Inverclyde region broadly corresponds to the geographical area covered by the Benefits Agency District of Clyde Coast and Cowal. Postcodes in that area are linked to the weather station at Glasgow Airport.
  Cold weather periods are forecast or recorded on a weekly basis and, if appropriate, a payment is made for the same period. Including this year to date, Cold Weather Payments have been made to people living in the area covered by the Benefits Agency's Clyde Coast and Cowal District on six occasions over the last five years.
  116
  I have provided a table showing the number of weeks for which Cold Weather Payments were made in each year for the area in question.

  Number of weeks

  1990–91

  3

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  3

  1994–95

  0

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

SCOTLAND

  River Clyde (Dredging)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made for the waste dredged from the bed of the Clyde by Clydeport to be inspected by public agency to see if it bears any toxic substances.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The disposal of dredge spoil at sea is licensed by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department under part H of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It is a condition of licensing that samples are provided to the Department's marine laboratory at Aberdeen. These are analysed for a range of substances to enable the Department to check that the spoil being disposed of conforms to agreed international standards with respect to the levels of contamination.

  Water (Discharges)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what differences exist in the right of the public to know about substances discharged into a river, estuarial or coastal waters by pipe and by boat.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, discharges from pipes to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters require the consent of the relevant river purification authority. The Act also requires the river purification authorities to maintain public registers containing particulars of all consents, the conditions set and monitoring results. In the case of the deposit of substances or articles from ships, similar registers are maintained by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department which grants licences under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 relating to deposits in the sea.

  Other discharges from boats and ships are controlled by local byelaws, by the Prevention of Pollution Act 1986 or the international convention on the prevention of pollution—MARPOL—but none have associated public registers. However, certain permitted discharge levels are available for public scrutiny.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the effect on local
  117
  authority investment of the ending of the provisions whereby notional capital receipts can be generated from 21-year leases of capital assets.

  Mr. Lang
  Outturn information for the latest available year, 1993–94, shows authorities raised £34.8 million of notional capital receipts. This represented 3.5 per cent. of their total expenditure in that year on non-housing programmes. Local authorities' financial plans for 1995–96 indicate that authorities expected to raise £27.9 million of notional capital receipts in 1995–96, representing just over 2 per cent. of their total planned expenditure of around £1,200 million on their non-housing programmes.

  National Heritage Designations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the system of area designations and to include the national parks model in the review; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A review of natural heritage designations, including consideration of national parks, is part of the work programme of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many arctic fox fur farms there have been, by region, in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There has only been one Arctic fox farm operating in Scotland during the past five years. This was in Strathclyde region. It was depopulated in 1992 and has not been restocked.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual cost of caring for a person with learning difficulties in(a) the community and (b) hospital.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average annual cost of caring for a person with learning difficulties in a national health service hospital in 1993–94 was £34,675. The cost of providing services for people with learning difficulties in the community varies greatly depending on their level of learning difficulty and need for support. Figures are not available centrally which would allow a meaningful average figure to be prepared.

  European Funds
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schemes approved for European funding in Scotland by(a) name, (b) region and (c) level of funding for the first year of the (i) Urban, (ii) Pesca, (iii) Leader II, (iv) SME, (v) Konver, (vi) Resider II, (vii) RECHAR II and (viii) ADAPT European funds for industrial change.

  Mr. Kynoch
  No schemes have yet been approved under these Community initiatives. Operational 118
  programmes were submitted to the European Commission in early November and we await the Commission's response. Programmes must be approved by the Commission before projects can be considered.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, columns 358–59, when he expects to be able to give the total responses received and from his analysis list those organisations which supported (a) map 1 in his consultative document, (b) map 2 in his consultative document and (c) the whole of the present Strathclyde region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We will announce the outcome of the consultation exercise on the boundary and constitution of the proposed Starthclyde passenger transport authority after detailed and thorough consideration of the responses received.

  Student Allowances
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the administrative cost of operating the mature students' allowance in Scotland for each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The mature students' allowance is administered as an integral part of the students' allowances scheme and it is not possible to identify the administrative costs separately.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students received the mature students' allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available at universities in Scotland; and what percentage of all mature students in each year these figures represent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The table shows the number of Scottish domiciled award holders under the students' allowances scheme who were in receipt of a mature students' allowance in each of the academic years 1989–90 to 1993–94, the latest year for which complete figures are available. The figures distinguish between award holders attending higher education institutions, including universities, in Scotland; other institutions in Scotland; and institutions outwith Scotland. The number of award holders in receipt of the mature students' allowance is expressed as a percentage of the total number of mature award holders in that academic year.

  The responsibility for the provision of student support for students domiciled in England and Wales and Northern Ireland who may be attending institutions in Scotland rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, respectively.
  119

  Table 1—Number of Scottish domiciled award holders in receipt of the mature students' allowance by category of institution

  Higher education institutions,Scotland

  Other institutions, Scotland

  Institutions outwith Scotland

  Total

  Percentage of mature award holders

  Academic year

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  1989–90

  1,895

  355

  150

  2,400

  40

  1990–91

  2,331

  440

  158

  2,929

  42

  1991–92

  2,878

  1,099

  191

  4,168

  43

  1992–93

  3,644

  1,716

  211

  5,571

  47

  1993–94

  4,440

  2,540

  292

  7,272

  49

  Notes:

  1. The mature students' allowance is means tested and not all holders will necessarily have received the full amount.

  2. For this purpose "mature award holder" is one who was aged 26 or over on entry to full-time higher education.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding was allocated to each further education college in Scotland in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Recurrent £

  Capital £

  Recurrent £

  Capital £

  Aberdeen College

  12,622,000

  386,766

  13,348,100

  199,750

  Angus College

  2,779,200

  151,512

  3,176,700

  140,883

  Anniesland College

  3,659,100

  836,310

  3,938,900

  161,093

  Ayr College

  4,389,700

  157,738

  4,591,600

  290,425

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  2,921,500

  39,147

  3,379,900

  0

  The Barony College

  1,018,100

  35,582

  1,252,600

  317,250

  Bell College of Technology

  5,287,900

  146,840

  5,304,500

  565,727

  The Borders College

  3,746,000

  121,461

  3,899,400

  146,053

  Cambusland College

  3,982,300

  46,607

  4,112,700

  55,930

  Cardonald College

  5,782,700

  444,129

  6,124,000

  917,675

  Central College of Commerce

  3,905,595

  384,940

  4,392,200

  356,378

  Clackmannan College

  2,304,900

  182,080

  2,399,500

  100,815

  Clydebank College

  6,595,700

  415,356

  6,801,600

  474,818

  Coatbridge College

  3,697,000

  684,230

  3,768,500

  24,881

  Cumbernauld College

  2,468,800

  34,304

  2,683,600

  173,066

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  4,933,400

  230,272

  4,916,000

  418,952

  Dundee College

  10,711,800

  628,813

  10,501,600

  285,643

  Elmwood College

  3,000,900

  134,551

  3,106,800

  63,333

  Falkirk College

  8,063,700

  161,293

  7,885,400

  458,838

  Fife College of Further and Higher Education

  6,918,700

  140,361

  7,464,700

  193,875

  Glasgow College of Building And Printing

  5,351,500

  907,688

  5,495,000

  477,191

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  3,324,500

  242,966

  3,374,300

  323,125

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  3,862,300

  284,994

  3,821,200

  208,927

  Glenrothes College

  4,643,800

  105,249

  5,018,200

  51,935

  Inverness College

  6,467,900

  396,102

  6,287,000

  291,400

  James Watt College of Further and Higher Education

  6,034,100

  158,032

  7,372,900

  470,588

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  7,689,000

  356,766

  7,336,300

  246,868

  John Wheatley College

  2,836,600

  449,017

  3,241,000

  426,525

  Kilmarnock College

  4,311,100

  516,955

  4,859,600

  576,455

  Langside College

  5,121,300

  813,210

  5,705,300

  1,136,813

  Lauder College

  4,844,700

  378,590

  5,126,100

  203,275

  Lews Castle College

  1,964,100

  183,452

  2,063,500

  417,889

  Moray College

  4,561,000

  105,869

  4,826,700

  252,038

  Motherwell College

  6,484,700

  215,329

  6,944,100

  379,103

  North Glasgow College

  5,881,900

  1,174,397

  5,695,900

  765,806

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  1,803,600

  484,353

  1,888,900

  369,126

  Perth College

  5,431,200

  45,008

  5,573,600

  239,113

  Reid Kerr College

  7,205,700

  717,745

  7,685,100

  737,313

  Stevenson College

  10,054,900

  394,472

  9,827,900

  378,938

  Stow College

  3,694,500

  603,760

  4,182,800

  338,635

  Telford College

  12,491,900

  938,441

  12,543,600

  646,250

  Thurso College

  2,444,500

  67,364

  2,660,300

  474,348

  West Lothian College

  5,047,300

  285,539

  4,825,500

  396,927

  Orkney Islands Council

  410,600

  0

  444,800

  0

  Shetland Islands Council

  1,154,600

  0

  1,203,800

  0

  120
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The funding allocated to further education colleges in Scotland and Islands councils in respect of the provision of further education in Orkney and Shetland in 1994–95 and 1995–96 is as follows:
  121

  Access Funds
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of the level of access funds provision in Scotland for Session 1995–96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of £4.33 million will be available for the access funds at higher and further education institutions in Scotland in academic year 1995–96. This compares with a total of £4.14 million in 1994–95, and the provision for 1995–96 thus represents an increase of about 4.6 per cent. over the current session.

  The sum has been allocated between the three funds as shown:

  £ million

  Higher Education fund

  2.61

  Postgraduate fund

  0.83

  Further education fund

  0.89

  The detailed 1995–96 allocations will be notified to the individual academic institutions in late summer.

  Pollok Estate
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it cost to provide police officers in Pollok estate on 14 February to supervise tree felling in preparation for the building of the M77; how many police officers were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: No separate record is kept by Strathclyde police of the costs incurred in providing police officers to mount this operation. Some 267 officers were deployed in and around the Pollok estate during the course of that day, leading to a total overtime payment estimated by the force to be approximately £5,000.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the outturn figures for 1993–94 and the expected outturn figures for 1994–95 for the management running costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: The information for executive non-departmental public bodies receiving Government funding is shown in the table. There are differences between bodies in the precise definition of "management running costs".

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Executive NDPBs

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Scotland

  2,855

  2,947

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  16,934

  19,561

  Scottish Film Council

  300

  300

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  611

  623

  122

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Executive NDPBs

  Outturn

  Estimated Outturn

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  1,488

  1,442

  Scottish Community Education Council

  595

  600

  National Museums of Scotland

  8,962

  8,912

  National Galleries of Scotland

  5,293

  5,255

  Scottish Sports Council

  3,034

  3,004

  National Library of Scotland1

  7,518

  7,754

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  3,600

  3,350

  Scottish Arts Council2

  0

  1,934

  Scottish Enterprise3

  55,501

  49,950

  New Town Development Corporations4

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  4,536

  4,445

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  6,942

  5,014

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  6,001

  5,568

  Irvine Development Corporation

  5,137

  4,510

  Livingston Development Corporation

  6,164

  6,149

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise3,5

  10,644

  10,092

  Scottish Homes6

  42,000

  42,400

  Scottish Tourist Board3,5

  3,546

  3,810

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board7

  22

  17

  Police (Scotland) Examination Board

  4

  4

  Scottish Legal Aid Board8

  5,366

  5,422

  National Board for Scotland (Nursing and Midwifery)6

  1,896

  2,082

  Crofters Commission

  1,397

  1,559

  The Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes

  Hannah Research Institute

  2,902

  2,878

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  5,947

  5,911

  Moredun Research Institute

  3,447

  3,420

  Rowett Research Institute

  5,941

  5,892

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  7,428

  7,366

  Scottish Agricultural Wages board9

  26

  28

  Red Deer Commission

  517

  630

  Royal Botanic Garden

  5,083

  4,636

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee10

  153

  144

  1 National Library costs increased in 1994–95 to take account of additional staffing requirements for the new building at Causewayside.

  2 Scottish Arts Council previously funded by Arts Council, Great Britain. Separate figures for 1993–94 unavailable.

  3 Includes expenditure on the management of the programme activities of the Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks, including running costs of the local enterprise companies.

  4 Management running costs have been taken to be the total gross administration costs of the Development Corporations including the costs of managing their industrial and commercial portfolios and housing which are revenue generating activities.

  5 Takes account of a transfer from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the Scottish tourist board for restructuring costs arising from the tourism review.

  6This includes the costs of salaries, general running costs of the Office and accommodation including rent and rates, etc.

  7 Includes a retainer for the members and for the rent of the board's premises.

  8 Includes the running costs of the staff, board members and reporters, accommodation costs and general expenditure—postage, telecommunication, stationery and audit fees.

  9The only expenditure of this body is payments of fees and travel subsistence.

  10 This represents the Secretary of State's share of funding. Other funding is provided by Edinburgh district council.

  123

  Pilmuir Quarry
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement, in the case of the construction of a landfill site at Pilmuir quarry, Newton Mearns, the European Union directives 85/337 on environmental impact assessment, 80/68 on ground waste, 75/442 EEC on waste, and 78/339 on toxic and dangerous waste; and if he will publish his response to the European Commission's article 169 infringement proceedings.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 February I995]: The Government have fully carried out their obligations under directives 85/337, 80/68, 75/442 and 78/339 in connection with the development of Pilmuir quarry as a landfill site.

  Correspondence between member states and the European Commission on infraction proceedings is regarded as confidential between the parties and it would not be appropriate to publish it. We consider that we can provide a full and satisfactory answer to all the points contained in the Commission's article 169 letter.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what way he intends to make his views concerning the design of the Cardiff Bay opera trust known to the Millennium Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made clear on 20 December 1994,

  Community charge/council tax collection, by authority

  Estimated receipts of 1992–93 Community charge

  Receipts of 1993–94 Council tax

  £000

  1at 31 March 1993 As a percentage of the full amount to be collected

  £000

  2at 31 March 1994 As a percentage of the full amount to be collected

  Alyn and Deeside

  6,820

  88

  8,033

  93

  Colwyn

  4,965

  87

  5,998

  89

  Delyn

  6,319

  92

  7,535

  96

  Glyndwr3

  3,207

  88

  4,215

  83

  Rhuddlan

  5,267

  89

  5,778

  95

  Wrexham Maelor

  8,944

  84

  11,309

  94

  Carmarthen

  4,205

  91

  5,891

  93

  Ceredigion

  5,426

  85

  7,560

  93

  Dinefwr

  2,539

  87

  3,674

  88

  Llanelli

  6,348

  91

  6,976

  93

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  5,847

  94

  7,070

  96

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,275

  88

  4,243

  91

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,104

  84

  4,695

  92

  Islwyn

  4,418

  87

  4,731

  93

  Monmouth

  7,603

  96

  8,586

  94

  Newport

  10,446

  85

  10,687

  93

  Torfaen

  7,360

  96

  7,008

  96

  Aberconwy

  5,173

  91

  5,820

  96

  Arfon

  3,917

  92

  4,348

  95

  Dwyfor

  2,700

  96

  3,310

  98

  Meirionnydd

  3,542

  90

  4,067

  96

  Ynys Mon

  5,792

  89

  6,750

  94

  Cynon Valley

  3,808

  89

  4,008

  95

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,724

  85

  3,350

  94

  Ogwr

  9,499

  90

  10,373

  94

  124
  neither Ministers nor Departments will comment on the merits of applications to the millennium fund.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he issued guidelines to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority for the purposes of preparation of different segments of the organisation for sale or market testing; if he will place a copy in the Library of the letter of instruction; and if he will give the appropriate section of Statutory Instrument 1985 No. 996 under which the instruction was issued.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The letter was issued on 28 March 1994 on a management in confidence basis. It was not necessary to refer to any particular section of Statutory Instrument 1985 No. 996. The current relevant statutory instrument is the WHCSA Constitution Order 1990 (SI 1990/2647).

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council in Wales and for Wales as a whole(a) the total amount of community charge collected in respect of 1992–93, (b) the total amount of council tax collected in respect of 1993–94 and (c) the corresponding proportions of (a) and (b) as a percentage of the total collective amounts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table. Around £800 million of community charge for the period 1990–91 to 1992–93 had been received by 31 March 1994, 95 per cent. of the total amount collectable. It is not possible to estimate what proportion of this relates to 1992–93. Some authorities have estimated 1992–93 collection rates because of difficulty in separating receipts for 1992–93 from receipts for earlier years.
  125

  Community charge/council tax collection, by authority

  Estimated receipts of 1992–93 Community charge

  Receipts of 1993–94 Council tax

  £000

  1at 31 March 1993 As a percentage of the full amount to be collected

  £000

  2at 31 March 1994 As a percentage of the full amount to be collected

  Rhondda

  3,531

  88

  4,260

  95

  Rhymney Valley

  7,335

  88

  6,403

  94

  Taff Ely

  7,842

  87

  7,728

  95

  Brecknock

  3,528

  95

  4,551

  98

  Montgomeryshire

  4,213

  93

  5,335

  96

  Radnorshire

  2,082

  95

  2,490

  96

  Cardiff

  21,093

  85

  22,663

  92

  Vale of Glamorgan

  9,667

  92

  11,097

  96

  Lliw Valley

  4,699

  93

  5,949

  96

  Neath

  4,708

  89

  6,125

  95

  Port Talbot

  3,425

  89

  4,091

  94

  Swansea

  15,526

  90

  17,312

  95

  Wales

  222,897

  89

  254,019

  94

  Source:

  Local Authority returns

  1Net of all deductions on Community Charge bills including Community Charge Reduction Scheme and Community Charge Benefit.

  2 Net of all deductions on Council Tax bills including Council Tax Benefit.

  3Council Tax bills were not issued until May 1993, which may have affected the overall collection rate for the year.

  Chippenham Mead Village Green
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he intends to announce his decision on the holding of fairs at the Chippenham Mead village green, Monmouth.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The decision will be issued shortly.

  Learning Disability
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average annual cost of caring for a person with learning difficulties in(a) the community (b) hospital.

  Mr. Richards
  In 1992–93, local authorities in Wales spent a total of £80 million to support a total of 10,410 individuals with a learning disability living in the community, an average cost of £7,700 per individual. More recent information from local authorities is that the average revenue cost to them of an individual with a learning disability receiving accommodation in the community, including day services, is around £34,000 per annum.

  In 1992–93, expenditure by health authorities on services for individuals with a learning disability was £61 million. This represents the cost of hospital care for some 1,058 individuals and all community health services.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those zoos which are owned by local authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Phantasia, Swansea.

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the funding plans for(a) investors in people, (b) business enterprise training, (c) skills choice and (d) open learning credit for 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  Planned expenditure by Welsh TECS in 1995–96 on business growth and start-up activities,126
  including support for investors in people, is £13.175 million. Both the skillchoice and the open learning credits pilots will end this financial year, although residual expenditure of £70,000 on skillchoice is anticipated in 1995–96.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the estimated outturn for TECs in Wales(a) youth training, (b) training credit and (c) modern apprenticeships with respect to training weeks used by those in on-the-job training.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested. TECs do, however, collect information for youth training and youth credits on the number of "employed status" training weeks delivered—that is, those trainees with a contract of employment. These trainees undergo both on and off-the-job training. Some 350,000 YT/YC employed status training weeks are expected to be delivered by TECs in Wales during 1994–95, which represents 43 per cent. of total YT/YC provision.

  As modern apprenticeships are in a development phase in the current financial year, TECs have not been requested to provide a planned figure for employed status trainees.

  Independent Public Inquiries
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make arrangements for independent public inquiries to be established in relation to(a) the Glan Clwyd baby theft and (b) issues arising from the internal inquiry into the transportation of a stillborn baby for pathological examination from Wrexham Maelor hospital to the University hospital of Wales on 15 November 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS trust is holding an internal inquiry and I shall consider whether any further action is required in the light of its findings, which will be available in March.

  The report of the internal inquiry is under consideration in my Department and I shall decide whether any further action is required in due course.
  127

TRANSPORT

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 560–61, when he expects the inquiry into breaches of the Air Navigation Order 1989 of flights containing calves from Coventry airport in November and December 1994 to reach its conclusions; who is participating in the inquiry and whom they represent; and whether he will make the proceedings and conclusions of the inquiry available to the public.

  Mr. Norris
  The inquiry is expected to reach its conclusions shortly. It is an internal inquiry which is being conducted by the Department to seek to determine whether there has been any breach of the Air Navigation Order 1989. The Department is being assisted by the Civil Aviation Authority. All relevant parties involved in the operation of the flights will be interviewed.

  The question of publication of the proceedings or any other part of the inquiry's conclusions will be considered once the inquiry has been completed and the findings assessed.

  Wind Forces
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum permissable wind force for merchant ships to set sail when(a) unladen, (b) laden and (c) laden with livestock.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about maximum permissable wind forces for merchant ships.
  Ships on international voyages are designed generally to operate in all weather conditions and their construction is approved on that basis. The decision to set sail is a matter for the professional judgement of a ship's Master, taking account of the weather and other factors, including the safety of the ship's crew and cargo.

  Consultants
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) of 14 July 1994,Official Report, column 724–27, to show for all consultants and other outside organisations or individuals currently or previously employed by his Department for advice or assistance in rail privatisation (a) the name of the consultancy, organisation or individual (b) the length of the contract offered to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (c) the total amount inclusive of VAT paid to date to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (d) the total amount inclusive of VAT expected to be paid to each consultancy, organisation or individual, and (e) the services required by his Department from each consultancy, organisation or individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  Information about payments to individual contractors is commercially confidential.

  Payments made to consultants currently or previously employed by the Department total £22.5 million.
  128
  Consultants currently employed by the Department are:

  Organisation

  Linklaters and Paines

  Legal advice

  Freshfields

  Legal advice

  Samuel Montagu

  Merchant banking

  Hambros

  SG Warburg

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Accountancy and taxation

  Ernst and Young

  Accountancy

  Price Waterhouse

  Accountancy

  Shandwick

  Marketing

  Gresham

  Marketing

  Ernst and Young

  Information systems

  Richard Ellis

  Property matters

  Sedgwick

  Insurance

  Brodies

  Advice on Scots law

  Travers Morgan

  Advice on BR/Railtrack infrastructure contracts

  Ernst and Young

  Advice on BR infrastructure contracts and sales

  Consultants previously employed by the Department are:

  Organisation

  Arthur D Little

  Research

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Access and access charging

  Mercer Management

  Freight and Franchising

  Norman Broadbent

  Recruitment

  Putnam Hayes and Bartlett

  Access and access charging

  Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks

  Property matters

  NERA

  Regulatory matters

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Industry structure

  Dewe Rogerson

  Marketing

  Contracts for consultancy advice are normally offered on an on-going basis with provision for the Department to terminate the contract.

  Bus Services, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he holds about the quality of bus services in greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The quality of bus services is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of bus operators. The passenger transport executive is responsible for securing the provision of non-commercial services under subsidy. All local bus services in Greater Manchester are registered with the traffic commissioner for the north-west traffic area office, who has powers to act against bus operators who fail to run their services to their registered timetables. The commissioner will also act where buses fail to meet the Department's rigorously enforced safety standards.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Lebanon
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to the international aid effort in the camps of Lebanon.
  129
  Mr. Baldry
  UK assistance to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is mainly channelled through the UN Relief and Works Agency, the organisation with prime responsibility for assistance to all Palestinian refugees in the near east, including those in Lebanon.

  In the last three financial years, Britain has made bilateral contributions to UNRWA's core budget totalling £18 million.

  In addition, Britain pays a share, currently approximately 16 per cent. of the EC contribution to UNRWA's regular programmes. The current convention covering the years 1993–95 is for 80 million ecu, plus food in kind.

  Since 1993, we have also provided grants worth £95,400 to Medical Aid for Palestinians for project work in the camps of Lebanon, and £119,600 as emergency aid through MAP, the British Red Cross and Y Care International.

  South Africa
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the attainment of better educational standards in South Africa is being encouraged by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  Education is an agreed priority area for our aid programme to South Africa. We focus our assistance on support for policy reform at both the national and provincial level; the improvement of maths, science and English teaching in schools; and the provision of training for disadvantaged groups, including bursaries for tertiary education in both the United Kingdom and South Africa.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding is provided from the United Kingdom via the European bank for reconstruction and development for the Slovakian Mochovce nuclear reactor; and what financial liability the Government will have to assume in the event of an accident at the plant.

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK Government would not provide any funding specifically for the Mochovce project.

  We would not assume any financial liability in the event of an accident. Once Slovakia fulfils its undertaking to accede to the Vienna convention—which would he a condition of disbursement of the bank's proposed loan—all liability for damages resulting from a nuclear incident would be channelled to the operating organisation, Slovenske Elektarne, the Slovak power utility. In addition, the bank would receive an indemnity from the Slovak Government against liability for nuclear incidents.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom has taken on the European bank for reconstruction and development loan for the completion of the Slovakian Mochovce reactor; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of a plant if this nature with the standards which would be required in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not yet taken a position on this project but are examining the project documentation, particularly the least-cost analysis study, safety report. and environmental impact assessment report, and will also 130
  need to consider the outcome of the public participation programme currently being carried out in Slovakia and neighbouring countries.

  No assessment against United Kingdom licensing requirements has been made, but the bank has required that the safety assessment be based on an approach demonstrably equivalent to good western practices and the safety improvement programme at Mochovce has been reviewed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have contributed to the United Nation's Liberian trust funds; how much they have contributed; and on what the British contribution has been spent.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The following information on contributions has been received from the United Nations' Secretariat: United States $16.5 million, essentially from the ECOWAS monitoring group; Norway—$290,000; Denmark—$295,000; The Netherlands—$262,000; United Kingdom—$1 million.

  The British contribution has been spent as follows:

  $250,900 for public information;

  $50,000 for a hospital generator;

  $15,000 for a university library generator.

  Most of the remainder has been earmarked for the following:

  $300,000 for emergency assistance for war-affected populations;

  $200,000 for demobilisation;

  $100,000 for public information;

  $50,000 for treatment of trauma victims.

  The earmarked funds have not yet been spent because of the decline in the security situation in recent months. The funds will be used as soon as conditions permit.

  The remaining $34,100 has not yet been earmarked for any specific purpose, but can be made available as and when needed.

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been displaced and made homeless in Sierra Leone since 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: A World Food Council/United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees joint food assessment mission which took place in November 1994 reported 500,000 displaced and homeless Sierra Leoneans in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia since ethnic clashes began in 1991.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those aid projects in Mozambique supported by his Department in the last five years, indicating those which will provide sustainable development.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: Bilateral aid projects supported over the last five years are as follows:

  Rural Development

  Workshop to facilitate better co-ordination between NGOs. Mozambican Government authorities and ODA

  131

  Save the Children Fund: Rehabilitation and construction of secondary and tertiary bridges in Zambezia province

  Fisheries

  Angoche jetty and Emepesca trawler rehabilitation prawn by-catch project

  Power

  Maputo power station rehabilitation of brush steam generators training of electricians in the electricidade de Mozambique

  Roads

  Mechanical engineering assistance

  Technical assistance to the planning department of the national directorate of roads

  Bus rehabilitation study

  Study to develop a programme for the rehabilitation of secondary and tertiary roads in Zambezia province

  Air Transport

  Aeronautical equipment and telecommunications provision

  Water Transport

  Matola jetties rehabilitation and construction

  Public Administration

  Social dimensions of adjustment contributions to the World bank study

  Institutional strengthening of GCPI (Office for co-ordinating import support programmes)

  Study to assist in the institutional development of free trade zones

  Elections

  Multi-party elections seminar

  Finance

  Assistance to the banking sector

  Contribution to the World bank finance sector adjustment project

  Education

  Assistance to pre-university training

  Assistance to the National Institute for Development in Education (INDE)

  Assistance to the Institute of Languages

  Development of the secondary English department in Eduardo Mondlane university

  Development of the teacher training initiatives in Mozambique

  Multi-sectoral Rehabilitation Grants funded through Non-Governmental Organisations

  Concern: Education and water programmes in Nampula province

  Co-operation for development: support small farmers co-operatives

  Vet Aid: Paravet training Inhassunge District

  Christian Aid: Rehabilitation of educational medical and agricultural activities in Namorroi and Inhassunge districts.

  Action Aid: Rehabilitation and provision of resources for the development of the primary education and agricultural sectors in Pebane district

  In addition Mozambique has benefitted from UK assistance provided to the Southern Africa Development Community as follows:

  Railways

  Rehabilitation of the Limpopo railway and a technical assistance to develop the institutional capacity of the managing Mozambican authority

  Rehabilitation of the Nacala railway and transport corridor.

  Water Transport

  Rehabilitation and institutional development of Maputo port

  We regard all these projects as contributing to sustainable development

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of aid provided for Mozambique in each of the last five financial years.
  132
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The figures for our bilateral aid to Mozambique are as follows:

  £000

  1989–90

  19,589

  1990–91

  25,059

  1991–92

  17,086

  1992–93

  31,441

  1993–94

  29,930

  In addition, Mozambique has benefited from United Kingdom assistance provided to the Southern Africa development community as follows:

  £000

  1989–90

  2,935

  1990–91

  5,903

  1991–92

  6,900

  1992–93

  3,340

  1993–94

  1,398

  Children (Commercial Exploitation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department undertakes to combat the commercial exploitation of children overseas.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We seek to promote growth and to reduce poverty through our aid programmes in order to eliminate the pressures which result in the commercial exploitation of children. The ODA is attempting to assist developing country Governments to recognise and address the needs and problems of economically active children by providing them with improved health, education and employment opportunities.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to increase efforts to alleviate the suffering in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We continue to work with the international community and the Rwandan Government to rehabilitate Rwanda, to encourage the safe return of the refugees and to promote reconciliation between the parties. The significant donor response at the January round table of nearly $583 million underlines the serious efforts being made to improve conditions inside Rwanda and in the region.

  OECD Development Centre
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in the OECD do not now financially support the OECD development centre in Paris.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: At present, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey do not financially support the OECD development centre.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the
  133
  membership costs of the OECD development centre for the United Kingdom over the past five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The United Kingdom has contributed about 6 per cent. of the total costs of the budget of the OECD development centre. Over the past five years this has been:
  134

  £

  1990–91

  231,125

  1991–92

  268,000

  1992–93

  368,000

  1993–94

  388,000

  1994–95

  406,000

  135
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the OECD development centre in Paris, and what is its relationship with they United kingdom Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The OECD development centre is an autonomous research institute under OECD auspices. Its main activities are research, contacts with research and training institutions around the world and the organisation of informal meetings to discuss economic issues.

  The United Kingdom Government contribute to the budget of the centre and are represented on its advisory hoard. We have announced our intention to withdraw from membership at the end of 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  MFI Warehouse, Great Stukely
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision in respect of the planning application by the MFI chain to build a warehouse at Great Stukely, Huntingdonshire, on a site of specific scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no planning application currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a MFI warehouse at Great Stukely, Huntingdonshire.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the interim arrangements for the handling of wastes prior to the introduction of the super-compaction facility at Sellafield, referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's response to the Greenpeace complaint regarding a perceived breach of the Drigg authorisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested by the hon. Member is an operational matter for BNF plc.

  However, the interim arrangements referred to are briefly mentioned in BNF plc's application for a variation to the authorisation for the transfer of solid low-level waste from Sellafield to the Drigg disposal site. I will be placing a copy of this document in the Library of the House.

  North Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he will allow for consultation on his announcement of 20 January regarding the future of strategic planning in North Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The announcement on 20 January, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, about strategic planning for North Yorkshire and Humberside took account of representations already received from local authorities and other bodies following the announcement of his decision on 25 October about the future local government structure for the area. The draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural Change) Order and the draft Humberside 136
  (Structural Change) Order, both published and circulated to local authorities on 8 February, included provisions that reflected modifications made in light of representations received. Final comments on the orders were invited by 14 February.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he is taking to ensure that Britain's waste incinerators comply with European Union regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  EC legislation concerning polluting emissions from waste incinerators is implemented by means of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and directions made under it. The 1990 Act gives the enforcing authorities strong enforcement powers and provides for transparency of compliance by requiring a range of information to be placed on the public register.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 508, when he expects to publish the results of the survey of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurens in soil in the vicinity of incinerators which is referred to in the November 1989 report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: I expect the report to be published in the spring.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incinerators have been closed because of dioxin emissions in each of the last five years, giving in each case the site of the plant and the level of dioxins being emitted.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department does not have information about which if any incinerator closures in the last five years were the result of dioxin emissions. Many incinerators have ceased operating since the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force because they were unable to meet the relevant BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive costs—standards.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the incinerators which have been investigated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution because of concerns over dioxin emissions giving in each case the site of the plant, the date and nature of the investigation and the outcome;

  (2) if he will list in nanograms per cubic metre the level of dioxins being emitted from each waste incinerator in England and Wales;

  (3) what action HMIP (a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to reduce levels of dioxin emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP has issued authorisations under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, that require operators of incinerators to report, among other things, the release of dioxins to atmosphere. These are recorded on the public register. HMIP also routinely inspects the operation of incinerators against the terms of each authorisation and, from time to time, carries out its own measurements of the dioxin releases. HMIP carries out detailed investigations if it has reasons to believe there
  137
  has been a serious breach of the conditions of the authorisation. Thus, for example, HMIP has carried out an investigation of the operation of the incinerator owned by Coalite Ltd. and has subsequently instituted proceedings.

  Through the authorisations it has issued, HMIP is requiring operators to improve operating conditions and the controls of particulates to reduce the release of dioxins. In addition, it is requiring by the 1 December

  Dioxin emissions from incinerators (HMIP) = Results by HMIP—all others by the operator

  HMIP region

  Location

  Type*

  Each result ng/m3

  Date of test

  ANG

  Nottingham

  MSW

  5,20,71,23

  January 1993 (HMIP)

  26

  December 1993

  94.1,50

  November 1994

  ANG

  Edmonton

  MSW

  5.1,8.6

  January 1993 (HMIP)

  7.1, 14

  March 1993 (HMIP)

  11.2,6,9.9,16.3

  January and March 1993

  January 1993

  MID

  Derby

  MSW

  12

  1992

  MID

  Malvern

  MSW

  46.4,50,73.6

  1994 (now closed)

  MID

  Stoke on Trent

  MSW (Two units)

  No. 1=64, 118

  1993/94

  No. 2=208,306

  MID

  Tyseley-1

  MSW

  19,85

  April 1994 (HMIP)

  Tyseley-2

  18,87

  1993–94

  MID

  Wolverhampton

  MSW

  8,10,21,17

  1993–94

  MID

  Coventry

  MSW

  25,18.6

  1993–94

  MID

  Dudley

  MSW

  Closed

  MID

  Killamarsh

  Chemical

  0.84

  November 1991

  1.05

  August 1993

  0.3

  September 1993 (HMIP)

  0.53

  September 1993 (HMIP)

  0.37

  March 1994

  NE

  Stockton on Tees

  MSW

  6.1,2.3

  1994

  NE

  North Shields

  MSW

  Closed

  NE

  Sheffield

  MSW

  4.1, 9.9

  March 1994

  NE

  Huddersfield

  MSW

  178, 182, 187,

  May and

  43,39,73

  September 1994

  NE

  Meltham

  MSW

  Now closed

  NW

  Rochdale

  MSW

  6.8

  1993

  NW

  Bolton

  MSW

  5.8

  1993

  NW

  Ellesmere Port

  Chemical

  0.19,0.17,0.1,

  August 1993 (HMIP)

  0.12,0.05,0.28

  August 1993 (HMIP)

  0.02

  August 1993 (HMIP)

  0.023

  April-June 1994

  0.014

  July-September 1994

  October-December 1994

  SW

  Exeter

  MSW

  0.3

  1994

  sw

  Avonmouth

  MSW

  13.6

  1994

  South

  Havent

  MSW

  5.5, 13, 18, 36,

  1991

  2.6

  1993

  April 1994

  138
  1996 that no incinerator shall operate unless the concentration of dioxin in its gaseous releases does not exceed 1 nanogram per cubic metre. This constitutes HMIP's view of what ought to be achievable using the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The table shows all the available measurements of dioxin concentrations in the releases from all municipal and chemical waste incinerators regulated by HMIP.
  139

  Dioxin emissions from incinerators (HMIP) = Results by HMIP—all others by the operator

  HMIP region

  Location

  Type*

  Each result ng/m3

  Date of test

  South

  Basingstoke

  MSW

  51,29,

  1992

  99.

  May 1993

  1.23

  April 1994

  0.3, 0.2

  August 1994

  South

  Winchester

  MSW

  210, 103, 58.

  1992

  3

  May 1993

  April 1994

  South

  Marchwood

  MSW

  7.6, 4.5, 3.8,

  1991

  4

  1.2,

  May 1993

  1.7

  April 1994

  October 1994

  South

  SELCHP

  MSW

  Unit 1=0.4

  March 1994

  (Two units)

  Unit 2=0.12

  March 1994

  Unit1=0.04

  December 1994

  Unit 2=0.03

  December 1994

  South

  MAFF Addlestone

  Clinical

  43, 32.6

  October 1993

  South

  Fareham

  Sludge

  0.12

  October 1993

  0.24

  August 1994

  South

  Fawley

  Chemical

  0.2

  June 1993

  0.19

  July 1993

  0.15

  September1993

  0.08

  October 1993

  4.6

  November 1993

  0.64, 0.64

  January 1994

  0.71,0.68, 0.67

  February 1994

  0.44

  February 1994

  0.65,0.41

  March 1994

  0.7, 0.8

  May 1994

  0.4, 0.57

  June 1994

  0.8

  February 1994 (HMIP)

  0.02

  March 1994 (HMIP)

  South

  Grundon

  Clinical

  8.87

  January 1994

  South

  Southwick Park

  Clinical (Two units)

  Unit 1=2.63

  January 1994

  Unit 2=3.8

  January 1994

  NE

  Sheffield

  Clinical

  2.4

  June 1994

  NE

  York Water

  Sludge

  0.02

  November 1994

  Wales

  Pontypool

  Chemical

  1,0.77

  July 1992

  0.35

  January 1994

  0.5

  March 1994

  0.61

  April 1994

  0.78

  May 1994

  0.39

  June 1994

  0.41

  July 1994

  0.6

  August 1994

  0.47

  September 1994

  0.41

  October 1994

  *MSW = Municipal Waste Incinerator.

  1 ng/m3 = One billionth of a gram.

  Businesses (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from the Small Business Federation on the disregarding of crime prevention measures in the new rate revaluation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to amend regulations to take additional costs for protection of business premises
  140
  against crime out of the formula used for assessing new rateable values; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have received a number of representations from the Small Business Federation on the rating of certain security equipment. The Government agree with the recommendation of the Wood committee on the rating of plant and machinery that equipment installed to protect property from vandalism enhances the
  141
  value of that property and thus should attract rates. We have no plans to amend the regulations.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much uniform business rate has been

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Receipts of non-domestic rates net of refunds

  65,046

  79,114

  88,093

  58,961

  150,548

  Share of distributable amount

  95,702

  117,961

  117,736

  100,968

  93,650

  1 Receipts of non-domestic rates collected from April 1994 to December 1994 only.

  The figures for Liverpool's share of the distributable amount for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93—but not for subsequent years—include the amounts in respect of its preceptors, Merseyside police and Merseyside fire and civil defence authorities.

  The distributable amount includes rates paid by occupiers of property on the Crown and central rating lists, whereas the receipt figures are based only on amounts received from ratepayers on the local list. The figures are therefore not comparable.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to the Exchequer of enterprise zones in the north-east region of England since 1979; and what has been the cost of each enterprise zone.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the costs to the Exchequer of rates revenue forgone and infrastructure costs attributable to the enterprise zone scheme since 1979–1994–95 prices.

  Rates forgone £ million

  Infrastructure EZ costs £ million

  Tyneside

  110,8

  16.4

  Hartlepool

  9.7

  1.0

  Middlesbrough

  10.2

  1.6

  Sunderland

  1.6

  7.2

  Total

  132.3

  26.2

  The costs to the Exchequer of the accelerated capital allowances available on enterprise zones are estimated by an indirect method and are not reliable below national level. The estimated cost of these allowances for all enterprise zones in Great Britain up to October 1993 is £655 million.

  River Humber
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has now identified a single less-sensitive area high natural dispersion area for the River Humber for the purposes of the directive—91/271/EEC—on urban waste water treatment;

  (2) if he has classified the waters to the east of the Humber bridge as coastal waters for the purposes of articles 6.2 and 8.5 of the directive—91/271/EEC—on urban waste water treatment;

  (3) what plans he has to use the special procedure in article 8.5 of the directive—91/271/EEC—on urban waste
  142
  collected in Liverpool for each of the last five years; and how much the city has received back from this tax.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The receipts of business rates and the share for Liverpool of the amount distributable from the non-domestic rates pool are as follows:

  water treatment in respect of waste water discharges at any of the remaining locations referred to in his Department's announcement on 18 May 1994; if he will specify the locations where this will apply; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the waste water discharges at all such locations fall within the maximum permitted population equivalent levels for the purposes of article 6.2 of the directive;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the area identified as a less sensitive area for high natural dispersion area for the River Humber meets the criteria set out in annexe IIB of the directive—91/271/EEC;

  (5) if he will make it his policy that in the event that the comprehensive studies currently being carried out in relation to waste water discharges from Hull into the River Humber demonstrate that advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefit, question as to whether such advanced treatment should be provided as an exceptional circumstance will be referred to the European Commission under the special procedure in article 8.5 of the directive—91/271/EEC—on urban waste water treatment.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: As I announced on 18 May last year, the Humber has been identified as a combined high natural dispersion area. The extent of the HNDA is as shown on the map in the Library of the House. The identification was made in the light of advice by the National Rivers Authority that the area qualifies as an HNDA in the context of the urban waste water treatment directive including in particular annexe IIB of the directive. The seaward boundary of the estuary has been drawn at the Humber bridge in accordance with the requirements of article 2, for the purposes of the whole of the urban waste water treatment directive.

  The procedures set out in article 8.5 of the directive will be applied in respect of any discharge into an identified HNDA from an area with a population equivalent greater than 150,000, where a comprehensive study as required by article 6.2 indicates that the less stringent treatment provided for in that article will not adversely affect the environment. Comprehensive studies will have to be carried out before the relevant deadlines in the directive.

  If the comprehensive study being undertaken in relation to the discharge into the Humber at Hull indicate that more advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefit, the Government will seek an article 8.5 derogation. If successful, this will ensure that the environment is protected while being of significant

  143
  benefit to water charge payers and to local trade effluent discharges.

  Micropollutants
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 508, (1) when the further study of micropollutants including dioxins and furans in five towns and cities was completed;

  (2) when he intends to publish the further study of micropollutants, including dioxins and furans, in five towns and cities, and if he will name the towns and cities involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The Department of the Environment set up its toxic micropollutants survey in 1991. When the study began, sites were located in London, Manchester, Cardiff and Stevenage. In 1992, the site at Stevenage was moved to Middlesborough and a new site was established at Hazelrigg in Lancashire. Since 1994, monitoring has continued at four sites in London, Manchester, Middlesborough and Hazelrigg.

  Details of the study are given in laboratory reports, a copy of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies of these can be obtained from the national environmental technology centre, Culham, Oxfordshire. Future reports from the study will he available from the Department's contractors.

  In addition, a summary of the data from the study has been published in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistic", which is also available in the Library.

  Marine Aggregates
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the tonnages of marine aggregates he expects to be extracted from the North sea for road and house building until 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We have made no estimate of tonnages to be extracted. However, minerals planning guidance note 6, issued by the Department in April last year, contains the Government's guidance on aggregates provision in England up to 2006. It advises minerals planning authorities to assume that a total of 315 million tonnes of marine dredged aggregates will be contributed to construction industry needs, mainly in cement manufacture, over the period.

  The extraction of marine aggregates is licensed by the Crown Estate and I understand that there are 57 current licences for dredging in the North sea, including the Thames estuary, permitting the extraction of up to 23.7 million tonnes per annum. The amount actually dredged depends of course on the market.

  Waste Mercury
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what notification is required to be given 144
  to local authorities of the arrival of a consignment of waste mercury for treatment and disposal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what notification is required to be given to local authorities prior to the arrival of a consignment of waste mercury for treatment; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what are the current licensing requirements for transportation of waste mercury in the United kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: Mercury-bearing waste, depending on its concentration and chemical form, is normally a special waste and subject to the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, which apply to movements taking place wholly within the United kingdom. These require waste producers, before the waste is removed, to prenotify the waste regulation authority for the area in which the waste is to be disposed, using a consignment note. A copy is sent to the producer's waste regulation authority, if different, as soon as the waste is removed by the carrier. When the waste is received by the disposer, a copy is sent to the waste regulation authority in whose area the waste was produced. No licence is required for transporting waste but carriers, unless exempt, must be registered by a waste regulation authority.

  Transfrontier shipments of waste for treatment and disposal must be notified in accordance with the provisions of the EC Waste Shipments Regulation—259/93—and the UK's Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. Advance notification of an intended shipment must be made to the relevant authorities, using a consignment note. Within a prescribed period, the authorities must give their agreement or raise objections to the shipment. Shipments may take place only in the absence of objections and with the prior consent of the authorities concerned. Where consent has been given to a shipment, the person exporting the waste—the "notifier"—must send a copy of the completed consignment note to the authorities concerned three days before the actual date of shipment. The consignee must send confirmation of receipt of the waste within three days of its arrival, again using the consignment note.

  Transport, packaging and labelling, and health and safety legislation also apply in all cases.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what tonnage of waste mercury has been imported into the United Kingdom for treatment and disposal since 1979; what proportion has been treated and disposed of in Thurrock; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The collation of statistics on transfrontier shipment of waste into and out of the United Kingdom began with the implementation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. Statistics on transfrontier shipments before 1989 are not therefore available.

  Imports of waste mercury into the UK for treatment and disposal between 1991 and 1994 are as follows:
  145

  Tonnes

  Year

  1991–92

  >0.5

  1992–93

  0.0

  1993–94

  20.4

  1 Figures may be subject to slight revision, as a result of validation exercises carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Data showing imports of mercury wastes between 1989 and 1991, and relating specifically to sites in Thurrock, are not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly with further information.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider expanding the powers of the regulator to ensure the salary, share options and remuneration package of all chairmen and directors of privatised water companies are revealed at the time of their appointment.

  Mr. Atkins
  Remuneration of water company board members is a matter for each company and its shareholders, not for the Government or the regulator. Companies already publish information on directors' emoluments and share interests in their annual reports and accounts.

  Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the relationship between capital and renovation grant programmes in relation to(a) local authority housing and (b) community care.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local housing authorities are expected to formulate strategies and capital programmes to meet the housing needs of their areas, including those arising from community care, in conjunction with other interested parties locally. These plans cover expenditure on the authorities' own housing stock and on renovation grants to the private sector. The Government provide support for capital programmes through credit approvals and grants, including specified capital grants towards renovation grant costs. Authorities also finance expenditure from their own resources.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that training in housing management includes specific provision relating to(a) housing needs and (b) community care.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department encourages local housing authorities to formulate comprehensive training strategies capable of developing the skill necessary to deliver an effective housing service. We would expect training provision to address issues such as housing needs and community care.

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects work to begin on a comprehensive study of all mineral deposits in the Bristol channel; and what specific instructions will he given to those carrying out the study.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A research project designed to examine the aggregates resources of the Bristol channel 146
  is in the Department's geological and minerals research programme. It is expected that work will start in 1995–96. The specific aims of the project will be to make a comprehensive appraisal of the existing data to provide a clear indication of the physical processes, marine ecology and marine aggregate resources of the Bristol channel. This will provide essential information for the development of coastal protection policy and the determination of applications for marine aggregates extraction in the area.

  Packaging Standards Council
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration his Department is giving to funding the Packaging Standards Council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what (a) financial and (b) other support his Department has provided to the Packaging Standards Council in each of the last two years; and what support his Department intends to give in the future.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Packaging Standards Council is an advisory body set up by industry to promote good practice and seek continuous improvement in all aspects of the packaging offered to consumers. The Government welcome the valuable work done in this area by the council. In May 1994, the council approached the Government for support towards its operating costs. We took the view that a body of this type should be independent of the Government and that, in addressing consumer's concerns, its support is properly a matter for businesses in the packaging chain.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total public spending on the youth service by each local education authority in(a) cash terms and (b) as a proportion of the total local authority budget for each year since 1979; and what figures are projected for (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent in each year from 1979–80 to 1994–95; and what the planned spending is in 1995–96, in(a) Greater London (b) the metropolitan district areas and c) elsewhere, under (i) the revenue support grant (ii) the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate (iii) special grants and (iv) specific grants.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions have been reached by review of radioactive waste management policy about the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Gummer
  Consideration has now been given to the responses to the preliminary conclusions of the review, published in August, in relation to the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel. An appraisal of the implications of a multi-store strategy compared with the potential benefits of a single-store strategy has also been
  147
  carried out with particular regard to the question of safety. That appraisal does not point to conclusive benefits deriving from a central store or stores compared with one or more stores sited beside nuclear generating stations. The Government have therefore confirmed their preliminary conclusion that decisions on the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel should be a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators, subject to the necessary planning and regulatory requirements being satisfied.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  England-Ireland Football Match
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what communications he had with the Irish Government prior to the Ireland-English football match regarding(a) the provision of tickets and (b) the arrangements in respect of English supporters;

  (2) which Minister in his Department was responsible for liaising with the Home Office on security matters affecting the Ireland-England international football match.

  (3) what discussions took place prior to the Ireland-England football match with the Football Association in relation to the attendance of English supporters.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. These are not matters for this Department.

  National Lottery
  Mrs Ann Winterton
  To asks the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions a presenter of "National Lottery Live" has appeared on a children's television programme; what assessment he has made as to the consistency of such appearances with the provisions of the code of practice for national lottery advertising; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: The appearance by celebrities on children's programmes on the BBC is a matter for the BBC, and does not fall within the provisions of the national lottery advertising code of practice.

  Television Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on television licensing's monthly budget plan in respect of the requirement to pay six months in advance before the licence is valid.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: Any such representations would be transferred to the BBC, which is responsible for the administration of the television licensing system, including easy payment schemes, and deals with correspondence on this subject. It is not possible to identify from the Department's records the number of representations transferred to the BBC, which related to the monthly budget plan.

  BBC (Transmission)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the status of the reports conducted by Hill Samuel, Nera and Smith Systems Engineering; what 148
  conclusions they reached on the privatisation of the BBC's transmission service; and if he will place them in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The consultants have provided me with an initial appraisal of the options for the future of the BBC's transmission service. The matters considered are commercially sensitive, and I do not intend to publish their report.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to ensure that the British broadcasting industry benefits from the increasing channels for distributing programming, from digital transmission to the information super-highway, in European and international markets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The White Paper on the Future of the BBC made it clear that the development of an international multi-media market would provide unprecedented commercial opportunities for United Kingdom broadcasters and programme makers over the next few years. The White Paper set out the part that the BBC should play in expanding international markets.

  Our current review of media ownership regulation is considering, among other things, how far current controls are consistent with promoting internationally competitive UK media industries. My predecessor announced on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 706–7, the basis on which we intend that frequencies will be made available for new digital television services, and we hope to set out later this year the framework we propose for the operation of such services.

  Discovery Channel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many educational institutions in the United Kingdom have access to the Discovery Channel carried by cable television operators.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally. The Government welcome diversity of provision of educational broadcasting to schools and other educational institutions.

  Educational Channel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reserve any of the new channels facilitated by digital television transmission, as a dedicated educational channel.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government hope to set out later this year the framework that they propose for the operation of new digital television services.

  Millenium Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 477, (1) what proposals he has for measuring the degree of public support for the proposed (a) Zaha Hadid design for the Cardiff Bay opera house and (b) the competing designs of (i) Sir Norman Foster, (ii) Professor Manfredi Nicoletti and (iii) Ms Itsuko Hasegawa; what assessment he has made of the probability factors pertaining to the raising of the private capital required to fund the residual share of the project

  149
  cost for each of the above four designs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if it is a condition of an application for funding from the Millennium Commission that it should contain firm undertakings in relation to the availability of the private funding of the residual share of the cost of the project.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what inquiries he has received in relation to his work as chairman of the Millennium Commission concerning the construction(a) of a new home for the national stadium of the Welsh Rugby Union at Bridgend and (b) extending the existing national stadium at Cardiff Arms park; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what form of representations seeking expressions of support have been received by the Millennium Commission from the Cardiff Bay opera trust; and what response the commission has made.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place a copy of my letter in the library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Minister Without Portfolio
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the responsibilities of the Minister Without Portfolio; and what salary is paid to him for these responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister Without Portfolio works with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to help co-ordinate and formulate Government policy and its delivery. He is a member of the ministerial committees: economic and domestic policy; industrial, commercial and consumer affairs, home and social affairs, local government; regeneration; the Queen's Speeches and future legislation; and the ministerial sub-committees on European questions; and on London—EDL(L).

  The Minister Without Portfolio does not receive a ministerial salary.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant),Official Report, columns 764–66, what factors led to the exclusion of the involvement in, or association with, activities of export control guidelines, UN sanctions or the missile technology control regime from the revised vetting procedures.

  The Prime Minister
  Officials involved in these areas of work are not excluded from the revised vetting regime.
  150

  Community Care Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department has responsibility for community care housing.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment has responsibility for housing issues in England, including housing for people with community care needs. The DOE works closely with the Department of Health, which is the lead Department on community care. In Wales and in Scotland, responsibility for community care and for housing rests respectively with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Summit Conference for Children
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress made towards satisfying the goals of the 1990 world summit conference for children.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are responding positively to the summit's goals. The United Kingdom published in July 1992 Command Paper number 1984 entitled, "Report on the United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit for Children". A copy was placed in the House.

  The report noted a parallel initiative in the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK Government have agreed to be bound. A report on the application of the convention to the UK was published in February 1994. A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  The summit's goals are also priority goals for the British aid programme which contributes in a variety of ways through our poverty alleviation and human development programmes.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps he will take,(a) bilaterally and (b) through the EU to ensure the implementation of (i) the land transfer programme and (ii) outstanding judicial reforms in El Salvador prior to the ending of the ONUSAL mandate in April.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have been consistent supporters on ONUSAL's mandate at the United Nations and have contributed substantially to its work of monitoring the implementation of the peace accords, including the land transfer programme and judicial reform. The expected outturn of UK expenditure in the financial year 1994–95 is nearly £905,000. Through the EU, we are supporting the strengthening of the democratic institutions needed to maintain law and order in El Salvador and are contributing to the resettlement of refugees. We also
  151
  support the UN Secretary-General's proposal to send a small team of professionals to El Salvador to complete the work following the expiry of ONUSAL's mandate on 30 April.

  Georgian Christian Refugees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take to press for the long-term right to settlement of the Georgian Christian refugees currently in Istanbul.

  Mr. Hogg
  The UNHCR has interviewed a group of Georgian Christians in Istanbul. We understand that they found no evidence of persecution or entitlement to refugee status.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to condemn violations of human rights in Nicaragua, identified by the Tripartite Commission; and if he will support the establishment of a human rights ombudsman in Nicaragua at the San Jose XI talks.

  Mr. Hogg
  We make clear our concern over human rights violations, wherever they occur. We welcome the idea of a human rights ombudsman in Nicaragua and will take any opportunity at the San Jose XI conference to encourage it.

  Bosnia-Croat Federation
  Mr.Mcloughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support has the United Kingdom given the Bosnia-Croat Federation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We support the federation generously because we consider that its success is necessary for an overall settlement in Bosnia.

  We have provided more than 3,000 troops to UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Their presence has helped underpin the ceasefire between Bosnia and Croat forces since March 1994. Their work with local committees and with local commanders through a system of joint commissions has been a major contribution to peacebuilding.

  The Royal Engineers, together with the Overseas Development Administration, constructed the important bailey bridge which now connects east and west Mostar. ODA engineers have already completed 350 reconstruction projects and provided winter shelters for 20,000 people throughout the federation. In Sarajevo, which is dependent on gas for winter heating, ODA-sponsored engineers, despite sniper fire, have laid over 14 km of gas pipes and replaced 2,000 illegal and dangerous connections. Fifty-five ODA lorries form 25 per cent. of the UNHCR humanitarian convoy fleet, and the ODA-leased aircraft carries 20 per cent. of the airlift into Sarajevo. We are providing senior officials in support of the EU administration of Mostar and also police and good government training.

  No other country has provided such a range of support at all levels for the federation.
  152

  Ferdinand Nahimana
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the international authorities to detain in Cameroon, Ferdinand Nahimana, former director of Radio Mille Collines in Rwanda, and to charge him with genocide.

  Mr. Baldry
  The International Tribunal for Rwanda, as established by Security Council resolution 955 of 8 November 1994, is in the process of being set up. It will be for the prosecutor to decide whom to bring to trial. We expect all states to comply with their obligations under SCR 955 to surrender suspects at the tribunal's request.

TREASURY

  Privatisation Advertising Campaign
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the current National Power and PowerGen privatisation advertising campaign(a) in newspapers and (b) on television.

  Sir George Young
  The cost of the National Power and PowerGen share sale, including the costs of the marketing campaign will be reported to Parliament in the usual way after the end of the sale.

  Electronic Data Interchange
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have used the electronic data interchange for procurements.

  Sir George Young
  The following Departments have used electronic data interchange for the procurement to some extent:

  The Buying Agency

  Cabinet Office

  Crown Prosecution Service

  HM Customs and Excise

  Ministry of Defence

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Department of Health

  Home Office

  Board of Inland Revenue

  HM Land Registry

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Department of Transport

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the results of the consultation on the resource accounting and budget Green Paper.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: There have been more than 40 responses to the Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting, including the National Audit Office, a large part of the United Kingdom accounting profession and academic interest as well as individuals. So far, the Green Paper has received almost unanimous support in principle, although there is a variety of views on the particular policies it proposes. Responses are still coming in. The Government will publish details of these responses when they

  153
  announce decisions on the proposals set out in the Green Paper.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any information from police sources about wholesalers and distributors of the magazine "Scallywag" has been made available to Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no information about this matter. Any release of information from police sources would be a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

  Research Expenditure
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and grades of personnel currently employed within his Department's emergency planning division research group; what is the total expenditure for the research group for each of the years, 1988–89 to 1993–94, and the planned and projected expenditure in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; and if he will list the projects on which the research group is currently engaged.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Following the end of the cold war, civil defence planning primarily for a major nuclear attack has been replaced by a more broadly based approach to improving the national response to a disaster of whatever cause. The current programme of the emergency planning research group reflects that change. Its focus is on defining and evaluating new arrangements for responding to a wide range of disasters. The programme includes work on the development of a national air attack warning system based on the media, a review of options for radiation monitoring, investigations of the consequences of disasters and public protection measures, and the archiving of wartime civil defence related material.

  The number and grades of personnel currently employed within EPRG are as follows:

  Grades

  Numbers

  Scientific staff

  Grade 7

  2

  Senior scientific officer

  2

  Higher scientific officer

  1

  Scientific officer

  1

  Assistant scientific officer

  1

  Student (sandwich course)

  1

  Total

  8

  Support staff

  Personal secretary

  1

  The emergency planning research group was formed in 1990 when the scientific research and development branch was divided into its constituent groups. Expenditure data from that date are as follows:
  154

  Financial year

  Actuals

  Estimated

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  423

  559

  799

  521

  433

  630

  663

  French Nationals
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals from each French dependent territory entered the United Kingdom from France in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  South Yorkshire Probation Service
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the South Yorkshire probation service during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the South Yorkshire probation service during(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the South Yorkshire probation service during(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  South Yorkshire probation service completed 8,752 pre-sentence reports, social inquiry reports, family court reports and other reports from courts in 1992 and 7,082 such reports in 1993. The information for 1994 is not yet available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the South Yorkshire probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the South Yorkshire probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the South Yorkshire probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The latest available information is for December 1993, when the number of offenders supervised by South Yorkshire probation service was 5,743.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed and at what grade by the South Yorkshire probation service, on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed and at what grade, by the South Yorkshire probation service on(a) 30 June 1992 (b) 30 June 1993 and (c) 30 June 1994.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed, and at what grade, by the South Yorkshire probation service on(a) 30 June 1992, (b) 30 June 1993 and (c) 30 June 1994.
  155
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the South Yorkshire probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent1, by grade and type.

  Number of staff, whole time equivalent

  Probation Officers

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  2

  2

  2

  Assistant Chief

  6

  7

  7

  Senior

  37

  40

  42

  Main grade

  176

  178

  180

  Total probation officers

  222

  228

  232

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers2

  81

  78

  78

  Clerical/secretarial

  109

  120

  114

  Administrative

  34

  37

  40

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

  42

  40

  31

  Hostel staff

  64

  62

  46

  Total non-probation grade staff

  330

  336

  308

  Total probation staff

  553

  565

  541

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Formerly ancillaries

  3 Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the effect of the November 1993 Budget statement on the budget of South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1993 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for South Yorkshire probation service of £9.6 million, 6.1 per cent. higher than for 1993–94. It was 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. The committee's report covering the current financial year will be available from the secretary in due course.

  Mr. Quddus Ali
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 37, if he will make a statement about what he has learnt from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis about the police investigation into the assault upon Mr. Quddus Ali; what admissions to the police to taking part in the attack were discovered by that investigation; what the police did with such an admission;and if he will summarise the representations he has received and how he has responded.

  Mr. Maclean
  The commissioner has kept my right hon. and learned Friend informed of the progress of the 156
  police investigation into the assault upon Mr. Quddus Ali. I understand that 25 police officers were assigned to the investigation and that a special incident room was set up. Appeals for witnesses produced a good response. Nine people were arrested. One was brought to trial on a charge of affray and was acquitted. I understand that no admissions to having taken part in the assault were received by the police from any person during the course of the investigation.

  On 4 November 1994, my right hon. and learned Friend received a letter from the parents of Mr. Ali raising a number of issues, some concerning the handling of racial attacks in general, others specific to the case of their son. This letter was also signed by some 900 local residents. My noble Friend Baroness Blatch responded to the points which were made. A letter was also received through the Prime Minister's office from Mr. Ali, to which my noble Friend replied. A letter was received from a member of the public which was replied to at official level.

  Greater Manchester Probation Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the effect of the November 1993 statement on the budget of Greater Manchester probation service; and what will be the impact of the November 1994 Budget statement;

  (2) what will be the impact of the 1994 probation budget reduction on (a) hostel provision and (b) probation centre provision in the Greater Manchester probation service;

  (3) what will be the impact of the 1994 probation budget reduction on the implementation of national standards for the supervision of offenders in the Greater Manchester probation service;

  (4) what will be the impact of the 1994 probation budget reduction on staff terms and conditions of service, liaison with victim support and work with victims in the Greater Manchester probation service;

  (5) what will be the impact of the 1994 probation budget reduction on staffing levels within each grade of staff, and the likelihood of redundancies within each grade of staff in the Greater Manchester probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1993 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for the Greater Manchester probation service of £18.9 million, 6.3 per cent. higher than for 1993–94. The 1994 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 of £18.8 million, plus a further £0.9 million to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office.

  It is for Greater Manchester probation service to decide how these resources are best used and to determine what specific changes within the service, including staffing levels, should be undertaken within the total expenditure limit implied by this level of grant support and within the terms and conditions of service of probation officers as determined by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Grant support should be sufficient to enable the Greater Manchester service to carry out its responsibilities in relation to the enforcement of national standards and working with victims.

  Approved hostels are separately funded by the Home Office; and no changes in hostel provision in the Greater Manchester area are planned as a result of the last Budget.
  157
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed and at what grade by the Greater Manchester probation service on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed, and at what grade, by the Greater Manchester probation service on(a) 30 June 1992, (b) 30 June 1993 and (c) 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the Greater Manchester probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent1, by grade and type

  Number of staff, whole time equivalent

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  3

  3

  3

  Assistant Chief

  12

  12

  12

  Senior

  66

  76

  73

  Main grade

  360

  380

  396

  Total probation officers

  442

  472

  486

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers2

  136

  136

  148

  Clerical/secretarial

  218

  227

  228

  Administrative

  47

  54

  56

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

  40

  44

  32

  Hostel staff

  61

  77

  85

  Total non-probation grade staff

  502

  537

  548

  Total probation staff

  944

  1,008

  1,024

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Formerly ancillaries.

  3Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the Greater Manchester probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the Greater Manchester probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The latest available information is for December 1993, when the number of offenders supervised by the Greater Manchester probation service was 11,452.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the Greater Manchester probation service during 1992 and 1993.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the Greater Manchester probation service during(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Greater Manchester probation service completed 18,375 pre-sentence reports, social 158
  inquiry reports, family court reports and other reports for courts in 1992 and 18,201 such reports in 1993.

  Police Operation, Shoreham
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the police operation to escort lorries of livestock to the dock area of Shoreham on the morning of 15 February.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the estimated cost was £36,000. Fifty-one per cent. of this expenditure will be met by Home Office grant.

  Electronic Monitoring Equipment
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been undertaken in respect of the unlawful use of electronic monitoring equipment(a) within organisations or (b) against individuals in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data held centrally by my Department do not identify this type of information.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the operation and enforcement of current legislation in relation to the unlawful use of electronic monitoring equipment;

  (2) what are the legislative protections currently in place for employees in the workplace who may be subject to electronic surveillance without their prior authorisation or consent;

  (3) what proposals he has for changes in legislation relating to the utilisation of electronic monitoring equipment in the workplace against employees of the organisation.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A number of provisions may be relevant to the use of electronic monitoring equipment. These include the Interception of Telecommunications Act 1985, the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The Government are considering what, if any, changes may be needed to the law as it relates to privacy in the light of the report on privacy and media intrusion by the National Heritage Select Committee and of the report of Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals there are within the European Community to combat the unlawful use of electronic monitoring equipment within organisations or against individuals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am aware of no specific proposals for the regulation of electronic monitoring equipment.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to proscribe the services of those companies who operate private surveillance facilities which may be made available to other organisations and individuals without reference to the subjects involved;

  (2) what complaints he has received about the operation and practices of any company providing electronic surveillance services to commercial organisations; what steps he is taking to ensure that these practices are wholly lawful; and if he will make a statement.
  159
  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of complaints about advertising material produced by organisations offering information-gathering services, which may include electronic surveillance. A recent amendment to the Data Protection Act 1984 makes it an offence for a person to procure the disclosure of personal data in breach of the 1984 Act, and to offer for sale the data so procured. We are looking again at policies on the whole of the private security industry, and we await with interest the outcome of the Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into the industry.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an investigation has been ordered into the circumstances surrounding recent allegations of the electronic bugging of office premises occupied by Mr. Michael Moore in his former employment as advertising director of Express Newspapers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has ordered no such investigation.

  Ticket Allocations
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that those people listed as potential trouble makers by the football intelligence unit do not receive tickets for the 1996 European championship.

  Mr. Maclean
  Arrangements concerning the ticket allocation for the 1996 European championships are for the Football Association to consider. If requested, the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service would be prepared to offer advice to the FA on applications for the purchase of tickets by English fans. It is a matter for the football associations of other countries which qualify for the tournament to consider their own arrangements, I understand that the Football Association has every reason to believe that they will do so responsibly.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders from football grounds have been made under part IV of the Public Order Act 1986; and what has been the duration of such orders.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are 449 exclusion orders extant under part IV of the 1986 Act. I understand from the Football Association that there have been 5,939 orders, including those that are extant, since the Act came into force. Information concerning the duration of such orders could he gathered only at disproportionate cost. The duration of such orders is at the discretion of the courts, but the Act provides that this cannot be for less than a period of three months.

EMPLOYMENT

  Modern Apprenticeship Schemes
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the contract signed by the apprentice and the employer on modern apprenticeship schemes is legally binding.
  160
  Mr. Paice
  Modern apprenticeships call for a training agreement recording commitment of all parties to pursue the training to a successful outcome. There is, however, no prescription by the Department as to the form or content of an agreement. This is left to the parties with the support of the industry training organisations and training and enterprise councils. For this reason, I cannot answer for the legal status of training agreements as a class of document. I can say that the possibility that an agreement will be legally binding is not precluded.

  Training, Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much will be spent on training and retaining in the northern region in the current year by training and enterprise council; and how much was spent on training and re-training overall in 1978 at current prices.

  Mr. Paice
  The total sums available for training in northern region in 1994–95 for each of the training and enterprise councils are shown in the following table:

  TEC

  £ million

  Tyneside

  41

  County Durham

  27.2

  Sunderland City

  18

  Teesside

  30

  Northumberland

  13.8

  Total

  130

  Information which identifies spend on training in 1978 is not available at regional level.

  Estimated Outturns
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the estimated outturn for(a) business enterprise training, (b) skills choice and (c) open learning credits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Paice
  The business start up scheme, which includes an element of business enterprise training, is now part of the single regeneration budget. The estimated outturn in 1994–95 for BSUS is £70.1 million. Estimated outturn for skill choice in 1994–95 is £11.1 million. Open learning credits was a pilot scheme in 1993–94; there is no provision for it in 1994–95.

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that the introduction of positive outcome targets for staff conducting restart interviews will not result in individual claimants being forced off programmes or benefits.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about whether the introduction of positive outcome targets for my

  161
  people conducting advisory interviews will result in clients being forced off programmes or benefits.
  It may help if I explain that one of the main tasks of our local Jobcentres is to advise unemployed people in the best possible way and help them to find a job, or appropriate training, as soon as possible. This is done by having regular interviews, where the client is able to discuss their situation with an adviser, consider the options available and agree a course of action which, if taken, will offer the best prospects of finding a job.
  As part of our objective to offer unemployed people, particularly the longer term unemployed and others at a disadvantage in the labour market, we offer help and advice in finding work or appropriate training. Since April 1994 we have had targets for positive outcomes from advisory interviews. We aim for a positive outcome of 50‥ of those clients invited to a 12 month advisory interview and 35‥ of those invited to a 24 month interview. These targets reaffirm our commitment to interviews which are effective in meeting the needs of each individual.
  Far from encouraging our people to force clients off programmes or benefits, the targets reinforce the importance we place on ensuring we provide positive advice helping people back to work. This is the message that the guidance we give our people in delivering advisory interviews is designed to reinforce.
  I hope this is helpful and assures you of our intent to provide unemployed people with practical advice and information which is geared to their individual requirements.

  Jobcentres, Scotland
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of jobcentres that have been closed in the past 15 years in Scotland, by region.

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

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Jobcentres that have been closed down in the past 15 years in Scotland, by region.
  Unfortunately this information is not fully available. Figures can only be provided from 1989/90, the year in which the Employment Service became an Agency.
  Since that date, one Jobcentre has closed in the regional authority area of Strathclyde. This office was Dalmellington.

  Mobile Jobcentres
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the use of mobile jobcentres, as currently used in Fife into other regions of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment

  Vacancy Display Boards in Libraries, Community Centres and Post Offices

  Regional authority

  Location of library

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Community Centre

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Post Office

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Strathclyde

  Strathaven

  £1.00

  Auchinleck

  25p

  Dundonald

  25p

  Bargarran

  Muirkirk

  25p

  New Cumnock

  25p

  Bridgewater

  Strone

  Port Bannatyne

  Whitletts

  25p

  Mauchinhill

  Ardbeg

  Mossblown

  25p

  Stewarton

  Kilchattan Bay

  Coylton

  25p

  Riccarton

  Inverary

  £1.50

  Tarbolton

  25 p

  West Kilbride

  Mull

  25p

  Maybole

  25p

  Lamlash

  Colonsay

  25p

  162
  Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about his plans to extend the use of mobile Jobcentres as currently in Fife into other regions of Scotland.
  There are no plans at this time to extend the use of mobile Jobcentres into other regions in Scotland.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, columns 468–69, when mobile jobcentres in Fife began.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the date mobile Jobcentres in Fife began.
  The mobile Jobcentre in Fife began in February 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Vacancy Boards
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, columns 471–72, (1) if he will list by region (a) libraries, (b) community centres and (c) post offices which, by way of a local agreement, display job vacancy boards in Scotland;

  (2) what is the cost of maintaining job vacancy boards in libraries, community centres and post offices in Scotland.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the locations of job vacancy display hoards in libraries, community centres and post offices in Scotland and the cost of maintaining these boards.
  The information required is listed by Regional and Island Council Authorities in the enclosed table.
  The costs (where quoted) include only postage, telephone and fax charges. They do not include any amount for staff time either in the Jobcentres or at the vacancy board locations. Where costs are not shown nil costs apply.
  I hope this is helpful.
  163

  Vacancy Display Boards in Libraries, Community Centres and Post Offices

  Regional authority

  Location of library

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Community Centre

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Post Office

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Dalmellington

  25p

  Patna

  25p

  Dunlop

  Forth

  Kilmaurs

  Lesmahagow

  Fenwick

  3 Mobile libraries

  in Clydesdale

  Dalry

  Tarbert

  Symington

  Beith

  Dundonald

  Kilmaurs

  Darvel

  Crosshouse

  Newmilns

  £1.25

  Hurlford

  Port Ellen

  Crosshouse

  Hurlford

  Galston

  £1.25

  Dalry

  Bridge of Weir

  Highland

  Wick

  £1.50

  Kinlochleven

  Broadford

  Aviemore

  Helmsdale

  Tongue

  Lairg

  Durness

  Dornoch

  Bonar Bridge

  Brora

  Golspie

  Bettyhill

  Kinlochbervie

  Merkinch

  £1.50

  Alness

  25p

  Ballintore

  25p

  Western Isles

  Island Council

  Benbecula

  South Uist

  Harris

  Tarbert

  Barra

  Dumfries and

  Galloway

  Eastriggs

  19p

  Eastriggs

  19p

  Gretna

  19p

  Kelloholm

  19p

  Langholm

  19p

  Kirkconnel

  19p

  Whithorn

  19p

  Wanlockhead

  19p

  Leadhills

  19p

  Kirkcolm

  19p

  Drummore

  19p

  Glenluce

  19p

  Portpatrick

  19p

  Sandhead

  19p

  Garlieston

  19p

  Whithorn

  19p

  Isle of Whithorn

  19p

  Whauphill

  19p

  Wigtown

  19p

  Lothian

  Fauldhouse

  Craigmillar

  £1

  Broomhouse

  Blackburn

  South

  £1

  Whitburn

  Dunbar

  Queensferry

  Tranent

  Prestonpans

  North Berwick

  Mayfield

  Newtongrange

  Danderhall

  Gorebridge

  Grampian

  Keith

  38p

  Aberlour

  25p

  Rhynie

  38p

  Huntly

  38p

  Lossiemouth

  25p

  Insch

  38p

  Insch

  38p

  Ellon

  £1.25

  Portsoy

  £1.25

  Stonehaven

  £1.25

  Cornhill

  £1.25

  164 165

  Vacancy Display Boards in Libraries, Community Centres and Post Offices

  Regional authority

  Location of library

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Community Centre

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Location of Post Office

  Cost of maintenance (per week)

  Macduff

  £1.25

  Aberchirder

  £1.25

  Gardenstoun

  £1.25

  Rhynie

  £1.00

  Insch

  £1.00

  Cruden Bay

  Mintlaw

  New Deer

  St Fergus

  Tayside

  Whitfield

  Crieff

  Laurencekirk

  £10 pa

  Crieff

  Auchterarder

  Carnoustie

  £20

  Kirriemuir

  £20 pa

  Brechin

  Central

  Linlithgow

  Training Budget
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for increasing the training budget for young people.

  Mr. Paice
  In 1997–98, planned expenditure by the Department on training for young people, through youth training, modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships will be £174 million more than forecast expenditure in the current year.

  Training Loan
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of(a) the percentage and (b) the amount in cash terms constituted by the take-up in Wales of (i) career development loans and (ii) small firms training loans for 1994–95.

  Mr. Paice
  At 31 January 1995, 491 career development loans, with a total value of £1.783 million, had been approved in Wales during the current financial year. This represented nearly 4 per cent. of the total approved throughout Great Britain. Total outturn for career development loans in Wales over 1994–95 is estimated at approximately 500 loans, with a total value of some £1.82 million.

  Small firms training loans is a new programme, serious promotion of which did not start until the end of 1994. At 31 January 1995, one small firms training loan had been approved in Wales. Further applications for loans are being processed by the participating banks.

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to allow local authorities to submit the classroom costs of delivery of general national vocational qualifications in schools for support from the European social fund; on what grounds the same rule is not applied to similar qualifications delivered by the further education sector, via the Further Education Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.
  166
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The Department is currently reviewing the eligibility of GNVQ courses for European social fund support.

  Training, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of Government training and other initiatives delivered by TECs and other organisations in Merseyside in 1993 and the contribution made to that cost by the European social fund; and what are the estimated equivalent figures for 1994.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The cost of the three main Government training and other initiatives delivered by training and enterprise councils in Merseyside in 1993–94 was £78,306,927, which included a contribution of some £14,000,000 from the European social fund. In 1994–95, the corresponding budget figures are £73,252,333 and £12,900,000 respectively.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of training initiatives delivered by TECs and other organisations in Merseyside in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what was the contribution made to these costs by the European social fund.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The cost of the three main Government training and other initiatives delivered by training and enterprise councils in Merseyside in 1993–94 was £78,306,927, which included a contribution of some £14,000,000 from the European social fund. In 1994–95, the corresponding budget figures are £73,252,333 and £12,900,000 respectively.

  South Thames TEC
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the amount owed by South Thames TEC to his Department.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: I estimate that the Department is owed at least £2 million but the final figure could be substantially higher. This represents principally the cost of training for which the Department has paid South Thames training and enterprise council but which the TEC cannot at present substantiate with evidence.
  167
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who will be responsible for the financial liability in respect of the South Thames TEC employees when Central London training and enterprise council takes over the S ITEC responsibilities for Southwark and Lambeth; and who will meet the cost of their redundancies and pensions.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: This will depend on the circumstances when successor arrangements to South Thames training and enterprise council are eventually agreed.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the budget allotted by his Department to South Thames TEC for 1995–96.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The Government office for London has yet to reach agreement with training and enterprise councils over the size of budgets for 1995–96.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the contract price for CENTEC to take over STTEC's responsibilities in Southwark and Lambeth.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: I am not in a position to answer at present. Negotiations about this have yet to be concluded.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what proportions the full amount of the proposed budget for S'ITEC for 1995–96 will be divided between South London TEC and Central London TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The Government office for London is developing proposals for the appropriate division of the budget between SOLOTEC and CENTEC. When these are available they will be subject to further discussion between the Government office for London and the two training and enterprise councils before being finalised.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will sign the contract for CENTEC to take over the responsibilities of STTEC in relation to Southwark and Lambeth.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: I am unable to specify a date. Discussions between the Government office for London and CENTEC are still continuing on this matter.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the position of providers providing training in Southwark and Lambeth formerly contracted to STTEC in respect of contracts which expire on 1 April.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: It is normal for providers' contracts with training and enterprise councils to expire at the end of the contract year. Providers then have to negotiate new contracts for the following year. No provider can be guaranteed renewal of its contract. The position will be the same in the South Thames TEC area, except that providers will seek to contract with one or both successor TECs. It is a commercial decision for TECs about which providers they wish to contract with.

  Because of the particular circumstances in the South Thames TEC area, the Department has laid a minute before the House seeking parliamentary approval to extend the letter of comfort already issued to providers contracted with South Thames TEC to deliver the Government's youth training credits and training for work programmes. For those YT/credits and TfW providers
  168
  whose existing contracts with South Thames TEC are not renewed by a successor to South Thames TEC, this would give a guarantee of payment for:

  (i) outputs achieved in relation to training completed prior to 26 March under the existing contract with South Thames TEC;

  (ii) training for up to a further 3 months in respect of TfW and a further 6 months in respect of YT/Credits that commenced prior to 26 March in accordance with their existing contracts, and outputs achieved in relation to training completed within the periods stated above.

  Central London TEC
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the contract between his Department and CENTEC in respect of Southwark and Lambeth will take account of the unfunded commitments normally paid out of surplus.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The contract to be negotiated between the Department and CENTEC will relate only to Government-funded training and business support programmes.

  Southern Derbyshire TEC
  Mrs Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Southern Derbyshire TEC is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence.

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Southern Derbyshire training and enterprise council has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three-year licences. Its licence will be effective from April 1995.

HEALTH

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she seeks nominations for lay members of the General Medical Council.

  Mr. Malone
  A wide range of bodies and organisations are invited, in writing, to nominate suitable people who would be willing to serve as lay members on the General Medical Council.

  John Walsh
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the timing involved in the case of the Eltham boy shot with an arrow and on the referrals made between the hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The patient was injured in a south London park and taken by helicopter ambulance to Moorfields Eye hospital. The doctor there thought neurosurgery might be necessary and referred him to the Royal London for a brain scan.

  Following the scan, the neurosurgical consultant decided that the injury was primarily ophthalmic and it was not felt that there was any requirement for neurosurgical treatment beyond regular CT scan monitoring. At all times, the patient was conscious with no neurological signs.

  He was then taken to the Smithfield site—Bart's—where the Royal Hospitals Trust bases its ophthalmology

  169
  services and where the injury was successfully treated. At no time was any life-saving procedure required or performed.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many staff were employed in each category in the national health service in the Northern region in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were so employed in 1978.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is shown in the table.

  Directly-employed staff in the National Health Service, Northern Region as at 30 September 1978 and 1993—whole-time equivalents6

  Total hospital community health service staff

  1978 49180

  1993 48560

  Medical and dental1

  2,380

  3,010

  Nursing and Midwifery2 (excluding agency)

  22,960

  24,580

  Professions allied to medicine5

  —

  2,470

  Professional and technical

  3,240

  2,100

  Scientific and professional5

  —

  720

  Works Professional

  370

  300

  Maintenance

  1,360

  1,050

  General and Senior Managers3

  —

  830

  Administrative and clerical

  5,700

  7,030

  Ambulance

  1,420

  1,250

  Ancillary

  11,740

  5,190

  Others4

  —

  50

  Source:

  Department of Health of Medical and Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Notes:

  1Medical and dental staff exclude locum staff.

  2Nursing and midwifery figures exclude agency staff. The 1993 figures also exclude students or Project 2000 training courses. Project 2000 students are regarded as supernumerary and are not included in workforce numbers. (In September 1993 there were about 28,000 Project 2000 students). By contrast traditional learners are counted as part of the workforce. In 1980–81 the contracted hours for nurses changed from 40 hours per week to 37.5 hours. Figures for nursing and midwifery are therefore not strictly comparable for the years shown.

  3A new management class introduced in phases from 1984 following the Griffiths report (1983). There was one general manager in each health authority and HCHS unit. Senior managers were introduced in 1987 with up to 7 senior posts at Board level in each health authority, from 1989 senior management posts extended below Board level and to hospital Units. Most of these posts replaced those formerly counted within the administrative and clerical groups.

  4A change in data collection procedures in September 1991 resulted in the creation of an 'other staff' category. This category comprises health care assistants and other staff on locally determined rates of pay.

  5In 1978 Professional and Technical staff group included Professions Allied to Medicine and Scientific and Professional staff.

  6All data are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received concerning the impact of dioxins on public health.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1 March 1994, two hon. Members have tabled questions to the Department about dioxins, six hon. Members have written to Ministers and five letters were received from members of the public. In addition, the Department was asked to comment on two petitions from constituents of the hon. Members for 170
  Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), although the latter petition was more appropriate for the Health and Safety Executives to which it was transferred.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure that the public are alerted to the danger of exposure to dioxins.

  Mr. Sackville
  Dioxins are present all over the world and occur from natural sources as well as from the combustion processes in industry, and cigarette smoke. The Government are advised on the toxicity of dioxins by the Committee on Toxicity of Food, the Environment and Consumer Products, and the tolerable daily intake recommended by the committee exceeds the estimated intakes for the general population in the United Kingdom.

  The toxicology of dioxins is kept under review by the committee. It is at present undertaking an evaluation of the draft United States Environmental Protection Agency report on dioxins.

  Drugs Services
  Mr. Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants, apart from the drug and alcohol specific grant, local authorities can apply for in order to provide services to help combat drug abuse and its effects.

  Mr. Bowis
  In addition to the drug and alcohol specific grant local authorities may apply for the following:AIDS Support Grant
  The Department of Health administers an AIDS Support Grant (the specific grant for people with HIV infection or AIDS) which provides grant funds for social services for drug misusers affected by HIV or by AIDS.
  The Department for Education—Grants for Education Support and Training
  This grant is to train teachers with responsibility for drugs education and to develop innovative drug education projects in 16 local education authorities.
  The Home Qffice Drug Prevention Initiative
  There are twenty local drug prevention teams administered by the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative. Statutory and voluntary sector agencies and individuals may apply to them for funding.
  The Drug Prevention Measures in Great Britain Fund
  This Home Office fund makes small financial contributions in support of measures to reduce drug misuse. Preference is given to projects, services or schemes which are innovative and may be of national or regional significance. They are not eligible if they properly fall against an existing source of Government funding.
  The Seized Assets Fund
  This represents the proceeds of drugs trafficking seized under international confiscation agreements. Because of the uncertain source of the funding, the Home Office is unable to fund recurrent expenditure. There have been no resources available from this fund since 1991–92.
  The Commission of the European Communities
  The Commission administers a grant programme to support efforts made by Member States in the field of public health in order to contribute to maintaining a high level of health protection in the Member States.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each local authority has bid for the drug and alcohol specific grant for 1995–96; and how much they were awarded.

  Mr. Bowis
  Grants for 1995–96 have not yet been awarded.
  171

  Heart Disease
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the causes of acquired heart disease among children(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  Acquired heart disease in childhood is uncommon in the United Kingdom, especially since acute rheumatic fever—historically, the main cause—has become a rare and relatively mild disease. The causes of acquired heart disease among children in other countries vary, especially in developing countries where rheumatic heart disease remains a common and significant cause of paediatric heart disease.

  Polonium 210
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to measure the correlation between the presence of polonium-210 in children's teeth and atmospheric lead from vehicle exhaust emissions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 10 February,Official Report, column 442, which explained that the Government are considering the options for further research in this area.

  Child Care
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest estimate of the number of children under the age of five years who are in the care of(a) private child minders or nannies and (b) private and voluntary playgroups.

  Mr. Bowis
  Using information from the survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of day care for children, it is estimated that in 1990 the figures for England were 180,000 attending child minders on a paid basis, 50,000 cared for by nannies and 560,000 attending private or voluntary playgroups.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the administration costs of the NHS prescription system.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Administration costs of the NHS prescription system1 in England in 1993–94

  Item

  Cost (£ million)

  Purchase of prescription forms for supply to doctors and dentists2

  1.2

  Pricing of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and doctors3

  26.7

  Total

  27.9

  Notes:

  1Excludes fees paid to doctors, dentists and pharmacists for professional services, expenditure on the drugs bill and the costs of operating the prescription charge exemption and remission arrangements.

  2Expenditure by Family Health Services Authorities. Other FHSA administration costs associated with the NHS prescription system are not separately identified.

  3Expenditure by the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  172

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances chairmen of NHS trusts are brought into direct contact with NHS psychiatric patients in Scarborough.

  Mr. Malone
  I would expect all national health service trust chairmen to come into regular contact with the patients using the services provided by their trust.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial arrangements are being made for the NHS trusts dissolved on 1 April 1994.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pursuant to the dissolution of 16 national health service trusts on 1 April 1994, and their reconfiguration with parts, or all, of other trusts or directly managed units, I propose to create new originating debt for the 14 new trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the 16 dissolved trusts.

  These operations involve no loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving the particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has been appointed chief executive of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS trust; and what posts the individual held over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Malone
  Mr. Robert Creighton has been appointed chief executive of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children national health service trust, as from the beginning of April 1995. Mr. Creighton joined the Department of Health in 1988 and for four years held a series of posts concerned with national health service planning and the management of special health authorities. He was Principal Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health from 1992–1994, and is currently head of the NHS executive's change management team.

  NHS Trusts, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the chairmen of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary NHS trust and Doncaster Healthcare trust were told of their expected time commitments in their appointment letters.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 February,Official Report, column 642.

  Dementia
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has given to the report "Services, for Younger People with Dementia", published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, a copy of which has been sent to her; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I met representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease Society earlier this month to discuss its report. In "The Health of the Nation" key area handbook for mental health, we have advised purchasers to take account of the needs of people with pre-senile dementia.
  173

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inflationary element has been built into the special transitional grant for community care for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Mr. Bowis
  Various components are taken into account in the assessment of resources for local authorities' new community care responsibilities, including the Government's forecast of inflation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the special transitional grant for community care to be incorporated within the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is already being incorporated each year within the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account has been taken in the calculation of the 1994–95 and 1995–96 special transitional grants of increased costs on the infrastructure for administering the community care changes.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities' additional costs, which include, but are not limited to, administration costs, have been taken into account each year in the assessment of the additional resources needed for their new community care responsibilities. Not all elements of the additional costs initially incurred by local authorities have been increasing since the special transitional grant was introduced.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held in her Department on the numbers of ME sufferers who are(a) bed-ridden and (b) otherwise housebound; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The nature of what is increasingly being referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome is not fully understood or defined. Until this is resolved it will not be possible to determine the true incidence or prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to GP fundholders in respect of their relationship with agencies other than the NHS.

  Mr. Malone
  Recent guidance, EL(94)79, and the consultative document "An Accountability Framework for GP Fundholding" provide the framework within which general practitioners and local health authorities should work together in partnership. It is health authorities who, working with GPs in developing local health and service strategies, have responsibility to consult widely on their plans. Copies of the guidance and consultative document are available in the Library.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary age children are being taught in classes larger than 30 by a single teacher.
  174
  Mr. Robin Squire
  At January 1994, nearly 1.1 million or a little over one in four pupils.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the effect of the budget settlement for local authorities on class sizes.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the effect of the budget settlement for local authorities on class sizes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The effect of the settlement on class sizes will depend on decisions yet to be made by individual LEAs and schools.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding delays in payment of student loans.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received some 50 representations on delays in the processing of loans. The Department has also received a number of telephone calls from both students and higher education institutions.

  Books and Equipment (Expenditure)
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in real and cash terms in spending on books and equipment in schools since 1979.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Spending on hooks and equipment in LEA-maintained schools in England is estimated to have increased by 23 per cent. in real terms, and by 23 per cent. in cash terms, between 1979–80 and 1993–94. Figures for 1993–94 are provisional. On a per pupil basis, spending is estimated to have increased by 55 per cent. in real terms, and 280 per cent. in cash terms, over the same period. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained or independent schools.

  Pre-fours Education Provision
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to extend education provision for children before the age of four.

  Mr. Forth
  The Prime Minister's commitment is to provide, over time, good quality pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to it take up. There are no plans as yet to extend the commitment to younger children.

  Disability
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to amend section 21 of the Education Act 1993 to extend the range of disability covered.

  Mr. Forth
  None. Information on wheelchair access, which is required under regulations made under section 21, will be collected for the first time from May this year. We will keep the regulations under review thereafter.

  A-level Students
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning competition for A-level students between further education colleges and schools.
  175
  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend receives many reports of greater responsiveness by schools and colleges to the needs of young people. We welcome that. Informed choice and a diverse education system are fundamental to higher participation and attainment.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her assessment of the need for additional capital investment in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The condition of school buildings is the responsibility of local education authorities and governors. It is for them to assess their capital needs and bid accordingly.

  I should mention, however, that a National Audit Office report on school buildings in 1991 suggested that some £2 billion—at 1990 prices—was required for outstanding capital needs. In the four years from 1991–92, Government support for capital work at maintained schools has amounted to some £2.5 billion. Moreover, a total of £621 million is being made available for 1995–96—£21 million above the current year—and a further increase of £50 million is planned for 1996–97. Further resources are available to LEAs and voluntary-aided schools and I am encouraging schools to explore the scope for private sector finance.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Accessibility)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve the accessibility to all parents of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools with grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The continuing expansion of the GM sector—from 20 schools five years ago to well over 1,000 today—gives growing numbers of parents the opportunity to send their children to grant-maintained schools, both primary and secondary. We shall continue to foster that expansion, including through the distribution of factual information about grant-maintained status and how to attain it.

  Universities (Governing Bodies)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to reform the governing bodies of universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals. However, the Committee of Chairmen of University Councils and Boards issued guidance on governance arrangements to its members, including those in Northern Ireland, in December. We endorse the broad approach taken by the committee.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average teacher salary in 1979; what it is today; and how much of a real terms change this represents.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average teacher's salary in April 1979 was £5,100. In April 1994, it was £21,600. This represents a real-terms increase of 59 per cent.
  176

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Jim Cunnningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met the chairs of local education authorities to discuss the increase in pupil numbers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend and other Ministers and I regularly meet representatives of local education authorities; discussions cover a range of issues, including the forecast increase in pupil numbers.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria are normally employed by her Department when considering applications by secondary schools for the re-instatement of sixth forms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  When deciding proposals for the addition of sixth forms, my right hon. Friend has regard to the criteria published in the circular on the supply of school places issued last November. These criteria address issues of choice, and diversity, need, quality and cost-effectiveness.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria are normally employed by her Department when considering applications by secondary schools for the re-instatement of sixth forms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  When deciding proposals for the addition of sixth forms, my right hon. Friend has regard to the criteria published in the circular on the supply of school places issued last November. These criteria address issues of choice, and diversity, need, quality and cost-effectiveness.

  Chalfont Community College
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning access to Chalfont community college.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. This matter is being considered by the Education Assets Board.

  Nursery School Staffing
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the level of staff turnover in private day nursery schools;

  (2) what information she has on the ratio of staff to children in private day nursery schools; and if she will list the available data by geographical area.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on staffing of private day nursery schools is not available centrally.

  Day Care (Children)
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the number of private nursery school places in each local education authority area:

  (2) how many registered child minders there are by local education authority area.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Day care facilities for children aged under eight are registered by local authority social services departments.

  177
  Figures for child minders are published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1993, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information held centrally does not separately identify nursery schools registered under the Children Act 1989. Where nursery facilities are part of schools with five or more children of compulsory school age, information on pupil numbers is published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will name the schools, together with their local education authorities with(a) the highest and (b) the lowest percentage of the education budget assigned to school governors; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the overall proportion of the potential schools budget retained by local education authorities, rather than that delegated to schools, is contained in the answer which I gave on 17 October 1994 to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman),Official Report, columns 27–36. This proportion depends on the local management of schools scheme for the LEA concerned. The total call made be each school on the general schools budget of an LEA depends on the use a school makes of centrally funded services as well as the size of its delegated budget, and data on this are not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in each LEA in England and on average in England as a whole in the most recent year for which figures are available in cash terms and in 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows LEA expenditure per pupil on pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on secondary pupils in 1992–93, the latest year for which outturn figures are available. Equivalent information on grant-maintained schools is not available.

  Unit cost net institutional expenditure 1992–93 at 1992–93 prices (includes LMS balances)

  Nursery/primary £

  Secondary £

  Corporation of London

  3,063

  0

  Camden

  2,067

  2,726

  Greenwich

  2,058

  2,497

  Hackney

  2,144

  3,014

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,335

  3,105

  Islington

  2,377

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,230

  3,061

  Lambeth

  2,183

  2,800

  Lewisham

  1,896

  2,534

  Southwark

  1,846

  2,506

  Tower Hamlets

  2,398

  3,352

  Wandsworth

  2,141

  3,212

  City of Westminster

  2,292

  2,486

  Barking

  1,730

  2,347

  Barnet

  1,841

  2,615

  Bexley

  1,415

  2,121

  Brent

  1,740

  2,425

  Bromley

  1,578

  2,377

  Croydon

  1,728

  2,369

  Ealing

  1,855

  2,784

  Enfield

  1,577

  2,267

  Haringey

  2,102

  2,897

  Harrow

  1,870

  2,614

  Havering

  1,563

  2,364

  Hillingdon

  1,714

  2,686

  178

  Unit cost net institutional expenditure 1992–93 at 1992–93 prices (includes LMS balances)

  Nursery/primary £

  Secondary £

  Hounslow

  1,973

  2,419

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,748

  2,663

  Merton

  1,907

  2,679

  Newham

  1,709

  2,629

  Redbridge

  1,663

  2,337

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,863

  2,285

  Sutton

  1,522

  2,036

  Waltham Forest

  1,626

  2,454

  Birmingham

  1,457

  2,341

  Coventry

  1,435

  2,382

  Dudley

  1,489

  2,072

  Sandwell

  1,645

  2,340

  Solihull

  1,599

  2,223

  Walsall

  1,468

  2,216

  Wolverhampton

  1,589

  2,407

  Knowsley

  1,487

  2,298

  Liverpool

  1,489

  2,375

  St. Helens

  1,557

  2,357

  Sefton

  1,499

  2,232

  Wirral

  1,448

  2,418

  Bolton

  1,526

  2,280

  Bury

  1,408

  1,970

  Manchester

  1,555

  2,426

  Oldham

  1,774

  2,474

  Rochdale

  1,384

  2,182

  Salford

  1,339

  2,113

  Stockport

  1,510

  2,288

  Tameside

  1,469

  2,170

  Trafford

  1,416

  2,279

  Wigan

  1,375

  2,286

  Barnsley

  1,525

  2,151

  Doncaster

  1,437

  2,182

  Rotherham

  1,631

  2,285

  Sheffield

  1,636

  2,212

  Bradford

  1,828

  1,822

  Calderdale

  1,549

  2,163

  Kirklees

  1,523

  2,200

  Leeds

  1,420

  2,397

  Wakefield

  1,482

  2,073

  Gateshead

  1,668

  2,283

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,737

  2,133

  North Tyneside

  1,513

  2,219

  South Tyneside

  1,477

  2,197

  Sunderland

  1,495

  2,137

  Isles of Scilly

  2,345

  5,040

  Avon

  1,523

  2,277

  Bedfordshire

  1,603

  2,170

  Berkshire

  1,589

  2,227

  Buckinghamshire

  1,429

  2,118

  Cambridgeshire

  1,579

  2,243

  Cheshire

  1,321

  2,072

  Cleveland

  1,574

  2,515

  Cornwall

  1,507

  2,132

  Cumbria

  1,637

  2,306

  Derbyshire

  1,576

  2,310

  Devon

  1,529

  2,164

  Dorset

  1,507

  2,097

  Durham

  1,535

  2,064

  East Sussex

  1,558

  2,233

  Essex

  1,610

  2,138

  Gloucestershire

  1,687

  2,203

  Hampshire

  1,578

  2,248

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,609

  2,116

  Hertfordshire

  1,616

  2,263

  Humberside

  1,522

  2,228

  Isle of Wight

  1,584

  2,081

  Kent

  1,380

  1,999

  Lancashire

  1,632

  2,320

  Leicestershire

  1,443

  2,219

  Lincolnshire

  1,429

  2,174

  Norfolk

  1,555

  2,177

  179

  Unit cost net institutional expenditure 1992–93 at 1992–93 prices (includes LMS balances)

  Nursery/primary £

  Secondary £

  North Yorkshire

  1,581

  2,260

  Northamptonshire

  1,384

  2,093

  Northumberland

  1,394

  1,871

  Nottinghamshire

  1,575

  2,346

  Oxfordshire

  1,776

  2,212

  Shropshire

  1,590

  2,509

  Somerset

  1,506

  2,220

  Staffordshire

  1,463

  2,088

  Suffolk

  1,944

  2,393

  Surrey

  1,577

  2,293

  Warwickshire

  1,517

  2,126

  West Sussex

  1,468

  2,125

  Wiltshire

  1,593

  2,268

  Total

  1,583

  2,256

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list local education authorities in England in rank order by the proportion of the potential schools budget held back in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the percentage of the potential schools budget retained centrally for 1994–95 by each English LEA was included in the answer which I gave on 17 October 1994 to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)Official Report, columns 27–36. The figures there given are rearranged in rank order in the table.

  Percentage of PSB not delegated 1994–95 (in rank order)

  Local Education Authority

  1994–95 Per cent.

  Rank Number

  Dudley

  7.5

  1

  Islington*

  7.5

  2.

  Hertfordshire

  8.7

  3.

  Solihull

  9.6

  4.

  Croydon

  9.9

  5.

  Berkshire

  10.0

  6.

  Brent

  10.0

  7.

  Leeds

  10.1

  8.

  Waltham Forest

  10.2

  9.

  Stockport

  10.7

  10.

  Northamptonshire

  10.7

  11.

  Greenwich*

  10.8

  12.

  Knowsley

  10.9

  13.

  Manchester

  11.0

  14.

  Bedfordshire

  11.0

  15.

  Richmond

  11.1

  16.

  Northumberland

  11.1

  17.

  Harrow

  11.2

  18.

  Wolverhampton

  11.3

  19.

  Oxfordhisre

  11.3

  20.

  Cheshire

  11.3

  21.

  Rochdale

  11.3

  22.

  Westminster

  11.5

  23.

  Merton

  11.7

  24.

  Havering

  11.7

  25.

  Hereford/Worcester

  11.7

  26.

  Bury

  11.7

  27.

  Staffordshire

  12.1

  28.

  Sunderland

  12.1

  29.

  Enfield

  12.1

  30.

  Norfolk

  12.2

  31.

  Devon

  12.2

  32.

  Salford

  12.2

  33.

  180

  Percentage of PSB not delegated 1994–95 (in rank order)

  Local Education Authority

  1994–95 Per cent.

  Rank Number

  Calderdale

  12.3

  34.

  Walsall

  12.3

  35.

  Bexley

  12.4

  36.

  Suffolk

  12.4

  37.

  West Sussex

  12.9

  38.

  Cornwall

  12.9

  39.

  Coventry

  12.9

  40.

  Redbridge

  13.0

  41.

  Sefton

  13.0

  42.

  City of London*

  13.0

  43.

  Hammersmith/Fulham*

  13.0

  44.

  Wigan

  13.1

  45.

  North Yorkshire

  13.1

  46.

  Surrey

  13.1

  47.

  Isle of Wight

  13.1

  48.

  Lincolnshire

  13.2

  49.

  Birmingham

  13.2

  50.

  Oldham

  13.2

  51.

  Nottinghamshire

  13.3

  52.

  Hillingdon

  13.4

  53.

  Dorset

  13.4

  54.

  Trafford

  13.4

  55.

  Barnet

  13.4

  56.

  Hampshire

  13.4

  57.

  Bradford

  13.5

  58.

  Cumbria

  13.5

  59.

  Liverpool

  13.5

  60.

  Sandwell

  13.5

  61.

  South Tyneside

  13.5

  62.

  Bromley

  13.6

  63.

  Gloucestershire

  13.6

  64.

  Leicestershire

  13.6

  65.

  Wirral

  13.7

  66.

  Isles of Scilly

  13.7

  67.

  East Sussex

  13.8

  68.

  Cambridgeshire

  13.8

  69.

  Rotherham

  13.8

  70.

  Somerset

  13.8

  71.

  Tower Hamlets

  13.8

  72.

  Ealing

  13.9

  73.

  Southwark*

  13.9

  74.

  Gateshead

  13.9

  75.

  Wiltshire

  14.0

  76.

  Durham

  14.0

  77.

  Sutton

  14.0

  78.

  Hounslow

  14.0

  79.

  Tameside

  14.1

  80.

  Essex

  14.1

  81.

  North Tyneside

  14.1

  82.

  Humberside

  14.1

  83.

  Kensington/Chelsea*

  14.2

  84.

  Warwickshire

  14.3

  85.

  Avon

  14.4

  86.

  Cleveland

  14.4

  87.

  St. Helens

  14.5

  88.

  Kingston

  14.5

  89.

  Newcastle

  14.6

  90.

  Shropshire

  14.6

  91.

  Wakefield

  14.6

  92.

  Barking/Dagenham

  14.7

  93.

  Lancashire

  14.7

  94.

  Kent

  14.8

  95.

  Buckinghamshire

  14.9

  96.

  Haringey

  14.9

  97.

  Sheffield

  15.0

  98.

  Barnsley

  15.0

  99.

  Bolton

  15.0

  100.

  Derbyshire

  15.0

  101.

  Doncaster

  15.0

  102.

  Newham

  15.0

  103.

  181

  Percentage of PSB not delegated 1994–95 (in rank order)

  Local Education Authority

  1994–95 Per cent.

  Rank Number

  Lewisham*

  15.4

  104.

  Lambeth*

  15.8

  105.

  Kirklees

  15.8

  106.

  Hackney*

  16.5

  107.

  Camden*

  17.0

  108.

  Wandsworth*

  17.7

  109.

  Notes:

  I. The figures have been derived from budget statements published by local education authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act in respect of the financial year 1994–95, and received by the Department prior to 17 October 1994. The percentages have been rounded in the the Table to one decimal place.

  2. In the case of the inner London authorities (other than Westminster), the introduction of Local Management of Schools was deferred until April 1992, and the delegation requirements applicable to these authorities (marked * in the Table) differ from those applicable elsewhere.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) teachers and (b) administrators are employed by local education authorities in England according to the latest figures; and if he will list in rank order the ratio of teachers to administrators for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Nursery Provision
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the qualifications required for staff working in state nursery schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993, as amended, require that those employed as teachers at maintained schools shall be qualified teachers as defined in those regulations. There are certain limited exceptions to this rule, also set out in the regulations.

  Expenditure on pre-primary education: 1991

  Public current expenditure1 on pre-primary education (US$Million3

  Public expenditure2per pupil in pre-primary education (US $3)

  Public current expenditure1 on pre-primary education as a percentage of gross domestic product

  Public current expenditure1 on pre-primary education as a percentage of total public expenditure

  Denmark

  144

  4,736

  0.2

  0.3

  France

  5,619

  2,163

  0.5

  1.1

  United Kingdom

  1,754

  2,223

  0.2

  0.4

  Sources

  Education at a Glance, OECD, December 1993.

  UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks 1993 and 1994 editions.

  Notes

  1 Excludes capital expenditure and loan charges.

  2 Includes capital expenditure and loan charges.

  3Adjusted to US dollars using Purchasing Power Parities published by OECD.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the level of staff turnover in public day nursery schools.

  Mr. Forth
  In maintained nursery schools in England in 1991–92, the turnover of full-time qualified teachers
  182
  There are no statutory requirements governing the qualifications of staff employed in other roles in maintained nursery schools.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of registered disabled children get a place at a nursery school or in a nursery class in a primary school.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children with special educational needs as defined by the Children Act 1989 get a place at(a) nursery school and (b) nursery class in a primary school.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for children in need as defined under section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 are not collected centrally.

  In 1994, 319 children with a statement of special educational need maintained by the local education authority under section 168 of the Education Act 1993 attended a maintained nursery school, representing 0.6 per cent. of the total maintained nursery population.

  The numbers of children with statements of special educational needs attending a nursery class in a primary school are not available.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total level of public expenditure on education for children under school age in(a) Denmark, (b) France and (c) the United Kingdom; what this sum is in each country per child under school age; what this sum is as a percentage of the national gross domestic product; and what this sum is as a percentage of public spending overall in the country concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  International comparisons of public expenditure on pre-primary education are difficult to make because of the need to ensure consistent definitions across countries. The latest available estimates based on information published by UNESCO and OECD are shown in the table.

  was 14.4 per cent. Information on turnover rates of other staff is not collected centrally.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the standard spending assessment is
  183
  being spent and what proportion of the education budget is being retained for administration, in rank order, in each English county, accordingly to the latest figures.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no separate allowance within standard spending assessments for administration; it is for each local education authority to decide what proportion of its education budget to use for administration costs. The table shows, for each LEA in England, expenditure on service strategy and regulation, management and administration and the inspection and advisory service, as a proportion of total LEA expenditure, in 1992–93, the latest year for which outturn figures are available.

  LEA expenditure on administration1 as a proportion of total expenditure, 1992–93

  LEA Rank number

  Percentage of total expenditure on administration

  1 Corporation of London

  15.4

  2 Lewisham

  13.4

  3 Bexley

  10.9

  4 Hammersmith and Fulham

  9.2

  5 Greenwich

  9.0

  6 Croydon

  8.8

  7 Kensington and Chelsea

  8.6

  8 Kent

  8.0

  9 Waltham Forest

  7.9

  10 Southwark

  7.9

  11 Lambeth

  7.9

  12 Sutton

  7.9

  13 Northamptonshire

  7.8

  14 Salford

  7.6

  15 Coventry

  7.6

  16 Tower Hamlets

  7.4

  17 Isle of Wight

  7.2

  18 City of Westminster

  7.2

  19 South Tyneside

  7.1

  20 Wandsworth

  7.0

  21 Buckinghamshire

  6.9

  22 Enfield

  6.7

  23 Barking

  6.6

  24 Camden

  6.4

  25 Somerset

  6.3

  26 Merton

  5.9

  27 Knowsley

  5.9

  28 Islington

  5.9

  29 Kirklees

  5.7

  30 Northumberland

  5.7

  31 Oldham

  5.6

  32 Ealing

  5.6

  33 Redbridge

  5.6

  34 Hackney

  5.5

  35 Haringey

  5.5

  36 Warwickshire

  5.4

  37 Kingston upon Thames

  5.4

  38 Cumbria

  5.4

  39 Wiltshire

  5.2

  40 Cornwall

  5.2

  41 Hillingdon

  5.1

  42 Barnsley

  5.1

  43 Solihull

  5.1

  44 Bromley

  5.1

  45 Suffolk

  5.0

  46 Dudley

  5.0

  47 Berkshire

  4.8

  48 Bury

  4.8

  49 Gateshead

  4.6

  50 Harrow

  4.6

  51 Dorset

  4.5

  52 Hampshire

  4.5

  53 Lincolnshire

  4.4

  54 Leeds

  4.4

  55 Manchester

  4.4

  184

  LEA expenditure on administration1 as a proportion of total expenditure, 1992–93

  LEA Rank number

  Percentage of total expenditure on administration

  56 Newham

  4.3

  57 Avon

  4.3

  58 East Sussex

  4.3

  59 Newcastle upon Tyne

  4.3

  60 Barnet

  4.2

  61 Calderdale

  4.2

  62 Hertfordshire

  4.2

  63 Birmingham

  4.2

  64 Norfolk

  4.2

  65 Sefton

  4.1

  66 Sandwell

  4.1

  67 Cheshire

  3.9

  68 Bedfordshire

  3.9

  69 Essex

  3.9

  70 Sheffield

  3.9

  71 Nottinghamshire

  3.9

  72 West Sussex

  3.8

  73 Bolton

  3.8

  74 Wirral

  3.8

  75 Shropshire

  3.8

  76 Cambridgeshire

  3.7

  77 Derbyshire

  3.7

  78 Gloucestershire

  3.6

  79 Havering

  3.6

  80 Rotherham

  3.6

  81 Sunderland

  3.6

  82 Richmond upon Thames

  3.4

  83 Wolverhampton

  3.4

  84 Rochdale

  3.3

  85 Liverpool

  3.3

  86 Hounslow

  3.3

  87 Wakefield

  3.3

  88 Tameside

  3.3

  89 Brent

  3.3

  90 Stockport

  3.3

  91 Hereford and Worcester

  3.1

  92 North Yorkshire

  3.0

  93 Surrey

  3.0

  94 Durham

  3.0

  95 Bradford

  3.0

  96 Doncaster

  3.0

  97 Devon

  3.0

  98 Isles of Scilly

  2.8

  99 Staffordshire

  2.7

  100 St. Helens

  2.7

  101 Wigan

  2.7

  102 Oxfordshire

  2.6

  103 Walsall

  2.5

  104 Humberside

  2.4

  105 Leicestershire

  2.4

  106 Cleveland

  2.2

  107 Trafford

  2.1

  108 North Tyneside

  1.8

  109 Lancashire

  1.7

  Total

  4.5

  1 Administration covers Service Strategy and Regulation, Management and Administration and the Inspection and Advisory Service.

  Staffordshire Local Education Authority
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what would have been the increase required to remove the effect of inflation from central Government payments to Staffordshire local education authority in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The annual rate of inflation for the last 10 years is set out in the table, but it is not possible to state what would be the increase required to remove the effect of inflation from central Government payments to Staffordshire local education authority because of
  185
  annual changes in authorities' relative need to spend. The underlying increases in inflation rates are:

  Inflation percentage

  1984–85 to 1985–86

  5.5

  l985–86to 1986–87

  3.0

  1986–87 10 1987–88

  5.3

  1987–88 to 1988–89

  6.7

  1988–89 to 1989–90

  7.0

  1989–90 to 1990–91

  8.0

  1990–91 to 1991–92

  6.3

  1991–92 to 1992–93

  4.0

  1992–93 to 1993–94

  3.1

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  2.0

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  3.3

  Under-five Provision
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the most recent percentage available of under fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in the north-east of England by individual local authority area; and what the percentages were in 1978.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils under five being taught in maintained nursery schools in each local education authority in north-east England in 1978 and 1994 is shown in the table.

  Percentage of children under five in maintained nursery and primary schools for each LEA in North East England1

  Position at January

  Local Education Authority

  1978

  1994

  Cleveland

  55

  90

  Durham

  58

  77

  186

  Percentage of children under five in maintained nursery and primary schools for each LEA in North East England1

  Position at January

  Local Education Authority

  1978

  1994

  Gateshead

  51

  68

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  61

  72

  North Tyneside

  62

  87

  Northumberland

  41

  71

  South Tyneside

  64

  86

  Sunderland

  58

  74

  1 Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January.

  School Reserves
  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value of reserves held on deposit on current account by state schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In respect of England, information on the cumulative net balances recorded in local education authorities' LMS outturn statements for the financial year 1993–94 is contained in the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 19 and 27 January,Official Report, columns 641–43 and 410–11 respectively. The Department does not collect information which would indicate the extent to which these balances are held in schools' own current bank accounts.

  Information regarding the financial balances held by grant-maintained schools in England is held by the Funding Agency for Schools, and I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member. The funding of LEA and grant-maintained schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

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

The McFarlane Trust: Funding
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will expand the role and funding of the McFarlane Trust whose original purpose was to make payments to haemophiliacs infected with the HIV virus from contaminated blood transfusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords, but we will continue to keep under review the amounts available to the trust for its work of helping to meet the special needs of haemophilia patients with HIV and their families.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that virtually all the haemophiliacs who received National Health Service blood before 1985 were infected with hepatitis C? Is she further aware that the only significant difference between HIV and hepatitis C which could affect payment by the Government—not doctors—is that in the case of hepatitis C critical illness and death do not automatically follow? However, they can and they do follow. Will the Government change the rule and the funding of the McFarlane Trust so that critical illness and death trigger payment by the Government? The principle is exactly the same; the consequences are the same; and the payment should be the same.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with due deference to the noble Lord, the consequences are not the same. Many people with hepatitis C live perfectly normal lives for decades. Only a very small minority develop serious liver illnesses. Those who suffered HIV were thought at the time to have an imminent death sentence. They suffered social ostracism. People were treated, as we know, like lepers. They had their doors daubed with graffiti; they lost their jobs; their children were not allowed to mix with other children at school; and they were denied a normal family life. There were tremendous differences between the two groups.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I raised this subject in your Lordships' House seven years ago—in November 1987—and that in responding to another Question of mine the following October the Government referred to the launch of the McFarlane Trust? Does my noble friend accept that the trust has done a very good job within its mandate — unintentional infection with the HIV virus?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. It is interesting to see the large sums of money that the trust
1028
has given to those who have suffered. Indeed, the trustees are very conscientious and caring. We believe that the trust is extremely well managed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the terms of the McFarlane Trust were to make an ex gratia payment to those who suffered HIV as a result of blood transfusions? There was no suggestion of it being a recognition of formal compensation. So the issues that arose when the matter was previously raised by my noble friend in your Lordships' House—that this would somehow lead to the opening of the floodgates for compensation—simply do not apply. Does the Minister agree that both the legal and clinical results of this blood infection are precisely the same for those with haemophilia?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The results are very different. Those suffering from haemophilia knew when they received the treatment that there was a risk. They took that risk. Indeed, if they had not had the blood products we know that they would almost certainly have died.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are there any statistics with regard to these two diseases? How many people suffer from haemophilia and how many suffer from HIV?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, 1,221 people suffered HIV infection through blood products and 156 people suffered infection through blood tissue and blood transfusions. With regard to those who suffered hepatitis C infection, we do not know the exact figures. That is why a look-back exercise is taking place at the moment. However, the estimate is that for blood products the number is 4,000, and for blood transfusions, 3,000.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Baroness address her mind to this point? She has spoken of those with hepatitis C who live normal lives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is a glittering example of that; he spoke when last I raised the issue. However, I am referring to people who are critically ill and die from hepatitis C. Those are the people for whom we want payment. All the other people are irrelevant. If there is a trigger mechanism whereby those who are critically ill or die receive payment for themselves or their families, justice will be done. That is the point at issue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of the Government giving compensation to these people. We know that they took a risk and that in the health service treatment is given in good faith. We know that without treatment these people would surely have died.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with respect, the Minister has once again used the word "compensation" in relation to my noble friend's Question. Will she not accept the point I made in my supplementary question that the payments given to those who contracted HIV as a result of their haemophilia and blood transfusions were not compensated in the

1029
technical sense of the word? Does the Minister agree that the Government made an ex gratia payment and that this situation is similar?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in that the Government have never accepted liability on this matter. If we were to give into such a case as this we know that there would be many other instances of people who have suffered medical accidents expecting some kind of payment for the condition they have had. Noble Lords will remember that the last time we debated this matter we drew the analogy between what is happening in the United States and what could happen here. If litigation, compensation and payments become a national sport the National Health Service will be finished.

Historic Building Repairs: Funding
2.44 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which historic buildings are eligible for financial assistance towards repairs from the National Heritage Memorial Fund from moneys derived from the National Lottery; and what criteria are used to assess such applications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, repairs to historic buildings may be eligible for financial assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund if the buildings are owned by a public or charitable body.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that certain Ministers, Members of Parliament and the general public certainly need enlightening on this fact? Does the Minister further agree that by precluding any financial assistance to the large majority of our historic houses—which successive governments have recognised as in need of funding even since 1953—t is going to be very difficult to see how the national heritage is to survive? Can the Minister tell the House whether this statutory discrimination is deliberate or a legislative mishap? Will the Minister further agree that a simple amendment should be made to the National Heritage Act 1980, whereby the National Heritage Memorial Fund can allot funds as to need, otherwise the national heritage will suffer as a whole?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the position as regards eligibility of privately owned historic buildings for funding from the National Heritage Memorial Fund is essentially the same as before the lottery Act and the lottery were introduced. The tests applied will be the same as in the National Heritage Act 1980 under which private individuals and companies operating for profit are ineligible for funding. However, privately owned historic buildings may be eligible if ownership is transferred to a charitable trust. I know that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund are keen to be
1030
flexible in their approach and to help the private owner; for example, through assistance to charitable trusts which ensure clear public benefit.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, why cannot these properties be eligible for assistance if they are open to the public? Does that not qualify them? It always has.
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords, that is not the case. In the types of cases which the noble Lord referred to, it is up to the historic buildings agency, English Heritage, to provide support to private owners of properties who require support for their houses.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend explain how it is that VAT is charged on repair work to historic buildings? Is that not wholly contrary to the general approach which my noble friend has adopted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we recently had a debate on VAT and historic houses. I only wish to add that the National Heritage Memorial Fund gives a grant for the total amount of expenditure which includes VAT and professional fees.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that churches and cathedrals qualify under the heading of "charitable"? If that is so, on what principle will be the division of the funds available between church and lay buildings respectively?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the position is clear as regards churches. They are in charitable ownership for the public benefit. I know that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund have had many applications concerning churches.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, can the noble Viscount please explain why the Government discriminate against the private sector? That does so much to preserve our built heritage.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that the private sector does a lot for heritage. It plays an extremely important part in repairing and looking after our heritage. It was the clear intention of Parliament that lottery funding for good causes should be for the public good. There are other issues here; for example, the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees may consider applications for in situ purchases if they are convinced of the public benefit and if the proceeds of the sale are to be applied to the preservation of the building.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be very delicate and difficult to provide public money which would add to the equity value of private houses for their private owners? I believe that that was one of the reasons behind our approach to the Lottery Bill and earlier. In that context, will the Minister also restate that our common aim is to secure the maximum aid to heritage? Will he agree to look again to see whether it is possible to introduce any further flexibility into this matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord's first two comments. The historic

1031
buildings agencies for each of the countries of England, Scotland and Wales provide substantial help to private owners through their grant schemes. English Heritage alone this year is offering £30 million towards the preservation of historic secular buildings and monuments, so the Government take the issue very seriously. As I have said, we want to ensure that there is a clear public benefit from National Lottery funding. I know that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund are keen to be as flexible as they can be within their clear guidelines.
Lord Annan: My Lords, are schools which occupy historic buildings eligible for such moneys?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes. They are charitable, so they are eligible.

UNESCO
2.50 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What impediments they see to the readmission of the United Kingdom to UNESCO prior to the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we keep membership of UNESCO under close review, taking into account several factors including the progress made by UNESCO on reform, existing financial pressures and other priority demands for scarce resources.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather familiar Answer. Will he confirm that the financial issue amounts, as we have heard in the past, to an annual subscription, if that is the term, of about £10 million per year? Does my noble friend recall that it was as a result of a conference held in London in 1945 that UNESCO was founded, that its first director general was an Englishman and that this country has played a major role in its development? Will my noble friend confirm that the two criteria which caused us to leave UNESCO—maladministration and questions relating to the freedom of the press—have been dealt with? I believe that my noble friend Lady Chalker referred to a "dead duck" in relation to those two themes. Does my noble friend agree that it is sad that we left the club on ethical grounds and that we are unable to rejoin because we cannot afford the subscription?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right in his estimate of the order of magnitude of the subscription to UNESCO which, depending on whether the United States is a member, would be either £11 million or £8 million per year. My noble friend is right to point out the distinguished contribution which British citizens have made to UNESCO over the years. He is also correct in regard to his two points about our reasons for leaving UNESCO in 1985. The matter relating to the freedom of the press has now been resolved, and reforms have been put in place to deal with many of the outstanding internal deficiencies. Having said that,
1032
however, UNESCO is not in what we consider to be an ideal form although we recognise and put on record the considerable improvements that have been made.
The position now is that if we were to return to UNESCO, we would have to find the subscription which, in turn, would have to come from some other part of our budget. The savings made through not subscribing to UNESCO meant increased contributions to other similar activities which fell within the general competence of UNESCO. Since there are more ways than one of skinning a dead cat—if I may use a vulgar phrase—we feel that we can contribute most effectively through bilateral means.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we are not talking about a dead cat but about a very important international organisation in the formation of which, as the noble Lord said, we played an important part. Will the noble Lord confirm that, except for paying that modest affiliation fee, there are no other policy reasons why we should not rejoin UNESCO? Will the noble Lord also confirm that as a result of not being a member of UNESCO, we have already lost (in terms of contracts which would be beneficial to the British economy) more than we would lose by paying our affiliation fee? In view of all that has been said, why do not the British Government show some courage and decide to rejoin UNESCO?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that by not being in UNESCO we have lost a large number of contracts we might otherwise have had. It is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that that is the case. We see no evidence to support that proposition. As I said, we believe that the most effective way in which we can contribute to the common good along the lines of the principles of Article I of UNESCO's charter is through bilateral means. For as long as we consider that that is the most effective way of contributing, we shall no doubt continue as at present.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, whatever the attitude to bilateral means, surely our failure to support UNESCO suggests that we are lukewarm in our support of the United Nations. Is not that particularly inappropriate in the 50th year of the United Nations?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no. If I may say so, I do not think that the inference drawn by the noble Baroness is either logical or based on the facts and the way in which we contribute to the United Nations in general.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although there may have been improvements in the way UNESCO is run it is far from being regarded as a cost-effective organisation, given its overmanning at the centre? Is it not the case that many Members of your Lordships' House could suggest better ways in which the cause of international cultural co-operation can be forwarded than by clinging to an organisation which, whatever the high hopes of 1945, when there were many other high hopes around, has not fulfilled them?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We are concerned about the manning

1033
levels in UNESCO. We consider that the organisation is perhaps not as efficient as it might be in that regard. On my noble friend's second question, I do not think noble Lords have ever been backward at coming forward with ideas for spending money along the lines which my noble friend described.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can it really be the case that the Government cannot afford the subscription? It is not a huge amount of money in terms of Britain's total public expenditure or in terms of our aid budget. Is the noble Lord aware that the Government have just taken a decision to cut £11 million from our contribution to the European Development Fund? Could that saving be used to support UNESCO and so allow us to become involved in its work at a time when all UN agencies need our support and involvement?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not accurate about the European Development Fund as no decision has been taken on our contribution to EDFVIII. As to the total cost of contributing to UNESCO, the Government could find £11 million per year if they deemed it an appropriate way of spending public money. I hope I made clear in an earlier answer that we do not believe that that is a priority on which we should spend money at present.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that words such as "maladministration" and "irregularities" are extremely polite euphemisms for some of the extraordinary and outrageous practices that went on in UNESCO at the time of our leaving the organisation? Irrespective of the cost, can the noble Lord assure us that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the house of UNESCO is thoroughly cleansed before we think of going back into it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The internal arrangements of UNESCO were deplorable at the time we left. Noble Lords can rest assured that, as always in the context of international organisations, we put an extremely high priority on financial regularity. We shall certainly make no exception for that organisation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I must press the noble Lord. He says that I am wrong about the decision to cut our contribution to the European Development Fund. Can he tell the House whether the Government are or are not considering a substantial cut to our contribution to the European Development Fund?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. We have been considering making a cut to EDFVIII, but she puts figures to the cut which are completely hearsay.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord think it remarkable that the Government and
1034
Parliament can find £1 billion extra next year to pour into the black hole of European waste and fraud and yet cannot find an extra £10 million to contribute to an organisation which will help education and culture in areas throughout the world which badly need them?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord opens the whole European debate. It is not appropriate to embark on that in Question Time. I merely reiterate that in present circumstances we do not consider that a subscription to UNESCO is a priority we wish to take up.

Coal Stocking at Closed Collieries
3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on the stocking of coal at closed collieries.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the stocking of coal at closed collieries is a matter for the site owner.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not scandalous that, having suffered dirt, dust, pollution and the eyesore of pitheaps for decades, mining communities, which have lost thousands of jobs in the mining industry due to pit closures, should have to put up with all that again? Is that not part of the price we have had to pay for coal privatisation? Will the Government not take much greater action than the rather timid response we have had from the Minister today?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Lord is getting at.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord need not bother to repeat his question. I heard what he said. I said that I did not understand what he was getting at, and that is not the same thing. When the coal industry was privatised, the new private users took over the coal stocks. It is up to them to dispose of them as they think appropriate. There were about 12.4 million tonnes in April 1994. It is now down to 11 million tonnes.
I thought that the noble Lord might be concerned about what happened at Easington, so I took the precaution of obtaining the figures. He might like to know that there 500,000 tonnes were stockpiled in September 1993. When the pit was sold in September 1994, that had decreased to 250,000 tonnes. I am informed that it is anticipated that that stock is likely to be sold completely by March of this year.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a bit lost. Is the industry now in private hands? I thought that the contracts had not yet been completed. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. He will recall that when we debated the coal industry privatisation legislation, the Government, in rejecting all sorts of amendments, reassured noble Lords in all parts of the House that we did not have to be too exercised about the environmental question because everything was well looked after and

1035
we did not have to worry. The point that my noble friend has raised is that it looks at this stage, with this example—there are many others to come—and the news today about water pollution from closed pits, that we were right to worry about environmental problems with respect to the privatised coal industry. Many of us will be appalled if the Government always intend to answer that it is a matter for the site owner.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord is lost if he does not know whether the coal industry is in private hands. British Coal was privatised on 30th December 1994 in England and Scotland and, mysteriously, one day later, on 31st December, in Wales. So the industry is in private hands. I have pleasure in telling the noble Lord that if he was not certain about it.
Pollution is always a matter of concern. It does not matter who owns the pits; it will always be a matter of concern. All mine owners are under a duty not to cause pollution to any river or stream. The regulatory bodies (the NRA and in Scotland the river purification boards) have appropriate powers to enforce those responsibilities.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I always like to be informed and educated by the Minister. Will he assure me that the Treasury now has the money from selling the whole of the coal industry to the private sector? Has some money now appeared in the Treasury corresponding to the value of the industry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, British Coal has been sold. If the noble Lord wants to know the precise date upon which sums of money passed, I shall have to find out. British Coal is now in private hands.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister explain the position with regard to the stocks at closed collieries, because some of the collieries were sold? They are in private hands, and so the stocks would clearly be the responsibility of the purchasers. But other pits were not sold and remain the responsibility of the Coal Authority. What will happen to the stocks at pits which were not sold?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they will be disposed of as and when appropriate.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister accept that some of us rise in fear and trembling because of the pugnacious mood he appears to be in this afternoon? I try to remember that, although he is seven inches taller than I am, I am still not afraid of him.
This is a serious question, and it is asked in the context not merely of the tonnage left on the surface but of the history of the years of degradation suffered not just in the valleys of Wales but throughout the coal areas as a result of the neglect by private owners of responsibilities about which they had to be taught by various governments and public authorities. We have reached the stage in Wales where we can now call our valleys green again. Having shrugged off the responsibility, as has been done this afternoon, we are very concerned that the Government might continue to do that and that the rivers of Wales might be polluted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be the first to apologise to the noble Lord, or indeed any other noble Lord, if he thought that I was being pugnacious. That is not my style at all, as it is not the style of the noble Lord to be alarmed or frightened.
Of course pollution is a matter of concern, but when the responsibility for owning mines passes to another, the responsibility for avoiding pollution passes to the new owners. Where those responsibilities have not passed to another, of course they remain the responsibilities of the previous owner. We are concerned to make sure that all the river authorities have adequate measures available to them to ensure that untoward pollution does not occur.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister need not have reminded me about Easington. I have lived in the shadow of the Easington pitheap for too many years.
With great respect, he is missing the whole point of the Question. We are talking about pits which have closed and which are now being used again for the stocking of coal. Unless he takes some notice of what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have said, there will be no progress. It is a serious matter for mining communities.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that stocks at closed collieries were sold to the regional companies; in other words, all stocks in England were sold to RJB.(Mining) plc.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.8 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 COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [New requirements for contracted-out schemes, other than money purchase schemes]:
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 184BG:
Page 69, line 42, leave out ("65") and insert ("63").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that in replying the Minister will not give me a whole list of technicalities but deal with the principle that I am trying to establish in my amendment. I am well aware that the drafting is far from perfect, and indeed that the amendment might prove to be in the wrong part of the Bill, because I have not attempted to enter into the cat's cradle of cross-references which besmirches the Bill. Indeed I would be incapable. I am too stupid to be able to enter into the competition of opacity with the Government. It takes great skill to hide the truth and it takes a lot of

1037
words, and this Government have always preferred verbosity to lucidity. It is part of their technique of government. I suspect that I am not alone in the Committee in having to try to put a wet towel around my head and follow the complexities of the Bill through to some kind of identifiable meaning.
I know that the issue of pensions is complex because I had to deal with it. As the Committee will be aware, I introduced my better pensions Bill in 1978. It gave birth to SERPS and so I well know what is involved. Even at its best and simplest it is sometimes difficult for the layman to understand what it is proposed should happen to him.
However, we can avoid making the matter more complex. I know because I turned up my Act and I was struck by the contrast in its clarity and simplicity. I will tell you why. When we had a complicated Bill I used to say to my draftsman, "Look, I know that you have to get in all the legal points but, for heaven's sake, try to make the Bill clear to those whom it will affect". I suspect that this Government have deliberately set out to make it obscure.
Therefore, my amendment concentrates on two straightforward, simple principles. In the amendment I am testing the political will of this Government and the purposes of their whole pensions policy. All the principles of the state earnings related pensions scheme, which I introduced, were based on the belief that there was what Dick Crossman, who also drafted an earnings-related pensions Bill, once called "apartheid in old age". In other words, we wanted to prevent the gross inequalities which afflicted our society in the retirement pensions field. So the earnings-related concept was not only introduced but it was inspired by certain political aims and not merely actuarial calculations, although they were sound enough, as the government actuary certified.
What were those principles?—that we could only adjust some of these gross inequalities if we recognised what they sprang from and whom they affected the most. Clearly, they sprang from great inequalities and variations in income, great uncertainties in earning power and great changes in the ability of people to earn as they approached retirement age.
I shared the same view as my brilliant Minister of State, the late Brian O'Malley. His death in the middle of our discussions was a very great blow, and was recognised by all sides of the House. We said that the group of people whose unjust treatment in the pensions field stood out a mile was, obviously, women. They were not even allowed to join occupational schemes when we started the demand for equal treatment in those schemes. Of course, my Bill abolished the married women's option to be dependent on her husband's pension. We had to phase that in gradually and some women are still suffering from the remnants of that dependency. We asked, "What is the earnings pattern of these women?". As the Equal Opportunities Commission has pointed out in more than one brilliant report, it is a pattern of earnings fluctuation, changing labour, casual labour, part-time labour and interrupted work due to family responsibilities. We all know it and
1038
I shall not bore the Committee by repeating it. However, I ask the Government to bear in mind the way in which they hope to correct it.
One of my civil servants—I do not claim the credit—had the inspired concept of the 20 best earning years. We knew as he said it that that would also help those blue-collar workers who often reach their earnings peak in middle life when they are physically strong and whose earnings may then decline somewhat. An obvious example is the miner who in the heyday of his physical strength will be at the coalface earning good money. When he can no longer bear the strain of that he will move to the surface and his earnings will drop. Of course, final salary schemes are no use to them. What is more, it would be unfair to average things out over the whole of their earning life. However, if you say to a manual workman or to a woman, "Look, pick the 20 best earning years of your life and we will base your pension entitlement on that", that is fairer.
I frankly admit that I introduced a piece of sex discrimination. The men did not like it; they had not suffered from it before. I said, "I am not going to raise the women's retirement age from 60", even though we as a government admitted that we could not at that time afford to bring the men's retirement age down from 65 to 60. I said to the men, "I am sorry. You will have to wait a bit; it will come. We have had to wait thousands of years for a bit of sex equality. It will not do you any harm to feel what it is like". So I kept it. The woman received the full benefit that she had contributed despite the fact that she retired five years earlier.
Since then we have seen this Government beat the most miserable retreat from that piece of inspired legislation, which I point out to the Committee was fully backed by the pensions industry. We knew that, by imposing these standards as a condition for contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme, we had to help them a bit with the costs of, for instance, indexation which the conditions included. We did not mind. Good heavens, is not that what this society of ours is crying out for—a little more generous-spirited partnership—and not, "Let's have the competitive system. We are the bosses so we have to have our funds protected. You are the workers so you have to take less pay."? We have seen the recent indecent examples, which are spreading still further, of those inequalities as the man at the top takes millions. He boasts that his business is profitable so he deserves it. But that profitability has been based on keeping down already low wages.
I would like to think that this Chamber could recapture some of that spirit that we tried to infuse into our society. If we do not, the rich will suffer as much as anybody, even if it is only in poverty of spirit. But they could suffer from great social insecurity as well. Surely history has taught us that. My long life has taught me it. Therefore, I want to seize this opportunity to try to reiterate those principles and to make the Government face up to the fact that they have deliberately slaughtered them, because not only have they reduced the value of the state pension on which low-paid women depend—and very often a large majority of women receive nothing but a state pension—but they have also

1039
broken the earnings link. Everyone will tell you that they know how much better off those at the bottom in retirement would be if only this Government had not broken that earnings link; or at least their genetic predecessor did that—the Thatcher Government.
Women are suffering. Not only are they told that the maturity period has been lengthened and that everything has been whittled down, but they are told also that they must carry on with their low-income lives into an old age of uncertainty and instability until they are 65. I know that we have to equalise the pension age. I had my bit of fun and I won the women a breathing space; and I am darned glad that I did. But I recognise that eventually the pension age must be equalised. But if it is still true that this country of economic miracles cannot afford to reduce the pension age for everybody to 60, the obvious fair compromise is to strike a figure of 63. That is the first thing for which I ask.
But women are also the greatest beneficiaries of the restoration of the principle of basing their pension on the 20 best earning years. Women are the most insecure earners in our society by definition. It is the woman who is likely to have an interrupted career. Sometimes that may be for the happiest of reasons—she has a family. But sometimes it is for the unhappiest of reasons. As we heard in our debates yesterday, it falls to her to look after her husband's elderly parents, and small thanks she gets for it. We are snatching away that raft of security and saying to a woman, "Well, you have to contribute as long as you are earning, unless you have your home responsibility credit, or whatever, but we will enable you to retire on your 20 best earning years level".
Please, Mr. Minister, do not tell me that the amendment may be out of order in some word here or some phrase there. The nomenclature of the amendment shows the sort of minefield of obscurity which we are in. What is it—Amendment BH or GA, or something? That is easy compared with some of the enumerations of some of the clauses, subsections and sub-subsections until all the letters of the alphabet are exhausted. Please can I have some inkling that even at this late stage the Government will think again about those two basic principles?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I proffer my sympathetic support for what my noble friend has been saying about her amendments. Of course, more than anybody, she has the right to tell the Government what they should be doing. As she has reminded us, she was responsible for the pensions legislation introduced in the mid-1970s, with all-party support—I emphasise that. It was then known as the "Castle Plan" and we all thought that the debate about pensions had finished for a very long time. We had not expected a Conservative Government quite so soon to attempt to demolish the structure which had been created.
The first amendment seeks to amend the clause so that it reads, "a normal pension age of 63" instead of "a normal pension age of 65", with regard to the Government's reference occupational scheme. As we know, nowadays many occupational schemes have a lower pension age. Indeed, 63 is not at all uncommon. When seeking to equalise pension ages some years ago
1040
many schemes chose the age of 63 as being cost-neutral. Indeed, had the Government decided to be cost-neutral in relation to the state scheme, they could have accepted the proposition for a flexible decade of retirement and taken 63 as the principal age at which state pensions would be paid.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be here later in the Committee's proceedings last night, but I understand that there was some discussion about a flexible decade of retirement. I was a member of your Lordships' committee back in 1989 which recommended a flexible decade of retirement—a decade of choice between the ages of 60 and 70. We recommended 63 as the pivotal age at which full state benefits became payable because we were advised then that that was cost-neutral.
Moreover, flexibility surely makes sense, particularly nowadays. In view of the Government's support for flexible employment and for various changes in employment patterns, I am surprised that they are apparently not in favour of the flexible decade of retirement because, as my noble friend pointed out, there are different types of employment. In some employments people are only too happy to retire early because they have had a long and arduous life; for example, in heavy industry. Mining is obviously a case in point where it is sensible to have an early retirement age. But there are other employments where people welcome the social environment brought about by participation in the activities of the workplace and would wish to retire much later. If the Government really believe in choice, the flexible decade is the option which they should choose. As we have already said, 63 is the cost-neutral pivotal point.
As I said earlier, I know there was some discussion about that last night. I have looked at Hansard. But, on the other hand, there were no votes and it is still open to the Government to consider that option. Perhaps I may press the Minister to do so between now and Report.
As regards my noble friend's second amendment, she is quite right to say that the best 20 years provision in SERPS was of very great benefit to large numbers of the lower paid, particularly women and those who have a chequered work pattern. As she rightly points out, many employees have their best earning years when they are younger. As they get older they are given lighter or less well paid employment. Moreover, women spend time in and out of employment and a broken work record often prevents them from getting onto the promotional ladder. Therefore, when they retire the final years of their working lives are not necessarily the best years upon which entitlement to pension should be based.
My noble friend has advanced important arguments. As she said, her amendment is possibly flawed. However, the issues raised are important. There is time within the framework of our discussions on the Bill for the Government to think about what has been said and perhaps to do something between now and Report stage to try to meet some of the considerations that have been raised.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: As the arguments about the flexible decade of retirement and also about the age of 63 being

1041
the pivotal age have been fully aired, I shall not repeat the support we gave yesterday from these Benches to those proposals. We must remember that one of the major purposes of the Bill is to move from the pay-as-you-go scheme, with all that that involves, to a funded scheme. That accounts for some of the differences we are finding. I believe that we should welcome the change. It shows more foresight than that displayed by our predecessors who legislated in the field and by those operating in other parts of the European Union.
However, having agreed with the Minister and supported him up to this point, I press him to think again about the proposed 20 best years. The last three years is liable to be a very poor deal for people who have had to go into part-time employment or, indeed, who have been in part-time employment for a good deal of the time. The last three years for people between the ages of 60 and 65, except in certain executive and administrative jobs where people are able to continue to contribute very satisfactorily in their early 60s, is not a time of good earning for many people. I cannot see that the proposal for the 20 best years would make that much difference. No doubt the Minister has figures at his disposal that are not available to me. I doubt that it would make a great deal of difference as regards the costing of the scheme, but it would make a great difference to many less well-paid people. That applies to women in particular, but also to men who are now retiring early and getting whatever job they can, often at a very much lower rate of pay. I urge the Minister most strongly to think again about changing the provision from the last three years to the best 20.
Baroness Lockwood: I support my noble friend's two amendments. I agree, for all the reasons given by my noble friends and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that pensions should be based on the best 20 years rather than the last three years. There is no doubting the fact that, for the majority of women, that would provide a much better pension.
I also support the amendment to the effect that the pension age would be 63 for both men and women. Yesterday, the Minister argued against lowering the pension age for men to 60, despite the fact that no such amendment was actually moved. I wonder whether we can persuade the Minister today to agree to a common pension age of 63, especially when the effect—as stated by my noble friend and as indicated in the Government's White Paper—would be cost neutral. Moreover, I believe that there is also a possible saving of £0.5 billion by the year 2035. So it would be cost neutral in its early years with a possible saving later.
The Minister's arguments yesterday were based on demographic factors, on our ability to pay, and on the increasing number of people being paid pensions and the effect of that on our international competitiveness. The noble Lord said that by shifting the retirement age to 65 we would be adding five more years to the working lives of women. Is the Minister sure that that would happen? For example, the Minister also said that 40 per cent. of occupational pension schemes already
1042
permit members to retire at the age of 63 or below. Therefore, there is already a move in occupational schemes to facilitate earlier pensions.
It would seem that there is some doubt in the Government's mind. Their proposals include extending "auto credit", now available to men from the ages of 60 to 65, to women. Clearly, they are expecting some women to retire before the age of 65. I am sure they are correct in that assumption. Indeed, we must face up to the reality of the situation that over 50 per cent. of men are now out of the labour force before they reach the state pension age of 65. The same will surely be so for women, or even more so, given their current pattern of retirement. I am certain that the Minister does not anticipate that more women than men will continue in employment up to the age of 65.
Last night, the Minister said that 40 per cent. of men were still working at the age of 64. Therefore, does the noble Lord expect 40 per cent. of women still to be working at the age of 64? Further, does the Minister want older men and women to work into their mid-60s at the expense of younger people?
One major study carried out by Hammond and Morris in 1986 assumed that half the jobs vacated by men retiring early were taken up by the unemployed and half by women coming into employment. The study concluded that if the replacement of older people by the unemployed were extended to 75 per cent. there would be a net saving because the cost of supporting the unemployed was greater than the cost of paying state pensions at an earlier age. Surely it would be more efficient to encourage the unemployed to move into the vacancies created by people retiring at the age of 63. That would also have an effect on the arguments that the support ratio is expected to decline in the next century. The support ratio surely depends not on the number of people of working age but on the number of people who are actually economically active. Therefore, if we could have a greater number of economically active people between the ages of 16, 18 or 20 up to the age of 63, that would be a much more efficient situation for the country.
I suggest that the priority for the Government is not to increase the retirement age for women to 65 but to come to a sensible compromise at 63 and to concentrate their efforts on reducing the number of unemployed by encouraging investment in industry and in training so that more people will be encouraged into employment. Similarly, the support ratio could actually be increased by the number of people who would be of working age. As 63 is cost neutral and the mid-point in all the factors, I hope that the Government will seriously consider the proposal as a useful option.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I rise to speak in support of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Castle, and to speak in particular in support of the second amendment. I do so because I wish to remind the Committee of the point that I raised in the debate yesterday which is that nowadays more women lose more time from their careers due to the responsibility of caring for elderly relatives than they do from caring for children. As regards the retirement age, the final three

1043
working years of a woman's life are often interrupted and broken, sometimes by taking unpaid leave to care for relatives. Many women do this from the goodness of their hearts; they are willing to do it. Not only do their relatives and families benefit, but it is also a good example to the next generation that we should care for members of the family. It is wicked, surely, if the legislation that we agree to here then penalises them in their own old age for having taken such a decision and such responsibility. I appeal to the Minister to give an indication that at a later stage the Government will listen to the needs of this particular group of women.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have been slightly mystified by this debate because it has ranged a good deal wider than either the two amendments or indeed the clause. Many of the arguments we have heard about the ages of 60, 63 or 65 were arguments that we could properly have addressed last night if some key amendments had not been withdrawn, although we addressed them eventually but not perhaps within the variation that we had on the Marshalled List. I do not intend to revisit last night's debate on the correct age of retirement because this clause, while it is related to that, has nothing to do directly with the Government's sensible decision that the common age of retirement should be 65.
Indeed this clause is not about any real, on-the-ground pension scheme. This clause is about the reference scheme with which other schemes will be compared. While this clause and the reference scheme contain the age of 65, that does not mean that every other scheme must contain that age. It just means that the reference scheme against which they will be judged will be based on 65. I was interested to note that I brought the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, to her feet again. I was going to say that she seemed to haunt me but perhaps I would not go so far as that. When I had a short spell in the transport department one of her pet schemes of yesteryear was being changed by the Government. Now I have moved to pensions—another of her pet schemes of yesteryear—which are being changed by the Government. Therefore I am given a little lecture on what happened all those years ago. I do not know whether I wish to be transferred to the Department of Employment so that I may be given a short lecture on In Place of Strife and what happened in that area when the noble Baroness was in Government, but we shall see.
Today I wish to address in particular the two amendments which the noble Baroness has tabled to this clause. The amendment to Section 12B(3) (a) of Clause 120 seeks to alter the reference scheme under the new contracting out test by lowering the normal pension age in the reference scheme to 63. I am assuming that the noble Baroness intends to propose that pensions be calculated based on the best 20 years earnings revalued, although that is not in the amendment. But either way would be significant.
This amendment, which lowers the normal pension age of the reference scheme to 63, is not acceptable because it would have the effect of raising the level of benefits under the reference scheme. If the reference
1044
scheme was to require benefits at a rate of 1/80th at the age of 63, the amendment would have the effect of making the reference scheme between 8 and 10 per cent. more valuable to individual scheme members. In addition, such an amendment could increase the costs for schemes where the benefits offered were at the level of the reference scheme.
Many occupational pension schemes have equalised their pension ages at age 65 in the light of the Government's proposals to equalise state pension age. The reference scheme takes account of this and also fits well with the Government's proposals in the Bill on the state pension age. The age set in the reference scheme does not—as I said right at the beginning—require schemes to have a normal pension age of 65. Regulations under Section 12D of Clause 120 will allow schemes to have a normal pension age of between 50 and 75 in line with the current Inland Revenue rules, provided that overall scheme benefits are broadly equivalent to, or better than, those under the reference scheme. The level of the reference scheme has been set to strike a balance between the interests of employers, individuals and Government, and we believe that this has been achieved with a normal pension age of 65.
I turn to the other amendment of the noble Baroness which seeks that pensions be calculated based on the best 20 years earnings revalued. Some groups of workers may have higher earnings early in their working lives. The best 20 years revalued could reflect these differing earnings patterns. However, higher earnings at the start of a working life often reflect overtime and shift payments which may not fully count towards pensionable earnings. Most individuals have higher earnings later in their careers and would wish their pension to be calculated on the basis of their earnings prior to retirement or leaving service. Practically all salary related schemes calculate an average final salary with reference to the years immediately preceding an individual's retirement. This amendment would change the basis of this calculation in the reference scheme and result in considerable administrative complexity for pension schemes so that much of the savings from the introduction of the new contracting out test would be lost.
Calculation of benefits over the best 20 years would require schemes to keep detailed records of individuals' earnings over their working life. This could prove particularly difficult when individuals transfer between schemes and employers and between state and occupational or personal pension provision. The reintroduction of such cumbersome procedures and the recording of earnings on an individualised basis would be similar in many ways to the current GMP arrangements. These have been strongly criticised by employers as too complex.
Our proposals seek to reduce the administrative complexity for employers and schemes while offering a specified level of benefits to members under the reference scheme. This amendment could make the provision of occupational pension schemes unattractive to employers. This amendment is not acceptable to us, and we believe that it would have the effect of lowering the value of pensions under the reference scheme and it would complicate the scheme administration for

1045
employers. With that explanation of what this is about—it is about a reference scheme and the fact that it does not mean that all schemes have to retire people at 65—I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: As I feared, the Minister has of course taken refuge behind technicalities and even digging up—he hoped—some terrible skeletons in my cupboard of yesteryear. I can assure him that that failed abysmally. Despite the fact that all he has done is to reveal the barrenness of ideas and arguments and the paucity of spirit which we have come to associate with this Government, I shall withdraw my amendment in order to fight another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184BH not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 120 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Motion that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.
The clause sets out new requirements for contracted out schemes other than money purchase schemes and in so doing seeks to abolish the guaranteed minimum pension, as the Minister said in response to the previous amendments.
At present in order to contract out, schemes have to meet the guaranteed minimum pension test. In this clause the Government propose an alternative based on a reference scheme which in some cases will provide an inferior substitute for GMP benefits.
The original intention with SERPS was that a contracted out scheme would have to satisfy two main complementary conditions. The first was the requisite benefits rule. That, like the reference scheme proposed by the Government, was based on a 1/80 th accrual rate. The second was the GMP rule. However, in 1988 the requisite benefits test was dropped by the Government. It was argued that it had become very complex and, secondly, that it was ineffective. There is no reason to suppose that the proposal now being made in the Bill will be any more effective.
The requisite benefits test ensures that the pension provided must be better than those set out as a reference scheme in the Bill. For some people—those on good wages, in a good scheme for a large part of their working lives—that may well represent a good deal and will guarantee them better benefits than the GMP. But for others that will not be the case. The low paid, in poor schemes and with short periods of service, stand to be disadvantaged by the disappearance of the GMP test. It is no consolation to an individual who falls through the safety net formerly provided by the GMP to be told that others have been assured of better benefits.
It must be the intention surely to try to ensure as far as possible that people do not end up worse off than they would have been had the GMP test continued in existence. That must be particularly so in the case of people who are less well off and less privileged in every sense of the term.
1046
During our debates yesterday the Minister referred to those of us who could look forward to final salary earnings-related pensions and those already receiving them. He spoke of such people as privileged. He surely cannot support a system which would further undermine the position of those who are not so privileged.
The reference scheme may provide lower benefits if there are periods of high inflation during a working lifetime because it provides an inadequate level of inflation protection as compared with the GMP. The reference scheme provides benefits as good as the GMP only if inflation rises no higher than 5 per cent. If it exceeds that level either before or after retirement there is the possibility of the GMP being better, depending on the extent and duration of the relevant periods of high inflation. The reason is that SERPS is inflation proofed. Even when scheme members contract out of SERPS they remain entitled to what are called residual SERPS benefits, which can be a significant part of some people's pensions.
In addition, members of contracted out schemes could suffer losses under the provisions of the Bill as a result of the removal of the guaranteed protection which the DSS currently offers for GMP benefits. The value of that protection was made clear in the Maxwell fiasco when the scheme members at least had their GMPs restored immediately because the guarantee was absolute. That is of immense value, particularly to the poorly paid.
The Minister may argue that with the other provisions in the Bill—the solvency standard and the compensation scheme —the guaranteed support represented by GMPs is no longer necessary. But the system of compensation guarantees only up to 90 per cent. of benefits as compared with the total GMP. Some types of loss will not be covered, notably losses arising from poor investment decisions. GMPs are guaranteed, whatever the reason for the shortfall.
Of course, the Government do not really like SERPS at all. I well remember the days of the Fowler review, which was referred to yesterday by the Minister in the course of debate. It was clear that at that time the Government would have liked to do away with SERPS altogether, but there was such a fuss that they withdrew from the confrontation that could have ensued and settled instead for a gradual undermining of the scheme. First the accrual rate was worsened and then the best 20 years provision disappeared. Then we had the campaign to encourage people to take out personal pensions and to opt against SERPS, with the encouragement of the national insurance rebate. Now we have the disappearance of the GMP test altogether. That is a potential worsening for the poorer paid, less privileged members of the workforce. We should not let it pass without attempting to persuade the Government that they are doing something wrong.
Coupled with my opposition to Clause 120 is my opposition to Clauses 124 and 125, both of which follow on from the clause which I currently oppose.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I should like to support Baroness Turner in opposing the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill. I do not need to go

1047
over the ground which she has so devastatingly revealed to the Committee in her indictment of what the Government intend to do in the Bill in general and this clause in particular.
I want to reinforce the warning about the future of SERPS. I also want to refer to a recent article in the Observer by two economists from the Institute of Fiscal Studies headed:
"The strange death of a pension scheme".
They know, as everybody who is a pensions expert knows, that the Government are bent on the slow destruction of the whole scheme.
As has been pointed out, 10 years ago the Government announced that they were going to abolish the scheme. But there was an outcry because, despite the weakening of the scheme which has taken place, 9 million people are still members of it. It is a lifeline to them and the best that is available. It is better than any personal pension scheme which is supposed to give them so much choice.
The article also points out that, although the Government have failed in the abolition of the scheme, they have been tireless in ill-doing ever since. The economists claim that the benefits that accrue under SERPS have been halved in the past 10 years. They also paint out that the benefits will be further halved by this Bill. Those two economists—Richard Disney and Paul Johnson—write on the basis of expert analysis of the benefits people will receive and the attacks which the Government are making on the scheme.
The Government's long-term aim is most vividly summed up in the recent book by the No Turning Back movement which is currently lending such support to our Prime Minister. In that book the group does not hide the fact that it believes in two things. It believes that state benefits should be only for the poor—a reversion to the dear old Victorian divisions in our society and charity for the poor—and very meagre charity at that. The book goes on to state that eventually the state may have no insurance scheme of its own at all. That is the aim.
Those of us who resist that aim and believe that you cannot provide security and dignity in old age for everyone without the state coming in with its support must rally against this clause in particular.
4 p m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to advise the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, of the maximum percentage of final salary to be obtained from SERPS, and what one would expect in respect of an ordinary pension, which would be at least 50 per cent.?
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am very fascinated by the way in which this Government, who clearly have their back to the wall, are increasingly trying to hand over the role of government to the Opposition. I should be delighted to become Minister of Pensions again. If so, I could have turned to the officials' Box and rustled up the exact figure for which I had been asked. However, I am afraid that I do not have the figure at my fingertips.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We should be happy to answer the question, but perhaps the Minister prefers to do so.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My question was addressed to the Minister who will no doubt be able to answer the noble Baroness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I intend to reply to the debate. I shall answer the questions that arise. First, however, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, that I have no intention of giving way from this side of the Chamber to allow the party opposite to take their places on these Benches. We intend to do our level best to see that that does not happen. That will not come as a surprise either to the party opposite, or indeed to my noble friends.
This is a complex area of social security. I hope that I can explain it as clearly as possible although I am under the strictures that nothing I say will ever be as clear as the explanations and the legislation put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle.
The current contracting-out system of guaranteed minimum pensions known as GMPs has been criticised because of its complexities. There is also the problem which no one has addressed of how occupational pension schemes can provide equal pensions for women while SERPS remains unequal, as it will be until the state pension equalisation is completed by the year 2020.
We consulted widely on options for the future. Following consultation we have decided to break the links between SERPS and contracted-out schemes from 1997. For service from then, salary-related schemes will no longer be required to provide GMPs but instead will be required to meet a test of overall scheme quality.
Schemes must comply with the new statutory standard introduced by new Section 12A. I shall come back to that in a moment. Schemes must confirm that they are not exempt from the rules restricting self-investment. Schemes must have sufficient resources to warrant the issue of a contracting-out certificate; that is, they must be able to show that they can meet their contracted-out liabilities. To cover this, in the long-term we will require an assurance that the scheme complies with the minimum solvency requirement at the time of the election to contract out. During the transitional period for the introduction of the minimum solvency requirement, schemes must be fully solvent in relation to contracted-out liabilities.
We also expect to prescribe conditions relating to financial propriety to ensure that schemes have a clean bill of health at the time of election to contract out. Finally, the subsection provides for schemes not within a prescribed class. We expect to use this power to set extra conditions for overseas schemes wishing to contract out.
These contracting-out conditions, over and above the need to meet the new standard test of scheme quality, are required to ensure that the Government can appropriately permit the employer and employee to pay rebated national insurance contributions. I am sure that the Committee would agree that it would not be appropriate for the Government to permit the rebate to

1049
be invested in schemes which, for example, did not have sufficient resources to match liabilities for contracted-out benefits.
The clause then sets out the arrangements for the new scheme-based contracting-out test which salary-related schemes will have to meet from the principal appointed day. Although the current GMP test will be replaced by this new test, GMPs accrued before it comes into force, planned to be in 1997, will continue to form part of the occupational pension and will continue to be subject to broadly the current rules.
New Section 12A sets the statutory standard which schemes must meet. It requires schemes to provide benefits for earners and their widows/widowers which are at least broadly equivalent to the reference scheme defined by new Section 12B. The scheme actuary will be required to certify that this requirement is met.
The new section makes powers for regulations to set the criteria for the comparison of scheme benefits to the reference scheme. It also has powers to allow the method of comparison to be explained by a guidance note prepared by a body prescribed by the Secretary of State, such as the actuarial profession. The approach of a mixture of secondary legislation and professional guidance received widespread support during the consultation exercise on the new contracting-out test.
New Section 12B sets the benchmark for the reference scheme which must be met by contracted-out salary-related schemes. The benchmark for members' benefits will be based on an accrual rate of 1/80ths—I referred to that on the last amendment—a definition of final average salary and 90 per cent. of band earnings (that is, earnings between the upper and lower earnings limit) payable at a normal pension age of 65. The benchmark for survivors' benefits will be 50 per cent. of the members' benchmark. This takes account of the response to the consultation exercise and the benchmark has been set at a level which strikes the right balance between the interests of employers and scheme members. The reference scheme has been set to ensure that contracting-out continues to offer an attractive alternative to SERPS.
The section provides powers for detailed requirements for the reference scheme to be set out in regulations. It also contains powers to make additional provisions relating to benefits for widows and widowers. Those will cover exceptions to the general requirements.
New Section 12C provides powers to prohibit or restrict the transfer of a liability or the commutation of part of the benefit into a lump sum except in prescribed circumstances. The regulations governing transfers will be used to ensure that liability for the payment of pensions, or in respect of accrued rights to pensions, can be transferred only to appropriately secure arrangements. The intention regarding lump sums is to follow current Inland Revenue limits with appropriate exceptions for public sector schemes. There will be a small effect in the long term on income-related benefit costs, although this will be a relatively insignificant amount.
1050
New Section 12D provides a power to prescribe the ages at which benefits become payable in the case of a salary-related contracted-out scheme where members have service which falls after the principal appointed day.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam asked about the average revalued salary for SERPS. That figure is 20 per cent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, gave the example of the Maxwell scheme and asked whether, under the new rules, people would be able to obtain a transfer back into SERPS. I believe that that was her question. In Clause 125 there is a power for the Secretary of State to do that in conditions where the scheme fails and the employer is insolvent.
The new contracting-out test, which I explained to the Committee, is a key part of the Government's reforms of the contracting-out system. Although the detailed exceptions will be in regulations, this clause is an important part of the Bill. I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It simply remains for me to thank the Minister for that detailed explanation. I am, of course, aware of much of what he said. But it still does not settle all my worries about the disappearance of the GMP test. For one thing, it is argued that the GMP test is too complicated. If it were so complicated, why did the Government decide in 1988 to abandon the requisite benefits test and instead maintain the GMP test? I believe they did so at that time because they saw its value as an individual guarantee to the individual scheme member or the individual worker.
The Minister referred to the solvency test and other guarantees available. The requisite benefits test, and so on, are guarantees of the scheme itself, not to individuals. I believe that that is terribly important. I do not think that there is any point in pressing the issue to a vote at this stage, but I am unhappy about the whole section of the Bill. I am very much afraid that it could leave some poor people worse off than they are at present with the GMP test. As I said in my opening remarks, whatever else we do, whatever pension reforms we endorse, we should seek to ensure that the worst paid and the worst off will not have their conditions worsened as a result of what is done in the Bill.
Moreover, it seems to me that although the Minister made much of the complications of the GMP test, with modern computerised administration the complexity and difficulties of handling it have been rather exaggerated. My recollection is that the Occupational Pensions Board progressively eased enforcement procedures, as it did while I was a member. No doubt what it has been doing will be taken over by the DSS which could continue the policy.
I do not intend to divide the Committee at this stage, although I am not happy with the Government's response. I shall read it carefully in Hansard.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [State scheme contributions and rebates]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184C:
Page 72, line 35, after ("made") insert:
("( ) in subsection (5), for "alteration" there were substituted "determination").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to replace the word "alteration" with the word "determination", so far as the report under Clause 42(1) (a) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 is concerned, in recognition that the rebate percentages following the first review of contracting out terms after the passing of the Bill will be set for the first time under the terms of the new contracting out system. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184D:
Page 73, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) If the Secretary of State pays an amount under subsection (3) which he is not required to pay, he may recover it from any person to whom, or in respect of whom, he paid it.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 184D, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 184E and 184F. Amendment No. 184D allows the Secretary of State to recover any erroneous payments of "top-up" age-related rebate made to contracted-out money purchase schemes. A similar power is already in place in primary legislation for rebate payments made direct to appropriate personal pension schemes. Those are used principally in the case of incorrect earnings information supplied by employers.
Such overpayments may be recovered from the scheme to which the rebate was paid or the scheme member. Under the new arrangements for direct payments of age-related rebates by the DSS, overpayments can be recovered and the national insurance fund protected.
Amendments Nos. 184E and 184F concern the age used to determine the rate of age-related rebates payable to members of contracted-out money purchase schemes and holders of appropriate personal pensions. As drafted, the Bill would lead to someone born on 6th April receiving a higher rate of rebate than they would strictly need to compensate for the SERPS forgone in that year and so higher than other contracted-out money purchase scheme members born in the same tax year. The amendment corrects that anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184E:
Page 74, line 8, leave out ("first day of the") and insert ("last day of the preceding").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 184EA and 184EB not moved.]
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 [Minimum contributions towards appropriate personal pension schemes]:
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184EC:
Page 75, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In subsection (1), for "41(1)" there is substituted "42B(1)".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is quite technical. Basically, it is along the lines of the level playing field and it is intended to stop a subsidy being paid to personal pension providers by national insurance contributors. As worded at present, the Bill will ensure that age-related rebates paid to appropriate personal pensions will be higher than for those people who have a contracted-out money purchase scheme. That is because the Pension Schemes Act 1993 provides for the two rebates to be calculated separately so as to reflect the cost of providing benefits. Thus, as the costs of personal pensions (especially the costs of administration and marketing) are higher than in a money purchase scheme, the rebates will be higher.
I believe that from recent information we all accept that the typical level of expense of a personal pension can range from 15 per cent. up to 30 per cent. of the contributions in administration and selling costs alone. However, the cost of a money purchase scheme is often below 10 per cent. of the contributions. So it seems unfair to us that holders of an appropriate personal pension should receive a higher rebate simply because they have chosen the higher cost form of provision with higher commission charges, which is favoured by the Government. That is particularly bearing in mind that it comes from the national insurance scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness explained, the amendments seek to have the same age-related contracted-out rates for appropriate personal pension schemes and contracted-out money purchase schemes. We believe that there need to be different levels of rebate.
The rates set for occupational schemes might be expected to be lower than those for personal pensions schemes for two reasons. First, the different types of schemes have different levels of expenses. While personal pensions and occupational schemes are both money purchase arrangements, there are significant differences which affect the expenses incurred. The rebates will need to reflect that fact.
Most fundamentally, occupational schemes relate to a particular employment, whereas personal pensions are entirely individualised. This means that occupational schemes would generally be expected to incur lower expenses due to economies of scale. Each member of an occupational scheme has his own fund and all the members will work for the same employer. Their contributions can be collected from the same payroll and so on. Personal pensions are entirely individual, as I have said, and can thus be expected to incur greater expenses. The Government Actuary will be asked, in advising on the levels of age-related rebates, to make allowance for the reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers.
Secondly, for administrative reasons, members of occupational schemes and their employers will receive part of the rebate during the course of the tax year. This will be in the form of a reduction in their national insurance contributions. The balance will be paid after the end of the tax year. For personal pensions, the whole

1053
rebate will be paid after the end of the tax year. This means a loss of investment return on the rebate, which will also be taken into account in calculating the rates.
The net effect of these differences is that the rebate for occupational schemes is expected to be lower than for appropriate personal pension schemes. It is important to remember that the rebate is intended to represent the amount which will need to be invested to replace the SERPS given up. If the rebate is insufficient to do that it will generally not make sense for someone to contract out through that route.
In the scenario proposed in the amendment, it would be personal pensions which would be expected to receive a lower rebate. It could well be insufficient to replace the SERPS given up. The majority of personal pension holders would, in these circumstances, be best advised to return to SERPS. It is important to remember that a personal pension is the only alternative to SERPS for many people. So there would be a reduction in choice and a greater burden would be placed on future generations through increased SERPS liabilities. With that explanation of what we propose in that part of the Bill and of the effects which the noble Baroness's amendments would have, I hope that she will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 184EC.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to take up a couple of points. First, he said that there needs to be a different subsidy—that is what we are talking about —because personal pensions have different levels of expenses and rebates (I quote his phrase) "need to reflect that fact". They do not. That is a political decision by the Government and a personal decision by the individual. If they choose that flexibility, they must expect to pay the price for having an individually tailored personal pension scheme. There is no justification whatsoever for us, as taxpayers and contributors to the national insurance scheme, to subsidise that choice.
Earlier, when we discussed state financing of the regulator and when it suited the Minister, he was insistent that because only half the population were in occupational pension schemes, the whole population should not pay for regulation. Now, when it comes to personal pensions and we are dealing with perhaps one-fifth of the population in such schemes, it suits the Minister to argue that all of us should help to subsidise the cost. I hope the Minister realises that we shall be quoting back at him the need for the public to subsidise the particular interests of a less than complete minority when we return to this issue. He cannot have it both ways. It is a political decision by the Government to set preferential terms in order to bait people into personal pensions with our money.
My second point is this: it would be acceptable if personal pensions were indeed directed, and limited effectively, to those groups. I accept that there are those who need personal pensions. I think we all accept that for the highly mobile, the self-employed, and in some cases the highly paid, personal pensions make a suitable form of provision for their old age. But with rebates such as this, the Government have bribed people with
1054
their own money into schemes that are unsuitable. For example, those in the public sector, miners, nurses and teachers have been bribed to give up good occupational schemes, and sometimes SERPS, to go into personal pensions for which they are clearly not suited and for which they will receive reduced benefits. Moreover, personal provision has gone not to the better-off, but to the low-paid. The average income of a man on a personal pension is below £10,000 a year; that of a woman is below £7,000 a year. In consequence, merely rechurning the rebates that the Government will give will not produce security against poverty in old age.
What is the option? Either you have to confine the target audience for personal pensions, increase the rebates or require an additional contribution. The Government, for ideological reasons, are not willing to do the first; at our expense they propose to do the second; and we, at a later stage, may return with an amendment to do the third. The only way that personal pensions will provide suitable protection against poverty in old age is if, in addition to rebates, those who contribute to them make a personal contribution of at least 5 per cent. out of their own earnings. Unless they do that—and two-thirds presently do not—they will continue to suffer poverty.
What the Minister is saying is that he will use our money—the taxpayers' money—out of national insurance to lift up the rebates for personal pensions to cover sales costs because personal pensions, otherwise, are too poorly directed and will produce too low a return for people in their old old age.
The right response to that problem is not to put up the rebates. It is, instead, to ensure that personal pensions are taken out only by those for whom they are suitable, and then only with the addition of a personal contribution from the individual holder of a particular scheme. I suspect that we shall return to this matter at much greater length on Report. But let the Minister not think that this issue is ideologically neutral. The Minister is continuing to encourage people to go down a road which we already know to be full of pitfalls for ordinary people. In human decency, he should not continue to do that. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184ED not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184F:
Page 75, line 32, leave out ("first day of the") and insert ("last day of the preceding").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184G not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 122, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Motion that this Clause stand part of the Bill. As we know, this is the clause which enables the Government to provide age-related rebates to individuals who opt for personal pensions. As I said at Second Reading, there is a very strong feeling in certain quarters that the Government have skewed this Bill in favour of personal pension provision.

1055
We know of course that the Government's philosophy has always been an individualistic one. The legislation that followed the Fowler review was specifically designed to get people to opt for personal pensions even when they were in quite good occupational schemes. We are already having to deal with the problems that that campaign caused. My noble friend Lady Hollis has already made reference to that point in relation to a previous amendment. People who would have been better served to stay with their occupational schemes were persuaded by high-pressure salesmen to opt for personal pensions. The self-regulatory mechanisms in financial services—I have a personal interest as chair of the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman council—have now to pick up the pieces. It will be complicated, messy and expensive. And in the end there may well still be many dissatisfied and unhappy people.
I am surprised therefore that the Government should have chosen this Bill as the vehicle for persuading yet more people into personal pensions. The age-related rebates are specifically intended to make personal pensions more attractive at the higher age range. As matters stand at present, it is generally accepted that older people are better off either staying with SERPS or, more likely, opting back if they are currently outside it.
The Government are anxious to take more people out of SERPS. We are constantly being told that we cannot afford SERPS, and that the generation that will come after us will not be prepared to pay for public provision of this order. But I say again, as I have said before, that extolling private provision over and against public provision is mistaken. Ultimately, whether provision for the elderly is paid for out of public funds or private funds—many of the latter managed by insurance companies—does not matter to the economy as a whole. Ultimately we all have to pay for it, and arguably pay more if private provision is encouraged. It all comes out of the same economic pot, so to speak. We pay for it either in taxes or in higher insurance premiums —or, if the private sector fails, in increased social security provision.
In this clause the Government are quite openly encouraging older people into the personal pensions market. The poorer among them would almost certainly be better off staying with SERPS. Recent events have demonstrated that very few people appreciate just how much they have to pay into a personal pension scheme in order to qualify for reasonable provision in retirement. Those who simply rely on the rebate—of whom there are a large number—will be extremely disappointed. Many have realised that already.
I am therefore against encouraging more people down that road and increasing the market for personal pensions. I do not believe that it is in the interest of poorer, older people. And somehow we have to sort out the problems that have arisen with the Government's last venture into the area of encouraging personal pension provision in inappropriate circumstances.
Finally, there is the cost argument. I understand that the cost of subsidising personal pensions—that is what the rebates do—would be of the order of £300 million
1056
a year. Much of that would go to swelling the profits of insurance companies. For these reasons, I oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The current flat rate rebate structure in appropriate personal pensions (APPs) means that it does not make economic sense for holders of APPs to maintain their plans until retirement. At some point they are likely to be best advised to return to SERPS. That does not help to ease the burden on the next generation of SERPS expenditure; nor is it helpful to individuals to have to change pension provision in this way.
Nevertheless, the Government are committed to choice in pension provision. We have already clearly seen that that differentiates us from the party opposite. Accordingly, this clause legislates for age-related rebates to enable most current APP holders to maintain their plans until retirement. We have already announced that we shall be capping the age related rebates at 9 per cent. This will ensure that rebate levels and costs are restrained in the early years of the scheme. With regard to relating rebate to age, the current system is that there is a fixed limit. The fixed amount, when multiplied by the number of years that it is held in the pension fund, gives quite different calculations at various stages in a person's life. As one gets older, the number of years remaining until retirement reduce. If we do not increase or vary the rebate according to age, we reach a position where it is more attractive for someone to remove himself from his APP and return to SERPS. This clause provides for the Secretary of State to make payments of age related rebates to APPs. As I said, it replaces the current arrangement of a flat rate.
The bulk of the clause inserts a new Section 45A into the Act. This provides for setting age-related rebates, following a review by the Government Actuary, in the same way as now for the flat rate rebate. The rebates themselves will be made by order, which will be subject to affirmative resolution. That, in itself, is an important step, since it puts APPs on a separate actuarial footing. For the first time, APP holders will be paid a rebate specifically designed to provide the appropriate level of pension in place of SERPS. As at present, there must be a clear tax year between the order being made and its coming into force.
In calculating suitable rates of rebate for APP holders, the Government Actuary will need to take into account reasonable levels of expenses which are incurred in providing such schemes. It is essential that some allowance of this kind is made. If only the basic rebate required to replace the SERPS given up were paid with no allowance for expenses whatsoever, it would simply not be best advice to contract out of SERPS using an APP. As I said in previous discussions, that in turn would lead to increased expenditure on SERPS in the next century, placing a burden on the workforce of the future.
People will only be willing to save for retirement if they believe that their pension rights will he secure. They must be able to rely on the highest standards of expert advice and must be able to have confidence that the regulatory framework will protect their interests against the unscrupulous and the incompetent.

1057
We believe that these provisions are in place so that people can feel secure in making the move to APPs. We believe that choice is important, clearly unlike the party opposite, although I notice that in certain circumstances certain people—presumably decided by socialist apparatchiks—are allowed to have personal pensions. In their case, you are not allowed to make a choice; you are not supposed to be intelligent enough or able enough to seek advice to make that choice. We believe that that element of choice is important.
We believe that APPs play a vital part both in reducing expenditure on SERPS and in extending that pension choice. They ensure that everyone has the option of contracting out of SERPS and making their own pension provision if they choose to do so. APPs are particularly valuable to those employees who do not have access to an occupational scheme.
As I explained, the introduction of age related rebates for APPs is essential to enable current APP holders to maintain their plans until retirement, and to ensure that those plans continue to offer an additional choice of pension provision to younger employees in future years.
With that explanation, I trust that the Committee will approve the clause.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 124 [Reduction in benefits for members of certified schemes]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184H:
Page 77, line 4, at end insert:
(6) In relation to earners where, by virtue of subsection (1), section 44(6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 has effect, in any tax year, as mentioned in that subsection in relation to some but not all of their earnings, regulations may modify the application of section 44(5) of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide a regulatory power to modify the effect of subsection (1) of Clause 124. The effect that we intend to achieve by such a modification would be to ensure that those persons who have earnings in both contracted out and not contracted out employment in the same tax year will derive full SERPS entitlement from those earnings relevant to the not contracted out employment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 125 [State scheme etc. premiums and buyback into State scheme]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 184HA:
Page 78, line 19, leave out ("from") and insert ("to be paid from the resources of the scheme by").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment—this matter has come up already in earlier debates—is to avoid putting too heavy burdens on trustees. We are anxious to encourage people to be prepared to be trustees but the threat and dangers of heavy financial commitment are such as to discourage the very people whom we would wish to be trustees
1058
from taking on the job. Therefore we want to put a limit on their liabilities and ensure that if there is a case for a repayment, it falls on the funds of the trust as a whole and not on the individual members. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments share a common purpose: to protect trustees from personal liability for debts relating to the scheme fund. I understand the noble Baroness's concern that trustees should not have to fund the levies from their own pockets. I can assure her and the Committee that that has never been the intention. There will be a range of provisions in place to ensure that whenever levies are payable, appropriate resources are available to the trustees. Therefore, in practice we do not consider that this amendment is necessary to safeguard the trustees' position. Nevertheless, someone has to be legally responsible for the payment of the levies. It is only right that that responsibility should be placed on the trustees.
In salary related schemes, the sponsoring employers stand to bear the balance of costs, and the minimum solvency provisions will safeguard the funding levels. In order to ensure that levy payments do not undermine the minimum solvency requirements, we intend to provide that, where necessary, amounts of levy may be included in the agreed schedule of contributions to be paid by the employers.
The situation in money purchase schemes is very similar. In both cases, failure to pay amounts due under the agreed schedule will create a debt on the employer.
However, we recognise that where a scheme is frozen or paid up, there may be no active, solvent employer standing behind the scheme. In that case, we acknowledge that there may be a danger of levy payments eroding members' benefits. In such cases, the trustees will be able to apply to the registrar to waive collection of the levies. We intend that the registrar will have the power to waive collection only in certain circumstances: where there is no solvent employer and where the registrar is satisfied that payment of the levies would adversely affect members' accrued benefit entitlements. That will ensure that the position of both members and trustees is protected in these circumstances. We do not wish to disturb the existing arrangements for liability for, and payment of, the levy, which work quite satisfactorily.
Amendment No. 184HA seeks to ensure that trustees and scheme managers should not be personally liable for the debt to the Secretary of State that will arise on full or partial restoration of a member's state scheme rights.
Unlike the levy liability, which in the majority of cases falls on schemes with active employers, such a debt can only arise where the sponsoring employer is insolvent and the scheme is winding up in deficit. As with the levy provisions, special treatment is required where there is no solvent employer.
The provisions enabling the Secretary of State to restore the member's state scheme rights, in whole or in part, closely follow present provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. I alluded

1059
to that some little while ago when answering a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with regard to the Maxwell pension arrangements.
At present, regulations provide for the payment of any state scheme premium imposed on the trustees of a scheme to be a liability to make that payment out of the resources of the scheme. I can assure the Committee that we shall maintain that position. The amendment is, therefore, not required. I trust, in the light of that explanation, that the noble Baroness will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Seear: I thank the Minister for that very clear explanation. It is useful to have it on the record. I intend to withdraw the amendment but I wish to ask him one further question. He said that the regulator would make regulations to cover this matter. Will those regulations come before the House? Will it be done by affirmative order? Will we see it? I think it would be reassuring to be told that we shall.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the regulator is making the regulations, I am not sure whether they would come before the House. Regulations made by the Secretary of State or by the Government come before the House in either of the ways. However, I shall check that point and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Seear: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Interim arrangements for giving effect to protected rights]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 184HB:
Page 79, line 2, leave out ("In the case of a personal pension scheme,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184HC. A few moments ago the Minister spoke to us about choice. He will be delighted to know that this amendment is about choice. It asks why the Government are restricting choice.
The new facility announced in the Budget and provided for under the current Finance Bill allows for the purchase of an annuity to be deferred but cash payments can be taken from the fund in the meantime. The intention is to enable those who retire at times when investment conditions are unfavourable to wait until they are better. The provision in the Bill extends only to appropriate personal pensions. The purpose of the amendment is to find out why it is not also extended to money purchase schemes and other pension arrangements. Obviously the Government intend to encourage personal pensions whenever possible, but it does not seem reasonable that this deferment cannot be extended to people who have chosen other forms of pension. As the Government are very much for choice, I should have thought that they would accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is always nice to know that one's arguments on previous amendments are
1060
being listened to. The noble Lord will be hoping that I am listening to his arguments. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the option allowing members to draw an income from their appropriate pension fund scheme to the members of contracted out money purchase occupational pension schemes. People in those schemes could delay the taking out of an annuity in their scheme and draw down on income during the years in which they delay taking out an annuity. My understanding is that that is possible currently, or would be possible if the employer agreed, but I think the noble Lord is inviting me to go a little further and give it as a right.
Money purchase occupational pension schemes have a very different tax regime from that of personal pension schemes. Extending the flexible annuity proposals to money purchase occupational pension schemes would not be straightforward. Although, as I have mentioned, some employers may give the right, many other employers would not want to take on the extra administrative work involved with continuing, if I may so describe it, to have someone on their books after he retires. In the normal way of things the person would have bought his annuity and would have removed himself from the ambit of the employer. Members would also have the option to transfer to a personal pension scheme and they could then use the provisions which are currently in the Bill.
My right honourable friend Anthony Nelson, the Economic Secretary to the. Treasury, said in relation to this matter in another place on 30th January during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which extends similar flexibility to non-appropriate personal pensions:
"If there proves to be a problem in practice, we shall certainly reconsider the matter but we think that the flexibility for retirement annuity contracts and for occupational pensions is adequate".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/95; col. 722.]
On the understanding that the Government have already indicated in the Finance Bill that they are prepared to consider any ideas for introducing more flexibility in this area for occupational pension schemes, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, having made the point and having listened to what I said, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I am glad that he thinks that the proposal adds to the flexibility of the pension regime. Obviously we shall not pursue the matter further as it is being considered. I would just recommend that the Minister consider the proposal favourably because flexibility is another word for choice, a subject on which we were lectured earlier this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184HC not moved.]
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Requirements for interim arrangements]:
[Amendments Nos. 184HD and 184HE not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Interim arrangements: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 184HF not moved.]
Clause 128 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 184J:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause:
Monitoring personal pension schemes
. After section 33 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 there is inserted—
"Appropriate schemes: "Blowing the whistle".
33A.—(1) If any person acting as the auditor or actuary of an appropriate scheme has reasonable cause to believe that—

(a) any requirement which, in the case of the scheme, is required by section 9(5) (a) to be satisfied is not satisfied, and

(b) the failure to satisfy the requirement is likely to be of material significance in the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of his functions relating to appropriate schemes,

that person must immediately give a written report of the matter to the Secretary of State.
(2) No duty to which a person acting as auditor or actuary of an appropriate scheme is subject shall be regarded as contravened merely because of any information or opinion contained in a written report under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a new requirement on any person acting as the auditor or actuary of an appropriate personal pension scheme to blow the whistle to the department if he has reasonable cause to believe that the scheme is not satisfying the requirements for continued appropriate scheme status. This requirement will complement both the monitoring procedures for appropriate personal pension schemes which are already in place and the others that we are bringing forward elsewhere in the Bill. It will provide an additional level of protection for personal pension investors. We propose that the enforcement of the requirement and action resulting from the failure to comply will be a matter for the relevant professional body. This requirement closely mirrors Clause 41 of the Bill relating to trust-based occupational pension schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause:
Consent of Regulatory Authority to exceptions
(" —(1) Section 160 of the Pensions Scheme Act 1993 (terms of contracts of service or schemes restricting choice to be void) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), before "subject" there shall be inserted the words "except where the consent of the Regulatory Authority has been given to such term or rule and".").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to see whether some thought has been given to the situation regarding the private pension plans and the independent financial salesmen. By removing the regulations in the Social Security Act 1986 to make membership of an occupational personal pension scheme compulsory, the Government opened up the pensions market. The activities which have led to the mis-selling of pensions eventually led to the efforts of the Securities and Investments Board to put the matter right by reviewing each personal pension plan sold.
Section 160 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 provides some protection against continued mis-selling while leaving the pensions market open. However, there is now some doubt about whether the SIB—the regulator—has the authority over the independent financial advisers to review the mis-selling because the independent financial advisers have now obtained a judicial review. In addition, if the independent financial advisers carry out the instructions of the PIA and write to their personal pension plan customers in the manner laid down, they may lose their insurance cover.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove the uncertainty created by this situation by authorising the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) to regulate the independent financial advisors when they are selling personal pension plans. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment seeks to alter law which was first introduced by the Social Security Act 1986. The provision prevents employers from making it a condition of employment that their employees must join their scheme or a personal pension scheme of the employers' choice. As a result, an individual can now choose between state and non-state schemes and between occupational and personal pensions. Employers cannot make membership compulsory.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, drew to the attention of the Committee reinstatement for personal pension holders who have been disadvantaged by poor selling practices. Of course, we accept that remedies should be available to those investors.
However, it is for the trustees or managers of individual schemes to decide whether or not people should be able to rejoin their occupational scheme. The Securities and Investments Board has recommended that—where possible, and the scheme is willing—people who have transferred into a personal pension from an occupational scheme as a consequence of bad advice should be reinstated in their original scheme. Public service schemes such as for teachers, nurses, and so forth, are willing to readmit employees who want to rejoin. In other cases it may be best to top up the personal pension. Whatever remedy is chosen, the costs will be borne by those responsible for the mis-selling. With that clear statement of what we expect and believe to be the position, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Intend!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, intend.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Obviously, it seems sensible that the trustees should decide whether pensioners or beneficiaries should be reinstated. I am not sure that my understanding of the amendment and the Minister's response are exactly related to each other. I shall read with interest in Hansard what he has said and, if necessary, I shall return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Amendments relating to Part III]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 116, line 2, at end insert:
("The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5.)
. In Schedule 4 to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (persons employed in social security administration etc.) the entries in Part I relating to the Occupational Pensions Board are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 187. These two amendments are consequential on the abolition of the Occupational Pensions Board and merely remove references to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 116, line 14, at end insert:
("The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8.)
. In section 13(9) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (election for personal pension), in the definition of "personal pension scheme", "by the Occupational Pensions Board" is omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187A:
Page 117, leave out lines 3 to 6.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 187F. Section 34(6) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 allows the Occupational Pensions Board to withdraw a contracting-out certificate if it is discovered that a scheme is refusing to allow individuals over particular ages to participate. Amendment No. 187F repeals subsection (6). For salary-related contracted-out schemes the responsibility will in future be on the scheme actuary to check that there is no age-discrimination when certifying that the new quality test is met. This requirement will be prescribed either in regulations which will be under Clause 120(12A) (4) and (5) of this Bill or in a guidance note. There will be no change to the existing requirement for money purchase contracted-out schemes except that in future it will be contained in regulations under Section 9(3) (a) of the Pensions Schemes Act 1993. The power will be exercised by the Secretary of State rather than the OPB.
Amendment No. 187A removes the reference in Schedule 5 to subsection (6), which is no longer needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187B:
Page 118, line 9, leave out from ("following") to ("percentage") in line 10 and insert ("the definition of "minimum payment" there is substituted—
"and for the purposes of this subsection "rebate percentage" means the appropriate flat rate").
The noble Lord said: This amendment revises the definition of "minimum payment" to reflect the amount of rebate received by the contracted-out money purchase scheme member and his employer as a reduction in liability to pay national insurance contributions.
The amendment makes it clear that the definition of "minimum payment" will include only the appropriate flat rate percentage as specified by new Clause 42(A) (3) and not the whole appropriate age-related percentage. That is because the balance of the appropriate age-related percentage over the appropriate flat rate percentage will be paid over direct to the scheme by the Department of Social Security. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187C:
Page 118, line 18, at end insert:
(". In section 9 (requirements for certification), in subsection (3) "22 and" is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187D and 187E. The effect of Amendment No. 187D is to repeal Section 22 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 which requires that the resources of contracted-out occupational pension schemes must be derived in whole or in part by payments made by the employer or the employee. From 1997 there will be no specific financial requirements concerning the resourcing of contracted-out pension schemes. There will be general rules in relation to the financing of all pension schemes. Section 22 is therefore no longer required after the principal appointed day.
Amendment No. 187C merely removes a reference to Section 22.
Amendment No. 187E .omits Section 31(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which is a power to set out requirements as regards the investment of resources of a contracted-out personal or occupational money purchase pension scheme. This power is no longer needed as the Bill contains new rules on investment which cover all occupational pension schemes. Investment rules for personal pension schemes are covered in the Financial Services Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187D:
Page 118, line 30, at end insert:
(". Section 22 (financing of benefits) is repealed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187DA:
Page 118, line 35, after ("rights)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 187DB, 187EA and 187FA. As Members of the Committee will know, the state scheme premiums which buy back protected rights into SERPS are being abolished. As a consequence there will be no further justification for the current provision whereby protected rights in the case of money purchase occupational and personal pensions can be extinguished by the payment of a premium.
Amendments Nos. 187DA and 187DB omit the relevant subsection. Amendment No. 187EA concerns Section 34 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 which covers certification procedures. New subsection (9) (2B) sets out the conditions for contracting out. As part of the on-going monitoring arrangements for contracted

1065
out salary-related schemes, we will use regulations to require employers and the scheme actuary to confirm, at intervals of no more than three years, that the contracting out conditions are still being complied with.
This amendment to Section 34 is needed to make it explicit that the recertification requirement applies only to salary-related contracted-out schemes. Any change of circumstances affecting money purchase contracted-out schemes or appropriate personal pension schemes will be considered in the same way as now to see whether the contracting-out certificate is still appropriate.
Amendment No. 187FA corrects an error in paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 which refers erroneously to Section 41(3) of the Pension Schemes Act rather than to Section 42(3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 187DB to 187FA:
Page 118, line 36, at end insert ("and
(b) subsection (7) is omitted").
Page 118, leave out line 40 and insert:
("( ) subsection (1) is omitted, and").
Page 118, line 47, leave out from ("(1)") to ("issued") in line 48 and insert ("for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(a) in the case of a contracting-out certificate—

(i) on any change of circumstances affecting the treatment of an employment as contracted-out employment, or

(ii) where the scheme is a salary related contracted-out scheme and the certificate was").

Page 119, line 7, leave out ("subsection (7) is") and insert ("subsections (6) and (7) are").
Page 119, line 34, leave out ("41") and insert ("42").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187G:
Page 120, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert:
("( ) in subsection (5), for "55(2) (ii)" there is substituted "55(2A) (c)", and
( ) subsections (6) to (10) are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 187G, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 187H, 187J, 187K, 188 and 189.
The effect of Amendment No. 187G is to retain Section 60(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, amending the cross-reference to Section 55 from subsection (2) (ii) to subsection (2A) (c). This is to ensure that accrued rights are extinguished in all the circumstances in which a contributions equivalent payment is paid. It also repeals subsections (6) to (10) of Section 55, which are no longer relevant as they refer to Section 55(3), which is itself repealed.
Amendment No. 187H clarifies the cross-reference in Section 63(1) (b) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It identifies Section 58 as the relevant section.
Amendments Nos. 187J and 187K expand the scope of Sections 155 and 165 respectively of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to include contracted-out money purchase pension schemes. The provisions will make it possible for the Secretary of State to require information from contracted-out salary-related and appropriate schemes.
Amendment No. 188 removes the reference to the Occupational Pensions Board from Section 176 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It replaces paragraph 42 of Schedule 5.
Amendment No. 189 corrects a duplication in the Bill as currently drafted. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to sound churlish, but is it not remarkable to have 22 government amendments following each other in an attempt to correct the drafting of the Government's own Bill? Obviously such corrections may occasionally be needed due to typing mistakes or occasional cross-references, but we are talking about 22 government amendments. The number of regulations in the Bill—200—is paralleled only by the number of the Government's amendments to their own drafting. I thought that the noble Lord might like to be made aware of that fact, if he was not already conscious of it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 187H to 189:
Page 120, line 37, at end insert ("and, in subsection (1) (b), for "that section" there is substituted "section 58'"').
Page 121, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert:
("( ) for the words from "sections 7" to "premiums)" there is substituted "Part III").
Page 121, line 23, at end insert:
(". In section 165 (application of certain provisions to case with foreign element), in subsection (2) (a), for the words from "sections 7" to "premiums)" there is substituted "Part III"").
Page 121, leave out line 34 and insert:
(". In section 176 (fees), for "either by the Secretary of State or by the Board on his behalf" there is substituted "by the Secretary of State".").
Page 121, line 43, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 46.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 190 and 191:
Page 122, line 8, after ("(1)") insert ("for the words from the beginning to "make" there is substituted "Subject to subsection (2), before the Secretary of State makes" ").
Page 122, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c) there is added—

"(d) regulations in the case of which the Secretary of State considers consultation inexpedient because of urgency, or

(e) 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 have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 122, line 28, leave out paragraph 54 and insert:
(". In Schedule 6 (transitional provisions and savings), paragraph 11 is omitted.
In Schedule 9 (transitory modifications)—

(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) in the Table in sub-paragraph (1), entries (iii) to (v) are omitted,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (3), in paragraph (a) (i) of the definition of "appointed day", for "to (v)" there is substituted "and (ii)", and

(iii) in sub-paragraph (5), "or (4)" is omitted, and

(b) paragraph 4 is omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the Government's decision not to require contracted-out salary-related occupational pension schemes to provide guaranteed minimum pensions for married women and widows who have elected to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate. Such women are otherwise known as "reduced rate optants". These provisions would be inappropriate under the new contracting-out arrangements and the Government signalled their intention to repeal the provisions in the White Paper Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions published last June.
Paragraph 54 of Schedule 5 to the Bill identified references in Schedule 9 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 which needed to be omitted in the light of that decision. This amendment will remove further redundant material. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 191B:
Before Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
("War widows' pensions
. The widow of a deceased member of Her Majesty's forces whose death was adjudged to be attributable to service shall continue to be entitled to a war widows pension regardless of any subsequent change of status.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191B, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191C and 191D.
The reason for these amendments is to rectify three long-standing inequities in war and service widows' pensions. It is extremely important to act now as many of the widows worst affected are over 70 years old—the majority are very much more—and the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War is a timely opportunity to restore their dignity and to ensure that their last years are spent living above the poverty line.
The first of these amendments, Amendment No. 191B, concerns the right of a war widow to a pension for life. At the moment, there are just under 50,000 war widows who receive a war widow's pension. They fall into two categories. Those widowed before 1973 receive the DSS war widow's pension plus a supplement that was won as a result of the 1989 parliamentary campaign. Those widowed after 1973 receive an MoD attributable forces family pension and the DSS war widow's pension but without the supplement.
The pensions are generous in themselves but come with a cruel and financially punitive sting. Both the DSS and MoD pensions are removed if a war widow remarries or is discovered cohabiting. That is particularly serious for the most elderly and for widows with small children. In the case of a widow with dependent children, should anything go wrong with her second marriage—divorce or a second bereavement—she will be left high and dry. It is unreasonable to expect a second husband to bear all the costs of the children of the first marriage, especially when he is likely to have children of his own. The DSS war widow's pension is never restored, while the MoD pension is only restored subject to an uncertain and demeaning means test. That deters most widows from applying and others from even considering remarriage. In 1993, only one in 100 war widows under the age of 60 remarried.
Such treatment is outdated and hard to reconcile with practice elsewhere. Indeed, 84 per cent. of current UK occupational schemes pay a pension for life regardless of marital status. Moreover, among comparable armed forces schemes abroad, the UK is isolated in respect of its treatment of war widows. Of the 14 schemes studied by the Officers Pension Society, eight give a pension for life. In Europe, only the UK fails to restore war widows' pensions after a second bereavement or divorce. That should not be allowed to continue.
The second amendment (Amendment No. 191C) concerns the pensions of service widows of post-retirement marriages; that is, widows who married their husbands after they had retired. At the moment, those whose husbands retired before 1978 receive no service pension. Servicemen are in a unique position. They retire far earlier than any other profession. Typically, other ranks retire at 40 years of age, while most officers retire between 45 and 55. Those are not advanced ages for marriage or remarriage, but if a serviceman who retired before 1978 marries or remarries, his years of service (typically 34 for an officer and 22 for other ranks) count for nothing so far as concerns provision for his wife. He is therefore being penalised for the age at which he has chosen to marry.
The change of regulation in 1978 allows a fraction of a pension for post-retirement widows, but only on their husband's years of service after 6th April 1978. For officers' widows, each year of service after that date earns 1/34 of his service retired pay, while for other ranks each year counts for 1/22 of his pension. Today, 16 years on from the ruling, an officer will have earned for a post-retirement wife 16/34, or half of his pension. That is slightly less than a quarter.
It will not be until 2012 that an officer who retires and then remarries will have earned the maximum half rate pension for his wife. For pre-1978 post-retirement widows —those over 70—the situation is bleak. Very many receive no pension. The amendment asks for no special privileges, only that a pre-1978 serviceman's length of service be allowed to contribute towards his wife's pension. There is virtually no problem with precedent.
In the early 1970s virtually all civil servants worked to the age of 65. The amendment will put servicemen of those years on a par with civil servants of the same

1069
period. It asks that, provided the serviceman's post-retirement marriage took place before his 65th birthday (the end of his recall liability) and has lasted for at least three years, his widow should be given a pension related to the number of years in the forces—a minimum of 22 for other ranks and 16 for an officer.
Of the 14 comparable armed forces schemes every one, except that of the UK, makes pension provision for widows of post-retirement marriages. A woman in Suffolk has written to me saying:
"My first husband who had paid all his life into the Widows and Orphans Fund, died aged 60 in 1969 and for 12 years I received his widow's pension".
She remarried and lost that pension. Today, if predeceased by her second husband, who had also paid into the widows and orphans fund all his life, she would receive no pension from either husband. Surely something should be done to rectify such an injustice.
My final amendment (Amendment No. 191D) seeks to rectify an unjustifiable anomaly for service widows whose husbands retired or died in service before 31st March 1973. That date marks a crucial difference to the rate of pension the widow can expect. I shall explain.
Widows of servicemen who joined the Army after 31st March 1973 automatically receive a pension of 50 per cent. of their husbands' retired pay. Widows of servicemen who joined earlier but who retired or died after that date had the option to buy into a scheme for a 50 per cent. pension for their wives. Widows whose husbands died or retired before 1973 receive only a 33 per cent. pension and had no option to buy into a higher one. That is dramatically lower than any other comparable armed forces scheme in Europe, the USA or Israel. None of those countries pays any of its service widows less than a 50 per cent. pension. In France, the figure is 50 per cent.; in the USA 55 per cent.; in Germany 60 per cent.; in Australia and Belgium up to 67 per cent.; and in the Netherlands 71 per cent. Our 33 per cent. is out of step. Do we really think so much less of the men who fought for this country's freedom? It is mean, inadequate and a disgrace.
For example, there is a widow living in Oxford whose late husband was a Fleet Air Arm pilot. He flew throughout the war, including the famous raid on the "Tirpitz" in Alten Fiord. His death at 37 of a massive heart attack while still serving as a pilot was not judged to be attributable to service, and after tax the MoD pension to which his widow is entitled amounts to £29.6 a week. Were she to receive a 50 per cent. pension (about £44 a week), she says that that extra £1,000 a year would make all the difference.
Again, it is the most elderly and vulnerable widows who are being made to suffer. Most are over 75 and many are in severe financial difficulties necessitating income support —not a cost-effective or dignified way of looking after them. My amendment proposes that their pensions be raised to 50 per cent. in line with post-1973 widows and the rest of Europe.
To conclude, most of the widows for whom the three amendments are sought watched their husbands go to war. On the Government's own figures, some 80 per cent. are over 70, with most aged between 75 and 85.
Many war widows are living lives of loneliness, dictated by the character of the pension regulations. Most service widows are in severe financial difficulty, necessitating various forms of government expenditure through income supplements. The true cost of honouring them in this victory anniversary year would be modest compared with the £5 billion saving being made by the Government through their retrospectively applied deferment of state retirement pensions for women. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendments so ably and fully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, following his most excellent maiden speech, which impressed us all so greatly. The question will be asked—this is the only objection that can be raised—as to why war widows should be treated differently from other widows. There are a large number of widows who have suffered bereavement, perhaps in industrial accidents or in pits or in a great many other ways. Why then should we treat war widows differently? That is the question that may be asked.
My mind goes back 50 years, as will the minds of many Members of the Committee. I recall a conversation with a friend who had just come off the Murmansk convoys. He made a remark—it was in no way critical of his fellow sailors —that when the chips are down and the danger is great, it is impossible for a married man not to have in his mind the idea that his wife will suffer grievously if he carries the full burden of that fight. He was not suggesting, and I am not suggesting, that in those circumstances men would be any less brave, but surely the least we can do is to see that, when they are in those circumstances, they can be fully assured that their widow, if she is to be a widow, will be looked after properly. So I am glad to support the amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendments, and, in particular, Amendment No. 191B. The Children Act 1989 lays down that the welfare of the child is paramount. I want to speak on behalf of the children of the widows and of their fathers who were killed in war. If a war widow wants to remarry, she realises that she will have her war widow's pension taken away. If the man is single, she realises that he has to take responsibility not just for her but for the children. If he is wealthy, all well and good, but supposing he is not wealthy, supposing he is taken ill, supposing he has a job or does not have a job—these days many men are losing their jobs—then the mother will realise that financially the children will suffer. If the man she seeks to marry is a widower with children, his financial burden will be heavy. There will be his children and her children. Just let us remember what happened over the Child Support Bill, now an Act, perhaps unhappily.
If under all those circumstances the widow decides not to marry but to live on her own, she deprives her children of a steady home and a stepfather. She deprives herself of companionship.
I believe that in all the circumstances we should consider the widows of men killed in the war. I realise

1071
that I cannot be objective about the matter. My father was killed in France in 1916 and my mother was left a widow. She would not remarry because of losing the pension and becoming dependent on someone else, with the possibility that her children might suffer. Therefore, she lived without remarrying and I know that that was a great sorrow to her. I support the amendment.
Lord Bramall: I am in an awkward position as regards the amendment because I am a member of the steering group which, under the leadership of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, is planning on behalf of Her Majesty's Government all the official events marking the 50th anniversary of VE Day and VJ, end of war, Day. Of course the steering group has no responsibilities for war widows' pensions as such. But it is charged with ensuring that any commemorative events and the expenditure on them are appropriate and in keeping with the sentiments and the mood of the country, in particular the veterans. With that mood rightly placing considerable emphasis on the gratitude felt for the service and sacrifice that made victory possible, the plight of some war widows cannot be completely divorced from the significant sums of money being spent on commemoration and, this time, on celebration. While on the one hand I have some representational responsibilities to the veterans, I do not wish to be too critical of any government action in relation to this anniversary, for which I and my colleagues on the steering group are prepared to take full collective responsibility. At the same time, fairness compels me to say that I agree so much with what was said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg in putting forward his important amendment to the Pensions Bill.
The whole subject is immensely complex because there are many different categories and degrees of hardship in a system which in principle and in practice is full of the most appalling and absurd anomalies. At this stage I need only remind the Committee that, because of the way in which war and service widows' pensions are paid in practice, a large number of elderly widows, many over the age of 75, are in severe financial difficulties. Surely in this 50th anniversary year of all years there is a golden and perhaps unique opportunity to improve the discreditable situation. After all, one of the main themes of the end-of-war commemoration, which is fully endorsed by the Prime Minister, is that of tribute and promise. There will be a tribute to those who served and suffered and a promise that those who did so and their families will he supported while that is necessary and encouraged to live out their lives in dignity. That pledge is essentially one made by the veterans, the associated voluntary organisations and, it is to be hoped, the younger generation. It involves no commitment on the part of the Government.
However, this year would provide a wonderful opportunity to make some gesture towards saying that at least war widows and those whose husbands' deaths were attributable to active service would never have their pensions removed from them and that an entitled service widow whose husband retired or died before March 1973, as many of the World War II generation did. should in future have the same half-rate pension as is currently available.
1072
Surely, this is an occasion for Ministers to show some imaginative spark of compassion and common sense which will capture the spirit of the moment and reflect the pulse of the veterans, rather than meekly harkening to Scrooge-like counselling ever reminding them of the dangers of precedent, the impossibility of retrospection—which governments are prepared to break when it suits them—or our inability to afford such gestures. No doubt that claim is insisted upon by the Treasury, whose policies between 1926 and 1938 we should never forget all but lost us that war. Now, thanks to so much sacrifice, we are able to remember its successful outcome with pride and gratitude.
I urge the Government to take heed of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I urge them fittingly to mark this unique occasion by a significant gesture in the pension field, in particular as regards war widows. That would probably be more appreciated by the veterans than anything else that is being done to mark the 50th anniversary. I suspect that it will also be appreciated by the rest of the country, which will not be too enamoured by the thought of significant sums of money being spent, however sensibly, on commemoration and celebration when the widows of those who made the victory possible are still seen to be suffering.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am glad that I gave way to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and was able to hear his speech before speaking myself. I, too, support the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, but I wish to comment in particular on Amendment No. 191B.
A widow on remarriage, or if it is proved to the satisfaction of the DSS or MoD that she is cohabiting, will lose her pension. Few widows remarry because they are afraid of losing their pension and finding themselves in financial straits later on in life. That can happen, however well-off the proposed partner may be. Therefore, the Government would find their expenditure very little higher if they did the decent thing and allowed such widows to keep their pensions on remarriage. That would enable those women to find renewed happiness without the fear of financial stringency. In any event, having equalised the retirement age for men and women at 65, the Government will in a few years be making considerable savings and will be perfectly well able to afford to do that.
I do not know how much the Government are proposing to spend on the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. But as I am not involved in those arrangements I can say what I like. I do not know what the Government propose to spend on feasting and fireworks, but to spend money on such things while maintaining that they cannot afford to abolish this wicked rule is utterly wrong.
Whatever the cost, this is a wrong which should be righted, however late in the day. And as for the weasely argument which I fear I may hear that it would be retrospective, perhaps I may say that the Government have never hesitated to legislate retrospectively when it suited them. To impose a burden retrospectively must be wrong but to right a wrong retrospectively must be right.

1073
War widows are not in the same category as other widows. They are the widows of men who lost their lives as a result of service in the Armed Forces. It is thanks to such men that we are able to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Their widows cannot be in the same category as the widows of people who died in an industrial accident.
The treatment of war widows in this country since the Second World War by all governments, regardless of party, has, I am sorry to say, been one of the meanest, shabbiest, most shameful pieces of ingratitude ever perpetrated in a civilised country. I call upon the Government to take this unique opportunity, as was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and to accept these amendments, rectify a grievous wrong and give the war widows of this country something to celebrate at last.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carver: I strongly support all three amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Freyberg. He has explained clearly the reasoning behind the amendments, and the emotion provoked by them has been expressed forcefully by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall.
Whether it is looked at from the point of view of need or equity—that is, equity between one widow and another, equity within the Armed Forces or equity between the Armed Forces and other professions—or whether it is looked at from the point of view of comparison with other nations, there can be no doubt whatever that the amendments should be accepted by the Government.
When these matters have been discussed on previous occasions, the only reason ever given for not taking the course proposed is that it would cost a lot of money. It has always been impossible for the Government, whichever department is concerned, to argue against the need. This time, for heaven's sake, let the Government put their hand in their pocket, which they do for other things. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, on this occasion we are remembering the men who died and the women who were left behind. Let the Government be generous for once.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There could not be a more appropriate occasion for making a spectacular improvement for war widows than this year when we are celebrating—and I use that word deliberately—the 50th anniversary of our victory in the war.
I am sure that it would have a great appeal to the British public to know that in that way, rather than in formal celebrations, we are marking our gratitude to those who died and those who lost their husbands during the obtaining of those victories. The noble and gallant Lords opposite spoke with very great authority on this matter. I am sure that the Committee will wish to pay great attention to them.
There is no doubt that the proposed new clauses will cost a certain amount of money. But, on the other hand, they are different from almost any other improvement
1074
in benefits of one kind or another because, whereas most improved benefits increase in cost, these benefits will diminish.
As has been said, most of the widows concerned are of a mature age and therefore, sadly, the tendency will be for the costs to reduce. One can distinguish that particular social improvement from any others which one can mention. I hope that the Government will take this matter very seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, made an admirable speech following his admirable maiden speech which your Lordships greatly appreciated. The fact that these proposals are made by someone from the age group of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is rather impressive, far more impressive than the fact that they are supported by people in my own age category.
Therefore, the Minister must realise that there is very strong feeling about this. The Government have an opportunity to do something which will strike at and stimulate the imagination of the British people. The British people will approve of the Government taking a step which does justice to a section of society which has lost the most important thing of all. To have lost one's husband or wife in the service of one's country is the most terrible penalty. The fact that at this 50th anniversary, we are making some provision—I hope, ample provision—to help them will, I am sure, be widely appreciated by the British people. I beg the Government not to put this matter aside. I beg them to realise that this is a very serious matter which will move the opinion of the people of this country perhaps more dramatically and drastically than any other step which they could take.
Baroness Nicol: As vice-president of the War Widows Association, I strongly support all three amendments. The question which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has had put to her has also been put to me. I have been asked why service widows should be treated differently. My answer is that the life of a service wife is very different. She is obliged to move house frequently. She is unable to put down roots, to build a career or even to obtain a job of sufficient status to build up her own pension rights. That is becoming more important as the system moves away from state pensions and towards personal pension provision. She may have to travel abroad when her husband is stationed away or alternatively, she may have to spend long periods alone coping with family problems. The wife of a middle-ranking or senior officer or a senior NCO is expected to support her husband in his career. She becomes an unpaid social worker to other wives. That is expected of her.
Whenever the armed services are discussed in this Chamber, whether at Question Time or in longer debates, there is much interest and many speeches are made about how we should value our servicemen. As others have said, surely the most tangible way in which to record our appreciation would be by ensuring that those men have the comfort of knowing that in the event of their death, their bereaved wives would be adequately and permanently compensated. I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I declare an interest as a war pensioner. I am extremely grateful for my war pension and I am even more grateful for the fact that

1075
the Inland Revenue cannot get at it because it is tax free. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would agree, as has been stated already, that we should give special priority to war widows and that they should receive a higher rate of pension than other widows.
In recognising that fact, we must also take into account the needs of other widows. One of the matters which strikes me about the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg—Amendment No. 191B—is that it deals only with war widows. It does not deal with other widows. I dislike intensely the withdrawal of all pensions on remarriage. That seems to me to be a relic of a past age. It is out of tune with modern thinking and the sooner we can be rid of that, the better. However, we must consider other widows in the public sector because they are all affected by that same restriction: that the pension is withdrawn on remarriage. For example, what about the widow of a policeman? Is she to be excluded from the provisions while war widows are included? What about the widow of a fireman? He does a very difficult job and it may well be that he dies young. What about the widow of a doctor?
I hope that the time will come when my noble friend will be able to assure the Committee that those restrictions can be removed from the public sector as a whole. But I am doubtful whether it is wise to remove it just for war widows, in spite of the fact that they are in a category which commands the sympathy of us all.
If the Government do not feel able to agree to get rid of all the restrictions throughout the whole of the public sector, it seems to me that it would be far better to concentrate on really generous increases in war widows' pensions. That would benefit all war widows, particularly in this 50th anniversary year.
Lord Chalfont: I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Freyberg. However, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 191B, upon which I feel very strongly. That amendment deals with the removal of a pension from a widow if she remarries or, if she is not willing to remarry, cohabits while she is still a widow.
That seems to me to be a harsh and even cruel procedure and one which I hope the Government will see fit to look at very closely. There has been a certain amount of discussion already as to why we should make the provision only for war widows and what is different about their case as opposed to other cases. There is a very simple answer to that. Sometimes it is known as the unlimited liability. By the very nature of his profession, a soldier, sailor or airman is risking his life—that is, the asset which he brings to his profession. It is his life that is at stake when he goes about the business of his profession. I believe that that is one of the major differences.
That also leads to another point which should be made; namely, that war widows of soldiers, sailors and airmen killed in action, tend to be young because the husbands whom they have lost tend to be young. Soldiers killed in action are, by the very nature of their profession, usually fairly young men. Therefore, when they leave their widows behind, they leave them with a
1076
long life in front of them. The only recompense and tribute that war widows have to the life that has been lost is their pension. Yet, as things stand at present, we take that away if there is, as the legislation so dryly puts it, "a change in status".
I should like Members of the Committee to contemplate what that change in status actually means and ask themselves whether the pension of a serviceman's wife, especially that of a war widow, should not be regarded as a lifelong entitlement and not something to be arbitrarily removed; and certainly not something to be subjected at some stage to the demoralising process of means testing.
The effect of the current system is to discourage war widows—who are sometimes, as I said, quite young—from remarrying. They fear that they will lose the only financial support that they have. Therefore, some of them choose, as the language has it, to cohabit; in other words, to live with someone without marrying. But if such women seek the kind of comfort and the kind of companionship that marriage can bring—and it is sometimes the only course open to them—and are discovered to be cohabiting, the pension is, again, arbitrarily removed. Let us not forget the ever-present whistle blower: the person who goes and tells the official that the woman is living with someone else.
The latter gives rise not just to the harshness of the application of the law, but also to ludicrous rulings from officials about what constitutes cohabitation. For example, I have heard people trying to describe it as being a matter of days which one spends under the same roof with someone else and even a question of whether those days are during the week or at the weekend. What an extraordinary way to deal with someone's life.
I am sure that there is no one in the Government who can be happy with the present state of affairs. I do not dismiss arguments about cost or about retrospection. I believe that they are real arguments and that the Government are right to put them forward. However, I put it to the Government that here we have an inequity, a harshness, and, as I said before, even a cruelty which they ought to be prepared to put right, even at the risk of retrospection and even at some considerable cost. I support the amendments.
Lord Elton: I trust that Members of the Committee will permit a very brief intervention on the third of the amendments. I am in favour of all of them, but the third amendment actually addresses a point of straight equity in my view. It has been suggested that the 1973 watershed is defensible because officers serving at the time were able to choose to buy back the right for their wives, when they were widowed, to receive half the pension that they had received during their lifetime after retirement. Some officers opted to do so, while others did not. Therefore, it is suggested that none should now benefit from a change in the law. However, that overlooks the fact that an officer who retired long before 1973 was not given that option. His widow has never had the chance of receiving such a benefit.
In this day and age when we have to declare the most tangential interest, I have to say that I had a second cousin who retired as an air vice-marshall in about 1959

1077
and who died last year. His widow is now receiving one-third rather than one-half of his pension. Had he lived and served longer beyond the permitted age, he would have had a chance of buying in; but he did not. It is a question of equity. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make some gesture in the direction of restoring equity. Otherwise, I shall find it impossible to agree with him on the issue.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I, too, support the amendments. However, I should like to speak especially to Amendment No. 191B. I should first declare an interest, but it is not a pecuniary one. Until recently, I was a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. That gave me the privilege of seeing close at hand the work that our service personnel carry out in such a committed and loyal way. It also gave me the opportunity to talk to them and their wives during the many visits that we made during the course of our work.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments today with good grace. How much better that that should happen than, perhaps, the Government having to do a "U" turn in the future because public opinion forces it upon them. How timely that it should happen this year.
I know that some people say, "Well, of course, the dichotomy that we have is that when a war widow remarries she in fact loses her public service pension". Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, mentioned that fact and the issue of policeman, firefighters and public sector workers. That is an issue which we raised from these Benches yesterday and asked the Government to look into. Unfortunately, but not too unexpectedly, the Government turned their face against it. I hope that that will not be used as an argument today to turn down what I would call a reasonable request.
The question has been put regarding the difference between a widow who was widowed because her husband was killed at war and the widow of an industrial worker who was killed in industry. It is difficult if not impossible to balance that kind of question; but there is a difference. The difference is that, in most cases, the widow of an industrial worker would receive a pension for life and would not lose it under the occupational pension to which her husband had contributed should she remarry. However, war widows automatically lose their pension in such circumstances.
We should also bear in mind the fact that our service personnel are young; indeed, many of them were young when they gave their lives in the service of our country. Some people say that that is an emotive argument. Yes, it is. If there were no emotion in the argument, I would suggest that we were a pretty cold-hearted nation. There has to be some emotion involved; but it is backed up by logic, justice, standards and the kind of way that we value those people who gave their lives in the service of their country.
We must also bear in mind that young men who left young widows often left them to bring up very young children. Are we seriously saying that the nation expects
1078
such women to go through the rest of their lives alone, bringing up a family, only to pay the price, if society finds out, of losing their widows' pension if they seek companionship through living with someone else. Yet if those widows took the moral course that most Members of this Chamber would expect, they would pay the price of losing their widows' pension.
This year is an important year. Of course costs are always a factor. However, I do not think they should weigh sufficiently in this argument for us to say that we can do nothing. I support these amendments and particularly Amendment No. 191B. Surely we can do something this year of all years to ensure that we treat the war widows fairly. They do not have their husbands to talk and argue for them.
I doubt very much that any one of those young men who gave their lives even thought that the country would do anything less than the right thing. The right thing has to be to meet the responsibilities that we have as a nation in paying these war widows their pension and ensuring, if they are lucky enough to marry again, that they do not lose their pension, and—the Government may decide that they will not go that far—if the second marriage does not work out or if the women become widowed again, that their pension should be given back to them. Something has to be done. I support all the contributions in this worthwhile debate.
Lord Brookes: The amendments address the obligations, the honour of patriotism and of blood freely, nobly and gallantly given. Such debts and such obligations are not diminished and are not eroded by time. Time is with us tonight. Let a Government, who I believe will want to respond to reason, to honour and to duty, act now.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I, too, should, like to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, very strongly. Successive defence reviews from Options for Change right through to Front Line First have had much to say about equipment, armaments, weapons, capacity for defence and men and women as resources, and all too little so far about morale, incentives for recruitment in the future and what holds the services together—tradition, pride and the sense of being valued. It is vital that service widows should retain their pension for life rather than forfeit those in many cases far from generous pensions if they get a second chance to marry. It is surely bad enough that the pension itself is far lower as a proportion of the husband's service retired pay or pension than in a dozen other countries. I shall not give details as they have already been given.
If the Government want to send a further signal to confirm the low esteem and value which in the eyes of many in the services they place on service to the country by rejecting this amendment, I feel that that would be a grave mistake. I do not think the Government have begun to take in the quite widespread feeling of rejection and the feeling that the country thinks of the forces solely in terms of perks and so-called empty ceremonial. That is contributing to low morale within the services and will certainly affect future recruitment.

1079
The Government believe in value for money. Let them recognise the equal importance of money for value. Service widows have a special claim on decent and equitable treatment and the means to lead a normal life with normal access to companionship and happiness. I hope the country will do the honourable thing and agree to these proposals.
Viscount Slim: I see no reason why there should not be a special clause for war widows. I am afraid I take issue with the noble Lord who wanted to generalise the matter. I am sad that Her Majesty's Government have not come forward with a gesture already in this particular year. That would have been strategically sensible. Every government need all the friends they can get, and this one particularly so perhaps.
I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said today—I shall not repeat the arguments—and I hope the Government will come forward with something now. It would not cost much. The widows are dying every day. The Minister is aware that I have an interest in this subject through my business helping charities and veterans' associations. I would say to the Government of the day, "Here is your chance". Here is the time for the Government to do something that will be recognised throughout the country as the proper gesture in this particular year of commemoration so that the war widow will be remembered and made safe for ever.
Lord Boardman: My wife (whom I married happily 46 years ago) was then a war widow. I therefore consider that if the House should divide on these amendments I would be precluded from taking part in any such Division. The purpose of my intervention is merely to place on record that such an abstention would not be for any lack of support for the amendments that have been so ably moved and which I fully endorse.
Lord Craig of Radley: I rise to support the three amendments which have been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. In particular, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 191B. The merits of the case have been well argued on moral and humanitarian grounds; on grounds of equity; and on grounds of comparison with other countries. This surely is a good case. There are not too many war widows and the measure should not cost too much. If the Government are worried that a low cost settlement today could become expensive if we were ever to be involved in another major conflict, all I say is that the cost of that conflict would make the cost of war widows' pensions following it shrink into very small sums.
War widows who seek renewed happiness and companionship are faced with a difficult dilemma. It is indeed impossible for them to get a proper definition of cohabitation, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has explained. I was amazed when looking at the figures to note the cost to the taxpayer of war widows who feel that they cannot remarry or cohabit. Take the case of a young 25 year-old widow with children, a widow perhaps of the Gulf War. At the time of her bereavement she will receive an MoD attributable pension, index linked and taxable, plus a DSS war widows' pension, index linked but not taxable. If she decides to remain single and lives to the age of 80—assuming an inflation
1080
of 4 per cent. per annum—she will have cost the DSS budget alone in the region of £800,000. If the widow were persuaded, or decided to remarry, she would receive a lump sum payment of one year's pension from the DSS and no further right to claim a DSS war widows' pension, whatever her circumstances.
The average number of war widows in this category created year by year is between only 40 and 50. At present few remarry but most are reluctant because they fear for their future security and they fear possible poverty. If they could be assured that they would retain their Armed Forces pension, more perhaps would take the step, and the saving to the DSS budget could be very large indeed. The Armed Forces attributable pension should be seen, I believe, as compensation and therefore not be withdrawn. The contributions have been paid not only in financial terms through the pay packet but also in the loss of life of the servicemen and in the sacrifices made by the service wife and widow. Thus the constraints made on widows wishing to remarry are not only seen as an injustice and deeply resented but also are not cost effective. We have before us a Bill to amend the law on pensions. Surely this is now the time to amend these difficulties.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I feel that I, too, should intervene briefly in this debate for the fairly obvious reason of the name that I bear. But on this occasion I have another reason in that my mother was widowed in World War I. Her husband was killed at Gallipoli, and some 12 years later she made the rather extraordinary decision to forfeit her rather modest pension to marry my father—a fact for which I must be eternally grateful because otherwise I would not be able to speak here this evening.
The arguments have been put forcefully in this Chamber by Members of the Committee who have spoken. The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, are worthy of support.
Lord Palmer: After the moving speeches we have heard I do not believe that the Government have a moral leg upon which they can stand, particularly if one thinks of pensions awarded to civil servants. The Government are on record as saying that they are a caring government. Let us hope and pray that tonight we will see full evidence of that caring.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I feel a little like the spectre at the feast. Never mind. It is not the first time, and I expect it will not be the last. I have little doubt that some of my noble friends and other Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate understand well the position in which I find myself, because I presume that when they had responsibility for this issue, either directly because they were in my department or indirectly as members of the government, they defended the position taken by their government—whichever it was. No doubt that was similar to mine this evening.
First, I should like to make the position clear because, although I do not suppose that anybody intended it, there was some wandering between two quite different

1081
pension schemes during the course of the debate. We are talking about two separate provisions. Each of the three amendments stands alone. They address quite different problems and two different schemes. The first proposed new clause addresses the Department of Social Security's war widows pension scheme, which is related to the rather larger scheme we run for war disabled servicemen. The other two new clauses refer to the Armed Forces pension scheme, which is the occupational pension scheme for servicemen and servicewomen. I should like to address the two schemes and each of the amendments separately.
Amendment No. 191B seeks to amend war pensions legislation so that a widow may continue to receive a war widow's pension even if she remarries. It has always been the case that the very preferential DSS war widows' pension is awarded for the maintenance of the widow of a man whose death is attributable to service in the Armed Forces, not only in warfare but when serving as a member of the Armed Forces. That applies if he dies due to an accident, disability or disease contracted due to his service in the Armed Forces. In those circumstances a war widow's pension will be paid. Therefore, the death does not have to be due to war or even to active service. The rationale behind the pension is to assist with the loss of support a widow could have expected from her late husband. The pension is not in any way intended to compensate for his loss.
Remarriage alters the widow's status. She is no longer a widow and, as a consequence, her war widow's pension is withdrawn. A gratuity equivalent to one year's pension is awarded, which for many war widows would be about £7,000. Should she be unfortunate enough to be widowed again there is, as has been pointed out, no provision under the war pensions scheme for the restoration of the pension. Like other widows, there is the provision for widows in those circumstances to look to the social security system for support.
I said that I thought that I was being cast as the spectre at the feast. While Members of the Committee may say that the Government are less generous than they ought to be, nobody should be left with the view that the DSS war widows pension scheme is other than generous. I am grateful to a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who pointed that out. Our disagreement relates to issues outside the payments involved.
It may be worth my while reminding the Committee that the war widows' tax free pension paid currently to most war widows is £140 a week. That is more than double the basic national insurance widows' pension, which is £57.60. There is the additional difference that the basic widows' pension is taxable income, whereas war widows receive their pensions tax free. If my arithmetic is right, that is equivalent to £178.50.
Over the past few years we have taken steps to improve the position of war widows. For example, the real value of war widows' pensions has been fully maintained in the uprating statements in line with RPI. As I mentioned earlier, the war widows' pension was made completely tax free in 1979. Previously half of it
1082
was taxable. The war widows' age allowance was significantly improved in 1984 with extra help for those over the age of 80. MoD special payments of £40 a week for pre-1973 war widows were introduced in April 1990, tax free and completely disregarded for income-related benefits. That was uprated to £48.70 and is an important part of the £140 a week tax free payment I have mentioned. In addition, £10 of the basic war widows' pension is disregarded in claims for income-related benefits, and local authorities have discretion under their local schemes to disregard more than that sum in claims for housing and council tax benefit.
My predecessor before I took over this job, my noble friend Lord Astor, announced extra money for British widows with New Zealand war widows' pensions, who were found to be badly off, and some Northern Ireland war widows. That change was announced on 23rd June last year and took effect from October last year.
I would not like anybody to be left with the idea that we are not mindful of the position of war widows and the special way in which we ought to treat them. I hope that by indicating briefly what we have done since 1979 I have demonstrated that we are mindful of that and have reacted. I hope that no Member of the Committee will accuse us of being Scrooge-like because those are fairly generous provisions. Indeed, exceptionally, a war widow is also able to receive a retirement pension based on her own contributions without any diminution in her war widow's pension. That would increase her income to nearly £200 a week, irrespective of any other resources she may have.
Amendment No. 191B proposes that the law should be changed to permit that very preferential pension to continue for life, regardless of any change in the widow's marital status. Even if that were justified—and I believe strongly that it is not justified—it would be very expensive. We know that since 1939 about 90,000 war widows have remarried. We do not know how many are still living and would claim restoration of their pension but, with the help of actuaries looking at life expectancy of people in that group and so on, we have estimated that the cost could be of the order of £60 million a year. "Small beer", I hear some noble Lords say. Those who have taken part in the debate who have been involved in government know the competing demands from that group and from other groups on governments and on taxpayers, who are always reluctant to pay even higher taxes. There is no bottomless pension pit. I do not suppose that anybody believes that there is.
We fully appreciate the sacrifice that the late husbands of these widows made on behalf of their country. We have ensured that the rate of the war widows' pension fully recognises those circumstances. That is no more than the country or the Committee would expect while the state of war widowhood remains. However, to continue to pay this very preferential pension when a war widow has remarried and either still has or has had the support of a second husband is neither justified nor fair to the widow who loses her national insurance widow's pension on remarriage. And it would be totally regardless of the

1083
income and wealth of the second husband and, in the event of widowhood again, the pension and other assets left to her by him.
As the debate has clearly shown, this is a difficult and emotive area. We have to strike the right balance and I believe that we have done that. Bearing in mind the original rationale behind the provisions for the war widows' pension, we see no justification for amending the legislation so that the pension may be received after remarriage when the widow is no longer a widow.
I turn to the other two new clauses which address, and would make changes in, the provisions of the Armed Forces pension scheme. Here we are discussing an occupational pension scheme similar in character to other public service schemes and broadly subject to the same principles, although with markedly different terms and benefits. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree drew attention to the fact that the characteristics complained of by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in both new clauses are in fact common to other public service schemes. I think it might be helpful if I explain how the current Armed Forces pension scheme actually works.
Service personnel do not have a monthly deduction on their payslip for superannuation, as many other people do. However, their rates of pay are abated—currently by 9 per cent.—to take account of the pension benefits so that in any comparison with outside earnings that abatement is brought into play to look at the total earnings of servicemen. The minimum term for an immediate benefit—in other words, an immediate pension—for an officer is 16 years' reckonable service, and for other ranks 22 years' reckonable service. At that point or thereafter up to 55 years of age, the serviceman can retire on an immediate pension, not uprated until 55, then uprated in full to account for the intervening years, then uprated annually thereafter. Those who do not qualify for an immediate pension because they do not have that length of service are treated in the same way as other deferred pensioners and receive a pension depending on rank and years of service at the age of 60. Widows and widowers are treated similarly and are eligible for a pension of one-half the spouse's rate. This provision includes those who marry after retirement.
That is the current position, but, like all pension schemes, these improvements have been introduced over the years and count only for service after the date of introduction. If retrospection is made available it is done on the basis of the person "buying back" some or all of the preceding years.
In order to comply with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, provision was made in the Armed Forces pension scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of service pensioners who married (or re-married) after retirement. I believe that this is the issue which the third new clause addresses. But this change benefits only the widows of those giving service on or after 6th April 1978 and only service on or after that date is taken into account when calculating the level of pension due. Thus, in time, as the entitlement extends over the years, the wives of those sevicemen who married after their retirement will increasingly come to share the same rights on widowhood as other service wives. Like the
1084
Armed Forces pension scheme, other public service schemes also now provide for widows' pensions where the marriage has taken place after retirement.
Before the introduction of improvements in the early 1970s, public service pension schemes provided for an eligible widow to receive a pension at one-third of the rate of her husband's own pension. The proportion was increased to one half; for the Armed Forces pension scheme the operative date was 31st March 1973. Coupled with the change, which applied to service given from that date, opportunities were provided for those serving on or after that date to make direct contributions so as to qualify previous service for half rate widows' pensions also. For those who did not choose to contribute, previous service continued to count at one-third rate and subsequent service counted at one-half rate. I am sure that some noble and gallant Members of the Committee, having been given that option and being sensible men, took it and bought in the years prior to 1973. But some probably decided for a variety of reasons that they did not wish to do so.
The principle of non-retrospection is fundamental to the issue of not extending the option to "buy in" to those who have already left the service—those who had left before 1973. The "buy in" opportunities given to those serving on that date in 1973 were at rates which were actuarially assessed. Similar arrangements applied in other public service schemes which made the change at about the same time. A "buy in" for those who are ineligible would be a clear breach of non-restrospection, since it would apply new provisions to those who had retired before the operative date. I almost said the "actuarial date" but the two are related because, if those persons are no longer active members of the scheme, they cannot be asked to buy in.
The option for members of the Armed Forces serving on or after 31st March 1973 to buy in their previous service if they wished would in itself make it impossible in equity to extend the half rate pension to widows whose husbands had left the service before that date and who had not, as a result, contributed financially towards the improvement. That would also apply to those serving on that date who chose not to buy in.
When it comes to the remarriage of a widow, the Armed Forces pension scheme, like other public service schemes, ceases to pay. On subsequent divorce or re-widowhood, a simple test is applied by the Armed Forces pension scheme. It is not a complicated means test. It is simple: has the second widowhood left the widow better or worse off than if she had not remarried? If worse off, then the Armed Forces pension scheme widow's pension is restored in full.
Therefore the second and third new clauses would make considerable changes to the normal rules governing all public service pension schemes. The costs to the Armed Forces pension scheme would be considerable. However, the read-across to other public service schemes would impose very substantial additional burdens on the taxpayer. As I have said, it would be very unfair to those who bought in years prior to 1973 to give their widows one-half pension if those

1085
who chose not to do so were now to be given, if I may use the word, a "free" improvement. And re-opening the buy in is not practical.
All of us in occupational pension schemes—that is what the Armed Forces pension scheme is—know and accept that improvements made either after we leave or during our service are not backdated. I urge the Committee not to break that important principle when it comes to the second and third new clauses before us.
On the first new clause, I simply reiterate the arguments I made about the generosity of the scheme and the very considerable amount of concern and detail that we in the Department of Social Security and, I know, my noble friend Lord Henley and his colleagues in the MoD give to making sure that we have a fair and equitable scheme.
I believe that in both the DSS scheme and in the Armed Forces pension scheme we have a fair and equitable scheme. It is clear from the speeches that everyone understands the emotive reasons underlying wanting to make the changes. However, I believe that they are not sensible when considered across the broad aspect of public policy and when considering the generosity of the schemes themselves. I hope that, when he reflects on what I said, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will be able to withdraw his new clauses.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may speak from personal experience. After all we had been through, it was difficult for many of us to be told on remarriage that we would lose our pension if we were under 60 when we remarried again. That is an awful penalty on all widows. Many of us were in that age group when, unhappily, we were widowed. We then remarried, accepting that we had to abandon our war widow's pension. However, if we remarry, and the husband then dies, we are told that if we are under 60 we cannot reinstate the pension. What is left for us?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I tried to answer those points in my speech and I do not wish to go over them all again. In the DSS scheme, the widows' pension exists in order to help maintain the widow who has lost her husband. When she remarries, she ceases to be a widow. That is the principle on which the scheme has been run for many years, under successive Governments, Ministers, Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State and government supporters of whichever party. I invite the Committee to consider that we would do better to leave the matter as it is, given the generosity of the whole scheme to existing war widows.
Lord Freyberg: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on my amendments. I thank them for their useful and heartfelt contributions. I am disappointed in the Minister's reply and should like to come back on one or two points which he made.
I wish to respond to his statement that war widows' pensions are intended not as compensation but for maintenance. It is not enough to treat a war widow generously only when she is single; she is considering
1086
remarriage precisely because her husband was killed in the service of his country. The only solution is to accept that war widows' pensions should be regarded as compensation and never removed.
It is also true that on a widow's remarriage, the DSS awards each widow a gratuity equivalent to one year's pension. For some widows, that amounts to £7,000, but for the vast majority who married before 1973, the payment was as little as £250. I entirely agree with the Minister that generous provisions are made for war widows, but the £7,000 per annum is nowhere near what their husbands would have expected, had they lived.
On costs, the Minister claims that restoring a DSS war widow's pension to all widows who have remarried since 1939 would have cost £60 million a year. With respect, that is only part of the story. On remarriage, post-1973 war widows would retain only their MoD attributable forces family pension and not their DSS war widows' pension. That would lead to significant DSS pension savings.
Finally, according to the Government's figures, 80 per cent. of war widows are over the age of 70, with some 1,300 dying per year. Awarding them a pension for life is not a long-term or permanent commitment. I do not accept that on remarriage a war widow should forfeit all her rights as the widow of a man who has died for his country. I therefore feel compelled to test the opinion of the Committee. I commend the amendment.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.191B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Aldenham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormer, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dubs, L.

Bancroft, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bath, M.

Ennals, L.

Blyth, L.

Erroll, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ezra, L.

Bramall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bridges, L.

Falkland, V.

Brightman, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookes, L.

Feversham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carnarvon, E

Freyberg, L. [Teller.]

Carver, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Chalfont, L.

Geraint, L.

Chapple, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Chorley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gray, L.

Coleridge, L.

Grey, E.

Congleton, L.

Halsbury, E

Craig of Radley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Craigavon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cross, V.

Haskel, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

David, B.

Henniker, L.

1087

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Nelson, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Nicol, B.

Hooson, L.

Palmer, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hughes, L.

Parry, L.

Hylton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rennell, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jeger, B.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kennet, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Keyes, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shannon, E.

Kitchener, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lawrence, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Slim, V.

Lytton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Strafford, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Swinfen, L.

McConnell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurlow, L.

McNair, L.

Tope, L.

Meston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milne, L.

Waverley, V.

Monson, L.

Weatherill, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Westmorland, E.

Moran, L.

Wharton, B.

Munster, E.

White, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Aldington, L.

Goold, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Gowrie, E.

Balfour, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Barber, L.

Gridley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Belstead, L.

Hambro, L.

Bethell, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blaker, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Hemphill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tata, L.

Hives, L.

Bradford, E.

Hogg, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Buckinghamshire, E

Hothfield, L.

Butterworth, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of alloway, L.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Carnock,L.

Kingsland, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Leigh, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsay, E.

Chesham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lucas, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cumberlege, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Eccles, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Flather, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

1088

Milverton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Selborne, E.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Moyne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stockton, E.

Norrie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney,E.

Teviot, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thatcher, B.

Parkinson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Quinton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rees, L.

Wakeham, L.

Renton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wise, L.

Rodney, L.

Wynford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 191C and 191D not moved.]
Clause 131 [Extension of scope of right to cash equivalent]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 191E:
Page 82, leave out lines 15 to 18.
The noble Baroness said: I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know, after a somewhat harrowing debate, that these are genuine probing amendments. They are concerned with the clauses in the Bill that relate to the scope and right to guarantee cash equivalents.
The first amendment is a probing amendment in that it seeks clarification of the circumstances in which the Government envisage using the power to exclude certain final salary schemes from the obligation to pay transfer values in respect of deferred members whose service terminated prior to 1986. In principle, all scheme members should be entitled to transfer any benefit, and it is up to the Government to justify any need for exceptions.
The Government may argue that in some circumstances it would constitute retrospective legislation to give such a right where the benefit accrued prior to the date on which transfers became obligatory. But the restriction applies only to members who left service prior to 1986 and not in all pre-1986 benefits. Thus, if exceptions are to be permitted, it will mean that a member with a benefit based on 10 years' accrual who left on 31st December 1985 would not be entitled to a transfer, while if he or she had left two days later they would be. This really does seem unfair, and also unnecessary now.
The second amendment with which this one is grouped, refers to "the prescribed period". Clause 132 relates to the right of a statement of entitlement for members of schemes. It stipulates that within a prescribed period a member should be entitled to a

1089
statement of entitlement. We seek to delete "the prescribed period" and insert "one month". As I said earlier, this is a probing amendment seeking a statement from the Government on what period they intend to prescribe within which the guarantee date must be set.
In practice, there is no good reason why any well managed scheme should not be in a position to quote a transfer value as at a date within a month of when a member makes application. Unfortunately, more than a few schemes have an evident inability to meet such deadlines. But that may very well be due to poor administration on their part. As a member of the OPAS council, I must say that a frequent complaint received from scheme members is that they have to wait far too long to be notified of transfer values. I see no reason why "one month" should not be inserted as the requirement in this clause. Again, perhaps the Government will tell us what they mean by "the prescribed period".
The third amendment in this grouping relates to the manner and calculation of transfer values. The amendment seeks to retain the existing basis for the calculation of cash equivalent for transfers out of final salary schemes. It simply puts into primary legislation the wording which I understand appears in the current actuarial guidance note, issued in accordance with regulations, which determines how actuaries are required to calculate cash equivalents.
It seems that the Government, and perhaps some people in the actuarial profession, want to see the basis of calculating cash equivalents changed to one that is less secure. In particular, it is being suggested that the calculation should not be based on gilt yields, as at present and as stated in the proposed amendment, but should instead allow for equity yields, particularly in respect of younger members. That could mean a substantial reduction in the security that is involved, since, as we know, the benefits which such people may receive under a new basis will have to depend on the vagaries and risks of the Stock Exchange; and there could be only an even chance that they would receive their accrued benefits. Given the normal ups and downs in equity values, it can be assumed that part of the time they may well end up being worse off than can be guaranteed under the existing system.
As I said at the outset, all three are probing amendments. We want to know where the Government stand; why they have put this wording into the legislation; and whether they will accept the manner of calculation that is proposed in the final amendment to which I have just spoken. I beg to move.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: Perhaps I may intervene before the Minister stands up. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 191G. My understanding on this amendment is that it introduces a method of calculating cash equivalents or transfer values where there is none now. I know that the Institute of Actuaries and the faculty have laid down guidelines on how to calculate transfers. But I do not believe that it is true to say that they have stipulated that gilts should be the basis in all instances.
1090
The schemes have very different age profiles. I should like to put the question: should a scheme with a very young average age have cash equivalents and transfer values calculated in the same way as a scheme which has a very high average age? I suggest that that should not be the case. It would be true to say that the whole area of how to calculate transfer values and cash equivalents is difficult and controversial. Many members do not understand how that is done in final salary schemes. Nonetheless, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he exercise some caution in dealing with this technical area.
Scheme portfolios for younger members include a significant proportion of equities, the theory being that higher returns will come via such investments. To use transfer values which are based purely on gilts' yields will mean that the cash equivalent for many younger members in particular is likely to be higher than is necessary to support those benefits. I realise that in investment areas the past is no guide to the future. A debate is taking place in investment and actuarial circles about the gilt and equity yields converging. That debate is ongoing. We shall not know the answer in fact until it is finished.
With regard to this amendment, I believe that we should not interfere in the process. Schemes have very different structures in their actuarial management, investment policies and pi actices on discretionary benefits. In conclusion, I should not be happy to see Amendment No. 191G accepted by my noble friend the Minister. However, I appreciate that it has been put forward as a probing amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may explain the position in the order of the three amendments.
Amendment No. 191E revises Clause 131, with the effect that the statutory right to transfer pre-1986 accrued pension rights is extended to all members of occupational pension schemes. The current position is that pre-1986 early leavers from occupational pension schemes have no statutory right of transfer. Clause 131 extends the right of transfer to that group but provides a regulation-making power to exclude from salary-related schemes pre-1986 early leavers in respect of whom prescribed arrangements are satisfied.
I should explain the purpose of the regulation-making power which this amendment seeks to remove. Most pre-1986 early leavers have pensions which are frozen, in the sense that they are not protected by the revaluation provisions which apply to those who left after 1st January 1986. The policy intention of Clause 131 is to give members with frozen deferred rights the opportunity to transfer those rights to another occupational pension or a personal pension fund.
However, we do not intend to require those schemes which have fully protected the rights of pre-1986 early leavers to provide them with transfer values. As now, such schemes will be free to offer transfer values if they choose to do so. We feel that it is right to focus that extra freedom on those with frozen rights.

1091
Amendment No. 191F seeks to impose a one-month time-limit on the production of a guaranteed statement of entitlement. I sympathise with the purpose of the amendment, which is to speed up the transfer process, but we believe that the proposed time limit is unreasonably short.
Let me explain the current situation. The current legislation allows a scheme two months to produce an estimate of a member's cash equivalent. There is no requirement under current law for the estimated level of the transfer value to be guaranteed. Under our proposals for guaranteed statements, schemes may well feel the need to take even more care in producing the statements because there will be guarantees.
The calculation of a cash equivalent in any event is a complex process. It is important that a guaranteed transfer value should be accurately assessed. In particular, contracted-out salary-related schemes may often wish to check details of the guaranteed minimum pension element of the transfer value with the Contributions Agency. Such queries are more rather than less likely in the light of the Barber judgment and would consume most, if not all, of the time that this amendment allows for the statement to be produced.
The regulation-making power that we have taken is designed to enable us to consult with the pensions industry on a suitable time limit. I can tell the Committee that we should not expect the time allowed to be less than the two months currently allowed for production of an estimate, but we have not excluded the possibility that a slightly longer period might be appropriate. I should add that the time taken to produce a statement will not bite into the three-month guarantee period within which the transfer request must be received. The guarantee period will start when the statement has been produced.
Amendment No. 191G seeks to make it a statutory requirement that in calculating transfer values the scheme actuary shall base his assessment on the market redemption yields of British Government stocks at the time of the transfer. In short, transfer values for all—young and old members—should be gilt-based. That is indeed one of the ways in which the actuary is currently advised that transfer values may be assessed in the actuarial guidance note (GN11) which deals with this complex subject. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire underlined the fact and warned me that this was a complex subject. He made some very good points in suggesting to me that I should be cautious. I fully intend to take his advice on this matter.
The amendment proposes to elevate the advice in the guidance note, which is permissive, to a statutory requirement in all cases. I believe that it is necessary to maintain a balance between actuarial guidance and statute. The Government have no objection to schemes paying transfer values in line with returns on gilts. Many schemes already do so and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so. Moreover, we propose to regulate in due course so that in future the calculation of transfer values should reflect at least the level of investment in gilts specified in the new minimum solvency requirement. That will effectively put a floor on transfer values so that they cannot be calculated
1092
assuming an excessive level of equity investments. To go further and insist that in all cases transfer values would be based on an assumption of gilts-only investment would be unreasonable and inconsistent with our wider proposals on minimum solvency.
The practical effect of the noble Baroness's amendment would be to require schemes to fund above the minimum solvency requirement, since a scheme which was exactly 100 per cent. solvent would not be funded to pay transfer values based on gilts for younger members. Let me repeat that we have no objections to schemes funding significantly above 100 per cent. of the minimum solvency, but we cannot accept that that should be a statutory requirement.
With those explanations of the three issues, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for those explanations. I said earlier when moving the amendments that they were probing amendments. We were anxious to find out exactly what was in the mind of the Government in drafting these clauses of the Bill.
I noted with great interest what the Minister said about my first amendment. I am glad that he indicated that the intention was to do something more special about those with frozen rights. I shall read his remarks in Hansard tomorrow with some interest.
With regard to my second amendment, I noted that he sympathised to some extent with our concern that there should be a time limit and that people should not be left hanging around waiting for that very necessary information. I also noted that the intention is to ensure that there will be at least some guarantee that people will not have to wait too long. In that respect, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation.
It has been very apparent that my final amendment concerns a highly technical matter. I do not claim to be an expert in that area. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, had to say because I know that he is expert in that area, which is very much a part of his profession. On the other hand, I am assured—indeed, the Minister confirmed it to be the case—that the amendment reflects the precise wording from the current actuarial guidance note.
The Minister's case is that he does not want the guidance imported into the legislative requirement. He says that, if we were to do so—and he is quite right—it would mean that the minimum solvency standard would be higher than that originally envisaged. I am quite aware of that. In fact, when we discussed the minimum solvency standard earlier, I indicated that many people felt that the minimum solvency standard was not an adequate guarantee of solvency and that we wanted rather more in the way of security than was promised in the minimum solvency requirement. However, I note what the noble Lord has said and, in the circumstances, I shall certainly not press the amendments this evening. As I said at the opening of this short debate, these are probing amendments. We were anxious to find out exactly where the Government stood on these three quite important issues. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Right to guaranteed cash equivalent]:
[Amendment No. 191F not moved.]
Clause 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 191G to 192A not moved.]
Clauses 134 and 135 agreed to.
Clause 136 [Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 192B:
Page 85, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("amended") in line 22 and insert ("Sections 146 to 151 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 are").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 192C to 192G. The purpose of Clause 136 is to extend the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman along the lines recommended by the PLRC so that he will be able to investigate complaints and disputes arising between the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme and the associated employer, and between trustees or managers of different occupational pension schemes. It will also bring into primary legislation an existing power, currently contained in regulations, to allow the Pensions Ombudsman to consider complaints and disputes arising between an individual and the employer.
Disagreements between trustees and employers and between trustees of different schemes can often result in lengthy and costly litigation. We believe it sensible that, as an alternative to court action, the Ombudsman should be given the power to consider such cases.
The drafting of the clause inadvertently brought employers of personal pension holders within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. References to personal pensions are, however, inappropriate. Employers do not administer personal pensions and so cannot be properly described as managers. Personal pensions are contracts between individuals and the pension provider and complaints or disputes which arise between them are already within the scope of the Pensions Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Amendments Nos. 192C to 192F, therefore, remove inappropriate references to personal pensions to restore the position to the original policy intention. Amendment No. 192G further clarifies this by defining those responsible for the management of a personal pension scheme as the trustees or managers. Amendment No. 192B will give consistency with the other provisions of the Bill by specifying exactly which sections of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 will be amended by Clause 136. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 192C to 192G:
Page 85, line 35, leave out ("or personal").
Page 85, line 40, leave out ("or personal").
Page 86, line 9, leave out ("or personal").
Page 86, line 23, leave out ("or personal").
Page 86, line 29, at end insert:
1094
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, a person is responsible for the management of a personal pension scheme if he is a trustee or manager of the scheme.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Disclosing information to the Authority]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 192H:
Page 88, line 2, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 10 and insert ("any person to whom subsection (6) applies, if the Ombudsman considers that the disclosure would enable or assist that person to discharge any of his functions.
(6) This subsection applies to the following—

(a) the Regulatory Authority,

(b) the Pensions Compensation Board,

(c) the Registrar,

(d) any department of the Government (including the government of Northern Ireland),

(e) the Bank of England,

(f) the Friendly Societies Commission,

(g) the Building Societies Commission,

(h) an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State under Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 or section 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986,

(j) an inspector appointed by the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland under Part XV of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986,

(k) a person authorised under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to exercise powers conferred by section 105 of that Act,

(l) a designated agency or transferee body or the competent authority within the meaning of that Act, and

(m) a recognised self-regulating organisation, recognised professional body, recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house, within the meaning of that Act.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend subsection (6) by adding any person or removing any person for the time being specified in that subsection, or

(b) restrict the circumstances in which, or impose conditions subject to which, disclosure may be made to any person for the time being specified in that subsection."").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 192J. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify those regulatory bodies to which the Ombudsman may pass information and to extend the current protection of the Ombudsman from the law of defamation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 192J:
Page 88, line 13, leave out ("to the Regulatory Authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 193:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause:
Modification and winding up of occupational and personal Schemes
(". Sections 136 to 141 (modification) and 142 and 143 (winding up) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 are repealed.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 172. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140 [Annual increase in rate of personal pension]:
[Amendments Nos. 193A and 193B not moved.]
Clause 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Power to reject notice choosing appropriate personal pension scheme]:
[Amendment No. 193C not moved.]
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Levy]:
[Amendments Nos. 194 to 195ZB not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 195A:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
Equal treatment in relation to official pensions
.—(1) Section 3 of the Pensions Increase Act 1971 (qualifying conditions for pensions increase) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (c), "is a woman who" is omitted.
(3) In subsection (10)—

(a) for "woman is in receipt of a pension" there is substituted "person is in receipt of a pension the whole or any part of', and

(b) for "woman and that pension" there is substituted "person and that pension or part".

(4) In subsection (11)—

(a) for "woman's" there is substituted "person's", and

(b) for "woman" there is substituted "person",

and accordingly for "she" there is substituted "he".
(5) This section shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect, in relation to pensions commencing after 17th May 1990, and in relation to so much of any such pension as is referable to service on or after that date.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 199A. These amendments remedy a small inequality in the way public service pensions are protected against inflation.
Public service pensions are increased in line with inflation under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Pensions for widows and widowers, children's or ill health pensions, and pensions for those aged over 55, are protected against inflation. Under age 55 no increases are made, but when the pensioner reaches that age the full value of the pension at retirement is restored.
An exception to the rule that no pensions increase is paid below age 55 was made for women with dependent children, but not for a man in the same situation. That was contrary to the terms of the equal treatment directive (86/378), which, broadly speaking, required pension schemes to provide equal treatment to men and women by 1st January 1993. Accordingly, the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990—the 1990 Act—equalised the entitlement by removing the exception in favour of women for service after 1st January 1993.
The European Court, in the Barber judgment issued in May 1990, just before the 1990 Act took effect, ruled that pensions were to be regarded as pay, and therefore subject to the requirement of equality in Article 119 of
1096
the Treaty of Rome. Other important aspects of Barber were unclear, and have only recently been clarified in a series of ECJ judgments given on 29th September last. Following these, it is now clear that the approach taken in the 1990 Act, to equalise by levelling down, is not unlawful, and that the Barber judgment applies to official pensions such as public service pensions. The Barber judgment itself requires pensions to be equal from 17th May 1990. The requirements of European law are therefore clear. Men aged under 55 with dependent children must be eligible to have their pensions increased on the part of the pension attributable to service in the period 17th May 1990 to 31st December 1992. The amounts involved and the numbers affected are likely to be very small, but the principle is of course an important one. We would be in breach of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome were we not to amend our legislation so that schemes could lawfully make these payments. The amendment makes the necessary change to the Pensions (Increase) Acts. I commend it to the Committee.
Clause 145 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Schedule 6 [Amendments relating to Part IV]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 124, line 17, at end insert:
(". In section 164(1) (b) (i) (Crown employment), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted.
. In section 166(5) (reciprocity with other countries), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted.
. Section 172(1) (b) (review of Board's determinations) is omitted.
. In section 177 (general financial arrangements), in subsection (3) (b) (i), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted.
. In section 178 (meaning of "trustee" and "manager"), in paragraph (b), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted.
. In section 181 (general interpretation), in subsection (3), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 172. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 124, line 18, after ("(sub-delegation)") insert:
("(a) in subsection (1), the words from "136" to "143" are omitted, and
(b)") .
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 146 and 147 agreed to.
Clause 148 [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 198A, 198B, 198C and 198D not moved.]
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clauses 149 and 150 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Extent]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 93, line 3, after (" 16(2)") insert (" 61(5)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 61(5) deals with the relationship of modifications under subsection (2) (d) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. As taxes are an accepted matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it is appropriate for Clause 61(5), like the 1988 Act, to extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Commencement]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 93, line 23, leave out ("section 144") and insert ("sections 144 and (Equal treatment in relation to official pensions)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 154 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTLES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Inadmissibility in civil proceedings of information as to what occurred during family mediation]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert:
("(4) A certificate by the Lord President approving an organisation under subsection (2) above shall be—

(a) in such form as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt; and

(b) admissible as evidence in any civil proceedings and sufficient evidence of the matters contained therein.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, and if the Committee agrees, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 4 which is consequential. Clause 1(2) establishes that family mediation which is protected by this Bill must be conducted by the accredited mediator and accreditation may only be to an approved organisation. That is clearly an important
1098
principle, given that the Bill's purpose is to render information about what occurs in family mediation inadmissible as evidence in civil cases.
Because this rule of admissibility applies to civil proceedings in all Scottish courts, it is the Lord President of the Court of Session who will grant approval to accrediting organisations. In the course of consideration of how the accreditation procedure will work in practice, it has become clear that the Lord President will need a certain amount of flexibility in the form of approval of organisations. It is also important that the means by which he conveys his approval shall not be called into question. Amendment No. 1 seeks to provide that.
The first part of the amendment states that the form of the certificate of approval shall be by Act of Sederunt, a common enough proceeding, I understand, in such circumstances. It is suggested as the right way to proceed in the Law Commission report.
The second part of the amendment establishes that the certificate of approval will be admissible in evidence and be sufficient proof in itself that the organisation named on it has been approved by the Lord President for the purposes of the Bill; that is to say, if a certificate of approval from the Lord President is presented in evidence to a civil court, the organisation to which the certificate refers is indeed an approved organisation. I hope that the Committee can accept Amendment No. 1.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4. This amendment becomes necessary because Amendment No. 1 includes the word "prescribed". The Lord President's power to prescribe by Act of Sederunt as proposed in Amendment No. 1, unlike the Secretary of State's powers of prescription elsewhere in the Bill, does not involve regulations, nor the approval of this House or another place. Amendment No. 4 therefore ensures that Clause 3(2) is not applied to an Act of Sederunt. I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The two amendments expand further on the power of the Lord President to approve organisations involved in family mediation. Clause 1(2) refers to organisations concerned with family mediation which are approved by the Lord President for inclusion in the inadmissibility of evidence scheme. Clause 1(3) allows the Lord President to place a time limit on the approval and to withdraw approval at any time if unsatisfactory circumstances arise.
Amendment No. 1 would create subsection (4), explaining that approval for the organisation will be expressed in a legally backed certificate issued by the Lord President. That certificate will be the only proof required in civil proceedings that the organisation is approved; hence evidence generated during its family mediations is inadmissible. I support the amendment and believe it will establish beyond doubt the status of evidence from family mediation.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We have always made it clear that we shall give the Bill a fair wind through your Lordships' House, but I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the question of consultation before the Lord President approves a particular organisation. The Bill does not seem

1099
to cover that. Unlike most Bills, it does not contain a provision stating, "The Lord President, having consulted with interested parties or with any parties designated by the Secretary of State, shall approve" an organisation.
I am not trying to be awkward, but it seems that the Lord President will have an absolute right to say yes or no to a particular organisation without any representation from that organisation. That may be a matter to return to on Report, after consultation with the Scottish Law Commission and the Government.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her explanation of the reasons for the amendments. I understand that they derive from representations made by the Lord President as to the arrangements which should be made in connection with his functions under Clause 1. I am sure that the amendments will achieve the effects which my noble friend explained and I am pleased to confirm that the Government are willing to see them incorporated in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he have a view on the question of consultation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Before approving any particular organisation, obviously the Lord President will have received an approach from it and will have made such inquiries as he thinks appropriate before taking a decision. It is precisely to allow him to obtain the necessary information that the power is given in the amendments.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, it is not so much a question of consultation as of allowing others to say, "This is not an appropriate body to he involved in such matters". I think that the field should be opened and that this matter should not be left to the Lord President absolutely. Nothing in the Bill states that the Lord President "shall consult" with anybody before approving an organisation.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is certainly the case that there is nothing on the face of the Bill to deal with that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble and learned friend for his comments, and am grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. On the question of how the Lord President will proceed, I take it that it will be a matter for him unless something is set down in the Bill which compels him to take some action.
I shall go a little further into this and let the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, know of any helpful information that I discover. I hope that that will satisfy him and that it will not be necessary to amend the Bill further. In the meantime, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert:
("(5) The Lord President may, in connection with the performance of any of his functions under this Act, require an organisation which is seeking, or has been granted, approval under subsection (2) above to provide him with such information as he thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment allows the Lord President either when he is considering approval of an organisation or, having previously approved an organisation, to require it to submit such information as he finds necessary. As with Amendment No. 1, the need for this amendment has come to light in the course of discussion about the detailed working of the Bill. I take it from what my noble and learned friend said that that includes discussion with the Lord President.
Clearly, for the Lord President to make a judgment as to whether to approve an organisation for the purposes of the Act he must have the information that he needs. In addition, at Clause 1(3) the Lord President can approve an organisation for a fixed period of time and has the power to withdraw approval at any time. He must therefore be able to require an organisation being considered for approval (or one which is already approved) to submit whatever information he needs for proper consideration or review. I am advised that it would not be a tenable position for the Lord President to have to rely on organisations supplying information voluntarily. As the Bill stands, should necessary information not be forthcoming, his only sanction would be to refuse approval or to withdraw approval. That might well be seen as heavy-handed—and perhaps controversial. I hope that this amendment will strike the Committee as necessary. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This amendment to Clause 1 seeks to add subsection (5), which would spell out the powers of the Lord President to determine which agencies in family mediation are acceptable to the Court of Session. The process of approval should lead to the achievement and maintenance of high standards of performance. The Lord President will decide if an organisation can be approved, based on his investigation of the organisation, its aims, methods, training practices and arrangements.
I visited Family Mediation Central last week at its Stirling accommodation. I learnt that it speaks with many new referrals, some of which become mediations lasting between three and eight sessions. Family Mediation Central also runs an access centre in Alloa. The training programme for mediators requires attendance at a basic training course for 11 days, followed by supervised mediation practice of at least 50 hours. To be accepted as an experienced mediator, a probationary mediator will have to gain considerable experience in mediation. Mediation is, of course, different from counselling, advice, guidance and education. Family mediation is the management of other people's negotiations.
The Lord President will also be able to scrutinise and reassess currently approved organisations should there be grounds for concern. In the worst case, he will be

1101
able to determine disapproval and subsequently to withdraw the certificate which was mentioned in Amendment No. 1. I support the amendment, which will keep approved organisations on their mettle.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I make the same point. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to allow people to make representations against a particular organisation being approved as mediator. I hope that it will be a matter for discussion. I shall not take up the Committee's time discussing the whys and wherefores of that; I am just making the point. I hope that it will be taken on board by the Government.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As my noble friend has made clear, the amendment provides the Lord President with the power to require from organisations which are seeking approval for the purposes of the Bill any information which he thinks fit. It would also allow him to require that information when he is monitoring the performance of the approved mediation organisation.
The amendment is desirable. One has to be a little cautious in that all that the Lord President is doing is approving these organisations for the purposes of the Bill—that is to say, so that they attract the particular evidential status. One could not expect the Lord President to act as some sort of guardian of the whole standard of mediation organisations. That is not something that he would be able to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I listened to what my noble and learned friend said. When we are discussing the Bill, we must keep reminding ourselves that it has a limited purpose. The approval of mediation organisations has to be seen in that light. Again, if anything further comes to hand, I shall let the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, know. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said that the arrangement will keep the organisations on their mettle. I am sure that he is right. It has to do with standards, and that is a very good thing. I am glad that he said that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I want to say one thing that I would have said had I been here on Second Reading—that is, I am entirely in favour of the principle, and congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the Bill. A technical matter arises in relation to Clause 1 as it stands amended. It is that subsection (4) refers to:
"A certificate by the Lord President".
It might be wise to consider putting in a provision to the effect that a document purporting to be such a certificate under the clause shall be accepted as such unless the contrary is proved. So if a document emerges signed by the Lord President, in whatever signature he may be sporting at that time, it will be deemed to be a certificate under the Bill unless the contrary is proved. That might avoid some awkwardness which one might occasionally have with a particular kind of case.
1102
There is one other thing I would like to say. The principle embodied in the Bill is one which I should like to see extended, if it works here, to other forms of litigation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I do not know whether it is a coincidence but it is a happy fact that we have such a distinguished judge to help us with the Bill. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will note what he has said. I shall consult him to see whether the Government agree that this approach should be extended. I do not believe that I can be expected to know the merits of the case at the moment. It is quite beyond me, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it may be my ignorance but a definition of a "purported marriage" is not included in the Bill. Is it proposed to define a "purported marriage"? It may be in the Law Commission's report, which I have not yet had a chance to look at in detail. Perhaps we might look at that between now and Report stage. "Purported marriage" is a contradiction in terms. I do not know what it means. As it is part of the Bill, perhaps we may have it defined in a definition clause. I know what purported marriages are, but I should like to have them defined.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I asked the same question. I was told that it was a supposed or apparent marriage. It may, for example, be a bigamous marriage which is not a marriage in law. I do not want to get into all that. I was told that it was not necessary to define the words. Again, I shall find out and ensure that the Bill is right.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I appreciate the noble Baroness's difficulty. We are dealing in precise terms with questions of mediation, and with whom the mediator has to deal. If two people come in and the mediator says, "Who are you?", and they say, "We are a purported marriage", what is the mediator supposed to do? It may be unnecessary to put such a phrase into a modern Bill. Perhaps we should just forget about it and say that the mediator shall mediate between parties involving the child, as was said on Second Reading. It may be a matter for consideration. I am not trying to be facetious in any way; but I can see the problems that might occur when people come before the mediator and say, "We are a purported marriage. This is a product of a purported marriage". The product of a purported marriage could be a purported child.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The phrase was in the Law Commission's draft Bill, as the noble Lord will know. Obviously the Law Commission thought that it was all right. One departs from the Law Commission's phraseology with reluctance. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend wants to say anything about it. I shall have a look at it.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions to general rule of inadmissibility]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 46, leave out ("the child of any such person") and insert ("a child who is the subject of such a family mediation").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment makes it clear that it is the child who is the subject of mediation, and not any other child, who is to be regarded as a participant in family mediation. The amendment responds to a point which I raised with the Minister. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was on the Front Bench at the time, and he acknowledged the point on Second Reading.
The amendment seeks to remove an ambiguity in Clause 2(2) as to precisely when, for the purposes of that clause, a child shall be regarded as a participant. As subsection (2) is currently worded, the child participant could be any child of any adult participant even if that child was not the subject of family mediation. Of course that is not the intention of the Bill.
Likewise, as the subsection stands, it excludes the possibility that the child might be the subject of mediation between adults who included, say, a grandparent, uncle or aunt. The child to be regarded as a participant is the child who is the subject of family mediation which deals with the matters affecting him or her listed in Clause 1 (2) (a). This clarification is important, because in Clause 2(1) (c) one of the exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility is that if all the participants, including the child participant, agree. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment and the clarification it brings. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendment broadens the range of children referred to in Clause 2(2) (b). It is most appropriate in view of changing social trends, in particular, the increased frequency of step-families and single parent arrangements. We are beginning to come across families where there are "his" children, "her" children, and "their" children. We must try to legislate for all foreseeable eventualities. For example, I am fortunate that my marriage continues to thrive, but, had it broken down before my step-children became adults, I should have wanted to seek legal access arrangements on the grounds that I had been a de facto parent and also because I like them.
There is an increased need for a mediation service for grandparents who seek access to their grandchildren on the break-up of their children's marriage. The amendment would clear the way for a wider range of parenting arrangements to come within the scope of the inadmissible evidence scheme.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: The noble Baroness drew the Committee's attention to Clause 2(1)(c). If the idea is that every participant might agree, the Bill, whether as drafted or as it is proposed to be amended, involves the possible agreement by a child. Let us suppose that the child is not of an age when he can grant or withhold agreement. That might make it difficult for Clause 2(1) to operate.
1104
I may have misunderstood the Bill but, if not, it may be that an additional provision is required in order to avoid the need to seek agreement by a participant who is not of an age to grant agreement.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord may find a response to his observation at Clause 2(3), which deals with the age of legal capacity. It states:
"any child who is regarded as a participant in family mediation by virtue of subsection (2) above shall have legal capacity to agree that information should be admitted as evidence if at the time when the mediation took place he was capable of understanding the nature and significance of the matters to which the information relates".
The noble and learned Lord raised his eyebrows—or his noble and learned brow. I had intended to raise the matter on the Question of Clause 2 standing part of the Bill because certain matters in relation to the child must be looked at closely between now and the Report stage.
Lord McCluskey: I am obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out, but it does not deal with the matter which I raised. Subsection (3) gives the child the legal capacity to agree but it does not deal with the situation in which the child is not of an age to agree.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Notwithstanding what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the provision is intended to deal with that matter. Only when the child is of such an age is his consent relevant. I do not understand the intention of the provision to relate to the case in which the child is so young that he cannot agree. However, perhaps the matter should be investigated further.
As regards the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, one must remember that here we are not concerned with the question of children in relation to mediation in general but only in relation to whether what occurs in mediation should be admissible in evidence. While there may be other questions which relate to children in relation to mediation, we are now concerned only with the question of admissibility of evidence in relation to that matter.
As regards the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, we shall look at it again to see whether anything needs to be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for drawing attention to the issue. It is a matter of the changing practice of family mediation. The Law Commission report suggested that any child present at the mediation would be a participant. The Bill has slightly shifted the focus because the practice is changing. Children are not generally present at family mediation. Some 80 per cent. of children who are the subject of mediation are under the age of 12. It would not be in the best interest of most of those children to be present at mediation sessions involving adults with responsibility for them. That is because it is important that young children are not burdened more than is necessary with the differences which their parents or other adults concerned are seeking to resolve. Equally, they should not be put in the position where strange and divided loyalties are

1105
imposed on them. Family mediation is about parents and others with custody exercising their parental responsibilities properly.
That means that when the agreement of the child is required for information to be admitted as evidence, it will be necessary for the situation to be explained to him or her and the child's view obtained by someone specially trained in talking with and relating to children who can determine how far that child is capable of understanding the nature and significance of the matters to which this information relates.
I have not discussed the subject with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. The mediation procedure—and not the legal procedure—means that a child of any age who can understand what is happening may be asked whether he or she agrees, even though they have not been at the mediation at all. That is how I understand the Bill to fit in with current practice and that is my information from Family Mediation.
It may be that we need to have further discussions about the issue and decide whether this is the correct way to express the provision in law. Certainly it is the practice at the present time as regards Family Mediation Scotland. I hope that, given that explanation, the Committee will accept the amendment. If necessary, we can go into the matter further at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The Bill began as a simple Bill but it now raises larger issues. In speaking to the Question, I speak in general terms. I believe that there are matters which require sober thought. All parties involved, looking in particular at the interests of the children, should get round the table to see whether they can hammer out a solution to problems which are beginning to emerge as the debate proceeds.
On Second Reading I raised the issue of the representation of the child. The noble Baroness's last comments focus on that issue. She shakes her head, but perhaps I may ask, if the child is to be the subject of mediation—and the child is included in Clause 1—who represents the child? It is not enough for the mediator to represent the child; that is not his function. Presumably the function of the mediator is to hold the balance between the parties and the child. I wonder whether we should be looking more closely at the role and function of the mediator and the consequences that will fall upon the person acting as the mediator as regards later court proceedings.
I notice that the Bill is entitled:
"An Act to make provision for the inadmissibility as evidence in civil proceedings in Scotland".
I believe that a better phrase might be "the admissibility", but that is another matter. If people are being asked to come forward as mediators in those
1106
fraught situations, they must know where they stand. Are they to be called as witnesses in subsequent proceedings? Clause 2(1) states:
"Nothing in section I of this Act shall prevent the admissibility as evidence in civil proceedings … of information as to what occurred during family mediation if every participant (other than the mediator) in that mediation agrees that the information should be admitted as evidence".
Therefore, the mediator may very well be caught in a no-win situation.
I am not trying in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I am merely trying to foresee problems that might arise. If there is to be family mediation, notes must be taken of the evidence given in the mediation because they may be used at a later stage. It is not sufficient to call in the mediator to ask him what he has written in his notes, because we all know how defective notes may be.
I am rather concerned about the mediator's role. This afternoon on my way to your Lordships' House from the frozen north (as it was when I left), I was wondering, what would happen if, in the course of the civil proceedings—the Bill relates to civil proceedings—an admission were made by a husband that he threatened to kill his wife, or vice versa, as happens in these days of equality. If the husband then murders his wife, is the admission made before the mediator to be relied upon during the course of criminal proceedings?
I raise that question quite seriously. The O.J. Simpson trial starts with his threats to kill his wife and the call to the emergency services some years before the incident. Obviously, whoever killed her is not a matter for this Committee. But one can see the difficulties. If a man makes an admission before the mediator, and then goes on to kill his spouse, is the mediator to be called to say, "Yes, he did admit that he threatened to kill her on 23rd August 1992"? I do not know.
I raise those difficulties because I hope that we can discuss them. I do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill; but I wish to ensure that the interests of all the people that may be affected are protected. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that I shall try not to be obstructive. I hope that we can sit around the table and sort out any problems which might arise.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord will be aware that the Title of the Bill refers to provision for the inadmissibility of certain matters. That is because, at present, all those matters are admissible. Therefore, the Bill seeks to introduce an area in which evidence will not be admissible. That is to assist the process of mediation, and so on. As the noble Lord has perceived, that does not apply to criminal proceedings. Therefore, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is that nothing in the Bill would render that inadmissible.
There must always be a balance in relation to these matters; but there are certain exceptions to the inroads that are being made in relation to admissibility of evidence. Those exceptions are set out in Clause 2(1). That is the general thrust of the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying as a matter of law that if, within the context of mediation, a person admits

1107
that he threatened to kill his wife with a knife and later does just that, what he said to the mediator in the course of the civil evidence family mediation procedure is admissible in criminal proceedings?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I said that if it were otherwise admissible, then nothing in this Bill would render it inadmissible because Clause 2(1) deals with the exceptions.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, studies the Law Commission's report, he will see that several of the points which he has raised are dealt with there. That report indicates why it has followed that approach in the Bill. That has not been changed since it left the Law Commission. I believe that that covers the point about somebody who talks about a criminal offence. I may be wrong. As the noble Lord knows, I am not a lawyer; but, speaking from memory, I believe that those points are covered in that report.
I shall read with great interest what the noble Lord has said. It may be that a meeting will be necessary. Certainly, we shall need to be clear about this matter. It is very important that we know how the child is to be approached in relation to that one issue which arises; namely, consent as a participant and whether what has occurred in the mediation is to be admissible or inadmissible.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her guidance, and of course I shall look again at the Law Commission's report. However, the courts are not concerned with interpreting Law Commission reports but with interpreting the Bill, or the Act as it will become in due course. I hope that the noble Baroness, myself and all those concerned with this matter will get together to discuss it.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, construction, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 12, after (" "prescribe" ") insert (", except in relation to an Act of Sederunt,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
(" (3) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Lord Advocate may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and such order may include such transitional or incidental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to two important points raised on Second Reading. First, it responds, at any rate in part, to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to the Minister that he should look again at the question of the status of the child. The Minister's reply made the link with the Children (Scotland) Bill which is making its way through another place.
The amendment allows the Lord Advocate flexibility in bringing the Bill into force. Rather than the Bill coming into force two months after Royal Assent and then having to amend it subsequently to reflect provisions in the Children (Scotland) Bill, the amendment would make it possible to delay implementation of this Bill until the Children (Scotland) Bill has received Royal Assent.
That seems to be a sensible approach. I do not wish to hold up the progress of this Bill; but with regard to the status of the child and in a number of other respects, there may well need to be cross-referencing. That can best be done later—probably while the Children (Scotland) Bill is under consideration in this Chamber.
My noble and learned friend may wish to say more about that. For my part, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who have a particular interest in this matter, will welcome that aspect of the amendment.
I also hope that the flexibility introduced by the amendment will, to some extent, meet another concern which I expressed on Second Reading and one about which Family Mediation Scotland is particularly anxious. Whenever the provisions of the Bill come into force, there will be a family mediation in progress. Clearly the legislation cannot be retrospective; but it is surely desirable that, once it is in force, mediation should be covered as soon as possible.
As the Bill stands, the legislation will apply to proceedings commenced on or after the day upon which it comes into force. The nature of proceedings varies and much time may elapse before proof begins—time during which mediation may take place. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate give me an assurance that the transitional provisions allowed for in the amendment will in fact be used to apply the protection of the Bill to mediation relating to cases where proof has not yet begun by the date of implementation? That was the approach suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on Second Reading.
I had hoped that I would be advised that that could, with advantage, be placed on the face of the Bill. However, my advice now is that the amendment would be more workable. I accept that fact. However, I should like to be sure that some arrangement can be made to meet the anxieties on that point raised by Family Mediation Scotland. I look forward to hearing any further explanation that my noble and learned friend can give Members of the Committee. I should especially like to receive the assurance that I have just requested. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendment alters the timing of the implementation of the Bill after enactment. It obviously relates to the passage of the important Children (Scotland) Bill through another place and, subsequently, through this Chamber. I should prefer a firmer commitment to the implementation of the Bill with a more precise date. I appreciate that the Bill may need to be modified in the light of the somewhat superior legislation contained in the potential Children (Scotland) Act.

1109
We shall have to learn new terminology for failed relationships. Out will go the words "custody" and "access" and in will come residence and contact orders. That will reflect the changes in parental responsibilities and parental rights proposed in the Children (Scotland) Bill. A significant change will be the responsibility and right to regulate the residence of a child who is no longer living with the parent and also that parent's opportunity to participate in the estranged child's health, development and welfare.
I do not believe that a child has the right to decide the style of his upbringing. That must be the responsibility of the parents. I shall not oppose the amendment in Committee, in the hope that a more precise date of commencement will be forthcoming.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The intention of the amendment is not to delay unnecessarily the commencement of the Bill, but rather to provide a certain measure of flexibility. It is a little difficult to foresee how far it will be necessary to have that flexibility in relation to the children Bill because it depends on whether or not it contains provisions which substantially affect the Bill now before us. Obviously it would be rather foolish if, for example, the legislation commenced and very shortly thereafter it needed to be amended. In those circumstances, it might be sensible to wait until the legislation had been amended before it was allowed to commence. However, I do not believe that that issue should cause any undue delay. It is certainly not intended that it should.
As regards the other matter, I understand the concerns of members of Family Mediation Scotland, who desire that the provisions of the Bill should come into force as soon as possible and should, therefore, affect their work as soon as possible.
1110
I hope that I can respond to the invitation from my noble friend by indicating that it would be my intention in framing the terms of the commencement order to consider whether it should contain a transitional provision whereby the Bill's provisions will apply to cases in which proof has not yet taken place—that is, in cases where the evidence has not yet been led—at the commencement date. We want to look at that aspect of the matter with a little more care. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser said on Second Reading, that is certainly our intention.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble and learned friend for that response. I believe that Family Mediation Scotland and I perhaps cannot expect much more. I do not think that any Minister has ever given a cast-iron assurance as to what he will put in an order long before it is made. However, the fact that my noble and learned friend's response will be recorded in Hansard is most comforting to us. I shall read the report of the proceedings to ensure that that is indeed as far as we can go.
I am sorry that we cannot accommodate the noble Earl by including a more fixed date. I do not believe that that would be possible. After all, the children Bill might not reach the statute book and, if the fixed date were linked to that legislation, it would not be very helpful. On that score, I believe that we should leave the Bill as it stands.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before eight o'clock.

  HIV/AIDS: Prevention Strategy
  HIV/AIDS: Prevention Strategy
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
  Former UK (Armed Forces) Officers: Employment in Defence Field
  Former UK (Armed Forces) Officers: Employment in Defence Field
  Rail Network: 1995/96 Investment
  Rail Network: 1995/96 Investment
  Channel Tunnel: Freight Train Services
  Channel Tunnel: Freight Train Services
  Abnormal Loads on Motorways: Escorts
  Abnormal Loads on Motorways: Escorts
  Waste Incinerator Releases: Dioxins
  Waste Incinerator Releases: Dioxins